Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:27:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1666 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 better than the one already in place?
| |
Are you arguing that it’s actually bad that gays are allowed to get married?
|
No. I have repeatedly stated that it is not a gay issue. What I have said
is that changing the definition will render the institution of marriage
meaningless by watering it down to become just about anything.
| |
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?
|
I think many of these benefits issues are easily solved without messing with the
institution of marriage. Advocating the changing of the definition of marriage
merely so that one can obtain certain legal right seems to me to be quite an
obtuse way of going about it. I am not opposed to many such rights.
As far as other negative aspects of gay marriage, I would only include one--
child-raising. I believe that every child has the right to have a father and a
mother. They are not equal and interchangable. All things being equal, I
believe it is better for a child to grow up having a mother and a father rather
than 2 of one or the other. Again, all things being equal, 1 woman and 1 man is
the superior and ideal family-raising scenario.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) The right? I don't think children have any such right. (...) That may possibly be so, but I have seen no evidence to support it. (...) I for one would like to see your evidence to back up that claim. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) One issue at a time, John! If would-be polyandrists wish to marry in groups, let them plead their case. At present the issue pertains to two-party contracts. In any case, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why multi-party marriages (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) That's sorta irrelevant-- As I stated elsewhere, yes, I'm all for allowing polygamy, etc (provided some probably some other changes), and all for letting consenting aliens get married if we find any, but that's not the point. The proposed (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
