Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be[/quote]
I’m not a bigot. No one here has given any rational reasons to redefine marriage and legalise gay ‘marriage.’ But plenty of people have given reasons not to do so. I say you’re bigoted for wanting to redefine traditional marriage.[/quote]
SM,
Nobody is asking to redefine marriage. They are just seeking equal protection under the law, if churches don’t want to perform the ceremonies that is fine, but marriage is essentially a state recognized contract so allowing same sex marriage isn’t changing its’ value.[/quote]
They already have equal protection under the law. That’s been shown in the thread already too. If the state recognises gay marriage it is essentially redefining what marriage actually is.
Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be[/quote]
We’ve agreed that the ‘bigot’ stuff doesn’t apply. Unless you propose that the state recognize every imaginative arrangement (regardless of number or romantic involvement) of consenting adults as marriage, if they choose to opt in.
[/quote]
Slippery slope fallacy. “If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.” Who is advocating that I should be able to marry the couch I used to hump when I was 5? It is two consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual, it matters not) who are not related. (Prevention of genetic disorders that would be harmful to society) Its that simple.
Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be[/quote]
We’ve agreed that the ‘bigot’ stuff doesn’t apply. Unless you propose that the state recognize every imaginative arrangement (regardless of number or romantic involvement) of consenting adults as marriage, if they choose to opt in.
[/quote]
Slippery slope fallacy. “If we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.” Who is advocating that I should be able to marry the couch I used to hump when I was 5? It is two consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual, it matters not) who are not related. (Prevention of genetic disorders that would be harmful to society) Its that simple.[/quote]
It isn’t a slippery slope argument. If one is going to make an argument where the other side is supposedly bigoted, then one must embrace an all inclusive state definition.
By the way, homosexual siblings would be exempt from your incest reference.
they do not confer the same rights as marriage simply because they are not recognized in all states (some civil unions also are not on equal footing with marriage). If I am married to a woman and I live in any of the 50 states I am afforded the same rights in each one I can move anywhere in the US secure in the knowledge that my status has not changed. If I am gay and I get married in New York State and then move to Texas, my marriage is no longer recognized (at least not in Texas), how in the hell is that equal? Make gay marriage legal on the Federal level, walk away, deal with the debt, problem solved.
No you do not. I like that anti gay marriage arguments usually turn into “Then I can marry my dog or that rock or this STOP sign” because that is of course the natural progression of how marriage works. I actually don’t care about polygamy or polyandry, I don’t think they have anything in common with gay marriage, but I also have no real objection to them.
No you do not. I like that anti gay marriage arguments usually turn into “Then I can marry my dog or that rock or this STOP sign” because that is of course the natural progression of how marriage works. I actually don’t care about polygamy or polyandry, I don’t think they have anything in common with gay marriage, but I also have no real objection to them.[/quote]
Did I say anything about a rock or a stop sign? But yes, I’ve noticed that gay marriage advocates end up admitting that they would have no problem with polyamorous (or non-romantic arrangements) relationships also winning state recognition, if the argument goes on long enough.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
they do not confer the same rights as marriage simply because they are not recognized in all states (some civil unions also are not on equal footing with marriage). If I am married to a woman and I live in any of the 50 states I am afforded the same rights in each one I can move anywhere in the US secure in the knowledge that my status has not changed. If I am gay and I get married in New York State and then move to Texas, my marriage is no longer recognized (at least not in Texas), how in the hell is that equal? [/quote]
You haven’t read the thread have you? It’s equal because the same is true of straight men. If a straight man married another straight man in New York State and then moved to Texas their marriage would no longer be recognised either.
Just because you are a small minded bigot doesn’t mean everyone should be[/quote]
I’m not a bigot. No one here has given any rational reasons to redefine marriage and legalise gay ‘marriage.’ But plenty of people have given reasons not to do so. I say you’re bigoted for wanting to redefine traditional marriage.[/quote]
SM,
Nobody is asking to redefine marriage. They are just seeking equal protection under the law, if churches don’t want to perform the ceremonies that is fine, but marriage is essentially a state recognized contract so allowing same sex marriage isn’t changing its’ value.[/quote]
They already have equal protection under the law. That’s been shown in the thread already too. If the state recognises gay marriage it is essentially redefining what marriage actually is.[/quote]
So once marriage is re-defined in all 50 states will you try to redefine it? And if so, can I just use the argument that you have no rational reason to redefine it?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So once marriage is re-defined in all 50 states will you try to redefine it? And if so, can I just use the argument that you have no rational reason to redefine it?[/quote]
No, because you don’t have millenia of precedent and it wouldn’t be ‘redefining’ it, it would be reverting to the norm - i.e. abolishing the redefinition that has already occurred.
No you do not. I like that anti gay marriage arguments usually turn into “Then I can marry my dog or that rock or this STOP sign” because that is of course the natural progression of how marriage works. I actually don’t care about polygamy or polyandry, I don’t think they have anything in common with gay marriage, but I also have no real objection to them.[/quote]
But yes, I’ve noticed that gay marriage advocates end up admitting that they would have no problem with polyamorous (or non-romantic arrangements) relationships also winning state recognition, if the argument goes on long enough.
[/quote]
I don’t know any advocates that hold that view. I myself am strongly opposed to it. If that is an acknowledged position then it is a naive one. If you don’t put a limit on the number included in marriage (2) than things become royally fucked up legally and morally. That much is common sense.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So once marriage is re-defined in all 50 states will you try to redefine it? And if so, can I just use the argument that you have no rational reason to redefine it?[/quote]
No, because you don’t have millenia of precedent and it wouldn’t be ‘redefining’ it, it would be reverting to the norm - i.e. abolishing the redefinition that has already occurred.[/quote]
Do you believe that marriage is a man made institution?
No you do not. I like that anti gay marriage arguments usually turn into “Then I can marry my dog or that rock or this STOP sign” because that is of course the natural progression of how marriage works. I actually don’t care about polygamy or polyandry, I don’t think they have anything in common with gay marriage, but I also have no real objection to them.[/quote]
But yes, I’ve noticed that gay marriage advocates end up admitting that they would have no problem with polyamorous (or non-romantic arrangements) relationships also winning state recognition, if the argument goes on long enough.
[/quote]
I don’t know any advocates that hold that view. I myself am strongly opposed to it. If that is an acknowledged position then it is a naive one. If you don’t put a limit on the number included in marriage (2) than things become royally fucked up legally and morally. That much is common sense. [/quote]
Actually the number is just 1, your married to 1 other person. In a lot of things there is a big difference between 1 vs many, now once you start comparing 2 vs many it gets kind of arbitrary that 2 is your stopping point.
No you do not. I like that anti gay marriage arguments usually turn into “Then I can marry my dog or that rock or this STOP sign” because that is of course the natural progression of how marriage works. I actually don’t care about polygamy or polyandry, I don’t think they have anything in common with gay marriage, but I also have no real objection to them.[/quote]
But yes, I’ve noticed that gay marriage advocates end up admitting that they would have no problem with polyamorous (or non-romantic arrangements) relationships also winning state recognition, if the argument goes on long enough.
[/quote]
I don’t know any advocates that hold that view. I myself am strongly opposed to it. If that is an acknowledged position then it is a naive one. If you don’t put a limit on the number included in marriage (2) than things become royally fucked up legally and morally. That much is common sense. [/quote]
Actually the number is just 1, your married to 1 other person. In a lot of things there is a big difference between 1 vs many, now once you start comparing 2 vs many it gets kind of arbitrary that 2 is your stopping point.[/quote]
I meant that 2 people total are involved in a marriage. (Husband+Wife, Husband+Husband, Wife+Wife) There is no rational justification, legal or moral, to go beyond 2 persons involved.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So once marriage is re-defined in all 50 states will you try to redefine it? And if so, can I just use the argument that you have no rational reason to redefine it?[/quote]
No, because you don’t have millenia of precedent and it wouldn’t be ‘redefining’ it, it would be reverting to the norm - i.e. abolishing the redefinition that has already occurred.[/quote]
Do you believe that marriage is a man made institution?[/quote]
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
So once marriage is re-defined in all 50 states will you try to redefine it? And if so, can I just use the argument that you have no rational reason to redefine it?[/quote]
No, because you don’t have millenia of precedent and it wouldn’t be ‘redefining’ it, it would be reverting to the norm - i.e. abolishing the redefinition that has already occurred.[/quote]
Do you believe that marriage is a man made institution?[/quote]
No[/quote]
If it indeed a union ordained by God then? How are gays excluded from such a union if we have every indication that homosexuality is a perfectly natural occurrence?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
See my comments on page three of this thread.[/quote]
How do we define natural? By observing nature? Many animal species have been observed practicing homosexual acts. Again, its a minority. Humans, being highly evolved apes, also follow this paradigm. Even if that was not the case, which it is, we still would not be obligated to look toward animals as model of sexual behavior.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
they do not confer the same rights as marriage simply because they are not recognized in all states (some civil unions also are not on equal footing with marriage). If I am married to a woman and I live in any of the 50 states I am afforded the same rights in each one I can move anywhere in the US secure in the knowledge that my status has not changed. If I am gay and I get married in New York State and then move to Texas, my marriage is no longer recognized (at least not in Texas), how in the hell is that equal? [/quote]
You haven’t read the thread have you? It’s equal because the same is true of straight men. If a straight man married another straight man in New York State and then moved to Texas their marriage would no longer be recognised either.[/quote]
Good lord. refusing gay couples the same rights as straight couples is simple discrimination, using the argument that it isn’t because if two straight men married they would be denied the the same rights (even though they are straight) is ridiculous. Bear in mind that two men getting married is typically presumed to be a gay marriage, if two straight men get married (for benefits or tax breaks) how is that any different than a gay man and a lesbian woman getting married for the same reason, or even a hetero couple getting married for the same reason? the aasumption is that marriage is a commitment made out of love, mutual respect etc, not a scam for better insurance coverage. Your argument seems like nothing more than an excuse to discriminate against something/someone you don’t like.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
How do we define natural? By observing nature?
[/quote]
No. And if you’d read the comments of mine I directed you to on page three you’d know I’m not talking about observing nature and that I was responding to someone else who made the same argument you are making. These threads just keep going around in circles. It’s unnatural in half a dozen senses of the word including against natural law. And as I said earlier in the thread chimpanzees bugger their children and that doesn’t mean it’s ‘natural’ for human beings to do so.