|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
That was cute how you failed to quote the beginning of the sentence, "This isnt a perfect example". It is just an example. And it involves granting equal rights but calling them something else. Preacher already said he would grant equal rights. I am answering WSS' question about why the different name matters. The part of the race example that "works" is that the only problem would be public perception and the feelings of black people. Those are the same points that were argued by homosexuals in california. "Seperate but equal" is not equal - was the point of their argument. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
I understand the argument of the complaint. I dont think the court addressed it well. Beyond that, I'm honestly not sure at the moment. |
|||
|
|
Snarling into 2008!!! Ring of Honor  |
I think, the BEST answer, is to separate the Church and State.
You can chose to go to your CHURCH and get MARRIED. The Church will set the requirements. Or You can chose to go to the STATE and apply for a CIVIL UNION. That will give you all the benefits, tax, health insurance, etc...but you must meet the State requirments (and Marriage is not one of them). Or You can do BOTH. Your choice!!! Marriage no longer has standing in the courts unless you have filed for civil union, and a civil union is not necessarily recognized by the Church. Easy. |
|||
|
Hall of Famer |
Tupa I think by trying to connect the "unique" definition and importance of how christianity percieves and defines the word marriage that somehow the word is in the sole ownership and authority of the religion.
I dont think that is grounded on historical nor any real linguistic history. Honestly I am not comfortable with same sex marriages raising children. I dont think it is socially advantageous nor healthy for the children who need to see and understand both sexes. they will not get that equally at formative ages with same sex unions. If it is a relationship that does not have children and they want to afford the legal rights of that partnership I dont care. Honestly I am in line with christian views here probably for two different reasons but it does not really matter. I just dont like the idea of any religion trying to own a concept like marriage. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
And while not perfect, it is a good example in that 1) both are minority populations that are more likely to be protected by the courts before the legislature, and 2) both race and sexual orientation are a product of birth, not choice.
|
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
And your proof of this is????? I would say the majority of people disagree with your conclusion. Is there a "gay" gene? |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Tupa, I'm sort of with you. I've got my own misgivings, but I'm wondering if I'm just being too conservative. And I'm kicking myself.
And Sev, you're our resident scientist. Go and find me the study that says children of same sex parents do worse/are less healthy than the children of heterosexual parents. I don't think the evidence for that is there, and it has been studied. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
|
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
What I was tossing out as a hypothetical didn't differentiate under the law. All would be completely secular legal unions. No difference. Adding the word "marriage" would be one's choice as would a religious ceremony. I'm not professing to advocate or not but wouldn't that be the goal to those concerned about religion? WSS |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Gay couples can adopt without getting married, cant they? I'm not sure the marriage issue is tied up with the parenting one that closely. Also, is it more socially advantageous for a child to live in a home with homosexual parents than in foster care or a home for troubled/orphaned children? Off topic ALERT: Should private adoption agencies be allowed to prefer straight couples to gay when placing kids? I say yes. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
Heck i have read a lot of studies that do not back my opinion. I stated that it was my personal opinion and definately not one that is currently recognized.
I dont have anything against homo sexual relationships really. As an individual i have some opinions based on some courses in sociology that honestly are founded upon my own insight. They may be completely wrong. I would never presume to force that on any other individual, I was just stating my opinion. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
Tupa I do completely agree that children in general would be better served in a same sex healthy parenting situation than a unhealthy hetero situation.
However I just choose to believe the "optimal" experience exposure for children is to interact with a parent from both sexes. That is just an opinion that really at this point is unfounded in large studies. Honestly I may be completely wrong here, but at this point and I am open to new information that is where I stand. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
No problem with that, my brother. But wouldn't you think, if true, these problems would show up in these studies?
|
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
That list is a stitch. Loved it.
Assuming we all agree gay people are people and American citizens, I don't think it's every going to hold up that they're denied any rights, including the right to the legal benefits of marriage. A church could legally refuse to marry gay people. I don't think the same is true of a government. That's a million miles of bad road with big potholes and shards of glass. There can be a sanctity of ONE marriage if that's your choice and commitment. The sense that their is sanctity in the institution of marriage neglects the reality that half of them end in divorce and even more are riddled with infidelity. Many don't produce children and many more shouldn't produce children. This isn't a religious issue and no religion owns marriage. It's a legal issue and denying any rights to any minority, racial or sexual, is a path we really can't go down. Oops. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Tupa, isn't what Steve is talking about completely okay in the California decision?
I think California could do exactly what Steve is talking about if they want to. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Shep, that was dead on. Now, will you marry me or not? Steve has offered to officiate AND be the wedding band.
|
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
We need to update, by the way, on the thing about the thing.
And the answer is... yes. YES! I want Steve to sing the whole ****ing thing, though. That's my only demand. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
heck when it comes to studies that deal with children and parenting I think that a lot of them are inaccurate. The time and variables along with inaccuracy of the data that is released to them by children and parents in that sort of time frame make it difficult.
No one can really set up a "clean" room sitation and lock down enough of a sample for a control and test group for that many years. Do i think there are going to be great parents in the homosexual community? Absolutely, but I do think that children imparted and imprinted at extremely formative years with two same sex parents will be different in how they percieve what is "normal" and what is not. That minor/major depending on your opinion could have something akin to the cascading chaos theory for a life that spans normally 75-85 years. That is why I think "optimal" not perfect exposure is a set of one each, we dont live in an "optimal" world so honestly as long as the children have "healthy/supportive" parents I dont really care. In theory I am more comfortable with the "optimal" settings but in reality the world does not always by any measure provide that. My "uncomfortable feeling" probably should be fleshed out as what I percieve would be "optimal" not necessarily wrong. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Absolutely. |
|||
|
Hall of Famer |
Thanks for the detailed argument, Preacher. It's interesting...I agree with your conclusion, but I'm not convinced by the premise that it's based upon. Here are a couple of thoughts: 1) As Heck mentioned, is it a violation of freedom of religion? I can see how it would be an aggravation, but the Constitution makes no allowances for that. I'm not sure if you would find this an analogous situation, but how about this: John Hagee has stated that he believes the Catholic Church to be the Great Whore of Babylon, and therefore (presumably) not a Christian Church. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the government could pass some law which gave extra tax breaks to "Christian charities." If a tax break were given to a Catholic charity, would that violate Hagee's freedom of religion? 2) The word "marriage" certainly refers to a religious institution, but it also has a secular meaning as well. It's the same as "charity," "innocence," and any number of other terms. Also, is marriage (or even spiritual marriage) a uniquely Christian institution? It seems like the concept builds on older precursors (like Solomon's three-fold cord--what is the third fold, if not God?). Also, when God gives Eve to Adam, there's something more than a "social contract" going on: for one thing, there was no society. For another, the "two become one flesh" idea is hardly a contract to decide which side of the family gets the larger portion of the field. The problem with looking at the form of marriage in the Old Testament is that it brings in other, less-desirable ideas (women as property, laws against miscengenation, the allowance of polygamy, etc.). Dennis |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Designed by: CreAtens