quote:I think that the argument that "gay marriage" or civil union will undermine our current form of marriage in our society is utter tripe. People who use that argument like to conveniently forget that, in an America where "gay marriage" is currently not legal in the overwhelming majority of the states and in a majority of those states is currently illegal according to state law, 50% of all marriages STILL end in divorce.
It's rediculous to say that giving the one segment of the population a right that they do not currently have will cause heterosexual couples to divorce or choose not to marry.
I'm kind of tired of doing this every six months, so I'll merely state that your arguments "showing" this to be "tripe" are actually showing some other argument to be tripe.
By and large, when same sex marriage opponents speak of weakening marriage, they are not saying that a particular individual marriage will end in divorce that wouldn't have because of gay marriage. They see same sex marriage as a fundamental redefinition of the institution of marriage that drives it away from the fundamental purpose of the institution.
And it is. Failure to recognize that is only going to have your arguments dismissed out of hand by the people you need to convince to change their mind. Pointing to obscure tribes where something that could be seen to be like same sex marriage if one squints hard enough is not going to alter the fundamental fact that same sex marriage represents a fundamental alteration to marriage as it has been viewed in the West for hundreds and hundreds of years.
quote:What it would do, is give monagamous, loving homosexual couples legal rights. Rights that include: rights of inheritance and spousal priviledges. The right to sit at your loved one's bedside as they lay sick or dying in a hospital with family only rules and the right to make determinations about that persons healthcare if they are unable to make decisions for themselves, rather than giving that right to family members that may not have seen or spoken to them since they came out.
It should be noted that nothing in the law prevents a homosexual partner from receiving an inheritance or being appointed as a medical decision maker. Do people think that single people have no say in these matters?
Of the legal constructs you mentioned, only spousal privilege is barred to same sex couples. The difference is in the mechanisms needed to avail oneself of those legal constructs.
I will plead once again for those who support change in the law to make arguments founded in reality. Clearly erroneous statements (such as the one saying same-sex couples lack the right to inheritance or to appoint a medical guardian of their choice) and restructuring opposing arguments so they are easy to refute simply provide an easy way for opponents to refute your arguments.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Matters of civil rights should NOT be voted on by the general public. Whether you are for or against gay marriage, the matter should be up to the court system to decide.
Ugh. You are absolutely right that civil rights should not be subject to democratic approval. But you are absolutely wrong in thinking that 'the court system' is any more legitimate an authority.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has to be some mechanism to be able to put into law "These are human rights that everybody has, but those aren't."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is: amending the constitution. Which takes legislative action, which is neither judicial nor voting by the general public (at least, not directly).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, quite the opposite. If you accept Irregardles' notion the proper place to define civil rights is through ammendment of the constitution, then she's going about it exactly right.
If you say she should be opposed, I've got not problems with that. I wouldn't excpect you to agree with her. But if you are saying she should be stopped from writing her senators, that's not good.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pooka, straight guys aren't gonna go gay. No matter how much hairy man sex they can get, that's not what straight guys are into. You might think the idea is two guys is so hot that, hey, why wouldn't they? but straight guys don't think it's hot. And having it be socially acceptable will not MAKE them think it's hot. Their brain isn't wired that way.
I'll say bluntly that any man who can get off on a body part not belonging exclusively to a woman is potentially gay.
If I believed people weren't turnable, I would have no problem with Gay marriage. But people are influenced by their environment. That's why all of us gather here everyday and read and post. We hope to be influenced or to influence someone else.
Another piece of evidence that came up in the last few days was the changing of English law so that when a man died his kin were not obligated to marry his widow. I mean, that almost sounds perverted to us today. Good change, right? But the effect was that women no longer inherited property and their value in the society dropped.
In a perfect world the worth of a woman would not reside solely in marriage status. But show me where that is true.
P.S. I wanted to acknowledge KarlEd's earlier statement:
quote:I bet to many religious people, "choosing" to stop believing as they do would be very much like my "choosing" to no longer be gay.
But I'm open to correction if someone like Dag or Belle wants to chime in. [edit: not to limit it to them.]
But you stopped believing (in Mormonism). Unless you never believed it. If one cannot change such beliefs, what is the point of trying to educate away prejudice? I know, I know, people are seeing me as the prejudiced one in this case. But if I can't be taught and you can't be taught, then we just go on with our lives, I guess.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it's in your marriage. If your wife were not married to you, she'd just be out there, Ally McBeal or Murphy Brown. Competent, but never on top.
P.S. Why does no one like Captain Janeway?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Captain Janeway just fine. I think she chose to live in a permenant moral gray area during most of the show, one that Picard would have shaken his fist at, but she kept the crew together and got them home, that'd commendable.
quote:I'll say bluntly that any man who can get off on a body part not belonging exclusively to a woman is potentially gay.
This position disturbs me to no end. When you get your Y Card, I'll accept your position as something approaching....I don't know, sanity. Until then, female insights into the depths of the male mind continue to amuse me, but lack in seriousness.
And never on top of what? Didn't Murphy Brown have her own show? She sure bossed enough people around.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee It should be noted that nothing in the law prevents a homosexual partner from receiving an inheritance or being appointed as a medical decision maker. Do people think that single people have no say in these matters?
Dagonee, I don't always agree with you but I must say you at least seem to be taking a fair-minded and balanced approach. It has been very interesting reading your posts.
Regarding the section quoted above, what you say is true, but you don't quite say enough.
Yes, a gay couples can hire a lawyer and invoke Medical Power of Attorney for each other. But if the blood-family contests that Power of Attorney, there is probably a good chance that it will be turned over to the Family. Again, that is not guaranteed, it depends on a lot of factors, but there is a real chance it will be revoked.
Further, they can hire a lawyer and invoke General Power of Attorney, and they can do things like open joint checking accounts. There is a lot of legal manuvering that gay people can do to try to create the same equivalent legal protections as civil union/marraige, but even the best of these is extremely expensive, and also falls short of Civil Union.
Each person can name the other in their Will as a means of protecting their assets and assuring those assets go to the person they want them to go to. But the blood-family can protest or contest the Will, and if nothing else consume all the money in a legal battle that assures that even though they will not get it, neither will the gay 'spouse'.
Marriage or Civil Union is not so easy to revoke, and it incorporates a broad range of protections with in a single and AFFORDABLE legal framework. The alternative, to creates assorted legal document in an attempt to duplicate marriage, is extremely expensive to DO, and extremely expensive to UN-DO. And, like it or not, the courts will tend to favor the blood-family over a gay lover.
So, while you are absolutely correct, we must consider the fairness of forcing one couple to spend many thousands of dollars creating legal protections that fall short of marriage/civil union, then, in the event of break-up, to spend many more thousands of dollars undoing those legal documents, while other couple have a quick, cheap, and easy way of creating a better set of protection.
Further, though it depends on the nature of the courts, Marriage is alot harder to contest than an assortment of 'almost' legal protections. Blood-family can very easily contest any legal documents, and hope for a favorable court, or at least hope to have enough money to out last the gay 'spouse'.
So, again, you are right, but it hardly constitutes a fair and just system. Although, I'm not intending to say that you implied it was fair and just. I'm just expanding on that aspect of the discussion.
posted
My worth is not defined soly by my marriage.
How are you measuring worth anyway? I find I want to talk about how much I made when I met my husband. But that's not my worth. Though I think it might be in this context.
I'm baffled by the "On top" comment. Do you think women should dominate marriage? My hubby and I have an equal partnership.
No one likes Janeway because she was a poorly written character in a poorly written show.
Pooka, did you have a boyfriend leave you for a guy? Do you have latency or self esteme issues? Or conversely, do you simply not see how beautiful women are and can't imagine why most men and a handful of women love them? Or do you think men are so beautiful that how can other men resist?
Your paranoid fear that men are aching to boink other men is completely alien to me.
Anyway, if your sole objection to gay marriage is that men will marry other men and this will hurt women, how do you feel about Lesbian marriage? Should lesbians be allowed to marry but not gay men?
quote:I'll say bluntly that any man who can get off on a body part not belonging exclusively to a woman is potentially gay.
This position disturbs me to no end. When you get your Y Card, I'll accept your position as something approaching....I don't know, sanity. Until then, female insights into the depths of the male mind continue to amuse me, but lack in seriousness.
While I can't imagine that I would ever put it the way she did, what she said makes sense to me.
quote: In a perfect world the worth of a woman would not reside solely in marriage status. But show me where that is true.
I'm guessing that a large number of both the single and the married women on this board would find this offensive. I'll even go out on a limb and say that any women who believe otherwise are likely to wind up miserably unhappy regardless of marital status.
------
Porter, are you saying that if you were able to marry me, and I were more sexually available than Beverly, you'd consider it? If not me, what about the much-more-attractive Eddie Whiteshoes? Or Dagonee, if you're drawn to men with big brains?
Did you only marry Beverly because you couldn't get sex any other way?
(Note: I'm assuming the answer to all these hypotheticals is "no.")
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, yeah, I would definitely find the idea of my worth being defined by my marriage offensive, if it wasn't so laughable.
So, any man who finds, say, necks attractive is potentially gay? I mean, in a way that a man who only finds breasts attractive isn't? Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter, are you saying that if you were able to marry me, and I were more sexually available than Beverly, you'd consider it? If not me, what about the much-more-attractive Eddie Whiteshoes? Or Dagonee, if you're drawn to men with big brains?
Did you only marry Beverly because you couldn't get sex any other way?
(Note: I'm assuming the answer to all these hypotheticals is "no.")
The answer to all these questions is no, and I don't understand why you are asking them. You thought you knew the answer to them before asking, so you probably think that you've proven a point by forcing me to say "no".
I do not know what that point is.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: Wow, yeah, I would definitely find the idea of my worth being defined by my marriage offensive, if it wasn't so laughable.
So, any man who finds, say, necks attractive is potentially gay? I mean, in a way that a man who only finds breasts attractive isn't?
Y'know, given how obese American men are these days... I don't think being attracted to breasts is going to save anyone. Fear teh Gay!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlueWizard, I get all that. Believe me - this is why I support civil marriage rights for same sex couples.
I merely corrected an error - one propagated by someone who, at minimum, desires generally the same outcome I do in this dispute - which is easily refutable and the propagation of which makes that desired outcome more difficult. I purposely did not go beyond that, so as not to mix the correction with argument on my side.
You lay it out very nicely. One thing that I would like to hear from those who favor civil unions for same sex couples that are legally distinct from civil marriages: Are there any duties or rights which attach to civil marriage that you would not wish to make part of the civil unions available to same sex couples?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Murphy Brown was a commentator working under an Anchor. He was not her supervisor, of course. Be he was the top dog as far as the journalists were concerned and they resented him for it.
I think that may be why, in the end, women usually choose not to be in the lead. It's lonely at the top and women find that inherently stressful in a way men do not.
Since people are apparently morbidly curious about what bizarre thing I'm going to say next, it is simply that women have a diverse rubric of mental characteristics but not of physical characteristics. Men are the reverse. A man gets a lot more flack for being prone to mental illness than a woman, and a woman is more stressed by being too fat, too tall, too ethnic etc. At least, that is my thought on what makes men and women really different and why they can't be interchanged. If we attempt to redefine these rubrics, none of use can predict what the results will be.
(minor word choice editing)
And a P.S. For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would. Is very much a butterfly effect kind of speculation.
If you don't know from that that I oppose Lesbian marriages as well, I don't know how to explain it to you.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you thought that the extremity with which you perceive these difference might be unique to your local culture? I mean, I can see where you are coming from, but at no where near the level you seem to perceive it.
posted
Local like first degree relatives or local like American culture as it is depicted on TV? P.S. I guess I would ask what your perception of the difference between men and women is. If there is no difference, why would anyone be exclusively hetero- or homo- sexual?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So in addition to causing fewer rights for women, you also believe that our culture and society is too fragile to withstand change. Sort of a "Don't touch it, it might fall down" house of cards?
I'm sorry, pooka, but society is constantly and inevitably changing. Even if gay people never get equal rights mens and women's roles will grow and change.
Simply worrying about the butterfly effect of a change that effects are relatively small number of people is not much of an argument.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Simply worrying about the butterfly effect of a change that effects are relatively small number of people is not much of an argument.
Whether or not the butterfly effect argument is valid or not, I think that SSM being legal or not will affect a lot of people, and not just those wanting to (now or in the future) get married to someone of the same gender.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what the specific affects will be, but I belive that significantly re-defining this central unit of society will have major and long-lasting affects on society as a whole.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a "significant" redefinition. It's not a redefinition at all for 90+% of the people involved in it. It's only a redefinition for those who don't have it now and deserve it just as much as others do.
And a vague "I think something bad and undefined will happen" isn't much of an argument either.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't blame the homosexuals for changing the fundamental family unit. They are just the most recent victims of it.
Blame the Troubadors.
Blame the authors.
Blame the romance novelists and epic poets.
Blame Shakespeare.
Marriage has been slipping from a union of economic viability--centered on aquiring security, wealth, and a generation of workers to support you in old age, to a thing that involves a word I haven't seen in this debate for 4 pages.
Love.
As Love--romantic love, destined one person to another, love at first site--has become the main reason for marriage, other factors that used to limit a person's choices have fallen to the wayside.
Where before a man considered the dowry of his wife perhaps first, or her ability to bear children, now he is supposed to be looking for love. Racial, economic, and political differences are supposed to melt away by eternal love that brings people together.
For some it doesn't. For others it does.
Now the last hurdles, the need to reproduce, and the Christian faith of their friends faces love.
Forget Sex.
Forget Money.
Forget the Law.
This is the question.
Can a man and a man be in love?
Can a woman and a woman be in love?
If so, should not we celebrate, consecrate, and sanctify that love?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, on a completely side note, I overheard the following:
I will vote to change the Constitution to define "Marriage" as the union of one man and one woman, when they change the Declaration of Independence to define "Happiness" as the union of one man, two women, and a hotel room in Vegas. Viva "the Pursuit of Happiness."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: the problem is, if you're defining Marriage as an economic tool for the raising of children is that it lost that meaning aaaaages ago. Due to No Fault Divorce (mostly a bad thing in my book) and Women's Lib (mostly a good thing in my book)
If you define marriage as "A Man and Woman who love eachother" then it's not such a leap to "Two people who love eachother."
What is the specific definition that SSM/CU opponents are trying to defend? Can we get them to actually agree on a definition?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Simply worrying about the butterfly effect of a change that effects are relatively small number of people is not much of an argument.
Whether or not the butterfly effect argument is valid or not, I think that SSM being legal or not will affect a lot of people, and not just those wanting to (now or in the future) get married to someone of the same gender.
Well... no. It didn't affect me when you married Beverly, and it won't affect me when other people marry those they love. And even if it's someday legally permissible for me to marry a man, Pooka's assertions aside, I'm not terribly eager to leap into bed with one.
I have two neighbors, Harry and Farley. They're among the best people I know, and have been partners much longer than I've been alive -- married in all but name. They helped raise me, and I love them like uncles. I ask you for a straight answer, how will it affect you -- at all -- if they're someday permitted to marry each other?
Instead of vague hints of unclear danger, why not spell out exactly what you fear?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your definition of marriage. As Pix said, do you define it in terms of economic rights or in terms of love?
And in either case, I have trouble understanding what would be so difficult about permitting homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to participate in it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Murphy Brown was a commentator working under an Anchor. He was not her supervisor, of course. Be he was the top dog as far as the journalists were concerned and they resented him for it.
I think that may be why, in the end, women usually choose not to be in the lead. It's lonely at the top and women find that inherently stressful in a way men do not.
Since people are apparently morbidly curious about what bizarre thing I'm going to say next, it is simply that women have a diverse rubric of mental characteristics but not of physical characteristics. Men are the reverse. A man gets a lot more flack for being prone to mental illness than a woman, and a woman is more stressed by being too fat, too tall, too ethnic etc. At least, that is my thought on what makes men and women really different and why they can't be interchanged. If we attempt to redefine these rubrics, none of use can predict what the results will be.
(minor word choice editing)
And a P.S. For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would. Is very much a butterfly effect kind of speculation.
If you don't know from that that I oppose Lesbian marriages as well, I don't know how to explain it to you.
To summarize your points:
1) Men are physically deficient, and women are mentally defective. If men married men and if women married women, it's unclear (and ergo dangerous) which partner would fall into each handicap.
2) Homosexuals are more attracted to the forbidden taboo of homosexuality than they actually are to the same gender.
Pooka, if I'm interpreting this correctly, I think you need to seriously re-examine your beliefs in rather questionable gender stereotypes.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you define marriage as "A Man and Woman who love eachother" then it's not such a leap to "Two people who love eachother."
But it is a leap; it's a change to the definition.
Further, "two" and "who love each other" are clearly insufficient as definitional characteristics. Clearly, marriage means something other than a couple merely being in love.
Some specific questions for anyone who opposes extending civil marriage to same sex couples:
Are there any specific legal benefits or duties of marriage that you think should not be available to same sex couples?
Some of the duties:
Duty of cares. Duty of fidelity. Duty to share property acquired through efforts exerted during the marriage. Duty of mutual support.
Some of the benefits:
Joint tax returns. Default designatee for medical decisions, default inheritor (with children), etc. Marital communication privilege. Marital immunity against testifying against ones spouse. Spousal benefits (insurance, Social Security) "Automatic" right of adoption of spouse's children when other parent is dead or has relinquished parental rights. (It's not really automatic but close.)
What I'm trying to get at is, if we looked at it strictly mechanically as a package of legal rights and responsibilities, which rights and responsibilities should not be available to same sex couples.
The reason I post this under The Pixiest's comment is that the two ideas are related. It is a redefinition of marriage, but if we make it clear that these rights and responsibilities can be provided without redefining marriage, opposition may be reduced.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lalo, you're not looking for a straight answer. You are looking for points to score.
I never said two specific guys get married that it would directly affect me.
quote:I belive that significantly re-defining this central unit of society will have major and long-lasting affects on society as a whole.
No, MPH, I'm looking for an answer. You are a member of society -- and if it's going to have "major and long-lasting" effects on you, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what you feel those effects will be.
Or if you're immune to the consequences of homosexual marriage, then whom do you feel is vulnerable? And what do you believe will happen to them?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Porter, that's argument from innuendo. You have to state your case not just hint that something nefarious is over the horizon if we go that way.
There was a senator from SD who lost his office in... '02? I believe it was... who argued just that way. "I'm concerned that if we follow that plan there will be something very troubling that might happen in the future. And that worries me." He never actually said anything. He just fretted vaguely and publicly.
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your definition of marriage. As Pix said, do you define it in terms of economic rights or in terms of love?
And in either case, I have trouble understanding what would be so difficult about permitting homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to participate in it.
Lalo, my definition of marriage is that it is a sacrament bestowed by each spouse upon the other, a religious vocation, and a reflection of God's love on earth, entailing creative aspects and a living reflection of the Trinity.
An utterly useless definition for purposes of this discussion (although certainly NOT useless in other contexts), but one which would undergo a major redefinition were same sex couples to be included in it.
Civil marriage - or civil unions, as I would prefer to call them - is simply a legal entity that is made available to couples wishing to declare their commitment to live together and join their lives and the rights and responsibilities we make available to those couples both for their benefit and for legal convenience.
BTW, I flat out do not intend to argue about what the "real" definition of marriage is, with anyone. There are theological and philosophical discussions in which I might be willing to expand on these thoughts, but it is simply not part of this discussion for me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, you keep putting more incorrect words into my mouth. It appears as though you are doing it deliberately.
quote:But Porter, that's argument from innuendo. You have to state your case not just hint that something nefarious is over the horizon if we go that way.
If I were trying to argue my case, possibly. But in this thread, I haven't tried in the slightest to get anybody who doesn't already agree with me to change their mind. I don't have to do that.
And in a situation where I have no doubt that I would get dog-piled, such as this disussion, I don't feel inclined to honor requests to do so.
It is because this is being treated as an argument/dabate that I'm not going to elaborate. If it were a respectful discussion, possibly. But it hasn't been*.
*not all of this discussion has taken place in this thread
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I REALLY like the way your argument is laid out detailing the rights and responsibilities. I think we agree on almost everything from a legal aspect.
But I think you'll find that after you lay all that out, and even get people to agree with you point by point that they'll end with "But I don't think we should redefine marriage just for that"
And you're back to arguing the definition of marriage.
And as one person told me (in an email so I won't say who it is) A civil union is just another word for marriage and since I'm against redefining marriage I'm against civil unions too. (I didn't put it in quotes because that's not an exact quote.)
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your definition of marriage. As Pix said, do you define it in terms of economic rights or in terms of love?
And in either case, I have trouble understanding what would be so difficult about permitting homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to participate in it.
Lalo, my definition of marriage is that it is a sacrament bestowed by each spouse upon the other, a religious vocation, and a reflection of God's love on earth, entailing creative aspects and a living reflection of the Trinity.
An utterly useless definition for purposes of this discussion (although certainly NOT useless in other contexts), but one which would undergo a major redefinition were same sex couples to be included in it.
Civil marriage - or civil unions, as I would prefer to call them - is simply a legal entity that is made available to couples wishing to declare their commitment to live together and join their lives and the rights and responsibilities we make available to those couples both for their benefit and for legal convenience.
BTW, I flat out do not intend to argue about what the "real" definition of marriage is, with anyone. There are theological and philosophical discussions in which I might be willing to expand on these thoughts, but it is simply not part of this discussion for me.
I can respect that. Marriage is a religious ceremony in my eyes as well, and civil unions merely their legal counterpart.
But then, what do you feel is being redefined? Muslims certainly don't honor the Trinity when they get married -- do you feel Muslim marriages are significantly redefining marriage? Are you concerned that the federal government will force the Catholic church to marry homosexuals and violate dogma?
If not, I don't quite see what you feel is being redefined.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lalo, you keep putting more incorrect words into my mouth. It appears as though you are doing it deliberately.
quote:But Porter, that's argument from innuendo. You have to state your case not just hint that something nefarious is over the horizon if we go that way.
If I were trying to argue my case, possibly. But in this thread, I haven't tried in the slightest to get anybody who doesn't already agree with me to change their mind. I don't have to do that.
And in a situation where I have no doubt that I would get dog-piled, such as this disussion, I don't feel inclined to honor requests to do so.
It is because this is being treated as an argument/dabate that I'm not going to elaborate. If it were a respectful discussion, possibly. But it hasn't been*.
*not all of this discussion has taken place in this thread
What?
MPH, I don't think anyone's been rude to you. And if I've put words in your mouth, I apologize -- but could you point out which words, exactly, those were?
And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful. I promise a respectful discussion (as I feel we've had) and an open mind to your ideas.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixie -- you gave two contrasting definitions of marriage: "as an economic tool for the raising of children" and "A Man and Woman who love eachother".
You seem to think that the first definition is outmoded and obsolete.
While I don't have a precise definition of what a marriage is and what it should be, I can say that the first definition is an important part of what marriage is to me. It might even be more important than the second definition. I'm not sure.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
