| 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: |
| Senate rejects gay marriage ban | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,304 Views) | |
| Aqua Letifer | Jun 8 2006, 11:15 AM Post #76 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Coming right up in PM form. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 8 2006, 11:16 AM Post #77 |
|
Since I made them publicly, you can post them publicly. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jun 8 2006, 11:34 AM Post #78 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Since we are no longer talking about what the thread was opened for, or any other matter that includes anyone else, I don't see the need to post them publicly. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Jun 8 2006, 11:35 AM Post #79 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
You two should get a room. You already have one? Good - go to it.
|
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jun 8 2006, 11:43 AM Post #80 |
|
I really make this too easy for you, Steve.
|
![]() |
|
| Improviso | Jun 8 2006, 12:09 PM Post #81 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
[ in cheek]It appears to me that the REAL problem is not *a man and a woman*, or *a woman and woman* or even *a man and a man*. No, the real problem appears to be cohabitation as illustrated by the previous argument. There is something about 2 humans living together under the same roof that inevitably leads to one or the other wanting to rip the throat out of their co-habitator. The real problem is human cohabitation. BAN COHABITATION. [/ in cheek]
|
|
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism. We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 12:22 PM Post #82 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
That reductio fallacy only works if you conveniently ignore the indisputable fact of reproductive biology. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jun 8 2006, 12:26 PM Post #83 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Ivory, so you believe that marriage is tied in with reproductive biology? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Jun 8 2006, 12:35 PM Post #84 |
|
MAMIL
|
My argument is ignoring any question of whether gay marriage is right or wrong. All I'm disputing is the 'slippery slope' argument, which I normally oppose on general grounds anyway. We can't give 'em this, because then they'll want this, and this and this, is an illogical argument. We should judge each specific case on it's merits, and have the courage to say 'no' when appropriate, without using the rather lame excuse of 'I'd like to help you, and actually think you're right, but look where this will lead...' As an aside, I glanced at the screen and honestly mis-read 'reductio fallacy' as something completely different, but not unrelated to marital behaviour.
|
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 12:40 PM Post #85 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I have consistently maintained the position that the fact of children as a natural extension of complementary sexuality is one of the most pressing reasons that the state (or the tribe for that matter) has a stake in the regulation of marriage. It is obviously not the only reason, and even if children are not engendered it in no way diminishes the marriage or the greater interest. There are other reasons as well, such as property rights and inheritance or other issues of justice. However, the fact of reproductive biology, with the consequent need for a stable family environment in which to rear and educate children, is obviously a central consideration. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jun 8 2006, 12:53 PM Post #86 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Okay, so are you saying that the ability to procreate, and the ability to create a stable family environment for children, are the requirements necessary for marriage, and the state needs to be able to defend these two things (reproduction and a positive family environment), which is why they need to keep marriage between man and woman? No catch here, I just want to make sure I've dumbed it down to my level accurately. ![]() Okay, well, what about all those special cases? Like artificial fertilization or adoption, or single parents? What I'm suggesting is that there are many cases in today's society that do not fit the man-woman-child model of the family unit, but are still stable and positive environments for children to grow up in. And as for reproductive biology, how far does one take that? If a man and woman were incapable of having a child due to being infertile or some other biological reason, should they not get married? What I'm saying is, how far should one take this idea? Heck, taking the gay marriage issue aside, how rigid should the state be when regulating this? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Jun 8 2006, 01:02 PM Post #87 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
$50 around here, more if you want "around the world".... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Matt G. | Jun 8 2006, 01:29 PM Post #88 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Taken to one possible conclusion, it could be successfully argued, based on this model, that the only persons who should be eligible for marriage are those who have procreated together. The contention that the property laws and rights that marriage engenders are for the protection of offspring necessarily obviates any need to extend these property laws and rights to those who have not produced offspring. The rights of survivorship, joint ownership, next-of-kin, etc. according to the notion of marriage being a reproductive issue, are thus immaterial to childless couples. Similarly, if the state in the business of providing one-stop-shopping for legal services for people in committed relationships (regardless of child-bearing), then the argument that the civil institution of marriage is based on the welfare and protection of offspring loses all validity. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 01:45 PM Post #89 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Aqua: you keep missing the central notion that the POTENTIAL ability to reproduce is all that is worthy of consideration. A simple prima facia observation: is the one person male and other person female?, and are both past puberty?, is all that is necessary. Anything else would be deeply invasive of personal privacy. Whether that potential is ever actualized is not germane, although even in civil marriage matrimonium ratum non consummatum is grounds for a declaration of nullity. As for other situations, it seems obvious that the ideal arrangement for the rearing and education of children is within a stable M+F marriage environment. There are obviously other circumstance and people do the best they can when they lose a spouse through death or divorce, or when others must raise the children because of abandonment or death or incapacition or remarriage. Folks are pretty resilient, but I would argue that it is in the state's best interest to promote stable, enduring, monogamous marriages for the rearing of children that are normally the product of these complementary sexual relationships. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 01:50 PM Post #90 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
There are such draconian societies that predicate that the State is above the family -- various forms of socialism and communitarianism. If you want to argue that the State is above the family, rather than the aristotelian notion that the family is the basic unit of society, and the polis rises from the oikos, I'd be happy to discuss that with you. Perhaps you are arguing one part of the argument -- that the rights are engendered for the children -- as if that were the whole of the argument. I'll have to consult Schopenauer for what that precise form of rhetorical violence is called. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| LadyElton | Jun 8 2006, 01:51 PM Post #91 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
If we allow a black man to marry a white woman, next thing you know there will be people wanting to marrying their dog or a brother to marry his sister. See how dumb that sounds? Well, it is the same thing when talking about gay marriage. Here's a hint for the breeders: heterosexuals and homosexuals are the same. The only difference is the gender of the person one is attracted to and falls in love with. Comparing me to someone who wants to **** her dog or marry her brother is an insult. It's like calling a black person a nigger. |
| Hilary aka LadyElton | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jun 8 2006, 01:53 PM Post #92 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
ivory, In the state of Massachusetts, a blood test is mandatory for persons applying for marriage licenses. It's already more than the "simple prima facia observation" that you suggested. What's the harm to also include some form of fertility test? ![]() Also, why even including the "past puberty" clause if you're only aftering the "potential ability" to pre-create? The pre-puberty kids would eventual grow into it anyway, so the "potential" is always there. |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jun 8 2006, 01:53 PM Post #93 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Ivory, Thanks for the explanation. Just curious, but how do you feel about homosexual relationships, and adopting children? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 02:01 PM Post #94 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am against the invasiveness of blood tests, so that you live in a society where you allow the state that sort of entry into your personal life is not my problem. As for post puberty -- and I know that you love playing devil's advocate -- the fact is that we live in space and time, and the development of an individual is contingent on the fact of age. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 02:03 PM Post #95 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I don't feel anything about homosexual relationships or about adopting children. Why do you ask? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jun 8 2006, 02:13 PM Post #96 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
ivory, On the "past puberty" clause, that really is not necessary if you're only aftering "potential ability" rather than "actual ability." Going by "potential ability," logically, one would deny marriage licenses to post-menopausal women before one would deny marriage licenses to pre-puberty girls. So... what's your take on giving post-menopausal women the right to marriage in the first place? |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jun 8 2006, 02:13 PM Post #97 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
To rephrase, do you (Ivory) either support or disagree with those in homosexual relationships adopting children? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 02:19 PM Post #98 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The ability to procreate can be assumed for the sake of marriage given any two sexually mature persons of complementary sexuality. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jun 8 2006, 02:21 PM Post #99 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
If and when there is ever a dearth of heterosexual couples ready to adopt, I'll consider that question. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Jun 8 2006, 02:25 PM Post #100 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The inability to pro-create can also be assumed for the sake of marriage if a person is too old, no? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |






in cheek]




10:41 PM Jul 12