Is banning same-sex marriage fair?

[Againsheila]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

If you had asked me back when I was a senior in high school, I would have said absolutely they have the right to marriage. Once I had children, suddenly I didn't know everything anymore. I just don't know. When it came up on the ballot here, I didn't vote one way or the other.

 

[Barb]

The only thing discriminatory law protects is exclusive privilege. You're marriage is between two people, you and your wife. Their marriage has NOTHING to do with yours, and yours has nothing to do with theirs. Jesus H Christ on a pop-sickle stick. It really IS that simple.

no--what is simple is that they could drop the word "marriage" and have everything that they claim to want. Why insist on a revolutionary change in a centuries old tradition ? Get the damn legal rights and see how it goes. Something wrong with baby steps ?

I'm convinced their cause has nothing to do with rights or discrimination. This is about undoing the traditional family and the values that go with it. It's a political and social engineering game.

Harvey H Milk on a popsicle stick - simple as that.

Dan, if the state changes the title on the license for everyone, and the churches conduct the ceremony under whatever title THEY, INDIVIDUALLY see fit, everyone is served fairly and with due process for all. YOUR church wouldn't be under any obligation to sanction anything they didn't see as fitting, and other churches would have the right to certify unions that they do.

 

[Barb]

Like ejaculating into dilloduck's coffee, since we're asking stupid questions in this thread?

Seems only fair-----as long as everyone gets to do it.


(hold it----no fair----women can't do that--no one should be able to)

wanna bet on that?

I think we should leave Dillo's coffee alone.
I would want MY coffee left alone. I would, in fact, break the fingers of anyone who fucked with my most favored addiction.
Unless they were to add some Bush mills to it, and in that case I would be most grateful.

 

[Barb]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

If you had asked me back when I was a senior in high school, I would have said absolutely they have the right to marriage. Once I had children, suddenly I didn't know everything anymore. I just don't know. When it came up on the ballot here, I didn't vote one way or the other.

Sweetie, as much as you love your kids, I gotta ask:
Would it be more important to you that they were happy, or socially accepted?

 

[manifold]

but they passionately want to !

The fact remains that it's fair to restrict passions that involve imposing said passion upon a non-consenting person, such as in the murder example.

No such element is present in same-sex marriage.

But at least we agree that banning same-sex marriage isn't fair.

unfortunately it's just one of a million things in life that aren't fair-----fortunately there are also a million ways to get past it and live a perfectly contented life.

You seem to want to be a douche to homosexuals and your mind is made up.

Interesting.

 

[syrenn]

right--change the church !!

Why is that changing the church? It is what they are doing isnt it, sanctifying a marriage by god?

oh please--does anyone get civil unionized in a church ?

All the church does it make you right with god.


You still NEED a civil marriage license to be married regardless of any church involvement. What the church does is BLESS the union and that's all..


So who needs whom? You NEED a civil license to be married. You don't NEED the church to be married.

 

[dilloduck]

Why is that changing the church? It is what they are doing isnt it, sanctifying a marriage by god?

oh please--does anyone get civil unionized in a church ?

All the church does it make you right with god.


You still NEED a civil marriage license to be married regardless of any church involvement. What the church does is BLESS the union and that's all..


So who needs whom? You NEED a civil license to be married. You don't NEED the church to be married.

Tell it to the homos------fight for their legal rights with the state and leave the word marriage out of it. It's a sure bet.

 

[dilloduck]

The fact remains that it's fair to restrict passions that involve imposing said passion upon a non-consenting person, such as in the murder example.

No such element is present in same-sex marriage.

But at least we agree that banning same-sex marriage isn't fair.

unfortunately it's just one of a million things in life that aren't fair-----fortunately there are also a million ways to get past it and live a perfectly contented life.

You seem to want to be a douche to homosexuals and your mind is made up.

Interesting.

I'm tired of the faux whining----trying to change the definition of a word to obtain civil rights is stupid. There are much easier ways that don't invite stiff resistence. Anyone who insists on getting things done the hard way really doesn't want em or has another agenda

 

[syrenn]

oh please--does anyone get civil unionized in a church ?

All the church does it make you right with god.


You still NEED a civil marriage license to be married regardless of any church involvement. What the church does is BLESS the union and that's all..


So who needs whom? You NEED a civil license to be married. You don't NEED the church to be married.

Tell it to the homos------fight for their legal rights with the state and leave the word marriage out of it. It's a sure bet.

Does the church hold some copyright to the word marriage?

Tell the paranoid church to get a life that they don't OWN exclusive rights to words or the usage of words.

 

[Immanuel]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

I have not read any of this thread yet.

No, it is not fair for the state to deny the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

Immie

 

[Barb]

oh please--does anyone get civil unionized in a church ?

All the church does it make you right with god.


You still NEED a civil marriage license to be married regardless of any church involvement. What the church does is BLESS the union and that's all..


So who needs whom? You NEED a civil license to be married. You don't NEED the church to be married.

Tell it to the homos------fight for their legal rights with the state and leave the word marriage out of it. It's a sure bet.

Again with the fucking "homos" shit.
WTF?!

 

[LuckyDan]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

For the sake of the agrument i will be assuming that ALL other LAWS regarding "marriage" still apply. This question is only about same sex marriages.


My opinion is its no ones business who anyone else wants to marry.

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

 

[Barb]

unfortunately it's just one of a million things in life that aren't fair-----fortunately there are also a million ways to get past it and live a perfectly contented life.

You seem to want to be a douche to homosexuals and your mind is made up.

Interesting.

I'm tired of the faux whining----trying to change the definition of a word to obtain civil rights is stupid. There are much easier ways that don't invite stiff resistence. Anyone who insists on getting things done the hard way really doesn't want em or has another agenda

The "stiff (a questionable qualifier) resistance" is dying off. Kids today don't really give a shit.

 

[dilloduck]

You seem to want to be a douche to homosexuals and your mind is made up.

Interesting.

I'm tired of the faux whining----trying to change the definition of a word to obtain civil rights is stupid. There are much easier ways that don't invite stiff resistence. Anyone who insists on getting things done the hard way really doesn't want em or has another agenda

The "stiff (a questionable qualifier) resistance" is dying off. Kids today don't really give a shit.

Neither do most adults if they would quit trying to change the English language.

 

[LuckyDan]

You seem to want to be a douche to homosexuals and your mind is made up.

Interesting.

I'm tired of the faux whining----trying to change the definition of a word to obtain civil rights is stupid. There are much easier ways that don't invite stiff resistence. Anyone who insists on getting things done the hard way really doesn't want em or has another agenda

The "stiff (a questionable qualifier) resistance" is dying off. Kids today don't really give a shit.

Kids mature. And change their minds.

 

[Barb]

All this discussion about the prop 8 ruling got me thinking about this from a very simple perspective. Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

If you can, for the purposes of this discussion please do not introduce any arguments related to the Constitution, rights, or anything else of a legal nature.

It's a very simple philosophical question:

Is it fair to deny marriage to same-sex couples?

Why? Why not?



PS: Please know that declaring fair ain't got nothin' to do with it may contain some truth, but also betrays the author's implicit belief that it is not fair.

For the sake of the agrument i will be assuming that ALL other LAWS regarding "marriage" still apply. This question is only about same sex marriages.


My opinion is its no ones business who anyone else wants to marry.

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

 

[dilloduck]

For the sake of the agrument i will be assuming that ALL other LAWS regarding "marriage" still apply. This question is only about same sex marriages.


My opinion is its no ones business who anyone else wants to marry.

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Why try to change the English language to get rights ?

 

[Immanuel]

For the sake of the agrument i will be assuming that ALL other LAWS regarding "marriage" still apply. This question is only about same sex marriages.


My opinion is its no ones business who anyone else wants to marry.

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

 

[Barb]

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Why try to change the English language to get rights ?

How is it a change to language? Accepted usage has more to do with culture, and in this respect culture is dictated by the church. Since churches are as diverse as people, and the establishment clause denies the STATE from establishing preference, the license should be respective of all the churches, not just some.
I thought we settled this?
If we're going to fight, let's get it ON. If we're in agreement, let's get what we agree upon established.

 

[dilloduck]

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Then why is it when I suggest that the term civil unions be used regarding the legal contract of a married couple for ALL couples regardless of sexual orientation and keeping Marriage as a Rite of the Church with no legal benefits whatsoever, do I get called just about every name in the book by people who support "gay marriage" on this site?

Immie

because they aren't being honest