Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: To those that claim that I'm the only one that makes this argument against ssm
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

Walter Fauntroy
Former DC Delegate to Congress
Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus
Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But marriage in the modern American sense is not a universal human institution; indeed, marriage as it is practiced is rather a new and unique practice in human history an society. So this seems rather (cough) off base and unreasonable.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So many "snide" responses possible, so little motivation.

[Smile]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, do you agree that his people have been the victims of deliberate family destruction? If so, who deliberately did it?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to prove you point, Pete, I too make that argument against ssm...for what it's worth.
Paine, can you clarify what you mean by marriage in the modern American sense?

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good to meet you, Martel.

I think Paine is using "modern" in the sense of "today, from my point of view, as opposed to the point of view of you out of date stodgy conservatives that still think marriage relates to the raising of children." It would be more accurate to refer to this as the "postmodern American sense," i.e. the latest most faddish view of marriage (even if most of the world hasn't caught on yet) rather than the views of the actual modern era which ended in the late 1960s.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not just folks like me and Martel on the marriage defense side that see ssm as an attempt to completely bury the idea of a child needing a father and a mother.

Gloria Steinem sings the praises of SSM because it would destroy the link between relationships and raising children. SHE DID NOT EVEN MENTION GAY RIGHTS in the interview.


More recent examples of nihilism supporting ssm:

The Bay Windows article titled "To Your Battle Stations" says:

quote:
"Whether you are just coming out, transgender, heterosexual or ideologically opposed to marriage, you do not want to see this campaign [referring to the amendment to reverse the Goodridge atrocity] in Massachusetts."
That's an interesting admission, isn't it? That persons that want to see marriage destroyed, should support ssm?

See also the "Alternatives to Marriage" project which supports ssm as a step on the way to replacing marriage with a totally different system that embraces a "full range" of family types.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

That's an interesting admission, isn't it? That persons that want to see marriage destroyed, should support ssm?

Only if you think it's an "interesting admission" that people who want to see homosexuals lynched should oppose it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I mean as in the sense of that being protected by conservatives

as universal and natural.

As compared to the variety of social structures known to history, anthropoloy, and sociology.

For instance Sparta, praised in another thread here, had a ery different idea of family than is envisioned by the claim of universl natural family structure.

It is pretty clear that same sex marriage will only serve to strengthen society, protect children, and overall creates no harm and many benefits.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sparta did not refer to their weird family structure as "marriage," Paine. Give different names to different family types.

Marriage is fairly universal, but I don't see anyone saying that it's natural.

Getting rid of the idea of real marriage is, in itself, an ill effect.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete - I apologize if anything I have said could miscontrued as taking your feelings on this matter lightly

However,

I am divorced and also the mother of two illegimate children which many of you have made remarks that shed light on your feelings, that you hold my unwed union and the production of my children in contempt.

If only I could cover my children's ears, so they could never hear the crap that come out of your mouth! (Not exclusively your mouth, Pete. In fact, I think you refrained from the bar jokes I have seen around this forum.)

I cannot support you, nor condemn you for feeling the way that you do about the definition of marriage. I'm afraid my opinion is bias.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
Sounds to me suspiciously like the dude is trying to imply that we're just a few gay marriages away from making gayness so cool that lots of people in future generations will choose to live in sinful same-sex relationships. If the dude's so worried about children having mothers and fathers, he can go back to tackling the problem of single-parent families.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since many cultures don't have any structure like marriage, ergo it is not universal.

And expanding the definition of marriage is harmful to the structure, how?

One will note that the "structure of marriage" is as intact (or otherwise) in places where same sex marriage is allowed.

I don't see how your claimed harm would ever occur.

[ January 09, 2007, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your response makes me suspect that there's some misunderstanding at play here, Michelle. Could you quote what I said specifically that offended you?

I don't know about your unwed union, Michelle, so I can't hold it in contempt.

I think that children do better with a mom and a dad than otherwise. Marriage helps accomplish this goal.

The basic universal definition of marriage, i.e. the parts that are the same from culture to culture from before the bronze age all the way until the late postmodern age, have been (1) union of man and woman (2) for life.

Some cultures have ceremonies to celebrate marriages, some do not.

If you've made a commitment to remain with a man for life, then regardless of your legal status, I'd consider that marriage. I think that the ceremony is very useful; I think it's a great idea, but it's not part of the universal definition of marriage.

I believe that same-sex unions should confer a sense of legitimacy to the families of same-sex couples.

And I strongly believe that we should respect the integrity of other people's families even while encouraging the ideal forms. I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who suggests that single moms or same-sex couples should have their kids taken away.

If I spoke in favor of breastfeeding, should mothers who did not breastfeed feel like I'm attacking their families? I think that marriage is the best family form. That doesn't mean that there aren't supermoms out there that overcome the disadvantage with their own special traits -- I've seen that.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Bush administration tried to redefine the word "wildlife" to include farmed fish, Paine. Can you understand how "broadening the definition" of the word "wildlife" could harm the structure of environmental protection laws and organizations? It takes the focus off a critical aspect of wildlife.

>99% of the human race is close enough to universal that your objection seems like nit-picking.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
um, support your claim it is 99 percent of the human race, accross history as well as contemperaneusly.

Thanks in advance.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rallan's up to the same old misrepresentations, I see.

WF said:
quote:
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children.”
What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

Rallan misrepresented:

quote:
Sounds to me suspiciously like the dude is trying to imply that we're just a few gay marriages away from making gayness so cool that lots of people in future generations will choose to live in sinful same-sex relationships.
[Roll Eyes]

I guess the argument over the definition of marriage is just so powerful that he can never meet it head on.

"gay marriage" requires that we neuter marriage, i.e. redefine marriage so that
quote:
marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers
WF recognizes that these are the slavery-imposed lies that imposed cultural genocide on his people. Like many other African-American leaders, he knows that ending the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow means restoring the ideas that a child needs a father as well as a mother, and that we should contain procreation within marriage. And this new Goodridge fad puts these ideas about marriage under erasure.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can you give a real life example of any real life harm caused by same sex marriage? As compared to, for example, disresepct of marriage caused by serial divorce and Britny Spears 17 hour marriage?

Thanks in advance.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Locke/Paine, do you mean

Support the fact that New Guinea and a few scattered tribes in Africa and Oceania don't constitute more than 0.2% of Earth's population?

Or support the fact that more humans have lived in the last 300 years than lived in the entire recorded history of the world up to 1707?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, support the fact that marriage existed as near universal accross human history.

You havent done so. Perhaps because it is a mere asumption?

For instance, marriage was not practiced by the vast majority of Europeans in any similar form to prior to the industrial revolution.

[ January 09, 2007, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Britney's 17 hour whatever was not a "marriage," according to the court. It was nullified. That means that no legal marriage occurred. That's how I see ssm as well.

Since I don't believe in such a thing as a same-sex "marriage", it would be silly for me to posit that it could harm anything.

I do see that the idea of a child needing a father and a mother motivates all sort of real life benefits to children and to society. I'd like to preserve this idea. That means opposing measures that would make it impossible to communicate the idea.

quote:
Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage.”

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom_paines_ghost:
For instance, marriage was not practiced by the vast majority of Europeans in any similar form to prior to the industrial revolution.

Are you basing that argument on what I said about the universal definition of marriage, or are you basing the argument on a straw man definition?

Prior to the industrial revolution, Europeans still included livelong union and "man and woman" within their definition of marriage.

Next?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
well, your beliefs and bigotries are no reason for social policy. You have nothing, no real world harms..


Just irrational fears and hatred towards others.

Had a good friend. When his parents found out they were gay his mom told him they would rathe rhe was a serial murderor.

They disowned him, took his college money and gave it too the 700 club.

They would't answer the door after his grandmothers funeral. Fine "Christians"

Of course, he could not marry his life partner

So when he came down with an allergic drug reaction, and was hosptitalized, his partner had no legal rights to make health decisions.

His parents sure did. And he died, maybe through a lack of care.

His body taken away, his partner not allowed to know where it is even.

And THAT is real. Time for simple justice.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no universal definition of marriage-

If there was, it would be, err-

Universal.

If it taint universal, it aint universal. It is that easy.

And it was completely unknown until, say, what, a few thousand years ago at most? And the purpose was to secure property inherritance, another social construct.

Your claims of universality and "natural" marriage are flawed and unsupported by fact.

[ January 09, 2007, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Umm, support the idea that your sad story is somehow relevant to my question of whether we should use the word "MARRIAGE" for a same-sex union.

Can't do it, can you? Your argument is based in misrepresentation, like most ssm arguments.

If he could form an SSU with his partner, as in Vermont or Scandinavia, then he'd be fine. You're more to blame than I am when that happens to people, because you'd rather run around alienating people who support same-sex unions than forge a compromise that would help people like him.

Are your self-pity and bitterness really more valuable to you than the security of your family? Are guys like the one you describe more useful to you as martyrs than as actual people? Why do you toss their lives away over a simple word, when you make as if to sympathize with them?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, it is relevent actuall to the issue of justicce and whether a desciriminitory law is justified.

And SSU do not have the inherrent set of legal rights codified into marriage.

Your claim to self pity is interesting. And the martyrdum whine, a fine red herring...

I would sugest you focus on the arguments, and not mke spurious personal attacks. My friend is dead, that is fact not self pity. I would show you his grave but his christofascist parents have ept it secret.

Does it distract from your failure to support your claim marriage is universal, rather than a social construct meant to pass on property (itself a non-universal concept?)

I thought not.

Does it distract from your lack of a real life harm for SSM, where it exists?

I thought not.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol, oh god... I have the feeling I'm going to be reading this thread for about 20 more pages [Frown]
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seems a pretty clear 14th Ammendment issue.

Indeed many of the arguments made against SSM are the same used against misegenation.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I would sugest you focus on the arguments, and not mke spurious personal attacks."

That's a hypocritical thing for to say in the light of your "bigot" accusation.

Stop repeating that foolish straw man. The danger, like I've said, is not any ss"m" but the threat that changing the definition everywhere, over time, will cause us to lose the capacity to communicate the real idea of marriage.

Look to the illegitimacy rates in the Netherlands to see what happens when you start to neuter the marriage idea. But true eradication of ideas takes generations.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Indeed many of the arguments made against SSM are the same used against misegenation."

Umm, please support that assertion with actual quotes from an anti-miscegenation source that uses the same argument that I have made.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I appologize for observing your opinion seems based on bigotry. You have not manifested such overtly, and I was wrong to make that observation.

Although it is not a red herring, but crucial.

So like, when we changed the definition of "man" to include first white women and then black men and then browns, that was a danger and a bad thing?

When we changed the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment" to disalow torture and the death penalty for petty crime, this was bad?

As to illigitimacy rates, who cares? There society as a whole has less violence lower infant mortality, higher literacy, etc.

Infact rather a tautological argument; since illitiamcy is based on marriage. Doesn't sow any HARM.

In Iceland most children are raised without "marriage." No stigma, healthy and happy society.

Oh, another examle where the universal nature of marriage, ain't.

[ January 09, 2007, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Tom_paines_ghost ]

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
pete, you forgot, "thank you in advance"
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
""Indeed many of the arguments made against SSM are the same used against misegenation."

Pete asks

Umm, please support that assertion with actual quotes from an anti-miscegenation source that uses the same argument that I have made.

My answer-

No thanks, I would do that if I had said "Many of Petes arguments are the same as those used to support anti missegenation laws."

My claim stands, as is.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[redundant response deleted]

[ January 09, 2007, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: The Drake ]

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apology accepted and appreciated. Your apology also knocks out my suspicion that you were Locke, so I guess we can proceed more civilly.

quote:
So like, when we changed the definition of "man" to include first white women and then black men and then browns, that was a danger and a bad thing?
??

That's not a question of definition. That's a restriction against certain marriages. The law that you can't marry more than one person, or marry your own sister? Those are restrictions from marrying. If you walked into virginia with someone of another skin color and said you were married, they threw you in jail. Don't confuse with an illegal marriage with a relationship that is not marriage by definition.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There used to be a restriction against people of differnt races marriage,

Just as today laws ban people of the same sex from marrying.

At that time, the interacial marriage was defined as not being "real."

As to being anyone else, I am merely me. That is obnoxious enough for most, I am not a fan of the sockpuppet.

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your claimed harm is the danger of redefinition. I have provided examples of where such redefinition was good and neccesary to the creation of a more just society.

Leaving you with an ill conceived appeal to tradition.

Proof "marriage" is in fact a universal?

Proof ssm would and has created real world harms?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fine. Please support that assertion. Identify the anti-ssm source and the anti-miscegenation source that employ at least one identical argument.

"And SSU do not have the inherrent set of legal rights codified into marriage."

You want the legal right to an annulment in the State of New York should you and your partner fail to have coitus? Because that's one of the inherent rights codified into marriage.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I have provided examples of where such redefinition was good and neccesary to the creation of a more just society."

No you did not. Redefinition of marriage was not necessary; the same could be accomplished through SSUs. You have yet to provide a single example where a more just society requires ss"m" rather than ssus.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom_paines_ghost
Member
Member # 3285

 - posted      Profile for Tom_paines_ghost   Email Tom_paines_ghost   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete asks:
"Fine. Please support that assertion. Identify the anti-ssm source and the anti-miscegenation source that employ at least one identical argument."

My answer:

Um, I believe I said similar arguments. For a discussion touching the similarity look here.

http://www.pacificcitizen.org/amicusbrief.htm

IT is pretty clearly stablished. Especially the slippery slope of the antis of both. Let the nigs marry white women and pretty soon you will have people marrying monkeys.

sound familiar?

"And SSU do not have the inherrent set of legal rights codified into marriage."

You want the legal right to an annulment in the State of New York should you and your partner fail to have coitus? Because that's one of the inherent rights codified into marriage."

Um, if I get married it will not be to aother man. But all people should have the same legal protections, yes thank you. Would you like a link to the 14th Ammendment?

Posts: 555 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1