| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Things are heating up in Spain | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 18 2005, 02:49 PM (529 Views) | |
| kenny | Jun 18 2005, 02:49 PM Post #1 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/18...x.ap/index.html It is beautiful to watch this unfold before our eyes. Equality is inevitable. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2005, 04:11 PM Post #2 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You got equality, pal. Why did you avoid my discussion about marriage when I tried to involve you previously? It won't do any good using mantras to change the political landscape. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 18 2005, 04:15 PM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Nope. I can't get married. That is not equality. It is not any more complicated than that. I don't know what a political landscape is. I can't get married. Is that a political landscape? |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2005, 04:19 PM Post #4 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You mean you can't get married to another guy. I can't get pregnant. Both of these are not inequality -- that's nature. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| kenny | Jun 18 2005, 04:51 PM Post #5 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Oh, so it's about procreation? That's why no infertile or old people can get married, right? |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 18 2005, 04:58 PM Post #6 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Nature prevents a guy from marrying a guy?
I believe you are talking about definition #5, which very clearly states that it is a definition based on theology. None of the other definitions would seemingly, by their nature, prevent a man from marrying a man. A man can't become pregnant because it's physically impossible. Biology doesn't allow for it. The last I heard, biology doesn't prevent two men from saying "I do" to each other and signing a mutual piece of paper endorsed by the state. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2005, 05:54 PM Post #7 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It is broadly about procreation and begetting and raising of children. There are other aspects as well -- such as property and other rights. Regarding infertile and elderly couples, the prima facie fact is that two heterosexuals can bear children, two homosexuals cannot. Any further inspection of the couple's fertility would be invasive indeed. The fact of complementary sexuality is enough to grant a presumption of procreative power -- something that can never happen with homosexuals. I am not opposed to private corporations between persons to ensure rights of survivorship, tax and property benefits, insurance, etc. Yet this is not marriage. For the sake of discussion, should marriage be limited to only two people? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2005, 05:56 PM Post #8 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
No Quirt -- try #1, 2, 7 and 10. They don't prevent a man from saying anything to another man, nor a state from endorsing anything, but such events don't constitute marriage except in a strict sense of legal positivism. And that is not, IMO, solid grounds for establishing a healthy civil society. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jun 18 2005, 06:07 PM Post #9 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Kenny:
A lot of people have said the same thing for a long time for any number of reasons and they were all disappointed. A long diatribe on why equality is mostly an illusion and in this case completely impossible may not serve. Ivorythumper misstated the case badly I'm afraid, it has nothing to do with nature. The exchange went something like this: Ivorythumper:
By which I suppose he was referring to basic civil rights. To which Kenny responded:
Ivorythumper responded:
...and that Ivorythumper is where your reasoning failed you since of course an unmarried female can get pregnant. No, the whole notion of marriage having anything to do with equality as in other civil rights is what is bogus. Marriage is inherently EXCLUSIVE. It always has been and always will be or it wont be marriage. Be careful lest you fall into the lefties trap; it has nothing whatsoever to do with nature. Mankind could, and these days does, rut like the rest of the mammalian animals, and maybe that is the course that society will take in future, the result being an atomization of humanity within a giant hive-like socialism. Marriage is a social contract that is exclusive and offers limited rights to only certain individuals who by a traditional definition must be a heterosexual couple, one man and one woman. So why can't gay people be married? So why don't we allow polygamy? So why don't we allow polyandry? So why don't we terminate all benefits we give people for having children? So why don't we terminate all medical benefits we give to a spouse or in some cases a partner? Since people are going to rut anyway why not dispense with names having anything to do with ancestry, allow people to call themselves whatever they please? Marriage as it is presently understood is a cornerstone of social order, pure and simple. Those elements on the fringes of society who insist on equality with traditionally married people, including to me the unthinkable notion of having and raising children, are in effect tearing down the social order for their own purposes. Why don't they allow cross dressers to go to work wearing these kinds of clothes? Why don't they allow blind people to drive? Why don't they allow people who drive to have a few beers as they drive? But there are good people out there, who because of this issue feel themselves to be on the fringes, people like Kenny, who would like some, no ALL of the benefits that - through no fault of their own - are given to married people. You know what? There are a lot of UGLY people out there whom nobody will marry. What about them? There are a lot of disabled people out there who nobody will marry. What about them? What about the retarded? Some states may actually still ban marriage for those people, I don't know. Since most marriages end in divorce, marriage isn't even a guarantee of happiness. In short, there are lots of inequalities in life. Reasonable people learn to accept them and have some gratitude that their conditions are not worse. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2005, 06:31 PM Post #10 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
David: I am rather confused as to where you are going with your comments, and why you think I misstated the case. Of course any fertile woman can get pregant. That does undermine my argument that marriage is necessarily heterosexual. You write
This seems to be another way of stating what I wrote to Quirt about legal positivism, and to Kenny about the possibilities for civil corporations. I am very against the notion of homosexual couples adopting children--every bit as much as I am against Walmart adopting children, as well as single folks. I suspect that is one of the grand intentions for the gay marriage agenda. Once legally sanctioned as "marriage", why deprive anyone of the right to adopt? I am not sure whether you disagree with me, with my reasons, with my expression or vocabulary, or what. We don't seem to have different conclusions, and I don't disagree with your reasoning about exclusivity. That is another and very valid expression of the issue. By nature I intend first and foremost the biological consideration of complementary sexuality. Normally and in the vast majority of cases, one man and one woman conceive one child. The child has rights in justice to his or her parents. The order of society must be predicated on the norm, not the exception (such as divorce, orphanhood or abandonment, serial monogamy, cohabitation, homsexuality, bestiality, open marriage, polyandry and polygamy, etc.). |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 18 2005, 06:34 PM Post #11 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
Really? Then why can you be married outside of the auspices of organized religion? There are such things as civil ceremonies, and they are called marriages, even if there is no religious officiant. And they receive exactly the same benefits of marriage as a Catholic marriage, or a Hindu marriage, or a Jewish marriage. If getting a license, saying "I do", and signing a piece of paper didn't constitute a "real" marriage, why then does the law permit heterosexuals to be married in just that way? Moreover, if you think that marriage is predominantly a religious act, and not a legal one, then don't have the state endorse it at all, and don't allow any legal consequences. No tax consequences, no health care consequences, no property sharing or divorce consequences, no spousal privileges or immunities, no right to make decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, etc. If people want to have those consequences, let them enter into a separate, non-religious contract for those purposes. Oh, what's that you say? You want marriage to have those legal consequences? Since when does a religious act entitle you to certain legal consequences? Are there legal consequences from taking communion? Are there legal consequences from Baptism, or confirmation? I think it's fairly obvious that, in our society today, marriage is a legal act. There may be a religious overlay in many cases, but the religious overlay is absolutely not a necessary element of a marriage. Now, let's look at the definitions of nature you want to rely on:
Exactly what does that have to do with whether a man marries a woman, or another man? The material world is the same. Its phenomena are the same. Sorry, but I think that definition is totally inapposite.
This one is circular ... it's nature because homosexuality is contrary to the laws of nature. Except that it isn't contrary to the laws of nature. It's contrary to the laws of procreation, but the laws of procreation and the laws of nature are not identical, and there are animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Moreover, if homosexuality were contrary to the laws of nature, why are so many people afflicted with this supposedly unnatural urge?
The only problem here is that most of the latest science suggests that homosexuality is genetically predetermined. Assuming that's right, and there are no recent studies pointing in the opposite direction that I've seen, the "essential characteristics and qualities" of a homosexual person include homosexuality.
If you were right about this one, a man would not be able to have sex with another man. He wouldn't get physically aroused. He wouldn't be able to achieve and sustain an erection. He would be able to achieve orgasm. I assume we can all agree that, for men who are homosexual, it is physically possible to achieve and sustain an erection and to achieve orgasm with another man? If that's so, how then is it contrary to the processes and functions of the body? Once again, you are confusing procreation with bodily functions. In short, none of these definitions have the least thing to do with whether gay marriage is contrary to nature, or not. Gay marriage is contrary to your religious philosophy. And you choose to define it as contrary to nature because it's contrary to the way you want nature to be. Nevertheless, it's not contrary to nature under any of those definitions. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2005, 06:37 PM Post #12 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I was reading your screed and got to this, and stopped reading. Either write in dialogue with another or don't expect anyone to deal with unwinding your presuppositions of what someone else is saying. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Jun 18 2005, 06:44 PM Post #13 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Kenny - Yes, progress does seem to be happening, but I am not sure it is inevitable. People in the 19th century thought that, but then came WWI, the Holocaust, and Pol Pot. Things can always get worse. At least Spain is making progress now. Hopefully the RCC will put lots of effort behind stopping it and get soundly rejected by the Spanish populace, as they did n the Schiavo fiasco here.
|
![]() |
|
| QuirtEvans | Jun 18 2005, 06:44 PM Post #14 |
|
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
|
David Burton makes a far more elegant and rational argument against gay marriage:
I don't agree with it, but at least it isn't based on a misreading or twisting of otherwise inapposite definitions. And, by the way, gay marriage has little to do with adoption by gay parents. In most states, it is perfectly possible for gay parents to adopt a child. It happens all the time. Moreover, it's possible, given modern medical science, for gay parents to have children. I know several that have done so ... through sperm donors, or surrogates. So, even if you forbid adoption by gay parents, all you're doing is preventing poor homosexuals from having children. Well-to-do homosexuals will still have other avenues available for parenting. |
| It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010. | |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jun 18 2005, 07:04 PM Post #15 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Quirt:
Well, I guess I owe Quirt a sort of thank-you. Quirt:
Yes, and it should be abundantly clear by now that money can tip the scales in all sorts of ways, always has and always will. So, if you want something bad enough and you have the money... And of course ivorythumper and I disagree on very little except maybe I'm not really as good a Catholic as he is though I think trying to be is a good thing. I was just not so sure he was going about arguing the case very well, that's all. We agree that fundamentally what the fringe wants to do is wreck the social order for their own agenda, which is that there is and shall be no difference between the heterosexual and homosexual lifestyle before the law and the eyes of society. All I can say is good luck. The next thing that will happen as an inevitable (to use that word again) consequence is that child molesters will demand freedom and equality to do as they please. And yes, I know that homosexuals and child molesters are different. I just know where the slippery slope ends up. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 18 2005, 07:37 PM Post #16 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Believe me, David, all we can do is try. Which is why we have confession and reconciliation. ![]() And you might well be right that I was not arguing the case very well. I can always learn a thing or two from the pros! |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 18 2005, 09:21 PM Post #17 |
|
:lol: Haha, he's got ya there Ken!
|
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 18 2005, 09:29 PM Post #18 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
This is all great, but Kenny is right. Equality is inevitable. It is in fact, about a generation away, and it will be driven by the easy acceptance of gays and gay themes on television. The generation coming up will be raised with visions of gay couples who are not great horned monsters and instead will see gays as people pretty much like everyone else. There will be those who try to keep their kids away from these images, and I have no doubt that some of the august contributors to this forum won't let their kids watch "Will and Grace". Even so, the bell has been rung and no amoount of well-meaning but misguided posturing in the world is going to un-ring it. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 18 2005, 09:31 PM Post #19 |
|
David makes some great points here. He lists many inequalities that are present in life, and yet he's only scratching the surface. IT, as always, is very smart and articulate as well. Oh and it doesn't look like anyone here is arguing based on religion. It wouldn't be a fair playing field since there are atheists out there as well...people here against gay marriages are forming their positions from social standpoints. Equality is inevitably NEVER going to be reached Kenny. You do the best with what you have, and whether you like it or not...everyone can not get their way. For the general good of society and her stability, certain rules and standards MUST be set forth. The line has to be drawn somewhere with "marriages" and it might as well be with ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 18 2005, 09:33 PM Post #20 |
|
I agree with you Steve. Although by "equality" you are talking about "gay equality"....not equality in the idealistic and unrealistic sense. Within the next few generations, gay marriage will eventually be legalized. I can only hope it's done state by state, so that I know where I'm going to live. |
![]() |
|
| David Burton | Jun 18 2005, 10:03 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Carp
|
I don't agree with Steve and the congratulatory tone is way premature. In fact the backlash is already mounting among the young themselves who amazingly enough, without any prompting from older people, are making up their own minds that they just don't like people who are gay and more in their face stuff about them is going to make it worse. Have any of you heard the word "gay" used in a manner suggesting old hat or passé? I have, among the young. I don't know where they got it from, but it will spread. I had wished that the Civil Rights movement would have resulted in a more color blind society, an end to racism etc. None of this is ever going to happen and I'm more than ever convinced that the reasons are visceral not mental; they are part of the animal nature not that which is human. There may be no way around this, it may be a fatal flaw in our species. Cinsider how other animals settle their differences, they often fight. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 18 2005, 10:06 PM Post #22 |
|
David, do you think gay marriage will never be legal? Perhaps you're right, in that it may never be legal in all 50 states, but quite a few blue states will pass gay legislation within the next few decades I'm guessing. |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 18 2005, 10:16 PM Post #23 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Why do you suppose this is so, David? Do you consider the fact that some people "don't like gays" a legitimate reason to deny gays their basic right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 18 2005, 10:20 PM Post #24 |
|
Steve, many basic rights argued with the "life, liberty..." line are denied. Is it my right to walk around naked? No. ...one of many examples. Life's unfair, if you think you are born gay...then you have a disadvantage that you need to deal with. People are born with disabilities all the time. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 18 2005, 10:21 PM Post #25 |
|
...like Phlebas' inability to admit he's wrong. Sorry, cheap shot! ![]()
|
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2









4:18 PM Jul 10