Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 9
Senate rejects gay marriage ban
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,301 Views)
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I have many times stated that I am fully in favor of Registered Domestic Corporations™ between any number of consenting adults of any age or sexual preference or composition, that provide for rights of inheritence, insurance, tax advantage, property, etc. No "rights" are being denied to anyone. If three or four people want to declare their commitments to each other and have a "religious ceremony" of some sort, that's their business.

But let's not call it "marriage" -- let alone the complete absurdity of "matrimony". What objection do you have to this?


If you let homosexual couples adopt i don't have an objection, but i and many others will call it "marriage", because we disagree with you about what the word means.

You say it's impossible according to your definition, but i have a different definition. I say it is possible.

The question then becomes somewhat academic are the differences between a homosexual union "significant" or "insignificant" in comparison to a heterosexual union and what criterea do we use to decide significance. My answer is that the differences are ultimately insignificant and popular language will eventual adjust to reflect that.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I'd draw the line at adoption -- no corporation should own persons. If there is ever a dearth of heterosexual couple able and willing to adopt, then we can discuss this. The optimal relationship for rearing children seems to be the natural order of man and woman -- children learn different skills and patterns from men and from women and this seems to be the optimal arrangement that society should promote in determining who can adopt. And adoption is clearly NOT a right in the conventional sense of human or civil rights.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I'd draw the line at adoption -- no corporation should own persons.


And there is our disagreement, a homosexual couple is not a corporation, they are couple.

Quote:
 

If there is ever a dearth of heterosexual couple able and willing to adopt, then we can discuss this.


Don't we have more children needing adoption than parents adopting right now?

Quote:
 

The optimal relationship for rearing children seems to be the natural order of man and woman -- children learn different skills and patterns from men and from women and this seems to be the optimal arrangement that society should promote in determining who can adopt. And adoption is clearly NOT a right in the conventional sense of human or civil rights.


Adoption agencies examine couples looking for an environment that would be beneficial to the child, there are examples of homosexual couples bring up children in a loving environment, with no obvious detriment to the child. Given this observation what is the basis of ruling them out apriori?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Jun 9 2006, 11:42 AM
Quote:
 

I'd draw the line at adoption -- no corporation should own persons.


And there is our disagreement, a homosexual couple is not a corporation, they are couple.

Quote:
 

If there is ever a dearth of heterosexual couple able and willing to adopt, then we can discuss this.


Don't we have more children needing adoption than parents adopting right now?

Quote:
 

The optimal relationship for rearing children seems to be the natural order of man and woman -- children learn different skills and patterns from men and from women and this seems to be the optimal arrangement that society should promote in determining who can adopt. And adoption is clearly NOT a right in the conventional sense of human or civil rights.


Adoption agencies examine couples looking for an environment that would be beneficial to the child, there are examples of homosexual couples bring up children in a loving environment, with no obvious detriment to the child. Given this observation what is the basis of ruling them out apriori?

No, many couples are having to go to China and Russia and Central/ South America to adopt. There is definitely a lack of adoption babies in the US.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Posted Image
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Aqua Letifer
Jun 9 2006, 12:26 PM
89th,

Quote:
 
Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.


So are you saying then, that if it were realistic, you would like to have those tests done? And what do you mean by realistic?

In order to be married by certain priests, some couples actually have to go through a "marriage class", to make sure they understand all that's involved, and to make sure they truly know what they're getting into. It's not all that intensive, and doesn't require that much time.

We have the ability to perform most or all of those tests you've described. I bet they could all be done from one, maybe two trips to a doctor or psychologist's office. These tests would take shorter time than the marriage courses being performed today. Why don't we just do them?

I disagree with that premise entirely anyway, because to me marriage isn't about fertility, mental state, intelligence, or anything of that sort. Realistic testing or no, these should never be the criteria for marriage.

Well, the marriage courses today are voluntary, and aren't required for marriage, unless you choose to go a specific route.

Ideally, I think it would be good to "test" couples to see if they are ready for marriage and bringing a child into the world, but those test aren't realistic. They wouldn't be able to be implemented, and would be too controversial, riddled with scandal, IMO.

I think there are many things society could do to make things better, but not all of them are realistic, able to be implemented without controversy, scandal, corruption, and lawsuits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Matt G.
Jun 9 2006, 12:29 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 11:13 AM
MB:

Quote:
 
Sure but that's mere logistics, if it was easy then you would be infavour of it? It's just a practical issue.


Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.

Sorry...gotta go to lunch now. :)

No, really, it shouldn't be who CAN reproduce, it should be those who DO reproduce. Just because I can play basketball doesn't mean I do play for the Nicks. Just because the parts fit together, that doesn't mean they work. If the civil institution of marriage is for the protection children, the rights associated therewith should only apply to couples with children.

If a couple wishes to abrogate their duty to have children, they should not reap the benefits accorded the married.

Being able to play basketball, and PLAYING basketball for the knicks is a different thing.

Gay men can have sex, but HAVING heterosexual sex is a different thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 09:11 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 09:00 AM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 07:57 AM
Quote:
 
Now, Isaac, you know the entire point of this discussion is to find out why it is reserved to heterosexuals. Your response is simply saying it is reserved to them because it is. It does not answer the question of why.


I didn't say it is, because it is. I said that it's reserved for heterosexuals, because they are the only type of couple that can have children.

Which brings us back to the logical conclusion that heterosexuals who cannot have children should not be allowed to marry -- round and round and round we go.

So, do you want to explain to me again why you think sterile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry when you have said that the reason people are allowed to marry is because they can have children?

Rick: The fact that you are on a dialogic merry go round is that you are trying to make the case that no one who is incapable of reproduction should be allowed to marry if homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Those are not the terms of the argument, and they are extensions that you are trying to put on them to dismantle the actual argument.

Part of the convention of conversation is that one must discuss on the same agreed upon terms. 89th, Jolly, and I have already pointed out why your extensions are not persuasive or compelling, so if you want to keep insisting upon them -- enjoy the ride!!!! :wink:

No thumps.

You simply do not want to take your logic to where it leads. You want it to stop at a certain point so that you do not have to face the inherent illogic of it.

No can do, Sir. If you state that procreation is a fundamental aspect of a valid marriage, then you have to accept the consequences of such a statement.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 01:12 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 09:13 AM
MB:

Quote:
 
Sure but that's mere logistics, if it was easy then you would be infavour of it? It's just a practical issue.


Ideally, it would be nice to test every couple's aptitude for being parents - from fertility, to mental state, to intelligence, to ability, to patience, etc. But that's not realistic, thus we go to the next level - which couples CAN reproduce? Heterosexuals.

Sorry...gotta go to lunch now. :)

89th -- that would not be ideal, and would in fact be deeply invasive of personal privacy.

Good point, it would be too invasive to be ideal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 09:00 AM
The only test required is: "are these two persons of complementary sexuality and past the age of puberty". Anything else will be deeply invasive of personal privacy. Complementary sexuality is chromosomally XX and XY. (I will acknowledge but for now table the rare cases of XXY etc -- hard cases make bad laws).

That is the only "test" required is whether the couple is of complementary sexuality and of full age.

Ahem....

What happened to your argument about procreation?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 09:52 AM
Moonbat
Jun 9 2006, 10:36 AM
As such it is meaningless to talk about homosexual marriage.


Folks, we have a winner here. It is not that homosexuals are denied marriage, they are incapable of it. You are not capable of unassisted breathing under water. Are you "denied" that?

Of course, this is based only on your exclusionary definition of what marriage is; ignoring the fact that it is this very definition which is in dispute.

Arguing that you have set the definition, that it is the only defintion that is possible and thus worthy of being used and therefore you have won the argument because no one else wants to accept this as the only possible definition boils down to...

"I am right because I said I am right. You are all wrong because you disagree with me."

Your logic on this fails, thumps.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick, Moonie, etc...what would your definition of marriage be? There obviously has to be one...what would you have it be?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Tell ya what, guys.

When you prove to me that a man can have sexual intercourse with another man, either rectally or orally, and impregnate that man through no artifical means, allowing him to concieve and carry a baby to full term, then deliver the aforemenetioned baby, I'll give your homosexual procreation argument more weight.

That, and the book would be worth millions....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 10:50 AM
No, many couples are having to go to China and Russia and Central/ South America to adopt.  There is definitely a lack of adoption babies in the US.

While it is true that international adoptions are in increasing demand, I am not so certain that there is a shortage of North American babies available for adoption. Major deterrents here are that 1) the social welfare system discourages and even impedes mixed race adoptions; 2) in many jurisdictions the birthmother has the full legal right to reclaim maternal rights for up to one or even two years after the adoption; 2) adoptions must remain open- i.e. the child has the right to find out who his or her birth parents were and the reverse and; 3) sadly, many children available for adoption are HIV positive or damaged by their birth mother's substance abuse during perganacy. Not all adoptive parents are prepared to adopt special needs or disbaled babies voluntarily.

My wife and I are presently in the process of adopting a child in Kazakhstan as Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and many Central American countries have recently closed their doors to international adoptions for a variety of sordid reasons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 12:25 PM
I'll give your homosexual procreation argument more weight.

How about the "Registered Domestic Corporation" [tm] argument?
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
I don't think it takes much proof to prove that a 70 year-old woman is incapable of bearing children. She's maybe ten years older than the oldest mother, in all of recorded history.

So, since we know for a rock-solid, without-any-further-investigation certainty, that she is incapable of procreation ... based solely on the information already required on the marriage license, without any medical testing ... should she be barred from marriage, because she is no longer capable of procreating?
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 12:06 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 09:00 AM
The only test required is: "are these two persons of complementary sexuality and past the age of puberty".  Anything else will be deeply invasive of personal privacy. Complementary sexuality is chromosomally XX and XY. (I will acknowledge but for now table the rare cases of XXY etc -- hard cases make bad laws).

That is the only "test" required is whether the couple is of complementary sexuality and of full age.

Ahem....

What happened to your argument about procreation?

Rick:

I am getting tired of keeping repeating the argument because of your limited attention span.

Go back and read what I have already written about the reasonable expectation of procreative potency between persons of complementary sexuality -- and the complete lack of ANY procreative potency between homosexuals.

Quote:
 
your exclusionary definition of what marriage is
It is not *my* exclusionary definition. It is common parlance since the dawn of civilization.

And to call it "exclusionary" is the same to call it a "definition" -- all definitions are exclusionary-- that's the way language works. Evidently, that has never occurred to you before. :shrug:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jun 9 2006, 12:29 PM
I don't think it takes much proof to prove that a 70 year-old woman is incapable of bearing children. She's maybe ten years older than the oldest mother, in all of recorded history.

So, since we know for a rock-solid, without-any-further-investigation certainty, that she is incapable of procreation ... based solely on the information already required on the marriage license, without any medical testing ... should she be barred from marriage, because she is no longer capable of procreating?


Your "rock solid" argument already crumbled.

Just last a 65 year old woman delivered a healthy baby, so the "post child bearing age" is not a strong argument, whereas NO homosexual couple has ever engendered a child between themselves.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 11:21 AM
Rick, Moonie, etc...what would your definition of marriage be? There obviously has to be one...what would you have it be?

I'll be happy to take the definition propsoed int he Consitutional Amendment which is the same as the one used in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with a minor rewording. Seems perfectly reasonable. It is

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman two consenting adults."
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Steve Miller
Jun 9 2006, 01:29 PM
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 12:25 PM
I'll give your homosexual procreation argument more weight.

How about the "Registered Domestic Corporation" [tm] argument?

If I was politically advising the gay "rights" movement, this is the avenue I'd tell them to pursue.

I don't think people will grant them all of the civil and legal benefits of marriage, but this is a heckuva a lot more than half of a loaf, and probably doable, even in the Bible Belt.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 03:37 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 11:21 AM
Rick, Moonie, etc...what would your definition of marriage be? There obviously has to be one...what would you have it be?

I'll be happy to take the definition propsoed int he Consitutional Amendment which is the same as the one used in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with a minor rewording. Seems perfectly reasonable. It is

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman two consenting adults."

I really don't want to bring it up, buuuuuuut...

What about family members?

Also, if the gender is removed from the defintion. How much longer until the number restriction?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 12:37 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 11:21 AM
Rick, Moonie, etc...what would your definition of marriage be? There obviously has to be one...what would you have it be?

I'll be happy to take the definition propsoed int he Consitutional Amendment which is the same as the one used in the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with a minor rewording. Seems perfectly reasonable. It is

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman two consenting adults."

Why two? You seem to be hateful and bigoted against those who have a greater capacity to love more than one person.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Just last a 65 year old woman delivered a healthy baby, so the "post child bearing age" is not a strong argument, whereas NO homosexual couple has ever engendered a child between themselves.


Which is why I chose 70, but use 80 or 90 or 100, if you like. There is an age at which it is, so far, scientifically impossible.

Moreover, I believe the 65 year-old required an ovum donor, did she not? And in vitro fertilization. So she's no different than a lesbian couple that gets pregnant with a sperm donor. She wasn't capable of doing it herself. Scientifically impossible. No different than a lesbian couple.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 11:33 AM
Rick:

I am getting tired of keeping repeating the argument because of your limited attention span. 

Go back and read what I have already written about the reasonable expectation of procreative potency between persons of complementary sexuality -- and the complete lack of ANY procreative potency between homosexuals.

I have read it -- over and over again. The simple fact you have moved to ignoring "procreation" and now say your point is nothing more than "complementary sexuality and past the age of puberty" is self evident that you cannot support your own logic any longer.

And no need to go back and explain your theory of procreation again, thumps. We have all heard it and many of us reject it as lacking in logic when appropriately applied.

Quote:
 
And to call it "exclusionary" is the same to call it a "definition" -- all definitions are exclusionary-- that's the way language works. Evidently, that has never occurred to you before.


And the point of the discussion is to challenge this definition. So, please do not repeat the defintion and then claim that you are right. As I said, when you do so, all you are saying is "I am right because I said I am right. You are all wrong because you disagree with me."
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 11:38 AM
Steve Miller
Jun 9 2006, 01:29 PM
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 12:25 PM
I'll give your homosexual procreation argument more weight.

How about the "Registered Domestic Corporation" [tm] argument?

If I was politically advising the gay "rights" movement, this is the avenue I'd tell them to pursue.

I don't think people will grant them all of the civil and legal benefits of marriage, but this is a heckuva a lot more than half of a loaf, and probably doable, even in the Bible Belt.

Would you personally support it, Jolly?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 9