Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    kp2171's Avatar
    kp2171 Posts: 5,318, Reputation: 1612
    Uber Member
     
    #21

    Apr 6, 2009, 11:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by twinkiedooter View Post
    Just as long as the marriage is not to several men or several women...... but just to one man or one woman is okay.
    Reference to dated, previous Idaho customs, not Iowa?

    Corn. Potatoes. Same difference?
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #22

    Apr 6, 2009, 12:27 PM
    excon,

    What makes you think that marriage is a civil contract? Or that it in any way is supposed to mimick civil contracts.

    There are no limitations on what can and can't be done in a civil contract. There ARE limitations on marriage. Marriage cannot include more than 2 parties (polygamy is illegal). Marriage is not permitted between parent and child (incest is illegal). Marriage cannot include those under a certain age. There are many restrictions on marriage that do not apply to civil contracts. Ergo, marriage is NOT a civil contract.

    Does marriage give certain rights between the partners in the marriage? Certainly. So do civil unions. Mostly those rights are the same in both cases, including laws under medical privacy and medical insurance coverage. That doesn't make them civil contracts.

    What is wrong with civil unions for homosexual couples? Civil unions give the same rights as marriages. Your argument, excon, is that same-sex marriage is important because of the "rights" that marriage brings. But if civil unions give the same rights (and they do), why is it an issue for you?

    As long as the outcome is the same...

    Elliot
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #23

    Apr 6, 2009, 02:50 PM
    Elliot .I've been there with Ex before . He will invoke separate but equal in his apples and oranges comparison. As you point out; as far as the legal contractual issues are concerned ,a pursuit of civil union guarantees would more than fulfill all the requirements for "equal rights" .
    Alty's Avatar
    Alty Posts: 28,317, Reputation: 5972
    Pets Expert
     
    #24

    Apr 6, 2009, 03:07 PM

    Way to go Iowa! :)

    Just to let you all know, we Canadians accept gay marriage, have for a long time. Why? Because we believe that all people have the same rights, regardless of color, ethnicity, sexual preferance or gender. Wow, what a concept.

    Canada, a peaceful place, where everyone has the right to be who and what they are. So, welcome Iowa, you won't regret it, we never have. :)
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #25

    Apr 6, 2009, 03:20 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Elliot .I've been there with Ex before . He will invoke separate but equal in his apples and oranges
    Hello again,

    And, I've been here with you guys before too. But, when I ask the following question, you change the subject.

    The right says that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, whatever that means, or they'll destroy it in some other manner. But, DESTROY marriage, the gays surly will. However, they can't seem to tell me how THEIR particular marriage will be destroyed by the marriage of Ted and Fred down the block. They can't tell me how gay marriage negatively impacts upon their children's marriage - or ANYBODY for that matter.

    They just can't answer that... I know why... You do too.

    excon
    Fr_Chuck's Avatar
    Fr_Chuck Posts: 81,301, Reputation: 7692
    Expert
     
    #26

    Apr 6, 2009, 03:22 PM

    Actually the right say that marriage is a state law, and not even a "right" at all. And that the people of the state should have their rights to vote on this issue and not have it forced on them by a court ruling.
    Alty's Avatar
    Alty Posts: 28,317, Reputation: 5972
    Pets Expert
     
    #27

    Apr 6, 2009, 03:40 PM

    The right says that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage, whatever that means, or they'll destroy it in some other manner. But, DESTROY marriage, the gays surly will. However, they can't seem to tell me how THEIR particular marriage will be destroyed by the marriage of Ted and Fred down the block. They can't tell me how gay marriage negatively impacts upon their children's marriage - or ANYBODY for that matter.
    Exy, that's the religious aspect of gay marriage, not the legal aspect, and the two don't mix well at all.

    The reasoning is that it states in the bible that Tom and Fred are forbidden to be in love, are forbidden to be a couple and therefore are forbidden to marry. But, shellfish is also forbidden and beating your wife is okay (big can of worms, I am opening you!).

    If people put religion aside for a moment and realized that being gay is what it is, not a choice, not a "way of life" but a fact, something that cannot and will not be changed no matter how many scripture verses you cite, then we could move on. I don't see that happening.

    Prejudice takes on many forms, this is one of them. Forget that the bible also says love thy neighbor, forget that God is forgiving and loving, just pick then stand your ground.

    Religion shouldn't take precedence over the law, the constitution (which I admit, as a Canadian, I don't know much about) but somehow it does.

    How can we ask the people to vote on this issue when the majority claim that gay marriage is against their religion, the very religion they have a right to practice because of the constitution.

    I wonder what would happen if you all took away freedom of religion? It's the same thing as denying gays to marry.

    And now I'll slink away, as I'm sure this post won't go over well.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #28

    Apr 6, 2009, 04:17 PM

    Hello alty:

    It goes over well with me, and I'm the only one who counts.

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #29

    Apr 7, 2009, 06:59 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello alty:

    It goes over well with me, and I'm the only one who counts.

    excon
    Well, that explains a lot.

    However, how will gay marriage affect MY marriage?

    By changing the definition of marriage, it DEVALUES my marriage from a religious perspective. It affects my freedom of religion.

    Furthermore, from a sociological/historical perspective, the purpose of marriage is to create a system by which children can be birthed and raised in a protected environment. Children cannot be birthed in a gay marriage. Ergo, a "gay marriage" is a misnomer and serves no purpose.

    I would also argue that gay marriage is detrimental to the gay community. If "gay" is, as many gay people would have us believe, a genetic or biological occurrence, then gay marriage is a receipe for disaster for the gay community. Marriage is, by its nature, binding in terms of whom one has sex with. A gay marriage would have to be monogamous... otherwise it's a sham. A monogamous gay marriage cannot create children, which means that the genetic or biological proclivity for "gayness" cannot be passed on to the next generation. Yes, gay couples could adopt, but that doesn't pass on the genetic/biological factors to the next generation. Therefore, a gay, monogamous couple will, by nature, kill itself off from the genetic/biological perspective by not having children.

    The only way that such a couple could pass on their genes is by having sex outside the gay marriage with someone of the opposite sex. Which means that the marriage vows are being broken... that there is no real marriage in the sense of monogamy.

    The result is either a dying off the gay community from a lack of passing on their genes, or else a mass-breaking of marriage vows that dilutes and devalues the meaning of marriage. Either way, it is a receipe for disaster.

    THAT is how it affects MY marriage... by devaluing it and diluting the meaning.

    Again, you have not answered a basic question, excon, and keep changing the subject. If civil unions grant the partners all the same rights as marriages, why do you need gay marriage? What purpose does it serve other than to piss off those who are against it?

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #30

    Apr 7, 2009, 07:16 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Again, you have not answered a basic question, excon, and keep changing the subject. If civil unions grant the partners all the same rights as marriages, why do you need gay marriage? What purpose does it serve other than to piss off those who are against it?
    Hello again, El:

    When and IF the country, (that would be ALL the states) passes a civil union law that grants the same rights to gay people as to straight people, we can have that discussion.

    But, the country and/or states hasn't, and they're not about to. If they did, tom is right, I WOULD raise the separate but unequal doctrine, but I don't have to YET. The argument is moot.

    So, until that becomes a question, why not go for the whole ball of wax? Who knows? If you righty's would actually OFFER civil unions like you wag your tongues about, things might be different... But, they're not. We're still in the tongue wagging stage.

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Apr 7, 2009, 07:37 AM

    Ex polls show a majority favor civil unions. Where States have passed civil union and domestic partner laws laws through their legislatures (and there are a bunch ) ,you have not heard a peep of opposition from me.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #32

    Apr 7, 2009, 07:57 AM

    Excon,

    Currently 15 states offer civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships, all of which offer the same rights as marriage. Only 3 offer gay marriage. I think there's something to talk about, excon. The country is moving toward civil unions, and you COULD be supporting a movement that has momentum and will likely become the law. You COULD be a part of that movement, which grants all the rights you are talking about without pissing off the conservatives. Instead, you choose the side that will likely lose in the long term because the vast majority of the country is against it. You'd rather fight for a lost cause than accept a reasonable alternative that grants you all the rights that you are looking for.

    That's because it isn't about rights or equality or anything of the sort. You are simply a contrarian. You are against anything that smacks of the status quo, no matter its value.

    Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Here's a hint: just because it's new and hasn't been tried before doesn't mean it's better. Just because the majority like something doesn't make it necessary to topple it.

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #33

    Apr 7, 2009, 08:04 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    (and there are a bunch )
    Hello again, tom:

    A bunch?? Really.

    The first civil unions in the United States were offered by the state of Vermont in 2000. The federal government does not recognize these unions, and under the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), other U.S. states are not obliged to recognize them.

    By the end of 2006, Connecticut and New Jersey had also enacted civil union laws; New Hampshire followed in 2007. Furthermore, California's domestic partnership law had been expanded to the point that it became practically a civil union law, as well. The same might be said from 2007 for domestic partnership in Maine, domestic partnerships in District of Columbia, domestic partnership in Washington, and domestic partnership in Oregon.

    I wouldn't describe that as a bunch. Plus, in terms of actual rights, you'll notice that these laws grant less than married people get.

    So, when you guys actually step up to the plate, and propose legislation that backs up the talk, we can have this discussion... But, you guys want it BOTH ways. I'm used to that.

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #34

    Apr 7, 2009, 08:12 AM
    I see no reason for me to openly propose such laws . I simply said I don't object to them when they are the will of the people of the States.. AND.. I strongly object to the court's interference .
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #35

    Apr 7, 2009, 08:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    You COULD be a part of that movement, which grants all the rights you are talking about without pissing off the conservatives. You are simply a contrarian.
    Hello again, El:

    Couple things. What good Jewish negotiator asks for half a loaf?

    In terms of pissing off people, you don't mind doing that with your support of Israel. So, I'm a contrarian when I piss off conservatives, but when you piss off the world, you're a patriot. I understand.

    Like I said about you guys. You want it BOTH ways. Too bad. The world doesn't work that way.

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #36

    Apr 7, 2009, 09:35 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    Couple things. What good Jewish negotiator asks for half a loaf?
    The one that knows that asking for the full loaf is a losing battle, and if he keeps pushing for the full loaf, he's not going to get anything.

    In terms of pissing off people, you don't mind doing that with your support of Israel. So, I'm a contrarian when I piss off conservatives, but when you piss off the world, you're a patriot. I understand.

    Like I said about you guys. You want it BOTH ways. Too bad. The world doesn't work that way.

    Excon
    No, I'm a contrarian too. That's why I'm able to recognize it in others.

    But I also know which battles to fight and which to step back from for fear of losing the war. I also know which ones NOT to step back from, regardless of whether I lose the war or not because some things shouldn't be compromised.

    This particular full loaf you are asking for is going to turn off those who would support you on the half loaf. The decision you have to make is whether to step back or continue the fight anyway. Is this something that you cannot compromise on? Even if it costs you the entire war?

    Your decision, buddy, but if it were me, I'd go with the partial win over the complete loss.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #37

    Apr 7, 2009, 09:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Your decision, buddy, but if it were me, I'd go with the partial win over the complete loss.
    Hello again, El:

    Nahh. Victory is within our grasp. Do you know how I know?? Because we live in a wonderful country with a wonderful Constitution, written by very smart and insightful men, who granted equal rights to all its citizens. I'm just dopey enough to believe it.

    I don't think that's contrarian at all. In fact, I think it's quite patriotic.

    excon

    PS> Besides, not to be outdone, the Vermont legislature just overrode the governors veto and legalized gay marriage... Whaddya know about that?

    PPS> (edited) If this were an earlier debate on the same subject, you wouldn't be calling me contrarian. You'd be calling me uppity.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #38

    Apr 7, 2009, 09:54 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    I'm just dopey
    You should have stopped right there.

    You'd be calling me uppity.
    What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive?

    :D
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #39

    Apr 7, 2009, 10:19 AM
    The VT over ride and passing of Same Sex marriage is the first time this decision has been made by an elected legislature in the United States. However ;keep in mind that the original VT civil union law was imposed on them by the courts.
    earl237's Avatar
    earl237 Posts: 532, Reputation: 57
    Senior Member
     
    #40

    Apr 7, 2009, 11:40 AM
    I think that social issues should be decided by a statewide referendum. It is not right for elitist, unnelected judges to force their often radical views on an entire state.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Court house marriage! [ 3 Answers ]

Me and my boyfriend have been together for a littile while now and he asked me to marry him. Not long after I found out we are going to have a baby.. now he leaves for the army in 2 months and we want to get married before he leaves.. so we decided to go to the court house. BUTTT I want a big...

Collectible Pepsi Bottle for 1977 University of Iowa vs Iowa State Football [ 1 Answers ]

I need to try and find the value for a Still Sealed Commemorative 1977 University of Iowa vs Iowa State Football Pepsi Bottle. I need this for insurance issues. It seems the Post Office can't tell what F-R-A-G-I-L-E means. They managed to break one of the set even though they were wrapped in bubble...


View more questions Search