Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:55:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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?
|
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 should be disallowed.
Can you think of any other two-party contracts that should be barred from
allowing more-than-two parties? If so, why should they be barred? If not, then
why should marriage be singled out?
| |
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.
|
You have repeatedly said that it’s not a gay issue, but it is a gay
issue, and it’s not for you to say, really.
The sectarian institution of marriage will remain in whatever forms the
associated churches wish to maintain. The secular contract of marriage is long
overdue for updating.
| |
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.
|
But one of the biggest rights in question is the right to have one’s lifelong
commitment of love and duty recognized as marriage. Why is this right, among
all of them, so distasteful to you?
| |
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.
|
Can we all accept from this point forward that no one has claimed that men and
women are equal and interchangeable (though, as we’ve said, they’re equally
entitled to protection under the law, of course).
Please oh please won’t somebody think of the children?!?
Children are already growing up with same-sex parents, just like kids are
growing up in single-parent homes, surrogate-parent homes,
single-parent+surrogate-parent homes, and same-sex-parents+surrogate-parent
homes. The only difference is that the law doesn’t recognize any of these
unions as marriages, even if they are more stable and healthy than some
heterosexual marriages.
Is a child better off in a family in which the neglectful and heterosexual
father routinely beats the neglectful and heterosexual mother, or in a family in
which two homosexual men love and respect each other and spare no effort to love
and care for the child?
Honestly, all things are not equal, nor have they ever really been, nor do I
think they ever really will be.
| |
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.
|
I accept that this is your belief, but do you accept that your belief is not
sufficient to enact legislation in the absence of independent supporting
evidence? I grant that unfounded beliefs certainly do managed to become
enshrined in law, but I’ll opt to vote for options supported by evidence.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
