Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:19:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1504 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
> > This still doesn't explain why that is a bad thing, and why you were so
> > willing to go around in circles for weeks on end on the topic. As you are
> > trying to do once again.
>
> Why don't you explain why changing the definition of marriage is a {good}
> thing. Again I defy you to come up with an alternative definition. Nobody
> will.
Well...
If presently: "marriage is defined as the union of one consenting adult male and
one consenting adult female"
And proposed: "marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults"
(Assuming they're human, US citizens [is that needed?], and adult = greater than
or equal to 18 years of age)
Pros to the change: Gays may now get married (which in and of itself isn't
terribly wonderful-- it's more the rights that they're entitled to after
*becoming* married that are the real pros)
Cons to the change: ?
You've claimed that it's bad to change, but again, I have to ask, why? (I think
I've gotten to this point of the debate with you twice, but I don't think I've
gotten a reply). I only see reasons TO change, and I really don't see any NOT
to, short of irrelevant ones [1].
Are you arguing that it's actually bad that gays are allowed to get married? IE
that they actually shouldn't be allowed to get inheritence, be claimed tax-wise
as spouses, get hospital visitation rights, etc? (or whatever legal perks you
get from marriage) Or are you saying that there's some other negative aspect to
gay marriage that I'm missing?
DaveE
[1] Irrelevant fitting into categories that should be irrelevant to governmental
decisions, such as 'moral' or 'religious'.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) No, marriage is often used as a way to avoid deportation, which would be a non-issue if only citizens could get married. I don't believe either party has to be a citizen/national, so that a Canadian and a Mexican could meet up in Vegas on (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Can I assume that the main knock on defining marriage as the union of 1 woman 1 man is that it discriminates (against gays). But doesn't your proposed definition discriminate against polyspousewanters? Why is your discriminating definition any (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) You make it sound as if there is something wrong with coming to a conclusion about anything. Is it so hard to accept that I can consider a POV and finally reject it? It is as if your definition of "close-minded" is anyone who doesn't see the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
