You have missed my point. Your position is much closer to that of Hitler/Stalin etc. in that you wish to use the state/law to PUNISH others that behave in a manner you disagree with. There are things that the law should have nothing to so with, regardless of how the majority feels.
[/quote]
OMGDZ, you just compared Obama to Hitler.
Racist.
[/quote]
I am comparing anyone that advocates using the state/law to control matters where no DIRECT force or fraud exists to a fascist.
So your main problems is that you have to pay for their behavior?
If you have the same problem with other kinds of risk taking your problem is basically that there is a bunch of people who want to turn the whole planet into a padded cell where noone is responsible for anything. Good on you, but how is that the the fault of homosexuals?
On the other hand, if homosexuality does bother you more than say, drunk driving, or, I dunno, bowling (dangerous, dangerous sport, look it up), well, you kust might be a tad irrational when it comes to ze gayz.
[/quote]
What two people do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. But it becomes my business when I have to open my wallet to pay for their stupidity.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Zeb, what exactly is your objection to homosexuality?
(The only one I’ve even remotely understood is the biblical prohibition; if you believe in God it makes some sense to take that seriously, though not to enshrine it in law. Apart from that, I simply don’t understand.)[/quote]
I just feel really badly for those other minorities who are down trodden. No one seems to care that there are other “different” types of relationships that are not going to get what homosexuals are getting. I think it’s only fair to give the rights that homosexuals want to all groups don’t you? You don’t want polygamists or those who practice incestual relationships to be discriminated against do you? I sure don’t. Don’t they have feelings too? Why must we minimize their relationships?
You seem like someone who has great compassion for people so I’m sure you’ll agree.[/quote]
Polygamy is a choice. A man observes society and decides that he wants to marry more than one woman. To deny him the privilege of polygamy is to deny him something he WANTS.
Homosexuality is in some people’s making. For as long as I can remember, when I look at a beautiful woman I feel lust and attraction–not by choice, but by necessity. Maybe you do to. Now imagine those feelings arising only when you see men. To deny people the right to act upon a desire of such strength is to deny them the right to be.
Meanwhile, the polygamist creep wants to marry ten chicks…because he wants to. He wasn’t born with some urge to marry many women that I am missing. It is not in his genetic makeup. He just decided (or his fucking imbecile religious leaders decided) that that’s what he wanted.
[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?)
[/quote]
Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.
I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.
[/quote]
Really?
Then make an argument that can be made aginst polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, that cannot be turned around and made against gay marriage.
[/quote]
Fucking seriously?
Multiple person arrangements are fundamentally different than binary contracts, Orion. A gay marriage would be, in every way, exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage (legally speaking).
With a poly relationship, you have many more complications - say one partner dies, and the remaining two disagree on what to do with the estate. There are a wealth of complications that would arise from multiple person marriages none of which would apply to a homosexual marriage.
I expect this shit from idiots like Zeb, please dont do this “Oh yeah, you have to defend poly/incestuous/animal marriage too!” shit.
Poly/Incest marriage isn’t relevant here. I don’t know why it came up. Why do we have to discuss polygamy when talking about gay marriage? The two are unrelated. You can be gay and poly or gay and mono, but it doesn’t matter because if you’re gay you’re fucked.
I don’t see an argument against gay marriage here aside from “it’s immoral”, “religious opposition”, “no more babies” and “polygamy and incest!”
You define your morality as you see fit, but the government has no place pushing that morality on other people unless it causes harm to a person (oh, I get it, you’ll spontaneously combust if a gay couple marries. It’s about self preservation. Carry on.)
The lower birthrate doesn’t mean shit. Did you know that by 2050 the Earth’s population isn’t going to be sustainable? I’m glad you want it so high, but fuck you, I want to hit 70. Even stupider, is that whether or not gays could marry wouldn’t lower the birthrate at all, because married or unmarried, they’re still not having kids. Maybe keeping gay guys apart turns every occurrence of twins into triplets?
The lower birthrate doesn’t mean shit. Did you know that by 2050 the Earth’s population isn’t going to be sustainable? I’m glad you want it so high, but fuck you, I want to hit 70. Even stupider, is that whether or not gays could marry wouldn’t lower the birthrate at all, because married or unmarried, they’re still not having kids. Maybe keeping gay guys apart turns every occurrence of twins into triplets?[/quote]
Looked it up the other day, the number they had projected for 2050 is going to come 'round closer to 2030. People are fucking and reproducing at an alarming rate. Completely irrelevant, as you pointed out, but people need to pull their heads out of their asses.
THIS is the shit that gets people’s blood boiling?
The lower birthrate doesn’t mean shit. Did you know that by 2050 the Earth’s population isn’t going to be sustainable? I’m glad you want it so high, but fuck you, I want to hit 70. Even stupider, is that whether or not gays could marry wouldn’t lower the birthrate at all, because married or unmarried, they’re still not having kids. Maybe keeping gay guys apart turns every occurrence of twins into triplets?[/quote]
Looked it up the other day, the number they had projected for 2050 is going to come 'round closer to 2030. People are fucking and reproducing at an alarming rate. Completely irrelevant, as you pointed out, but people need to pull their heads out of their asses.
THIS is the shit that gets people’s blood boiling?[/quote]
They dont care about population, or birth rates, or STDs, or morality, or fairness, or society, or the sanctity of marriage, or any of the bullshit they come up with.
What they care about is they arent comfortable with the idea of homosexuality, and want to suppress the expression of it in other people.
None of the rationalizations for bigotry hold up to any kind of consistency. The religous idiots (yes, you believe in magical sky wizards and talking snakes - fuck your religion) who claim religious opposition don’t have the same opposition to other things their ridiculous magic book says (such as divorce). When was the last time you saw a group of christians picketing a court or law firm with signs saying “GOD HATES NO FAULT DIVORCE”? Never, because they dont care what the bible says unless it furthers their own bigotry.
Same with the birthrate folk. You point out that we actually have overpopulation problems, and they dont care. Population doesn’t actually matter to them, unless it furthers their own bigotry.
Are the “high incidence of STDs in the gay community” folk supporting sexual education, access to condoms/other protective devices, increased testing? Nope. They dont actually care about STDs.
It goes on and on. Stupid bigots think they can offer up rice paper thin arguments and scream “I’m not a bigot! I’m just concerned with birthrates and STDs and my religion! :)”
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.[/quote]
Test the boundaries my ass. If I claim I’m free to wear a yellow hat, will you need to “test the boundaries” of my claim of freedom against rape, murder, genocide, or theft? Just how “free” am I, exactly? Why is one freedom different than another freedom?
How dare we oppress murderers and rapists.
There’s no damn reason to “test the boundaries” other than to eventually get to a hypo someone doesn’t agree with and say “Well unless you can make a case for (incest/polygamy/raping your sister with a brick), you have no case for gay marriage either! You’re a bigot too!”
Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. [/quote]
It has everything to do with the topic but because you are a first class BIGOT and a hate monger you don’t want to talk about the rights of other classes of people who have been discriminated against.
More liberal hate. When anyone looks like they might be wondering off the liberal politically correct talking points they’re met with wishes for death by some and simply “shut up” by others. Also you’re known as an Internet tough guy so that probably plays into this blather.
I’m the one who wants to include other groups of people into this equation and you’re the one who only wants to give certain rights to homosexuals. You’re the bigot and an idiot as well. But then you know about that last part as I’ve pointed it out to you before.
Well, if the shoe fits…
[quote]And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.
[/quote]
Let me get this right. You are pro homosexuals getting married, however you insult my smiley faces by calling them gay, which is a put down. I see…well this is about up to par with the rest of your logic.
Anyway about the smiley faces, why don’t we do this, the next time you see me make a smiley face just think of it as me walking up to you and sticking my middle finger in your face, (and I mean right in your face) and smiling. Ready?
[/quote]
Its an irrelevant extrapolation. Gay marriage will not and should not lead to polygamy. If that’s the best you’ve got you’ll have to do better.
Ya, I thought the gay joke at the end of it was hilarious. I hope everyone here who is gay got the joke and found it hysterical too.
Thats actually exactly the way I read your smiley faces BTW, and its completely hilarious. If this were real life, and its not, I would be surprised if you were the sort of man who felt like walking up to a man like me and sticking anything in my face. But I hope the internet version helps keep your manliness intact.
And as far as being an internet tough guy, your opinion really doesn’t bother me until you start belittling others and acting like a bigot. I don’t understand why the mods allow you to harass gay people on this site the way you do (and it is sexual harassment by the way). You’re repeatedly persecuting specific people on this board and its not okay. Being pro straight marriage is one thing, but being anti gay is another.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Test the boundaries my ass. If I claim I’m free to wear a yellow hat, will you need to “test the boundaries” of my claim of freedom against rape, murder, genocide, or theft? Just how “free” am I, exactly? Why is one freedom different than another freedom?
How dare we oppress murderers and rapists.
There’s no damn reason to “test the boundaries” other than to eventually get to a hypo someone doesn’t agree with and say “Well unless you can make a case for (incest/polygamy/raping your sister with a brick), you have no case for gay marriage either! You’re a bigot too!”
[/quote]
No, the issue is the boundaries of the individual right. If you claim the right to wear a hat, why not two hats, or three? An old had or a new hat?
In this case, the claim is that an adult has the right to marry. This is claimed as a fundamental right. This is packed in legal baggage, under Constitutional law. It means that the state can’t restrict it in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. This, again, is packed with legal implications - to grossly summarize, it means it’s really hard to restrict, and the burden of proof is on the state to establish that its restriction is valid.
Bestiality? Probably distinguishable, but I couldn’t prove it to you under current case law. Polygamy? Under that definition (individual adult right), I wouldn’t want to lay odds. Incest? Similarly open. Children? Almost certainly distinguishable - I’m most confident that wouldn’t be allowed (though again I couldn’t prove it to you with precedent, which is why the question arises).
That’s the issue with the individual right understanding of what is essentially a governmental benefit package. And it’s also a problem with trying to have a court cram a universal solution onto an issue best addressed at the legislative level.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.[/quote]
I can understand the ideology, but it’s also flawed in that polygamy, incest, etc., all have key areas where they differ in structure entirely with their own slew of problems. The argument is thus flawed.
The argument for gay marriage is the argument that a black horse is not a horse because horses can only be white.
The argument for polygamy or incest is the argument that a zebra is a horse. If the black horse can get in and be classified as a horse with the white horse, there’s no reason the striped equine shouldn’t. Except for the numerous differences between a zebra and a horse that differentiate between the two.
You do not argue that a horse can be black means a zebra can be a horse. Because that is stupid. It is built on the same premise- look, different colored equines can be horses too!- Except in the first case there’s an identical function except for a single detail, whereas while the second case may resemble the first one at sight, any logical inspection will find that it falls insufficiently short and isn’t relevant to refuting whether or not a horse can be black.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.[/quote]
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
I can understand the ideology, but it’s also flawed in that polygamy, incest, etc., all have key areas where they differ in structure entirely with their own slew of problems. The argument is thus flawed.
The argument for gay marriage is the argument that a black horse is not a horse because horses can only be white.
The argument for polygamy or incest is the argument that a zebra is a horse. If the black horse can get in and be classified as a horse with the white horse, there’s no reason the striped equine shouldn’t. Except for the numerous differences between a zebra and a horse that differentiate between the two.
You do not argue that a horse can be black means a zebra can be a horse. Because that is stupid. It is built on the same premise- look, different colored equines can be horses too!- Except in the first case there’s an identical function except for a single detail, whereas while the second case may resemble the first one at sight, any logical inspection will find that it falls insufficiently short and isn’t relevant to refuting whether or not a horse can be black.[/quote]
No, here’s the thing. I never said they weren’t distinguishable. Pretty much anything is distinguishable from anything else. Twins are distinguishable from each other on lots of counts. The issue is, are they distinguishable enough under the principle establishing a right, and under the legal principles governing the right, to be separable? And that is not known now - which is why it always comes up in the discussion.
On your example from biology, one doesn’t argue a wolf is a dog - but one does admit that both chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are dogs. The key is in the details, and the decision is made after hashing through them. On the surface, why is it that a Husky and a chihuahua are both dogs, but a wolf and a Husky are not both dogs?
In our system of precedents and courts, you can bet that if there is an open question on whether a legal right should apply in an instance in which it does not currently apply, some one will eventually sue to test the question. If you don’t believe me, think about the whole subject again.
Here, the starting point and definition in some of the state-level cases is that an adult has the right to marry. If it is an individual right, the boundaries of that right will be established by further litigation (unless you have a Constitutional amendment that comes up to constrain the process).
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK - the reason why polyamory/gmy, incest, child marriage and bestiality continually come up in these discussions is because of the theory underscoring the argument.
If the theory is that an adult has an individual right to marry, that gives rise to the following question: marry whom?
The argument against the restriction on gender is that it is arbitrary and capricious (legal term of art), which leads to the question of which boundaries would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Thus, for people who answer the above question “Another consenting adult”, they need to answer why number is not arbitrary and capricious if gender is arbitrary and capricious. Or why genetic relation is important.
And getting further down the road of hypos, why a person should be barred from exercising his fundamental right with an animal, if he so chooses, if the animal isn’t being harmed.
So, in essence, people throw out known situations to test the boundaries. And, the fact of the matter is that if marriage is an individual right, those questions are open. That’s one reason why it has not been understood, up to this current argument, as an individual right.
This is all due to the fact this is being played out in court cases about an individual right of marriage. If one wishes to avoid the hypos, it might be better to go through the legislative process to effect the changes one wants in the laws.[/quote]
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
I can understand the ideology, but it’s also flawed in that polygamy, incest, etc., all have key areas where they differ in structure entirely with their own slew of problems. The argument is thus flawed.
The argument for gay marriage is the argument that a black horse is not a horse because horses can only be white.
The argument for polygamy or incest is the argument that a zebra is a horse. If the black horse can get in and be classified as a horse with the white horse, there’s no reason the striped equine shouldn’t. Except for the numerous differences between a zebra and a horse that differentiate between the two.
You do not argue that a horse can be black means a zebra can be a horse. Because that is stupid. It is built on the same premise- look, different colored equines can be horses too!- Except in the first case there’s an identical function except for a single detail, whereas while the second case may resemble the first one at sight, any logical inspection will find that it falls insufficiently short and isn’t relevant to refuting whether or not a horse can be black.[/quote]
No, here’s the thing. I never said they weren’t distinguishable. Pretty much anything is distinguishable from anything else. Twins are distinguishable from each other on lots of counts. The issue is, are they distinguishable enough under the principle establishing a right, and under the legal principles governing the right, to be separable? And that is not known now - which is why it always comes up in the discussion.
On your example from biology, one doesn’t argue a wolf is a dog - but one does admit that both chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are dogs. The key is in the details, and the decision is made after hashing through them. On the surface, why is it that a Husky and a chihuahua are both dogs, but a wolf and a Husky are not both dogs?
In our system of precedents and courts, you can bet that if there is an open question on whether a legal right should apply in an instance in which it does not currently apply, some one will eventually sue to test the question. If you don’t believe me, think about the whole subject again.
Here, the starting point and definition in some of the state-level cases is that an adult has the right to marry. If it is an individual right, the boundaries of that right will be established by further litigation (unless you have a Constitutional amendment that comes up to constrain the process).
[/quote]
I am not arguing that there is not a case for polygamy or incest. (Not saying you are, just clarifying.)
What I am saying is that it doesn’t have a place in a debate about gay marriage. Will gay marriage set a precedent? Sure, in the same way blacks marrying white did. It’s a separate issue, and that issue can be addressed if people really want it to- but in it’s own time.
To say “but first, what about this other issue?” when the issue has key differences separating it from this one not only overcomplicates the entire process, but brings nothing new or important tot he issue actually at hand. Should have polygamists have the right to marry ten people? Sure? Maybe? I don’t care? We can give polygamists their own damn thread.
Polygamists and incestual couples should not determine whether or not gay people can marry. They aren’t relevant. The precedent this would set is worth examining, most certainly, but it does not justify discrimination. The precedent would give polygamist and incestual couples another point to argue with, most certainly, and any movements supporting either issue could use that to gain support and leverage. However, at the end of the day, they are different issues and will be treated differently.
They are not a point against gay marriage though. Gay marriage is an asset to them in the same way blacks marrying whites is an asset to them. Their cause is separate and needs to be treated as such. If we value the entire gay marriage debate as nothing but a precedent, we lose sight of the issue at hand and it sets a horrible precedent in it’s own- throwing away an issue because it’s precedent could serve another controversial cause.
As for the dog thing, I know nothing about dogs at all so I wiki’d it. Irrelevant to your point, but I thought this was cool stuff anyway:
So apparently, all dogs were originally gray wolves. We’ve simply fucked with their breeding so much that they ended up vastly different.
So your main problems is that you have to pay for their behavior?
If you have the same problem with other kinds of risk taking your problem is basically that there is a bunch of people who want to turn the whole planet into a padded cell where noone is responsible for anything. Good on you, but how is that the the fault of homosexuals?
On the other hand, if homosexuality does bother you more than say, drunk driving, or, I dunno, bowling (dangerous, dangerous sport, look it up), well, you kust might be a tad irrational when it comes to ze gayz.
[/quote]
What two people do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. But it becomes my business when I have to open my wallet to pay for their stupidity.
[/quote]
So first they are forced to cough up moeny for other people and then this is used as an excuse for even further intrusions into their lives?
[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?)
[/quote]
Your argument is a flimsy straw man, no one is arguing the case for polygamous marriage or incestuous behavior and it has nothing to do with the topic. Shut up.
I agree, almost everything I’ve read from you comes across as hateful and bigoted. You really are the definition of a bigot actually, you read like an insincere nanny talking to a bunch of children. And your little smirk face at the end of posts is without a doubt the gayest thing i’ve seen in my life.
[/quote]
Really?
Then make an argument that can be made aginst polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, that cannot be turned around and made against gay marriage.
[/quote]
Fucking seriously?
Multiple person arrangements are fundamentally different than binary contracts, Orion. A gay marriage would be, in every way, exactly the same as a heterosexual marriage (legally speaking).
With a poly relationship, you have many more complications - say one partner dies, and the remaining two disagree on what to do with the estate. There are a wealth of complications that would arise from multiple person marriages none of which would apply to a homosexual marriage.
I expect this shit from idiots like Zeb, please dont do this “Oh yeah, you have to defend poly/incestuous/animal marriage too!” shit.
[/quote]
That is all you got?
Technical difficulties?
People die all the time and leave property behind and it is rare that there is only one person left to inherit the stuff.
Make a short ammendment to inheritance laws, problem solved.
[quote]Reygekan wrote:
Poly/Incest marriage isn’t relevant here. I don’t know why it came up. Why do we have to discuss polygamy when talking about gay marriage? The two are unrelated. You can be gay and poly or gay and mono, but it doesn’t matter because if you’re gay you’re fucked.
I don’t see an argument against gay marriage here aside from “it’s immoral”, “religious opposition”, “no more babies” and “polygamy and incest!”
You define your morality as you see fit, but the government has no place pushing that morality on other people unless it causes harm to a person (oh, I get it, you’ll spontaneously combust if a gay couple marries. It’s about self preservation. Carry on.)
The lower birthrate doesn’t mean shit. Did you know that by 2050 the Earth’s population isn’t going to be sustainable? I’m glad you want it so high, but fuck you, I want to hit 70. Even stupider, is that whether or not gays could marry wouldn’t lower the birthrate at all, because married or unmarried, they’re still not having kids. Maybe keeping gay guys apart turns every occurrence of twins into triplets?[/quote]
???
So government has no business defining morality when it comes to homosexuality but it has when it comes to polygamy?
Also, marrying animals is easy, you cannot have a contract with an animal.
No, the issue is the boundaries of the individual right. If you claim the right to wear a hat, why not two hats, or three? An old had or a new hat?
In this case, the claim is that an adult has the right to marry. This is claimed as a fundamental right. This is packed in legal baggage, under Constitutional law. It means that the state can’t restrict it in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. This, again, is packed with legal implications - to grossly summarize, it means it’s really hard to restrict, and the burden of proof is on the state to establish that its restriction is valid.
Bestiality? Probably distinguishable, but I couldn’t prove it to you under current case law. Polygamy? Under that definition (individual adult right), I wouldn’t want to lay odds. Incest? Similarly open. Children? Almost certainly distinguishable - I’m most confident that wouldn’t be allowed (though again I couldn’t prove it to you with precedent, which is why the question arises).
That’s the issue with the individual right understanding of what is essentially a governmental benefit package. And it’s also a problem with trying to have a court cram a universal solution onto an issue best addressed at the legislative level.
[/quote]
Basically this.
You could make a case against bestiality maybe even incestious marriages (tricky, but maybe) but polygamy?
How?
The number of people involved is as arbitrary as gender and if we drag religion into it even borders on religious discrimination.
[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. [/quote]
Then why don’t you support laws making it illegal for someone to marry if they’re already divorced and not annulled?
Why don’t you support laws making it illegal to marry if you practice sex that doesn’t always include vaginal intercourse?[/quote]
I don’t think the state should be involved, just because I am against same-sex marriage doesn’t mean I’m not against the state intervening. And your last sentence doesn’t make sense, if someone practices sex that doesn’t always include vaginal intercourse that doesn’t mean it won’t produce children when they do have vaginal intercourse. Same-sex marriage will never produce children. However, I do support correcting those that practice immoral sex which as you said includes the conjugal act when it is not finished in the vaginal canal.
[/quote]
If you don’t think the state should disallow immoral unions with the divorced or with people that don’t always have vaginal sex, then the state shouldn’t disallow gay marriages, even if you similarly consider them immoral.[/quote]
I do not think you quite understand what I am talking about:
I am against same-sex marriage on a moral stance. Has nothing to do with the state (some what, but not ultimately).
I am against the state interfering with marriage on an economical stance. Has to do with morals, &c.
I think it is an utterly immoral act; however, I am against this because economically it is bad politics, I also would like it if they stopped paying heterosexual people when they get married. I am against same-sex marriage whether there is a State or not. I am against the State stealing from one to give to another no matter what the situation is or is not.
[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]
This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]
Yeah, and I can’t do any of that with my friend. I was talking about the hospital and power of attorney, both of those are relatively easy.[/quote]
But you can do all of that with your spouse. Which is kinda the point.[/quote]
Yes, because she would be part of my immediate family.[/quote]
My partner is part of my immediate family.[/quote]
