05-1-2007, 02:14 PM | #321 | ||
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-1-2007, 02:20 PM | #322 | ||
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
Further, people could still object on the grounds that legal marriage ought -also- to be between a man and a woman based on mistaken views of homosexuality and how it operates, and may be concluding that people are trying to cheat the system or at least, would be more encouraged to try and cheat the system. For sufficient advantages and tax breaks and other benefits, I could absolutely see single people who have close friends of the same gender "Getting married" to share in all the benefits while having no actual intention or desire to be married to that person. I mean...such happens already, but you'd be making it dramatically easier. Bear in mind, I utterly agree with you, but since the people objecting to this stance have been...less than effective in phrasing arguments in a compelling way, I figured I'd play a little Devil's Advocate for you. Quote:
Last edited by devonin; 05-1-2007 at 02:22 PM.. Reason: Sniped! |
||
05-1-2007, 02:53 PM | #323 | |
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
Basically it seems to me like you're starting with the assumption that the place government has currently assigned itself in marriage is legitimate, something which I believe actually needs justification before you can make some of the arguments you have been making. |
|
05-1-2007, 03:01 PM | #324 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Well, you can advocate if you like that there should be absolutely no legal benefits to being legally married, and that marriage at -all- should only be religious, but i don't suspect you'd find very wide-spread support for it.
Or more to the point, it seems that you are saying "Prove marriage should exist at all outside a religious observance before you can talk about how it would work." Last edited by devonin; 05-1-2007 at 03:04 PM.. |
05-1-2007, 03:18 PM | #325 |
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Not quite. I'm saying "prove marriage should be handled in any form by the government". I think that religious marriages are fine, as would be marriages certified by any other private party. I'm only wondering why government needs a place in it. I don't believe there should be any benefits for getting legally married. I also don't see the neccessity for legal marriage.
I really, really don't care whether or not my opinions are popular. |
05-1-2007, 03:38 PM | #326 | |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
|
|
05-1-2007, 04:47 PM | #327 |
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
|
05-1-2007, 04:50 PM | #328 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 38
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
The thing is, whether it's "legal" or not isn't going to change the love between two men/women.
But yeah, I agree that there are different definitions of marriage, and it's definitely not just a religious ceremony anymore. |
05-1-2007, 09:37 PM | #329 | |
FFR Player
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
The logistics of the situation shows that the only ones that suffer are the gay couples that miss out on the marriage benefits that come with having a spouse in peril. So it is really a matter of discrimination, rights shouldn't be withheld from people purely based on whom they choose to love unless of course it is not a right to begin with. Obviously you cannot get married in a church that does not support homosexual marriage and its that churches every right to do that but the argument is really about whether or not the government has the right to hold back such benefits and whether its for a good enough reason. What all this accomplishes i do not know. |
|
05-1-2007, 09:45 PM | #330 | |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
|
|
05-1-2007, 10:49 PM | #331 |
Junior Member
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Why should the government even pass laws against Gay marriages? I think it's bull because it doesn't matter who people marry as long as their happy. Thats what I think. Being a homosexual is a way of life for those that chose to live like that. The government shouldn't pass laws against them and abortions.
|
05-1-2007, 11:29 PM | #332 | |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
|
|
05-1-2007, 11:44 PM | #333 |
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Well, there's always the constitutional ammendment(s) at the state and federal level. Not technically laws, but bad (much worse actually) nonetheless. Legislation also has been both introduced and passed in a number of states.
|
05-2-2007, 04:21 AM | #334 | ||
is against custom titles
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
||
05-2-2007, 10:47 AM | #335 | |
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
The desicrate the founding principles of our government and society and write ignorance and bigotry into the most important document we have. It's worse on so many levels. Laws can be ruled unconstitutional, but the constitution can't, which unfortunately means people are now going about rewriting the constitution to say "everyone has rights; except these people. They make us feel icky."
Quote:
|
|
05-2-2007, 11:24 PM | #336 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Anyone should be able to marry anyone else. And someone said about abortions earlier i'm going to put my comment of that as well. They shouldn't be able to prevent abortions. If the person REALY can't support the child or anything like that, a parent is sometimes forced to have an abortion. If the goverment is going to pay for that child to have a good life then go ahead. But some people realy can't support a child and have no way of taking care of it. Makes it cruel to both the parent and the child forcing them to take care of it.
|
05-3-2007, 12:22 AM | #337 | |||
is against custom titles
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
STOP!
One of the founding principles of our government was that the people can draft constitutional amendments if they do not support the actions of justices who deem laws unconstitutional. Amendments exist specifically for the people to keep the judicial branch in check, and exercising that right in no way desecrates the founding principles. In fact, it shows that they're working. Quote:
Remember, though, that the most important document we have was designed to be changed. Just because we've only had one amendment in the past thirty-six years doesn't mean it's written in stone. It's meant to be changed when it needs to be changed. Quote:
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|||
05-3-2007, 12:12 PM | #338 | ||||||
Little Chief Hare
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Hammertime.
Quote:
The constitution was written in order to limit the role of government to a very minimalist set of duties in order to protect liberty. Most new ammendments should be distrusted in the first place purely because they seek to add to what the government can do. Ammendments like those proposed against flag burning and gay marriage also have the double effect of proposing things in opposition to the constitution. They limit freedom of speech in both, freedom of association in the latter, and this is also an act of federalizing something that according to the constitution should be left up to each individual state if it's a political issue at all (which it shouldn't be) and each individual person otherwise. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The constitution is meant mostly to be used to restrict government, not to restrict the people except when their actions against each other might be especially harmful. Perhaps then under this second reasoning we should adopt a constitutional ammendment to prevent idiots from abusing the constitution? Any further amendments should be made in order to preserve liberty, not to preserve popular opinion in the shrine of national authority. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Kilroy_x; 05-3-2007 at 12:28 PM.. |
||||||
05-3-2007, 10:38 PM | #339 |
FFR Player
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
I love how this threat is now just an argument about the inner workings of the American government, the Constitution & its Amendments. Activist judges do actually exist, by the way. And last time I checked, judges are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not the majority opinion of the people. Sometimes judges have to make unpopular decisions, but that's what they have to do: it's their job. Sometimes their decisions are just plain stupid, however. Not gonna lie.
__________________
Professional Dubstep Hater Last edited by Omeganitros : Today at 01:46 AM. Reason: What the hell were you thinking? |
05-3-2007, 11:43 PM | #340 | |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: Homosexual Marriage
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|