We're all just people... people who deserve equality. - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

davidmash · #1 10-21-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

MARRIAGE ISN'T A CIVIL RIGHT. Or maybe you didn't know that.

Never said it was. It is about equal rights and the 14th amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martureo

It isn't equal rights. The argument never has been about equal rights. If it was then where is the outcry for pederasty being illegal? What about incest? Polygamy? Are those are non-legal relationships which many would like to become legal. Why the inequality?

...or maybe marriage meant something.

I cannot believe you are making this ignorant argument again. You seems to be unable or unwilling to understand the concept of consent. Pedophilia, incest all lack that fundamental component.

I have no issue with polygamy. What consenting adults do is entirely up to them and no one else.

Marriage means what ever we want it to mean. Today it is a legal contract that soon, any two (or more) people may enter into.

And yes you did make the argument. You made the argument when you said we should not change the definition of marriage. Well that definition did change when women were no longer considered property. Love did not used to be part of marriage. It was an exchange of property (women) for power, money, alliances or something else.

You want the definition that suites your religious POV. You are no longer the ruling class who gets to make those decisions. Get used to the new power structure.

raymr · #2 10-21-2012, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Never said it was. It is about equal rights and the 14th amendment.

I cannot believe you are making this ignorant argument again. You seems to be unable or unwilling to understand the concept of consent. Pedophilia, incest all lack that fundamental component.

I have no issue with polygamy. What consenting adults do is entirely up to them and no one else.

Marriage means what ever we want it to mean. Today it is a legal contract that soon, any two (or more) people may enter into.

And yes you did make the argument. You made the argument when you said we should not change the definition of marriage. Well that definition did change when women were no longer considered property. Love did not used to be part of marriage. It was an exchange of property (women) for power, money, alliances or something else.

You want the definition that suites your religious POV. You are no longer the ruling class who gets to make those decisions. Get used to the new power structure.

The religious POV evolved over thousands of years of human existence through good times and bad times, mostly through bad times.

As we evolved from barbaric cave dwellers, the natural selection process dictated and institutionalized the notion that a dedicated and committed full time mother and father pairing ensures the most viable offspring.

Perhaps you, like most of modern America, never saw extreme adversity in your cushy corner of Texas, but it may be coming. Don't be so arrogant as to think the last 20-30 years represents some new world order. You are a victim of Hollywood media brainwashing.

davidmash · #3 10-21-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

The religious POV evolved over thousands of years of human existence through good times and bad times, mostly through bad times.

As we evolved from barbaric cave dwellers, the natural selection process dictated and institutionalized the notion that a dedicated and committed full time mother and father pairing ensures the most viable offspring.

Perhaps you, like most of modern America, never saw extreme adversity in your cushy corner of Texas, but it may be coming. Don't be so arrogant as to think the last 20-30 years represents some new world order. You are a victim of Hollywood media brainwashing.

Where do we get dedicated from? Women were property. Look at King Henry VIII. He had 8 wives. Perhaps an extreme example but I hardly think dedication and fidelity was a huge concern in the 'old days'.

Creation of offspring does not require marriage, just two horny people.

Looking at history, marriage seemed to be created more for a means of power, money and property. A womans happiness did not seem to be a concern until women became independent and demanded equal treatment.

Not really sure what cushy is or what it has to do with anything. Look around you and see how the world has changed over the past 100 years. Women are now considered equal to men when they had not been treated that way for thousands of years. People of color are now equals as well. If you think that clock is going to get turned back I think it is you who has been brain washed. The world is changing. The religious nut jobs no longer rule. The youth growing up today do not see different as being bad, just different and OK. Just recently (in the history of man) blacks were allowed to marry whites. Same sex couples and Polygamists and who ever else wants to, will be allowed to marry (or what ever term people want to use). so you might as well get used to it.

There most definitely is a new world order. Hop on or get out of the way.

raymr · #4 10-21-2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Where do we get dedicated from? Women were property. Look at King Henry VIII. He had 8 wives. Perhaps an extreme example but I hardly think dedication and fidelity was a huge concern in the 'old days'.

Creation of offspring does not require marriage, just two horny people.

Looking at history, marriage seemed to be created more for a means of power, money and property. A womans happiness did not seem to be a concern until women became independent and demanded equal treatment.

Not really sure what cushy is or what it has to do with anything. Look around you and see how the world has changed over the past 100 years. Women are now considered equal to men when they had not been treated that way for thousands of years. People of color are now equals as well. If you think that clock is going to get turned back I think it is you who has been brain washed. The world is changing. The religious nut jobs no longer rule. The youth growing up today do not see different as being bad, just different and OK. Just recently (in the history of man) blacks were allowed to marry whites. Same sex couples and Polygamists and who ever else wants to, will be allowed to marry (or what ever term people want to use). so you might as well get used to it.

There most definitely is a new world order. Hop on or get out of the way.

Yes women were property - among kings, and barons, and the like. That applied to what - 0.001% of the population?

Just because you have a significant other doesn't mean you have to call it a marriage. Laws exist now for domestic partnerships. I'm OK with all these other unions too, but marriage is an institution that crosses all language, social, and geographical boundaries, and has meant only one thing, period.

Are you really OK with polygamy? What happens when dad suddenly dies or runs off? Oops. We just quadrupled, or more, your local welfare and food stamp case load. It doesn't sound like something you would want going mainstream.

I can differ in opinion without being 'in the way'. Unless your new world order doesn't allow questioning authority and upholding meaningful traditions.

davidmash · #5 10-22-2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Yes women were property - among kings, and barons, and the like. That applied to what - 0.001% of the population?

Just because you have a significant other doesn't mean you have to call it a marriage. Laws exist now for domestic partnerships. I'm OK with all these other unions too, but marriage is an institution that crosses all language, social, and geographical boundaries, and has meant only one thing, period.

Are you really OK with polygamy? What happens when dad suddenly dies or runs off? Oops. We just quadrupled, or more, your local welfare and food stamp case load. It doesn't sound like something you would want going mainstream.

I can differ in opinion without being 'in the way'. Unless your new world order doesn't allow questioning authority and upholding meaningful traditions.

Not according to what I have read. Women had no rights. Nothing. They were property of their husbands.

Again, marriage has meant several things. What marriage is now would be alien to people 200 years ago.

Yes I am. Check your COTUS when you get a chance. Laws cannot be based on financial considerations. How many children should a couple be allowed to have? The Dugars have more children than the polygamist family on TV and there are 4 wives. The 14th makes no such distinction and I am pretty sure that you do not want to be on that slippery slope.

Sure you can. Just like the white did about equal rights. Just like men did against womens suffrage. Feel free to stand in front of the train just don't be surprised when you get run over.

raymr · #6 10-22-2012, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Not according to what I have read. Women had no rights. Nothing. They were property of their husbands.

Again, marriage has meant several things. What marriage is now would be alien to people 200 years ago.

Yes I am. Check your COTUS when you get a chance. Laws cannot be based on financial considerations. How many children should a couple be allowed to have? The Dugars have more children than the polygamist family on TV and there are 4 wives. The 14th makes no such distinction and I am pretty sure that you do not want to be on that slippery slope.

Sure you can. Just like the white did about equal rights. Just like men did against womens suffrage. Feel free to stand in front of the train just don't be surprised when you get run over.

Have you checked the civil union laws lately? Things like health insurance, visitation rights, retirement plans, home and property ownership, right of survivorship, have been addressed.

Marriage in the religious realm consisted of a man and a wife 200 years ago. So it does today. Changing something, even if it's symbolic, that has worked successfully for thousands of years, by all cultures around the world, shouldn't be done because of some newly wanted comfort factor. And implementing laws that effectively negate covenant writ impinges on peoples' religious beliefs, whether you yourself believe or not.

Since you are flexible on redefining the world around us, I suppose you would be OK with a BMW that has a Mercedes-Benz star stuck on it's grille?

davidmash · #7 10-22-2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Have you checked the civil union laws lately? Things like health insurance, visitation rights, retirement plans, home and property ownership, right of survivorship, have been addressed.

Marriage in the religious realm consisted of a man and a wife 200 years ago. So it does today. Changing something, even if it's symbolic, that has worked successfully for thousands of years, by all cultures around the world, shouldn't be done because of some newly wanted comfort factor. And implementing laws that effectively negate covenant writ impinges on peoples' religious beliefs, whether you yourself believe or not.

Since you are flexible on redefining the world around us, I suppose you would be OK with a BMW that has a Mercedes-Benz star stuck on it's grille?

Have you checked the disparity between the rights afforded married couples as opposed to CU? Military benefits cannot be passed on. SS cannot be passed. There are cost associated with name changes. Health benefits can be denied depending on where you live and who you work for. For a more complete list you can go here

I guess success is in the eye of the beholder. Slavery was quite successful for the owners, not so much for the slaves unless of course you believe Rep. Jon Hubbard.

No one is looking to inhibit you are anyone else from getting married in a church or where ever else you want. What other people do in regards to marriage has nothing to do with you. I got married by JP at a B&B and that has nothing to do with you. My marriage is a legal contract between my self and my wife. According to TX law she gets half my crap and I get half of hers should things go south. I have the right to make decisions on her behalf should she be unable to and so forth. Nothing in our relationship changed from the day before to the day after.

I could care less what people stick on their car. MB has a trademark protection on it so as long as BMW does not infringe on their trademark no one can do a damn thing about it. There have been several posts on this site showing cars with such examples. We have all mocked them but to my knowledge no one here urged a law preventing such acts.