ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:21 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Mm. But in modern times, such things do exist. And we are talking about modern times here, when we discuss allowing same sex marriages. Now, if it was relivant as to why marriages were limited to heterosexual couples in the past, you could say several things. Mostly involving childbirth - continuing on of the Memes of religion and state, or making more babies to add to a country's manpower. Are any really relivant today?

I mean, you might even say marriage is a drain on the government, because there's tax benefit in marriage (and in children, whether adopted or not).

I guess I would just say that my point is, Rubi, I want to see the statistics that prove raising a kid with a two heterosexual parents is different than raising a kid who's parents are homosexuals. If you're going to argue that point, you have to back it up with something. Otherwise, it means nothing to us, and we might as well tell you that you're out of your mind.

Pull them out of your ass or something, so we can counter the evidence you have supporting your opinion.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:42 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Sacramento, CA
Rubi, you didn't factor in people (like me) who don't want to have children. Should they be allowed the benefit of marriage if they know full well they will not produce children and will not adopt either? That's a question you must ask yourself if you feel a need to stick to your guns.

The "benefits" given by marriage you cited, Proin, have diminished in the modern era. For example, women can support themselves (and their children) quite handily these days without the support of a male. The rights a couple gains by getting married have changed profoundly from what they used to be, but are still very important (and useful to have.) Here is a summation of the benefits gay couples are currently fighting for. http://scribbling.net/1049-federal-rights-depend-on-marital-status

I was going to write up a treatise on why I think gay marriage would be a benefical thing for the country, but these two essays neatly did the job for me. Links below:

Here is a good essay on gay marriage and the arguments pro and con. I suggest you read it. http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

And other argument on the benefits of gay marriage, from a well known gay conservative (!). http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php

I especially like this because allowing gay marriage would eliminate the often-repeated concern that "gays are promiscous/unfaithful." Perhaps if they were given a chance to show their fidelity, they would prove to the world that their relationships are no more flimsy then those of a heterosexual person. And, if the specter of AIDS among the gay community concerns you, providing a legal benefit to staying faithful very well might slow its spread- and that's good news for both gay and straight people. Allowing gays to marry would strengthen their relationships and enter more stability and normalacy into their lives - and as a result, strengthen our society as a whole. If you think marriage "holds up" society, then it logically follows that allowing more couples to get married would strengthen the framework to an even greater extent.

_________________
DNI'ed by: Ezelek + Kali
(though feel free to send over disturbing porn)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
I'm having your babies. But you don't have to take care of them. They'll be known as Chespawn, and they will be my secret weapon. <3

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:19 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:55 pm
Posts: 37
Location: In a van, down by the river
People, people, people. read my post. You're reading it and only seeing what you want to. For the most part all I'm doing is playing devils advocate.

examples of people not reading what is written:

Ezelek wrote:
Rubi wrote:
What gain does society get from allowing hetrosexuals to marry?

Rumours on the intarweb suggest that copulation is possible outside of wedlock. You seem to do a lot of talking with very little point-making.


Read my post again. I said that sex outside of wedlock is no longer a big deal, but when this stuff came around it WAS a big deal. And there were alot of social and economic benefits to marriage until not too long ago. Now not so much, but the majority sees no reason to change the law for the minority. That's ALL I said.

And to Kali_Ava, I didn't say that there was an advantage one way or another to raising a child with homo or hetero parents, but until there is an apparent benefit to society as a whole there will be no call for sweeping change.

Rubi

_________________
"Gravity just overcame his equilibrium at the precipitant appearance of my foot"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:23 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Rubi wrote:
And to Kali_Ava, I didn't say that there was an advantage one way or another to raising a child with homo or hetero parents, but until there is an apparent benefit to society as a whole there will be no call for sweeping change.

Rubi


I agree that no sweeping reforms will come about until some advantage is presented.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Rubi wrote:
And to Kali_Ava, I didn't say that there was an advantage one way or another to raising a child with homo or hetero parents, but until there is an apparent benefit to society as a whole there will be no call for sweeping change.


American society is what I assume you're talking about, since it's American law. Care to read Che's post and tell us why those are not marked benefits? And I HARDLY call allowing two people to get married without sexual issues getting in the way "sweeping change".

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Last edited by Kali_Ava on Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:24 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Posts: 89
Location: Sacramento, CA
Did you read my post? It was all about the benefits of gay marriage.

_________________
DNI'ed by: Ezelek + Kali
(though feel free to send over disturbing porn)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:26 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
Kali_Ava wrote:
Rubi wrote:
And to Kali_Ava, I didn't say that there was an advantage one way or another to raising a child with homo or hetero parents, but until there is an apparent benefit to society as a whole there will be no call for sweeping change.


American society is what I assume you're talking about, since it's American law. Care to read Che's post and tell us why those are not marked benefits? And I HARDLY call allowing two people to get married without sexual issues getting in the way "sweeping change".


That would be because you aren't a conservative, white, anglo-saxon, protestant male.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:39 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
Kali_Ava wrote:
Rubi wrote:
And to Kali_Ava, I didn't say that there was an advantage one way or another to raising a child with homo or hetero parents, but until there is an apparent benefit to society as a whole there will be no call for sweeping change.


American society is what I assume you're talking about, since it's American law. Care to read Che's post and tell us why those are not marked benefits? And I HARDLY call allowing two people to get married without sexual issues getting in the way "sweeping change".


That would be because you aren't a conservative, white, anglo-saxon, protestant male.


I'm pretty sure I'm still American. And last I checked, that was a horrible rumour/way to stereotype. I think the reason I don't consider it a "sweeping change" is because I'm not homophobic. :P

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:44 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
I know, mentioning the stereo-type was kinda crass, but...
I, personally do not mind the idea of same-sex marriages. However I subscribe to the theory that people should be free to make their own choices in life.

However I also believe that if a particular religion wishes to prohibit same-sex marriages then it is the right of that religion to do so. I'm sorry, marry non-denominationaly or something in that case.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
I know, mentioning the stereo-type was kinda crass, but...
I, personally do not mind the idea of same-sex marriages. However I subscribe to the theory that people should be free to make their own choices in life.

However I also believe that if a particular religion wishes to prohibit same-sex marriages then it is the right of that religion to do so. I'm sorry, marry non-denominationaly or something in that case.


Yes, but there are other ways to get married that are recognized by the government than in a Christian church by a Christian priest vowing under the eyes of the Christian God to stay together until death do them part. There's supposed to be a seperation of state and religion, and you <i>can</i> get married in a courthouse - for all legal purposes. Which <i>should</i> have nothing to do with religion. I'm not sure if that's how it always works.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
I know, mentioning the stereo-type was kinda crass, but...
I, personally do not mind the idea of same-sex marriages. However I subscribe to the theory that people should be free to make their own choices in life.

However I also believe that if a particular religion wishes to prohibit same-sex marriages then it is the right of that religion to do so. I'm sorry, marry non-denominationaly or something in that case.


To put this simply...

Religion != Government;

Religion is a seperate institution from the government; this we know. So, if the government is allowing marriages(Also known as civil unions, because some people are not, in fact, religious)... Then it stands to reason that the idea extends out from beyond religion itself.

And on another note... By your logic, it's fine for me to kill my enemies and consume their hearts. Because, you know, I'm a believer in the religion the Aztecs followed.

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:51 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
and we're free to gas you for it

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
Oh, and because it's relevant...

I think marriage(In the Christian sense) should not be doable for a same-sex marriage; as, well, they prohibit it. However, in a governmental sense, it doesn't make sense. Why? It directly discriminates against a set of people. Considering we've put laws, regulations, and amendments(See the 15th and 19th for examples) into effect that act to the contrary... It seems horribly odd to start now.

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:14 pm
Posts: 2045
I say there should be no marriage whatsoever homo or heterosexual in the eyes of the state. I say there should be a "legally designated insurance and social security bennifits recipiant" (and what other bennifits I didn't care enough to look up). Let the marriages happen in religious institutions or anything, but be a seperate instituton from the legal designation of the state. This may just abide by that whole seperate church and state thing some people kinda mention in passing once and a while now-a-days.. This would solve the whole damn issue and everybody could get along with equal rights (as far as the state is concerned)

_________________
All articles that coruscate with resplendence are not truly auriferous.


Last edited by arwing on Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:03 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
Proin Drakenzol wrote:
However I also believe that if a particular religion wishes to prohibit same-sex marriages then it is the right of that religion to do so. I'm sorry, marry non-denominationaly or something in that case.


Proin Drakenzol wrote:
and we're free to gas you for it


But, you said that it's the right of that religion to do what they wish. Their right. Let's look at what right means.

Merriam-Motherfucking-Webster, bitches wrote:
Main Entry: 1right
Pronunciation: 'rIt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht right, Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight, direct, rule, rogare to ask, Greek oregein to stretch out
1 : RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT
2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3 a : agreeable to a standard b : conforming to facts or truth : CORRECT <the right answer>
4 : SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE <the right man for the job>
5 : STRAIGHT <a right line>
6 : GENUINE, REAL
7 a : of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the heart and on which the hand is stronger in most people b : located nearer to the right hand than to the left c : located to the right of an observer facing the object specified or directed as the right arm would point when raised out to the side d (1) : located on the right of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified <stage right> (2) : located on the right when facing downstream <the right bank of a river>
8 : having the axis perpendicular to the base <right cone>
9 : of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an object <made sure the socks were right side out>
10 : acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>
11 a : being in good physical or mental health or order <not in his right mind> b : being in a correct or proper state <put things right>
12 : most favorable or desired : PREFERABLE; also : socially acceptable <knew all the right people>
13 often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics
synonym see CORRECT
- right·ness noun


Now, from what I'm seeing there, my killing and consuming of enemies for strength doesn't warrant me being gassed, as I am simply doing what is correct, true, etc.

You may wish to re-define your arguement.

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:13 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:23 am
Posts: 449
Location: Planck time/Planck space
first: Rusty, I give up. I'm assuming you know what I meant to say, and that others do to. however, in the literal sense you're right. Point to you.

second: sorry che. yes I read your post. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with both you and the articles. On the other hand I am not most Americans, and I am willing to listen to logical arguments and see (or at least try to!) the other side's POV.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Rubi wrote:
Read my post again. I said that sex outside of wedlock is no longer a big deal, but when this stuff came around it WAS a big deal. And there were alot of social and economic benefits to marriage until not too long ago. Now not so much, but the majority sees no reason to change the law for the minority. That's ALL I said.


So you're saying that because it's only a small amount of people who aren't treated in the same manner as the rest of the people in the country, it's OK and we shouldn't worry our little heads about it.

Engel v. Vitale was unleased a shitstorm. Nobody liked it. But that didn't make it any less of the correct thing to do. Only 3% of the nations children were not Christians at the time. But it still passed.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:37 am 
Offline
Tourist

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 10:01 am
Posts: 46
Location: Brisneyland Ausvegas
I think as a legal institution, marriage as it exists is a laughable pile of horseshit.

Lets say Bob and Linda, age 25 and 21 respectively happen to be in Vegas on the same day. Lets say they both happen to be enjoying a reasonable streak of luck and get blind fucking retarded drunk in the same pub. Lets say they wake up togethor the next morning, little to no memory of each other, but a photograph of themselves promising elvis that they'll love eachother forever, uhuh.

No prenup, because they were pissed as newts. But their married. Their entitled to each others benefits, and in the event of relationship termination, a legal division of property. Assuming Bob is dirt poor and barely keeps himself above the property line, and linda is from a familly of finance lawyers and tax accountants, and as such has invested wisely at a young age and worked hard in a good job in the technology field for a few years - she's suddenly looking at half of that going to her new 'husband' in exchange for a mistake made over tequila.

Thats fucked.

LEts say Jane and Julie however have been togethor say... a long ass time. Lets say they met after stonewall and they've been togethor ever since, they've been monogamous, they adopted and raised kids togethor, they've lived with little to no shared benefits or legal protections. Compared to Bob and Linda, thats fucked.

How do we fix both the inequities presented between the two compared situations, and maintain a reasonable series of legal protections for long term relationships and the property division that may be requ ried?

Easy. We delegalise marriage. We determine that marriage has no legal weight whatsoever. We treat it like a barmitzvah. A pleasent religious ceremony that indicates something of terrible significance to the church and no significance whatsoever to the state. A 14 year old jewish boy who's gone through a barmitzvah may well be a 'man' under jewish law, but he cen't buy beer or rent porno. A christian couple who's gotten 'married' may well be commited to spending their lives togethor in a relationship, but they shouldn't be able to sue for half the other persons shit.

Common law marriage is a good idea, but a bad name and a bad implementation. Age of consent isn't a common law barmitzvah. Being determined to be in a legally recognised long term commited relationship should require some legal tests that exist independant of minority status, and should incur some rights and responsibilities.

IE when you've co habited with a primary sexual partner for <X> period and shared domestic duties, financial rights and assets, you are determined by law to be in a long term commited relationship. Certain laws regarding taxation status, shared benefits, division of property in the event of sepperation and surviver/dependant benefits now come into play. Certain pre-nupital laws should be assumed. Property division shall occur on a scale equal to contribution. If Bob the billionaire enters a long term commited relationship with Carla the College student and Carla contributes nothing but her ass to the relationship, should the relationship end she gets her ass back and nothing the fuck else. If Wendy the Wealthy Widow enters a relationship with Pablo the pool boy? etc. You get back a share equal to your contribution. You don't get married, put out for a year and take half when you go to the bahama's looking for a new model.

Parenthood rights and obligations should be determined under entirely sepperate laws, with allowances for custody allocations in the event of parents moving from along term commited relationship into a sepperated state in the eyes of the law.

Now we get to the bit where more people hate me. And I recognise that this opinion sounds pretty fucking prejudiced, but frankly I challenge anybody who knows what their talking about to tell me with a straight face its not a valid concern.

Gay men as a group should NOT get married under current marriage laws. Why you ask? Because Adultery is still a class two felony in a big chunk of the US. Its still a crime, and you'd be handing a weapon to the conservatives. Any gay man who's scene gay, and more gay women then you'd think will tell you that monogamy and well thought out relationships aren't exactly the order of the day in the gay community. When a gay boy, especially a twink tells you he's met the love of his life and their getting married, its a goddamn miracle if they've known each other more then 3 months. Its an act of god if they've actually lived togethor for that time and not had a dozen major blow outs. Chances are they won't know each others last names. There's a good chance that the spelling of their first names will come as a surprise when they find out. I realise there's exceptions. I know there's lots of gay couples out there, male and female, who are monogamous, commited and responsible in their relationship choices. But they are NOT the majority, in the experience of anybody I know who hangs out in the queer community. Gay boys are worse about it then lesbians, but my personal experience with lesbians suggests that they're damn near as prone to getting married to somebody they've known for less then 3 months and know next to nothing about.

I'll probably get flamed for being a gay basher at this point, but frankly I don't care. Its the truth and anybody who hangs around the gay community and actually has their eyes open knows it.

Boston's queer community has already seen alot of partners loose benefits after the introduction of gay marriage rights. Because fortune 500 companies who introduced non conventional spouse benefits to sweeten their recruitment packages to gay men have been forced to roll back those benefits to prevent equality lawsuits from hetrosexual employees who have previously had to get married before their partners can get benefits.

Monogamy is just not common in the queer community, it certainly does happen. But its not the order of the day. Certainly not long term for most couples. I'm sure the relgious right would just love to see half of the queer community with a criminal record to give them a good reason not to hire gays.

Basically marriage is a fucked institution anyway. And in its current state its a double edged sword, legalising gay marriage is just going to come back and fuck over the queer community unless legislation to unfuck marriage is pushed through in the mean time. The inequity of the current system in intolerable and must be fixed. But recognising gay marriages isn't the answer. Not in the short term.

_________________
DNI'd by ptlis - w00t!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:20 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
So now gay people need to be protected from the fucked up institution for their own safety.

Right. ¬_¬

The hetrosexual scene is all about the monogomy too. I mean if you pick up a chick at a bar you're going to marry her.

Here's a hint "monogamy and well thought out relationships aren't exactly the order of the day" in the straight community either. At least not the ones who date frequently.

Puh-leeze, homosexuals aren't jade dolls that need to be kept safe from the evil evil world and the evil evil institution of marriage. And they aren't fucking machines that can't keep a single partner.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group