Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 6:37pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And you can use that same logic to condemn those who want polygamist, or incestuous marriage.

[/quote]

Yes, my point being that the logic can be used to condemn many things and is perhaps not the best foundation for law in our country.[/quote]

I agree but when someone calls polygamists “creeps” they are not using logic are they? They are simply allowing their hatred to show through.

Schlenkatank · February 25, 2011, 6:58pm

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
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.[/quote]

No, not at all. You are the one who has to do better. I am insisting on equal rights for all. And if a brother and sister want to marry what gives YOU the right to tell them they cannot have that sort of happiness?

Oh now you’re saying that your bigoted statement was a joke. Well maybe if you were gay you wouldn’t be so flippant to use the term “gay” as a put down. I am not gay but I am personally offended by the use of gay as an insult. You can cover it up by calling it a joke but we all now know how you think.

Good…

You are the one who wants to deny polygamists and those involved in incestual relationships the right to happiness through marriage. And you are the one who uses the word “gay” as an insult. That makes YOU the bigot. You make me sick BIGOT.

[quote]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]

You’re very confused, I’m the one who wants equal rights for ALL minority groups. How is that wrong? YOU are the one who wants to promote only one group. That means that you are a bigot.

And what about your comment? We are all supposed to walk away and think that you were just kidding when you used the word “gay” as an insult? That’s a joke to you?

You’re a sick man, a very sick man.

[/quote]

bigot
adjective

A person who is obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

You need help, you’re not making any sense you’re just being defiant.

Brothers and sisters can’t marry because if they have a kid there’s a great chance it will have a birth defect. Pretty simple stuff, it still has nothing to do with gay marriage.[/quote]

You’ve just described yourself to the letter. You are a bigot, simple. Why don’t you admit that you don’t want to see polygamists marry because it does not fit your lifestyle. You are trying to push your moral values on the rest of the country and that’s a manifestation of hatred. Therefore, you find reasons to not elevate them to the status of others who have marriage rights. You minimize their loving relationships, why? Why do you hate them? And why do you hate those in incestuous relationships who want to get married? You are hiding behind the possibility of their children having a birth defect? That is very thin indeed. Almost like saying a homosexual couple shouldn’t marry because they cannot procreate. If you’re that worried about a child having a birth defect simply offer sterility as an option for those who want to marry, problem solved. But no you are not looking for answers, you’re looking for ways to discriminate.

Stop discriminating BIGOT!

:)[/quote]

There is a difference between me calling you a bigot for saying “god does not want gays to have children”, and you calling me a bigot because I want to protect children from the real threat of birth defects resulting from incestuous marriage. And even if there was a law that required incestuous couples to be sterilized almost 100% of incest is abusive, most relationships occur between father and daughter or older brother and sister ( Incest - Wikipedia ). There is absolutely no comparison between that sort of activity and gay marriage.

As for your polygamy argument, there’s a very inherent threat of abusive relationships associated with polygamy as well. That’s a no brainer.

Your comparisons wont work unless you can prove that gay marriages are abusive, cause birth defects, or are even remotely harmful to society in any way. I don’t see how you could accomplish that.

forlife · February 25, 2011, 7:40pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris 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]

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]

It’s fine if you are against providing government benefits to straight couples. The point is that currently the laws are discriminatory, because they don’t provide the same benefits to committed gay couples.

forlife · February 25, 2011, 7:43pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife 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]

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]

Really, so ya’ll two are popping out babies?[/quote]

So an infertile straight couple isn’t a “real family”? lol

ZEB · February 25, 2011, 7:45pm

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
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.[/quote]

No, not at all. You are the one who has to do better. I am insisting on equal rights for all. And if a brother and sister want to marry what gives YOU the right to tell them they cannot have that sort of happiness?

Oh now you’re saying that your bigoted statement was a joke. Well maybe if you were gay you wouldn’t be so flippant to use the term “gay” as a put down. I am not gay but I am personally offended by the use of gay as an insult. You can cover it up by calling it a joke but we all now know how you think.

Good…

You are the one who wants to deny polygamists and those involved in incestual relationships the right to happiness through marriage. And you are the one who uses the word “gay” as an insult. That makes YOU the bigot. You make me sick BIGOT.

[quote]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]

You’re very confused, I’m the one who wants equal rights for ALL minority groups. How is that wrong? YOU are the one who wants to promote only one group. That means that you are a bigot.

And what about your comment? We are all supposed to walk away and think that you were just kidding when you used the word “gay” as an insult? That’s a joke to you?

You’re a sick man, a very sick man.

[/quote]

bigot
adjective

A person who is obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

You need help, you’re not making any sense you’re just being defiant.

Brothers and sisters can’t marry because if they have a kid there’s a great chance it will have a birth defect. Pretty simple stuff, it still has nothing to do with gay marriage.[/quote]

You’ve just described yourself to the letter. You are a bigot, simple. Why don’t you admit that you don’t want to see polygamists marry because it does not fit your lifestyle. You are trying to push your moral values on the rest of the country and that’s a manifestation of hatred. Therefore, you find reasons to not elevate them to the status of others who have marriage rights. You minimize their loving relationships, why? Why do you hate them? And why do you hate those in incestuous relationships who want to get married? You are hiding behind the possibility of their children having a birth defect? That is very thin indeed. Almost like saying a homosexual couple shouldn’t marry because they cannot procreate. If you’re that worried about a child having a birth defect simply offer sterility as an option for those who want to marry, problem solved. But no you are not looking for answers, you’re looking for ways to discriminate.

Stop discriminating BIGOT!

:)[/quote]

There is a difference between me calling you a bigot for saying “god does not want gays to have children”, and you calling me a bigot because I want to protect children from the real threat of birth defects resulting from incestuous marriage. [/quote]

You’re all confused. I never once said that God does not want gays to have children. Not once, ever. So now you’re not only a bigot but a liar as well. What I did say was that if two people of the same sex marry they cannot have children naturally. And Iv’e already addressed that nonsense about birth defects. All they have to do is prove they are unable to bear children and the problem goes away.

Prove it.

So you’re saying because some relationships are abusive that it is wrong to promote incestual marriage. And I say you’ve proven nothing and secondly even if some are abusive not all are abusive. 67% of all new HIV cases are from homosexual men. Are you screaming about how homosexuality should be reduced? No. Why is that? Is it because you’re a politically correct bot who merely repeats what the politically correct want him to repeat? Suddenly you’re worried about abuse, sickness etc. My what a change of heart you’ve had. You’re a joke…you know that right?

Prove it. You love to throw things out there but you’ve given no proof of any of this. There are many loving groups of people who want to get married and the state will not allow it. Now drop the facade. You might come around in 10 years time when the politically correct tell you it’s cool to back polygamy. Once again you’re a joke. I doubt you’ve ever had an original thought in your life.

[quote]Your comparisons wont work unless you can prove that gay marriages are abusive, cause birth defects, or are even remotely harmful to society in any way. I don’t see how you could accomplish that.
[/quote]

I don’t have to prove anything. I am the one who is for all consenting adults having the right to be married. You have taken the position that only homosexual’s have that right. now the onus is on you to prove that polygamous and incestuous couples are somehow a danger to society.

Don’t post back until you have that proof because so far all you’ve done is parade your bigotry around this thread and it’s become tiresome.

jre67t · February 25, 2011, 10:04pm

So an infertile straight couple isn’t a “real family”? lol

Not by blood my friend. We going to S4 tonite?

orion · February 25, 2011, 10:12pm

[quote]jre67t wrote:

So an infertile straight couple isn’t a “real family”? lol

Not by blood my friend. We going to S4 tonite? [/quote]

Wait, I just realized that incestious relationships would indeed be “family”.

More so than any other marriage.

orion · February 25, 2011, 10:14pm

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schlenkatank 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?)

[/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]

Example =/= argument.

When you have to make “short ammendments” to many laws because a myriad of “technical difficulties” arise - the situation is fundamentally different.

Also, you asked for an argument against poly marriage that could not be used against gay marriage. You got one, now you want to pick apart my one example.[/quote]

Well, gay marriage needs some changes in the law, so would polygamy.

I also do not see how the situation is fundamentally different, in what way?

Brother_Chris · February 25, 2011, 10:17pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Not always does a majority show the truth.

[/quote]

Mmmmmnhhh, is that so?

[/quote]

Correct.

Brother_Chris · February 25, 2011, 10:20pm

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Universal Rule Utilitarianism can be used to unjustly criticize any number of otherwise harmless practices.

For example: You are a Catholic. Ascetics under the Rule of St. Benedict live under a vow of absolute chastity. The logic with which you condemned homosexuality works to condemn religious chastity as well.

But it doesn’t even matter because, thankfully, law in the United States does not consider universal rule utilitarianism.[/quote]

I’m not fully aware of Universal Rule Utilitarianism, I have not gotten to that, yet. Would you explain to me how it works in this case of the of a vow of absolute chastity?

Brother_Chris · February 25, 2011, 10:22pm