Log in to check your private messages
Homosexuality
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 2:07 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Old Master Ben
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 2257
Location: Georgia

We (the admins and mods) are currently voting to keep this thread active, and should that be the case, on what new rules to implement. We will have an answer for you soon. I apologize for the delay - it's a bummer, but we all have other obligations that sometimes make it hard to decide things quickly.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

 PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:23 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

That point borrowed from Kokle: Jones may want to vote in France but he doesn't live there, so his inability to vote on French affairs do not directly affect him, however much he wants to vote there. Homosexuals want to do something - marry - that does directly affect their lives, where they live.

Again, you overlook the basic fact that homosexuals cannot marry the gender of their choice, while heterosexuals can. How much more simple can the difference be ?

Inequality of desire can be the state's concern. It used to be law in many states that people of different races could not marry one another. They may have desired to do so, but were not allowed to. They were free to marry people of their own race if they wished but the fact that they desired to marry outside their race wasn't enough for them to be able to do so. Those laws have been repealed - to allow people to marry others of whatever race/colur they desired.


Quote:
Certainly some heterosexual couples do not have children, either by choice or circumstance. Just because in some individual cases marriage has not been fully actualized


Where is it necessary in law to have children to 'actualize' a marriage ? Why cannot a marriage be founded on love as well as or instead of having children ? Is it so hard to accept that people can get married and exchange vows simply to show their commitment to one another without wanting children ? Historically, marriages were arranged as much to control property and form alliances as they were for providing children. People who didn't have much property or need alliances were free to marry pretty much who they chose. Neither love nor children are the only thing that can define a marriage. It can be either, or both. Childless marriages are not the expections to the 'rule': they are an alternative. Law does not insist that married people have children, and neither does society. Laws provide support and benefits for married people who have children, but it doesn't insist that they do have children. Raising children is often an important part of marriage (though people raise children without being married) but it has never been the sole or only purpose of marriage.

You ask why should homosexual couples be granted marriage rights when other close non-marital relationships aren't ? The answer is in your question. Those other relationships are non-marital. Roommates, college brothers etc aren't planning to exhange vows and commit to long-term relationships. They can be close and supportive, but not generally to the point of becoming next of kin. Family members already have next of kin rights.

First you argue that if gays who make a loving, sexual commitment to one another get the legal benefits of marriage, then so should anyone else who wants to make a loving, but non-sexual commitment, then later you argue that love itself is not the reason for marriage or what defines a marriage. Therefore if a couple share love but not sex, they do not have a basis for marriage, so why should they get the same benefits as a couple (gay or straight) who do consummate the marriage ? Also if there is no law requiring heterosexual married couples to have children, then why should they get 'preferential treatment' just because they are sexually involved ? That is what your logic suggests is the case.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:44 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6510
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Old Master Ben wrote:
We (the admins and mods) are currently voting to keep this thread active, and should that be the case, on what new rules to implement. We will have an answer for you soon. I apologize for the delay - it's a bummer, but we all have other obligations that sometimes make it hard to decide things quickly.

I'm finished with the discussion for a while anyway. Honestly, the question over whether same sex marriage is wrong has very little bearing on my life. I'm a firm believer in the separation of Church and State so the legality of same sex marriage is a moot point for me and as a Christian, I'm supposed to treat a homosexual as I would treat anyone else. It's a dusty, scholastic debate and while I like dusty, scholastic debates, there's no immediacy to it for me.

For the record though, I'm leaning towards it being immoral, but it isn't as obvious as something like bestiality or theft.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:05 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  illogicalRogue2
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: 01 Sep 2009
Posts: 2851
Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm..

Old Master Ben wrote:
We (the admins and mods) are currently voting to keep this thread active, and should that be the case, on what new rules to implement. We will have an answer for you soon. I apologize for the delay - it's a bummer, but we all have other obligations that sometimes make it hard to decide things quickly.


After a series of long and drawn out talks around the Round table, the conclusion to lock the thread was reached. We will most likely start a new thread down the road but one with more well defined rules. This is not to say the thread is being locked as a punishment, but more that it's time to let this end of the Meditation Grove calm a bit before testing the waters of debate once more. Thanks for your patience and consideration.

You can make a case for the continuation of the thread here for now. As this thread is now locked until reborn.

May the Force be with you.
_________________

-Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass.
-
-To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself.
-
-Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 14 of 14
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield