This_person
Well-Known Member
How does either one negatively impact you personally, if not performed on you?
Maryland recognises same sex marriages?
- Thread starter ImnoMensa
- Start date
How does either one negatively impact you personally, if not performed on you?
mAlice
professional daydreamer
Still doesn't explain how it impacts you personally. It's still an opinion, not a fact.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Read the last bullet, that's how it negatively impacts society, in my opinion (I thought it was fully appreciated that we're all just offering opinion here, since there is no definative answer).
But, it is fact that it would dilute the meaning of the word marriage. This is why I, personally, am in favor of civil unions, or some other name being provided. Two men, two women, five people of varying genders.... I don't really care. If they need state recognition of their commitment to one another, and the state regulation and interference and responsibility that comes with that - bully for them. I don't call a motorcycle a semi, so I don't give a motorcyclist a Class A commercial driver's licence (and vice versa). That doesn't mean one cannot drive a motorcycle, one must simply get the license that fits the criteria they bring to the table.
mAlice
professional daydreamer
I did read it, and by your own admission, it's still "your opinion".
I don't care one way or another, because it has absolutely no impact on me personally. Until someone can come up with a an argument that shows how it impacts me personally, I'll sit on the fence.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Again, how does someone three counties away being raped negatively impact you personally? Are you on the fence with rape law?
Chasey_Lane
Salt Life
What's your definition of marriage? Would you agree your view wouldn't necessarily be the same as mine - or someone else?
bcp
In My Opinion
For consideration I will share a Supreme Court decision in Reynolds vs the U.S that ruled on polygamy in the late 1800s during a case against multiple wives based on religious values.
you can search and read the whole thing if your are beyond bored.
before I place the clip in here, I will say this. I'm tired of the fight. If they want to get married and play house for all legal intent/benefits, let them. However, because the state and Federal government recognize such unions as legal binding, does not force me to recognize two men, or two women as a legitimate marriage.
In Reynolds VS the Supreme Ct, it was by the court determined that religious law could not supersede federal law, religion had to comply with the law of the land. To a great extent this was a good finding.
The Supreme Court however did rule on the grounds that allowing polygamy would be changing long standing and accepted practice by civilization as a whole.
The cultural values argument could be applied the same way concerning gay marriage as it was during the polygamy argument.
If Gay marriage would be accepted as a norm, would that then based on the Cultural Values argument used to restrict polygamy, make it possible to then make polygamy accepted based on the same ruling.
Either way, I don't really care, personally I cant imagine coming home to 5 or 6 honey do lists, but if thats what someone wants, more power to them.
In short, allow gay marriage, and we MUST then accept that all marriages that are in essences no threat to society now become legal.
Change that ruling, Let the all marry and the best of luck to them.
you can search and read the whole thing if your are beyond bored.
before I place the clip in here, I will say this. I'm tired of the fight. If they want to get married and play house for all legal intent/benefits, let them. However, because the state and Federal government recognize such unions as legal binding, does not force me to recognize two men, or two women as a legitimate marriage.
In Reynolds VS the Supreme Ct, it was by the court determined that religious law could not supersede federal law, religion had to comply with the law of the land. To a great extent this was a good finding.
The Supreme Court however did rule on the grounds that allowing polygamy would be changing long standing and accepted practice by civilization as a whole.
</H2> As indicated, the ruling was based on the fact that American Cultural Values would be in question should the act be allowed. Cultural Values won out over religious values in this case.
The cultural values argument could be applied the same way concerning gay marriage as it was during the polygamy argument.
If Gay marriage would be accepted as a norm, would that then based on the Cultural Values argument used to restrict polygamy, make it possible to then make polygamy accepted based on the same ruling.
Either way, I don't really care, personally I cant imagine coming home to 5 or 6 honey do lists, but if thats what someone wants, more power to them.
In short, allow gay marriage, and we MUST then accept that all marriages that are in essences no threat to society now become legal.
Change that ruling, Let the all marry and the best of luck to them.
This_person
Well-Known Member
"Marriage", in reference to a relationship status, is one consenting, of age male, with one consenting, of age female, who are not too closely already related in some other fashion.
Yes, I would agree we could have differing views, but one of these views has been held in western society for hundreds if not thousands of years, and any other has not.
Chasey_Lane
Salt Life
Thousands of years ago we didn't have computers or cell phones or vehicles. Thousands of years ago women were treated inferior to men. WE have changed through the years. Are you going to adapt or are you going to remain idle? :shrug:
mAlice
professional daydreamer
Please refer to my last response to this question.
Toxick
Splat
Dude, come on. This is a poor argument, and it has been from the beginning. Comparing rape to same sex marriage is comparing apples and oranges.
Rape is a crime and it is the active violation of one human being by another, and a heinous attack on their person.
In same-sex marriage there is no violation, and there is no crime. It's two consenting adults who want to enter into a relationship based on affection, sex and companionship.
Nobody is being violated, and no crime is being committed.
I'd say that's a huge goddam difference, and makes your comparison invalid.
So unless gay marriage has a negative impact on those not involved (which it does NOT), then this continued ban on it is nothing more than 'might is right' oppression.
This_person is a freaking retard. He is actually comparing the rape of an innocent with two consensual adults getting married. WTF!!!
even in analogy it is retarded
mAlice
professional daydreamer
mar·ry 1 (mr)
v. mar·ried, mar·ry·ing, mar·ries
v.tr.
1.
a. To join in marriage: They have been married for 25 years.
b. To take as a spouse: She married him two years ago.
c. To give in marriage.
2. To perform a marriage ceremony for: The rabbi married the couple.
3. To obtain by marriage: marry money.
4. Nautical To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands.
5. To unite in a close, usually permanent way: "His material marries the domestic and the exotic" (Clifton Fadiman).
v.intr.
*1. To take a husband or wife; wed: They married in their twenties.
2. To combine or blend agreeably: Let the flavors marry overnight.
* Does not null and void the other definitions.
v. mar·ried, mar·ry·ing, mar·ries
v.tr.
1.
a. To join in marriage: They have been married for 25 years.
b. To take as a spouse: She married him two years ago.
c. To give in marriage.
2. To perform a marriage ceremony for: The rabbi married the couple.
3. To obtain by marriage: marry money.
4. Nautical To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands.
5. To unite in a close, usually permanent way: "His material marries the domestic and the exotic" (Clifton Fadiman).
v.intr.
*1. To take a husband or wife; wed: They married in their twenties.
2. To combine or blend agreeably: Let the flavors marry overnight.
* Does not null and void the other definitions.
Chasey_Lane
Salt Life
Prior to 1976, marital rape was legal in the US.
mAlice
professional daydreamer
and according to the bible, many things that are illegal today, once were not only acceptable, but encouraged.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I have a cell phone, and a few vehicles. However, I'm not sure how technological advances applies here.
I do not in any way find women inferior to men, simply different.
In terms of adapting to changing family structures, I'm willing to do that. As I said, I'm for civil unions. But, I'm not for changing what a parent is, or a husband or a wife is, or a grandmother or a cousin is, just because we have cars now. There are certain things that remain the same, consistent, throughout all of time.
I do not feel it is proper to deny someone the right to receive state recognition of their commitment to each other, or their group, or whatever. But, I equally feel it improper to call a club a spade - I call spades spades. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that same-gendered unions are inherently different, psychologically, to opposite gendered unions. When society finds a benefit of that different union that is equal to the benefits historically considered from opposite gendered unions, then they should recieve appropriate benefits in return. I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages". Those benefits may exist, or they may not. There is simply no reason to assume they exist at this time, though.
Chasey_Lane
Salt Life
If you want to compare rape to marriage, I'll surely compare a lady bug to a garage door. Your opinion of marriage means nothing, just as mine doesn't mean anything.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You talked about choice vs. non choice. This has nothing to do with whether or not it effects you personally.
If you are not raped, why is it a problem? If the only reason to have an opinion on something is if it effects you personally, why is rape against anyone else a problem for you?