a thought on marriage

[jasJis]

but you didn't respond to my rebuttal...

chicken?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 23 2004, 12:33 PM'] It should be noted that I was making two separate arguments with two separate parts of the Constitution.

Argument 1:

Currently states grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who want to get married. Under the 14th Amendment, which states: "No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", states are required to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. Thus, it does apply to this discussion.

Argument 2:

Currently Massachusets' law allows same-sex couples to marry. Your assessment that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is not absolute, however, precendence shows that all states currently give full faith and credit to marriage licenses obtained in other states. This would hold true to marriage licenses obtained by same-sex couples. [/quote]
Neither of the above two arguments are adequate in the least.

In the case of Argument 1, the dispute on the definition of Marriage is most certainly still an issue of question and, as such, the general claim you make is unfounded. It can be easily argued that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, and, as such, some sort of legally recognized union between two peoples of the same sex is a completely different issue. In light of this, your conclusion does not follow whatsoever.

In the case of Argument 2, your conclusion is also thoroughly insufficient. First and foremost, I have already established, by point of legal precedent, that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is not universal, so the issue now is whether or not is to be applied in this case. The only claim you have made to further your position is simply to make the statement that no civil suit regarding the issue has come to the Supreme Court as of yet.

This type of claim is not a legitimate logical argument, because it claims a thing as truth simply because it has yet to happen (ie, "gay-marriage is protected by law because no one has brought a case against it). This would be like me saying "Miami is protected from meteorites" and justifying my claim by pointing out that it has yet to be hit.

No offense intended, but this is just a poor argument on your part.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Nov 24 2004, 09:08 PM'] In the case of Argument 2, your conclusion is also thoroughly insufficient. First and foremost, I have already established, by point of legal precedent, that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause is not universal, so the issue now is whether or not is to be applied in this case. The only claim you have made to further your position is simply to make the statement that no civil suit regarding the issue has come to the Supreme Court as of yet.

This type of claim is not a legitimate logical argument, because it claims a thing as truth simply because it has yet to happen (ie, "gay-marriage is protected by law because no one has brought a case against it). This would be like me saying "Miami is protected from meteorites" and justifying my claim by pointing out that it has yet to be hit.

No offense intended, but this is just a poor argument on your part. [/quote]
Somehow I think you missed the point of my argument.

[quote]precendence shows that all states currently give full faith and credit to marriage licenses obtained in other states.[/quote]

Thus, marriage licenses obtained by same-sex couples in Massachusets must be as valid as marriage licenses obtained by opposite-sex couples in Massachusets.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 24 2004, 08:32 PM'] but you didn't respond to my rebuttal...

chicken? [/quote]
Is this directed at me? I responded to your last post unless I am missing something.

[CreepyCrawler]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Nov 20 2004, 08:33 PM'] Actually emergency contraceptives are ultra high doses of regular birth control hormones given within 72 hours of unprotected sex. [/quote]
emergency contraceptives have a sketchy health record, are routinely given to women even after 72 hours of unprotected sex, and can cause an abortion, if fertilization has already occurred. i find it insulting that giving women "ultra high doses of hormones" is acceptable to society. as if we were animals or something....it's dangerous and disgusting! :angry:

[CreepyCrawler]

i think it's interesting that in both debate and in the dictionary definition that burnsspivey gave, it's called "same-sex marriage" and not just 'marriage...' if it's all the same, then why does the modification need to be made? i think it's because marriage IS the union of a man and woman and anything else is just an imitation of it.


and as i understand it, homosexuals are free to engage in homosexual activity as they want to -- it's not against the law and no one is stepping on their 'rights' to have sex. marriage is something more than just sex, and if you think marriage is simply sex with tax benefits, then you should be arguing for no marriage for anyone rather than marriage for homosexuals. if marriage is such a bad, archaic, and inherently flawed and stupid idea, why would you want to invite homosexuals into this prison? it's like inviting white people into slavery instead of giving black people their freedom.

[amarkich]

Just to clarify, even the United States had laws forbidding [color=red][Edited by dUSt: homosexuals] [/color]to practice their sodomy with each other (laws also forbade unnatural acts between men and women--forms of sex that are not procreative--apparently there were some laws also forbidding, pardon the bluntness, women from being on top). These laws were supposedly struck down by the Supreme Court (I believe) in 2001. That is what led to the gay "marriage" debate to begin with. In any event, these laws had (wrongly) not been enforced for some time.

[God Conquers]

what's wrong with a woman being on top?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Nov 30 2004, 07:23 PM'] emergency contraceptives have a sketchy health record, are routinely given to women even after 72 hours of unprotected sex, and can cause an abortion, if fertilization has already occurred. i find it insulting that giving women "ultra high doses of hormones" is acceptable to society. as if we were animals or something....it's dangerous and disgusting! :angry: [/quote]
You'll note that EC is voluntary. Women take ultra-high doses of hormones -- saying that they are given to them makes it seem like a passive thing. It isn't. You have to ask for them and get a prescription filled in most cases.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='CreepyCrawler' date='Nov 30 2004, 07:47 PM'] i think it's interesting that in both debate and in the dictionary definition that burnsspivey gave, it's called "same-sex marriage" and not just 'marriage...' if it's all the same, then why does the modification need to be made? i think it's because marriage IS the union of a man and woman and anything else is just an imitation of it.
[/quote]
In the definition I quoted "same-sex marriage" is an example of how the word would be used. It isn't actually part of the definition. For example:

3 : an intimate or close union <the [i]marriage[/i] of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Words that are in < > brackets are examples.

[quote]and as i understand it, homosexuals are free to engage in homosexual activity as they want to -- it's not against the law and no one is stepping on their 'rights' to have sex. marriage is something more than just sex, and if you think marriage is simply sex with tax benefits, then you should be arguing for no marriage for anyone rather than marriage for homosexuals. if marriage is such a bad, archaic, and inherently flawed and stupid idea, why would you want to invite homosexuals into this prison? it's like inviting white people into slavery instead of giving black people their freedom.[/quote]

I've said this multiple times before.

I would prefer that marriage be removed completely from the legal sphere. However, if marriage is to remain a legal institiution it should be available to everyone.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 30 2004, 08:00 PM'] Just to clarify, even the United States had laws forbidding [color=red][Edited by dUSt: homosexuals] [/color]to practice their sodomy with each other (laws also forbade unnatural acts between men and women--forms of sex that are not procreative--apparently there were some laws also forbidding, pardon the bluntness, women from being on top). These laws were supposedly struck down by the Supreme Court (I believe) in 2001. That is what led to the gay "marriage" debate to begin with. In any event, these laws had (wrongly) not been enforced for some time. [/quote]
Ahahaha!

The issue has been around for far, far longer than that.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 6 2004, 02:10 PM'] I would prefer that marriage be removed completely from the legal sphere. However, if marriage is to remain a legal institiution it should be available to everyone. [/quote]
wow. I agree with you on something.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Nov 30 2004, 10:50 PM'] what's wrong with a woman being on top? [/quote]
It has, in the past, been considered sodomy.

[God Conquers]

I know it has been associated with sodomy if the action is "in tergo", as in a case where the woman and man are not facing each other, but I wasn't sure about this case.

The person who would have answered is gone now, so it's probably futile to continue debate.

[artemisjade]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Dec 6 2004, 03:10 PM'] I know it has been associated with sodomy if the action is "in tergo", as in a case where the woman and man are not facing each other, but I wasn't sure about this case.

The person who would have answered is gone now, so it's probably futile to continue debate. [/quote]
Eh, it's only a 3 day suspension.

[quote]
Five different sexual acts are species of sodomy because each of them prevents procreation in a particular way.

The five are: solitary masturbation; bestiality, which violates the human species; same-sex copulation, male-male and female-female; cross-sex anal intercourse; and intercourse with the woman on top, because this hinders conception. [/quote]

That's from [i]De justitia et jure[/i], published in 1605 by the Flemish Jesuit Leonard Lessius, professor of law and theology at the University of Louvain.

[toledo_jesus]

interesting. I suppose there is a practical consideration about it hindering conception.

[God Conquers]

But is there any empirical evidence that it is more difficult to concieve in that way?

And if there were none, would that change the teaching, especially if for some reason it might improve intimacy?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='artemisjade' date='Dec 7 2004, 02:37 PM'] Eh, it's only a 3 day suspension.



That's from [i]De justitia et jure[/i], published in 1605 by the Flemish Jesuit Leonard Lessius, professor of law and theology at the University of Louvain. [/quote]
3 day suspension?

THe Jesuit stuff is based on faulty science, you can pregnant in any position normal intercourse comes up with.

[artemisjade]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 7 2004, 08:02 PM'] THe Jesuit stuff is based on faulty science, you can pregnant in any position normal intercourse comes up with. [/quote]
Obviously, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand...

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='artemisjade' date='Dec 8 2004, 11:17 AM'] Obviously, but I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand... [/quote]
not much. tangents are fun though...