Gay marriage is a civil right

[surritter]

Now you’re going off-track and back to your own definition. We know that legally speaking, procreation and even sex are not a pre-requisite to marriage. I don’t remember the name of the case, but there was a ruling in which a marriage where at least one of the pair was a prisoner who was incarcerated for life and thus had absolutely no chance of ever doing the deed. This marriage was deemed legal, so we know that neither sex or procreation are prerquisites to civil marriage. Legally speaking, if this were the case, that marriage would not be allowed.

I am personally all for the government getting out of the “marriage” business and offering civil unions to all, homosexual or heterosexual. Then we would have no sperate classes of citizens.

You REALLY think that biology has nothing to do with marriage, don’t you? If that is the case, then as I stated before marriage is the same thing as a civil union, and you should let me and my donkey get married.

The prison case that you mentioned was recognized because the two people were designed to go together, biologically. You are mistaken that a marriage must somehow have a baby involved or even that it must be consummated.

Here’s another analogy: Older people are past menopause so they cannot have children. Yet they can be married and have sexual intercourse. That is a true marriage, because they are biologically ordered to the procreative act, even if time has rendered those functions dormant.

Homosexual couples cannot engage in anything that is biologically ordered to the procreative act. Therefore, there is no such possibility of gay marriage.

There are scales before your eyes, I’m afraid. I’m sorry if this hurts your feelings, Ashley, and hopefully this won’t. But please really think about the logic of what is being said. If you really insist that biology has nothing to do with it, then you should have absolutely no objection to “marriages” involving animals, children, or multiple adults. Yet most homosexual people are for gay marriage but opposed to these other arrangements – and they know not why. Perhaps as you say, it is just a matter of culture or “scope,” and those other arrangements may someday be foisted upon us by our deluded society. But those subjective terms like “scope” only enter the equation when biology and logic are tossed out the window.

 

[traillius]

Someone who happens to love a married person: Comparison fails, since the married person would not want to get married to them, therefore it is not a consenting relationship.
More than one person: Legal marriage involves economic arrangement between two people. A gay person with a pension and a health insurance plan is incapable of extending those benefits to his or her partner. He or she can’t file a joint tax return. That’s not fair. A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn’t appeal to our sense of fairness. Again, the comparison fails.
Cousin: This opens up the questions regarding problems that can occur from icestuous relations. We’re not debating that here. Again, comparison fails.
Someone who does not love them: Consent issue. Comparison fails.
Child: Again, consent issue. Comparison fails.
Dead person, objects, animals and cellestial bodies: Again, the problem that the other party cannot consent and cannot sign a marriage agreement. Comparison fails.

Bottom line is that if you want to debate polygamy or incest, start up a new thread. The slippery slope argument always fails.
“Aww hell, we can’t give rights to Blacks, otherwise the Hispanics and the Mexicans are gonna want them too.”
“Let women vote? Are you crazy? If we let women vote, the kids are gonna start wanting to vote! And then after kids, why not my dawg?”

Since when did we start doing fertility tests on couples and asking of their intentions to pro-create?

Epic Fail, ethnicity race and gender are not something one can choose to change. One cannot choose not to be black. One IS ABLE to choose whether they act on urges. I sometimes have urges, which shall go unstated, that I choose not to act on. And by the way, specific heterosexual couples may be infertile, or choose not to procreate. That doesn’t change the biological rule that only heterosexual relations can create life, notwithstanding the scientific attempts to circumvent. Homosexuals acting with each other, can NEVER procreate, and their ’ parts ’ are not even physically compatible, let alone biologically and genetically.

 

[Biggie]

The extended list reads: (1) Two (2) consenting (3) unmarried (4) human (5) adults (6) of the opposite gender (7) who are not close relatives (8) of the same race.
I see (6) as discriminatory for the same reason (8) was seen as discriminatory, it is an unnecessary restriction on people’s freedom to form civil marriages.

As I have said, (1) can also be seen as discriminatory against Muslims. (2), (3) and (4) are universally accepted. (5) varies between US states and between countries so is not fixed. (7) is there for good genetic reasons.

rossum

You have indicated that 2,3, and 4 are “universally accepted”, and as I raised before why do you think that is?

My position is that marriage preceded and was merely recognized by statute. Statute has no ability to redefine it, because statute did not create it. It proceeds from the natural. Statute is just an expression of what the natural is understood to be, in order to institutionalize it for the good of society.

The natural is an objective reality, realized as common sense, understood commonly among people. That is why, as you have indicated, some of the characteristics of marriage are “universally accepted”. The reason historically that the requirements of marriage have been modified is that there has been disagreement within limits as to what the natural actually consists of, not because marriage was ever defined by civil law.

There is widespread agreement over a large spectrum of what is included in the natural, for example the three items you have taken for granted above. Returning to consent, as an example, we can say certainly marriage requires consent, because without it is either involuntary servitude or rape. To remove consent as a requirement for marriage society is grievously injured because (1) marriage has effectively been mooted as an institution and (2) involuntary servitude has been institutionalized.

The concept of same sex marriage proposes that consent is the only prerequisite for marriage. Is consent, then, the only natural requirement for marriage?

 

[ahollars]

Calling gay marriage a civil right is an insult to the people who lived through the civil rights era. I love my wife. Leave it to her (a Black woman) to say, “I’ve met people who used to be gay. I’ve never met someone who used to be black.”

 

[gthompson]

12 years ago I would have said homosexuality is wrong. Then my “tomboy” daughter, who enjoyed the outdoors, hunting, fishing etc. told me she was homosexual. She is a wonderful person, daughter, friend to many, helper of the oppressed, homeless, poor and sick. She is now seeing a woman who is a loving person. The question of gay marriage comes up. She and I have discussed homosexuality and why it happened to her. She did not choose to be this way. She asked if I would love her less if she was handicapped mentally or physically. Why would I love her less if she is a lesbian. Of course I love her. She is a wonderful daughter. I am still unsure about gay marriage because I see her loving this woman as her partner. Would they be wonderful parents? Yes they would. She asks me “Why did God make me this way”? Who knows this answer. It is her cross to bear but are we the ones to judge them? No—we are not the judge. God is.
I keep saying God’s wish for us is to love one another so I guess that is our answer. Love them as God would. Gay marriage? I don’t know. If she and her girlfriend want to get married do I support them? I hope I can because they truly are good people.
Has anyone else been in this situation?
GT

 

[ahollars]

12 years ago I would have said homosexuality is wrong. Then my “tomboy” daughter, who enjoyed the outdoors, hunting, fishing etc. told me she was homosexual. She is a wonderful person, daughter, friend to many, helper of the oppressed, homeless, poor and sick. She is now seeing a woman who is a loving person. The question of gay marriage comes up. She and I have discussed homosexuality and why it happened to her. She did not choose to be this way. She asked if I would love her less if she was handicapped mentally or physically. Why would I love her less if she is a lesbian. Of course I love her. She is a wonderful daughter. I am still unsure about gay marriage because I see her loving this woman as her partner. Would they be wonderful parents? Yes they would. She asks me “Why did God make me this way”? Who knows this answer. It is her cross to bear but are we the ones to judge them? No—we are not the judge. God is.
I keep saying God’s wish for us is to love one another so I guess that is our answer. Love them as God would. Gay marriage? I don’t know. If she and her girlfriend want to get married do I support them? I hope I can because they truly are good people.
Has anyone else been in this situation?
GT

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

~Matthew 10:32-39~

Love her and pray for her always, and always remind her that you do, but you as the parent will commit a grave injustice if you withhold the truth from her out of fear. What happens after that is between the two of you, but never abandon your duties as her guardian.

 

[Ashley42]

In any case, the first amendment trumps any laws.

The first ammendment covers free speech, not the right to discrimination.

You REALLY think that biology has nothing to do with marriage, don’t you? If that is the case, then as I stated before marriage is the same thing as a civil union, and you should let me and my donkey get married.

It’s not just me, it’s the basic facts backed up by multiple supreme court desicions.

The prison case that you mentioned was recognized because the two people were designed to go together, biologically. You are mistaken that a marriage must somehow have a baby involved or even that it must be consummated.

It is your belief that they were designed to go together. It may come as a shock to you that some do not share that belief. There should be seperation of Church and State. People should have the right to believe what they want to believe. We should not be bound by the Church’s teachings that homosexuals were not “designed” to go together. I for one believe that me and my partner were meant to be together. The law should have no part of that, since our beliefs differ.

Here’s another analogy: Older people are past menopause so they cannot have children. Yet they can be married and have sexual intercourse. That is a true marriage, because they are biologically ordered to the procreative act, even if time has rendered those functions dormant.

Then what is the point in them getting married if they’re not going to have kids? There are many, many laws surrounding marriage - many of which have nothing to do with the children of the couple. Laws which anyone, with children or not, should be able to take advantage of.

The basic fact is that if you want to claim that the biology of creating babies is what marriage is all about, then you have to accept that your spouting **** when you say it’s OK for people who can’t have kids to get married.

If you really insist that biology has nothing to do with it, then you should have absolutely no objection to “marriages” involving animals,

Why do the uneducated still spout this argument when it has been refuted many times over? DONKEYS CANNOT SIGN MARRIAGE CONTRACTS.
Stop beating the dead horse. Or a dead donkey in this case!

One IS ABLE to choose whether they act on urges. I sometimes have urges, which shall go unstated, that I choose not to act on.

One cannot change their sexuality. One cannot change their likes and dislikes. If it were that easy, we would not have an obesity epodemic. People could just change their food preferences from unhealthy food to healthy food! Hurrah! Mums would have no problem feeding their kids healythy food cos they can just choose to like fruit and vegetables! Problem solved! ehem. Not that simple huh? IT IS A PART OF WHO WE ARE. Some of us choose to embrace who we are and not deny it.

“I’ve met people who used to be gay. I’ve never met someone who used to be black.”

Never met Michael Jackson then I take it…
Jokes aside, she’s probably met people who used to be confused about their sexuality. Surprise surprise, most kids go through that. Hormones do strange things to people. Other times, people simply choose to deny who they are and pretend that they used to be gay.

Forcing people to deny who they are is wrong. It is hurtful, and people wonder why gays lash out at the Church… mind boggoling really.

 

[tjm190]

Someone who happens to love a married person: Comparison fails, since the married person would not want to get married to them, therefore it is not a consenting relationship.

How do you know? Many people are forced by our cruel system to abandon previous marriages to form new ones. Who are we to force them to get a divorce before starting a new marriage?

More than one person: Legal marriage involves economic arrangement between two people. A gay person with a pension and a health insurance plan is incapable of extending those benefits to his or her partner. He or she can’t file a joint tax return. That’s not fair. A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn’t appeal to our sense of fairness. Again, the comparison fails.

Marriages are only agreements between two people now, just like marriages were only between men and women in the past. You can’t allow our past ‘discrimination’ to dictate what we do in the future.

Cousin: This opens up the questions regarding problems that can occur from icestuous relations. We’re not debating that here. Again, comparison fails.

If denying two people who love each other the right to the benefits of getting married is discriminatory, then the possible genetic results are irrelevant- they can produce a child regardless of whether or not they get married. And would gay cousins allowed to be married?

Someone who does not love them: Consent issue. Comparison fails.

Who says consent is necessary? That seems like you forcing your morality on all of us.

Child: Again, consent issue. Comparison fails.

Who says children can’t consent?

Dead person, objects, animals and cellestial bodies: Again, the problem that the other party cannot consent and cannot sign a marriage agreement. Comparison fails.

Why do we have to follow your narrow minded definition of love and marriage?

Bottom line is that if you want to debate polygamy or incest, start up a new thread. The slippery slope argument always fails.
“Aww hell, we can’t give rights to Blacks, otherwise the Hispanics and the Mexicans are gonna want them too.”
“Let women vote? Are you crazy? If we let women vote, the kids are gonna start wanting to vote! And then after kids, why not my dawg?”

Did I say “slippery slope?” I want to hear an argument that shows why denying marriage to gays is wrong, while the other restrictions are fine. You dismissed the other because you personally were opposed to them. That’s no fair, since the very claim gay marriage advocates make is that we can’t deny people the benefits of marriage based on our personal feelings.

Since when did we start doing fertility tests on couples and asking of their intentions to pro-create?

If you want to counter that argument, find someone who is making it.

 

[surritter]

It’s not just me, it’s the basic facts backed up by multiple supreme court desicions.

It is your belief that they were designed to go together. It may come as a shock to you that some do not share that belief.

OK – so they are not designed to go together. By the way, what other procedure do you know of to propagate the species?

Then what is the point in them getting married if they’re not going to have kids? There are many, many laws surrounding marriage - many of which have nothing to do with the children of the couple. Laws which anyone, with children or not, should be able to take advantage of.

Again, the discussion is about what nature has designed specific acts for, not whether certain couples will have kids or not. And you’re right; there are many laws about marriage that do not pertain to kids, but as I mentioned, the starting point is that marriage is the establishment of a cell where kids MAY be possible.

The basic fact is that if you want to claim that the biology of creating babies is what marriage is all about, then you have to accept that you’re spouting **** when you say it’s OK for people who can’t have kids to get married.

Pay attention to what I wrote. I explained that the bodies of those who wish to get married must be BIOLOGICALLY ORDERED to procreation. Perhaps it’s confusing when I say “ordered.” Sorry about that – I don’t mean “commanded to” do something. But it means that its purpose or function is being fulfilled. So we say that the genitals are “ordered” toward procreation. Please don’t argue about that!

Analogy: A car is ORDERED by its design or GEARED TOWARD being driven down the road. But if it’s rusted and sits in the garage, that action is not violating its DESIGN.

Why do the uneducated still spout this argument when it has been refuted many times over? DONKEYS CANNOT SIGN MARRIAGE CONTRACTS.
Stop beating the dead horse. Or a dead donkey in this case!

True. But I use these ridiculous cases because you cannot see the lack of logic in something that is in front of your face. By the way, if donkeys are out, what are your feelings on multiple adults being “married” together?

One cannot change their sexuality. One cannot change their likes and dislikes. If it were that easy, we would not have an obesity epodemic. People could just change their food preferences from unhealthy food to healthy food! Hurrah! Mums would have no problem feeding their kids healythy food cos they can just choose to like fruit and vegetables! Problem solved! ehem. Not that simple huh? IT IS A PART OF WHO WE ARE. Some of us choose to embrace who we are and not deny it.

I do not question whether it is chosen, or a part of you, etc. It is an aberration from the BIOLOGICAL DESIGN of the human body (i.e., sex = babies, not always, but that’s the designed-in purpose). There are many aberrations that people are born with, from birthmarks to heart conditions to a penchant for bestiality. So what? It is a cross they must bear (sorry to use a religious term), and I have mine to bear also, by the way; just not of the sort that this thread is addressing.

Forcing people to deny who they are is wrong. It is hurtful, and people wonder why gays lash out at the Church… mind boggoling really.

Please detach yourself from the topic for a moment. If someone is born with an inclination to do something that is objectively harmful, you would of course be in favor of gently convincing them that it is harmful. Gosh, is that being hateful? Or if someone is born with an inclination to do something that violates the purpose of something, it is loving to help them understand the true purpose. The Church is lovingly trying to teach society that homosexual acts distort the purpose of sexuality by separating “love-giving” from “life-giving.” Please don’t interpret this as animosity for you as a person!

 

[Ashley42]

How do you know? Many people are forced by our cruel system to abandon previous marriages to form new ones. Who are we to force them to get a divorce before starting a new marriage?

For the same reason the polygamy comparison fails.

Marriages are only agreements between two people now, just like marriages were only between men and women in the past. You can’t allow our past ‘discrimination’ to dictate what we do in the future.

If you want Polygamy, go to court and make a case for it. I won’t try to stop you. Me, I’m fighting for gay marriage.

If denying two people who love each other the right to the benefits of getting married is discriminatory, then the possible genetic results are irrelevant- they can produce a child regardless of whether or not they get married. And would gay cousins allowed to be married?

See last answer

Who says consent is necessary? That seems like you forcing your morality on all of us.

In this case, it is just. Forcing sombody into a non-consenting marriage isn’t going to benifit all involved. There is a vested interest in stopping forced relationships - because people get hurt. Nobody gets hurt when to guys or two gals get married!

Who says children can’t consent?

Anyone with even a basic understanding of how the human mind develops. Same reason we don’t allow them to drink, smoke, drive, vote, etc.

Why do we have to follow your narrow minded definition of love and marriage?

Quite simply, you don’t. But come back to me on this the day you get your dog, or the moon, to agree to and sign a marriage contract OK?

Did I say “slippery slope?” I want to hear an argument that shows why denying marriage to gays is wrong, while the other restrictions are fine.

Which is basically the slippery slope argument…
rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/facepalm%5B1%5D.jpg
Each argument has to be visited in it’s own right. It may come as a surprise to you, but GAY MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY and INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES are entirely different things with different sets of parameters and concequences.

You dismissed the other because you personally were opposed to them.

I’m not opposed to them. I gave simple arguments against them, but I thought we were debating gay marriage here, not other things?

By the way, what other procedure do you know of to propagate the species?

I know that marriage isn’t one of them.

Again, the discussion is about what nature has designed specific acts for, not whether certain couples will have kids or not.

And what is your authority on the intention of nature? There are many theorys surrounding homosexuality. To throw one in the air, it’s possible that homosexuals exist to ‘take up the slack’ of extra offspring that don’t have a home, for example.

Pay attention to what I wrote. I explained that the bodies of those who wish to get married must be BIOLOGICALLY ORDERED to procreation.

Why must they be? Where is it written in US law that they must be? It says nothing about procreation.

Analogy: A car is ORDERED by its design or GEARED TOWARD being driven down the road. But if it’s rusted and sits in the garage, that action is not violating its DESIGN.

But if it fails to start, it is unlikely to be given an MOT in order to be allowed to drive down that road!
(Side note: An MOT in case you didn’t know, is a test we have in the UK that all vehicles over a certain age must pass in order to be allowed on the road. There must be an equivalent law in the states?)

If someone is born with an inclination to do something that is objectively harmful

PLEASE explain to me how my love for my girlfriend is “objectively harmful” to anyone. I’ve been dying to know. Nobody has yet been able to answer it for me…

The Church is lovingly trying to teach society that homosexual acts distort the purpose of sexuality by separating “love-giving” from “life-giving.” Please don’t interpret this as animosity for you as a person!

I’m sorry but it’s hard not to. You’re saying that my love for my girlfriend is somehow wrong. You’re telling me that if I want the same rights as a married heterosexual couple, that I have to jump through hoops and be put into a different class from them. Excuse me for taking that personally.

 

[tjm190]

For the same reason the polygamy comparison fails.

Legal marriages are set up specifically for two people, just like legal marriages used to be set up for one man and one woman. Guess what? The set up can change. It is not the fault of marriage that the pension laws discriminate against gay couples. Marriage existed long before pension plans.

If you want Polygamy, go to court and make a case for it. I won’t try to stop you. Me, I’m fighting for gay marriage.

And your arguments work just as well for my cause. You’re asking to get rid of restriction, and it just so happens that the arguments you use work for the others.

See last answer

Same.

In this case, it is just. Forcing sombody into a non-consenting marriage isn’t going to benifit all involved. There is a vested interest in stopping forced relationships - because people get hurt. Nobody gets hurt when to guys or two gals get married!

Who says mutual consent is needed? Who are you to deny families the right to auction of their children for marriages? It worked/works perfectly well in past/present cultures.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of how the human mind develops. Same reason we don’t allow them to drink, smoke, drive, vote, etc.

I’d wager it is physiologically possible for a child to have a brain just as developed as that of an 18 year old. This blanket rule infringes upon his/her rights.

Quite simply, you don’t. But come back to me on this the day you get your dog, or the moon, to agree to and sign a marriage contract OK?

Why does the dog have to consent? The very idea that all involved have to consent is an example of politicians forcing their morality on us, which I believe you would claim to be opposed to.

Which is basically the slippery slope argument…
rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/facepalm%5B1%5D.jpg
Each argument has to be visited in it’s own right. It may come as a surprise to you, but GAY MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY and INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES are entirely different things with different sets of parameters and concequences.

And yet the ‘denying them the right to marry’ agreement works just as well. They are all groups which we intentionally exclude from marriage. If intentionally excluding a group from marriage based on nothing but our own morality is wrong, then guess what? We can’t do it anymore.

I’m not opposed to them. I gave simple arguments against them, but I thought we were debating gay marriage here, not other things?

Your arguments were based on A- Marriage isn’t set up for that (polygamy/multiple marriages) B- That’s immoral/wrong (consent) C- We have a blanket rule against that(children).

My response to
A- We can change what marriage is set up for
B- Your morality is not everyone’s morality
C- That’s discriminatory

If I make the argument “We should ban 12 gauge shotguns because XXXX” and you say “Well why not 14 gauge shotguns? Your arguments work just as well for them?”
I can not, logically, reply with “We aren’t talking about 14 gauge shot guns.”

I could not say “I am opposed to all regulations on banks, so we should do away with the minimum reserve/deposit ratio” but then claim that we should maintain a maximum interest rate, because my personal opposition to all banking regulations contradicts the desire for such regulations.

The slippery slope argument attempts to create a cause and effect where none exists. This is not what I am doing- I am not saying polygamy, consent-less marriage, or any of the others are some dark terrible things that gay marriage is going to cause. But all of the discrimination-based arguments put forth for gay marriage seem to apply equally well to other situations. So, I ask, how can you be opposed to one but not the rest? Clearly it’s not because a gay marriage ban stops potential loving couples from marrying- all of the bans do that. Clearly it’s not because it would require a fundamental shift in how we define marriage- because gay marriage itself is a fundamental shift in how we define marriage. Clearly it’s not because you or anyone else is personally opposed to it- because plenty of people are personally opposed to gay marriage. Clearly it’s not because you believe it will be detrimental to society- because many people believe the same of gay marriage.

Again-
Slippery slope- “We can’t ban purple right shoes! That will cause us to ban purple left shoes!”
Simple logic- “You cited a study which shows that purple shoes lead to cancer, so we should ban purple right shoes. But the argument you made applies equally well to purple left shoes- why would they not be banned?”

 

[rossum]

My position is that marriage preceded and was merely recognized by statute. Statute has no ability to redefine it, because statute did not create it.

Civil marriage is defined by statute and statute has the ability to redefine it, as does the Supreme Court as with Loving v Virginia. This thread is about “civil right” not the religious definition of marriage. It is also worth pointing out that Abraham, Jacob, Solomon and Moslems do not adhere to the same one woman/one man definition of marriage as the Catholic Church does. There have been and still are different definitions of marriage in both the civil and religious spheres.

There is widespread agreement over a large spectrum of what is included in the natural, for example the three items you have taken for granted above.

In a democracy by and large the majority will decide. Since the overwhelming majority has decided on those points I see little point in discussing them. There is no big issue about removing consent from marriage. There is an issue about civil marriage for gays. Some states have it already. Some states have a functional equivalent. It is a live issue currently whereas consent is not.

rossum

 

[Ashley42]

Who says mutual consent is needed? Who are you to deny families the right to auction of their children for marriages? It worked/works perfectly well in past/present cultures.

Did it? Did those children grow up completely mentally stable with no emotional damage whatsoever?

So, I ask, how can you be opposed to one but not the rest? Clearly it’s not because a gay marriage ban stops potential loving couples from marrying- all of the bans do that. Clearly it’s not because it would require a fundamental shift in how we define marriage- because gay marriage itself is a fundamental shift in how we define marriage.

Quite simply, I’m not.

I’m asking, why can’t we let gay people get married? So far, nobody has been able to give a reliable answer to that question. All you have been able to do is answer it with yet more questions about entirely different issues. ie, you’re skipping the issue at hand because you don’t appear to have the answers. Just a few ideas that you’re clinging on to and think everyone else should be forced to subscribe to.

Did you follow the recent Prop 8 trial at all? Did you see any of the Pro Prop 8 side arguing the Polygamy/Incest/Beastiality points? No? The fact is they are embarrased by that argument. They are embarrased that it simply does not work in trying to stop gay marriage. (Except Dr. Tam, a clear embarrasment to the Pro Prop 8 lobby who ended up having to testify even though they didn’t want him to!

 

[surritter]

I know that marriage isn’t one of them. [Ways to propagate the species.]

I can’t believe we have to go through this. Ashley, which scenario will sometimes result in pregnancy and which one can NEVER result in pregnancy: two heterosexuals attempting to unite their bodies together, or two homosexuals attempting to unite their bodies together?
Again, you are not reading the posts. I didn’t say that marriage is a way of propagating, I said that sex is linked to the propagation of the species. My statement was in response to your post challenging the fact that male and female bodies “were designed to go together.” Do you really want to stick with this notion that male and female bodies are not meant to go together??

And what is your authority on the intention of nature? There are many theorys surrounding homosexuality. To throw one in the air, it’s possible that homosexuals exist to ‘take up the slack’ of extra offspring that don’t have a home, for example.

Sorry, I couldn’t help it. But that is really grasping at straws…

Why must they be? Where is it written in US law that they must be? It says nothing about procreation.

US law – until recently of course – has been that only a man and a woman can be married. I have shown how this is due to the biological differences in a man and a woman. Gosh, what other reason would marriage have been defined as a man and a woman if it weren’t for their sex, which is the VERY THING that differentiates them?

But if it fails to start, it is unlikely to be given an MOT in order to be allowed to drive down that road!
(Side note: An MOT in case you didn’t know, is a test we have in the UK that all vehicles over a certain age must pass in order to be allowed on the road. There must be an equivalent law in the states?)

We don’t really have that, but I know what you mean. (The closest thing we have would be the registration plate of the car and the whims of a police officer who thinks the car is unsafe.) But my point with the car is that no matter what condition it is in, it will always have the DESIGN within it to be driven down the road. That is not contingent on its ABILITY to do so, but just its inherent purpose.

PLEASE explain to me how my love for my girlfriend is “objectively harmful” to anyone. I’ve been dying to know. Nobody has yet been able to answer it for me…

I didn’t say that it is. I gave two statements to set up parallel examples, and you conveniently picked the one that doesn’t apply to you. Here it is again:

---

If someone is born with an inclination to do something that is objectively harmful, you would of course be in favor of gently convincing them that it is harmful. Gosh, is that being hateful? Or if someone is born with an inclination to do something that violates the purpose of something, it is loving to help them understand the true purpose.​

I included the first one (blue text) because that is something that we would all agree on. The second one (red text) is pertinent to homosexuality.

 

[Magnanimity]

I’m asking, why can’t we let gay people get married?

And that is the wrong question. The question is, does the State have an interest in sanctioning (and thereby legitimizing) same-sex unions? If you think so, why? If you can get at an answer to this question you may be able to address the OP. Otherwise, you’re doing little more than trying to put the ball in your opponent’s court. Moreover, any fringe group who wishes to expand marriage to include it has the responsibility to demonstrate to the wider public why the State should be in the business of equal recognition (of traditional marriage alongside the novel expansion). That is, you must offer positive reasons for why gay marriage is indeed a civil right, and not simply stand there and ask, “Well, why isn’t it?” The burden rests squarely on your own shoulders as you are the one proposing the expansion of marriage.

Did you follow the recent Prop 8 trial at all? Did you see any of the Pro Prop 8 side arguing the Polygamy/Incest/Beastiality points? No? The fact is they are embarrased by that argument. They are embarrased that it simply does not work in trying to stop gay marriage. (Except Dr. Tam, a clear embarrasment to the Pro Prop 8 lobby who ended up having to testify even though they didn’t want him to!

Yep, I live in CA and have followed it as closely as I can. And Prop 8 is illustrative of my points above. By and large, when the people actually get to make their voices heard on this issue of gay marriage, they are voting it down with swift allegations of ‘tyranny of the majority’ following.

Pretty much, the supposed ‘tyranny’ on this issue is actually coming from the branches of gov’t, which, in several states, are deciding, quite contrary to the will of their own people, to expand the definition of marriage all on their own.

So, rather than a tyranny of the majority here, we have a ‘tyranny of the powerful?’

 

[tjm190]

Did it? Did those children grow up completely mentally stable with no emotional damage whatsoever?

Who knows.

Quite simply, I’m not.

I’m asking, why can’t we let gay people get married? So far, nobody has been able to give a reliable answer to that question. All you have been able to do is answer it with yet more questions about entirely different issues. ie, you’re skipping the issue at hand because you don’t appear to have the answers. Just a few ideas that you’re clinging on to and think everyone else should be forced to subscribe to.

I never claimed to have a reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. I claimed the arguments put forth for gay marriage are insufficient. I am not pro or against gay marriage, I just haven’t heard a convincing argument from either side.

Did you follow the recent Prop 8 trial at all? Did you see any of the Pro Prop 8 side arguing the Polygamy/Incest/Beastiality points? No? The fact is they are embarrased by that argument. They are embarrased that it simply does not work in trying to stop gay marriage. (Except Dr. Tam, a clear embarrasment to the Pro Prop 8 lobby who ended up having to testify even though they didn’t want him to!

I’ve applied the argument to show how the arguments put forth for gay marriage are insufficient- do you have any points to present?

Also, I’m going to take the liberty of assuming you understand how this form of argument is completely unrelated to ‘slippery slope’ style arguments

 

[Ashley42]

Sorry, I couldn’t help it. But that is really grasping at straws…

I was giving you an example showing that you do not know all the answers in nature. You do not know all the ‘laws’, how things work, and why we are the way we are.

Gosh, what other reason would marriage have been defined as a man and a woman if it weren’t for their sex, which is the VERY THING that differentiates them?

My point is that it’s not written anywhere that marriage exists because of sex. “Because it’s always been that way” is not a good enough reason. It’s always been that way because until now, nobody has addressed the fact that hey, there are actually some couples that -aren’t- one man and one women, and maybe we should include them too? (Probably because we have had to fight for the repeal of more important discrimination laws)

The question is, does the State have an interest in sanctioning (and thereby legitimizing) same-sex unions?

The answer to that one is simple. Take out the same sex bit to start with - The state has a vested interested in sactioning unions. The state also has a vested interest in non-discrimination and treating everyone fairly under law (hey, it’s written in the constitition no?) So to put the same-sex bit back in the sentence, we have to have a VERY good reason. The question becomes; “Is there a good enough reason to deny equal marriage rights to a group of people based on sexual orientation?”. This is a question the Prop 8 trial have been looking at, and anyone with half a braincell can see from the testomony of both sides that the answer is a firm “No.”

By and large, when the people actually get to make their voices heard on this issue of gay marriage, they are voting it down with swift allegations of ‘tyranny of the majority’ following.

‘By and large’? Let’s not kid ourselves, it passed with a 52% majority after from very decietful tactics (fear and intimidation campaigns) from cruel and evil organisations such as NOM, the Family Research Council, etc. and a huge influx of out-of-state funding from the Mormon church.

Do you agree that it is OK for the majority to decide the rights of the minority? If Catholics become a minority and non-catholics voted to say that Catholics are no longer allowed to marry, would you be OK with that, since it’s majority rule?

So, rather than a tyranny of the majority here, we have a ‘tyranny of the powerful?’

There exists a system to prevent the majority from discriminating against the minority in cases like this. That is what the court case is all about. Boies sums it up pretty well:
youtube.com/watch?v=u8weQiZj-lQ

 

[Ashley42]

I never claimed to have a reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. I claimed the arguments put forth for gay marriage are insufficient. I am not pro or against gay marriage, I just haven’t heard a convincing argument from either side.

So you don’t think that seperating people into two classes and denying equal rights to one class is a problem?

 

[surritter]

My point is that it’s not written anywhere that marriage exists because of sex. “Because it’s always been that way” is not a good enough reason. It’s always been that way because until now, nobody has addressed the fact that hey, there are actually some couples that -aren’t- one man and one women, and maybe we should include them too? (Probably because we have had to fight for the repeal of more important discrimination laws).

Let’s take the first sentence that I quote from you above. I have consistently asked you: What is the purpose of marriage if sex is removed?

 

[larsendavid]

I look at it this way. The government wants to control everything. But it has no reason to be envoled with marrige. They do it so that they can tax you for the right to get married. That is why they are pushing gay marriage. So they can get more money. I do not think that they care about that it is wrong for two people of the same sex. They just want money. Just like they tax you for pasting away. It is sad that you get taxed for deing.
They do these things just for money plain and simple. They do not care about the people at all. just like the health care reform. they want money and control.