Marriage

Your views on marriage

  • One man and one woman only

    Votes: 65 56.0%
  • A man can be married to more than one woman, polygamy acceptable

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • A woman can be married to more than one man, polygamy acceptable

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Both Option 2 and 3

    Votes: 10 8.6%
  • Between two men (a man and another man)

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Between two women (a woman and another woman)

    Votes: 3 2.6%
  • Marriage is an obsolete institution. Make all marriage Illegal

    Votes: 35 30.2%

  • Total voters
    116
MobBoss said:
Hmmm, just because it isnt in the news every day doenst mean it doesnt happen: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_foster-parent-molestation-illinois.html To somehow insinuate that such behavior is unknown because it isnt on the news all the time is rather short sighted at best.

.

Dude, you really need to check your sources, I have read a number of your posts and the inaccuracies boggle my mind but this one takes the cake. Firstly you are citing a source which has severe credibility issues, not to mention the fact the author of that study was censured for that very study. Reason being it was bad science nor was he even qualified to author it.
 
(1) Do I have the right to sell an operating system as MS Windows XP?

~ most people would say no, because that term is owned by
Microsoft and Bill Gates, and it identifies their software? ~

I'd have to call it something else.


(2) Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

~ most people would say no, because that tern is owned by married
heterosexuals, and identifies their relationship ~


So homosexuals can call it something else!


Suggestions, free of charge, include:

getting garried
consumating cottages
getting sapphoed

Please homosexuals, invent your own terminology, don't steal ours!
 
I must have missed the part when heterosexuals copyrighted marriage :crazyeye:
 
There's a happy medium for most, if we let gays become joined in a state of partnership outside of religion, as it is in England, then the Gay people enjoy the tax breaks of being "joined" and the straight people enjoy the full condition of being married, you still have descrimination but it's in name only and no one is denied rights under the law. I fail to see a problem there? Equal rights for all under the law, regardless of sexuality, sounds fair yes/no?
 
Truronian said:
I must have missed the part when heterosexuals copyrighted marriage :crazyeye:

Well, OSMs were the norm for thousands of years, no matter what the circumstances of the marriage, even in societies with widespread homosexual behavior. So there is a big precedent here.
 
MobBoss said:
Society does form its own morality and it has the option to change it depending upon the majority opinion of that society. Lots of people today think owning a handgun to be immoral. I assure you, if a majority of people carried this opinion, gun laws would be far more restrictive then they currently are. Do you doubt that in the least?

No, society does not form its own morality. Society may pass rules because a majority (or for that matter, a vocal minority) of its members think something or another is moral/just/ethical/good/can't-hurt/etc, but that does not lend any air of morality to the rule itself. Just because "Thou shalt not steal" and "Don't violate Massachusetts General Law Part IV Title I Chapter 266 Section 30 (1)-(5)"
Spoiler :
Section 30. (1) Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretence, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another as defined in this section, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the property stolen is a firearm, as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, or, if the value of the property stolen exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years; or, if the value of the property stolen, other than a firearm as so defined, does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars; or, if the property was stolen from the conveyance of a common carrier or of a person carrying on an express business, shall be punished for the first offence by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both, and for a subsequent offence, by imprisonment for not less than eighteen months nor more than two and one half years, or by a fine of not less than one hundred and fifty nor more than six hundred dollars, or both.

(2) The term “property”, as used in the section, shall include money, personal chattels, a bank note, bond, promissory note, bill of exchange or other bill, order or certificate, a book of accounts for or concerning money or goods due or to become due or to be delivered, a deed or writing containing a conveyance of land, any valuable contract in force, a receipt, release or defeasance, a writ, process, certificate of title or duplicate certificate issued under chapter one hundred and eighty-five, a public record, anything which is of the realty or is annexed thereto, a security deposit received pursuant to section fifteen B of chapter one hundred and eighty-six, electronically processed or stored data, either tangible or intangible, data while in transit, telecommunications services, and any domesticated animal, including dogs, or a beast or bird which is ordinarily kept in confinement.

(3) The stealing of real property may be a larceny from one or more tenants, sole, joint or in common, in fee, for life or years, at will or sufferance, mortgagors or mortgagees, in possession of the same, or who may have an action of tort against the offender for trespass upon the property, but not from one having only the use or custody thereof. The larceny may be from a wife in possession, if she is authorized by law to hold such property as if sole, otherwise her occupation may be the possession of the husband. If such property which was of a person deceased is stolen, it may be a larceny from any one or more heirs, devisees, reversioners, remaindermen or others, who have a right upon such deceased to take possession, but not having entered, as it would be after entry. The larceny may be from a person whose name is unknown, if it would be such if the property stolen were personal, and may be committed by those who have only the use or custody of the property, but not by a person against whom no action of tort could be maintained for acts like those constituting the larceny.

(4) Whoever steals, or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretense, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, secretes, unlawfully takes, carries away, conceals or copies with intent to convert any trade secret of another, regardless of value, whether such trade secret is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than five years, or by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years. The term “trade secret” as used in this paragraph means and includes anything tangible or intangible or electronically kept or stored, which constitutes, represents, evidences or records a secret scientific, technical, merchandising, production or management information, design, process, procedure, formula, invention or improvement.

(5) Whoever steals or with intent to defraud obtains by a false pretense, or whoever unlawfully, and with intent to steal or embezzle, converts, or secretes with intent to convert, the property of another, sixty years of age or older, or of a person with a disability as defined in section thirteen K of chapter two hundred and sixty-five, whether such property is or is not in his possession at the time of such conversion or secreting, shall be guilty of larceny, and shall, if the value of the property exceeds two hundred and fifty dollars, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment; or if the value of the property does not exceed two hundred and fifty dollars, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment. The court may order, regardless of the value of the property, restitution to be paid to the victim commensurate with the value of the property.
are fundamentally the same rule, they don't hold the same connotation of morality.

I mean, if I take what you're saying at face value (and use your terminology), the US Constitution is violating the right of US society to do what it feels is moral. :crazyeye:

By the way, are you one of the ones claiming that morality has to have a religious context or else it isn't morality?
 
EdwardTking said:
(1) Do I have the right to sell an operating system as MS Windows XP?

~ most people would say no, because that term is owned by
Microsoft and Bill Gates, and it identifies their software? ~

I'd have to call it something else.


(2) Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

~ most people would say no, because that tern is owned by married
heterosexuals, and identifies their relationship ~


So homosexuals can call it something else!


Suggestions, free of charge, include:

getting garried
consumating cottages
getting sapphoed

Please homosexuals, invent your own terminology, don't steal ours!


Microsoft owns that term, and can sell it, as it is their property. Can married couples sell the term "marriage"? ;)
 
RH2

IglooDude said:
Microsoft owns that term, and can sell it, as it is their property. Can married couples sell the term "marriage"? ;)

If a clear majority of married heterosexuals throughout the world voted to do so, then they could modify or sell the term for future instances of its use.

But no one is even offering any consideration.
 
Eran of Arcadia said:
Well, OSMs were the norm for thousands of years, no matter what the circumstances of the marriage, even in societies with widespread homosexual behavior. So there is a big precedent here.

It just seems a bit petty to tell homosexuals they can marry, so long as they don't call it marrying cuz we were marrying before they were and we don't want to be associated with them, like...
 
EdwardTking said:
If a clear majority of married heterosexuals throughout the world voted to do so, then they could modify or sell the term for future instances of its use.

But no one is even offering any consideration.

I'm no lawyer, but legally, I think you've got no basis for an action here. :lol:
 
RH 1

Truronian said:
I must have missed the part when heterosexuals copyrighted marriage :crazyeye:

There has been and is no need to formally copyright marriage because the meaning of the word marriage pre-dates copyright law; and its recorded use for one man-one woman relationships for over a thousand years of english speaking people has effectively established a de facto moral copyright.
 
blargh said:
Dude, you really need to check your sources, I have read a number of your posts and the inaccuracies boggle my mind but this one takes the cake. Firstly you are citing a source which has severe credibility issues, not to mention the fact the author of that study was censured for that very study. Reason being it was bad science nor was he even qualified to author it.

If you have links blowing this out of the water, by all means link them yourself.:lol:

I dont deny that its a biased website, its just the first thing I saw when I googled "same sex parent child abuse". There were more hits, should I go get one thats more "credible"?:lol:
 
garric said:
I drew the line already, yet you find my opinions as bigoted and discriminatory. Tell me, why do you feel that this is so outlandish (to allow children), yet you find my argument offensive? Isn't it being uneven to say that this alternative is legit, yet this one isn't?
This post leads me to believe that you're either a troll or you have no experience with children. Anyone with any experience whatsoever knows that children do not have the capacity to fully appreciate the long term consequences of their actions and thus cannot legally do much of anything. Let's just keep me from wasting my time. How old are you? I have a guess, but we'll see if it's right or not.
 
MobBoss said:
If you have links blowing this out of the water, by all means link them yourself.:lol:

I dont deny that its a biased website, its just the first thing I saw when I googled "same sex parent child abuse". There were more hits, should I go get one thats more "credible"?:lol:

Great, the "first up on Google" defense. :rolleyes: Here's a nice summary about the publisher of that website, go find some links refuting it, okay?

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,010.htm
 
When I get back form work tonight I will let you in on Dr. Cameron's "illustrious career" as a psychiatrist and mouthpiece for the religious right. He's a Dobson wannabe.
 
IglooDude said:
meant to wuote mob boss here..oops...im in a rush lol]

Unless it's sanctioned by the APA or AMA, don't bother. You could be treading on a ROC violation oherwise.
 
IglooDude said:
I mean, if I take what you're saying at face value (and use your terminology), the US Constitution is violating the right of US society to do what it feels is moral. :crazyeye:

Were there not americans prior to the signing of the consitution? Yes. If the vast majority wanted to further amend or even set aside the consitution, do you not think the people could do so?

So, if "No, society does not form its own morality" then exactly who does?:lol: No, my dear igloo, societies do indeed set their own morality. Just like whats moral for say, in an African society, may be moral for them, but not for our society, is just the plain truth of the matter. Likewise, what may be moral for you and your wife to do in Vegas, may not be so moral to the Amish in Pennsylvania.:lol:

By the way, are you one of the ones claiming that morality has to have a religious context or else it isn't morality?

I am one who tends to believe that morality ultimately stems from religion, not vice versa.
 
IglooDude said:
Great, the "first up on Google" defense. :rolleyes: Here's a nice summary about the publisher of that website, go find some links refuting it, okay?

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,010.htm

So does that mean you want me to get more proof that indeed same sex parents could be abusive just like heterosexual parents? Because it is undoubtedly out there, regardless of its lack or miniscule reporting via the news.
 
MobBoss said:
So does that mean you want me to get more proof that indeed same sex parents could be abusive just like heterosexual parents? Because it is undoubtedly out there, regardless of its lack or miniscule reporting via the news.
So youre saying that the liberal media is covering up the same-gender parents are abusive?
 
CivGeneral said:
So youre saying that the liberal media is covering up the same-gender parents are abusive?

Thats not what I am alleging. I am saying that its disengenuous to allege that since there are far more news stories covering heterosexual parent that it is only heterosexual parents that engage in child abuse.
 
Back
Top Bottom