7 States And Counting

[Pah]

I put it in discussion precisely because I don't want to debate...if you want it moved, be my guest, take it away.

You've made it a debate by answering contrary positions. The definition of RF debate hasn't changed since I left moderating.

 

[lilithu]

It is discrimination of the basis of sex, pure and simple.

I agree. The reason why I repeatedly bring love into this discussion is to make real the consequences that this has on real people. It's fine to talk about all this in theory but the reality is that there are people who love each other who cannot marry. And for people who oppose marriage equality I want them to face that fact. I don't want to allow them to hide behind words; I want them to have to confront the pain caused by their actions.

There are people who love each other who cannot marry. As Jensa said in the other thread, can people live with themselves knowing they're responsible for that?

 

[Sunstone]

Thanks everyone for keeping this discussion of a heated topic more on the civil side than otherwise. It's much appreciated!

 

[Fluffy]

I hear a lot of people making comments about the Middle East likening it to Medival Europe and calling for modernisation. Perhaps if America continues this trend, people will start saying the same things about America.

 

[thuban]

May I ask where does the ceremony of Marriage originate from, the idea of a man and a woman being together, if it is from religion, then follow it. If you dont agree with it then why follow the religion.

 

[Sunstone]

May I ask where does the ceremony of Marriage originate from, the idea of a man and a woman being together, if it is from religion, then follow it. If you dont agree with it then why follow the religion.

Originally, marriage does not come from any particular religion. There is no known human culture or society that does not practice some form or another of marriage. That's very strong evidence that marriage, in one form or another, is instinctual to humans. Hence, marriage is as old as our species, and part of human nature, rather than the innovation of one religion or another.

 

[Revasser]

I agree. The reason why I repeatedly bring love into this discussion is to make real the consequences that this has on real people. It's fine to talk about all this in theory but the reality is that there are people who love each other who cannot marry. And for people who oppose marriage equality I want them to face that fact. I don't want to allow them to hide behind words; I want them to have to confront the pain caused by their actions.

There are people who love each other who cannot marry. As Jensa said in the other thread, can people live with themselves knowing they're responsible for that?

I know what you mean, lilithu, and I agree it's important. It's important to make it more than an academic debate and to show the people who actively work against this that they bear personal responsibility for hurting real people, real families.

But I have found that many people seem to have a worrying ability to flick their empathy switch to the off position when it comes to this debate. I find having some good "cold, hard" arguments ready to meet that when it crops up is a good idea.

So don't think I disagree with you; I don't. I think you're absolutely right. But it can't hurt to come at it from multiple angles, right?

 

[CDRaider]

They voted that out two years ago in Ohio.

This election year they voted smoke free everywhere. TO the point that if you smoke if your back yard and it goes into someone else's you can get fined.

So much for a country of freedom.

 

[SoyLeche]

This thread has long been a debate, so I'm moving it to the debate section.

I know that what I think doesn't matter, but I think this is a bad policy. The opening poster said specifically when asked that this was not meant to be a debate. The moderators should have taken control long ago and stopped the debating. If a debate was desired, someone else should have started a thread in a debate forum.

I'm disapointed with this

 

[Sunstone]

I know that what I think doesn't matter, but I think this is a bad policy. The opening poster said specifically when asked that this was not meant to be a debate. The moderators should have taken control long ago and stopped the debating. If a debate was desired, someone else should have started a thread in a debate forum.

I'm disapointed with this

You're right. We should have caught it sooner and kept it a discussion.

 

[lilithu]

I know that what I think doesn't matter, but I think this is a bad policy. The opening poster said specifically when asked that this was not meant to be a debate. The moderators should have taken control long ago and stopped the debating. If a debate was desired, someone else should have started a thread in a debate forum.

I'm disapointed with this

Pehaps, it's certainly not ideal, but this is done all the time. It's not as if this thread was handled differently from the norm.

I agree with Pah that if the original poster did not want a debate then he should not have responded in a debate manner to the original responses. If you put something up and ask what people think, they're gonna tell you what they think. Then it's up to you to not respond antagonistically towards them. It takes two to argue.

 

[Booko]

Seven states voted in favor of upholding traditional marriage yesterday: Tennessee, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Only Arizona ousted a similar bill.

Comments?

I'm all for protecting traditional marriage.

I don't know the details of these new laws, but I assume they've gotten serious and done things like make divorce more difficult, like it used to be? Remember when you actually had to have "grounds" and people were expected to actually work on their marriages?

What are the provisions for those who are cohabitating? Can those couples be arrested now? Or did they just bring back "common law" marriages?

If cohabitant couples have kids, can the state now take them away for protection from being raised by such immoral parents? We shouldn't give the kids the idea that it's okay to have illegitimate children all over the place.

Yes, traditional marriage really has been damaged by the last 30 years of people divorcing on a whim, shacking up, having babies all over the place who don't even know who the father is, and just generally not taking marriage seriously.

And look what all that has done for this generation of children. There's such a direct link between the sins of the parents and the odds that the children will be living in poverty.

 

[SoyLeche]

Pehaps, it's certainly not ideal, but this is done all the time. It's not as if this thread was handled differently from the norm.

Yeah, but most of what I've seen has involved asking the OP if they want it moved, and if they agree, it is moved. In this case, when asked the OP indicated that it wasn't supposed to be a debate. At that point, the Mods should have taken over, IMHO.

I agree with Pah that if the original poster did not want a debate then he should not have responded in a debate manner to the original responses. If you put something up and ask what people think, they're gonna tell you what they think. Then it's up to you to not respond antagonistically towards them. It takes two to argue.

I won't argue with that.

 

[Booko]

Talked to any conservative Catholics lately?

I married into an entire family of them. Did you have a question? I'm not sure, reading your post about the divorce question.

 

[SoyLeche]

I'm all for protecting traditional marriage.

I don't know the details of these new laws, but I assume they've gotten serious and done things like make divorce more difficult, like it used to be? Remember when you actually had to have "grounds" and people were expected to actually work on their marriages?

What are the provisions for those who are cohabitating? Can those couples be arrested now? Or did they just bring back "common law" marriages?

If cohabitant couples have kids, can the state now take them away for protection from being raised by such immoral parents? We shouldn't give the kids the idea that it's okay to have illegitimate children all over the place.

Yes, traditional marriage really has been damaged by the last 30 years of people divorcing on a whim, shacking up, having babies all over the place who don't even know who the father is, and just generally not taking marriage seriously.

And look what all that has done for this generation of children. There's such a direct link between the sins of the parents and the odds that the children will be living in poverty.

I think celebrities should be given a limited number of marriages (preferably one) - and when that one is over they can no longer be on TV, in movies, or on the radio.

 

[SoyLeche]

I think celebrities should be given a limited number of marriages (preferably one) - and when that one is over they can no longer be on TV, in movies, or on the radio.

Also, as soon as the first tabloid prints a story about a celebrity being pregnant/getting someone else pregnant that can be verified, the celebrity becomes officially married to that person.

 

[Booko]

Well that's easy: it's all about discrimination and the forcing of religious laws onto everyone. What religious law are we all going to be forced to follow next? Maybe the government should pass a law forcing everyone to eat kosher, since that's what the Jews do. Or maybe we should all be required by the government to give alms to the poor, like the Muslim law states. How do you feel about that?

We could have some real fun and demand everyone follow Baha'i law, which says you have to get parental permission, no matter how old you are.

Oooh, *that* would be fun to watch!








(not)

 

[Booko]

Agreed. (I knew we could do it!) I just get very annoyed when people start saying, "You only support/oppose that because of your religious beliefs!"...well DUH, we all do.

Um, actually we don't all vote purely according to our religious views, since some of us don't feel the need to create civil laws that impose our religious views on those who are not members of our religion.

I've never seen a Jew advocating a law requiring all foods be kosher, and I've never advocated closing down bars or requiring parental permission for marriage, nor would I be likely to vote in favor of such propositions if they did come up.

If you want to convince me to vote in favor or against a proposal, you'd have to show me how society is going to be harmed or damaged in some tangible way, and assure me it is more than just the "tyranny of the majority" at work.

 

[Booko]

I think celebrities should be given a limited number of marriages (preferably one) - and when that one is over they can no longer be on TV, in movies, or on the radio.

Hey, that's a nifty idea! Well, we might be lenient and apply Baseball Rules to them instead -- you get 3 strikes.

 

[SoyLeche]

Hey, that's a nifty idea! Well, we might be lenient and apply Baseball Rules to them instead -- you get 3 strikes.

But the tabloid/pregnancy rule still applies. And if a pregnancy involving another person happens while the celebrity is still married to someone else, the previous marriage is immediately terminated and the next marriage begins.