BubberMiley Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Tell us what you think, should there be a requirement for proof of gayness before a civil union license is used? No. But when you state explicitly that marriage requires fertility, why do you shy away when the question is applied to a non-fertile, heterosexual union? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 This has nothing to do with gender, but rather a legal contract between people. Irrelevant...the poiint is that government still invokes segregation by gender (and other attributes). It develops laws that enforce such decisions. Marriage is not immune from such forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Some states seem to disagree...and it's probably only a matter of time before more do...including California. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Some states seem to disagree...and it's probably only a matter of time before more do...including California. Perhaps, but for now, 45 U.S. states and most of the world do not disagree. Civil Rights are not a step function. Edited May 31, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 In this case they seem to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 In this case they seem to be. Certainly not.....step functions change state instantaneously. Not so with same gender marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 No. But when you state explicitly that marriage requires fertility, why do you shy away when the question is applied to a non-fertile, heterosexual union? I did not state that marriage requires fertility, and it does not, nor should it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I did not state that marriage requires fertility, and it does not, nor should it. Yes it does - a civil marriage licence was by design - originally a licence to breed. If fertility was not an issue - marriage would never have existed to begin with --- what for? What would the original purpose be? If we want to re-define marriage - then to change that purpose is to totally change the concept and it should be called something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Yes it does - a civil marriage licence was by design - originally a licence to breed. If fertility was not an issue - marriage would never have existed to begin with --- what for? What would the original purpose be? If we want to re-define marriage - then to change that purpose is to totally change the concept and it should be called something else. Also: People imagine this Californian court ruling as being based in gay hate or something - it is not - it is strickly an interpretation of a word and of an institution - it has nothing to do with the gay issue..the court had to finally rule on what marriage is and what the purpose of a union between a male and female is - it was to make more people - not to adopt more children - or to have artifical insemination of those not in a union with opposite sex - nor was it for the purpose of same sex couples to pretend that they are opposite sex couples - It was a decision based in reality - not in hate of a certain group. As I have said many times - there are those that are attempting to take sex - which is the creation of more human life and redefine the word SEX - this is not about the redefinition of marriage but the redefining of sex it self. It is akin to the re-definition and a revisonistic attempt to remove reality - and no good can come with it - even early Christianity said about the evolvement of it's members - "They will not be given or taken in marriage - for they will be like the angels" IF gays and lesbians want a spiritual bond - let them have it - in many ways it might be superiour to the average hetro spiritual bond. Why gays want to give up their civil and human rights to the state is beyoud me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Yes it does - a civil marriage licence was by design - originally a licence to breed. If fertility was not an issue - marriage would never have existed to begin with --- what for? What would the original purpose be? If we want to re-define marriage - then to change that purpose is to totally change the concept and it should be called something else. What this would mean, Oleg, is if a man and woman wanted to get married (or a gay couple), they couldn't get married if they couldn't produce children. Straight couples unable to produce children would be in the same boat as gay couples. You may think that's fair, but I don't, it's not their fault if they are unable to produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 What this would mean, Oleg, is if a man and woman wanted to get married (or a gay couple), they couldn't get married if they couldn't produce children. Straight couples unable to produce children would be in the same boat as gay couples. You may think that's fair, but I don't, it's not their fault if they are unable to produce. In the old days if a couple were infertile and new it prior to marriage - they would not marry - the firtile one would seek out a mate that was fertile - they were pragmatic. I had an experience with a former wife of seven years - we adored each other - the sex was torrid and satisfying - but she was as they say in the old terms "barren" - children would have made the relationship work and given it a full dimentional quality - so we parted...Then a woman that was less compatable came along that got pregnant quickly - and 27 years later we take pride in our adult children and are happy for doing our duty - our genetics have spread down to the offspring - and our qualities and talents have been inherited by our kids - sure - there was no real court ship - nor were their plans - our marriage consisted of breeding - now this dear woman is over for the week end - and it was heavenly - but with out a history - I would not have anything to do with this twit...she's not that twitty - but I probably would have done better with someone more appropriate - but I settle for the cards that life delt and have no real regrets - I am rich...for my decision - to stick it out and not force abortion on this great woman... Life is not about fair - it is about duty . It does not matter who's fault it is - The prior wife wanted children but could not have them - it was not her fault and she has my sympathy - she was a wonderful human being....but - children are all I have - the only wealth is offspring - and health - old school? Yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 I did not state that marriage requires fertility, and it does not, nor should it. Yes, you did. Marriage should be reserved for those couples who have the possibility of conceiving children and for the family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) , Edited May 31, 2009 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Yes, you did. Thank you for pointing that out for me, but it does not have the meaning you suppose it does. This sentence: Marriage should be reserved for those couples who have the possibility of conceiving children and for the family. does not mean that fertility should be a requirement. Look at it. Read it. Now what does possibility mean? It means the prospect of, the likelihood of, not a certainty of. That is because the certainty of fertility should not be a requirement of marriage, in my opinion, since the only way you can find out is by testing. Of course this would mean that the government would force testing on any couple wishing to marry in that world. But a gay couple has no possibility of children, their union, therefore, is not the same as marriage. The only reason they want it is to force society to enshrine their lifestyle in the trappings of acceptance. They must face up to the facts, this will never happen. There will always be people who don't accept that lifestyle or think it proper. I think you all know by know that you simply can't force people to believe or disbelieve something. This is what gays want, they want thought crime. Anyone who doesn't accept the gay lifestyle is a homophobe to them, they are the worst at reverse discrimination. But most people are quite willing to live and let live. Even California, the most liberal state in the union doesn't agree with this silly mindset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 does not mean that fertility should be a requirement. Look at it. Read it. Now what does possibility mean? It means the prospect of, the likelihood of, not a certainty of. Okay, what about the elderly? There is absolutely no possibility that people over 70 years of age can have children. No proof is necessary, and if you truly believe in your position (and it's not just a half-assed, poorly thought-out way to justify your bigotry), you would also deny them the right to marry late in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Okay, what about the elderly? There is absolutely no possibility that people over 70 years of age can have children. No proof is necessary, and if you truly believe in your position (and it's not just a half-assed, poorly thought-out way to justify your bigotry), you would also deny them the right to marry late in life. I am not a bigot as you suppose, now you are thinking like the gay movement, anyone who opposes anything about their lifestyle is automatically labeled in an attempt to make their opinion worthless. Then they don't have to consider that opinion. But as to the old folks, if the gay movement points to them and says,"aha! unfair!" I'd be willing to give them civil unions just like the gays. And the old folks probably wouldn't care when it was explained to them. But you would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoh Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I am not a bigot as you suppose, now you are thinking like the gay movement, anyone who opposes anything about their lifestyle is automatically labeled in an attempt to make their opinion worthless. Then they don't have to consider that opinion. But as to the old folks, if the gay movement points to them and says,"aha! unfair!" I'd be willing to give them civil unions just like the gays. And the old folks probably wouldn't care when it was explained to them. But you would. So you feel being gay is a lifestyle choice? And being straight isn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTL Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 It never should have been put to a vote in the first place. I'm sure some day it will be overturned. Yes, especially considering more and more people are heading to the polls since the Nov. elections. Racial segregation didn't work, neither with gender segregation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTL Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 In the old days if a couple were infertile and new it prior to marriage - they would not marry - the firtile one would seek out a mate that was fertile - they were pragmatic. I had an experience with a former wife of seven years - we adored each other - the sex was torrid and satisfying - but she was as they say in the old terms "barren" - children would have made the relationship work and given it a full dimentional quality - so we parted...Then a woman that was less compatable came along that got pregnant quickly - and 27 years later we take pride in our adult children and are happy for doing our duty - our genetics have spread down to the offspring - and our qualities and talents have been inherited by our kids - sure - there was no real court ship - nor were their plans - our marriage consisted of breeding - now this dear woman is over for the week end - and it was heavenly - but with out a history - I would not have anything to do with this twit...she's not that twitty - but I probably would have done better with someone more appropriate - but I settle for the cards that life delt and have no real regrets - I am rich...for my decision - to stick it out and not force abortion on this great woman... Life is not about fair - it is about duty . It does not matter who's fault it is - The prior wife wanted children but could not have them - it was not her fault and she has my sympathy - she was a wonderful human being....but - children are all I have - the only wealth is offspring - and health - old school? Yes! Argumentum ad antiquitatem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) But as to the old folks, if the gay movement points to them and says,"aha! unfair!" I'd be willing to give them civil unions just like the gays. And the old folks probably wouldn't care when it was explained to them. But you would. That’s very generous of you to give them that. I like how, in taking away a basic right, you phrase it like you're "giving" them something. I don't agree that "the old folks wouldn't care." i think there may be a few who would feel a civil union is not a marriage, and therefore they would be living in sin without being properly wed. You should have more respect for people's religious beliefs. I would feel uncomfortable denying people a right they've had for centuries just to enforce an arbitrary new requirement for marriage that never existed before, and just to deny rights to another group you don't like. But I guess if one can't admit their own bigotry to themselves, they'll jump through all sorts of hoops to make their reasons seem legitimate. Edited June 1, 2009 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Bubber, since you are so bigoted towards those who disagree with the gay dogma, you are hardly a beacon of light on the matter. Gays should get civil unions, and every single right that married couples get. For that position us traditional marriage folks are treated like the gays have been treated in times past. Well, if it makes you feel better, swing away, but it won't change the fact that marriage has always meant man and wife throughout the history of the world. Now that some tiny minority aren't happy with the term civil union instead of marriage, everything should be rewritten, changed and revamped for them. That sounds like you Bubber, you don't realize it but this is a tired refrain from you. The whole pot thing is your pet cause, it's no wonder you get bent out of shape over gay issues. Too bad, the law is the law for pot, and it should stay the same for marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Bubber, since you are so bigoted towards those who disagree with the gay dogma, you are hardly a beacon of light on the matter. Wow...that's just so wrong I don't even know where to start with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Look folks, we have laws and regulations that keep people from all kinds of rights and no one says boo about it. You can't legally consume booze until you reach an age set by some old fart. People's rights are being trampled here, and no one is concerned about it. Drugs are illegal. Shouldn't what a person does with their own body be their own business? You can't operate a car until you are 16, yet many are quite capable before then, how is that fair to the capable? You can't bring a pet into a public place unless it's a seeing eye dog and I know many pet owners feel like criminals when they get asked to leave. You can't marry more than one person at a time, again, what business is it of the government what goes on in a person's home? They've made it illegal to smoke outside in some places let alone indoor smoking, and smokers make up a far larger minority than gays, and people treat them like idiots if they dare light up. They are not criminals, yet they are treated like such and aren't allowed to consume their favorite substance in most places. This is just not fair for them, they are not second class citizens! Even in office buildings, they have to leave the building to smoke, how much would it cost to have a vent separate from the air system installed to suck the smoke out of designated smoke rooms. But no, get thee out of the building! And how about spanking. People are beating their kids, and the rights of children are being trampled just because of some old fashioned, "We've always done it that way'" mentality, and kids suffer permanent damage because of it. How can this be allowed? Kids are not being properly protected from such abuse, their rights meaning nothing to the courts. And what of speeding? Jurisdictions that simply use tickets as a cash cow when vehicles today are 10 times safer than they ever were but still the same slow 80, 90 or 100km limits. I have a right to select a safe speed for my journey. I could go on, but the point is easy to see, rights are given and taken in our society like candy. Gays are reacting like the end of the world has come just because they can't have the m word. It's quite ridiculous and a drain on public good will. They need to grow up and realize they are no longer second class citizens. The point is, everyone has to live within guidelines set out by the government, only we realize we can't get everything we want sometimes and there are considerations of society as a whole that have to be weighed. That's life. Edited June 2, 2009 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 The whole pot thing is your pet cause, it's no wonder you get bent out of shape over gay issues. Too bad, the law is the law for pot, and it should stay the same for marriage. You absolutely refuse to discuss the issue of decriminalization in the decriminalization thread, and then you can't help but bring it up in every other thread I show up in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Gays should get civil unions, and every single right that married couples get. That's exactly what I support. Homosexuals should receive all the rights and privileges that are afforded to married couples. But of course, there can be no such thing as so-called same-sex marriage. That's an obvious oxymoron. The term marriage doesn't need a qualifyer. As I've said before, if this was just a matter of equal rights, the debate, and problem would have been solved long ago. But it's much more then that. Homosexuals and their so-called same-sex marriage supporters are determined to have homosexual relationships be recognized as important to society as heterosexual ones, which simply isn't the case, because they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.