Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 07:19 PM   #331 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo View Post
To go further, and I still stand by what I originally said....BUT

What if the majority vote to deny a basic right to a certain part of the public [***s here, others elsewhere]? When does it draw the line where the government must step in to maintain it's duty to restore equity under the law? It's a slippery slope with no real correct answer I guess. What about polygamists? Just figured I'd play devil's advocate for a sec.
It certainly would be. The problem is we're not letting anyone maintain a legally binding relationship with multiples.

There wouldn't be any precedent for equality here. Equality will always be that; equal. No ones allowed to have multiple partners, so it is equal under the law.

Whats not equal here is that people aren't allowed to marry other people based on preference. If you prefer to marry another human, who's the government to tell you who it should be. Further more, why should the government be involved period?
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 07:25 PM   #332 (permalink)
sleepe
 
Double X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: boston
Posts: 1,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo View Post
To go further, and I still stand by what I originally said....BUT

What if the majority vote to deny a basic right to a certain part of the public [***s here, others elsewhere]? When does it draw the line where the government must step in to maintain it's duty to restore equity under the law? It's a slippery slope with no real correct answer I guess. What about polygamists? Just figured I'd play devil's advocate for a sec.
The government should be stepping in to make sure equality is established in freedoms to marriage. Clear case here.
Double X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 08:06 PM   #333 (permalink)
Muck Fusic
 
IamAlejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog View Post
It certainly would be. The problem is we're not letting anyone maintain a legally binding relationship with a person of the same sex.

There wouldn't be any precedent for equality here. Equality will always be that; equal. No ones allowed to have a partner of the same sex, so it is equal under the law.

Hmmm...interesting what I did there. Isn't it the same? No one is allowed to do it, therefore we are all equal by that logic, correct?
__________________
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
IamAlejo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 09:03 PM   #334 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 9,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo View Post
Hmmm...interesting what I did there. Isn't it the same? No one is allowed to do it, therefore we are all equal by that logic, correct?
with regard to polygamy?

Yes...
TheBig3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:00 PM   #335 (permalink)
Partying on the inside
 
Freebase Dali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo View Post
Hmmm...interesting what I did there. Isn't it the same? No one is allowed to do it, therefore we are all equal by that logic, correct?
It's not equality when the homosexual population is denied the right to marry who they want to marry.
I don't understand how that's unclear.

If we think equal rights is only applicable to a particular percentage of the population, then we've got our definition of equality wrong.
If we generally say that no one can marry the same sex, regardless of gender, then we're willfully and knowingly discriminating against homosexuality.
__________________

Last edited by Freebase Dali; 05-26-2009 at 11:12 PM.
Freebase Dali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 11:16 PM   #336 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,969
Default

Equating polygamy with homosexuality is just stupid. It's literally the definition of apples and oranges. It isn't a biological condition to only be attracted to/have relationships with multiple partners at the same time all of whom you're legally married to.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:59 AM   #337 (permalink)
Muck Fusic
 
IamAlejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Veridical Fiction View Post
It's not equality when the homosexual population is denied the right to marry who they want to marry.
I don't understand how that's unclear.

If we think equal rights is only applicable to a particular percentage of the population, then we've got our definition of equality wrong.
If we generally say that no one can marry the same sex, regardless of gender, then we're willfully and knowingly discriminating against homosexuality.
And why is it equal if homosexuals are allowed to marry who they wish but a polygamist wouldn't be able to [which in this case would obviously be multiple people]? If we don't allow it, aren't we willingly discriminating against polygamy? There are no consent or medical reasons for it being illegal, just some sort of religious dogma. I have no idea how you can say that equality should apply to homosexuals and not polygamists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy jack View Post
Equating polygamy with homosexuality is just stupid. It's literally the definition of apples and oranges. It isn't a biological condition to only be attracted to/have relationships with multiple partners at the same time all of whom you're legally married to.
I'm not equating the ethics and biology of the two of them at all, I'm equating their status under the law. He stated that it is fine to not have polygamy because it is equal under the law in the sense that no one else is allowed to do it. If that's the case, the same argument can be made for homosexuals in that no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex under the law. Ta da, equal.

And I'd be very careful with how you define a "biological condition"...what exactly is the sex drive?
__________________
a man, a plan, a canal, panama

Last edited by IamAlejo; 05-27-2009 at 07:16 AM.
IamAlejo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:21 AM   #338 (permalink)
Occams Razor
 
Son of JayJamJah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: End of the Earth
Posts: 2,470
Default

I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. It should be up to the church or individuals who gets married to who.

Why do I care if someone Marry's a man, woman, 10 men and 12 woman or a herd of cattle. There is no law that says I can't call them a crazy fucking asshole.
__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent View Post
i prefer foreplay. the orgasm is overrated.
If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread
Son of JayJamJah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:57 AM   #339 (permalink)
Me llamo Marijan
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 6,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamAlejo View Post
And why is it equal if homosexuals are allowed to marry who they wish but a polygamist wouldn't be able to [which in this case would obviously be multiple people]? If we don't allow it, aren't we willingly discriminating against polygamy? There are no consent or medical reasons for it being illegal, just some sort of religious dogma. I have no idea how you can say that equality should apply to homosexuals and not polygamists.



I'm not equating the ethics and biology of the two of them at all, I'm equating their status under the law. He stated that it is fine to not have polygamy because it is equal under the law in the sense that no one else is allowed to do it. If that's the case, the same argument can be made for homosexuals in that no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex under the law. Ta da, equal.

And I'd be very careful with how you define a "biological condition"...what exactly is the sex drive?
I agree that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, polygamists at least deserve to have their case reexamined. But one of the reasons why it's not very likely that polygamist marriages will become legal in the near future is that it creates a world of social and legal problems (like for instance, if one of the parties to a polygamist marriage dies, there would be a problem regarding inheritance, if they become incapacitated, there are issues as to which of the other spouses would be able to make medical or other decisions for them etc.) and changes the institution of marriage for everyone, unlike granting same-sex couples the right to marry which doesn't.
adidasss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:15 AM   #340 (permalink)
Muck Fusic
 
IamAlejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adidasss View Post
I agree that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, polygamists at least deserve to have their case reexamined. But one of the reasons why it's not very likely that polygamist marriages will become legal in the near future is that it creates a world of social and legal problems (like for instance, if one of the parties to a polygamist marriage dies, there would be a problem regarding inheritance, if they become incapacitated, there are issues as to which of the other spouses would be able to make medical or other decisions for them etc.) and changes the institution of marriage for everyone, unlike granting same-sex couples the right to marry which doesn't.
Interesting argument, the equality one's just weren't cutting it. As I said [or if I didn't, now I'm saying it], I'm not for polygamy at all but was just playing devil's advocate. It brings in a whole slew a potential suitors for polygamy though if opened up. I do feel it's a matter of time before *** marriages are legalized.

As to JJJ, that's not really the point since the government has already decided to involve itself in marriages. Though in theory I agree with your point.
__________________
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
IamAlejo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.