Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

A New Youth-Oriented Think Tank


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#41 TooMuchEvidence

TooMuchEvidence

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts
6
Okay

Posted 14 February 2007 - 04:04 PM

My reasoning isn't based upon "sinfulness" but upon the english usage of the word "marriage." I might be writing a paper on the reasoning later and will publish it through the Rebirth of Freedom Foundation. :)
  • 0
Peace,
Shaun R. Connell
Google 2.0
Download Firefox

www.RebirthOfFreedom.org

The RoFF Column: RaiseTheFist — Equality under the law?

www.internet-website-money.com

#42 dziegler

dziegler

    Apathetic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts
1,545
Excellent
  • Name:Derek Ziegler
  • School:KSU

Posted 14 February 2007 - 04:38 PM

My reasoning isn't based upon "sinfulness" but upon the english usage of the word "marriage." I might be writing a paper on the reasoning later and will publish it through the Rebirth of Freedom Foundation. :)

Umm... hate to burst your bubble, but the current definition (the way that generic laws view it) doesn't define it. That's why George Bush was calling for the constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

While you're at it, let's define 'person' in the constitution as Caucasian. It's the same philosophy that you'd use to define 'marriage' as heterosexual... You wouldn't have to spend precious government dollars that could support churches and families on protecting the due process of those dirty minorities anymore.

And we'll define 'woman' as property. No more women votes means Clinton won't get elected means this country stays Jesus-loving.

And how bout that 'freedom of speech' thingy - let's define 'speech' as 'the act of supporting the government.' Shut that Nancy Pelosi bitch right up.

But, on a note that isn't mocking you for your stupidity...

Marriage is a social construct - not a government one. This means that the definition of it changes as society changes. I believe that history kinda shows that society has a tendency to get more open about some things, and more closed about others. For instance, the definition of 'person' used to be a land-owner in some countries. Now, we observe human rights for everybody.

Even if you don't agree that gay marriage should be a thing this country endorses, I believe it to be an inevitability - individuals will fight for their right to what they see as a fundamental right of all Americans, and that is the right to marry under a legally binding union. The reason why it's a *right* is because marriage --> tax breaks, specifically from the federal government. To not allow homosexuals to be married is a lot like not allowing blacks to vote.

Tell me your opinion on this since the gay marriage debate becomes almost too much of 'gays are cool' 'gays are bad' adhoms. The federal government has a constitutional duty to provide equal protection and application of the constitution - the equal protection clause means that all federal gifts and policies (like tax breaks) must be given fairly and equally, even to homosexual unions. But states are not forced to do this.

There is no state law 'prohibiting' marriage persay - it's just not recognized by the state. Would a fair compromise, in your opinion, be that the state can choose whether to recognize it or not, but the federal government still must? The way I see it is that it still gives states the freedom to choose whether to recognize homosexual unions or not, while still allowing equal application of the law.
  • -1
Lawl. Interwebs.

#43 TooMuchEvidence

TooMuchEvidence

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts
6
Okay

Posted 14 February 2007 - 06:05 PM

Umm... hate to burst your bubble, but the current definition (the way that generic laws view it) doesn't define it. That's why George Bush was calling for the constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

While you're at it, let's define 'person' in the constitution as Caucasian. It's the same philosophy that you'd use to define 'marriage' as heterosexual... You wouldn't have to spend precious government dollars that could support churches and families on protecting the due process of those dirty minorities anymore.

And we'll define 'woman' as property. No more women votes means Clinton won't get elected means this country stays Jesus-loving.

And how bout that 'freedom of speech' thingy - let's define 'speech' as 'the act of supporting the government.' Shut that Nancy Pelosi bitch right up.


This is interesting. You haven't heard my argument yet, though you are trying to figure out its logical structure and replace some of the variables. I won't respond to this, because of the inherent "straw man" nature of such an argument.

In other words, you are attacking a logical pattern you haven't seen yet.

I believe that history kinda shows that society has a tendency to get more open about some things, and more closed about others. For instance, the definition of 'person' used to be a land-owner in some countries. Now, we observe human rights for everybody.
...
Marriage is a social construct - not a government one. This means that the definition of it changes as society changes.


Interestingly, most people believe that homosexual unions do not constitute a marriage.
http://www.washingto...14205-2153r.htm
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain601828.shtml
http://www.foxnews.c...,103756,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/ [Don't let their title mislead you. Read the actual "marriage" statistics]

Good. Now we have the "cultural definition" straightened out. Let's reread what I was responding to.

Marriage is a social construct - not a government one. This means that the definition of it changes as society changes.


I actually agree. That's the foundation for my reasoning. That's why I don't support calling gay unions "marriage." Because they aren't.

::waits to be called a member of the KKK and a bigot again ;-)::
  • 0
Peace,
Shaun R. Connell
Google 2.0
Download Firefox

www.RebirthOfFreedom.org

The RoFF Column: RaiseTheFist — Equality under the law?

www.internet-website-money.com

#44 dziegler

dziegler

    Apathetic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts
1,545
Excellent
  • Name:Derek Ziegler
  • School:KSU

Posted 14 February 2007 - 06:55 PM

This is interesting. You haven't heard my argument yet, though you are trying to figure out its logical structure and replace some of the variables. I won't respond to this, because of the inherent "straw man" nature of such an argument.

In other words, you are attacking a logical pattern you haven't seen yet.


You claim that logically, the definition of marriage doesn't include homosexual unions - my contention is that making such a claim basically allows you to 'exclude' any group from a regular practice in our government. Since marriage is a legally binding contract observed by government, it has to be weighed as such.


Interestingly, most people believe that homosexual unions do not constitute a marriage.
http://www.washingto...14205-2153r.htm
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain601828.shtml
http://www.foxnews.c...,103756,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/ [Don't let their title mislead you. Read the actual "marriage" statistics]


All of your links are about public opinion - not legal standing. Just because somebody thinks that women can't make a coherent decision doesn't mean you have the legal ability to restrict them from voting.


I actually agree. That's the foundation for my reasoning. That's why I don't support calling gay unions "marriage." Because they aren't.

::waits to be called a member of the KKK and a bigot again ;-)::


What you're saying is bigoted, though. You're implying that a social union status given to some cannot be given to others because it doesn't fit a mold put in place by a religion.

For instance, while you may not see gay unions as 'marriage', you still haven't implied that the same government benefits that go to heterosexual couples shouldn't go to homosexual couples as well. Because the government has these benefits going to 'marriage' instead of 'union-status', discrimination is happening. The government should then do one of two things: 1) Extend the right to marriage to all couples, gay or not, or 2) Amend all law to replace the word 'marriage' with 'union'.

If the government can apply legally binding contractual status to a union, gay or not, it can't just give the benefits to a select few. The bill of righs gives a contractual guarantee of the right to due process - you can't just deny it to black people, for instance.
  • 1
Lawl. Interwebs.

#45 TooMuchEvidence

TooMuchEvidence

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts
6
Okay

Posted 14 February 2007 - 08:35 PM

Are whites blacks?
  • -1
Peace,
Shaun R. Connell
Google 2.0
Download Firefox

www.RebirthOfFreedom.org

The RoFF Column: RaiseTheFist — Equality under the law?

www.internet-website-money.com

#46 dziegler

dziegler

    Apathetic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts
1,545
Excellent
  • Name:Derek Ziegler
  • School:KSU

Posted 15 February 2007 - 09:21 AM

I find it ironic that you'd ask that question. You seem more concerned about which gender of genatalia they're attracted to than their position as a citizen and person...
  • 0
Lawl. Interwebs.

#47 retired

retired

    Fermenting Revolution!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,527 posts
2,200
Excellent

Posted 15 February 2007 - 09:26 AM

The author views illlegitimate romance between members of the same sex as being on par with having romantic relationships with trees. When it doesn’t make sense, it just doesn’t make sense.


the author is a bigot.
  • 0

#48 Fisheromen

Fisheromen

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 368 posts
150
Excellent

Posted 15 February 2007 - 03:10 PM

Are whites blacks?


Well, some people are both. And many people who identify with one group or the other may share common ancestry they are unaware of (think Roots, or Thomas Jefferson's thing with Sally Hemmings.) And if you want to get technical, it's possible we all came out of Africa anyway.

That, and I'm failing to see how this question fits in with discussing the rights of gay people.

Whether homosexuality is "wrong" or "right" is irrevelant when it comes to equal protection under the law. Heck, many states banned interracial marriage only, what, less than a century ago? That doesn't make interracial marriage immoral. Besides, you can get married legally by a judge or someone, so it isn't even necessarily a religious thing for everyone.

This whole thread wasn't supposed to be about gay rights anyway, was it? I just fail to see what's so wrong with just letting people live their lives and getting over it already.
  • 0
"You don't even go here!"
-Mean Girls

#49 TooMuchEvidence

TooMuchEvidence

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts
6
Okay

Posted 16 February 2007 - 03:37 PM

RoFF Announcement

As I explained earlier, the RoFF has been considering the requirements for joining the organization. After much deliberation, we've decided to limit staffers to those of either conservative or libertarian belief systems.

Other requirements are listed here.:)

Homosexual Marriage Argument:


That said, the point of the question was that the English language obviously differentiates between groups of people, and also of ideas.

As yall have already said, homosexual marriage should be based on how culture views it. I agree.

Considering the people reject the notion of homosexual marriage, along with our elected representatives as a whole right now, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. :shrug: I've used your own reasoning. To attack my logic is to attack your own.
  • 0
Peace,
Shaun R. Connell
Google 2.0
Download Firefox

www.RebirthOfFreedom.org

The RoFF Column: RaiseTheFist — Equality under the law?

www.internet-website-money.com

#50 dziegler

dziegler

    Apathetic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts
1,545
Excellent
  • Name:Derek Ziegler
  • School:KSU

Posted 16 February 2007 - 04:08 PM


Homosexual Marriage Argument:


That said, the point of the question was that the English language obviously differentiates between groups of people, and also of ideas.

As yall have already said, homosexual marriage should be based on how culture views it. I agree.

Considering the people reject the notion of homosexual marriage, along with our elected representatives as a whole right now, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. :shrug: I've used your own reasoning. To attack my logic is to attack your own.


You're not only idiotically conservative, but apparently never acquired the skill of being able to read either.

Everyone on the thread, so far, has argued that the government, if giving benefits to people getting married, should be equal. The question isn't what people want - it's a question of what the role of government is, and if it's defined on that piece of hemp in Washington to be fair and equal, then guess what? It should be fair and equal.

Your arguments about culture are non-responsive - my argument was only that culture will change overtime, explaining why conservative/liberal distinctions are dumb. You should weigh it based on what the government is doing on face.

And what is the bastardized definition of 'libertarian' that isn't down with gay marriage. If I marry a guy, that hurts nobody else.
  • 0
Lawl. Interwebs.

#51 Banana

Banana

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,981 posts
291
Excellent

Posted 16 February 2007 - 04:49 PM

It doesn't "hurt" anyone at all.
  • 0

#52 dziegler

dziegler

    Apathetic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts
1,545
Excellent
  • Name:Derek Ziegler
  • School:KSU

Posted 16 February 2007 - 05:04 PM

eh - I didn't mean it that way.

My point is that: if two men or two women <3 eachother, who the fuck is anyone else to complain about it?
  • 0
Lawl. Interwebs.

#53 TooMuchEvidence

TooMuchEvidence

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts
6
Okay

Posted 16 February 2007 - 08:15 PM

Everyone on the thread, so far, has argued that the government, if giving benefits to people getting married, should be equal. The question isn't what people want - it's a question of what the role of government is, and if it's defined on that piece of hemp in Washington to be fair and equal, then guess what? It should be fair and equal.


I agree. If you are married you should receive the benefits that everyone else receives. But what's marriage? At this point the "benefits" should be through the idea of a civil union.

I think the problem here is that of miscommunication. You appear to be wanting me to be saying things that other conservatives are saying. At least that's how your arguments are implied. :shrug:

Your arguments about culture are non-responsive - my argument was only that culture will change overtime, explaining why conservative/liberal distinctions are dumb. You should weigh it based on what the government is doing on face.


That was perhaps your intention, but not at all what you stated. I actually agree with what you stated. You said: " Marriage is a social construct - not a government one. This means that the definition of it changes as society changes."

That's true. The idea of marriage is purely cultural. It's possible for a culture to not even have any system of marriage. So when it comes to a definition of marriage...ask the culture. If the people think that homosexuals can marry, then heck, they can marry. If not, then they can't marry...they can simply unite in a homosexual equivilence of marriage.

Is this any clearer?
  • 0
Peace,
Shaun R. Connell
Google 2.0
Download Firefox

www.RebirthOfFreedom.org

The RoFF Column: RaiseTheFist — Equality under the law?

www.internet-website-money.com

#54 dziegler

dziegler

    Apathetic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts
1,545
Excellent
  • Name:Derek Ziegler
  • School:KSU

Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:45 PM

I agree. If you are married you should receive the benefits that everyone else receives. But what's marriage? At this point the "benefits" should be through the idea of a civil union.

I think the problem here is that of miscommunication. You appear to be wanting me to be saying things that other conservatives are saying. At least that's how your arguments are implied. :shrug:

That was perhaps your intention, but not at all what you stated. I actually agree with what you stated. You said: " Marriage is a social construct - not a government one. This means that the definition of it changes as society changes."

That's true. The idea of marriage is purely cultural. It's possible for a culture to not even have any system of marriage. So when it comes to a definition of marriage...ask the culture. If the people think that homosexuals can marry, then heck, they can marry. If not, then they can't marry...they can simply unite in a homosexual equivilence of marriage.

Is this any clearer?


*shrugs*

This debate can go on forever.

Extend the dropped 'you're a bigot' analysis from the block.

Extend Foucault 74.

I win.

Go find some other group to take rights away from.
  • 0
Lawl. Interwebs.

#55 I_riff_with_a_Les_Paul

I_riff_with_a_Les_Paul

    Heavy on the wah-wah

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,309 posts
330
Excellent
  • Name:Joel
  • School:Lutheran School of Theology

Posted 17 February 2007 - 01:04 PM

That's true. The idea of marriage is purely cultural. It's possible for a culture to not even have any system of marriage. So when it comes to a definition of marriage...ask the culture. If the people think that homosexuals can marry, then heck, they can marry. If not, then they can't marry...they can simply unite in a homosexual equivilence of marriage.


Then don't have the government call it marriage for anyone.
  • 0
You can't hold no groove if you ain't got no pocket.

#56 maxpow

maxpow

    Regular

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,141 posts
808
Excellent

Posted 17 February 2007 - 02:04 PM

This 'think tank' is a bunch of fascist idiocy. I can't even begin to conceptualize how much of a douchebag you and your friends who thought of this are.
  • 1

#57 mbv

mbv

    Regular

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,956 posts
1,082
Excellent

Posted 17 February 2007 - 03:10 PM

It'd be easier if the government just gave out civil unions to everyone and let the churches handle what exactly a "marriage" is suppose to be.
  • 0

#58 dziegler

dziegler

    Apathetic

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,607 posts
1,545
Excellent
  • Name:Derek Ziegler
  • School:KSU

Posted 17 February 2007 - 04:19 PM

It'd be easier if the government just didn't have 'unions'...

Who says that the government should be the arbiter of how two people attracted to each other pronounce themselves?

Oh, wait, yeah... these assholes.
  • 1
Lawl. Interwebs.

#59 TooMuchEvidence

TooMuchEvidence

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts
6
Okay

Posted 17 February 2007 - 06:04 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with replacing "legal marriage" with a civil union concept. :shrug:

Oh, wait, yeah... these assholes.


Lol, you do too, actually. Unless you think that 8-year-olds should be able to marry 50-year-olds. Tell me you don't believe that.. ;-)
  • 0
Peace,
Shaun R. Connell
Google 2.0
Download Firefox

www.RebirthOfFreedom.org

The RoFF Column: RaiseTheFist — Equality under the law?

www.internet-website-money.com

#60 Brad Bosserman

Brad Bosserman

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts
55
Excellent
  • School:Aquinas College

Posted 17 February 2007 - 07:22 PM

Unless you think that 8-year-olds should be able to marry 50-year-olds. Tell me you don't believe that.. ;-)


http://209.85.165.10...us&client=opera

Apparently you don't want to liberate children.
  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users