The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[Pop23]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

 

[SwimExpert]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

By definition, to love someone more than everyone else, you cannot love two people as such. By definition, if two people love each other as such, it is mathematically impossible for a third person to be included.

Emotional threesomes are much like sexual threesomes....there's always one person who gets left out more than the other two.

 

[Syriusly]

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

1. Removes the denial of access to two same sex siblings as there can be no degradation of the blood line. Without a legal reason then it would be discrimination not to allow opposite sex siblings to marry, correct?

That boundary, the limiting factor, was removed by this ruling.
.

No- and we have had this discussion before- so you know the reason why.

States can and do pass laws requiring that First cousins prove that they cannot procreate (i.e. degrade the blood line) before they are allowed to marry.

States could have passed laws allowing siblings to marry under the same condition- the ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does not change that.

The question then becomes- do you have an argument why siblings who are unable to procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry- like their First Cousins can?

If you don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

 

[Syriusly]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

 

[Pop23]

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

1. Removes the denial of access to two same sex siblings as there can be no degradation of the blood line. Without a legal reason then it would be discrimination not to allow opposite sex siblings to marry, correct?

That boundary, the limiting factor, was removed by this ruling.
.

No- and we have had this discussion before- so you know the reason why.

States can and do pass laws requiring that First cousins prove that they cannot procreate (i.e. degrade the blood line) before they are allowed to marry.

States could have passed laws allowing siblings to marry under the same condition- the ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does not change that.

The question then becomes- do you have an argument why siblings who are unable to procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry- like their First Cousins can?

If you don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

 

[Syriusly]

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

2. Polygamy gives great power to the wealthy, and reduced power to the poor. A wealthy man can afford many wives, a poor man fewer. NOT a good thing. Unless you can come up with a reasonable legal reason to deny this, I see no reason it can now be stopped, as the limit of 1 man, 1 woman has now been removed and the number 2 now is simply arbitrary.
.

The funny part is- you have made your argument why you think polygamy should not be legal.

And it has nothing to do with a same gender couple marrying.

The problem you have is that you are opposed to same gender marriage- and do not understand the legal arguments that made bans on same gender marriages Unconstitutional.

Hint: the State must be able to provide a compelling reason to deny the right to marry. The States never made a compelling argument beyond "icky" and 'tradition' in regards to homosexuals marrying.

If you cannot make an argument beyond that regarding polygamous marriage- then the problem is with your argument- not with gay couples marrying.

 

[Pop23]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not at all, most of us oppose it, but what reasonable legal argument is there now that the limiting factors of the law have been made moot?

It's a paradox.

 

[Pop23]

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

2. Polygamy gives great power to the wealthy, and reduced power to the poor. A wealthy man can afford many wives, a poor man fewer. NOT a good thing. Unless you can come up with a reasonable legal reason to deny this, I see no reason it can now be stopped, as the limit of 1 man, 1 woman has now been removed and the number 2 now is simply arbitrary.
.

The funny part is- you have made your argument why you think polygamy should not be legal.

And it has nothing to do with a same gender couple marrying.

The problem you have is that you are opposed to same gender marriage- and do not understand the legal arguments that made bans on same gender marriages Unconstitutional.

Hint: the State must be able to provide a compelling reason to deny the right to marry. The States never made a compelling argument beyond "icky" and 'tradition' in regards to homosexuals marrying.

If you cannot make an argument beyond that regarding polygamous marriage- then the problem is with your argument- not with gay couples marrying.

Reading comprehension problems?

I made no argument that I WANTED it legal, the argument is that without limits within marriage law, there is no reasonable legal argument to deny their odd lifestyle the same rights afforded other odd lifestyles.

 

[Syriusly]

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

1. Removes the denial of access to two same sex siblings as there can be no degradation of the blood line. Without a legal reason then it would be discrimination not to allow opposite sex siblings to marry, correct?

That boundary, the limiting factor, was removed by this ruling.
.

No- and we have had this discussion before- so you know the reason why.

States can and do pass laws requiring that First cousins prove that they cannot procreate (i.e. degrade the blood line) before they are allowed to marry.

States could have passed laws allowing siblings to marry under the same condition- the ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does not change that.

The question then becomes- do you have an argument why siblings who are unable to procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry- like their First Cousins can?

If you don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

 

[Syriusly]

That author isn't committing any sort of fallacy whatsoever, because no one's talking about "a different kind of love". They're talking about EXACTLY the same sort of love . . . just over a larger number of people.

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not at all, most of us oppose it, but what reasonable legal argument is there now that the limiting factors of the law have been made moot?

It's a paradox.

No paradox exists except in the minds of people who don't want homosexuals to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

2. Polygamy gives great power to the wealthy, and reduced power to the poor. A wealthy man can afford many wives, a poor man fewer. NOT a good thing. Unless you can come up with a reasonable legal reason to deny this, I see no reason it can now be stopped, as the limit of 1 man, 1 woman has now been removed and the number 2 now is simply arbitrary.
.

The funny part is- you have made your argument why you think polygamy should not be legal.

And it has nothing to do with a same gender couple marrying.

The problem you have is that you are opposed to same gender marriage- and do not understand the legal arguments that made bans on same gender marriages Unconstitutional.

Hint: the State must be able to provide a compelling reason to deny the right to marry. The States never made a compelling argument beyond "icky" and 'tradition' in regards to homosexuals marrying.

If you cannot make an argument beyond that regarding polygamous marriage- then the problem is with your argument- not with gay couples marrying.

Reading comprehension problems?

I made no argument that I WANTED it legal, the argument is that without limits within marriage law, there is no reasonable legal argument to deny their odd lifestyle the same rights afforded other odd lifestyles.

So you think that the only legal argument to ban gay marriage- or incestous marriage was because they were 'odd lifestyles'?

 

[Pop23]

No.

If that's what you believe, then you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Love is common, love is all around us, love finds us a hundred times in a lifetime. Marriage is not love. Marriage is the life that exists between two people. It is the bond that two people share that brings them both to a mutual commitment. Marriage is when two people look at each other, and their souls ignite on fire to say "This is the one person I love more than all others. This one person is the highest expression of my ability to love another human being."

Maybe that's too complicated for you to understand. Maybe that's been the whole problem with this entire issue all along; those of us who have been advocating for same sex marriage have been assuming that you had the requisite maturity to understand what it means to love someone such that you are ready to spend the rest of your life with them.

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not at all, most of us oppose it, but what reasonable legal argument is there now that the limiting factors of the law have been made moot?

It's a paradox.

No paradox exists except in the minds of people who don't want homosexuals to marry.

Wow you are a fool.

Arguing for one alternative lifestyle while denying others kinda makes you......

Look silly.

 

[Pop23]

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

2. Polygamy gives great power to the wealthy, and reduced power to the poor. A wealthy man can afford many wives, a poor man fewer. NOT a good thing. Unless you can come up with a reasonable legal reason to deny this, I see no reason it can now be stopped, as the limit of 1 man, 1 woman has now been removed and the number 2 now is simply arbitrary.
.

The funny part is- you have made your argument why you think polygamy should not be legal.

And it has nothing to do with a same gender couple marrying.

The problem you have is that you are opposed to same gender marriage- and do not understand the legal arguments that made bans on same gender marriages Unconstitutional.

Hint: the State must be able to provide a compelling reason to deny the right to marry. The States never made a compelling argument beyond "icky" and 'tradition' in regards to homosexuals marrying.

If you cannot make an argument beyond that regarding polygamous marriage- then the problem is with your argument- not with gay couples marrying.

Reading comprehension problems?

I made no argument that I WANTED it legal, the argument is that without limits within marriage law, there is no reasonable legal argument to deny their odd lifestyle the same rights afforded other odd lifestyles.

So you think that the only legal argument to ban gay marriage- or incestous marriage was because they were 'odd lifestyles'?

Nope, but you fail to grasp simple concepts, so........

Can you find a single reasonable legal argument to deny these groups the right to the "dignity" of marriage?

Or will you simply continue your deflections?

 

[Pop23]

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

1. Removes the denial of access to two same sex siblings as there can be no degradation of the blood line. Without a legal reason then it would be discrimination not to allow opposite sex siblings to marry, correct?

That boundary, the limiting factor, was removed by this ruling.
.

No- and we have had this discussion before- so you know the reason why.

States can and do pass laws requiring that First cousins prove that they cannot procreate (i.e. degrade the blood line) before they are allowed to marry.

States could have passed laws allowing siblings to marry under the same condition- the ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does not change that.

The question then becomes- do you have an argument why siblings who are unable to procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry- like their First Cousins can?

If you don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

 

[Syriusly]

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

2. Polygamy gives great power to the wealthy, and reduced power to the poor. A wealthy man can afford many wives, a poor man fewer. NOT a good thing. Unless you can come up with a reasonable legal reason to deny this, I see no reason it can now be stopped, as the limit of 1 man, 1 woman has now been removed and the number 2 now is simply arbitrary.
.

The funny part is- you have made your argument why you think polygamy should not be legal.

And it has nothing to do with a same gender couple marrying.

The problem you have is that you are opposed to same gender marriage- and do not understand the legal arguments that made bans on same gender marriages Unconstitutional.

Hint: the State must be able to provide a compelling reason to deny the right to marry. The States never made a compelling argument beyond "icky" and 'tradition' in regards to homosexuals marrying.

If you cannot make an argument beyond that regarding polygamous marriage- then the problem is with your argument- not with gay couples marrying.

Reading comprehension problems?

I made no argument that I WANTED it legal, the argument is that without limits within marriage law, there is no reasonable legal argument to deny their odd lifestyle the same rights afforded other odd lifestyles.

So you think that the only legal argument to ban gay marriage- or incestous marriage was because they were 'odd lifestyles'?

Nope, but you fail to grasp simple concepts, so........

Can you find a single reasonable legal argument to deny these groups the right to the "dignity" of marriage?

Or will you simply continue your deflections?

See- here is the problem with your argument- I am not arguing for or against incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage.

I am pointing out that those arguments are separate from either 'gay marriage' or 'mixed race marriage'- and that IF the people who are arguing against incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage- that would be you- don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

Apparently you cannot think of any reason to prevent siblings from marrying- as long as they can't have children.

Apparently you cannot think of any reason to prevent polygamous marriage at all- so why do you oppose it?

 

[Syriusly]

Loving was a ban on marriages between two persons of the opposite race- gender was not addressed.
Bans on 'same gender marriage, were bans between two persons of the same gender

Both were bans on Americans getting married.

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

1. Removes the denial of access to two same sex siblings as there can be no degradation of the blood line. Without a legal reason then it would be discrimination not to allow opposite sex siblings to marry, correct?

That boundary, the limiting factor, was removed by this ruling.
.

No- and we have had this discussion before- so you know the reason why.

States can and do pass laws requiring that First cousins prove that they cannot procreate (i.e. degrade the blood line) before they are allowed to marry.

States could have passed laws allowing siblings to marry under the same condition- the ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does not change that.

The question then becomes- do you have an argument why siblings who are unable to procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry- like their First Cousins can?

If you don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you insist that such a feeling or reality is not possible in a group of three individuals?

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not at all, most of us oppose it, but what reasonable legal argument is there now that the limiting factors of the law have been made moot?

It's a paradox.

No paradox exists except in the minds of people who don't want homosexuals to marry.

Wow you are a fool.

Arguing for one alternative lifestyle while denying others kinda makes you......

Look silly.

Feel free to quote me where I have argued to deny 'others' anything.

Really you were doing so well so far- no need to start lying about what I say now.

 

[SwimExpert]

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not quite.

Opponents of same sex marriage have been making the fallacious slippery slope argument for decades that same sex marriage would lead to polygamy, incestual marriage, beastiality, pedophilia, global warming, and penicillin resistant bacteria. Those of us who have supported same sex marriage have routinely rejected such arguments, because it is a slippery slope fallacy.

Now that same sex marriage is a reality, opponents are now insisting that we who support same sex marriage must also support polygamy, incest, beastiality, NAMBLA, and monkeys as chauffeurs. We continue to reject this continued slippery slope argument.

Personally, I think polygamy should be legal, and I have said it a hundred times. Keeping one woman happy is headache and expense enough. If a man wants to try it with two, three, or ten women, it's his own funeral, not mine. If a woman really wants to deal with five scandalous, trifling bitches trying to be the center of her man's world, it's her funeral, not mine. Some deeds punish themselves more than government ever could.

 

[Pop23]

It is strange:

It seems for them to attempt to have their "alternative lifestyle" normalized, they must exclude others that are no more bizarre than there own?

Hell, throw nudists and naturist in this whole mess. Don't their lifestyle deserve the same dignity and happiness as homosexuality?

It does seem strange

The very people who have been most ardent in opposing same gender marriage, seem the most ardent in pushing polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Not at all, most of us oppose it, but what reasonable legal argument is there now that the limiting factors of the law have been made moot?

It's a paradox.

No paradox exists except in the minds of people who don't want homosexuals to marry.

Wow you are a fool.

Arguing for one alternative lifestyle while denying others kinda makes you......

Look silly.

Feel free to quote me where I have argued to deny 'others' anything.

Really you were doing so well so far- no need to start lying about what I say now.

Oh, I misunderstood then, you support polygamy and incest?

I've already demonstrated that neither was possible prior to the recent SSM Supreme Court ruling, and now without the limiting restrictions, you can deny none. (Which, by the way, I oppose)

 

[Pop23]

Removal of the requirement ( the limiting factor ) that the partners be of opposite gender:

1. Removes the denial of access to two same sex siblings as there can be no degradation of the blood line. Without a legal reason then it would be discrimination not to allow opposite sex siblings to marry, correct?

That boundary, the limiting factor, was removed by this ruling.
.

No- and we have had this discussion before- so you know the reason why.

States can and do pass laws requiring that First cousins prove that they cannot procreate (i.e. degrade the blood line) before they are allowed to marry.

States could have passed laws allowing siblings to marry under the same condition- the ruling that allows same gender couples to marry does not change that.

The question then becomes- do you have an argument why siblings who are unable to procreate shouldn't be allowed to marry- like their First Cousins can?

If you don't have an argument today- then you didn't have an argument 2 weeks ago.

No they couldn't because there were limiting portions of the law that did not discriminate

Your desperation by bringing up first cousins is cute as hell though.

Let's see how this now will work, using your logic.

First cousin homosexual cousins can marry without providing any proof. The straight couple MUST.

The GAY COUPLE WILL HAVE TO DO LESS TO MARRY, giving them greater access under the law.

You cannot make this chit up folks!

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that they cannot procreate.

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

Provide proof THEY CAN'T PROCREATE TOGETHER?

You are off the deep end dude?

You can either respond to my post- or you can do your denial dance away from it as you did

And where does the law say that the Gay couple will not have to provide that proof?

The law says that the female must provide proof of reaching age 55 or both parties must provide proof of sterilzation.

That law will still be in effect- nothing changes.

Now back to my point which you seem desperate to avoid:

States can and do allow marriages where they require the couple to prove that 'females have reached the age of 55 or both parties provide proof of sterilization'

So States could allow siblings to marry with the same requirements- but they still do not allow Siblings to marry.

Would you be okay with Siblings marrying under the same provisions as First Cousins?

If not- why not?

I know YOU WANT to minimize what this law did, but it WAS THIS order that caused the problems dude because it made the limiting portions of the law moot.

Let's look at your ridiculous first cousin example:

Would the gay couple be required to be over 55 to marry to insure they can't PROCREATE? That would be absurdity at its finest.

The gay first cousins are asked: how can we be assured you can't procreate?

Answer: "we're gay and same sex, procreation is biologically impossible"

The straight first cousins answer, we first went through medical testing to see if we were fertile the we each had to go through a medical proceedure, then retested to make sure we couldn't.

See dude, the gay first cousins have greater and more direct access to the right to marry.

Again, you simply can't make this shit up!

If not, why not?

Can you imagine the stupidity if making a law saying gay couples must provide medical proof they can't procreate?

Damn, that's got lawsuit written all over it dood.