Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Marriage in New York City?

LGBT Same sex marriage New York City

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#61 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 07 February 2005 - 11:40 PM

waterpanther said:

Why is two the "magic" number in Western society?
It isn't. It is one man and one woman -- the combination necessary to produce a child. The fact that the number of sexes adds up to two is incidental. If three sexes were needed to produce a child, then you'd be asking where the magic number three came from.

I'm not going to get locked into a battle of dueling studies. I could point out that the current studies are flawed, but you would simply tell me that they aren't.

To avoid this problem, I based my argument on our Constitution and faith in the majority to govern itself. Unless you can demonstrate that the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned Murphy v. Ramsey, then our government has no obligation to recognize alternate versions of marriage. Blacks and women got the right to vote and considerable protections to ensure their equal civic rights even though they didn't have the right to vote. In both cases, this process was initiated by the legislatures who passed the relevant Constitutional amendments and laws. You could argue that the civil rights amendments were forced on the South through Reconstruction, but the fact remains that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 without coercion. This act barred discrimination in public accommodations. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court saw fit to switch into activist mode and gut this piece of legislation with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896 -- even though all three civil rights amendments were already in place! This is not to say that same-sex "marriage" is a civil right -- it isn't. This is just to demonstrate that the most fundamental and hard to achieve rights were obtained through the legislative process -- the rule of the majority.

If homosexual advocates can convince American society (or more accurately our representatives) that American citizens ought to be able to legally "marry" those of the same sex, then it will happen. Given that our society seems determined to deprive marriage of meaning (even disregarding the gay agenda), gay-"marriage" advocates will probably have their way.

Edited by Solar Wind, 07 February 2005 - 11:49 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#62 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 08 February 2005 - 12:10 AM

You're still dodging Spectacles' question:  Do you know any gay people?

Because I heartily suspect that you don't.  If you did, you wouldn't be so quick to tell us what we think--when you clearly have no idea what we think.  You're essentially uninformed on the issue.  

Besides which, your reduction of marriage to 1 man, 1 woman, 1 childbearing unit ignores several thousand years of history.  So you're essentially uninformed on that issue, too.

Do you know any gay people?  And if you do, how do you justify objectifying them as you do?
Posted Image

#63 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 08 February 2005 - 01:24 AM

^ I've been repeatedly told in this forum that I can't tell who's a homosexual by observing them (unless they choose to tell me) so I'm not going to answer your obvious trick question. (BTW, I'm not objectifying anyone. It falls to you to prove that claim by quoting my words in context.) At least try to argue honestly.

<Besides which, your reduction of marriage to 1 man, 1 woman, 1 childbearing unit ignores several thousand years of history. So you're essentially uninformed on that issue, too.>

Besides which, I think defining marriage to be any [non-incestuous] adult multi-habitation you want is nihilistic. (That's a plural "you" by the way.)

Since you keep throwing ancient Greek society in my face, I've tried to prove your claim for you. However, everything I've read in the past and now says that while the Greeks committed sodomy, the foundation of the family in their society was a marriage between one man and one woman (link).

edited to correct poor phrasing

Edited by Solar Wind, 08 February 2005 - 05:37 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#64 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 08 February 2005 - 06:29 AM

In other words, no.  I figured as much.


Quote

Besides which, I think defining marriage to be any [non-incestuous] adult multi-habitation you want is nihilistic. (That's a plural "you" by the way.)

Then Western society is founded on several thousand years of  nihilism.  The fact is that the institution of marriage has always adapted to serve the needs and shifting political/social philosophies of its time.  

Okay, you're not objectifying.  Let's just say, then, that you're repeating a series of arguments founded inextricably in bigotry and the refusal to regard gays and lesbians as individuals who might have some feeling or motivation outside those ascribed to them by your sources.  

Suggest you do further reading on the Greeks.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Same sex marriage, New York City

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users