What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Special Comment: Proposition 8

  • Thread starter DrWurm
  • Start date
  • #61
Whoa.


You guys are horrible! You know that, don't you? LOL.
 
  • #62
Well when two gay people (I mean man +man or woman + woman) can naturally produce a child,then I think it would be ok.But until then............... I have no problem with gay people,just keep it to yourself and don't try to push it on me.I'm glad people voted no on prop 8.
 
  • #63
Well when two gay people (I mean man +man or woman + woman) can naturally produce a child,then I think it would be ok.But until then...............

What difference does that make?
my wife and I are never going to have children..
because of biology, not by choice..

does that mean we should not have the right to be married?

if being able to produce children is a prerequisite for marriage,
then infertile people should not be allowed to be married..

that particular argument for denying gay marriage is clearly pointless..

Scot
 
  • #64
I'm all for civil unions, I mean, really, why shouldn't you be able to register someone you're close to to come visit you in the hospital? That's what really gets me. Too many situations where that's denied reeks of avoidable tragedy. I'm not saying that gay people can save each others life like that, but man, if I were dying on the operating table, I'd want my closest loved one holding my hand at least. It's just too sad.

That's really the only point I have to make. As far as marriage goes, I'm sure if what you want is ceremony, you can throw a party whenever you like without the governmental paper to certify that you threw said party, however, the benefits that paper entails should not be denied to anyone.
 
  • #65
Whats pointless? Marriage between a man and woman are meant to be.If you think it's pointless what would happen if you put all men or all women on a island ,isolated from the rest of the world.They could not reproduce,no reproduction=no people!

And I'm sorry about you and your wife not being able to have kids.I know a couple that are having trouble having a baby.

This is my last post on the subject.
 
  • #66
Whats pointless? Marriage between a man and woman are meant to be.If you think it's pointless what would happen if you put all men or all women on a island ,isolated from the rest of the world.They could not reproduce,no reproduction=no people!

And I'm sorry about you and your wife not being able to have kids.I know a couple that are having trouble having a baby.

This is my last post on the subject.

Thanks,
but were not sorry..(well..not much anyway..)
we never even tried to have kids, because we knew before we were married it wasnt going to happen for us..we simply accepted it and are fine with it.

and again..reproduction is not the only point of marriage..
people have kids without being married..
and lots of married people dont have kids.

there is no law saying married people must have children..
and plenty of heterosexual married couples cant have children, or choose not to have children..

so what possible logic is there to using the "they cant have children" argument to deny gay marriage,
when that exact same "rule" doesn't even apply to hetero couples?? ???

Scot
 
  • #67
If you think it's pointless what would happen if you put all men or all women on a island ,isolated from the rest of the world.They could not reproduce,no reproduction=no people!

Obviously, but what does this have to do with allowing gay marriage? The short answer is nothing.
 
  • #68
Not to mention the world could do with a population slow down. We're not exactly running short on people.
 
  • #69
What I find amusing is that Christians and "religion" are being blamed for Proposition 8's passage, by a state that is majority wise left of center. California even voted majority wise for Obama, yet for some reason the citizens of California decided to vote yes on 8. Very intriguing indeed.

Isn't homosexuality and heterosexuality different (not in a negative sense, but in generality)? Aren't they unique of each other? Sure sex is the common denominator, but they are two distinctively different things!

So why are we trying to take a term, marriage, that is a heterosexual term and modifying it so that it now includes homosexuality? That makes no sense.

IMO, Gay-marriage is an agenda to slipstream homosexual couples into every day society, plain and simple. If Gays really wanted equality they would seek the same legal rights that heterosexual marriage has, however they don't. That's not good enough. They believe that by redefining the institution of marriage, which is older than this country, they can somehow force their lifestyles upon everyone. Everyone sits here and rants that Christians just need to stay in their caves and quit trying to influence society, yet here we have Gays doing exactly the same! I believe gays deserve the same legal protections that heterosexual marriage has, however to redefine marriage would almost be the equivalent of renaming the United States of America. Both would be wrong.
 
  • #70
Outsiders, gays would be completely fine if the US simply dropped the word marriage altogether and only handed out civil unions to everybody, letting churches marry people. Personally, I think that's a rather pathetic way to end things, like when two siblings are fighting over a toy and the mother just takes it away. All gays want is for their union to be exactly the same under law.

Gay marriage is absolutely no different than a heterosexual marriage where procreation is not wanted or not possible.

-Jason
 
  • #71
Seriously what gives heterosexuals the right to claim ownership of a word and define it. I claim owner ship of the word Human and I will define it as I see fit form now on, and only I qualify because I have decided to exclude everyone else based on the doctrine of my religion which I came up with myself. Everyone else is less than me. Does this seem ludicrous to anyone else.

As Dr. Wurm stated if the state is going to start handing out civil unions to one set of individuals that is all it should hand out and recognize. Also religious groups should not be able to legally bind individuals into a marriage/civil union if thats the way you want things to be. In fact I think it should be that way because otherwise in my opinion it violates the idea of separation of church and state.
 
  • #72
Outsiders, gays would be completely fine if the US simply dropped the word marriage altogether and only handed out civil unions to everybody, letting churches marry people.

I agree, in some regards. I think marriage should have been left to the churches, however removing it now would be like removing the welfare system. It's not happening.

Personally, I think that's a rather pathetic way to end things, like when two siblings are fighting over a toy and the mother just takes it away. All gays want is for their union to be exactly the same under law.

I disagree. If gays wanted their union to be the same under the law it could already be that way today! Instead of going for the rights, gays (not all btw, some disagree with gay marriage) have gone for a means of forceful social acceptance by trying to redefine the institution of marriage! Homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. That's why we have two different terms, they mean two different things. So why wouldn't gays want their own term to represent themselves? If gays would be satisfied with gay-union or civil-union, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage today.

Gay marriage is absolutely no different than a heterosexual marriage where procreation is not wanted or not possible.

-Jason

I disagree. I believe there is a difference between male and female genders. If they were one in the same you may have a point.
 
  • #73
Seriously what gives heterosexuals the right to claim ownership of a word and define it. I claim owner ship of the word Human and I will define it as I see fit form now on, and only I qualify because I have decided to exclude everyone else based on the doctrine of my religion which I came up with myself. Everyone else is less than me. Does this seem ludicrous to anyone else.

Would you agree that the sky is blue? What if I were to purpose tomorrow that we define the color blue as red. Then the sky would be red.

Blue has and always been blue. The meaning of blue has never changed. It's the same with marriage. Marriage has always been one man, one woman. To redefine marriage would be equivalent to redefining what the color blue looks like.

As Dr. Wurm stated if the state is going to start handing out civil unions to one set of individuals that is all it should hand out and recognize.

How is having two different names, that define two different things, given the same legal rights, unequal? Splenda and Sugar are two different things are they not? They look the same, some would go as far as saying they taste the same but they aren't the same. Why don't we call Splenda sugar? It's because they are two different and unique things.
 
  • #74
Isn't homosexuality and heterosexuality different (not in a negative sense, but in generality)? Aren't they unique of each other? Sure sex is the common denominator, but they are two distinctively different things!

Sort of, but not really. They are different definitions of the same thing: sexuality. They are different in the sense that red and blue are distinctively different, but they are both still colors. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are different, but they are still both expressions of sexuality.

xvart.
 
  • #75
How is having two different names, that define two different things, given the same legal rights, unequal?

Not only is it unequal, it is in direct violation of the Brown v. Board of Education supreme court ruling. Separate but equal is hypocrisy in and of itself.


I still don't understand how a sterile man and a woman is any different than a man and a man other than the genitalia tally. As far as fuction in society, they are completely the same.

It's also important to remember that sex is the term referring to the biological differences between male and female.

Gender is a lifestyle that does not always match your sex. For instance if a gay man with a male gender profile marries a gay man with a female gender profile, than is an opposite gender relationship.

Now, why would a marriage of opposite sexes be different than a marriage of same sexes, regardless of gender?
 
  • #76
Sort of, but not really. They are different definitions of the same thing: sexuality. They are different in the sense that red and blue are distinctively different, but they are both still colors. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are different, but they are still both expressions of sexuality.

xvart.

Gay-Union. The expression of marriage by gay couples.
 
  • #77
Not only is it unequal, it is in direct violation of the Brown v. Board of Education supreme court ruling. Separate but equal is hypocrisy in and of itself.

Explain how Brown v. Board of Education has any relation to this matter. Any judge, even the liberal judges that over-turned the first voted law in California would laugh at the sight of Brown v. Board of Education cited as case law. If it was suggested that gays go to separate but equal schools from heterosexuals, then yes Brown applies.

I still don't understand how a sterile man and a woman is any different than a man and a man other than the genitalia tally. As far as fuction in society, they are completely the same.

Procreation is not being argued, nor is it necessary to differentiate between man and woman.

Gender is a lifestyle that does not always match your sex. For instance if a gay man with a male gender profile marries a gay man with a female gender profile, than is an opposite gender relationship.

Just like the Pregnant man who had the baby kind of thing? You know where the man really is a female, who wanted to be a man but then decided to have a baby but still is a man of course! Oh and now that same man is having another baby, but don't you ever say that man is really a woman because he's a man and has the facial hair to prove it!

I don't buy into the "choose your gender" game.

What if I feel like I'm a woman tomorrow and I go and take the psyche tests to prove that I'm a women. So I have the feelings and I have the papers that say that I tested like a woman. Does that mean I'm a woman?

Now, why would a marriage of opposite sexes be different than a marriage of same sexes, regardless of gender?

Gender is the whole point. Marriage is like a mathematical formula. It requires 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else. The second marriage is redefined, it will no longer have any value. Why? It's ambiguous to what it means. If it also gets redefined, what's to stop others from redefining it? What if a group of people want to define marriage as between 1 man and 7 women? Or 1 man and 1 animal? Or 2 men and 1 woman? The combinations are endless.
 
  • #78
Explain how Brown v. Board of Education has any relation to this matter. Any judge, even the liberal judges that over-turned the first voted law in California would laugh at the sight of Brown v. Board of Education cited as case law. If it was suggested that gays go to separate but equal schools from heterosexuals, then yes Brown applies.

Brown v. BOE initiated the dismantling of de jure segregation. Citing separate but equal practices as unconstituional. Just as no black man this election season was required to fill out a "black voter registration" form, no couple should have to apply for a separate type of legal union.

nor is it necessary to differentiate between man and woman.

agreed, marriage should be sex-blind

What if I feel like I'm a woman tomorrow and I go and take the psyche tests to prove that I'm a women. So I have the feelings and I have the papers that say that I tested like a woman. Does that mean I'm a woman?

Technically, yes, that would mean that you view yourself as a woman and that your gender is female. These changes typically don't change overnight like in your scenario though.

Gender: The social definitions and expectations with being female or male.
Sex: A person's biological classification as a male or female.

Interestingly enough, there are many cultures with more than two genders.

Gender is the whole point. Marriage is like a mathematical formula. It requires 1 man and 1 woman. Nothing else. The second marriage is redefined, it will no longer have any value. Why? It's ambiguous to what it means. If I ask someone who's female if they're going to get married it could mean her marrying a male, or marrying another female. If it also gets redefined, what's to stop others from redefining it? What if a group of people want to define marriage as between 1 man and 7 women? Or 1 man and 1 animal? Or 2 men and 1 women?

So basically, your whole complaint about redefining marriage is, instead of having to ask "Are you going to get married?" You'll have to then ask "Who are you going to marry?"

And come on, don't even start with the animals, that's a rather offensive point and is below someone of your debating prowess.
 
  • #79
If it also gets redefined, what's to stop others from redefining it? What if a group of people want to define marriage as between 1 man and 7 women?

I thought this was what they called marriage in the middle east. Guess the word hasn't held any value for the past couple thousand years. Sorry for your loss of a meaningful word, outsiders.
 
  • #80
Did you seriously just try to compare a word, which is defined arbitrarily by culture, to something like the quadratic equation? One has a tangible reality and can be confirmed through out time, culture, and every freaking right triangle in the world, the other descended form a word that involved ironically viticulture so I guess we need to let people and grapes get married since by your definition words are immutable.

Dr. Wurm I think you meant to say many cultures have more than two genders. I am unaware of a single culture that has only one gender.

As for polygomy over 75% of cultures around the world have some provision allowing multiple marriages in one form or another so this just hurts your case more than anything showing that marriage is mutable and flexable, not rigidly defined as you seem to think.

Oh and animals do not have the ability to consent to getting married so therefore that argument is a joke and if you are really worried about that there is a cute duck down at the local park.....
 
Back
Top