Replies: 52
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1177]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 514
Joined: 7/18/00
|
My name is Robert McCollum, and I have had a vasectomy.
Mar 29, 2013, 8:58 AM
|
|
I post this not because I think you need to know. In fact, I don't think it is anyone's business much.
But evidently, according to a report by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION, later parroted by several opponents to marriage equality in the media this week, that fact IS the government's business.
Because it means I must not be allowed to marry ever again.
The argument, used to justify applying a separate set of laws to a certain group of citizens in this country, states that the only purpose of a marriage in the eyes of the law should be having children.
Therefore if I, a divorced father of two children with no desire to have more, should ever wish to marry again, it must also be forbidden.
While I thought I was guaranteed equal protection under the constitution, I now realize that my difference, my inability to release sperm, my ... vasectomied-ness, makes me a target.
If this standard is applied, my severed vasa deferentia means I could potentially have to pay taxes on a different scale, have different rights of visitation, and have a limited ability to pass inheritance to those I love.
Evidently the fact that I have no intention of leaving a baseball-teams-worth of fun babies in my wake means I am a threat to the very existence of the human race if I should ever try to get hitched.
And it's not just me. Applying this standard of marriage, a young woman suffering from polycystic ovarian syndrome should have no right to wed under the constitution. An elderly couple who meets in the nursing home, falls in love and wants to tie the knot MUST be forbidden or risk bringing about the demise of our national morality. A soldier who loses the use of the lower half of his or her body defending this country has no business being married in it.
That is the argument people are standing behind in the steps of the Supreme Court this week.
My name is Robert McCollum, and I have had a vasectomy.
I have as much right to marry as anyone.
I think anyone who says otherwise is trying to keep me down just because I am different from them.
That is unjust treatment within the law.
And that is exactly what our Supreme Court was created to prevent.
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Son, have you ever seen a grown man naked?
Mar 29, 2013, 9:03 AM
|
|
Do you like to watch gladiators fight?
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1177]
TigerPulse: 67%
Posts: 514
Joined: 7/18/00
|
Was you checking me out in the shower?
Mar 29, 2013, 9:10 AM
|
|
Wouldn't you think its up to you to control your eyes? Please tell me which gym you attend so I can stay away!
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Cobra Kai***
Mar 29, 2013, 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10939]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15113
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Agree, Heritage.org = neocon hacks***
Mar 29, 2013, 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Agree, Heritage.org = neocon hacks***
Mar 29, 2013, 12:57 PM
|
|
Ryan Anderson's thinking on this issue is far more traditionalist and tied up with natural law than with any kind of neo-conservative persuausion.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4693]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2481
Joined: 9/1/06
|
Does it taste different after vasectomy***
Mar 29, 2013, 9:12 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
TXTF says it does.***
Mar 29, 2013, 9:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [54758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 52802
Joined: 10/1/03
|
but
Mar 29, 2013, 10:06 AM
|
|
I haven't had a vasectomy....
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
You referring to this?
Mar 29, 2013, 9:25 AM
|
|
http://www.scribd.com/doc/130647539/What-You-Need-to-Know-about-Marriage
There's a lot of burying the head in the sand within their arguments. And I believe blaming many societal issues on a segment of society, that by their own argument, is not contributing to these issues because they are not procreating. Blaming those without kids for the failures of those with kids is illogical.
Furthermore, while claiming that stable relationships benefit society this is exactly what they are opposing. I get the "what is best for kids argument", but it really doesn't apply much to a segment of society whose relationships don't produce kids. What is the goal? To force gays into heterosexual relationships to produce kids?
And where does it end? Legislate that only stable, married people that own a house, with a certain level of financial stability, where the mother does not work and is in the home, etc., etc., etc.? Because I'd assume that studies make all sorts of determinations about what is the best environment for raising kids. (And again, if a couple has no kids then none of this argument matters.)
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
Opponents of marriage equality are on the run
Mar 29, 2013, 9:37 AM
|
|
they are grasping at straws in an attempt to hold on.
Its the same argument that was used against interracial marriages.
They claimed that people who have the temerity to engage in interracial marriage have a “rebellious attitude towards society, self-hatred, neurotic tendencies, immaturity, and other detrimental psychological factors.” The implication was that these qualities rendered them unfit parents.
Message was edited by: RockSolid®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I understand the religious argument that marriage
Mar 29, 2013, 9:46 AM
|
|
is an institution of the church. But there were no complaints when government began issuing marriage licenses, and there is no requirement that marriages have to be performed by a church. And I don't hear much opposition to common law marriage.
And there is no reference to kids within traditional wedding vows.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
what are traditional wedding vows?***
Mar 29, 2013, 1:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
C'mon!!! You're not stupid.
Mar 29, 2013, 1:50 PM
|
|
Or maybe you are.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: C'mon!!! You're not stupid.
Mar 29, 2013, 1:54 PM
|
|
Those "traditional wedding vows" come from Catholic tradition, or from the Anglican Book of Common prayer. So, as others have said, why should the state care about a religious incantation? I'd go further and say that, since the Church didn't create marriage, it really would make no difference whether any particular vow mentioned kids or not.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Exactly. Makes no difference.
Mar 29, 2013, 2:05 PM
|
|
My SC marriage license didn't state anything about kids either, it's just a legal union between two consenting adults. Just had to provide proof of age, sign it, and get it witnessed. Period. That's marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
no, it has nothing to do with interracial marriage
Mar 29, 2013, 1:46 PM
[ in reply to Opponents of marriage equality are on the run ] |
|
Same sex marriage has more to do with anti-miscegination laws than does traditional marriage. For one, there's the novelty, since anti-miscegination laws were regional and short-lived. For another, anti-miscegination laws tried to use marriage to enforce racial segregation instead of to unite parents with their children. Same sex marriage is a mechanism for affirmation of homsexual relationships. So both misuse marriage.
Or, you could read Justice Kennedy's dismissal of the idea that invalidating traditional marriage laws would be as modest a step as invalidating anti-miscegenation laws was:
It [traditional marriage without racial restrictions] was hundreds of years old in the common law countries. This [anti-miscegenation laws] was new to the United States.
Or you could look to Tedd Olson's answer to Justice Scalia's question about when it became unconstitutional to define marriage with sexual complementarity:
MR. OLSON: It was . . . when we -as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that --
JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?
MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date , th?is is an evolutionary cycle.
Then you could take a look at what Chief Justice Roberts has to say about whether traditional marriage is exclusionary:
I’m not sure that it’s right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.
It is — yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don’t have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them.
Well, so if it was only unconstitutional when some kind of social consensus decided it was wrong, then it's nothing like institutional racism which Olson surely wouldn't said was always unconstitutional, even if the framers of the 14th amendment didn't realize that was an implication of their doctrine. (Also note that Olson's argument would make "gay" a social construct)
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Just admit that all of this social "science" is just
Mar 29, 2013, 2:01 PM
|
|
you trying to hide and/or justify your belief that you just don't want the government or anyone else to affirm something that you believe is wrong or a sin.
"Same sex marriage is a mechanism for affirmation of homsexual relationships."
Exactly. Everything else that you post is just dancing around that issue. You think it's wrong and think everyone else should accept that it's wrong. I think it's fine and that gays should be respected and affirmed based upon the same criteria that everyone else is.
I'll admit to that, but you won't.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
you're assuming that the state created marriage...
Mar 29, 2013, 1:19 PM
[ in reply to You referring to this? ] |
|
when, in fact, the state only recognizes it and fixes a definition of it because that particular relationship produces a good society is interested in. The state was never interested in, and marriage ignored (not prohibited),the private sexual activities of homosexuals because it cannot produce more society (through a child). So we didn't form our marriage laws around social science studies, and nobody is talking about prohibiting or forcing anybody to do anything. But society does have an interest in kids being raised by their parents, and encouragment of marriage has been the (very non- instrusive) way society has encouraged that.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
And tangentially, my wife has polycystic ovaries and gave
Mar 29, 2013, 9:27 AM
|
|
birth to two kids.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
IF YOU GOT SNIPPED HOW IS BABBY FORMED?***
Mar 29, 2013, 9:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
grudge pregnancy
Mar 29, 2013, 11:58 AM
|
|
someone had it in for him
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97826]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64950
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Marriage is two things. First it was a religious and
Mar 29, 2013, 11:01 AM
|
|
social institution. Only within the past 1,000 years or so has it become a legal term, conveying rights and inheritance. You COULD argue that the whole term for marriage, as a legal contract in America, is not valid because marriage IS a religious term, and was long before it was a legal term. In order to preserve the sanctity of the separation of church and state, ALL marriages should be called civil unions, or something other than a religious term. Atheists should be offended by the term marriage license.
I would not be opposed to this. I am not opposed to gay rights. But you don't have a right to be called something you are not. In the case of gay marriage, who is the wife and who is the husband? Gays are not fighting for gay rights, in any legal sense. They're fighting for the right to redefine a word, and pi$$ off everyone who holds that term sacred for other reasons.
I'm white. I don't have a right to be considered black. Maybe I feel black, think I'm black, want to be black, but I'm not black. If there were a license to be black (and there is) I would never qualify. It is illegal for me to put black on the census if I am not black.
I'm white, but I want the right to open a casino on my family land. I want to be legally considered a native American. I think I'm a native American. I want to be a Native American. Why am I being denied the right top open a casino?
If gay people want the LEGAL rights of marriage, I'm all for it. You can call it a civil union, or whatever. Heck, change all marriage licenses to civil union licenses if need be. It's just a legal piece of paper issued by a judge. But most do not want to redefine a cultural and religious term because there are no rights conveyed by the word marriage. Those legal rights are conveyed by a piece of paper CALLED a "marriage" license.
If you renamed every single marriage license in America and called a civil union, and allowed people to marry within the same gender, or even across the animal kingdom, granting all the same rights, the people advocating gay marriage would still not be happy.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
Its the same argument, just a different sector of people
Mar 29, 2013, 11:35 AM
|
|
The fight for interracial marriage was up against the very same arguments being tossed at gays.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
How do you know what gays are fighting for?
Mar 29, 2013, 12:09 PM
[ in reply to Marriage is two things. First it was a religious and ] |
|
Are you gay?
Seems pretty stereotypical. There's a lot of diversity amongst gays and they don't all think with one mind. Many are religious and have a deep faith and respect for the religion, except the part that excludes them.
Why put the blame on those who feel excluded from an institution? Why no blame for the institution itself? Seems like it's one of those situations where the bully claims to be the victim (yes, I realize this is a generalization).
Besides, you can call a hot dog a wiener, frankfurter, etc. but it's still the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
a lot of them say that's what they're fighting for
Mar 29, 2013, 1:06 PM
|
|
so there's that. Heck, a lot of radical feminists have been pushing for gay marriage for years, using the same "slippery slope" arguments proponents of traditional marriage are making. That doesn't mean that's what's being argued in court, just as whatever religious reasons you might hear for supporting traditional marriage shouldn't lead you to conclcude that's what's being argued by Cooper and Clement in front of the Supremes.
But we should be clear that those arguments are still implicated in whatever the court, a legislature, or the people of a state decide. It is the case that a lot of gay activists will never be happy until everyone has to recognize homosexual relationships as not only equal before the law (as they already are) and a good that must be affirmed and encouraged by everyone. After all, isn't the state's recognition of marriage an affirmation of the positive good of a particular relationship (that we call "marriage")? So this isn't just about "equality," it's about affirmation.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
How are gay relationships equal before the law?
Mar 29, 2013, 1:15 PM
|
|
Where are the legal protections? Of course it's about affirmation. And recognition of a union between people with the same legal rights. Not sure what your definition of equal is.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
there is no right to affirmation and recognition
Mar 29, 2013, 1:22 PM
|
|
which we ought to understand from the fact that a lot of people now think the state shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.
Gay relationships are every bit as legal as heterosexual relationships, and they are protected with all the same rights to love and sex that heterosexual people have. But, as you said, because their sex has nothing to do (and is not of the kind that it can have anything to do) with procreation, society is not interested in it. There really isn't a reason for the state to get involved in people's romantic relationships if it's only private behavior. The kind of sex that can be procreative, though, isn't only private because it can produce new society.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I'd have no problem with the state not being involved at all
Mar 29, 2013, 1:39 PM
|
|
My marriage provides legal protections to people within relationships. Gays do not have any right to those legal protections. Even non-married heterosexuals have common law legal protections. But you seem to just wish to ignore this.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I don't at all...
Mar 29, 2013, 1:56 PM
|
|
In fact, I used to be for civil unions that mirrored all the "rights and benefits" of marriage, but when I thought about it, I realized that those "rights and benefits" came from what we currently recognize as marriage, and that a lot of them wouldn't really be well fitted to homosexual relationships. I mean, some of the stuff that comes along with marriage would be unnecessarily burdensome to homosexual couples, while they'd probably appreciate some of the other stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Good thing you and others can make those decisions
Mar 29, 2013, 2:09 PM
|
|
for them. I'm sure they appreciate being saved from unnecessary burdens. One less thing they have to think about. I'm sure they all say thank you.
But I actually have friends who would really, really like to be unnecessarily burdened.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8083]
TigerPulse: 93%
Posts: 3566
Joined: 8/6/03
|
I was all for civil unions BUT...........
Mar 29, 2013, 2:27 PM
[ in reply to I don't at all... ] |
|
I have now changed my stand on the matter. I am for equal marriage rights for all.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
And I'll add...
Mar 29, 2013, 12:22 PM
[ in reply to Marriage is two things. First it was a religious and ] |
|
I know multiple gay couple who have been married in a church by an ordained minister and have been married > 20 years yet the government refuses to recognize their union. So I'm not sure that the religious vs. social argument really stands up.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
marriage is not a religious institution
Mar 29, 2013, 12:55 PM
[ in reply to Marriage is two things. First it was a religious and ] |
|
it arises out of nature, but religion sanctifies and states recognize it to encourage it. Your reasoning assumes that marriage can just be constructed socially and you would still get the same benefits from it that have compelled states to recognize it and religions to sanctify it.
I'll add that there are very few more beautiful icons of Christian faith than marriage, which points so well to a personal, triune God.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
that is idiotic, and not at all what it being argued...
Mar 29, 2013, 12:51 PM
|
|
Ed Whelan deals with this pretty well here (and even if you don't agree with what Whelan says about "the infertile couple canard," his last paragraph should be enough to convince you of why the OP's reasoning is wrong). I also think it's unfair to post something responding to whatever Heritage might be putting out without linking to what they're objecting to. Because I know for a fact that they aren't arguing that sterilization or infertility is a reason to deny recognition of marriage.
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/344166/prop-8-case-and-infertile-couple-canard-ed-whelan
Marriage developed in this country, and everywhere in human civilization, as a male-female union because societies recognized that opposite-sex couples, as a class, have the capacity to procreate. Marriage exists to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by the mothers and fathers who, often unintentionally, naturally generated their very existence. As Prop 8 proponents show (Brief at 31-35), leading thinkers over the centuries—including many, like Bertrand Russell, anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and sociologist Kingsley Davis—have consistently recognized the central connection between marriage and responsible procreation and childrearing. This basic truth was commonly acknowledged until the recent movement to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships made it fashionable to deny or obscure it. The elementary biological reality that opposite-sex couples, as a class, have the capacity to procreate makes it eminently sensible that marriage has developed as a male-female union. To argue against the actual tradition of marriage by pointing out that infertile opposite-sex couples have been allowed to marry is simply to smuggle into the question a standard of strict-scrutiny review. Further, as Prop 8 proponents make clear (Reply at 11-12):
More important, the overriding societal purpose of marriage is not to ensure that all marital unions produce children. Rather, it is to channel the presumptive procreative potential of opposite-sex relationships into enduring marital unions so that if any children are born, they will be more likely to be raised in stable family units by both their mothers and fathers. In other words, because society prefers married opposite-sex couples without children to children without married mothers and fathers, it encourages marriage for all (otherwise eligible) heterosexual relationships, including those relatively few that maynot produce offspring. In addition, there are obvious and compelling reasons why the states have never undertaken to inquire into whether men and women seeking to marry each other will be fertile couples. These include basic privacy concerns against an intrusive Orwellian government. They also include the general indeterminacy of fertility. As Justice Kagan observed, there will, of course, be some opposite-sex couples whose infertility together may safely be presumed. But to imagine that that fact cuts against the development of marriage as a male-female union is to subject marriage to a level of hyper-exacting scrutiny that can’t be justified. (Plus, as Chuck Cooper correctly pointed out—to the guffaws of snarkers like Dana Milbank who don’t even have the decency to fairly recount what he said—even for an aged couple it is very likely that the husband retains his fertility, and the marital norm of fidelity operates to help ensure that he doesn’t have children outside the marriage.) For those who invoke the infertile-couple canard and who think that marriage is instead about government recognition of a loving relationship that the parties hope to be permanent: Note that states also never inquire into whether couples seeking to marry in fact love each other. So don’t impose on marriage a test that your own reconception of it can’t meet.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
Where are kids, or procreation mentioned in...
Mar 29, 2013, 12:59 PM
|
|
the traditional wedding vows?
Your social "science" is entertaining but I'll take the short, simple vows exchanged over the fancy words of "intellectuals".
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
well...
Mar 29, 2013, 1:11 PM
|
|
it's been mentioned numerous times in legal opinions. But as Whelan says, it's always been an assumption that people knew that two people of the opposite sex who have a long sexual career together were of a class that would procreate. It's kind of amazing that it even needs to be argued, if you think about it. What's more, your vows (which could say anything... there aren't "traditional wedding vows," so someone's vows very well could refer to the family they will have) don't make you married in the law, and they have nothing to do with why the state might want to recognize marriage.
And I'm glad you're entertained by social science. It is is interesting which situations people think science is decisive on and which they do not.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
So we should accept assumptions as fact?
Mar 29, 2013, 1:23 PM
|
|
Do assumptions hold up in court when a legal contract is challenged?
Doesn't the fact that you could change the vows to say whatever one chooses prove that marriage has no strict definition?
And the same reasons that the state would recognize a traditional marriage would be the same reasons why it would be a benefit to recognize gay marriage. The only difference between the two is that the bible makes a few vague references that one is a sin. Other than that, both promote the same core principles.
But again, the traditional wedding vows checkmate your arguments and affirm that marriage is a committed partnership between two people in love.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
the vows don't make the marriage, first of all
Mar 29, 2013, 1:51 PM
|
|
and while we can discuss what marriage is, we're confusing its definition with how it's treated legally, and why it's treated legally at all. I can't really see why every society would recognize an institution that was only about romantic love, and I certainly wouldn't be in favor of the state being involved in that either. And we should also be clear that the question before the court in the Hollingsworth case is whether a state even can define marriage in the way it's been recognized for hundreds of years, not the philosophical question of what marriage is.
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
Many of us don't accept Theodosian code as the law of
Mar 29, 2013, 1:59 PM
|
|
the land.
Aside from that, plenty of laws condoning slave owners' property rights have been overturned, as have many other antiquated rules that stood the test of time, only to fall before common sense, or common decency.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
I think you're the only one who is confused about what
Mar 29, 2013, 2:18 PM
[ in reply to the vows don't make the marriage, first of all ] |
|
marriage is. My marriage is about love and commitment to my partner and not some biological obligation to procreate. Your attempts at defining it in a way that suits your view on this issue really cheapens it for those of us that actually are in stable, loving, committed relationships that wish everyone find and share in something that is extremely meaningful in our lives.
Your definition explains why people should stay in bad relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
too busy to read 10 sentences?***
Mar 29, 2013, 1:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
what exactly is it you want
Mar 29, 2013, 1:21 PM
|
|
are civil unions ok can a gay spouse be part of an insurance plan can they file joint taxes
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: what exactly is it you want
Mar 29, 2013, 1:29 PM
|
|
I would say they should have all the access that is appropriate to a romantic partner where their relationship is not of the type that it can produce children. So if insurance companies think it makes sense to include someone on your plan because you've committed to a life-long, loving relationship with that person, then they ought to allow that. If, on the other hand, part of the reason why they do that is because one spouse has traditionally stayed home to take care of the kids, then it wouldn't really make sense. Or, at least, it would be pretty arbitrary to limit those "rights" or "benefits" only to people who have a romantic relationship. That is what Justice Sotomayor hinted at when she asked what non-arbitrary limiting principle there could be if marriage is changed to a recognition of romantic relationships, rather than of a relationship that is of the class relationships that can reproduce society.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38514]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47162
Joined: 10/28/02
|
We have common law to protect heterosexuals.
Mar 29, 2013, 1:43 PM
|
|
So we recognize marriage even when they aren't married. And these laws protect even those that do not have kids.
Your kid argument is interesting, and definitely valid, but it's not the definition of marriage or of the legal protections of a marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: the spouse traditionally staying home ship sailed long ago***
Mar 29, 2013, 1:58 PM
|
|
That isn't the point. Even if it isn't expected that one spouse stay home, it's still an option that a lot of people choose, and that is accounted for by a lot of the things that end up being part of the so-called "rights and benefits" of marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30505]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 62663
Joined: 10/4/99
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8142]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 19775
Joined: 6/6/03
|
Just pick the Heritage Foundation's handy pamphlet...
Mar 29, 2013, 3:36 PM
[ in reply to could you bold the unimportant parts*** ] |
|
... "How to talk to Liberals About Gay Marriage Without Sounding Like a Homophobe." It's got all you need.
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
hi robert***
Mar 29, 2013, 1:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6272]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7290
Joined: 9/21/03
|
well Tbalm scok... err...Robert McCollum....
Apr 1, 2013, 9:04 AM
|
|
as high as you sit on your horse, and aside from that being WAY more information than i wanted.
the world should be glad you cannot procreate.
forget marriage. go forth and do not multiply.
i am joking of course.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 52
| visibility 1
|
|
|