November 14th, 2006, 09:56 AM
|
#46
|
|
slippery when wet
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe - home of the AZ Cardinals
Posts: 2,113
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pariah
Because that's not what this is about: It's about two people in love. Everyone cries, "where do you draw the line?!" Well, you draw it at "two human beings."
Nobody can marry their goldfish. Three people can't get married. You can't marry you mother.
Those are ridiculous scenarios and easily avoided. just because you widen the net doesn't mean it's full of holes.
|
That, I believe, is the point. Where Do you draw the line? To some, the line nets same sex, to others more than two. I do like the term "net" it's a little too appropriate. |
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 09:57 AM
|
#47
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,389
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nidan
I agree they should be able to marry but the religous folks can't deal with the concept so I am looking for a compromise.
If they can't have that what can't we reconise a legal staus that gives them the same rights etc but without the tradittional religious implications [which I don't agree exist] of the word marriage ?
I see a number of folks here who don't want this but I've yet to see a reason that actually makes any logical sense [apart from the folks who think they should be able to marry anyway].
What I am hearing is people looking for a reason to not support this that isn't 'I don't approve of Gays', which seems to be what folks are saying ?
From what I can see, the same folks who want to ban GM, in general would not support CU. I don't see the logic in that position.
I do see some kind of logic [using the term loosley] to resisting GM on religious grounds but the only reason I can see for opposing CU is that you don't approve of Gay behaviour.
|
Not me. I voted "NO" because I think it is a slap in the face.
Keep fighting for the right to marry.....don't give up on it!! MLK and RP of the 60's didn't settle....neither should people today. |
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 09:58 AM
|
#48
|
|
H.S.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Aventine
Posts: 35,345
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derm
That, I believe, is the point. Where Do you draw the line?
|
I just told you: you draw the line at two consenting adults. |
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 09:59 AM
|
#49
|
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 3,174
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nidan
I do see some kind of logic [using the term loosley] to resisting GM on religious grounds but the only reason I can see for opposing CU is that you don't approve of Gay behaviour.
|
Wrong, a CU would eliminate marraige. Then you are stating marraige is just for the religious, which it might be, but there would be no point in both. CU wouldn't just be for same-sex partner, but for unwed male/female partners as well.
I think marraige should stand, no CU, gay marraige should be treated the same as "straight" marraige and receive the same benefits. Leave that up to the states to decide. |
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 09:59 AM
|
#50
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,389
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pariah
I just told you: you draw the line at two consenting adults.
|
Some mormons might have a problem with that. Can't we draw the line at "consenting adults??" |
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 09:59 AM
|
#51
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pariah
I just told you: you draw the line at two consenting adults.
|
Why there?
__________________
There will never be enough questions answered to eliminate faith
|
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:13 AM
|
#53
|
|
H.S.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Aventine
Posts: 35,345
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKCards
Why there?
|
Answer A) Why not?
Answer B) Because there's a significant portion of the population that it applies to. |
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:17 AM
|
#54
|
|
Connoisseur of the Obvious
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 12,159
|
I voted NO!
Since all policies in our society today are based upon the ideal of "politics by division" I am continuing the division!
Everything for me, nothing for anybody else, unless they agree with me!
__________________
Moses parted the Red Sea, Oppenheimer split the atom, but dotKen cut the crap. - Steve Antczak
|
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:17 AM
|
#55
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,389
|
Can I get clarification in this thread??
"Civil Unions as an Alternative to Gay Marriage??"
Is that what you asked Nidan....cuz if that is Hell No. That's a compromise where non should be made.
It sounds like from your posts you would be ok with Courts providing Civil Unions....and Churches Marriages??
On or off base??
|
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:25 AM
|
#56
|
|
RIP George
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 21,198
|
Personally I see no reason not to allow Gay marriage.
However it seems some are uncompromisly opposed to this based on their religious beliefs which aren't likely to change or be open to negoiciation [sp]
Hence for those folks ... How about civil unions ?
But it seems like we are getting the same answer, that is NO but the rational for that answer seems less well articulated ?
|
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:31 AM
|
#57
|
|
Krycek, Alex Krycek
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 10,656
|
No, because civil unions would eliminate the need for marriage altogether.
A union between one man and one woman is not only beneficial to society, but it is neccessary. A union of two people of the same sex is neither beneficial nor neccesarry.
__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."
"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."
"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."
Cigarette Smoking Man
|
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:34 AM
|
#58
|
|
RIP George
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 21,198
|
Props to Stefan.
Driscrimiatory, even bigoted, opinionated certainly but at least he is honest.
He doesn't like gays, sees no benifit to society so why do anything for them.
|
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:34 AM
|
#59
|
|
RIP George
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 21,198
|
Why would it eliminate the need for marriage ?
I am led to believe that a lot of folks consider it to be inherent in their religion.
|
|
|
|
|
November 14th, 2006, 10:52 AM
|
#60
|
|
Krycek, Alex Krycek
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nidan
Props to Stefan.
Driscrimiatory, even bigoted, opinionated certainly but at least he is honest.
He doesn't like gays, sees no benifit to society so why do anything for them.
|
You can attack me personally all you want, but there is nothing biggoted in my statement. Marriage is beneficial and neccessary in any society. Gay marriage would not be.
Two unrelated heterosexual people getting married is likely to result in a family with children, thus serving a purprose to a state or a society.
Yes, a number of couple either can not have children or choose not to, but that is the exception rather than a rule. We, as a society benefit from heterosexual relationships.
Gay marriage would serve no interest to society. There is absolutely no benefit to it, and therefore there is no reason for a society to encourage or subsidize it.
__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."
"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."
"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."
Cigarette Smoking Man
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
