Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[LisaA]

I do not ignore biology. I merely give biology less significance that human free will.

And biology tells you that some opposite-sex activity is also completely lacking in the capacity to create life. Are you proposing to make oral sex illegal for everyone? I’m sure the NSA could install a secret webcam in every American bedroom.

I would be interested to see a child born as a result of oral sex. Again you are ignoring biology with respect to certain opposite-sex couples who absolutely do not have the capacity to produce a child.

You are aware that the great majority of AIDS carriers are heterosexual, aren’t you? Hint, I’m not just talking about America.

Indeed, future overpopulation is a big problem. It is good to see that the homosexual community is doing its bit to avoid this potential future problem.

rossum

It really isn’t worth discussing subjects with you since you deliberately obfuscate, toss out a Red Herring or two or completely change the subject.

One more time: Male female sexual activity has POTENTIAL to create human life. Not all sexual activity, not even every marital embrace will result in conceiving a child. That does not negate the fact that there IS the possibility within the continuum of male female sexual activity.

Homosexual sex has NO POTENTIAL to create human life. No matter how they use the wrong equipment in the incorrect receptacle in a contrived version of sexual intercourse, no child will be born. Ever.

Thus there is NO equivalence between the two relationships. We can argue all day about the relative merit of each type of relationship. I think the amazing gift to create a human being has it way over sodomy. Since your tagline is “there is no truth” I realize you don’t value human life in the same way as do I. I believe there is Truth and I see it personified in Jesus Christ. I am so proud of my Catholic faith the elevates the value of every human being as its first and essential philosophy. Mommies and daddies and babies…that’s joy. What you promote is something else.

The best news though is that the overturning of the ban means we may have some reprieve from the forces of another element in the culture of death brought to you by the same political philosophy that claims you can kill your child in the womb but cannot smoke in the car if he makes it out alive. Go figure:shrug:

Lisa

 

[Slavonic]

IOne more time: Male female sexual activity has POTENTIAL to create human life. Not all sexual activity, not even every marital embrace will result in conceiving a child. That does not negate the fact that there IS the possibility within the continuum of male female sexual activity.

Homosexual sex has NO POTENTIAL to create human life. No matter how they use the wrong equipment in the incorrect receptacle in a contrived version of sexual intercourse, no child will be born. Ever.

Thus there is NO equivalence between the two relationships.

A=sexual activity
B=relationship

X differs from Y in respect to A thus they are not equivalent in respect to B.



I think you mean this:

X differs from Y in respect to A thus they are not equivalent in respect to A.

 

[josh987654321]

I am using “natural” as an antonym for “designed”. I am not using it as a synonym for “moral”. I am arguing against design. I do not use nature as a source of morality. As you correctly point out, a lot of what happens in nature is not moral.

Why is alot of what happens in nature not moral?

A living pegasus. Such an organism, with characteristics of two different clades: birds and mammals, would be impossible under evolution. Such an organism could only be designed, as indeed a pegasus was designed by humans.

Your calculation does not include the effects of natural selection. Since evolution does include natural selection, then your calculation is irrelevant to any discussion of evolution. Note also that evolution is one of the banned topics here, so we should not pursue this line much further. Probably better to agree to disagree on this specific point.

Okay.

Leaving aside your “designed”, why is there a requirement for “uniquely”? Such a union can be recognised alongside other unions. What, in law, requires the uniqueness? Does it justify not allowing same sex couples access to the various benefits of legal marriage in order to ensure uniqueness?

Okay, but when you say that, do you also realise you are saying the same thing for incest, polygamy and basically any group of people such as roommates etc?

No. Civil marriage is defined in law. Any such relationship has to meet the requirements defined in the relevant laws. There are established procedure in place for changing laws. If someone wishes to have a new form of relationship recognised as a civil marriage, then they have to change the laws to incorporate the needed changes. That is what gays have done, used existing mechanisms to change the laws so as to allow same-sex civil marriage in some states.

So what’s the logical basis of civil marriage? and if it’s a mere contract between said parties, than I don’t understand why people would even bother calling it a marriage or why anyone would even get married from a secular view point, it seems kind of senseless/meaningless doesn’t it rossum?

Why do they give tax benefits etc to people under “civil marriage” ?

It does not mean “anything”. Hence your subsequent argument is based on a false premise.

rossum

So what does it mean? what’s the logical basis of civil marriage? I’m trying to view this from your perspective, and when putting myself in your shoes, civil marriage from that view looks completely senseless, what’s the point?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

A=sexual activity
B=relationship

X differs from Y in respect to A thus they are not equivalent in respect to B.



I think you mean this:

X differs from Y in respect to A thus they are not equivalent in respect to A.

Do you realise though, that if sexual compatibility and complementarity is irrelvant, than you have no grounds to refuse polygamy, incest or any group of people like some roommates etc who wish to be recognised as married?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[rossum]

Why is alot of what happens in nature not moral?

That is basically the problem of the origin of evil, and is not going to be solved here. It is also somewhat off topic for this thread.

Okay, but when you say that, do you also realise you are saying the same thing for incest, polygamy and basically any group of people such as roommates etc?

I am not saying anything, I was asking a question: “What, in law, requires the uniqueness?” I can see the religious arguments, but we are discussing civil law. Why is there a legal requirement for distinguishing one type of marriage from another? For example, Catholic religious law distinguishes a first marriage from a remarriage after divorce. Civil law does not make that distinction. Obviously the makers of civil law did not see the need to distinguish in that case. What reasons can you propose to distinguish a same sex marriage from an opposite-sex marriage in civil law?

So what’s the logical basis of civil marriage? and if it’s a mere contract between said parties, than I don’t understand why people would even bother calling it a marriage or why anyone would even get married from a secular view point, it seems kind of senseless/meaningless doesn’t it rossum?

No it does not. It is a perfectly well defined legal contract, as stated in law. It does not conform to your religious standards – divorce is allowed – but that does not render it meaningless. Catholic marriage does not conform to Islamic religious standards, but that is not such a problem as to render it meaningless. There are many different versions of marriage, and there have been for a very long time. The existence of different versions does not render the concept “meaningless”.

Why do they give tax benefits etc to people under “civil marriage”?

Ask your congresscritter.

So what does it mean? what’s the logical basis of civil marriage? I’m trying to view this from your perspective, and when putting myself in your shoes, civil marriage from that view looks completely senseless, what’s the point?

I do not accept “senseless”. Civil marriage is as defined in law.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Male female sexual activity has POTENTIAL to create human life.

Oral sex? Anal sex? No potential there.

Not all sexual activity, not even every marital embrace will result in conceiving a child. That does not negate the fact that there IS the possibility within the continuum of male female sexual activity.

Orchidectomy? Post-menopause? There are situations where there is no possibility.

Besides, fertility is not a requirement for civil marriage. There are many perfectly legal childless marriages.

Thus there is NO equivalence between the two relationships.

Opposite sex relationships are often, but not always, fertile. Same sex relationships are never fertile. How does this impact marriage? Where, in law, is it specified how many children must be produced in order to have a legally valid marriage? Currently a same sex couple is perfectly able to meet the legally specified requirement for producing children within a marriage: zero or more children.

rossum

 

[Slavonic]

Do you realise though, that if sexual compatibility and complementarity is irrelvant, than you have no grounds to refuse polygamy, incest or any group of people like some roommates etc who wish to be recognised as married?

Sexual compatibility is a personal decision, so we shouldn’t comment on that.

Polygamous, and incestuous marriages are sexually complementary.

I don’t understand the roommate point. Is there something wrong if people who start out as as roomates eventually decide that they want to marry?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

What is the natural family unit?

But the two legged person who thinks he’s superior to a one legged person because he has two legs is not very nice person at all.

Yet many states, including Utah, passed same-sex marriage bans. If same-sex marriage applies to so few as to not require legal recognition why does it require the legal action of a ban?

Frankly, you seem to contradict yourself by saying first that it requires no legal response, yet you seem to imply in the very next sentence that it’s alleged danger to free speech and religious ‘liberty’ necessitates a legal ban like Utah’s.

Cutting to the chase, what is not a natural family unit? It is not same sex “parents” with a child or children, posing as a natural family. Same sex partners can not produce a child. Hence same sex “parents” is an impossibility just like same sex “marriage” is impossible, regardless that SS"M" has been legislated or judicially decided in some states. Biologically speaking, complementariness is required in sexual organs down to the gamete level for a child to be produced by two human beings. We get it that homosexuals reject the natural design of the Creator, which formed the basis of the social order. Now homosexuals wish to revamp the social order, to what end? For the few to feel good, with absent social value. There is no one preventing you and another to engage in homosexual sex.

The two-legged person is not more superior in intrinsic worth as a human being to the one-legged person; in physical ability there is no question that the former is more superior. A one-legged person can not ride a mechanical bicycle. Stop finding offense where there is none, where none is intended.

Homosexual sex is inferior to heterosexual sex, my thinking so does not serve as an index of my niceness as a person. Besides, The comparison is never a topic of conversation I pursue or discuss in parties, at the office, with anyone over coffee or around the dinner table. It may be par for the course in on line debate since gay “marriage” is being hotly discussed in forums like this.

Tell you what qualifies as not nice persons, gays who sue owners of wedding venue and service providers when they could very well go to a place or vendor who will gladly take their business. Surely, deep inside, you know there is something very off and not nice with people who think this way and make such unreasonable demands.

That should answer why same sex “marriage” bans are appropriate as a legal avenue by some states. The homosexual agenda has gotten to be oppressive, curtailing and coming against basic rights of exercise of free speech and exercise of religion.
,

 

[LisaA]

Oral sex? Anal sex? No potential there.

Orchidectomy? Post-menopause? There are situations where there is no possibility.

Besides, fertility is not a requirement for civil marriage. There are many perfectly legal childless marriages.

Opposite sex relationships are often, but not always, fertile. Same sex relationships are never fertile. How does this impact marriage? Where, in law, is it specified how many children must be produced in order to have a legally valid marriage? Currently a same sex couple is perfectly able to meet the legally specified requirement for producing children within a marriage: zero or more children.

rossum

Honestly I saw no need to be graphic. Male female sexual intercourse has potential to create human life. Is that detailed enough or should I explain the process? Remember the word POSSIBILITY. This differentiates it from EVERY form of homosexual activity none of which has POSSIBILITY to create human life.

Then look at the reasons the state became involved in marriage and much of it WAS related to the bearing and raising of children, protection for women and children and inheritance rights. All of these issues are related to the inherent capacity to produce a new life for society. Further support for marriage and families benefits society as being the best structure for a stable and prosperous society. Any deviations from traditional families, stable relationships between a man and a woman who work together to raise children, results in chaos and poverty. This includes divorce, single motherhood, irresponsible males, or any variation on these negative elements for children and families.

Third, society rewards healthy and constructive behavior and taxes or fines unhealthy and and destructive behavior…hence cigarette and alcohol taxes along with increasing pressure to tax fattening foods, speeding, drunk driving, breaking into homes, assaults, murders and rapes. Note the pattern: Healthy and constructive behavior is rewarded. Unhealthy and destructive behavior is taxed or fined.

Despite this you think society should reward unhealthy, unnatural, non procreative activity among a group, the male portion of which, spread a deadly disease throughout the country due to its irresponsible sexual exploits, and despite all of the statistics indicating homosexuals have a higher rate of mental illness, suicide, substance abuse, promiscuity, and STDs.

Makes perfect sense…
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Cutting to the chase, what is not a natural family unit? It is not same sex “parents” with a child or children, posing as a natural family. Same sex partners can not produce a child. Hence same sex “parents” is an impossibility just like same sex “marriage” is impossible, regardless that SS"M" has been legislated or judicially decided in some states. Biologically speaking, complementariness is required in sexual organs down to the gamete level for a child to be produced by two human beings. We get it that homosexuals reject the natural design of the Creator, which formed the basis of the social order. Now homosexuals wish to revamp the social order, to what end? For the few to feel good, with absent social value. There is no one preventing you and another to engage in homosexual sex.

The two-legged person is not more superior in intrinsic worth as a human being to the one-legged person; in physical ability there is no question that the former is more superior. A one-legged person can not ride a mechanical bicycle. Stop finding offense where there is none, where none is intended.

Homosexual sex is inferior to heterosexual sex, my thinking so does not serve as an index of my niceness as a person. Besides, The comparison is never a topic of conversation I pursue or discuss in parties, at the office, with anyone over coffee or around the dinner table. It may be par for the course in on line debate since gay “marriage” is being hotly discussed in forums like this.

Tell you what qualifies as not nice persons, gays who sue owners of wedding venue and service providers when they could very well go to a place or vendor who will gladly take their business. Surely, deep inside, you know there is something very off and not nice with people who think this way and make such unreasonable demands.

That should answer why same sex “marriage” bans are appropriate as a legal avenue by some states. The homosexual agenda has gotten to be oppressive, curtailing and coming against basic rights of exercise of free speech and exercise of religion.
,

:clapping: Brava and so on point! Is there a smilie for a Standing O?

I think the failure to respond to your very specific, well thought argument relates to the lack of any underpinning for same sex “marriage” other than “I want what she’s having.” I hope and pray the tide is turning against these judicial fiats and executive dictates.

Lisa

 

[rossum]

Male female sexual intercourse has potential to create human life.

No. Most instances do, but there are many exceptions, where one or both partners is infertile (or the woman is already pregnant). You are taking a common situation and declaring it universal. You are wrong to do that because there are exceptions to the common situation which mean that it cannot be universal. Brown eyes are common, but they are not universal.

Remember the word POSSIBILITY. This differentiates it from EVERY form of homosexual activity none of which has POSSIBILITY to create human life.

Again, you are incorrectly universalising. A woman who had had a hysterectomy has zero POSSIBILITY of conceiving. A man who has had an orchidectomy has zero POSSIBILITY of conceiving. Since you accept the validity of civil marriages involving such people, your argument fails. You accept opposite-sex marriages with zero POSSIBILITY, so you are not making a useful distinction here.

rossum

 

[LisaA]

No. Most instances do, but there are many exceptions, where one or both partners is infertile (or the woman is already pregnant). You are taking a common situation and declaring it universal. You are wrong to do that because there are exceptions to the common situation which mean that it cannot be universal. Brown eyes are common, but they are not universal.

Again, you are incorrectly universalising. A woman who had had a hysterectomy has zero POSSIBILITY of conceiving. A man who has had an orchidectomy has zero POSSIBILITY of conceiving. Since you accept the validity of civil marriages involving such people, your argument fails. You accept opposite-sex marriages with zero POSSIBILITY, so you are not making a useful distinction here.

rossum

No. You make the mistake of claiming that the EXCEPTION makes the rule, that some obscure and unusual situation means that all of the more likely scenarios are moot. Again I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse or you don’t understand the argument.

The point was with respect to the equivalence of male female and same sex relationships. I declare they are not equivalent because of the intrinsic and permanent differences between them. If you think they are equivalent please explain how you can come to that conclusion when there are basic biological, as well as historical, theological, and sociological differences. Apparently you are privy to insight that is still unknown to modern day biologists?

Address the issue and quit splitting hairs or I will conclude you have no argument. So far I haven’t seen one.

We are not speaking of anyone’s individual circumstances but of the institution of marriage. What is marriage? Why did the state get involved in the first place? Who should be able to avail themselves of these benefits.

As noted before the state has a vested interest in perpetuation, stability and prosperity of the society. For thousands of years, marriage has been the structure the most promoted these advantages for overall society. This doesn’t mean every marriage so contributed but marriage as an institution has been the cornerstone. Thus the state is willing to provide benefits or advantages, as well as responsibilities, to certain institutions…such as marriage.

Again, what happens in an individual marriage is not relevant. A single bad marriage or childless marriage cannot destroy the institution or its overall benefits to society. So quit throwing out the Red Herring about barren females or males. Irrelevant unless it were to be the norm.

Further society rewards positive behavior and activity that produces the same results, prosperity, stability and perpetuation and it taxes or fines actions. that are destructive to health and prosperity.

Again, gays are asking society to declare a non-procreative and unhealthy lifestyle to be deemed equivalent to marriage with all of the attendant benefits and rights. I don’t believe it is justified based on all of the above and many previous posts.

Lisa

 

[Pink_Elephants]

Utah governor says state will not recognize gay marriages amid court battle

SCOTUS Blog commentary

Governor of Utah’s statement

 

[rossum]

No. You make the mistake of claiming that the EXCEPTION makes the rule, that some obscure and unusual situation means that all of the more likely scenarios are moot. Again I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse or you don’t understand the argument.

So, let us ignore the exceptions. You are saying that ALL marriages must have the possibility of procreation. What then do you do with the exceptions, the marriages with no possibility of procreation? Do you declare them invalid? Do you allow them? If you declare them invalid, then you will declare a minority of opposite-sex marriages invalid, along with all the same-sex marriages. If you allow them, then you are allowing the same-sex marriages along with the infertile opposite-sex marriages. The exceptions do exist. What are you going to do with them?

The point was with respect to the equivalence of male female and same sex relationships.

We are discussing civil marriages in Utah. There is a far wider range of “relationships” than civil marriages in Utah. Adulterous liaisons come under the heading “relationships”, but they do not come under the heading of “civil marriage”. You cannot equate marriage and relationships. The two are different.

Apparently you are privy to insight that is still unknown to modern day biologists?

Infertile couples can legally marry. Opposite-sex infertile couples can marry, and in some places same-sex infertile couples can marry. Fertility is not a legal requirement for civil marriage.

Address the issue and quit splitting hairs or I will conclude you have no argument. So far I haven’t seen one.

Show me the law that requires a fertility test for both partners before a civil marriage. Show me the law that requires a certain number of children to be born otherwise the civil marriage is automatically dissolved.

You are arguing on the basis of fertility and procreation, and neither fertility nor procreation is a legal requirement for civil marriage. Your argument is irrelevant. There is no legal fertility requirement placed on civil marriage.

We are not speaking of anyone’s individual circumstances but of the institution of marriage.

We are discussing one of the many different versions of the institution of marriage: civil marriage. We are not discussing Catholic marriage. We are not discussing Moslem marriage or any of the other versions of marriage. I am arguing about civil marriage, as per the topic of this thread.

In the context of civil marriage, procreation and fertility are not a consideration because they are not mentioned in the relevant laws.

rossum

 

[Slavonic]

Cutting to the chase, what is not a natural family unit? It is not same sex “parents” with a child or children, posing as a natural family. Same sex partners can not produce a child. Hence same sex “parents” is an impossibility just like same sex “marriage” is impossible, regardless that SS"M" has been legislated or judicially decided in some states. Biologically speaking, complementariness is required in sexual organs down to the gamete level for a child to be produced by two human beings. We get it that homosexuals reject the natural design of the Creator, which formed the basis of the social order. Now homosexuals wish to revamp the social order, to what end? For the few to feel good, with absent social value. There is no one preventing you and another to engage in homosexual sex.

The two-legged person is not more superior in intrinsic worth as a human being to the one-legged person; in physical ability there is no question that the former is more superior. A one-legged person can not ride a mechanical bicycle. Stop finding offense where there is none, where none is intended.

Homosexual sex is inferior to heterosexual sex, my thinking so does not serve as an index of my niceness as a person. Besides, The comparison is never a topic of conversation I pursue or discuss in parties, at the office, with anyone over coffee or around the dinner table. It may be par for the course in on line debate since gay “marriage” is being hotly discussed in forums like this.

All this talk of biology and genitalia and gender. Can we not recognize that marriage occurs between humans? That love, attachment, coupling, bonding, or whatever you want to call it or whatever it is that brings two people together occurs between people regardless of gender?

Tell you what qualifies as not nice persons, gays who sue owners of wedding venue and service providers when they could very well go to a place or vendor who will gladly take their business. Surely, deep inside, you know there is something very off and not nice with people who think this way and make such unreasonable demands.

That should answer why same sex “marriage” bans are appropriate as a legal avenue by some states. The homosexual agenda has gotten to be oppressive, curtailing and coming against basic rights of exercise of free speech and exercise of religion.
,

This is going off topic but same-sex couples don’t have to take that kind of abuse sitting down.

 

[LisaA]

So, let us ignore the exceptions. You are saying that ALL marriages must have the possibility of procreation. What then do you do with the exceptions, the marriages with no possibility of procreation? Do you declare them invalid? Do you allow them? If you declare them invalid, then you will declare a minority of opposite-sex marriages invalid, along with all the same-sex marriages. If you allow them, then you are allowing the same-sex marriages along with the infertile opposite-sex marriages. The exceptions do exist. What are you going to do with them?

We are discussing civil marriages in Utah. There is a far wider range of “relationships” than civil marriages in Utah. Adulterous liaisons come under the heading “relationships”, but they do not come under the heading of “civil marriage”. You cannot equate marriage and relationships. The two are different.

Infertile couples can legally marry. Opposite-sex infertile couples can marry, and in some places same-sex infertile couples can marry. Fertility is not a legal requirement for civil marriage.

Show me the law that requires a fertility test for both partners before a civil marriage. Show me the law that requires a certain number of children to be born otherwise the civil marriage is automatically dissolved.

You are arguing on the basis of fertility and procreation, and neither fertility nor procreation is a legal requirement for civil marriage. Your argument is irrelevant. There is no legal fertility requirement placed on civil marriage.

We are discussing one of the many different versions of the institution of marriage: civil marriage. We are not discussing Catholic marriage. We are not discussing Moslem marriage or any of the other versions of marriage. I am arguing about civil marriage, as per the topic of this thread.

In the context of civil marriage, procreation and fertility are not a consideration because they are not mentioned in the relevant laws.

rossum

You really have a difficult time getting off this dead horse. There is a difference between MARRIAGE as an institution and the individual marriages that exist within it. Only you with the tenacity of a barnacle cling to the “heterosexual marriages can be sterile” meme as if it were relevant. It is not. No one has suggested that a fertility test be administered before marriage or that sterile marriages be annulled. These are Red Herrings rossum and indicate you really have no argument. Heterosexual male/female marriages are unique in a way that every other pairing, bonding, partnership or friendship are not.

So please respond to the major point that same sex “marriage” is NOT equivalent to male female heterosexual marriage. You don’t seem to address the point being discussed but toss out more dead fish as a smoke screen for no argument.

Why don’t you respond to the points about the meaning of, reason for and history of marriage? Why don’t you respond to the point that society has a vested interest in certain relationships and not others?

And finally what’s in it for society to support, encourage or endorse an unnatural, non-procreative, unhealthy and statistically unstable type of human relationship?

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

That is basically the problem of the origin of evil, and is not going to be solved here. It is also somewhat off topic for this thread.

Okay.

I am not saying anything, I was asking a question: “What, in law, requires the uniqueness?” I can see the religious arguments, but we are discussing civil law. Why is there a legal requirement for distinguishing one type of marriage from another? For example, Catholic religious law distinguishes a first marriage from a remarriage after divorce. Civil law does not make that distinction. Obviously the makers of civil law did not see the need to distinguish in that case. **What reasons can you propose to distinguish a same sex marriage from an opposite-sex marriage in civil law? **

before I answer those, I would like to ask you these two questions.

Why does the government have anything to do at all with “civil marriage” what is it’s purpose in recognising certain unions as “married” or not under civil law? and why are certain benefits given to such a status?

No it does not. It is a perfectly well defined legal contract, as stated in law. It does not conform to your religious standards – divorce is allowed – but that does not render it meaningless.

No fault divorce your talking about?

So what’s the meaning? why do people need a certificate to prove their love for one another? from your view it looks kinda senseless to me.

The only reason I can see from that view are the certain benefits that they may recieve under “civil marriage” in which case, what is it that the government is encouraging or supporting by providing them with those benefits?

Catholic marriage does not conform to Islamic religious standards, but that is not such a problem as to render it meaningless. There are many different versions of marriage, and there have been for a very long time. The existence of different versions does not render the concept “meaningless”.

Yes but what I don’t understand is how you fail to see that men and women are designed for one another … and yes I know you reject design … I am just completely baffled at how anyone could not see that, I feel like it’s saying to a mechanic “Only a 25mm screw will fit in their, it’s designed to fit a 25mm screw” and having the mechanic turn around and say “I reject design.” Id say to that person “Sure your entitled to your own opinion, however I don’t want you working for me and I especially don’t want you making laws for us all that reflect your new found philosophy.” lol

Ask your congresscritter.

He will probably try and pass the question off too.

I do not accept “senseless”. Civil marriage is as defined in law.

rossum

So what is the sense of it? From your view all I see is senseless when it comes to civil marriage, so please, help me see the sense to it that you apparently see because from what I have read from you, I’m not seeing any.

Sexual compatibility is a personal decision, so we shouldn’t comment on that.

lol, no offense intended, but I can’t help but shake my head in disbelief at that statement.

I say the same thing when upgrading my computer “Compatibiltiy is a personal choice!”

Polygamous, and incestuous marriages are sexually complementary.

Yea, hence why it would be incredibly hypocritical to put same sex marriage through and not those.

I don’t understand the roommate point. Is there something wrong if people who start out as as roomates eventually decide that they want to marry?

The roommate point is simply a group of people, because in order to “see no difference” between a heterosexual union and a homosexual union, you have to argue that sexual intimacy is irrelevant, in which case, any group of people who do not share any kind of intimacy should also have a legal claim shouldn’t they?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I thought id do this up for people out there who find it easier with visual aids lol

http://s18.postimg.org/lf3ioixhl/incompatible1000.jpg

 

[rossum]

There is a difference between MARRIAGE as an institution and the individual marriages that exist within it.

Does MARRIAGE allow no fault divorce? Some versions of marriage do, other versions do not. There are different versions of marriage as an institution. Some versions allow same-sex marriage. Some versions allow four wives. We are discussing civil marriage here, not any other version of marriage.

Only you with the tenacity of a barnacle cling to the “heterosexual marriages can be sterile” meme as if it were relevant. It is not.

Then I presume that you will drop all argument about procreation and fertility as being irrelevant.

So please respond to the major point that same sex “marriage” is NOT equivalent to male female heterosexual marriage.

Is it different, yes it is. Is it sufficiently different to warrant different treatment in law? No it is not. Are blue eyes people different from brown eyes people? Yes they are. Is the difference enough to justify different legal treatment, no it is not.

You have to show that the differences are such as to justify different legal treatment. Since we both agree that fertility/procreation is not relevant, then you will need to find some other reason. Whatever reason you suggest, I will be applying it to opposite-sex marriages.

Why don’t you respond to the points about the meaning of, reason for and history of marriage?

Historically, marriage was a way for a man to transfer property (his daughter) to another man (her husband). Daughters and wives were property and were treated as such. I do not think that you want to go back to that state of affairs.

Why don’t you respond to the point that society has a vested interest in certain relationships and not others?

Society also has an interest in the pursuit of happiness. Marriage, even a same-sex marriage, can advance that end.

And finally what’s in it for society to support, encourage or endorse an unnatural, non-procreative, unhealthy and statistically unstable type of human relationship?

Homosexuality is natural - it is observed in animals. You said above that the non-procreative part was irrelevant, why are you reintroducing it here? We are back to non-procreative opposite-sex marriages again. Opposite-sex marriages are also statistically unstable, just look at the divorce rate.

Are all same-sex marriages perfect? No. Are all opposite-sex marriages perfect? No. Is that a pretext to deny people the chance to marry? No, in both cases.

rossum

 

[Dawnia]

Society also has an interest in the pursuit of happiness.
rossum