Political Crossfire Forums

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8933

ubikk wrote: It should be decided by the states.

Ultimately, I agree; states should have the power to decide whether or not to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples within that state. However, the full faith and credit clause should apply, and force all states to recognize homosexual licenses granting in other states, even if they do not issue them themselves.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

LostSoul3412 wrote: ubikk wrote: It should be decided by the states.

Ultimately, I agree; states should have the power to decide whether or not to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples within that state. However, the full faith and credit clause should apply, and force all states to recognize homosexual licenses granting in other states, even if they do not issue them themselves.

An OT aside:

Shouldn't concealed weapons permits also be allowed nationwide under the full faith and credit clause.

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:44 pm Post subject:

Quoting the thread title, "Gay Marriage a Pointless Discussion?"

My answer would be that it's not entirely pointless to discuss it. I would say, however, that those discussions are not likely to cover any new territory. It'll just be the same arguments as before - and very often the same people making them with no final resolution.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

perdidochas wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: ubikk wrote: It should be decided by the states.

Ultimately, I agree; states should have the power to decide whether or not to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples within that state. However, the full faith and credit clause should apply, and force all states to recognize homosexual licenses granting in other states, even if they do not issue them themselves.

An OT aside:

Shouldn't concealed weapons permits also be allowed nationwide under the full faith and credit clause.

I think that is closer to a driver's license than a marraige license. Drivers licenses are granted by all states, marraige licenses are granted by all states, concealed carry permits are not. So although all states that grant concealed carry permits should recognize permits from all other states that grant concealed carry permits those states that do not grant them to anyone should not recognize them.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

F'losrix wrote: Quoting the thread title, "Gay Marriage a Pointless Discussion?"

My answer would be that it's not entirely pointless to discuss it. I would say, however, that those discussions are not likely to cover any new territory. It'll just be the same arguments as before - and very often the same people making them with no final resolution.

I have learned something new here, well, and from my own observations. That a compromise involving civil unions is an idealistic and silly notion.

Varyag · Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Posts: 397 Location: Melos

Oh please

Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs." All same-sex marriage does is that it advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of higher hetrosexual union and reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

You're not going to change thousands of years of human history and relationship with a piece of paper, not that most people will ever give that piece of paper to gays either, if all those midterm ballot initiatives are of any indication. Get over it. Gays have no more a right to marriage than males have to use the female lavatory.

Vulcidian · Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 892

Homosexuality is, in fact, very common in nature. You are wrong. Marriage is a purely political institution that was invented to keep women chaste and to consolidate political power.

If you want to go by nature, sex should be free and open and their should be no marriage.

If you want to go by a rational society, sanctioned unions of those who wish to contribute to society should not be confined to a man and a women. Your notion of nature is completely misguided.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

Varyag wrote: Oh please

Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs." All same-sex marriage does is that it advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of higher hetrosexual union and reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

You're not going to change thousands of years of human history and relationship with a piece of paper, not that most people will ever give that piece of paper to gays either, if all those midterm ballot initiatives are of any indication. Get over it. Gays have no more a right to marriage than males have to use the female lavatory.

Government also does not create the ability to drive, but they do legally recognize it. The purpose of marraige is not reproduction, nor has it ever been, reproduction happens just fine outside fo Marraige. Marraige has served many purposes over the genrations, it started out as a legal title of ownership of a woman by a man, it meant that for thousands of years. Now it is a legal partnership between legal partners. It is not required that the partners wish to procreate, or that they even be able to, it is not required that they have sex, or even be sexually attracted to each other. It is only required that they be willing to make a lifelong commitment to each other, and in exchange for that statement of commitment they are given certain rights regarding each other that make that commitment much easier. What is wrong with extending those mutual rights and privileges to two men who choose to make a lifelong commitment? Or two women? Gay marraige, in the sense of something not created by the government, already exists, as many churches do marry gays. Gay civil unions do not, and that is what gays are truly fighting for, however because the government uses the word marraige to describe a civil union between two heterosexual partners the same word must be used to describe a union between same sex partners to ensure that the rights and privileges are the same.

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject:

Babylon_Horuv wrote: F'losrix wrote: Quoting the thread title, "Gay Marriage a Pointless Discussion?"

My answer would be that it's not entirely pointless to discuss it. I would say, however, that those discussions are not likely to cover any new territory. It'll just be the same arguments as before - and very often the same people making them with no final resolution.

I have learned something new here, well, and from my own observations. That a compromise involving civil unions is an idealistic and silly notion.

Which is part of why I say having the discussion isn't entirely pointless. Something that sounds good on the surface won't reveal its flaws if it's never hashed out, sometimes over and over again. It takes a while for people to get past the initial defensiveness of feeling like their values are under attack, and to see past idealistic theory into practical reality so that they can objectively evaluate proposed solutions.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Babylon_Horuv wrote: perdidochas wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: ubikk wrote: It should be decided by the states.

Ultimately, I agree; states should have the power to decide whether or not to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples within that state. However, the full faith and credit clause should apply, and force all states to recognize homosexual licenses granting in other states, even if they do not issue them themselves.

An OT aside:

Shouldn't concealed weapons permits also be allowed nationwide under the full faith and credit clause.

I think that is closer to a driver's license than a marraige license. Drivers licenses are granted by all states, marraige licenses are granted by all states, concealed carry permits are not. So although all states that grant concealed carry permits should recognize permits from all other states that grant concealed carry permits those states that do not grant them to anyone should not recognize them.

Fine with me. There are only four states that don't grant them at all--WI, IL, KS, and NE.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Vulcidian wrote: Homosexuality is, in fact, very common in nature. You are wrong. Marriage is a purely political institution that was invented to keep women chaste and to consolidate political power.

Nope, marriage was designed to give a stable environment for the raising of children.

Homosexuality is natural. So is schizophrenia and cancer. Natural does not always equal good.

Vulcidian wrote: If you want to go by nature, sex should be free and open and their should be no marriage.

Nope. Marriage evolved in human culture for a reason. In a species that has young that is helpless for so long of a time, if monogamy hadn't been developed, humanity would have died off. Look at primitive nomads. Most have pair-bonding that is the equivalent of marriage. Why? 1) human babies need care for a long time; 2) one person cannot find enough food for both themselves and a human baby and take care of said baby.

Vulcidian wrote: If you want to go by a rational society, sanctioned unions of those who wish to contribute to society should not be confined to a man and a women. Your notion of nature is completely misguided.

Of course it should. Nature is about the survival of the species. Homosexuality does not usually contribute to the survival of the species.

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:13 pm Post subject:

perdidochas wrote: Vulcidian wrote: Homosexuality is, in fact, very common in nature. You are wrong. Marriage is a purely political institution that was invented to keep women chaste and to consolidate political power.

Nope, marriage was designed to give a stable environment for the raising of children.
Marriage does not guarantee a stable environment. We can only conclude that it is a flawed solution, then.

We can hypothesize that marriage originated in hunter/gatherer societies, where creating a stable environment for children to continue the species would arguably be of importance. But I've yet to see anyone offer definitive proof that this was the original 'design' or purpose. It's theory, not established fact.

What we know from our earliest recorded history is that it had become an economic transaction, generally between two men - the groom and whatever male relative was responsible for the bride. Those early societies were chiefly agricultural. The ability to acquire and hold land translated to holding power, and the stability of society depended on the peaceful transfer of power through the peaceful transfer of land. Children in such a society are valued for their labor and as vehicles for the transfer of land/power assuming they lived to adulthood (most didn't) and outlived the parent-landholder. Marriage today remains very much a matter of economics, though the focus has shifted from transferring wealth & responsibilty, to obtaining the economic benefits and conveniences associated with being married. Children may or may not be important to the married couple, and the pressure to reproduce comes mainly from 'society', not from government.

In other words - marriage has remained a viable institution because over time we've adapted it to fit the needs of an ever-changing society - NOT because of its theoretical role in continuation of the species.

perdidochas wrote: Homosexuality is natural. So is schizophrenia and cancer. Natural does not always equal good.
Homosexuality is not schizophrenia, nor is it cancer. Trying to demean us by associating our oriention with diseases is pretty low.

perdidochas wrote: Vulcidian wrote: If you want to go by a rational society, sanctioned unions of those who wish to contribute to society should not be confined to a man and a women. Your notion of nature is completely misguided.

Of course it should. Nature is about the survival of the species. Homosexuality does not usually contribute to the survival of the species.
He said, in "a rational society", not in one that abandons rational thought to return to primitive nature.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

perdidochas wrote: Vulcidian wrote: Homosexuality is, in fact, very common in nature. You are wrong. Marriage is a purely political institution that was invented to keep women chaste and to consolidate political power.

Nope, marriage was designed to give a stable environment for the raising of children.

Maraige as a legal institution was designed to ensure that a man knew which children were his by giving him ownership of a womb.

Quote:
Homosexuality is natural. So is schizophrenia and cancer. Natural does not always equal good.

Vulcidian wrote: If you want to go by nature, sex should be free and open and their should be no marriage.

Nope. Marriage evolved in human culture for a reason. In a species that has young that is helpless for so long of a time, if monogamy hadn't been developed, humanity would have died off. Look at primitive nomads. Most have pair-bonding that is the equivalent of marriage. Why? 1) human babies need care for a long time; 2) one person cannot find enough food for both themselves and a human baby and take care of said baby.

Vulcidian wrote: If you want to go by a rational society, sanctioned unions of those who wish to contribute to society should not be confined to a man and a women. Your notion of nature is completely misguided.

Of course it should. Nature is about the survival of the species. Homosexuality does not usually contribute to the survival of the species.

Actually, in an overcrowded society with excess children it does. Producing more offspring when our resources are already stretched is not good, and allowing children who's parents are not able to care for them for one reason or another to have new parents is good in most circumstances. Stable, homosexual relationships do not produce offpsring, however they do adopt children who don't have parents, this is good for society and for the survival of the species.

Varyag · Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Posts: 397 Location: Melos

Babylon_Horuv wrote: Varyag wrote: Oh please

Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs." All same-sex marriage does is that it advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of higher hetrosexual union and reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

You're not going to change thousands of years of human history and relationship with a piece of paper, not that most people will ever give that piece of paper to gays either, if all those midterm ballot initiatives are of any indication. Get over it. Gays have no more a right to marriage than males have to use the female lavatory.

Government also does not create the ability to drive, but they do legally recognize it. The purpose of marraige is not reproduction, nor has it ever been, reproduction happens just fine outside fo Marraige. Marraige has served many purposes over the genrations, it started out as a legal title of ownership of a woman by a man, it meant that for thousands of years. Now it is a legal partnership between legal partners. It is not required that the partners wish to procreate, or that they even be able to, it is not required that they have sex, or even be sexually attracted to each other. It is only required that they be willing to make a lifelong commitment to each other, and in exchange for that statement of commitment they are given certain rights regarding each other that make that commitment much easier. What is wrong with extending those mutual rights and privileges to two men who choose to make a lifelong commitment? Or two women? Gay marraige, in the sense of something not created by the government, already exists, as many churches do marry gays. Gay civil unions do not, and that is what gays are truly fighting for, however because the government uses the word marraige to describe a civil union between two heterosexual partners the same word must be used to describe a union between same sex partners to ensure that the rights and privileges are the same.

Gays have never been married, even in pre-political terms, really gays haven't been marrying any more than people have been marrying farm animals, its not going to happen now either, thats all there is to it, who are these supposed churches that are marrying gays?

Everyone knows that the married family is the best environment for raising future generations, when you cheapen and weaken it with your rediculous social fads you're only weakening the future of the country, and thats why virtually every state on the ballot banned it yesterday.

Vulcidian · Joined: 05 Nov 2006 Posts: 892

Everyone doesn't know that the mother father family is best. That is your bias. Societies structured differently have existed many times throughout the course of history, and have been very successful.

If you ask me, our narrow definition of marriage hinders our society. It restricts our human nature and causes people undue suffering.

Besides, most of the families in this country today aren't even married...

F'losrix · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject:

Varyag wrote: Gays have never been married
Your proclaiming this does not make it so.

Varyag wrote: even in pre-political terms, really gays haven't been marrying any more than people have been marrying farm animals
Farm animals are irrelevant to a discussion of marriage, since an animal can neither conceptualize nor consent to a marriage.

Varyag wrote: its not going to happen now either, thats all there is to it
This is nothing more than your biased wishful thinking, coupled with an attempt to end debate by saying there's nothing more to debate. You don't get to make the decision of whether or not other people think there's something left to debate. If you think there really isn't anything left to debate, you're more than welcome to bow out of the conversation.

Varyag wrote: who are these supposed churches that are marrying gays?
Unitarian Universalists (a religion with origins as old or older than most Protestant Christian churches. Four of our early presidents were Unitarians). There's also the United Church of Christ. Neither of these are what one would call predominantlly 'gay churches', either.

Varyag wrote: Everyone knows that the married family is the best environment for raising future generations
Argumentum ad populum. Not everyone agrees on the matter, therefore not everyone 'knows' what you assert.

Varyag wrote: when you cheapen and weaken it with your rediculous social fads
Asks the reader to posit as true that same-sex marriage cheapens or weakens the institution, without doing the necessary work to support the assertion made. As such, it's empty rhetoric and should be dismissed for the tripe it is.

Same-sex marriage is hardly a 'social fad', either. People don't do it to be popular. :roll:

Varyag wrote: you're only weakening the future of the country and thats why virtually every state on the ballot banned it yesterday.
The vaguest of slippery slope arguments, used as a premise for a conclusion that hasn't been at all shown to flow from it.

You have a lot to learn about persuading people to adopt your opinion.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5632 Location: Fulton, Ks

Babylon_Horuv wrote: F'losrix wrote: Quoting the thread title, "Gay Marriage a Pointless Discussion?"

My answer would be that it's not entirely pointless to discuss it. I would say, however, that those discussions are not likely to cover any new territory. It'll just be the same arguments as before - and very often the same people making them with no final resolution.

I have learned something new here, well, and from my own observations. That a compromise involving civil unions is an idealistic and silly notion.
:tu: no such thing as seperate but equal

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

Varyag wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: Varyag wrote: Oh please

Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs." All same-sex marriage does is that it advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of higher hetrosexual union and reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

You're not going to change thousands of years of human history and relationship with a piece of paper, not that most people will ever give that piece of paper to gays either, if all those midterm ballot initiatives are of any indication. Get over it. Gays have no more a right to marriage than males have to use the female lavatory.

Government also does not create the ability to drive, but they do legally recognize it. The purpose of marraige is not reproduction, nor has it ever been, reproduction happens just fine outside fo Marraige. Marraige has served many purposes over the genrations, it started out as a legal title of ownership of a woman by a man, it meant that for thousands of years. Now it is a legal partnership between legal partners. It is not required that the partners wish to procreate, or that they even be able to, it is not required that they have sex, or even be sexually attracted to each other. It is only required that they be willing to make a lifelong commitment to each other, and in exchange for that statement of commitment they are given certain rights regarding each other that make that commitment much easier. What is wrong with extending those mutual rights and privileges to two men who choose to make a lifelong commitment? Or two women? Gay marraige, in the sense of something not created by the government, already exists, as many churches do marry gays. Gay civil unions do not, and that is what gays are truly fighting for, however because the government uses the word marraige to describe a civil union between two heterosexual partners the same word must be used to describe a union between same sex partners to ensure that the rights and privileges are the same.

Gays have never been married, even in pre-political terms, really gays haven't been marrying any more than people have been marrying farm animals, its not going to happen now either, thats all there is to it, who are these supposed churches that are marrying gays?

Everyone knows that the married family is the best environment for raising future generations, when you cheapen and weaken it with your rediculous social fads you're only weakening the future of the country, and thats why virtually every state on the ballot banned it yesterday.

The unitarians marry gays, the episcopalians (one of the larger Christian denominations) marry gays, the Wiccans mary gays, the Church of Euthanasia will only marry gays or straights who are unable to procreate, The discordians marry gays. That is only a short list, and I know some of those are pretty small churches, but the Unitarians and the Episcopalians are not small churches at all. The married family is the best environment for raising childrne in my opinion. That is why encouraging it by opening it to homosexuals is a good thing. Adopted children should also be raised in the best possible environment.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

Vulcidian wrote: Everyone doesn't know that the mother father family is best. That is your bias. Societies structured differently have existed many times throughout the course of history, and have been very successful.

If you ask me, our narrow definition of marriage hinders our society. It restricts our human nature and causes people undue suffering.

Besides, most of the families in this country today aren't even married...

It is important to note that the opponent of gay marraige did not say "mother father family" he said "married family" he is excluding unmarried straights and, presumably, including married gays with his phrasing as ideal families.

Babylon_Horuv · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 2087

spearsy23 wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: F'losrix wrote: Quoting the thread title, "Gay Marriage a Pointless Discussion?"

My answer would be that it's not entirely pointless to discuss it. I would say, however, that those discussions are not likely to cover any new territory. It'll just be the same arguments as before - and very often the same people making them with no final resolution.

I have learned something new here, well, and from my own observations. That a compromise involving civil unions is an idealistic and silly notion.
:tu: no such thing as seperate but equal

it's not even that. It is that the voters are striking down civil unions in state after state. The fight for civil unions would actually be harder than the fight for marraige I think.