Redefining marriage

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by This_person

I find "homos" to be a deragatory term, and would appreciate you not using it.

Yeah. That's not going to work.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

They have the same recognitions, preferences, and benefits awarded to them for the same types of unions. Nothing stops a homosexual woman nor homosexual man from marrying someone of the opposite gender, who is willing, of sufficient age, and not too closely related already. Should they choose to enter into that union, they receive the same government recognition/expectations/benefits as a heterosexual entering into marriage.

Found it, thought i lost this link

Link

Recently, Ted Olson and I brought a lawsuit asking the courts to now declare unconstitutional California's Proposition 8 limitation of marriage to people of the opposite sex. We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens.

Notice it doesnt require a Sexual preference litmus test, if your a Citizen you are awarded the recognition for rights. Protection you remove when you do not afford benefits and recognition equally. Similiar is not equal, give Homo's an equal institution then you can make your argument

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it. In 1978 the Court (8 to 1, Zablocki v. Redhail) overturned as unconstitutional a Wisconsin law preventing child-support scofflaws from getting married. The Court emphasized, "decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals." In 1987 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional a Missouri law preventing imprisoned felons from marrying.

Unlike your "solution" the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter, why hasnt it been applied to the Sam Sex marriage discussion?

There were legitimate state policies that supported the Wisconsin and Missouri restrictions held unconstitutional. By contrast, there is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love

The supposed argument is the Benefit Marriage brings to society expanding Marriage, as it has been redefined in the past, only aids in more benefits to society.

Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution

Two points for the above:

1. Same Sex marriage has occurred in the US and abroad, without any harm to Society. Harm to society would be the only justification for the Government to prohibit same sex marriage, it hasnt occurred.
2. It does not matter the percentage of Homo's vs Hetero's (does that offend you too?), this is a fundamental issue of equal rights. 2 wolves and a sheep discussing dinner, doesnt make it fair for the sheep.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

So you dont want Homo's (its not derogatory, its lazy i dont feel like spelling out Homosexual) to use the term Marriage, because the definition, that it is currently defined as, doesnt cover same sex?

"currently defined"?

Can you show me a time in western culture that it did not include members of the opposite sex?

Legal marriage has evolved to grant women equal status to men, to allow for contraception, and to allow interracial couples to wed. Gay couples want legal marriage to extend definition like it has in the past to include couples regardless of gender.

"Marriage" has nothing to do with equality of the genders, races, contraception, etc.

Again, two people who do not like one another can be married for convenience - provided they are old enough, willing, not too closely related already, and of the opposite gender. Legal status of marriage has nothing to do with anything else, including sexual orientation. Liza Menelli's marriage was as legal as yours to your wife or mine to my wife.

The problem with including same gender under the umbrella of "marriage" is exactly what you said - it expands the definition. That is to say, it changes the definition. There is absolutely no reason to do that. A white man married to a black woman, a cuckholded husband with a shrew of a wife, etc., are still men and women together. Expanding that to include same gendered unions is pointless except to <1% of people who might take advantage of it for the intended reasons. Beyond that, I suspect real-life versions of the Denny Crane/Allen Shore coupling on Boston Legal to be the majority of same-gendered unions.

As that apple is not an orange, but still a fruit, it is appropriate to call it a fruit and give it its due as a fruit. But to call that apple an orange dilutes and makes inaccurate the meaning of both apple and orange.

[ImnoMensa]

Arguing with these people is a waste of time.

Vote out any politician that helps gays call marriage among two of them anything but a joke.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Notice it doesnt require a Sexual preference litmus test, if your a Citizen you are awarded the recognition for rights. Protection you remove when you do not afford benefits and recognition equally. Similiar is not equal, give Homo's an equal institution then you can make your argument

I agree that marriage does not require a sexual preference litmus test.

You must merely be:

• Of consenting age for the state you live in
• Not too closely related already
• Willing
• Be of opposite genders

Unlike your "solution" the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter, why hasnt it been applied to the Sam Sex marriage discussion?

I don't understand - who is telling whom they have to marry someone they don't love? Who is telling whom that a given person's relationship has a direct effect on any other given person's relationship?

The supposed argument is the Benefit Marriage brings to society expanding Marriage, as it has been redefined in the past, only aids in more benefits to society.

Where is the link to the objective study that isolated conditions before and after same gendered unions to study the "happiness" of the people as effected by the change?

Without it, it's really just someone's gut feel, made up information that's meaningless.

Two points for the above:

1. Same Sex marriage has occurred in the US and abroad, without any harm to Society. Harm to society would be the only justification for the Government to prohibit same sex marriage, it hasnt occurred.
2. It does not matter the percentage of Homo's vs Hetero's (does that offend you too?), this is a fundamental issue of equal rights. 2 wolves and a sheep discussing dinner, doesnt make it fair for the sheep.

Again, where is the objective study for your claim of no harm to society? Are you assuming, making it up, or just not providing?

"Heteros" has not, to the best of my knowledge, been used as a derogatory term, so no, that does not offend me.

I don't know who's suggesting consuming someone based on their sexual orientation. Kind of a silly, pointless comparison.

The point here is whether it is appropriate to "expand" (change) the definition of marriage. I've seen no compelling reason to do that.

I've seen objective, reasonable studies that suggest there is a substantial difference in how homosexuals and heterosexuals view the importance of committed relationships. I see at least as huge a potential for abuse of the change (see previous post regarding Crane/Shore) as people abuse opposite gendered marriage (taxes, immigration, etc.).

Since the process exists to provide these apples with a situation that recognizes them as apples and not oranges, what is the compelling reason to lump apples and oranges together?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Toxick

Yeah. That's not going to work.

I accept his answer that he's merely doing it as shorthand, not in a derogatory fashion.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by This_person

I accept his answer that he's merely doing it as shorthand, not in a derogatory fashion.

I didn't say he was using it in a derogatory fashion, and whether you accept his shorthand reasoning makes no nevermind to me... I'm merely pointing out that asking him to stop saying something that bothers you is a waste of time.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Toxick

I didn't say he was using it in a derogatory fashion, and whether you accept his shorthand reasoning makes no nevermind to me... I'm merely pointing out that asking him to stop saying something that bothers you is a waste of time.

I see.

On that we can agree 100%.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

"currently defined"?

Can you show me a time in western culture that it did not include members of the opposite sex?

I used currently defined, because the definition of Marriage has changed. In recent Western Culture it was defined as the Same Race. but carry on

Originally Posted by This_person

"Marriage" has nothing to do with equality of the genders, races, contraception, etc.

Marriage as it is currently defined does not, but you show your ignorance of the evolution of the definition of Marriage. (And the reason why i use Currently defined)

You might want to look up Loving v. Virginia, the term chattel before you try using the above again (just a thought).

Marriage, in recent Western Culture, used to be defined as between man and woman of the Same Race.

Marriage, in recent Western Culture, used to define a woman as the chattel to her husband

Marriage, in recent Western Culture, used to prohibit any form of contraception. In the radical 60's the Pope redefined marriage to allow it.

Originally Posted by This_person

Again, two people who do not like one another can be married for convenience - provided they are old enough, willing, not too closely related already, and of the opposite gender. Legal status of marriage has nothing to do with anything else, including sexual orientation. Liza Menelli's marriage was as legal as yours to your wife or mine to my wife.

You do realize what it is your advocating? You dont want Gays to marry the ones they love, because your fear that it will weaken marriage. If they want to marry, they can enter into a sham union. But at least it wont be a Gay marriage.

Originally Posted by This_person

The problem with including same gender under the umbrella of "marriage" is exactly what you said - it expands the definition. That is to say, it changes the definition. There is absolutely no reason to do that. A white man married to a black woman, a cuckholded husband with a shrew of a wife, etc., are still men and women together.

One of those was legally defined and prohibited. Until the definition was chagned. The definition of marriage has evolved through out recent history, there was reason to do it in the past, there is no reason not to do it now.

Originally Posted by This_person

Expanding that to include same gendered unions is pointless except to <1% of people who might take advantage of it for the intended reasons. Beyond that, I suspect real-life versions of the Denny Crane/Allen Shore coupling on Boston Legal to be the majority of same-gendered unions.

We dont have a system of the larger overriding the smaller. Our system is equal recognition for all.

Originally Posted by This_person

As that apple is not an orange, but still a fruit, it is appropriate to call it a fruit and give it its due as a fruit. But to call that apple an orange dilutes and makes inaccurate the meaning of both apple and orange.

Right because it doesnt weaken Marriage by advocating sham marriages.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

I see.

On that we can agree 100%.

Right because you've shown yourself to be above anything like that