Unknown2005-11-10 22:37:28
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 10 2005, 05:30 PM)
Because there is no difference between a black man or a white man.
Whereever the concept of a single male would be discussed in the issue of marriage it would have to be legal for any male no matter what.
And polygamy is not a seperate issue from gay marriage. You wish to change the definition of marriage, yet will descriminate against the other 4 groups of people who are not allowed to get married and say that they don't count.
Tell me the difference.
Whereever the concept of a single male would be discussed in the issue of marriage it would have to be legal for any male no matter what.
And polygamy is not a seperate issue from gay marriage. You wish to change the definition of marriage, yet will descriminate against the other 4 groups of people who are not allowed to get married and say that they don't count.
Tell me the difference.
221095
There are several differences between a black man and a white man. Indeed, black men are more prone to certain diseases. I just woke up, else I'd go more into this. There are differences, no matter how small, on a genetic level!
Unknown2005-11-10 22:38:59
Also! Since Daganev is using what once was prevailant beliefs to argue his point, so will I.
White and Blacks shouldn't marry - Blacks aren't human. They're animals.
See? It's easy. Making an ass out of yourself, I mean.
Again - do stand up.
White and Blacks shouldn't marry - Blacks aren't human. They're animals.
See? It's easy. Making an ass out of yourself, I mean.
Again - do stand up.
Unknown2005-11-10 22:39:03
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 11 2005, 09:30 AM)
Because there is no difference between a black man or a white man.
Whereever the concept of a single male would be discussed in the issue of marriage it would have to be legal for any male no matter what.
And polygamy is not a seperate issue from gay marriage. You wish to change the definition of marriage, yet will descriminate against the other 4 groups of people who are not allowed to get married and say that they don't count.
Tell me the difference.
Whereever the concept of a single male would be discussed in the issue of marriage it would have to be legal for any male no matter what.
And polygamy is not a seperate issue from gay marriage. You wish to change the definition of marriage, yet will descriminate against the other 4 groups of people who are not allowed to get married and say that they don't count.
Tell me the difference.
221095
If you want to be particular about it, this legislation that keeps popping up all over the place is changing the definition of marriage. Why is that ok, yet other changes are not, just because they are alterations to the perceived status quo?
Nonetheless, these nuances and particulars you like to argue with on this issue are not really wholly relevant to the overall theory of equality and justice that the west tries to pride itself on. How do we say in one breath that America (or Australia or any other country that chooses to discriminate based on sexuality) is a place of equal opportunity, a fair go for all and that your rights and freedoms will be protected, then, in the next breath, find stale reasons to enshrine prejudice in laws that generally violate Acts and laws like a Bill of Rights?
If a whole state wants to be predjudicial that is fine, it is their choice (and I recognise that not every person supports these laws) but let go of that equality banner you like to wave around and admit that 'some are more equal than others'.
Viravain2005-11-10 22:40:56
Daganev doesn't wave that flag, I believe he is British.
Unknown2005-11-10 22:41:55
QUOTE(Viravain @ Nov 10 2005, 05:40 PM)
Daganev doesn't wave that flag, I believe he is British.
221109
I'm really sure he's a States boy. The brits legalized gay marriage, and I highly doubt many gays there would call it a bad thing.
Daganev2005-11-10 22:42:31
QUOTE(Narsrim @ Nov 10 2005, 02:31 PM)
My sociology professor argued that the point of marriage issued by the government is to grant special recognition to parties that promote society and encourage growth and development in society.
Specifically, the idea that married couples were given special rights stems from the fact that when instituted, it was primarily married couples that raised children and as such created the growth and promotion of the society. The government sought to encourage this and by doing so gave special rights to married couples as a "bonus" to what they were doing.
However in 2005, he argued that these same things can be achieved by a gay couple as much as a straight couple... just as in the 1960s, the Supreme Court concluded that an interracial marriage could meet this criteria.
=====================================================
Why can't a father marry a daughter or a brother marry a sister? To be technical, they can in some states; however, the idea here is that incest is not good for a population or society. From a population genetic view point, it increase the allele frequency of certain diseases and in turn is bad for that population. For this reason, polydactyly is so common the royal family.
Specifically, the idea that married couples were given special rights stems from the fact that when instituted, it was primarily married couples that raised children and as such created the growth and promotion of the society. The government sought to encourage this and by doing so gave special rights to married couples as a "bonus" to what they were doing.
However in 2005, he argued that these same things can be achieved by a gay couple as much as a straight couple... just as in the 1960s, the Supreme Court concluded that an interracial marriage could meet this criteria.
=====================================================
Why can't a father marry a daughter or a brother marry a sister? To be technical, they can in some states; however, the idea here is that incest is not good for a population or society. From a population genetic view point, it increase the allele frequency of certain diseases and in turn is bad for that population. For this reason, polydactyly is so common the royal family.
221097
If this is true then why don't single mothers or single fathers get these "bonuses"? It would be very beneficial for a single mother to be able to combine resources with cousins or other people.
Groups of people can raise a child much better than just two people, however I don't see Monestaries getting bonsues for raising children left at their doors in baskets.
Anyways, my basic argument is this. People wish to change the meaning of the word Marriage for one group of poeple, but not for all groups of people. At the same time they wish to label anyone who is against this change as an "oppressive biggot" and claim that anyone who has further suggestions to change marriage are "crazy" or are just "way out there" with giving no reason that can not be used against their own desire for change.
If you want to change marriage, make it apply to all and any combinations of people. It should not be an issue of "gay-marriage" it should be an issue of "marriage"
Unknown2005-11-10 22:43:49
QUOTE(Viravain @ Nov 11 2005, 09:40 AM)
Daganev doesn't wave that flag, I believe he is British.
221109
I did not mean Daganev in particular.
Daganev2005-11-10 22:44:31
QUOTE(Viravain @ Nov 10 2005, 02:40 PM)
Daganev doesn't wave that flag, I believe he is British.
221109
Or Maybe I'm just Israeli.
Viravain2005-11-10 22:48:35
QUOTE(Quidgyboo @ Nov 10 2005, 05:43 PM)
I did not mean Daganev in particular.
221113
I did. Wherever it is he lives!
Nyla2005-11-10 22:50:09
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 10 2005, 05:42 PM)
If this is true then why don't single mothers or single fathers get these "bonuses"? It would be very beneficial for a single mother to be able to combine resources with cousins or other people.
Groups of people can raise a child much better than just two people, however I don't see Monestaries getting bonsues for raising children left at their doors in baskets.
Anyways, my basic argument is this. People wish to change the meaning of the word Marriage for one group of poeple, but not for all groups of people. At the same time they wish to label anyone who is against this change as an "oppressive biggot" and claim that anyone who has further suggestions to change marriage are "crazy" or are just "way out there" with giving no reason that can not be used against their own desire for change.
If you want to change marriage, make it apply to all and any combinations of people. It should not be an issue of "gay-marriage" it should be an issue of "marriage"
Groups of people can raise a child much better than just two people, however I don't see Monestaries getting bonsues for raising children left at their doors in baskets.
Anyways, my basic argument is this. People wish to change the meaning of the word Marriage for one group of poeple, but not for all groups of people. At the same time they wish to label anyone who is against this change as an "oppressive biggot" and claim that anyone who has further suggestions to change marriage are "crazy" or are just "way out there" with giving no reason that can not be used against their own desire for change.
If you want to change marriage, make it apply to all and any combinations of people. It should not be an issue of "gay-marriage" it should be an issue of "marriage"
221112
Single mothers and fathers do get bonuses... called child support as well as tax breaks and money that the other parent does not recieve.
As far changing the definition of marriage, people are selfish we think about ourselves. When black people wanted equal rights it wasnt about equal rights for everyone. It was for black people. (Please let that have made sense)
Narsrim2005-11-10 22:50:14
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 10 2005, 06:42 PM)
If this is true then why don't single mothers or single fathers get these "bonuses"? It would be very beneficial for a single mother to be able to combine resources with cousins or other people.
Groups of people can raise a child much better than just two people, however I don't see Monestaries getting bonsues for raising children left at their doors in baskets.
Anyways, my basic argument is this. People wish to change the meaning of the word Marriage for one group of poeple, but not for all groups of people. At the same time they wish to label anyone who is against this change as an "oppressive biggot" and claim that anyone who has further suggestions to change marriage are "crazy" or are just "way out there" with giving no reason that can not be used against their own desire for change.
If you want to change marriage, make it apply to all and any combinations of people. It should not be an issue of "gay-marriage" it should be an issue of "marriage"
Groups of people can raise a child much better than just two people, however I don't see Monestaries getting bonsues for raising children left at their doors in baskets.
Anyways, my basic argument is this. People wish to change the meaning of the word Marriage for one group of poeple, but not for all groups of people. At the same time they wish to label anyone who is against this change as an "oppressive biggot" and claim that anyone who has further suggestions to change marriage are "crazy" or are just "way out there" with giving no reason that can not be used against their own desire for change.
If you want to change marriage, make it apply to all and any combinations of people. It should not be an issue of "gay-marriage" it should be an issue of "marriage"
221112
Are you trying to imply that the government is always logical? I mean, why not just give the benefits to everyone? That way... everyone gains! But alas, no. There was a line that had to be drawn and it was on the notion that the primary house hold at the time (bear in mind, these laws are ancient) consisted of a mother, father, and children. The idea of a "single mom" who worked 2 jobs just wasn't there.
And I disagree. If there was any proof that gay-marriages "hurt" society or even the gene pool, it would be different. There is no "harm" to our society by promoting gay marriages and giving it the same rights as a straight marriage. There is no scientific data that accurately shows that gay parents, for example, raise children "less effectively" than straight parents.
There is harm if we encourage incest such as a daugher and father. Furthermore, incest is often a result of rape not personal choice unlike gay couples. As a result, any movement to "support" incest could in fact be supporting child molestation.
Daganev2005-11-10 22:50:28
And there are as many difference between a Black man and white man as there are between any two people.
This is not simply an issue of "status quo." This is akin to calling fire-fighters and policemen "Veterans." Or akin to removing any signs of gender in our society at all.
I wonder sometimes why I'm not allowed to walk into the women's locker room at the gym.
This is not simply an issue of "status quo." This is akin to calling fire-fighters and policemen "Veterans." Or akin to removing any signs of gender in our society at all.
I wonder sometimes why I'm not allowed to walk into the women's locker room at the gym.
Daganev2005-11-10 22:52:46
QUOTE(nyla @ Nov 10 2005, 02:50 PM)
As far changing the definition of marriage, people are selfish we think about ourselves. When black people wanted equal rights it wasnt about equal rights for everyone. It was for black people. (Please let that have made sense)
221119
It was not equal rights for black people. It was equal rights for Hispanics, blacks, asians, jews.
Nyla2005-11-10 22:53:20
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 10 2005, 05:50 PM)
I wonder sometimes why I'm not allowed to walk into the women's locker room at the gym.
221121
Depends on the gym...
Unknown2005-11-10 22:53:56
I'm curious, Daganev: the laws regarding marriage were changed to allow interracial couples to marry and that seemed to sail through without people wanting to wed their pets or have 12 dozen wives, why would allowing homosexuals to marry suddenly pose such a problem?
Nyla2005-11-10 22:54:10
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 10 2005, 05:52 PM)
It was not equal rights for black people. It was equal rights for Hispanics, blacks, asians, jews.
221123
Aye that was the result, but the people marching and stuff were doing it so that BLACK people were equal.
Daganev2005-11-10 22:57:59
QUOTE(Narsrim @ Nov 10 2005, 02:50 PM)
Are you trying to imply that the government is always logical? I mean, why not just give the benefits to everyone? That way... everyone gains! But alas, no. There was a line that had to be drawn and it was on the notion that the primary house hold at the time (bear in mind, these laws are ancient) consisted of a mother, father, and children. The idea of a "single mom" who worked 2 jobs just wasn't there.
And I disagree. If there was any proof that gay-marriages "hurt" society or even the gene pool, it would be different. There is no "harm" to our society by promoting gay marriages and giving it the same rights as a straight marriage. There is no scientific data that accurately shows that gay parents, for example, raise children "less effectively" than straight parents.
There is harm if we encourage incest. Furthermore, incest is often a result of rape not personal choice unlike gay couples. As a result, any movement to "support" incest could in fact be supporting child molestation.
And I disagree. If there was any proof that gay-marriages "hurt" society or even the gene pool, it would be different. There is no "harm" to our society by promoting gay marriages and giving it the same rights as a straight marriage. There is no scientific data that accurately shows that gay parents, for example, raise children "less effectively" than straight parents.
There is harm if we encourage incest. Furthermore, incest is often a result of rape not personal choice unlike gay couples. As a result, any movement to "support" incest could in fact be supporting child molestation.
221120
Marriage between two siblings does not encourage incest. There is no evidence that says just because two people are now officially married acording to the state that they now engage in behavior that they wouldn't engage in otherwise.
How can you be so oppressive and biggoted?
Daganev2005-11-10 22:59:25
QUOTE(nyla @ Nov 10 2005, 02:54 PM)
Aye that was the result, but the people marching and stuff were doing it so that BLACK people were equal.
221126
No, I don't think white Jews became major leaders in the movement so that black people would be equal.
Daganev2005-11-10 23:05:26
QUOTE(Quidgyboo @ Nov 10 2005, 02:53 PM)
I'm curious, Daganev: the laws regarding marriage were changed to allow interracial couples to marry and that seemed to sail through without people wanting to wed their pets or have 12 dozen wives, why would allowing homosexuals to marry suddenly pose such a problem?
221125
I'm curious.. Is there a difference between a man and a woman? Is there a difference between two people of different races?
And people do want 12 dozen wives, and they get arrested for it all the time. Why are you not asking for them to be relived of thier opression? And by "you" I mean those official groups on the internet that are lobbying politicans. If you even implied polygamy to those people they would call you a crazy biggot.
......
Lets see, so far in these discussions about gay marriage I have been called a Christain right wing fanatic, A biggot, closed minded, oppressive, a fool... hmm what else?
Never have I been called a rationalist, legalist, Jewish, objective, consistant or anything else which would be the basis of my arguments.
Its a disturbing trend in the world where people can't dissagree without being labeled something that has nothing to do with the argument.
I should start going around calling people Heterophobic, or mabye Christainphobic. (since I seem to be called a christain a lot even though I have stated 10 billion times that I'm Jewish. Heck, if that guy on that one thread wasn't lieing, I apparently even converted someone!)
Viravain2005-11-10 23:09:39
QUOTE(daganev @ Nov 10 2005, 05:57 PM)
Marriage between two siblings does not encourage incest. There is no evidence that says just because two people are now officially married acording to the state that they now engage in behavior that they wouldn't engage in otherwise.
How can you be so oppressive and biggoted?
How can you be so oppressive and biggoted?
221129
Edit: No, he has to be joking. Assuming that statement is serious would just be a waste of time.
