Clint Eastwood said...............

PostmodernProphet said:
different issue.....nobody needed to change the definition of marriage so a black man could marry a white woman.......
Click to expand...

Same issue. Legally, it wasn't the "definition" of marriage in the US prior to 1967. And many used to consider it an abomination.

It's really the same. It's people being allowed to live free & pursue happiness. You know - the American way.
 
The difference between inter-racial and homosexual marriage is very stark for me. I believe there is a very big distinction in the Bible between the OT and the NT. I believe the OT is not in effect and we are governed by the NT until the end. The only place inter-racial relationships were condemned is the OT, whereas homosexuality is condemned in the NT. There is the distinction for me.

As I have stated several times before, my stance on the issue is pretty much what Obama's was before this latest pronouncement. Let them have civil unions, granting them the ability to make decisions for one another in times of medical emergencies or death, let them get some kind of joint insurance coverage from companies that would be willing to provide it (but don't force companies to) just don't call it marriage.

Again this is my personal stance and it isn't worth the digital media you are reading it on.
 
Onceler said:
The "1,000 years" argument is still a mystery to me.

I'm betting that most people wouldn't want to run society as most societies were run 1,000 years ago. People generally like progress.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure romantic love didn't play a big part in marriage 1000 years ago. It was basically an economic contract.
 
i can't fathom any conservative being against gay marriage. you are entitled to your religious beliefs, i personally believe gay sex is a sin, however, i also recognize this country is not run by the christian bible. US constitution....look it up some time...
 
Onceler said:
Same issue. Legally, it wasn't the "definition" of marriage in the US prior to 1967.
Click to expand...

not true.....the definition of marriage prior to 1967 was one man and one woman.....the law discriminated against some men and some women by refusing to issue them a marriage certificate based upon their race.....
 
Yurt said:
i can't fathom any conservative being against gay marriage. you are entitled to your religious beliefs, i personally believe gay sex is a sin, however, i also recognize this country is not run by the christian bible. US constitution....look it up some time...
Click to expand...

fuck whoever you want.....but don't pretend we have an obligation to change the definition of marriage simply because you do.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not true.....the definition of marriage prior to 1967 was one man and one woman.....the law discriminated against some men and some women by refusing to issue them a marriage certificate based upon their race.....
Click to expand...

You have a tendency to make arguments "convenient" to whatever you believe. This is one of those cases.

The law "defines" marriage as much as anything else. Whatever you want to find from 1,000 years ago to prove "definition" will likely have a place in the law or codes of that time. You are just in a place where you realize how immoral and bigoted it was to oppose interracial marriage, and don't want to find equivalency w/ gay marriage.
 
Onceler said:
You have a tendency to make arguments "convenient" to whatever you believe. This is one of those cases.

The law "defines" marriage as much as anything else. Whatever you want to find from 1,000 years ago to prove "definition" will likely have a place in the law or codes of that time. You are just in a place where you realize how immoral and bigoted it was to oppose interracial marriage, and don't want to find equivalency w/ gay marriage.
Click to expand...

then it's convenient for me that marriage has actually meant a man and a woman for over a thousand years.......I assume it's a bit inconvenient for you that you are wrong......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not true.....the definition of marriage prior to 1967 was one man and one woman.....the law discriminated against some men and some women by refusing to issue them a marriage certificate based upon their race.....
Click to expand...

The argument is misidentified. Gay people get married in every state. Nobody is going to get arrested for performing the ceremony, nor will they. It is legal, it is done, and nothing we say here will change that.

The argument is whether we should legally recognize the relationships and what benefits they should obtain through it, not whether they can do it. They already do.

Can you tell me what it is about the definition in the 60s that make it "perfect"? What benefit does society derive from denying simple things like allowing their spouse to visit in the hospital without having to pay money for a lawyer to write up a power of attorney, the sharing of medical benefits, and rights of inheritance?

Basically what benefit do we get from making their lives more difficult based on the "perfectness" of an old definition. There is nothing in "tradition" that makes it perfect and unchangeable. Traditions change all the time, as well as definitions all without causing doom to a society.

There was a time where the definition had nothing to do with choice. Where others made the choice of whom you would marry, does that mean we should go back to those days? Was it more perfect because it was an older definition and based in centuries of "tradition"?
 
Damocles said:
Can you tell me what it is about the definition in the 60s that make it "perfect"? What benefit does society derive from denying simple things like allowing their spouse to visit in the hospital without having to pay money for a lawyer to write up a power of attorney, the sharing of medical benefits, and rights of inheritance?
Click to expand...

sorry, lame argument is still a lame argument....we don't need to use the courts to change what society believes about its institutions....especially when no one needs to spend any money to accomplish what you claim...

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/estate_planning/medical_power_of_attorney.html
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, lame argument is still a lame argument....we don't need to use the courts to change what society believes about its institutions....especially when no one needs to spend any money to accomplish what you claim...

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/estate_planning/medical_power_of_attorney.html
Click to expand...

Really? Unrelated people can share benefits in all states without spending money or being officially married according to your "perfect" definition?

You have yet to tell me why that definition is/was "perfect" as compared to an earlier definition.
 
Damocles said:
The argument is misidentified. Gay people get married in every state. Nobody is going to get arrested for performing the ceremony, nor will they. It is legal, it is done, and nothing we say here will change that.

The argument is whether we should legally recognize the relationships and what benefits they should obtain through it, not whether they can do it. They already do.

Can you tell me what it is about the definition in the 60s that make it "perfect"? What benefit does society derive from denying simple things like allowing their spouse to visit in the hospital without having to pay money for a lawyer to write up a power of attorney, the sharing of medical benefits, and rights of inheritance?

Basically what benefit do we get from making their lives more difficult based on the "perfectness" of an old definition. There is nothing in "tradition" that makes it perfect and unchangeable. Traditions change all the time, as well as definitions all without causing doom to a society.

There was a time where the definition had nothing to do with choice. Where others made the choice of whom you would marry, does that mean we should go back to those days? Was it more perfect because it was an older definition and based in centuries of "tradition"?
Click to expand...

Nicely done, encore!
 
Damocles said:
Really? Unrelated people can share benefits in all states without spending money or being officially married according to your "perfect" definition?

You have yet to tell me why that definition is/was "perfect" as compared to an earlier definition.
Click to expand...

more lame arguments.....can an unmarried heterosexual couple share benefits?.......can roommates share benefits.....can two guys who never talk to each other but live in the same boarding house share benefits?.....it's got nothing to do with gay marriage.....

"perfect" is also irrelevant......the issue is using the courts to force a change on society......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
more lame arguments.....can an unmarried heterosexual couple share benefits?.......can roommates share benefits.....can two guys who never talk to each other but live in the same boarding house share benefits?.....it's got nothing to do with gay marriage.....

"perfect" is also irrelevant......the issue is using the courts to force a change on society......
Click to expand...

Incorrect, you purposefully ignore the fact that the change is already made. Gay people already get married in every state.

The argument is about simple recognition and the benefits they derive.

There are three aspects of marriage, only one of which these people are denied.

1. The religious aspect, churches marry gay people in every state of the union.
2. The moral aspect, you make a promise to your spouse and keep it or not. This too gay people do in every state.
3. The legal recognition, this is the only aspect that is denied them in certain states.

Basically, we use silly arguments like "definitions" as a reason to continue to pretend that these relationships don't already exist, but all that is is denial and pretense.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Anti-miscegenation laws were on the statute books in many states until Loving v Virginia (1967), what does the OT have to say about that?
Click to expand...

I imagine it would say your argument is irrelevant.....marriage in 1966 in Virginia still involved one man and one woman.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top