Originally Posted By mele I didn't know that you needed to have a transplant, BlueDevil. I am so sorry that you have to go through so much just to make sure that your partner can be with you and take care of you. It makes me so angry.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"A large percentage of the populace was not "pro-slavery" per se, but believed it should be allowed to continue in the states that had it. " Aside from the semantics of perferring "could" to "should," you agreed with that.>> <Yes, I did. But that's not what your premise was.> Yes, that's exactly what my premise was. #51 was my first weighing in on the topic, and that quote is directly from there. You must be confusing my premise with someone else's. If you're objecting to "Most northerners did not favor abolishing slavery in the south before the war, but they couldn't really do much about the Emancipation Proclamation" - why? Most believed it should be allowed to continue in the states that had it - which means they did not favor abolishing it- and they couldn't change the E.P. <<I'm not sure interracial marriage was ever voted on referendum-style by the people; if you can find examples of states doing so, please provide them.>> <I never specified referendum-style.> Come on. You said "When the people were given the chance to vote on slavery or interracial marriage..." How else do "the people" vote on such issues? If you meant the legislatures, then it's misleading to say "the people." And that's NOT just semantics. <<I'm not sure slavery was ever voted on in this way either>> <Try putting "Bleeding Kansas" in a Google search.> I'm well aware of that history, but I didn't think you'd use that as an example, since the pro-slavery forces won that vote. (Although the anti-slavery view prevailed in a later election the pro-slavery forces boycotted). Perhaps I should have said "I'm not sure slavery was ever voted DOWN in this way either." And you did say "when the people were given the chance to vote on slavery or interracial marriage, MOST places chose to end or not allow slavery and to allow interracial marriage. " Most? I'm pretty sure you can't show that to be the case with either assertion. You'll have to show a majority of actual votes going against slavery and/or banning interracial marriage. <<And we know that some state legislatures also voted to retain it before they later voted to abolish it (if in fact they did - some states never did, of course).>> <Some may have, but not most.> I believe when the Civil War broke out there were 15 slave states and 16 free states (including 4 slave states that did not secede.) Those 15 slave states obviously never voted to repeal slavery. And at least some of the 16 free states had voted to retain it before later voting to abolish it.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF Thanks, Mel. I have to be honest, this has been extremely difficult for me to deal with. I've had this heart problem all my life, but it's gotten worse over the past two years. I would like to forget the year 2005 ever happened: my mom passed away in June and I found out I needed the transplant a week later. When it rains, it pours... I am glad, though, that the transplant staff respects my guy. He has an active role in my care, as he is expected to bear some of the responsibility for making sure I do what I need to be doing to prepare for this, as well as aftercare. I shudder to think where I'd be if I didn't have him in my life.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << It's funny (in a sad way) that people argue that heteros continue to have the right to get married, divorced and remarried as many times as they want, no questions asked. >> It is sad. But granting gay marriage, which further devalues the institution of marriage will not help the problem you are complaining about Mele, will it? It will only make it worse.
Originally Posted By mele Still equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Nice. A person can marry a child in many, if not all states if the parent gives their permission. There are many states where the legal age for marriage is well-below the age of 18. Plus, kids will be adults in a few years and then can marry. A lot of states don't even require blood tests and have they ever made people prove their family line before marriage? No, people marry their close relatives all of the time! People can get divorced and re-marry. Both age and a previous marriages are situations that can and will change. All three things you cited happen every single day AND the people who often do them are of dubious morality...yet a gay person cannot marry the person they want to marry. Yeah, they can marry some person they dont' care about. Lucky them.
Originally Posted By mele No Beau, I wasn't complaining that people do that. I, unlike you, really don't care what people do with their lives. Their marital failures do not have bearing on my marriage. I'm so sorry that their problems make devalue your marriage so much. It must be sad to have such a weak marriage that the actions of complete strangers can devalue it. What's that like? Is it frustrating for you?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Of course not. What creates those benefits is having two partners in a loving committed relationship who can experience all of the rights and responsibilities resulting from a legal marriage. I really don't think genitalia have much to do with it.>> The genitalia have everything to do with it because this is what people use to create children, which is the only reason marriage is even recognized by the state. RoadTrip ask this... If marriage never had anything to do with having children, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.
Originally Posted By mele I am so glad to hear that the transplant staff respects your partner's place in your life. I'm glad that you survived 2005!
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Still equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Nice.>> Your being disnonest with this statement, there was no comparison like your hinting at. I was stating that there are rules for marriage. You also know there is a REASON for the rules of marriage mele. There is a reason a person can't marry his sister, or get married to a pereon who is STILL married, or to a person who is underage ( Each state sets the age ) Do I need to really ask you WHY these rules exist or would that be taking this debate to a level you would never go to? OK, I will ask you.... why do we have laws about not marrying your sister, a child or another married person?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <How is the INDIVIDUAL ( who wants to marry a same sex partner ) being discriminated against any more than the straight person who wants to, but can't, marry a child, or a relative or another married person?"> I respect STPH's decision to keep things in the legal realm, but I'll answer you from the human side, Beau. The reason is that sexual orientation is intrinsic to an individual. If a straight man is allowed to marry one woman (as in the US) or multiple women (as in some countries), he's still a straight man. That is intrinsic to him. How many women he can marry is merely the social arrangement allowed by his society. And being gay is intrinsic to me. And if it is in society's interests for people to pair off and form stable unions with people they love, quite apart from procreation (which it is), then denying this to gay people makes no sense. Insisting that they form these unions with opposite-sex partners they cannot love in that deep way you love your spouse makes no sense. Recognizing their intrinsic worth as individuals makes all the sense in the world. <Gay marriage is not about that.. it's about recognition and money and benefits.> It's about much more than that. Just as straight marriage is. <All things that can be had with Civil unions or a decent attorney.> That's just ignorant. There are many, many things that, even if you jump through all the hoops, a gay couple with the best attorney in the world cannot obtain. As bluedevil says, there's no good reason we should have to jump through all the hoops to begin with for the things we CAN obtain. But even if we do, some things remain unattainable. We've been through this before, and I've given you specific examples, so there's no excuse, really, for your continued ignorance. But I guess you need to believe it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Tim, I hope all goes well!! There is NOBODY who would want to deny your partner from being at your side during this. Nobody I know at least. Hang in there!
Originally Posted By mele Beau, you equated homosexuality with people marrying children, incest and adultery. It's obvious that you believe homosexuals are amoral. That is why YOU refuse to move to a higher level of argument. You can't get past the fact that they are "different" and want something "special". Something that you enjoy everyday. At the very base of every argument against homosexuality is a feeling that they are sinful and wrong. You can deny it all you want but your arguments prove that fact every single time. You don't see them as equals who deserve to marry the people they love because deep down, there is something icky and gross about them and what they do in the bathhouses and in the privacy of their bedrooms. For you to ignore that fact, which we can ALL see, is dishonest.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Dabob, don't be taking STPH off the hook. I still expect him to answer the question, not just give me a fishing expidition that avoids my point. He thinks he can used flawed previous legal decisions to push more flawed legal decisions. He doesn't seem to understand that previous decisions can be overturned and the right decsion can be put in it's place. So spare me the " legal " argument. I will put Mark Levin up against any ACLU attorney on this subject anyday. Levin would win. Most Americans have no problem with a gay couple being together and even having medical insurance or other benefits together. Blue Devil, is a great example where any rational person would have no problem with the hospital admitting his partner. But you continue to ignore the impact on society that changing the meaning of marriage ( one man and one woman ) would have on our socity. Expanding the definition of what "marriage" is to include gay marriage would inevitably, in the long run, change people's concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Tim, I hope all goes well!! There is NOBODY who would want to deny your partner from being at your side during this. Nobody I know at least.<< I can think of a few possibilities. Fred Phelps. Pat Robertson. The Pope. The guy who called me a fag at the airport a few weeks ago.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << If marriage never had anything to do with having children, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it?>> Marriage by the state is primarily concerned with property rights, inheritance, health care decisions, etc. Yes, it also establishes a legal relationship for a person's children, but that is just a minor part of what legal marriage is all about. You can say you are talking about the religious concept of marriage, but that really means nothing. Everyone can have different religious beliefs; if we start basing laws on one specific religion we are in trouble. Unless you happen to LIKE the Iranian form of government.
Originally Posted By mele And you continue to ignore the fact that the definition of marriage has changed over time and will continue to do so. In good ways and in bad ways. Yet 2 single, consenting adult heterosexuals apparently have the right to twist marriage into anything they want but 2 consenting adult homosexuals aren't even allowed to experience it in it's most respectful and traditional way.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Beau, you equated homosexuality with people marrying children, incest and adultery.>> No I didn't. There was no equating. There was however, comparing the results of allowing these types of marriages. I simply asked why there are rules against marring your sister, another married person or a child. So.... why are those rules in place?? Here, let me answer it for you. They are in place because, to allow those types of marriages to occur would be HARMFUL to our society and harmful to the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is also a version of marriage that would harm society and harm the institution of marriage. Don't agree with that?? Put it on the ballot and get it overturned. Put it on the ballot that you want it legal to marry your brother or sister, or marry 3 wives, or marry a 13 year old. Put it on the ballot. <<You can't get past the fact that they are "different" and want something "special". Something that you enjoy everyday. >> They wan't special rights, the right to change the meaning of marriage. Put it on the ballot. <<At the very base of every argument against homosexuality is a feeling that they are sinful and wrong>> This is actually at the bottom of my list of concernes, but it is an issue in a Christian country who reads a bible that says flat out homosexuality is wrong. Ahhhh... now we see why the ACLU and the libs want to ban religion and why they attack Christians. Especially Chhristians who do more than carry the bible as a political prop like Clinton did. <<You don't see them as equals who deserve to marry the people they love because deep down, there is something icky and gross about them and what they do in the bathhouses and in the privacy of their bedrooms. For you to ignore that fact, which we can ALL see, is dishonest>> I see gays as people. No more no less. Most gays I meet I like very much, so your wrong on this. That doesn't change the fact that changing the meaning of marriage is a bad idea that the vast majority of Americans are not willing to do.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
