Wouldn't deny, but I can't help it if my points are just plain ignored.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
You seem to hold a view that marriage is not about
kinship. Well, I disagree.
No, I really don't. If anything, as has already been explained, I
view marriage to be more than just being about kinship. That does not imply I
meant marriage to be not about kinship at all.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
You mentioned that since we have already introduced "variations" to the marriage, add one more. Sorry, but that is a straw man.
The point was, traditional views aren't always the best. Let's say it would be unfair of anyone to hold women from voting because of what was traditionally thought as best or was just the norm.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
You have not offered why do you believe that marriage is not
about kids.
Why would I offer arguments about what I did not even claim? I never said
marriage is not about kids at all, just that it concerns more than that. I can
provide arguments in its favor if you wish.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
I noticed that you did not reply if there is a problem with
the union (or whatever they are calling it), why not fix that?
And I notice you have, for the second time here, IGNORED my post on the
differences between civil unions and marriage. Here you go:
https://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
If two lines are of different lengths, either the smaller
line can be made bigger or the bigger line can be cut short.. which one do you
prefer?
The former, which is exactly what is being asked here: marriage (longer line =
higher advantages and rights) is not being asked to be changed to civil unions
(smaller line = lesser advantages and rights). Rather, civil unions are being
asked to be changed to marriage.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
You might think that you responded to my question about why
gays want to adhere to existing standards but I am still unclear.
Unclear about what? Already explained and sourced it that there are differences between civil unions and marriage, and for more information, look below.This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
I asked if it is about the advantages that married hetero
couples enjoy and you said yes. So, well, let's put those advantages to their
"union".
Well, how many times, exactly? You not only ignored that aspect of my post
twice herebut also did not bother quoting my section where I
gave you the link differentiating between a civil union and marriage. Well, if
it's not much, then scroll up, and check the link provided. I have directly given it once before, and then linked it in another post. That's the third time going there. We will carry it
from there.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
Why the marriage which traditionally has been between a man
and a woman and vast majority of marriages are like that. Since we live in a
democratic country, majority rules.
I think return_to_hades
explained it quite well:
[quote] Leaders in democracy are
elected by a majority. Legislation in democracy requires majority. However, the
notion that democracy is "majority rules" is a mistaken notion. That
is why minority rights, special interests are center place in democracy. That
is why democracies have judicial and executive branches that don't answer to
majorities or constituents to ensure "fairness". There are checks and
balances against each other. The pillars of democracy are liberty, equality and
fraternity NOT majority. That is why democratic decisions should not merely
uphold majority but embody liberty, equality and fraternity. And yes these
concepts are fluid and perceptions change with time.
There are other
systems like oligarchy, tyranny, anarchy etc where the largest and most
powerful groups of population vie for control. [/quote]
SourceThis content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
Regarding polygamy, yes the idea is incomprehensible.
Well, we are on the same page there, then. Yes, the idea of group marriage is
incomprehensible to me, too - but I am going to give it a chance and listen to
their side of the argument even if I have a preconceived notion (say negative
in this case) from before.
But er, I was talking about polyamory. Polygamy
is one form of group marriage.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
Man.. my head is spinning with few easy combinations that
can be called a marriage:
1 male-1female, 1 male - multiple females,
multiple males - 1 female, male-male, female-female, multiple males - 1 male,
multiple females - 1 female, 1 male - multiple males, 1 female - multiple
females, multiple males - multiple males, multiple females - multiple females...
Oh - and did I mention that they all do not have
to be human species? I am sure I left out many possible combinations, but I am
sure you get the point.
This is the biggest inductive leap you take when
comparing consensual relationships between adults with that of animals. Animals
can't provide reasonable consent, so no, they can't be compared with homosexual
relationships or even group marriage or orgy.
This content was originally posted by: TheUltimate
For your last question -
system might not be perfect. As I have told multiple times, let's improve it.
Why modify the other system?
Finally! Yes! Agreed!
But then, if civil unions are improved and given all the
rights as marriage does, then civil unions will become marriage, just with a
different name, so what's the difference? I think people at both ends are
fighting a desperate battle. The fight should be for equality rather than name.
But at the same time, if names are kept different, but equal rights are given, then what difference does it matter if the name is also made similar?
Edited by Beyond_the_Veil - 12 years ago
comment:
p_commentcount