A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[bigrebnc1775]

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

I believe a Male and a Female created life not a male and male.

If we were talking about natural procreation, you might have a point.

But we're not. You don't.

Yes you were so shut the **** up.

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

What the **** is this? What type of ******* question is this for you too ask and then come back and say we aren't talking about natural procreation. What the hell man don't be stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

Now I am repeating myself. Previously I wrote:

When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, truth and lies, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

Okay, guy, the problem with this argument is that you apply all these negative things to homosexuality, yet fail to offer any reasons why it is any of these things. Your whole argument is that your imaginary sky friend is against it, so it must be bad.

I could make a greater argument that religion is more evil than homosexuality. Crusades, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, molestation and abuse of children, all things done by religious institutions, and your "God" usually doesn't say boo about it. (Because he doesn't exist.)

 

[JoeB131]

Let's put a little sanity to this, shall we?

The three main arguments people give against gay marriage are

1) The Bible says it's wrong.
2) I find it icky (when dudes do it anyway. )
3) Marriage has always been defined as this, so we shouldn't change it.

The first one is easily dipsensed with. The bible has a whole lot of rules most of us don't follow, and we invent a thousand denominations to give us an excuse as to why we do or don't follow the rules we don't like. And that's a personal choice.

The second one is that yes, certain things are not an image I'd want in my head. But there really isn't anything gays do to each other than straights do to each other.

The third is that marriage has not always been what it is now. Women don't pledge to obey their husbands anymore. That's considered passe. Marriages have become unions of equals, as opposed to transfers of property. True, we have a few vestigates of the "Women as property". Wedding gowns still have veils because at one time, you didn't see what you got until your arranged marriage was in progress. Fathers still walk their daughters down the aisle, but it isn't a transfer of property along with a dowry and an expectation you could beat your wife with impunity.

So once you've dispensed with those three flimsey arguments, you don't have anything left.

Now, that said, I think that if we are going to make it legal, as we should, it should be done by votes of the legislature, as NY did it, and not by judicial fiat as CA has done it.

You going good there until your last paragraph…

Although it would be preferable to have all 50 states follow the Constitutional mandate as established by the 14th Amendment, thus avoiding court battles altogether, we all know that’s not going to happen.

Our Republican form of government follows the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority. That a majority of a given state vote to deny same sex couples equal access to the law is anathema to the Constitution and its case law: a state may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

A court upholding the rule of law is not ‘judicial fiat,’ as the onus is on the state legislatures to obey the Constitution in the first place.

When you say, "The bad old days are ending", it would mean that things are getting better. However, all indications are that our society is in a state of decline, not growth.

That may be the perception of those that have benefited or profited from institutionalized discrimination, or who have enjoyed power and privilege as a consequence religious affiliation alone. But such discrimination and unwarranted privilege have always been in conflict with fundamental Constitutional principles.

Clayton- two things.

First, the way you quoted this, the last portion would seem to be attributed to me when I didn't say this.

Secondly, I reject the notion that the 14th Amendment is this grab bag of rights that the courts can hand out because you can't get changes in the law through the legislatures. This is judicial activism of the worst kind. If there was a right to gay marriage hiding in the 14th amendment, they should have noticed in 1880, not 2012.

 

[WinterBorn]

I believe a Male and a Female created life not a male and male.

If we were talking about natural procreation, you might have a point.

But we're not. You don't.

Yes you were so shut the **** up.

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

What the **** is this? What type of ******* question is this for you too ask and then come back and say we aren't talking about natural procreation. What the hell man don't be stupid.

That was a response to the post "Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." and was meant as sarcasm. (unless you want to base our laws on the idea that two people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago. In which case it is ridicule)

The topic is about gay marriage. If you are making the point that marriage is strictly for producing and protecting children, then you need to remove the benefits from childless straight couples and allow gay couples with children to marry.

 

[rightwinger]

Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

I believe a Male and a Female created life not a male and male.

First of all...Adam and Eve were not married
Secondly, marriage is not required to create life nor is the ability to create life a prerequisite for getting married

The purpose of marriage in our society is to encourage monogamous relationships

 

[Artevelde]

The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

I believe a Male and a Female created life not a male and male.

First of all...Adam and Eve were not married
Secondly, marriage is not required to create life nor is the ability to create life a prerequisite for getting married

The purpose of marriage in our society is to encourage monogamous relationships

First of all they were male and female, not male and male or female and female
Secondly They were married in the eyes of God.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If we were talking about natural procreation, you might have a point.

But we're not. You don't.

Yes you were so shut the **** up.

So you believe that 2 people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago?

What the **** is this? What type of ******* question is this for you too ask and then come back and say we aren't talking about natural procreation. What the hell man don't be stupid.

That was a response to the post "Marriage is for Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." and was meant as sarcasm. (unless you want to base our laws on the idea that two people, created from mud, started our entire population about 6,000 years ago. In which case it is ridicule)

The topic is about gay marriage. If you are making the point that marriage is strictly for producing and protecting children, then you need to remove the benefits from childless straight couples and allow gay couples with children to marry.

You didn't like my answer because you don't have a rebuttal nor a logical explanation. Marriage is between a man and a woman

 

[Ariux]

Our Republican form of government follows the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority. That a majority of a given state vote to deny same sex couples equal access to the law is anathema to the Constitution and its case law: a state may not deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.

Hey ***, you're so full of shit, compacted shit.

The same laws have applied to faggots as to normal people, either one can have the government recognize a marriage to the opposite sex, one with the potential to create children. And, you don't just get to pull out of your ass what constitutes a class.

****** marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution, rule of law, or Democracy. It has to do with activist, liberal judges being placed in the courts, while otherwise decent people people are distracted by Zionist neocons, clearing the way for faggots to rape society.

 

[rightwinger]

The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.

How does the ability of gays to marry affect your marriage?

Does it diminish it in any way?

 

[Artevelde]

The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.

How does the ability of gays to marry affect your marriage?

Does it diminish it in any way?

Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

Marriage is an institution that is more important than some day to day politics.

 

[Artevelde]

The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.

How does the ability of gays to marry affect your marriage?

Does it diminish it in any way?

How does the fact that gays can't marry diminish their rights? Why do they want something which in its essence is something between men and women?

 

[BluePhantom]

Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

There are many societies historically and today that allow polygamy. Frankly I don't see a problem with it if that's the lifestyle they all choose and willingly enter into. Personally, I will pass...I have enough trouble dealing with one. Men can't marry their daughters because of the potential genetic defects in offspring and 10 year olds because we as a society have determined that 18 is the minimum age without parental consent in most states. However, in some states it can be 16. In other nations they have other customs and arranged marriages at a younger age is perfectly acceptable in their culture. Usually in those cultures there is not a formal joining until the onset of puberty which in regard to world history has been the marker for when a child becomes an adult.

Why do we choose 16 or 18? Various reasons. Religious influence on our decision making, a different philosophy on what makes a person an "adult", to some degree even arbitrarily...basically our society chose something that differed from the norm of human history. That's our right and our prerogative.

 

[WinterBorn]

The idea of throwing away one of the major foundation stones of human society because an extremely tiny group of people feels that they are more enlightened than 99% of humanity shows how extremely intolerant and parochial some so-called "enlightened" people can be.

How does the ability of gays to marry affect your marriage?

Does it diminish it in any way?

Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

Marriage is an institution that is more important than some day to day politics.

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage. But I have no problem with multiple partners as long as all involved are consenting adults. I see no reason why thegov't should care either.

The key words in all of this is "consenting adults". Marriage is a social contract. Unless the persons involved are adults and mentally able to give informed consent, there is no possibility of any sort of contract.



I answered your questions. Now answer mine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How does the ability of gays to marry affect your marriage?

Does it diminish it in any way?

Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

Marriage is an institution that is more important than some day to day politics.

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage. But I have no problem with multiple partners as long as all involved are consenting adults. I see no reason why thegov't should care either.

The key words in all of this is "consenting adults". Marriage is a social contract. Unless the persons involved are adults and mentally able to give informed consent, there is no possibility of any sort of contract.



I answered your questions. Now answer mine.

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage.

It is? Just because you don't have an answer doesn't diminish the meaning of the question.

Marriage is a social contract.

What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

Marriage is an institution that is more important than some day to day politics.

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage. But I have no problem with multiple partners as long as all involved are consenting adults. I see no reason why thegov't should care either.

The key words in all of this is "consenting adults". Marriage is a social contract. Unless the persons involved are adults and mentally able to give informed consent, there is no possibility of any sort of contract.

Do you actually think there is a threat of everyone "turning gay"?? lol That is absolutely ridiculous. Plus, you are wanting to try and scare people with the absurd notion that allowing gay marriage will somehow increase the number of gays. How does that work? Gay marriage does not change the number of people who are gay. Not allowing gay marriage does not change the number of people who are gay.



I answered your questions. Now answer mine.

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage.

It is? Just because you don't have an answer doesn't diminish the meaning of the question.

Marriage is a social contract.

What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?

I like that you cherry-picked my answer to try and show that I had no answer. I said, clearly, that I see no reason why multiple partner marriages should be illegal. Why should it?? Can you give me an answer that does not rely on religion or on the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition??

 

[Artevelde]

How does the ability of gays to marry affect your marriage?

Does it diminish it in any way?

Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

Marriage is an institution that is more important than some day to day politics.

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage. But I have no problem with multiple partners as long as all involved are consenting adults. I see no reason why thegov't should care either.

The key words in all of this is "consenting adults". Marriage is a social contract. Unless the persons involved are adults and mentally able to give informed consent, there is no possibility of any sort of contract.



I answered your questions. Now answer mine.

If marriage is nothing but a "social contract" then why don't we abolish marriage altogether? There is contract law in civil law, no need to have anything like marriage then is there?

Or could it be that marriage is just a little bit more significant in societal terms than you're letting on?

 

[BluePhantom]

What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?

Well why don't we try to stick to reality here. That's never going to happen so it's a completely irrelevant point. I mean what if the oceans turned to jello? Come on man.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage. But I have no problem with multiple partners as long as all involved are consenting adults. I see no reason why thegov't should care either.

The key words in all of this is "consenting adults". Marriage is a social contract. Unless the persons involved are adults and mentally able to give informed consent, there is no possibility of any sort of contract.

Do you actually think there is a threat of everyone "turning gay"?? lol That is absolutely ridiculous. Plus, you are wanting to try and scare people with the absurd notion that allowing gay marriage will somehow increase the number of gays. How does that work? Gay marriage does not change the number of people who are gay. Not allowing gay marriage does not change the number of people who are gay.



I answered your questions. Now answer mine.

It is? Just because you don't have an answer doesn't diminish the meaning of the question.

Marriage is a social contract.

What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?

I like that you cherry-picked my answer to try and show that I had no answer. I said, clearly, that I see no reason why multiple partner marriages should be illegal. Why should it?? Can you give me an answer that does not rely on religion or on the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition??

No cherry picking. but I like to way you ignored the last part of my post could it be you over looked it? Or could it be you can't refute it?

What if everybody turned gay? How long to you think humanity would last? How long do you think it would take the government to step in and make gay marriage illegal and out law it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why don't you allow Men and women to marry multiple partners? Or allow Man to marry their daughters? Or adults to marry 10 year olds?

Marriage is an institution that is more important than some day to day politics.

Multiple partners is an entirely different topic due to the issues surrounding the dissolving of the marriage. But I have no problem with multiple partners as long as all involved are consenting adults. I see no reason why thegov't should care either.

The key words in all of this is "consenting adults". Marriage is a social contract. Unless the persons involved are adults and mentally able to give informed consent, there is no possibility of any sort of contract.



I answered your questions. Now answer mine.

If marriage is nothing but a "social contract" then why don't we abolish marriage altogether? There is contract law in civil law, no need to have anything like marriage then is there?

Or could it be that marriage is just a little bit more significant in societal terms than you're letting on?

I think marriage is quite significant. That is why I am so adamant that gays be allowed to marry.

Those who try and reduce gay marriage to nothing more than sex are the ones who diminish the meaning of marriage.

The gov't sanctioning of marriage is, however, a social contract. I am not in favor of abolishing marriage. But I am in favor of removing teh gov't from the equation, along with the benefits granted.