Does it help if I tell you that I lived for my children and still do?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Does it help if I tell you that I lived for my children and still do?
I've made objective arguments against an infringement of right against abortion. And divorce is a sad end to a hopeful start of a union, so beans on both counts. You're rather desperately attempting to negatively broad brush the messenger because you demonstrably have nothing to counter the message or to advance your own part that doesn't reduce to dogma.
Simply untrue and no part of my argument. Who here has advanced that part while you failed to advance anything more than the old " Because I say so."
lain:
Liar. I have never once defended abortion.
I will second that!:wave2:
Me three!
Back to the original question: I am for gay marriage, but would prefer that it be called a "civil union". It is only just that Gay citizens be afforded equal rights undeer the law. As long as there are legal advantages to being "married" then there should be a legal way for gay partners, who are effectively married to each other, to access those advantages.
For the sake of clear language I would prefer that "marriage " be a term reserved for a sexual union between two persons of opposit sex. That is just my bias as a an English lit major showing. I prefer not to muddy linguistic waters.
For the sake of clear language I would prefer that "marriage " be a term reserved for a sexual union between two persons of opposit sex. That is just my bias as a an English lit major showing. I prefer not to muddy linguistic waters.
I don't agree with TH's stance on marijuana, but if you are to understand anything in this thread, you must first recognize that there is no common ground between the case he advanced against marijuana prohibition and the case that's been advanced by others in this thread against gay marriage. His argument against marijuana legality is based upon its impact upon the social compact and the dangers of its use to society. All that's really been advanced as a justification for the prohibition of gay marriage are various attempts to misconstrue the purpose to marriage, and a subtext of moralizing via religious dogma. The two aren't even close to equivalent.
Actually, you need to check your math. Most, or at least many, of the voices you've heard speak out in favor of gay marriage in this thread are opposed to abortion. I think I may actually be in the minority here being pro-choice. And that's one of the things that I think is very encouraging about the tone of the discussion on gay marriage that we've had this time around, even compared to other discussions at TOL on the subject. People from widely different political and religious backgrounds are recognizing that the arguments against gay marriage are mostly based upon misplaced moralizing, and they're recognizing that it isn't really connected to other issues like abortion or divorce, and it doesn't stand to advance the breakdown of the family. And that's progress.
I would say that I probably share your desire for clear language, but differ on the implications of that desire. To me, gay marriage is really no different from heterosexual marriage, in the same way that fundamentally there's no difference between an interracial marriage and an intraracial one. If you need to distinguish between the two, an adjective serves perfectly. And moreover, I think that the right to equal treatment is slightly affronted by the distinction if made in law, however minute, as if to say 'We'll give you everything but complete legal equality.'
And you're still woefully and completely wrong. No one's perfect.
Now Granite, there is one consideration to be considered. The active ingredient in Marijuana does gravitate to the gonads and stay there for a long long time. This is very likely, at the least, not helpful.
it would help if you defended the institution of marriage
and
recognized the real purpose of it is to protect the child
your position doesn't surprise me
and
it would also surprise me if giving it a different name would make some kind of difference
and
maybe you could explain why two people living together should get equal rights
exactly what are these equal rights?
and
why should they get them?
WizardofOz
New member
:first: Well said.
Why isn't it legal to "marry" multiple spouses? Why isn't it legal to "marry" cousins or siblings?
I mean, whose business is it? Right?
lain:Get the state out of it and return it to what it was.....a religious union.
if the name is that important to you, then what you are really looking for is approval
Well...no. Objectively speaking, I'm not. Now the conclusion I reach from that data is unavoidably subjective, given it's always a balancing act when you address this sort of thing. But that, at worst, puts me in an objectively sustainable objection with an arguable end game.
It would help if you demonstrated a substantive engagement on the points and counters put to you, or the present ability to posit an objectively sustainable argument, but there you go.
lain:
if I was really good, I could convince 12 people that a mother is not responsible for the death of her child
but
I am not a lawyer
and
that is the reason I do not trust them
All I care about is equality before the law. This includes treating all with the same laws and definitions.
And yet you want to hang the future of unborn children on them, or have you again forgotten that every one of those Supreme Court Justices (as with every judge) is just that?
Well, you're consistent in your inconsistency, as posits go. Else, that's a profoundly ignorant thing to say and about as objectively sustainable as most of your tangential inquiry and dodge. :e4e:
That seems like it's on the 12 people. The lawyers just did their jobs.
- Status