The legal structure around marriage is not there as an incentive to get married. It is rather a reaction to the unique state of being married. People in that kind of relationship interact differently with society, and so society interacts differently with them.
Married couples need a different set of rules, because they form a unique situation. The situation is unique without having to include children. Children can be part of this unique situation, but they are not essential to it, nor are they unique. Due to this we make separate laws and rules regarding children, because they are recognized as a separate legal issue.
Too add to this, you had a list of benefits that you thought should be excluded earlier in the thread along the lines of ok, make marriage available but without these specific parts.
These benefits make sense if you look at the legal structure of marriage evolving out of a need to treat people who had shared property and mutual dependence.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
idiggory wrote:
Your argument is incoherent and doesn't represent the way things actually are and have been in the world, Gbaji
Welcome to debate with christian conservatives. Their entire world view if based on fantasy & you're going to burn in hell if you don't share it.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Omegavegeta wrote:
idiggory wrote:
Your argument is incoherent and doesn't represent the way things actually are and have been in the world, Gbaji
Welcome to debate with christian conservatives. Their entire world view if based on fantasy & you're going to burn in hell if you don't share it.
Omegavegeta wrote:
Welcome to debate with christian conservatives. Their entire world view if based on fantasy & you're going to burn in hell if you don't share it.
Except gbaji isn't a Christian conservative.
I don't know why you guys work so hard to pick gbaji's argument apart. He's never provided any proof that there is validity to his view and the burden is on him to provide that proof.
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
I don't know why you guys work so hard to pick gbaji's argument apart. He's never provided any proof that there is validity to his view and the burden is on him to provide that proof.
On an unrelated note, fuck I'm broke.
I am probably more conservative than liberal, but I could never be a true conservative because I am not a member of the religious right.
I feel the only reason christian conservatives are against gay marriage, is because in their 2000 year old book of fables, mostly stolen from other religions, it states that being gay is bad.
I think this is very selfish, and I just can not buy into it. Religion has no place in politics.
I think freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
I feel the only reason christian conservatives are against gay marriage, is because in their 2000 year old book of fables, mostly stolen from other religions, it states that being gay is bad.
I think this is very selfish, and I just can not buy into it. Religion has no place in politics.
I think freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
gbaji wrote:
The analogy is valid. The value of something is lessened the more easily and widely it can be obtained.
Unfortunately, this economic rule only applies to scarce/limited resources. Marriage is anything but that and ony limited by how we restrict it. We will never run out of marriages. The marriage mines will not be shut down because we've taken all that we can. Marriage is not a resource.
I'm pretty certain that people aren't getting married because they think if they hold on to it for 20 years they can sell it for a profit.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'd be a lot happier if I didn't think it was a coldly and deliberately calculated stunt intended to make people think there's a "softer" side to McCain as a politician. He's kinda having his cake and eating it too, here, posturing for the religious right by opposing gay marriage while letting his wife play up to the "social moderate" Republicans by supporting it.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Quote:
I'd be a lot happier if I didn't think it was a coldly and deliberately calculated stunt intended to make people think there's a "softer" side to McCain as a politician. He's kinda having his cake and eating it too, here, posturing for the religious right by opposing gay marriage while letting his wife play up to the "social moderate" Republicans by supporting it.
Well, I'm pretty sure his daughter is a lesbian, and she has been a part of the No H8 campaign for a while now. I kinda get the feeling that his wife has a decent amount of power in the relationship. The right wouldn't appreciate a divorce, and he tries to paint himself as a family man, so he's kinda forced to give her a decent amount of power. She's also much younger (and much more attractive) than him, so she gets the sexual power in the relationship. And, depending on their prenuptial agreement, she may have plenty to gain in a divorce, so he probably doesn't want to push her towards it.
Plus, the demographic that he needs to appeal to aren't going to be swayed by her supporting gay marriage. And the ones that would find McCain more attractive due to his family's fight for equality still wouldn't vote for him.
He also doesn't support gay marriage, so her actions just bring that into the light for McCain. So if this was an attempt to raise public opinion, it would only do so for the crowd that are anti-gay marriage. And he didn't really need more support from them. Had he never included Palin in his campaign, there was a good chance he could have won. I know a bunch of decently liberal people that were thinking they'd prefer him to Obama, had she not been in the picture.
And, most importantly, he's pretty much at the end of the line as far as his career is concerned. He's old as sin, and has no chance of winning the 2012 election (and I doubt the Republican nomination). So, even if it is a stunt, I much rather have her speaking out against Prop 8 and gaining more support from the Republican party, considering it isn't going to make McCain any more prominent.
Quote:
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
The Second amendment wrote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Tell me, are you in a militia? No, I didn't think so. This amendment existed solely for the purpose of defending your town in a time when there was no military or police force to do it for you. They have since adopted the role, and thus they bear arms.
And don't confuse "arms" with "all weaponry."
Furthermore, this amendment is clearly short sighted. Do you think the founding fathers ever intended to give someone the right to a weapon that could kill hundreds or more at a time? No. They gave their citizens the right to weapons that could fire one shot before having to be reloaded.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2010 12:55pm by idiggory
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
publiusvarus wrote:
Klagoth,
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
Quote:
I think freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
Freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as right to bear arms is to right to bear no arms.
Your response is flawed and stupid at the same time. Par for the course.
BrownDuck wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Klagoth,
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
Quote:
I think freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
Freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as right to bear arms is to right to bear no arms.
Your response is flawed and stupid at the same time. Par for the course.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
publiusvarus wrote:
Klagoth,
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
Quote:
I think freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
I think the right to bare arms means I should be allowed to go out in public without a shirt. But I'm not.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
publiusvarus wrote:
Duck,
Actually freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as the right to bear arms is to the right to bear a rocket launcher.
You're analogy is what I would expect from the product of public education.
Quote:
Freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as right to bear arms is to right to bear no arms.
Actually freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as the right to bear arms is to the right to bear a rocket launcher.
You're analogy is what I would expect from the product of public education.
Varus, you're one incredibly stupid person. End of story, really.
BrownDuck wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Duck,
Actually freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as the right to bear arms is to the right to bear a rocket launcher.
You're analogy is what I would expect from the product of public education.
Quote:
Freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as right to bear arms is to right to bear no arms.
Actually freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as the right to bear arms is to the right to bear a rocket launcher.
You're analogy is what I would expect from the product of public education.
Varus, you're one incredibly stupid person. End of story, really.
Sweetums wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Duck,
Actually freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as the right to bear arms is to the right to bear a rocket launcher.
You're analogy is what I would expect from the product of public education.
Quote:
Freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as right to bear arms is to right to bear no arms.
Actually freedom of religion is to freedom from religion as the right to bear arms is to the right to bear a rocket launcher.
You're analogy is what I would expect from the product of public education.
Varus, you're one incredibly stupid person. End of story, really.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
publiusvarus wrote:
Klagoth,
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
Quote:
I think freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
And I think the right to bear arms means I should be able to own rocket launchers.
I wish you could too. I'm pretty sure you'd mess up and shoot yourself.
publiusvarus wrote:
As long as I'm making 6 figures before i'm 40, and i'm really close, i'll be ok.
People normally don't count the numbers right of the decimal.
Recent Visitors: 157
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (157)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC