Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

22

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.

23

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

:slight_smile:

24

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Let me guess, your next round will be “Why not let murderers and rapists murder and rape ifit makes them happy? so closeminded”

Right?

25

How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?

26

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).

In the 1950s almost all Americans would have agreed with you. Your line of thinking is nothing more than a dim vestige of our barbarous past. You can believe in any fairy tale you want as long as you keep it out of other people’s homes. “An invisible bearded man in the sky told me to” is not sufficient enough reason to enact oppressive legislation in modern America.

27

Regardless of personal views on the topic, nowhere in the constitution does the federal gov’t have the right to determine what marriage can be defined as. I personally think that we need to look at all laws in this context and whether people agree or not the law is the law. In addition to that, I feel the law can only be overturned in the courts.

They must rule that it is unconstitutional because it was passed in a legal manner. The determination of marriage status is a power that is reserved to the states to determine on their own. That being said, a LOT of laws would need to be overturned if we were to actually follow the constitution. Am I the only person who sees it this way?

28

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

There is of course the issue why governments would reward one form of lifestyle over another, financially, legally or otherwise.

So yes, it is a legitimate question, why not polygamy?

And mind you, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if you think that the state should force one group of people to support your own lifestyle choices gay marriage weakens that position.

29

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

There is of course the issue why governments would reward one form of lifestyle over another, financially, legally or otherwise.

So yes, it is a legitimate question, why not polygamy?

And mind you, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if you think that the state should force one group of people to support your own lifestyle choices gay marriage weakens that position.
[/quote]

I think the heart of the issue is “lifestyle choice”. Sexuality isn’t a choice (inasmuch as desires are concerned), but arrangement (binary, polyamory, polyandry, etc) is.

Its fairly obvious, though, that you bring up the issue as a legitimate concern regarding rights - bigots like Zeb bring it up so they can scream “Its the downfall of civilization! Those faggot weirdo’s want to ruin America! We’d have to let grown men marry children and plants and let dogs rape your grandmother if we allow two men to marry!”

30

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

There is of course the issue why governments would reward one form of lifestyle over another, financially, legally or otherwise.

So yes, it is a legitimate question, why not polygamy?

And mind you, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if you think that the state should force one group of people to support your own lifestyle choices gay marriage weakens that position.
[/quote]

I think the heart of the issue is “lifestyle choice”. Sexuality isn’t a choice (inasmuch as desires are concerned), but arrangement (binary, polyamory, polyandry, etc) is.

Its fairly obvious, though, that you bring up the issue as a legitimate concern regarding rights - bigots like Zeb bring it up so they can scream “Its the downfall of civilization! Those faggot weirdo’s want to ruin America! We’d have to let grown men marry children and plants and let dogs rape your grandmother if we allow two men to marry!”[/quote]

Yeah but he has a point.

I do not think that the end of state subsidies to traditional marriages would end them as we know it, I would expect that to strenghten them, but one of the reasons why I am all for gay marriage, polygamy and probably marrying your toaster is precisely because I think it would end those subsidies.

I find it weird that people who preach the sanctity of marriage think that people should be bribed in order to marry, but then again I do not really expect anyone to be honest when it comes to the war of everyone against everyone that a redistributing state turns our society into.

31

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

There is of course the issue why governments would reward one form of lifestyle over another, financially, legally or otherwise.

So yes, it is a legitimate question, why not polygamy?

And mind you, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if you think that the state should force one group of people to support your own lifestyle choices gay marriage weakens that position.
[/quote]

I think the heart of the issue is “lifestyle choice”. Sexuality isn’t a choice (inasmuch as desires are concerned), but arrangement (binary, polyamory, polyandry, etc) is.

Its fairly obvious, though, that you bring up the issue as a legitimate concern regarding rights - bigots like Zeb bring it up so they can scream “Its the downfall of civilization! Those faggot weirdo’s want to ruin America! We’d have to let grown men marry children and plants and let dogs rape your grandmother if we allow two men to marry!”[/quote]

Yeah but he has a point.

I do not think that the end of state subsidies to traditional marriages would end them as we know it, I would expect that to strenghten them, but one of the reasons why I am all for gay marriage, polygamy and probably marrying your toaster is precisely because I think it would end those subsidies.

I find it weird that people who preach the sanctity of marriage think that people should be bribed in order to marry, but then again I do not really expect anyone to be honest when it comes to the war of everyone against everyone that a redistributing state turns our society into.

[/quote]

He may incidently have a point, but it fails when you notice that hes just throwing around “things that are weird and bad” because he thinks gay marriage is weird and bad.

What I think is weird is that conservatives use the term “social engineering” as a big evil - yet thats exactly what marriage laws are.

32

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

On the other hand maybe we should allow polygamous and incestuous marriage. How dare the state deny these groups their fair share of happiness. It’s barbaric I tell you. Why those groups of people are treated like second class citizens.

[/quote]

Zeb,

You are an idiot, and a bigot. No one on these forums respects anything you say, and I, personally, hope you die.[/quote]

Why not open the flood gates to other weird arrangements? Tell me why homosexuals should top the list when we have polygamists and incestuous couples chomping at the bit. Who are YOU to deny them their happiness? Why do you want to enforce your morality on on others…tsk, tsk…very closed minded of you.

Oh and I wish you a long life and much happiness.

(see the difference between mean spirited liberals and kind hearted conservatives?)

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Let me guess, your next round will be “Why not let murderers and rapists murder and rape ifit makes them happy? so closeminded”

Right?[/quote]

How can you equate polygamists and incestuous couples with murderers and rapists? Tell me how in substance homosexual marriage differs from allowing other different types of marriages? Who is the bigot now?

33

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

How is it that people like you are trying to impose your moral values on large groups of people who desire the same rights as homosexual couples are trying to get?

BIGOT!

34

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral.

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).[/quote]

Not so fast, according to a recent Gallup poll the majority of Americans are against same sex marriage. But they’re all bigots anyway. They probably also oppose marriage for polygamists and incestuous couples. Why is it that the majority of Americans want to impose their moral values on the rest of us? Sheesh.

In all fairness however to all polls I thik this issue pretty much cuts along generational lines. So it really depends on who you poll.

35

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

There is of course the issue why governments would reward one form of lifestyle over another, financially, legally or otherwise.

So yes, it is a legitimate question, why not polygamy?

And mind you, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if you think that the state should force one group of people to support your own lifestyle choices gay marriage weakens that position.

[/quote]

Once again orion is the voice of logic.

36

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral.

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).[/quote]

Not so fast, according to a recent Gallup poll the majority of Americans are against same sex marriage. But they’re all bigots anyway. They probably also oppose marriage for polygamists and incestuous couples. Why is it that the majority of Americans want to impose their moral values on the rest of us? Sheesh.

In all fairness however to all polls I thik this issue pretty much cuts along generational lines. So it really depends on who you poll. [/quote]

The poll I used was a legitimate one, as was yours. Such is the nature of using opinion polls in argument.

The substance of my point was in the rest of my post.

37

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is an excellent discussion of the political fallout that will likely occur:

EXCERPT:

If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Hereâ??s what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congressâ??s power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.[/quote]

Picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore is what goes on in every city, county, state, and federal district as we speak. Usually based on the prefernces of those in power. US law was intended to deal with DIRECT ‘Force or Fraud’ matters.
Any idealogy, moral code, or religion that requires laws that punish others that behave in a manner it objects to, is malevolent by nature, and therefore without credibiliy. If your arguement is so weak you are unable to persuade others…

38

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.

39

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

40

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation.