NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Idk, women are similar but different from men. Give me a reason to treat two similar things as equivalent. :shrug:

In what way?

For example, I would not offer maternity leave to a man, but I would to a woman. However, I would pay them each the same for the same work.

So, I guess I treat them the same where the similarities exist, different where they end.

I guess I'm just consistent that way.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Show me a study that shows interracial marriages, inter-religious marriages, women getting to choose marriages...are beneficial to society. Otherwise, we need to go back to THOSE definitions of marriage, since they're old and have a long tradition. Again: :shrug:

Ah, the problem there is that using race or religion would be discriminatory, just like using sexual orientation would be.

Now, can you show me since the Constitution was ratified a state that forced, by law, a woman to marry someone she did not choose to marry? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[UNA]

No, truth is truth regardless of how many people see it.

Actually...no. "Truths" or FACTS as we call them in the political and/or scientific world (I assume they're interchangeable for you?) need to stand up to peer review.

I still have never once claimed same-sex marriages are a detriment to society.

It's good to see you recognize traditional marriage is a benefit. So, now we are on the same page: the thing that gets benefits now is demonstratably a benefit to society. The similar but different thing does not show that same benefit, and therefore does not get that same benefit as a result.

Not all rights had to demonstrate an explicit benefit to society other than that equality and liberty benefit society in their own right.

See how easy facts are?

Don't be a d1ck

Again, I'm suggesting how an intelligent, reasoned, responsible manner it should work. If there is something that benefits society (say, a charitable organization, or the institution of marriage) it gets treated appropriately. If something has not shown that benefit, it doesn't not get treated as if it does. If something is actually a detriment to society, it should be regulated and/or outlawed.

Now, I've never once suggested outlawing same-sex relationships. In fact, I've said they do and should exist!

So, since they exist, and other nations and some states have already modified the dictionary to include that which is not a part of the definition of marriage into becoming marriage, there should be studies out there that show there's a benefit, detriment, or neutral effect on society. Show me a reasonable study that demonstrates the result is beneficial, not detrimental nor neutral, and we're on the same side of the discussion.

This is what I've been saying from my first post.

You said it right there! The institution of marriage is beneficial to society, you didn't specify!

I've stated my actual response to this "argument" many times to you already...I'm not restating it.

 

[UNA]

In what way?

For example, I would not offer maternity leave to a man, but I would to a woman. However, I would pay them each the same for the same work.

So, I guess I treat them the same where the similarities exist, different where they end.

I guess I'm just consistent that way.

Why do YOU think people generally get married?

Where similarities exist

The only difference between most heterosexual marriages and same sex marriage (I'm sorry, I can't frg stand to read your distraction-tactics anymore) is the ability to procreate. Since that difference already exists within heterosexual marriages it really shouldn't count. So we're left with the similarity; choosing to spend the rest of your life (ideally) with the adult of your choice. Why should it matter what gender that person is? If govt's are going to give special benefits to one situation they need to do it for both because they are indeed similar and should be treated equally, like other similar things. Otherwise, no benefits for anyone. :shrug:

 

[UNA]

Ah, the problem there is that using race or religion would be discriminatory, just like using sexual orientation would be.

I might accept your argument that restricting marriage based on race would be more discriminatory...but how would a restriction based on religion be worse than the restrictions on gender? What would the difference be if a govt decided Christians HAD to marry Christians, Jews to Jews, Muslims to Muslims, agnostic to agnostic, atheist to atheist........?

Now, can you show me since the Constitution was ratified a state that forced, by law, a woman to marry someone she did not choose to marry? Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

No, but it wasn't explicitly outlawed and I don't think it currently is. In many states, a parent can sign for a minor girl to marry an old man no matter what the girl chooses. IDK about you, but I don't think the apparent protection this situation has is at ALL beneficial to society :shrug:

 

[bcp]

. In many states, a parent can sign for a minor girl to marry an old man no matter what the girl chooses.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

. In many states, a parent can sign for a minor girl to marry an old man no matter what the girl chooses.

Are you really saying that NEVER happens today??! Seriously!!?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Parental consent is needed if under 18 years of age. If you are between 16-18 years of age, one of your parents or guardian must be with you and provide written consent. If you are under 16 years of age, you will need both the written consent of your custodial parent or guardian and the written approval of a judge of the Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas.

Maryland marriage law WRT age. Where does it say the minor child must be asked? That the parents must prove consent of the child?

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



Are you really saying that NEVER happens today??! Seriously!!?

Since that is the case, it should be very easy for you to link to some examples of parents forcing a minor (under 18) child to marry and old (define old) man.
I wont take the freaks in Utah? that end up in jail for having 40 wives, half that are only 13. (that is still illegal and they do end up in jail when caught)

When searching, dont forget the original statement

In many states, a parent can sign for a minor girl to marry an old man no matter what the girl chooses

Pay attention to the "In many States" and "no matter what the girl chooses" parts of your statement.

or, you can just admit that its

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Are you really saying that NEVER happens today??! Seriously!!?

Since that is the case, it should be very easy for you to link to some examples of parents forcing a minor (under 18) child to marry and old (define old) man.
I wont take the freaks in Utah? that end up in jail for having 40 wives, half that are only 13. (that is still illegal and they do end up in jail when caught)

When searching, dont forget the original statement

In many states, a parent can sign for a minor girl to marry an old man no matter what the girl chooses

Pay attention to the "In many States" and "no matter what the girl chooses" parts of your statement.

or, you can just admit that its

Google "marriage of a minor", second result. A list of state marriage regulations WRT age. Many states allow a child to marry if the parents approve. This is a fact. I didn't see in any of the state summaries on this site where the parties involved had to somehow verify the child actually wanted to marry. If you can find a site where this IS notes then by all means post a link. I made a statement about the law, that's all. But there is good news, the tides are indeed turning WRT this particular issue.

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



Google "marriage of a minor", second result. A list of state marriage regulations WRT age. Many states allow a child to marry if the parents approve. This is a fact. I didn't see in any of the state summaries on this site where the parties involved had to somehow verify the child actually wanted to marry. If you can find a site where this IS notes then by all means post a link. I made a statement about the law, that's all. But there is good news, the tides are indeed turning WRT this particular issue.

allowing a child to marry with parental consent, is much different that forcing a child to marry because the parents want it that way.
and, regardless of what the parents say, if it is discovered that the child is going to marry and old man there are laws in place to stop that regardless of what the parents want.

Is it not possible for you to admit that you made something up and hoped it would be taken as fact?

Now, Prove that children can be forced to marry old men even if they dont want to.
You said, you prove it, or you admit you lied.

 

[This_person]

Actually...no. "Truths" or FACTS as we call them in the political and/or scientific world (I assume they're interchangeable for you?) need to stand up to peer review.

No, facts are facts, truth is truth, regardless of whether people accept it or not.

As best I can tell, we agree that traditional marriage benefits society based on peer reviewed scientific research. just waiting on the same for same-sex relationships.

Not all rights had to demonstrate an explicit benefit to society other than that equality and liberty benefit society in their own right.

And, no right is being denied. Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, religious preference, race, etc., may have a marriage recognized. Just gotta meet what "marriage" is. (and ask)

You said it right there! The institution of marriage is beneficial to society, you didn't specify!

I don't have to specify. "Marriage" has been clearly defined for centuries. I didn't define "beneficial" or "society", either, because these words are an integral part of our language with one meaning per context.

I've stated my actual response to this "argument" many times to you already...I'm not restating it.

Yes, the studies don't exist that support the position of treating a different but simillar thing as equal.

 

[This_person]

Why do YOU think people generally get married?

I find this a distracting question: Where in the law does a reason to marry exist? Since it doesn't, what is the point in discussing reasons?

The only difference between most heterosexual marriages and same sex marriage (I'm sorry, I can't frg stand to read your distraction-tactics anymore) is the ability to procreate.

Everything you said after this is moot because this is, on its face, totally inaccurate.

The main difference between traditional marriage and same-sex relationships is that one is between two people of the opposite sex and one is between two people of the same sex.

:shrug: Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[This_person]

I might accept your argument that restricting marriage based on race would be more discriminatory...but how would a restriction based on religion be worse than the restrictions on gender? What would the difference be if a govt decided Christians HAD to marry Christians, Jews to Jews, Muslims to Muslims, agnostic to agnostic, atheist to atheist........?

Because that would be singling out a factor (religion) to discriminate against. For example, is Muslims could only marry muslims, legally, then there would have to be a religious discriminating factor.

By saying two people of the opposite sex, there is no discriminating factor (except, of course, for age, willingness, not too closely related to each other already, and the number of people involved). This has been the American definition of "marriage" for legal recognition since the inception of the nation. Since there has been no factor raised that is based on reason and not emotion to change this, there is no reason to change this.

For, if you want to change one of them arbitrarily, you must allow for ALL of them to be allowed to change.

No, but it wasn't explicitly outlawed and I don't think it currently is. In many states, a parent can sign for a minor girl to marry an old man no matter what the girl chooses. IDK about you, but I don't think the apparent protection this situation has is at ALL beneficial to society :shrug:

You're speaking of quite a hypothetical - is there an explicit outlaw for women who wish to force men? I mean, the people involved do need to pledge an oathe to one another, and sign the form ASKING to be married. It's not like the law grabs people off the street and forces them to have their marriage recognized.

No, being willing to marry is clearly a defining factor.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Google "marriage of a minor", second result. A list of state marriage regulations WRT age. Many states allow a child to marry if the parents approve. This is a fact. I didn't see in any of the state summaries on this site where the parties involved had to somehow verify the child actually wanted to marry. If you can find a site where this IS notes then by all means post a link. I made a statement about the law, that's all. But there is good news, the tides are indeed turning WRT this particular issue.

allowing a child to marry with parental consent, is much different that forcing a child to marry because the parents want it that way.
and, regardless of what the parents say, if it is discovered that the child is going to marry and old man there are laws in place to stop that regardless of what the parents want.

Is it not possible for you to admit that you made something up and hoped it would be taken as fact?

Now, Prove that children can be forced to marry old men even if they dont want to.
You said, you prove it, or you admit you lied.

No, read what I just said ^

Take it for what it says, NOT what you think I meant.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Actually...no. "Truths" or FACTS as we call them in the political and/or scientific world (I assume they're interchangeable for you?) need to stand up to peer review.

No, facts are facts, truth is truth, regardless of whether people accept it or not.

As best I can tell, we agree that traditional marriage benefits society based on peer reviewed scientific research. just waiting on the same for same-sex relationships.

Not all rights had to demonstrate an explicit benefit to society other than that equality and liberty benefit society in their own right.

And, no right is being denied. Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, religious preference, race, etc., may have a marriage recognized. Just gotta meet what "marriage" is. (and ask)

You said it right there! The institution of marriage is beneficial to society, you didn't specify!

I don't have to specify. "Marriage" has been clearly defined for centuries. I didn't define "beneficial" or "society", either, because these words are an integral part of our language with one meaning per context.

I've stated my actual response to this "argument" many times to you already...I'm not restating it.

Yes, the studies don't exist that support the position of treating a different but simillar thing as equal.

Studies don't exist for treating ALOT of " different but simillar thing(s) as equal" but we do.

BTW...

Marriage:
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

...different but equal[/].

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Why do YOU think people generally get married?

I find this a distracting question: Where in the law does a reason to marry exist? Since it doesn't, what is the point in discussing reasons?

The only difference between most heterosexual marriages and same sex marriage (I'm sorry, I can't frg stand to read your distraction-tactics anymore) is the ability to procreate.

Everything you said after this is moot because this is, on its face, totally inaccurate.

The main difference between traditional marriage and same-sex relationships is that one is between two people of the opposite sex and one is between two people of the same sex.

:shrug: Why is that so hard to accept?

Not "hard to accept", just doesn't matter. What is the difference between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex relationship?

And I didn't ask why you thought people got married to distract, it is a valid question. If the answer disn't matter than people wouldn't get married in the first place and there would be no govt recognition of it.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

I might accept your argument that restricting marriage based on race would be more discriminatory...but how would a restriction based on religion be worse than the restrictions on gender? What would the difference be if a govt decided Christians HAD to marry Christians, Jews to Jews, Muslims to Muslims, agnostic to agnostic, atheist to atheist........?

Because that would be singling out a factor (religion) to discriminate against. For example, is Muslims could only marry muslims, legally, then there would have to be a religious discriminating factor.

By saying two people of the opposite sex, there is no discriminating factor (except, of course, for age, willingness, not too closely related to each other already, and the number of people involved). This has been the American definition of "marriage" for legal recognition since the inception of the nation. Since there has been no factor raised that is based on reason and not emotion to change this, there is no reason to change this.

For, if you want to change one of them arbitrarily, you must allow for ALL of them to be allowed to change.

No, but it wasn't explicitly outlawed and I don't think it currently is. In many states, a parent can sign for a minor girl to marry an old man no matter what the girl chooses. IDK about you, but I don't think the apparent protection this situation has is at ALL beneficial to society :shrug:

You're speaking of quite a hypothetical - is there an explicit outlaw for women who wish to force men? I mean, the people involved do need to pledge an oathe to one another, and sign the form ASKING to be married. It's not like the law grabs people off the street and forces them to have their marriage recognized.

No, being willing to marry is clearly a defining factor.

It is, but show me a 14 year old who has the maturity to make that decision...

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



No, read what I just said ^

Take it for what it says, NOT what you think I meant.

I don't really care about your attempt at backpedaling with what you just said.
I asked one simple thing.

show me any state that allows a parent to marry off their young child to an old man.
its what you said, so back it up or admit that you lied.

Do that, then maybe we can address your next false statement.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

No, read what I just said ^

Take it for what it says, NOT what you think I meant.

I don't really care about your attempt at backpedaling with what you just said.
I asked one simple thing.

show me any state that allows a parent to marry off their young child to an old man.
its what you said, so back it up or admit that you lied.

Do that, then maybe we can address your next false statement.

Don't think your actually reading what I said

Parents can sign for their minor children to marry; yes? Said parents do not need to PROVE the child actually wants to marry; yes?

I don't see your issue here...are those above statements false? If they are then please show me the err of my ways.:shrug: