bsnelson
enthusiast
Posts: 754
Loc: Allen, TX 75013
Reg: 10-14-05
|
08-17-10 10:01 AM - Post#116742
In response to Joe Schirmer
Perhaps you can tell me exactly what "right" is being denied if we were to use civil unions or domestic partnerships for those couples who have no intention to have children.
CUs/DPs vs. "marriage" is a common argument ("let the gays get CUs but not marriage"). There are a couple of problems with that. First, tons and tons of laws and other legal documents would have to change to confer the same rights/privileges to CU/DP as currently apply to marriage.
More importantly, though, is it creates s separate class of union that automatically (and from the very beginning) says "Your relationship is not as good as a marriage". Again, I submit that there would be no "downfall of society" by letting gays and those who don't want to or can't have children to marry. Gays aren't going to say "Well, if I can't marry my partner, I'll just marry an opposite sex person and have some kids". Marriage isn't going to make infertile people magically fertile.
I guess I just keep coming back to not being able to see this grievous harm to society. Joe, you say I keep mis-characterizing your statements; there don't seem to be too many ways to interpret them. You either want to create a "second class marriage" and call it a CU/DP, or you want to have "separate but equal" with CU/DP; how has that worked out for us in the past?
Anyway, I guess we've deviated from the original topic enough. I appreciate you and the others keeping the debate civil (for the most part ;) ); this is what a good debate is about.
I guess everyone has read by now that the Ninth Circuit has stayed the resumption of same sex marriages in California until a ruling can be made in December. So, I guess our arguments are academic for a while.
Brad
|
Jimi Ray Clapton
enthusiast
Posts: 1975
Reg: 09-03-07
|
08-17-10 10:20 AM - Post#116743
In response to bsnelson
"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION..."
| I reserve the right to change who I am, my opinions, my views and my actions based on new and more accurate information that I receive. |
|
RageAgainst
member
Posts: 51
Reg: 06-10-10
|
08-17-10 12:50 PM - Post#116747
In response to mgrayar
Marriage requires a license that has requirements. Just like a medical license, drivers license, etc... a marriage license has set parameters
I'm no lawyer but when we applied for a marriage license we were certainly not required to prove that we were capable and/or willing to produce children.
I never said you did. But you did have to prove that you were legally able to hold a marriage license in your state. That in fact means that you had to prove (at least for now) you were one man and one woman. Had you applied for the license as three men and two women, you would have been denied. Had you been a duck and a donkey, you would have been denied. Had you been a man and a man, you would have been denied. Yes, a marriage license has requirements that must be met in order for the marriage to be recognized by the state.
PS. If you have joined this conversation late, my stance on this issue as stated before is that same sex unions should have the same legal benefits and negatives that marriage brings currently, I just feel that the battle of words to call it marriage is (in my opinion) a losing battle. If it were about the strength of the union, rather than the word we call it, the battle would have been won many moons ago!
And up until this past century, had you been a black man and a white woman, you would have been denied. Historically, marriage between races was frowned upon and even punishable. Times change. What was relevant in the past is no longer relevant.
"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
- John Lennon, "Imagine" |
|
mgrayar
enthusiast
Posts: 3164
Reg: 09-25-09
|
08-17-10 01:24 PM - Post#116749
In response to RageAgainst
Marriage requires a license that has requirements. Just like a medical license, drivers license, etc... a marriage license has set parameters
I'm no lawyer but when we applied for a marriage license we were certainly not required to prove that we were capable and/or willing to produce children.
I never said you did. But you did have to prove that you were legally able to hold a marriage license in your state. That in fact means that you had to prove (at least for now) you were one man and one woman. Had you applied for the license as three men and two women, you would have been denied. Had you been a duck and a donkey, you would have been denied. Had you been a man and a man, you would have been denied. Yes, a marriage license has requirements that must be met in order for the marriage to be recognized by the state.
PS. If you have joined this conversation late, my stance on this issue as stated before is that same sex unions should have the same legal benefits and negatives that marriage brings currently, I just feel that the battle of words to call it marriage is (in my opinion) a losing battle. If it were about the strength of the union, rather than the word we call it, the battle would have been won many moons ago!
And up until this past century, had you been a black man and a white woman, you would have been denied. Historically, marriage between races was frowned upon and even punishable. Times change. What was relevant in the past is no longer relevant.
I agree, times change. And we are usually better for it, but not always. You understand my point though right? Many are for equal "rights" but are stuck on the word. Both sides are actually stuck on the word. If "rights" being equal is the ultimate goal, then the word (even to same sex couples) should not be the defining issue.
Learn more about Cystic Fibrosis and how you can help at:
http://www.cff.org
Everyone can make a difference! |
|
Michael
enthusiast
Posts: 1985
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-20-02
|
08-17-10 04:54 PM - Post#116763
In response to bsnelson
CUs/DPs vs. "marriage" is a common argument ("let the gays get CUs but not marriage"). There are a couple of problems with that. First, tons and tons of laws and other legal documents would have to change to confer the same rights/privileges to CU/DP as currently apply to marriage.
I see no problem. Just make the term marriage/Civil Union equal on legal documents. No need to actually change paperwork to have that happen. Maybe on new/future documents.
| I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it! |
|
Michael
enthusiast
Posts: 1985
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-20-02
|
08-17-10 04:56 PM - Post#116764
In response to mgrayar
Many are for equal "rights" but are stuck on the word. Both sides are actually stuck on the word. If "rights" being equal is the ultimate goal, then the word (even to same sex couples) should not be the defining issue.
Exactly!
| I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it! |
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1195
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-17-10 05:13 PM - Post#116765
In response to sco
SCO:
I know of no example in recorded history where it was required to either prove or affirm that children would be produced. Or, to verbalize the intention to produce kids.
Might be encouraged though(The Augustan Lex something or the other that gave advantages to couples that produced "x" kids).
Indeed, if one considers common law marriage in Texas....no licence required at all..just live together, agree that the couple is married, and tell folks you are married--at least to my understanding.
Edited by Aolain on 08-17-10 05:16 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-17-10 06:31 PM - Post#116771
In response to sco
I'm no historical expert but I do not believe it has ever been a legal requirement for a marriage license to prove that a couple intends to have children.
The intent was assumed since up until the advent of the pill, any couple which consummated a marriage would eventually produce children.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-17-10 06:53 PM - Post#116772
In response to bsnelson
Perhaps you can tell me exactly what "right" is being denied if we were to use civil unions or domestic partnerships for those couples who have no intention to have children.
CUs/DPs vs. "marriage" is a common argument ("let the gays get CUs but not marriage"). There are a couple of problems with that. First, tons and tons of laws and other legal documents would have to change to confer the same rights/privileges to CU/DP as currently apply to marriage.
And once again you, not I, place more "importance" on one type of relationship over.
You say "tons" of law and other legal documents would have to change in order to give CU/DP the legal protections being requested by same sex couples without listing any. This leads me to believe that perhaps it may not be as difficult as you assume since it appears you have not given it much thought.
More importantly, though, is it creates s separate class of union that automatically (and from the very beginning) says "Your relationship is not as good as a marriage". Again, I submit that there would be no "downfall of society" by letting gays and those who don't want to or can't have children to marry. Gays aren't going to say "Well, if I can't marry my partner, I'll just marry an opposite sex person and have some kids". Marriage isn't going to make infertile people magically fertile.
Well, to be quite frank, it is a different "class" of relationship since the purpose and ends of the relationship differ slightly from couples who marry with the desire to form a family and have children. This is why I am confused why some people want to use marriage for something different than what it was intended for.
I guess I just keep coming back to not being able to see this grievous harm to society. Joe, you say I keep mis-characterizing your statements; there don't seem to be too many ways to interpret them. You either want to create a "second class marriage" and call it a CU/DP, or you want to have "separate but equal" with CU/DP; how has that worked out for us in the past?
I do not want to create a "second class marriage". I want those type of relationships which can not be described as a marriage to use a different social institution to legally recognize that relationship. In other words I want domestic partnerships or civil unions to be used by those couples who want to insure shared property ownership, inheritance, visitation rights, etc. Marriage serves a different purpose than civil unions or domestic partnerships. I believe what same sex couples really need is a strengthened CU/DP and those couples who wish to start a family and have children need marriage to mean what it has for thousands of years.
Anyway, I guess we've deviated from the original topic enough. I appreciate you and the others keeping the debate civil (for the most part ;) ); this is what a good debate is about.
I agree. The best debate may not change anyone's mind, but it does allow both sides to better understand one another.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-17-10 07:00 PM - Post#116774
In response to RageAgainst
And up until this past century, had you been a black man and a white woman, you would have been denied. Historically, marriage between races was frowned upon and even punishable. Times change. What was relevant in the past is no longer relevant.
The white/black phobia is a relative blip, lasting only a few hundred years and existing primarily in the west, when compared to the history of humanity and marriage
The idea that "what was relevant in the past is no longer relevant" is just plain silly. If that were true then every human institution, (mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, neighbor) would also no longer be relevant.
|
JeffB
enthusiast
Posts: 329
Loc: Cottonwood Bend
Reg: 10-22-02
|
08-17-10 08:30 PM - Post#116779
In response to Joe Schirmer
Perhaps you can tell me exactly what "right" is being denied if we were to use civil unions or domestic partnerships for those couples who have no intention to have children.
CUs/DPs vs. "marriage" is a common argument ("let the gays get CUs but not marriage"). There are a couple of problems with that. First, tons and tons of laws and other legal documents would have to change to confer the same rights/privileges to CU/DP as currently apply to marriage.
And once again you, not I, place more "importance" on one type of relationship over.
You say "tons" of law and other legal documents would have to change in order to give CU/DP the legal protections being requested by same sex couples without listing any. This leads me to believe that perhaps it may not be as difficult as you assume since it appears you have not given it much thought.
More importantly, though, is it creates s separate class of union that automatically (and from the very beginning) says "Your relationship is not as good as a marriage". Again, I submit that there would be no "downfall of society" by letting gays and those who don't want to or can't have children to marry. Gays aren't going to say "Well, if I can't marry my partner, I'll just marry an opposite sex person and have some kids". Marriage isn't going to make infertile people magically fertile.
Well, to be quite frank, it is a different "class" of relationship since the purpose and ends of the relationship differ slightly from couples who marry with the desire to form a family and have children. This is why I am confused why some people want to use marriage for something different than what it was intended for.
I guess I just keep coming back to not being able to see this grievous harm to society. Joe, you say I keep mis-characterizing your statements; there don't seem to be too many ways to interpret them. You either want to create a "second class marriage" and call it a CU/DP, or you want to have "separate but equal" with CU/DP; how has that worked out for us in the past?
I do not want to create a "second class marriage". I want those type of relationships which can not be described as a marriage to use a different social institution to legally recognize that relationship. In other words I want domestic partnerships or civil unions to be used by those couples who want to insure shared property ownership, inheritance, visitation rights, etc. Marriage serves a different purpose than civil unions or domestic partnerships. I believe what same sex couples really need is a strengthened CU/DP and those couples who wish to start a family and have children need marriage to mean what it has for thousands of years.
Anyway, I guess we've deviated from the original topic enough. I appreciate you and the others keeping the debate civil (for the most part ;) ); this is what a good debate is about.
I agree. The best debate may not change anyone's mind, but it does allow both sides to better understand one another.
Wow!! So because my wife and I are no longer having children, we have a different "class" of marriage? Because my Grandfather remarried at the age of 75, he had a different "class" of marriage? And because 2 people, who love each other, get married, and may or may not decide to adopt, or use in vitro, or some other method, and have a loving family, YOU have determined they are a different "class" of marriage? I thought this went out in the 60's, but obviously not! You sir, because you see yourself as a "Christian" believe you can determine what class of marriage people have. Well, going to church makes you no more of a Christian, then my going to the bakery makes me a donut! When to people come together, with love in their hearts, and become one, they ARE a family, and they ARE married! Let's just get the law, and the bigots to recognize it!!!
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1195
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-17-10 09:00 PM - Post#116780
In response to Joe Schirmer
Joe:
Forgive me if I am getting your position wrong.
It seems that, in order to stop gay marriage, you are advocating changing "heterosexual marriage." Creating a sub-class of "straight marriage" that is less equal than others--this is something that has never been tried to my knowledge.
Here is a question, if the above is right, must a couple sign an oath saying they intend to have kids? What if one party goes sterile? Is the marriage downgraded in status?
What if the heterosexual couple for privacy, religous, or political reasons refuse to swear an oath that they intend to have children? Does a government official then refuse to sanction the marriage?
It seems to me that there are some babies being thrown out with the bathwater in your defense of "traditional" marriage.
I do not think this line of arguement is an effective defense of "traditional marriage." Is this plan--if I have it right--something that some sector of the political spectrum is talking about?
Edited by Aolain on 08-17-10 09:05 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
pup
enthusiast
Posts: 3755
Reg: 03-29-06
|
08-17-10 09:33 PM - Post#116783
In response to Aolain
Reply to no one in particular....
If the entire gay population, men, women, whatever, all were granted a marriage license and were married tomorrow...what effect would it have on you and your spouses marriage???
Mine???
None whatsoever....I made a pledge before God and my wife, to death do us part, all the rest is just background noise, IMHO.
Two heterosexuals getting divorced because a dog that Jill or Jack didn't want crapped on the new hard wood floor is more of an affront to the "tradition of marriage" than a couple of gay people pledging their life to each other is to me....JMHO
| Pup has left the building. |
Edited by pup on 08-17-10 09:35 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2671
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
08-17-10 09:57 PM - Post#116784
In response to Joe Schirmer
I'm no historical expert but I do not believe it has ever been a legal requirement for a marriage license to prove that a couple intends to have children.
The intent was assumed since up until the advent of the pill, any couple which consummated a marriage would eventually produce children.
Now we are going backwards and rehashing discussions we had about 3 pages ago. Once again, while you are partially correct, things are not nearly as cut and dried as you would like to believe. There are plenty of examples of people marrying that were beyond child bearing years and while it may not have been common it certainly was allowed. I actually have enjoyed this discussion but it is now becoming a merry-go-round so I think I will get off.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-17-10 10:13 PM - Post#116785
In response to Aolain
Wow!! So because my wife and I are no longer having children, we have a different "class" of marriage? Because my Grandfather remarried at the age of 75, he had a different "class" of marriage? And because 2 people, who love each other, get married, and may or may not decide to adopt, or use in vitro, or some other method, and have a loving family, YOU have determined they are a different "class" of marriage? I thought this went out in the 60's, but obviously not! You sir, because you see yourself as a "Christian" believe you can determine what class of marriage people have. Well, going to church makes you no more of a Christian, then my going to the bakery makes me a donut! When to people come together, with love in their hearts, and become one, they ARE a family, and they ARE married! Let's just get the law, and the bigots to recognize it!!!
First of all, I did not say there are different "classes" of marriage.
Second, I know nothing about you or your grandfather and I will not speculate what kinds of relationships any of you have.
Third, I never said anything about Christianity or any religion. I base my entire argument the way human society has naturally developed into family groupings based upon a couple who form a bond to raise and nurture that family. As civilization developed this bond was recognized and encouraged by civil society because of the benefits that relationship brought to society. This civilly recognized bond is what we now call marriage.
Fourth, please do not resort to name calling in this forum.
Joe:
Forgive me if I am getting your position wrong.
It seems that, in order to stop gay marriage, you are advocating changing "heterosexual marriage." Creating a sub-class of "straight marriage" that is less equal than others--this is something that has never been tried to my knowledge.
You are wrong. I am not advocating changing marriage (the term "heterosexual marriage" is redundant), it is the same sex advocates who are trying to changing marriage. Marriage has consistently been used in human civilization throughout the world for thousands of years as the civil relationship of couples who wish to start a new family. Those people who wish to do something else should do something else and not try and change the definition of marriage for their own ends.
Forcing a changing to a social norm in order to make one group of people happy is a mistake, and in my opinion will not benefit anyone in the long run.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1325
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
08-17-10 10:16 PM - Post#116786
In response to sco
I'm no historical expert but I do not believe it has ever been a legal requirement for a marriage license to prove that a couple intends to have children.
The intent was assumed since up until the advent of the pill, any couple which consummated a marriage would eventually produce children.
Now we are going backwards and rehashing discussions we had about 3 pages ago. Once again, while you are partially correct, things are not nearly as cut and dried as you would like to believe. There are plenty of examples of people marrying that were beyond child bearing years and while it may not have been common it certainly was allowed. I actually have enjoyed this discussion but it is now becoming a merry-go-round so I think I will get off.
I apologize that I do not have as much time to spend on this forum as everyone else. I responded to your comment as soon as I saw it, even though it was "3 pages ago".
|
vm7mm
enthusiast
Posts: 1384
Loc: Allen Tx usa
Reg: 08-12-04
|
08-17-10 10:16 PM - Post#116787
In response to sco
To many scenarios, just read the Bible.
|
sco
enthusiast
Posts: 2671
Loc: allen,TX USA
Reg: 10-26-02
|
08-18-10 09:23 AM - Post#116800
In response to Joe Schirmer
I probably didn't make myself clear as you completely misinterpreted my post. I was referring to the discussion we had several days ago when we had a discussion about history and whether there were examples of marriages in the past without the expectation or even possibility of producing children. Our historical expert agrees that while not the norm there were plenty of examples of marriages between people beyond child bearing years. That fact does not fit your nice tidy definition but it is a fact none the less. Now I really am getting of this merry-go-round as it is becoming quite repetitive.
|
RageAgainst
member
Posts: 51
Reg: 06-10-10
|
08-18-10 11:41 AM - Post#116813
In response to sco
Fourth, please do not resort to name calling in this forum.
Getting a little bit sensitive, are we? He never called anyone any names. He said "Let's just get the law, and the bigots to recognize it!!!"
Why do you assume it was YOU he was referring to? Have you said anything bigoted in your estimation? It appears to me somebody thinks that they themselves ARE a bigot, and are afraid of being exposed.
"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"
- John Lennon, "Imagine" |
|
Aolain
enthusiast
Posts: 1195
Reg: 11-13-06
|
08-18-10 12:31 PM - Post#116822
In response to pup
Hmmm
Pup, Maurice, and I are agreeing....
Somethin' just aint right.
|
|
