Marriage Equality; does the end game begin?

[80zephyr]

You want seven soul mates, OK, you go for it.

Give me one good reason why his logic does not apply. One. Mark

I don't care whether it applies. If he wants eight wives, let him go for it. Talk about punishment.

You don't care? Are you saying that his logic applies, ergo society has no right to limit marriage to two people?

You are saying that, not me. I happen to believe that marriage equality will not lead to polygamy. But that's me; you can believe differently if you wish.

And I never questioned your belief. However, I will question(again) why you feel his statement was not logical.

It was.

Mark

 

[BULLDOG]

Will he learn his mistake if he marries his pet monkey?

Animals cannot consent.

Maybe not, but you might be amazed at how effectively a little peanut butter can get them to change their minds.

 

[80zephyr]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

So what? Change comes slowly, but it comes. No one said it will happen overnight.

Even subjects(like smoking bans) that people generally agree on, took years to fully implement. Starting with no smoking in public buildings to today "no smoking almost anywhere" bans.Mark

Fallacy of derivative analogies that inevitably fall apart.

In essence, you are saying you can't project the future. You would be correct, except when humans are part of that equation. That's why there is no fallacy.

You, not me, are saying that. You are not an authority, only a guy with an opinion. Yeah, your argument is a fallacy.

Like you, I have an opinion. Mine is based on history and experience. If we need to be an authority to debate here, then very little debate would be happening.

Are you an authority on the subject? Or are you also stating an opinion?

Mark

 

[SwimExpert]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

 

[80zephyr]

And? By "definition" marriage was between one man and one woman. It was defined by gender, now its not.

1 - Same sex marriage goes back centuries, across many cultures. So shut up with that bullshit.

2 - You are missing the point entirely. Two people can enter into a contract. Or three, or four, or twenty. Of course, laws can regulate certain contracts to a maximum of two people, with good cause. And so is the case of marriage. The law limits the number of people who can enter into the contract. However, by creating gender based requirements, the government is discriminating on the basis of gender, without any legitimate cause.

Same sex marriage goes back centuries? Link?

A contract can be limited to two people, with good cause? Tell me, what is that "good cause" that is not simply a social construct?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

That's the problem with the left. They always feel that they can change things to make them better. History has shown they are usually wrong.

Mark

 

[BULLDOG]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

That's the problem with the left. They always feel that they can change things to make them better. History has shown they are usually wrong.

Mark

Typical right wing claim "Progress Is The Root Of All Evil" I'm sure General Bullmoose agrees with you as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

So what? Change comes slowly, but it comes. No one said it will happen overnight.

Even subjects(like smoking bans) that people generally agree on, took years to fully implement. Starting with no smoking in public buildings to today "no smoking almost anywhere" bans.Mark

Fallacy of derivative analogies that inevitably fall apart.

In essence, you are saying you can't project the future. You would be correct, except when humans are part of that equation. That's why there is no fallacy.

You, not me, are saying that. You are not an authority, only a guy with an opinion. Yeah, your argument is a fallacy.

Like you, I have an opinion. Mine is based on history and experience. If we need to be an authority to debate here, then very little debate would be happening.

Are you an authority on the subject? Or are you also stating an opinion?

All opinions are not equal, my friend, and your expertise in understanding history and logic lacks much. You are not debating, merely saying whatever you want without foundation.

There is no solid ground or logic to suggest that polygamy will cause an expansion of marriage equality.

And the yo yos who are fascinated with bestiality are the least sensate of all on the Board.

You have do more than "this will be next."

 

[JakeStarkey]

When someone mouths off with the "standards of the human race", you know he is talking about his standards. Step off. This is the problem with the far right progressives; they are inherently fascist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

That's the problem with the left. They always feel that they can change things to make them better. History has shown they are usually wrong.

Mark

Actually, history demonstrates that you and those on the reactionary right are most often wrong, in your failed and unwarranted attempts to resist change.

'The left' doesn't seek to 'change things,' instead they correctly understand that change is inevitable; rather than fear change as is common to most on the right, liberals accept and embrace change.

And again, that something is perceived to be 'traditional' is not justification to seek to deny citizens their civil rights:

“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice[.]” Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Likewise, that the majority might perceive homosexuality to be 'immoral' is also legally and Constitutionally irrelevant:

'Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”' ibid

 

[80zephyr]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

That's the problem with the left. They always feel that they can change things to make them better. History has shown they are usually wrong.

Mark

Typical right wing claim "Progress Is The Root Of All Evil" I'm sure General Bullmoose agrees with you as well.

If "progress" is 50% of the kids in the US being brought up in a single family home, then I want no part of it.

All change is not progress.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

When someone mouths off with the "standards of the human race", you know he is talking about his standards. Step off. This is the problem with the far right progressives; they are inherently fascist.

As I have proven, you are as well. You just have lower standards than I have.

Mark

 

[Katzndogz]

The history is, that same sex relationships have been normalized at various points throughout history. The concept has never survived. It won't this time either. Whatever is unsustainable won't be sustained.

 

[Katzndogz]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

That's the problem with the left. They always feel that they can change things to make them better. History has shown they are usually wrong.

Mark

Typical right wing claim "Progress Is The Root Of All Evil" I'm sure General Bullmoose agrees with you as well.

If "progress" is 50% of the kids in the US being brought up in a single family home, then I want no part of it.

All change is not progress.

Mark

It is precisely because liberals have had such success with increasing the number of divorced that same sex marriage was able to rise, like scum, to the top and be an argument today. Had liberals never been able to expand divorce and make it popular we would never be having a same sex marriage discussion now.

 

[80zephyr]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

That's the problem with the left. They always feel that they can change things to make them better. History has shown they are usually wrong.

Mark

Actually, history demonstrates that you and those on the reactionary right are most often wrong, in your failed and unwarranted attempts to resist change.

'The left' doesn't seek to 'change things,' instead they correctly understand that change is inevitable; rather than fear change as is common to most on the right, liberals accept and embrace change.

And again, that something is perceived to be 'traditional' is not justification to seek to deny citizens their civil rights:

“[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice[.]” Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Likewise, that the majority might perceive homosexuality to be 'immoral' is also legally and Constitutionally irrelevant:

'Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”' ibid

The right is usually wrong?

We had the greatest educational system in the world, until the left came along with their "enlightened" teaching methods.

They are the reason for our divorce rate, single motherhood, "shacking up", and increased drug usage and abortion.

Just where have they been right?

And personally, I don't think homosexuality is immoral. It is a deviancy. And it should not be legitimized by legalizing gay marriage.

Mark

 

[SwimExpert]

Same sex marriage goes back centuries? Link?

You mean to tell me that you're out here spouting bullshit, as if you were educated on the subject, without actually being educated on the subject? Imagine that.

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A contract can be limited to two people, with good cause? Tell me, what is that "good cause" that is not simply a social construct?

What does that even mean?

 

[SwimExpert]

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

Whose standard? Your standard?

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

Oh, that's the problem. You are ignorant of history. All kinds of different cultures have different "standard" families. For example, some Native American cultures did not recognize mother/child relationships as ours knows them. Instead, every woman was mother to every child. All women equally raised all the children. That was their standard.

 

[SwimExpert]

If "progress" is 50% of the kids in the US being brought up in a single family home, then I want no part of it.

Progress is you keeping your filthy nose out of other people's business. If you don't like the idea of same sex marriage, then don't enter a same sex marriage. It's that simple.

 

[BULLDOG]

And like I stated, a "standard" family unit beats all others in terms of furthering society's goal of self preservation.

Whose standard? Your standard? Or is your true interest your preservation?

The standard of the human race. It is no coincidence that the traditional family unit evolved when laws didn't even exist.

If there was a different standard, it would show up throughout history, because people would have figured out the best way to survive.

That's the problem with the left. They always feel that they can change things to make them better. History has shown they are usually wrong.

Mark

Typical right wing claim "Progress Is The Root Of All Evil" I'm sure General Bullmoose agrees with you as well.

If "progress" is 50% of the kids in the US being brought up in a single family home, then I want no part of it.

All change is not progress.

Mark

It is precisely because liberals have had such success with increasing the number of divorced that same sex marriage was able to rise, like scum, to the top and be an argument today. Had liberals never been able to expand divorce and make it popular we would never be having a same sex marriage discussion now.

So now divorce is liberals fault? You are truly crazy.

 

[Redfish]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

bullshit, the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same.