Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

That's already covered by religion

Uh, no, actually, it predates Christianity- the Greek Philosophers thought of it first - and doesn't require a religious component.

LOL---so atheists follow Greek Philosophy ?

You get that no two atheists are alike, right? So, your statement is ludicrous prima facia. Some atheists follow the Greeks. Some follow oriental philosophy. Some follow Middle Eastern philosophies. Some take from everywhere. You can't just say, "Atheist believe _____" (fill in the blank). This is part of why many atheists have chosen to take the path they have - because they didn't want to have to cram their personal philophies into the little pigeon holes that most religions require.

 

[Czernobog]

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

Herein is where your entire argument falls apart. The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy. As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of yourpost is your personal opinion, and I will not, debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.

Judges who decide the validity of laws issue opinions all the time-----they are as much a part of America as a law.

Interpreting the law is far different from legislating. That's what you guys seem to have a hard time understanding. What you keep calling "legislating from the bench" is nothing more than the judicial system doing what the Constitution set it up to do - interpret the law, and determine its constitutionality.

 

[Seawytch]

But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.

How? **** the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.

Marriage doesn't affect me. Changing marriage to include homosexual behavior affects me because it affects the morality of society in general. I don't wish to live in an immoral or amoral society. I've studied history and realize this has been the biggest cause of civilizations collapsing and I don't want that to happen with mine.

So... Marriage is fine, I have no problem with that... I am all for homosexual males finding a nice girl and settling down or homosexual females finding Mr. Right and doing the same. What I am opposed to is altering the term "marriage" so that it will include sexual proclivities of any kind.

Civil Marriage has nothing to do with sex or proclivities. Civil Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults that allows them to make decisions for each other.

Was voting "altered" when blacks and women could do it?

Over 60% of the country will live in a marriage equality state shortly. Have you been scouting property in Iran? I hear they still jail and kill the queers there.

I like how you have decided that once homosexuals are allowed to "marry" that marriage is finally equal -----aren't you leaving some people out ?

No, I'm not leaving anyone out. No other protected minority groups are being denied civil marriage for their legal partnerships that I'm aware of.

 

[dilloduck]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

Let me answer in both logical and mathematical terms.

IMO...state recognized marriage should be a right afforded to 2 adult humans as long as both of them are over 18.

The exclusions should include marriages that involve non humans, and any marriage that puts 1 or more of the participants in an inferior state to the other(s).

Plural marriage should be prohibited because it puts (typically) the matriarchal participants in an inferior state to the patriarchal participant by way of divided affection, financial interest, etc....no matter how wealthy the patriarch is, the matriarchs get less of it than the patriarch gets.

Most heterosexual marriages have someone who hold the purse strings, and things are rarely perfect in term of mathematical equality, but the possibility exits, and cannot with plural marriage.

As for horses, kids, and whatever else, those participants are in an inferior state because they cannot negotiate the marriage from a state anything more than inferiority. They are inferior in terms of maturity, mental competence, and in the case of non humans, basic comprehension.

It's about marriage equality for 2 humans, not marriage equality for 2 gays.

Demanding that people be of some arbitrarily chosen age is so archaic and unfair. How about some compassion for American teens who are in love ?

 

[dilloduck]

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

Herein is where your entire argument falls apart. The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy. As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of yourpost is your personal opinion, and I will not, debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.

Judges who decide the validity of laws issue opinions all the time-----they are as much a part of America as a law.

Interpreting the law is far different from legislating. That's what you guys seem to have a hard time understanding. What you keep calling "legislating from the bench" is nothing more than the judicial system doing what the Constitution set it up to do - interpret the law, and determine its constitutionality.

Interpreting the law sometimes changes the law with amounts to the same thing as passing new legislation.

 

[toxicmedia]

But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.

How? **** the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.

Marriage doesn't affect me. Changing marriage to include homosexual behavior affects me because it affects the morality of society in general. I don't wish to live in an immoral or amoral society. I've studied history and realize this has been the biggest cause of civilizations collapsing and I don't want that to happen with mine.

So... Marriage is fine, I have no problem with that... I am all for homosexual males finding a nice girl and settling down or homosexual females finding Mr. Right and doing the same. What I am opposed to is altering the term "marriage" so that it will include sexual proclivities of any kind.

Civil Marriage has nothing to do with sex or proclivities. Civil Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults that allows them to make decisions for each other.

Was voting "altered" when blacks and women could do it?

Over 60% of the country will live in a marriage equality state shortly. Have you been scouting property in Iran? I hear they still jail and kill the queers there.

I like how you have decided that once homosexuals are allowed to "marry" that marriage is finally equal -----aren't you leaving some people out ?

No, I'm not leaving anyone out. No other protected minority groups are being denied civil marriage for their legal partnerships that I'm aware of.

It's very simple...there are only 3 reasons people oppose gay marriage. Because God says so, or picturing gays having sex makes them feel icky, or they're just opposing it because it's what all the righties are doing.

Constitutional arguments, damage to traditional marriage, are all symptoms of denial for the above reasons

 

[toxicmedia]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

Let me answer in both logical and mathematical terms.

IMO...state recognized marriage should be a right afforded to 2 adult humans as long as both of them are over 18.

The exclusions should include marriages that involve non humans, and any marriage that puts 1 or more of the participants in an inferior state to the other(s).

Plural marriage should be prohibited because it puts (typically) the matriarchal participants in an inferior state to the patriarchal participant by way of divided affection, financial interest, etc....no matter how wealthy the patriarch is, the matriarchs get less of it than the patriarch gets.

Most heterosexual marriages have someone who hold the purse strings, and things are rarely perfect in term of mathematical equality, but the possibility exits, and cannot with plural marriage.

As for horses, kids, and whatever else, those participants are in an inferior state because they cannot negotiate the marriage from a state anything more than inferiority. They are inferior in terms of maturity, mental competence, and in the case of non humans, basic comprehension.

It's about marriage equality for 2 humans, not marriage equality for 2 gays.

Demanding that people be of some arbitrarily chosen age is so archaic and unfair. How about some compassion for American teens who are in love ?

That's a good point, and the only rational gray area within my argument.

Some states allow marriage at 16 and older with parental permission, or there are emancipated minors... and I have no answer for the legal practicalities on that situation. I think 16 year olds who get married are making a huge mistake, and it should be discouraged whether or not the 16 year olds are gay or straight

 

[Czernobog]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

Ours is based on treating people decently.

No magic sky pixies required.

That's already covered by religion

And, frankly, most of those morals and ethics are the product of generations of adaptation and transmission by religious organizational mechanisms of one kind or another.

I would debate that, however, this is neither the time, nor place. The point of my statement was not about the source of the moral systems of atheists; it was about the fact that just because the particular moral positions of atheists are different from yours does not equate atheists lacking morals.

 

[TooTall]

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Really? Child abuse comes to mind for who? You really believe that if someone doesn't give a shit about consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship, that they must also support child abuse?

I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?

If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.

I will repeat the question for you.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?

I will try and ask it in with smaller words if it is still too vague for you.

Okay, so it is just a condemnation on an atheist who doesn't give a shit what consenting adults do.

I already know from previous a post what one atheist doesn't give a shit about and still supports. My question is what else besides same sex marriage, polygamy and incest do you not give a shit about and still support?

 

[Boss]

I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.

Again... "contract" is just a word. It can be redefined to mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate feelings, wants and desires. No need in being so rigid and conservative in your views, right? How does it hurt you in any way for a contract to mean something different for different people/animals/corpses?

Well, if you want to go there- many states- mostly the red ones, allow children as young as 14 to marry, and this all happened without the mean old Gays doing anything.

Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please.

An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.

Again, once was the time, males could not marry males and females couldn't marry females in the eyes of the law. Therefore, there was no such thing as Gay Marriage and it was an "argument fail" as well.

We simply need to redefine "persons" to include animals and how we determine "consent" and what that means under the law... same as we're doing with "marriage."

A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.

But that's not their fault, they can't help that they are dead. Why should you deny their rights over something that isn't their fault? Who are you to deny the person who loves them the right to express their love? It's not hurting you in any way, it's certainly not hurting the dead person... what is the hangup?

Hey, here's a whacky idea. INstead of trying to tell me why gays are bad by talking about other sexuality, just tell me why gays are bad.

Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people.

Again, I support comprehensive civil unions reform, whereby the government essentially gets out of the "marriage" business entirely and adopts civil union domestic partnerships instead. This solves all the problems for all parties, it gives gay people the avenue they need to get benefits, etc., it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it releases government from the awkward position of sanctioning sexual behaviors, it gets government out of our personal business, it resolves this issue forever.

And that's the point. We can change the law. The problem is, once you remove the religious arguments against homosexuality, you really don't have an argument.

Well, once you remove religiously-based morality, you essentially have no argument for any legitimate law.

And let's be clear, no one is advocating a law against homosexuality. Perhaps we should be, but as far as I know, no one is. You are free to be as homosexual as you please in America.

You could make an argument against polygamy, in that it isn't an "equal" partnership. Really, people are too jealous for that to work unless someone has beaten everyone else down.

Who the hell are YOU to decide this? Why do you keep justifying these archaic moral constraints on society? Oh... that's right, you don't really have a problem with polygamy. And I suspect, you really wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beastality either, if it ever becomes "in vogue" with the liberal movement. You see, all it will take is Oprah or Ellen displaying some sob story about it, then you'll get behind whatever... you have no moral compass.

 

[dilloduck]

How? **** the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.

Marriage doesn't affect me. Changing marriage to include homosexual behavior affects me because it affects the morality of society in general. I don't wish to live in an immoral or amoral society. I've studied history and realize this has been the biggest cause of civilizations collapsing and I don't want that to happen with mine.

So... Marriage is fine, I have no problem with that... I am all for homosexual males finding a nice girl and settling down or homosexual females finding Mr. Right and doing the same. What I am opposed to is altering the term "marriage" so that it will include sexual proclivities of any kind.

Civil Marriage has nothing to do with sex or proclivities. Civil Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults that allows them to make decisions for each other.

Was voting "altered" when blacks and women could do it?

Over 60% of the country will live in a marriage equality state shortly. Have you been scouting property in Iran? I hear they still jail and kill the queers there.

I like how you have decided that once homosexuals are allowed to "marry" that marriage is finally equal -----aren't you leaving some people out ?

No, I'm not leaving anyone out. No other protected minority groups are being denied civil marriage for their legal partnerships that I'm aware of.

It's very simple...there are only 3 reasons people oppose gay marriage. Because God says so, or picturing gays having sex makes them feel icky, or they're just opposing it because it's what all the righties are doing.

Constitutional arguments, damage to traditional marriage, are all symptoms of denial for the above reasons

Wrong----- another argument is that changing the definition of marriage changes culture. How about if the law were changed to define an American citizen as anyone who has ever been here ? Would that work for ya ? Would you immediately treat every Joe Blow who has visited America as a brother or sister

 

[Czernobog]

One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.

You're quite right. The moralists could try to do this to invalidate same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, they have yet to find a legitimate argument to make that case without falling into a logically fallacious "Slippery Slope' argument that convinces no one. But, hey! Good luck with that. You guys keep trying to do that. Lemme know how that works out for ya...

You're correct.

With the key word being 'yet'.

That's what 'continuing to try until you succeed' is all about.

We may know more within four to eight years of the beginning of the next conservative Presidency.

I think you had better hope,. strongly, that you guys win this next election. Because, if not, I suspect this will already be a dead issue. I mean in just 4 years we've gone from no states to 30 states. Just how long do you think it will take to get the last 20 to fall? After that, same-sex marriage is a thing. Debate over.

 

[toxicmedia]

I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.

Again... "contract" is just a word. It can be redefined to mean whatever we need for it to mean in order to accommodate feelings, wants and desires. No need in being so rigid and conservative in your views, right? How does it hurt you in any way for a contract to mean something different for different people/animals/corpses?

Well, if you want to go there- many states- mostly the red ones, allow children as young as 14 to marry, and this all happened without the mean old Gays doing anything.

Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please.

An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.

Again, once was the time, males could not marry males and females couldn't marry females in the eyes of the law. Therefore, there was no such thing as Gay Marriage and it was an "argument fail" as well.

We simply need to redefine "persons" to include animals and how we determine "consent" and what that means under the law... same as we're doing with "marriage."

A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.

But that's not their fault, they can't help that they are dead. Why should you deny their rights over something that isn't their fault? Who are you to deny the person who loves them the right to express their love? It's not hurting you in any way, it's certainly not hurting the dead person... what is the hangup?

Hey, here's a whacky idea. INstead of trying to tell me why gays are bad by talking about other sexuality, just tell me why gays are bad.

Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people.

Again, I support comprehensive civil unions reform, whereby the government essentially gets out of the "marriage" business entirely and adopts civil union domestic partnerships instead. This solves all the problems for all parties, it gives gay people the avenue they need to get benefits, etc., it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it releases government from the awkward position of sanctioning sexual behaviors, it gets government out of our personal business, it resolves this issue forever.

And that's the point. We can change the law. The problem is, once you remove the religious arguments against homosexuality, you really don't have an argument.

Well, once you remove religiously-based morality, you essentially have no argument for any legitimate law.

And let's be clear, no one is advocating a law against homosexuality. Perhaps we should be, but as far as I know, no one is. You are free to be as homosexual as you please in America.

You could make an argument against polygamy, in that it isn't an "equal" partnership. Really, people are too jealous for that to work unless someone has beaten everyone else down.

Who the hell are YOU to decide this? Why do you keep justifying these archaic moral constraints on society? Oh... that's right, you don't really have a problem with polygamy. And I suspect, you really wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beastality either, if it ever becomes "in vogue" with the liberal movement. You see, all it will take is Oprah or Ellen displaying some sob story about it, then you'll get behind whatever... you have no moral compass.

I don't believe you have gay friends. Nobody I have ever known who has gay friends wants to dictate what they can, and can't do within their relationship.

I know plenty of righties and bible thumpers who have gay acquaintances, or have had random conversations/encounters with gays in which they forced themselves to be civil and even cordial...and I don't know what friendship is like where you come from...but I support my friends and family if what they're doing is legal, putting aside any religious or moral feelings of my own.

 

[dilloduck]

One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.

You're quite right. The moralists could try to do this to invalidate same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, they have yet to find a legitimate argument to make that case without falling into a logically fallacious "Slippery Slope' argument that convinces no one. But, hey! Good luck with that. You guys keep trying to do that. Lemme know how that works out for ya...

You're correct.

With the key word being 'yet'.

That's what 'continuing to try until you succeed' is all about.

We may know more within four to eight years of the beginning of the next conservative Presidency.

I think you had better hope,. strongly, that you guys win this next election. Because, if not, I suspect this will already be a dead issue. I mean in just 4 years we've gone from no states to 30 states. Just how long do you think it will take to get the last 20 to fall? After that, same-sex marriage is a thing. Debate over.

The faulty and irrational logic that now validates homosexuals calling themselves "married" still exists and will be used on the next identified "victims".

 

[JoeB131]

Boss, i'm not plodding through another one of your cases of verbal diarheaa.. So I'll just hit the good points.

Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people.

Again, I support comprehensive civil unions reform, whereby the government essentially gets out of the "marriage" business entirely and adopts civil union domestic partnerships instead. This solves all the problems for all parties, it gives gay people the avenue they need to get benefits, etc., it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it releases government from the awkward position of sanctioning sexual behaviors, it gets government out of our personal business, it resolves this issue forever.

In short, you want to burn down the clubhouse rather than let "those people" in.

Hows this. Gays can get married, we call it marriage, and everyone has to recognize it no matter what their magic sky fairy thinks. Works for me.

Who the hell are YOU to decide this? Why do you keep justifying these archaic moral constraints on society? Oh... that's right, you don't really have a problem with polygamy. And I suspect, you really wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beastality either, if it ever becomes "in vogue" with the liberal movement. You see, all it will take is Oprah or Ellen displaying some sob story about it, then you'll get behind whatever... you have no moral compass.

I'd have a problem with pedophilia because it does psychological damage to children.

Polygamy won't work because so woman would willingly share a man with another woman, and no man would willingly share a woman with another man. The number of domestic disturbances the police answer every day should be evidence of that.

But if the polygamists can put together a case and argue it before a court, I'm good with that.

 

[Boss]

Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people.

I don't believe you have gay friends. Nobody I have ever known who has gay friends wants to dictate what they can, and can't do within their relationship.

I know plenty of righties and bible thumpers who have gay acquaintances, or have had random conversations/encounters with gays in which they forced themselves to be civil and even cordial...and I don't know what friendship is like where you come from...but I support my friends and family if what they're doing is legal, putting aside any religious or moral feelings of my own.

Actually, my personal viewpoint regarding comprehensive civil unions reform, comes from a gay couple who I've been friends with for more than 30 years. I adopted their viewpoint after a series of discussions with them about "gay marriage" which they are opposed to.

Now, what's really funny about that is... they had a gay wedding in 1986, in rural Alabama, and I attended it. They had bridesmaids and groomsmen, rice and cake, a wedding album, a honeymoon... the whole shebang.

When all this "gay marriage" stuff began, I really expected they would be foremost advocates. You'd think they would be leading the charge, but not the case. According to them, it's all a ruse and is only helping to prevent them from realizing the benefits they seek as domestic partners. You see, they are more interested in seeing the issue resolved, obtaining benefits of domestic partnership, than waging some moralistic cultural war with the religious right for another 30 years.

A point they made to me, which completely changed my mind was this.,.. IF government is allowed to define what marriage can be today, it can redefine it tomorrow. In other words, if government says "gay marriage" is a "thing" today, then tomorrow, it can just as easily say "gay marriage" is NOT a "thing." You've given them that power, you've conceded they have that power, forevermore. Rather than doing that, they favor taking this out of the hands of government to decide and leaving it to the people.

 

[Czernobog]

I noticed you specifically left out where I discussed that Marriage is a CONTRACT, and what was needed to make a contract.

Again... "contract" is just a word. It can be redefined to mean whatever we need for it to mean...

Except you can't. That's the point. You already tried that when you attempted to redefine "marriage", adding the words "one woman, and one man" to the definition, and you have been shot down by the Federal Courts every time it gets there. Words. Have. Meanings. You don't get to change those meanings just because you don't happen to like the consequences of those meanings.

Well, if you want to go there- many states- mostly the red ones, allow children as young as 14 to marry, and this all happened without the mean old Gays doing anything.

Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please.

I'll let this one go, as I have already responded to this, and see no reason to repeat myself.

An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.

Again, once was the time, males could not marry males and females couldn't marry females in the eyes of the law. Therefore, there was no such thing as Gay Marriage and it was an "argument fail" as well.


We simply need to redefine "persons" to include animals and how we determine "consent" and what that means under the law... same as we're doing with "marriage."

Again, this was dealt with above, when it was pointed out that you moralists do not get to arbitrarily change the meanings of words so that they fit your emotional arguments.

A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.

But that's not their fault, they can't help that they are dead. Why should you deny their rights over something that isn't their fault? Who are you to deny the person who loves them the right to express their love? It's not hurting you in any way, it's certainly not hurting the dead person... what is the hangup?

Well...since a dead body is a thing, not a person, I suppose this would actually fall under property rights. So, as such, I would actually be okay with necrophiliacs ******* their dead bodies, so long as they can prove ownership. I think it's a little gross. But, Hey! Who am I to judge?

Hey, here's a whacky idea. INstead of trying to tell me why gays are bad by talking about other sexuality, just tell me why gays are bad.

Never said gays are bad. I personally like gays. Some of my best friends are gay. They are funny, creative, interesting people, for the most part. I have not a thing against gay people

"Hey! I'm not racist! Some of my friends are black!!!" No. I'm not suggesting you said that. I'm just demonstrating the humor of the irony in your comment. Please...do carry on with your "gay appreciation" defense.

Again, I support comprehensive civil unions reform, whereby the government essentially gets out of the "marriage" business entirely and adopts civil union domestic partnerships instead. This solves all the problems for all parties, it gives gay people the avenue they need to get benefits, etc., it protects religious sanctity of traditional marriage, it releases government from the awkward position of sanctioning sexual behaviors, it gets government out of our personal business, it resolves this issue forever.

I, for one, would have no problem with that, so long as the "marriage certificate" were relegated to the realm of the "Baptism Certificate", and the "Confirmation Certificate" - that is to say that it holds no weight in civil law, and is valid for no one outside of the church from whom it was granted. Otherwise, all you're really supporting is another "Separate but Equal" argument.

And that's the point. We can change the law. The problem is, once you remove the religious arguments against homosexuality, you really don't have an argument.

Well, once you remove religiously-based morality, you essentially have no argument for any legitimate law

Absolutely not. The law is about self-preservation, not morality. At least it's not supposed to be. The purpose of the law is very simple - to protect me from you. We are basically violent, remorseless, vindictive creatures. We have no problem with killing, maiming, raping, pillaging, and plundering. We have proven this over, and over throughout the course of human history. Here's the thing. I happen to like breathing. It's an addiction that I have come to enjoy. I don't particularly want you to kill me. Therefore, as a matter of self-preservation we agree that no one gets to kill anyone. This isn't about any silly morality. It's self-preservation. If no one gets to kill anyone, i no longer have to worry about you killing me, without suffering consequences for your choice. And, the same can be said for every single law; they are about protecting me from you. This is true, anyway, right up until we get to the "morality laws". Somewhere along the line you moralists decided it was your "duty" to protect me from myself. Guess what? You. Were. Wrong. Not only is it not your duty, but it isn't your right. Every time you pass one of these stupid morality laws, you have the effect of denying people their individual right of free choice. That was never meant to be the purpose of law.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that you can find a plethora of quotes from people justifying "Law" as having some "divine source", but that's all that clap-trap is - justification. In addition to being violent, remorseless, and vindictive, we are also extremely superstitious. So, whenever those with authority wanted to add legitimacy to their laws, all they had to do was ascribe the source of those laws as some divine power, and suddenly everyone went, "Ooooo...well if (fill in the god of your choice, here) demanded it, then we must obey!!!" You'll notice that, in all of my descriptions of man, I never included terribly bright. Clever? Often. Bright? Not so much.

And let's be clear, no one is advocating a law against homosexuality. Perhaps we should be, but as far as I know, no one is. You are free to be as homosexual as you please in America.

You could make an argument against polygamy, in that it isn't an "equal" partnership. Really, people are too jealous for that to work unless someone has beaten everyone else down.

Who the hell are YOU to decide this? Why do you keep justifying these archaic moral constraints on society? Oh... that's right, you don't really have a problem with polygamy. And I suspect, you really wouldn't have a problem with pedophilia or beastality either, if it ever becomes "in vogue" with the liberal movement. You see, all it will take is Oprah or Ellen displaying some sob story about it, then you'll get behind whatever... you have no moral compass.

I actually agree with you on this final point. Polygamy is no more my business than same-sex marriage. I just don't see the point of going to the effort to rework all of the laws that polygamy recognition would require without actual people asking to engage in polygamy. Since you're only bringing it up as a foil to same-sex marriage, you don't count.

Lemme know when you have actually found some polygamists in the US that want to lobby for the right to their lifestyle, and we'll talk.

 

[Czernobog]

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

Herein is where your entire argument falls apart. The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy. As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of yourpost is your personal opinion, and I will not, debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.

Judges who decide the validity of laws issue opinions all the time-----they are as much a part of America as a law.

Interpreting the law is far different from legislating. That's what you guys seem to have a hard time understanding. What you keep calling "legislating from the bench" is nothing more than the judicial system doing what the Constitution set it up to do - interpret the law, and determine its constitutionality.

Interpreting the law sometimes changes the law with amounts to the same thing as passing new legislation.

Only if that law had already been altered in ways that are unconstitutional. Returning a law to its original is not "changing" the law; it is fixing the unconstitutional changes that were made to it.

Such as in this case. It was the addition of "one man, one woman" that unconstitutionally changed the laws. All the court rulings are doing is returning the laws to their original form.

That's not "legislating" that's interpreting. That's what the court is supposed to do. You just don't like the interpretation.

 

[Boss]

Boss, i'm not plodding through another one of your cases of verbal diarheaa.. So I'll just hit the good points.

Hey, I don't give a damn if you want to reply to my points or not. In fact, I've pwned that ass so well, I kinda don't blame you for running away.

In short, you want to burn down the clubhouse rather than let "those people" in.

Hows this. Gays can get married, we call it marriage, and everyone has to recognize it no matter what their magic sky fairy thinks. Works for me.

Well, it doesn't work for me, nor does it work for a majority of Americans. You can grow the **** up and realize you live in a collective society and not your own personal Kingdom, or you will face the wrath of pissed off people who will pass a constitutional amendment to ensure you never ever get to define marriage again.

I don't want to burn any clubhouse. I want to remove government from being in a position of determining what we call marriage. I don't want YOU defining it, I don't want government defining it, and I don't want a court defining it. I want THE PEOPLE to define it as they please, and government to stay the hell out of it.

I'd have a problem with pedophilia because it does psychological damage to children.

So does gay marriage.

Look.. the Greeks built a great civilization filled with enlightenment and some of the greatest philosophy ever known to man, and they were having sex with children left and right... thought of it as proper training for any child coming of age.

Polygamy won't work because so woman would willingly share a man with another woman, and no man would willingly share a woman with another man. The number of domestic disturbances the police answer every day should be evidence of that.

But if the polygamists can put together a case and argue it before a court, I'm good with that.

Once again, you seem to be the moral judge and determiner for others here. As if someone has put YOU in charge of deciding what is good for the rest of us. You can do whatever the hell you please and no one can say a damn word about that, but you get to also decide what others can and can't do. Sounds totally hypocritical to me.

Yeah, you're good with polygamy, so we can already see what's next up on the docket for liberals, after we get gay marriage in the books, huh? Then it will be on to pedophilia, beastality, necrophilia... what-the-****-ever... if it feels good, do it!

 

[Czernobog]

Really? Child abuse comes to mind for who? You really believe that if someone doesn't give a shit about consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship, that they must also support child abuse?

I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?

If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.

I will repeat the question for you.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?

I will try and ask it in with smaller words if it is still too vague for you.

Okay, so it is just a condemnation on an atheist who doesn't give a shit what consenting adults do.

I already know from previous a post what one atheist doesn't give a shit about and still supports. My question is what else besides same sex marriage, polygamy and incest do you not give a shit about and still support?

Well...prostitution, drugs, suicide (not to be confused with euthanasia - two very different things). Here's a hint. If the law was designed to protect me from myself, the law is wrong. I really don't like morality laws that tell other people what they get to do with their own bodies, in their own lives.