It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marriage and double standards

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Are you saying that you are happy to subsidize marriage between two heterosexuals regardless of context?


I answered that question already.

It really helps to read.

I have stated my view in very specific terms.

I believe that all I have to say on the subject has been said.




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


I was merely seeking clarification.

Theres no need to take such a discourteous tone with me.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I'm not speaking of "your" marriage.


But you are. You said:


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
We don't require married men and women to procreate and we also allow those men and women who are infertile to marry, but these are gestures that pay homage to the orderliness of society and the part that marriage plays in maintaining that order.


That's me, Grady. That's my marriage. When you talk about couples who are infertile, you're talking about me, just as when I talk about men or ATS members, I'm talking about you.



I'm speaking to all those who clam that marriages between infertile men and women are justification for marriages between homosexuals.


Nobody is doing that. You claim that the states' interest in marriage is based on people breeding and forming families. The infertile argument is just to show you that your claim is full of holes. If the states' interest were only in making more families, they wouldn't allow infertile couples to marry.



God, I hate it when people don't read a post to determine the intent or even the content, before launching a red-faced diatribe.


If you'll notice, I answered several quotes of yours and clearly read your post several times. The content is clear and the unfortunate intent is clear to me as well. Never did my face turn read and I am not at all angry. I'm having a debate.




As for whose business it is who gets married, it is the business of those who will subsidize that marriage.


Excuse me? I believe we each subsidize our own marriages. Therefore the only marriage that is your business would be yours.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I don't mean to be rude, but to understand this discussion, you must be able to think abstractly and to understand the difference between "a marriage" and "marriage."

I think that you have that capacity, but your personalizing the discussion is blinding you to the "big picture."

I"m sorry to have offended you, but you unable to see the forest for the trees.

[edit on 2008/3/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HHH Is King
Grady is a republican therefor anything he says is null and void.


You are wrong.

Grady is not a Republican.

Grady is a registered independent.

I speak as I do because I have studied these matters and these are the conclusions I have come to based on the education I received while acquiring a BA in Sociology and an Master of Social Work.

You may choose to believe as you wish, but my position on this and any other matter is not based upon party affiliation, as I am in no way affiliated with any party.

Even if I was a Republican, it would in no way make my statements "null and void" by that very fact alone.

You should know better than to speak of matters of which you have no knowledge.


[edit on 2008/3/26 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't mean to be rude, but to understand this discussion,


I am an active participant in this discussion. I understand it perfectly. I disagree with you. That doesn't mean I don't understand this discussion OR the difference between "a marriage" and "marriage" OR that I can't see the forest for the trees. I simply disagree with you and you have yet to make your case.



I"m sorry to have offended you


I am not in the least offended.
It's not necessary to continue to imply that I'm angry, red-faced or offended. I am none of those. I am perfectly level-headed, calm and cool.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Nonetheless, my case has been made.

Members may choose to accept it or not.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
*Snip*

*snip* And instead of being drawn and quartered they won! Aren't we supposed to be more advanced then we used to be 100 years ago? 50 years ago?

Staff Edit - Removed personal references/attacks


2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone. ATS Terms and Conditions of Use


You have an urgent u2u, please click here.

[edit on 3/27/08 by niteboy82]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Nonetheless, my case has been made.


You are right. You have made your case. It's just chock-full of holes. From what I understand, your position seems to be the same as that of the Family Research Council's position. That being that the PUBLIC purpose of marriage is to reproduce and the public has LESS interest in marriage between elderly, infertile or otherwise non-reproductive couples than the breeding couples. And I say fine. Let the public have less interest in non-breeding marriages. But that's not a valid reason to DISallow marriage to couples who cannot reproduce.



You will argue that reproduction cannot be the purpose of marriage, because opposite-sex couple that are elderly, infertile, or simply don't plan to have children are still permitted to marry. In fact, I would suggest that the actual, tangible public interest in childless marriages is not as great as the public interest in marriages that produce children.

However, to exclude non-reproducing heterosexual couples from marriage would require an invasion of privacy or the drawing of arbitrary and inexact lines. Instead, we simply define the structure of marriage as being open to the entire class of couples that are even theoretically capable of natural reproduction--namely, opposite-sex ones--and we exclude an entire class of couples that are intrinsically infertile--namely, same-sex ones.


I would argue that to exclude ANY non-reproducing couples from marriage DOES require an invasion of privacy.

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens and if those rights are to be constrained for a particular sub-group, there has to be a good reason. Somebody's sexual orientation is not a good reason to remove the protection of a person's constitutional rights.



Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Members may choose to accept it or not.


I accept your opinion. I just strongly disagree with it. And I have the US Constitution to back up my position. You have people like Tony Perkins, George W Bush and James Dobson, people who are famous for stepping on people's rights and disregarding the constitutional rights of US citizens, in favor of imposing religious dogma.

These people want to CHANGE the US Constitution to disallow the right and privilege of marriage to a certain group of people (supposedly) because they cannot naturally reproduce. In truth, the reason they want to disallow it is because they are uncomfortable with homosexuality and want to make it legal to discriminate against gay people. They want to take a giant step backward and write legal discrimination into the Constitution.

If you support that, Grady, then I can only hope that you and people like you are not successful.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I do not support a constitutional amendment regarding marriage.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I do not support a constitutional amendment regarding marriage.


Okay. How do you justify denying gay people the same rights as straight people, then? If you support the Constitution, how do you reconcile abridging the privilege of marriage to certain adult law-abiding citizens?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
BH,

I've stated my case.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


You patently havent stated it in a concise manner, which is why people are confused.

We cannot see any hint of a logic backed stance.

When I tried to ask for clarification you once again rudely snapped at me.

This is no attitude to take to debate... come on Grady



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
This is no attitude to take to debate... come on Grady


This is not my thread. I am the FSME for this forum.

I have stated my view of the institution of marriage based on my education and knowledge of why societies reward certain behaviors and ignore or punish others.

I am not here to enter into a debate.

You are not obligated to accept my assessment and I am not obligated to argue with you.

Furthermore, this has become a discussion about me and I am not the subject of this thread.

Thanks.

[edit on 2008/3/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I am not here to enter into a debate.
[edit on 2008/3/27 by GradyPhilpott]


I see, perhaps I was expecting something else.

In that case, I apologise for my earlier post.

It seems that I have misconstrued the point of this thread, I thought we were here to debate.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
It seems that I have misconstrued the point of this thread, I thought we were here to debate.


Debate is encouraged, but, as I have stated, I have made my case. Others may choose to debate the matter further.

You are also welcome to challenge my assessment with your own.

Debate is not meant to be about personalities, which this discussion has become.

This thread has become abusive and I want nothing more to do with it.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Reply too.

Thanks for all the input! I liked that thought so much that I copied it to my 'personal reflections' savefile." And sertinly everything I learn here is used for my own personal research
Never to be used anywhere on the net.


I very much enjoy hearing all sides to this story.. While my own personal feelings may some what make me bias.. I still thank Grady for showing me the counter point of veiw. Its all good to know, and good to know how people feel about this issue..

I hope someday we can all as Humans come to a cross roads where we can work something out. Id like to see everyone get the chance to share the magic of marriage!

Reply to soulslayer-- Agin thanks for the input! Very well thought out and it will help me understand on a deeper level.
I know this issue is sometimes tuff, and out emotions can get in the way but overall I feel this thread has a good feel, and no one is getting to worked up over this.. Healthy, and good for all of us to be abel to debate, and understand how everyone feels about this issue.

I know we all cant agree on most things. And its a tuff world to live in when you are different. But thats what makes this world such a color place to live in.. While I could agree that its not kewl to be all up in people faces about their sexual nature.. I do think we could all come to an understanding. Plus homosexuals need to realize they sometimes do things that make them seem well.. That will be for another thread.
But yes it is dangerous, and many things they could do to make this easier on all of us.. ITs just not the big bad anti-thinkers that are the problem.. Its a 50/50 problem at this point.

Overall most people 85% are understand and open minded.. Do what you want.. Just dont tell me about it.. Im fine with that.. And infact I would support that thought pattern.

Thanks everyone.. Now please contiune with the discussion!


[edit on 27-3-2008 by zysin5]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The personal rhetoric needs to end immediately, the topic of this thread is "Marriage and double standards" and personal attacks are not included in this topic or any other topic on A/B/PTS.

Any further personal sniping will result in post edits and further action if deemed necessary by ATS staff.

Please return to topic.

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join