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
  • 8
Senate rejects gay marriage ban
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,300 Views)
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 11:39 AM
Why two? You seem to be hateful and bigoted against those who have a greater capacity to love more than one person.

and there's a place for them folks too- they're called Promiscuous Community Cooperatives (tm).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 01:47 PM
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?

You need to keep up. :tongue: :tongue:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 11:39 AM
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?

Did you object to the Constitutional Amendment on these grounds, because it did not exclude incestuous relations? I am only using the same wording that the right wants inserted into the Constitution. You are opposed to it?

As for changing the number, the same concern can exist even if you define marriage as requiring male/female members. How long do you think it will be before the number is changed if marriage is defined as male/female?
[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
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
So does this mean you want to retract your decision to never to correspond with me?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Nope. I told you it was going to be an ongoing struggle to resist the temptation. You should understand ongoing struggles to resist temptation.
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, 12:46 PM
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."

You can dismiss whatever oppositional arguments you want, Rick, but not without showing grounds for inconsistency. You have failed to do that -- all you done is averred that children have absolutely no bearing on the state's interest in marriage and have never supported this against thousands of years of lived human experience.

And as far as challenging definitions, that is just a nonsense semantic game. All definitions are subject to being challenged. The point of a definition is to DEFINE: in this case we are talking about a particular intentionally stable and permanent relationship between one man and one woman that normatively is procreative and through which children are engendered. That is a working definition of *marriage*. It has been for aeons. it is still a perfectly workable term to describe that sort of relationship.

If you want to call some other relationship something else, that is fine with me, but don't screw with the language for the sake of your political correct doublespeak.
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, 01:02 PM
Nope. I told you it was going to be an ongoing struggle to resist the temptation. You should understand ongoing struggles to resist temptation.

I guess you just need to say more Pasternosters, Quirt. :lol:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 03:51 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 11:39 AM
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?

Did you object to the Constitutional Amendment on these grounds, because it did not exclude incestuous relations? I am only using the same wording that the right wants inserted into the Constitution. You are opposed to it?

As for changing the number, the same concern can exist even if you define marriage as requiring male/female members. How long do you think it will be before the number is changed if marriage is defined as male/female?

An interesting point. I'll put it this way, which should cover it all. I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.

I think it's because incestuous sex is illegal in every state. I think polygamy is as well. Homosexual sex was also illegal until recently, IIRC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 12:48 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 11:39 AM
Why two?  You seem to be hateful and bigoted against those who have a greater capacity to love more than one person.

and there's a place for them folks too- they're called Promiscuous Community Cooperatives (tm).

So you are really making arguments in support of my point. The nature of the relationship determines what we call it.

Let us then reserve "Marriage" for those particular intentionally stable and permanent relationship between one man and one woman that normatively is procreative and through which children are engendered; RDC(tm)'s for homosexual couples; PCC(tm)s for polyamory and group sex aficionados.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Pope Innocence LXXXIX wrote
 
I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.



Don't you think the "consenting adults" clause is a bit modernist and Western. What about immigrant cultures in which arranged marriages are the norm? Seems to me that in such cases all one of the partners would have to do after X years of not so blissful conjugal life is go to the coursts and say, "Look My Lord (or in the US, Your Honour), it was all arranged by my parents or face disgrace, I never, or we never never consented to anything". Marriage annulled.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Is it honestly really important enough to stick in the constitution? Why does it worry people so much? You don't have to agree with it, but making it unconstitutional?

To look at it another way, how will writing it down on a piece of paper make any difference at all?

To look at it yet another way, why have a constitution in the first place? Wasn't the original document drafted to define America, a mission statement for the future, and to avoid abuses of power. To stick gay marriage in there amongst all the lofty ideals seems more than a little silly to me. It will make foreigners laugh at you - bear that in mind, America.

On the other hand, I guess it will allow people to use that oh-so-convincing argument, 'yer can't do this, me bucko, as it's unconstitoooshonal, it must be wrong!'. In other words, 'it's against the rules, no more thought is required'. :rolleyes:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
From 89th..

Quote:
 
An interesting point. I'll put it this way, which should cover it all. I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.

I think it's because incestuous sex is illegal in every state. I think polygamy is as well. Homosexual sex was also illegal until recently, IIRC.

OK, then I'll make this my definition..

'"marriage is between one man, and one woman two individuals, who are consenting adults, and unrelated."

Or, we could begin with the thumpster's definition which he apparently thinks is a definition that was laid down aeons ago and to which everyone at all times and in all ways has agreed ever since then: a "particular intentionally stable and permanent relationship between one man and one woman that normatively is procreative and through which children are engendered"

(The problem I have with thumpster's, though, is trying to find a verifiable source source for it, even though it has been used for aeons, so he says. He apparently doesn't like the definition that was used in DOMA or the proposed Constitutional Amendment.)
[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
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 01:28 PM
From 89th..

Quote:
 
An interesting point. I'll put it this way, which should cover it all. I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.

I think it's because incestuous sex is illegal in every state. I think polygamy is as well. Homosexual sex was also illegal until recently, IIRC.

OK, then I'll make this my definition..

'"marriage is between one man, and one woman two individuals, who are consenting adults, and unrelated."

Or, we could begin with the thumpster's definition which he apparently thinks is a definition that was laid down aeons ago and to which everyone at all times and in all ways has agreed ever since then: a "particular intentionally stable and permanent relationship between one man and one woman that normatively is procreative and through which children are engendered"

(The problem I have with thumpster's, though, is trying to find a verifiable source source for it, even though it has been used for aeons, so he says. He apparently doesn't like the definition that was used in DOMA or the proposed Constitutional Amendment.)

Rick; You can't be that dense to not understand what I meant by a "working definition". Your presumption that I am claiming it is codified or somewhere written, or that if I advance my own working definition I must disagree with other directly analogous definitions, indicates to me that you are just going back to the old Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) -- and that is unbearably tedious to deal with.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Miller
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 12:38 PM
I don't think people will grant them all of the civil and legal benefits of marriage,

There is hope.

Which benefits would you not extend to same-sex couples?
Wag more
Bark less
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 12:34 PM
Rick;  You can't be that dense to not understand what I meant by a "working definition".  Your presumption that I am claiming it is codified or somewhere written, or that if I advance my own working definition I must disagree with other directly analogous definitions, indicates to me that you are just going back to the old Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) -- and that is unbearably tedious to deal with.

Yea, but it's so much fun to use 'cuz it pis*es you off so! :lol:
[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

AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 04:21 PM
Pope Innocence LXXXIX wrote
 
I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.



Don't you think the "consenting adults" clause is a bit modernist and Western. What about immigrant cultures in which arranged marriages are the norm? Seems to me that in such cases all one of the partners would have to do after X years of not so blissful conjugal life is go to the coursts and say, "Look My Lord (or in the US, Your Honour), it was all arranged by my parents or face disgrace, I never, or we never never consented to anything". Marriage annulled.

"Consenting" is modernist and Western? So? The definition would apply to the USA. Don't remember any arranged marriages lately...

Couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic, so sorry for the serious reply...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 12:18 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 12:48 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 11:39 AM
Why two?  You seem to be hateful and bigoted against those who have a greater capacity to love more than one person.

and there's a place for them folks too- they're called Promiscuous Community Cooperatives (tm).

So you are really making arguments in support of my point. The nature of the relationship determines what we call it.


Provided you can register a patent- not a constitutional ammendment but a patent- on the exclusively heterosexual design and process of marriage, I'll support you 100%.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 01:28 PM


'"marriage is between one man, and one woman two individuals, who are consenting adults, and unrelated."

Once again you show disdain and contempt for those who are have greater capacities to love than you do.

Of course, that seems to be self evident, for if you had greater capacity to love, then you would not HATE and be BIGOTTED toward those who have greater capacities to love.

It is your lack of love and acceptance and toleration that leads you to insist marriage must be between only two.

And you call yourself a Christian? Your whole religion is a sham -- it is nothing but hate mongering and being exclusionary. You should be ashamed of yourself.

#%^%$ BIGOT!!!!!
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

John D'Oh
Jun 9 2006, 04:24 PM
Is it honestly really important enough to stick in the constitution? Why does it worry people so much? You don't have to agree with it, but making it unconstitutional?

To look at it another way, how will writing it down on a piece of paper make any difference at all?

To look at it yet another way, why have a constitution in the first place? Wasn't the original document drafted to define America, a mission statement for the future, and to avoid abuses of power. To stick gay marriage in there amongst all the lofty ideals seems more than a little silly to me. It will make foreigners laugh at you - bear that in mind, America.

On the other hand, I guess it will allow people to use that oh-so-convincing argument, 'yer can't do this, me bucko, as it's unconstitoooshonal, it must be wrong!'. In other words, 'it's against the rules, no more thought is required'. :rolleyes:

Again, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

Putting something in the constitution is the HIGHEST of all precedents in the codified US legal system. Higher than supreme court rulings. Sure they might get over-turned but that's even more rare than seeing a jackalope or taking a picture of bigfoot driving a car. We have ammendments about numerous social issues. Voting, drinking, etc. Marriage is more than qualified to be codified in the constitution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 01:37 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 12:34 PM
Rick;  You can't be that dense to not understand what I meant by a "working definition".  Your presumption that I am claiming it is codified or somewhere written, or that if I advance my own working definition I must disagree with other directly analogous definitions, indicates to me that you are just going back to the old Zimmerian Dialectic(tm) -- and that is unbearably tedious to deal with.

Yea, but it's so much fun to use 'cuz it pis*es you off so! :lol:

It doesn't piss me off -- it just make you dismissable.

But that's your choice. :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 04:28 PM
From 89th..

Quote:
 
An interesting point. I'll put it this way, which should cover it all. I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.

I think it's because incestuous sex is illegal in every state. I think polygamy is as well. Homosexual sex was also illegal until recently, IIRC.

OK, then I'll make this my definition..

'"marriage is between one man, and one woman two individuals, who are consenting adults, and unrelated."


And polyamory?

If there's nothing wrong with two people getting married.

Is there something so wrong with three people getting married?

Serious question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:38 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 04:21 PM
Pope Innocence LXXXIX wrote
 
I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.



Don't you think the "consenting adults" clause is a bit modernist and Western. What about immigrant cultures in which arranged marriages are the norm? Seems to me that in such cases all one of the partners would have to do after X years of not so blissful conjugal life is go to the coursts and say, "Look My Lord (or in the US, Your Honour), it was all arranged by my parents or face disgrace, I never, or we never never consented to anything". Marriage annulled.

"Consenting" is modernist and Western? So? The definition would apply to the USA. Don't remember any arranged marriages lately...

Couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic, so sorry for the serious reply...

Do a bit of digging and find out what the norm is for most if not all Sikh, Hindu and Pakistani Muslim immigrant families. While you're at it, check a few traditions not uncommon to some South Slav communities. They don't check all marriage traditions at the door when the immigrate to North America.

I also have heard that arranged marriages do occur within some Mormon circles.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

ivorythumper
Jun 9 2006, 04:41 PM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 01:28 PM


'"marriage is between one man, and one woman two individuals, who are consenting adults, and unrelated."

Once again you show disdain and contempt for those who are have greater capacities to love than you do.

Of course, that seems to be self evident, for if you had greater capacity to love, then you would not HATE and be BIGOTTED toward those who have greater capacities to love.

It is your lack of love and acceptance and toleration that leads you to insist marriage must be between only two.

And you call yourself a Christian? Your whole religion is a sham -- it is nothing but hate mongering and being exclusionary. You should be ashamed of yourself.

#%^%$ BIGOT!!!!!

Ivory, equality is inevitable.

We shouldn't hate.

Maybe one day people will learn.

:winnk:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 04:45 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:38 PM
AlbertaCrude
Jun 9 2006, 04:21 PM
Pope Innocence LXXXIX wrote
 
I support a federal ammendment to say that "marriage is between one man, and one woman, who are consenting adults, and unrelated." Of course, it would be worded more eloquently, but you get my drift.



Don't you think the "consenting adults" clause is a bit modernist and Western. What about immigrant cultures in which arranged marriages are the norm? Seems to me that in such cases all one of the partners would have to do after X years of not so blissful conjugal life is go to the coursts and say, "Look My Lord (or in the US, Your Honour), it was all arranged by my parents or face disgrace, I never, or we never never consented to anything". Marriage annulled.

"Consenting" is modernist and Western? So? The definition would apply to the USA. Don't remember any arranged marriages lately...

Couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic, so sorry for the serious reply...

Do a bit of digging and find out what the norm is for most if not all Sikh, Hindu and Pakistani Muslim immigrant families. While you're at it, check a few traditions not uncommon to some South Slav communities. They don't check all marriage traditions at the door when the immigrate to North America.

I also have heard that arranged marriages do occur within some Mormon circles.

Well I do know they happen in other cultures, I didn't think they were a reality here, if they are though, my mistake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 12:44 PM

And polyamory?


Hold your horses son. Until the day a person ties the knot and solemnizes a monogamous vow- everyone is polyamourist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8