[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[/quote]
He should go ask Elmo which bowls are okay to put in his mouth and which ones are below the age of consent.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]
Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?[/quote]
I would not say oppressed , but I would say unequal at least in RE: to tax code
[/quote]
And?
So should the government get out of the marriage facilitation racket all together or force people to get married?[/quote]
No Marriage is a Religious thing , Divorce is a function of Government.
But Gay people have until recently never been permitted to take advantage of the state of Marriage just as until this Century have Blacks votes been allowed to be counted
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
But Gay people have until recently never been permitted to take advantage of the state of Marriage
[/quote]
I know a couple people that are going to be surprised when they find out they weren’t actually married for all those decades, because random internet people can’t refrain from conflating.
conflating Combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one: “the urban crisis conflates a number of different economic and social issues”. ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
No Marriage is a Religious thing , Divorce is a function of Government.[/quote]
Marriage predates and transcends most religions and civilizations, to say marriage is a religious thing is like saying travelling or migration is an automobile or wheel thing. It was co-opted by tyrants to perpetuate their tyranny.
[quote]But Gay people have until recently never been permitted to take advantage of the state of Marriage just as until this Century have Blacks votes been allowed to be counted
[/quote]
Gay people can’t and won’t take advantage of the state of marriage equally to heterosexuals ever and no amount of government action will make it so just as millions dead and a century-and-a-half after the war to end slavery there’s an uproar when Zimmerman is acquitted.
CB,
At the end of the day, it is in fact, discrimination. However as you’ve pointed out, we discriminate in all sorts of ways to the benefit of society; discrimination against pedophiles is an example. We can easily justify the discrimination in the case of pedophiles.
So my question to you is; how would you justify discrimination against gay marriage?
Edit: Furthering the question; do you believe that denying homosexual marriages the same federal status and rights that are/were afforded to heterosexual marriages, beneficial to society? Why?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]
Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?[/quote]
Exactly. State recognized marriage is discriminatory, period. Adding a whopping one other form of imaginative consenting relationship doesn’t change that. The folks using phrases and terms; not equal, oppressed, repression, are full of it. Unless, their ultimate position is that state-recognized marriage should end. Or, that “married” simply become “Adult US Citizen.”
Simply adding homosexual marriage isn’t ‘anti-bigotry.’ Wow, one other associative arrangement. How daring. In fact, it’s bigoted. Raise up this relationship above all others still left behind, without a critical justification?
Heterosexual marriage inherently carries with it all the justification it needs. Why? Because heterosexual sex will happen. Therefore, reproduction will happen. Therefore, society as whole is impacted significantly by how heterosexuality is ordered. Go to a ghetto where heterosexuality is certainly alive and well, but not ordered into intact homes. Criminality, education cut short, poverty, etc.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]
Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?[/quote]
Exactly. State recognized marriage is discriminatory, period. Adding a whopping one other form of imaginative consenting relationship doesn’t change that. The folks using phrases and terms; not equal, oppressed, repression, are full of it. Unless, they’re ultimate position is that state-recognized marriage should end. Or, that “married” simply become “Adult US Citizen.”
Simply adding homosexual marriage isn’t ‘anti-bigotry.’ Wow, one other associative arrangement. How daring. In fact, it’s bigoted. Raise up this relationship above all others still left behind, without a critical justification?
Heterosexual marriage inherently carries with it all the justification it needs. Why? Because heterosexual sex will happen. Therefore, reproduction will happen. Therefore, society as whole is impacted significantly by how heterosexuality is ordered. Go to a ghetto where heterosexuality is certainly alive and well, but not ordered into intact homes. Criminality, education cut short, poverty, etc.
[/quote]
Sloth, do you believe that homosexuality is just another form of love? If not, why?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I highly encourage all those who support DOMA and are opposed to gay marriage to read this.
You already know what I’m gonna say to that. Don’t ya? Because I’m your favorite bigoted, intolerant, anachronistic, antique, ignorant, ultra right wing, fundamentalist religious extremist nut case. Whose kind should really die off and the sooner the better.
What it is Sparky? Always great to see ya buddy. Don’t you dare come over to this side of the state again without given me a holler ya hear me? my screen name @ gmail dot com.[/quote]
I’ll do that. I’m hoping to get over to the other side of this great state sometime soon for a Tigers game. Would be cool to get together, have a few beers, and convert you over to non-belief. LOL
[quote]lucasa wrote:
First, I wish you luck arguing with a devout atheist.[/quote]
I don’t have to be “devout” to be an atheist, I simply have to “not believe” to be an atheist.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
It’s like trying to convince the proverbial drunk to look for his keys where he dropped them rather than under the street light. Anybody with the avatar like that is bound to be an zealot on par with young earth creationists or virtually any proponent of ‘moderate islam’.[/quote]
Congratulation, lucasa; could be the most off center, ignorant, biased assumption in this entire thread.
Good job, bro.
Edit: I could also add, that based on YOUR avatar, we’re all left to assume that you are an uncontrolled whore monger, completely unable to control you basal caveman like urge to throw bitches over your shoulder and carry them off as your property.
I like this game, this is fun…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If one group gets a benefit and one group gets penalized they are not equal , they are not the same [/quote]
Okay… So people who choose to remain single are now oppressed, unequal and have claims to rights violations?[/quote]
Exactly. State recognized marriage is discriminatory, period.
[/quote]
We agree, I think the involvement in Marriage Government has the right to is Divorce .
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I could also add, that based on YOUR avatar, we’re all left to assume that you are an uncontrolled whore monger, completely unable to control you basal caveman like urge to throw bitches over your shoulder and carry them off as your property.[/quote]
Not true. It’s the natural way of things. Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.
Besides, women like a strong man and it’s an easy way to get a workout in. More fun too.
I Know Gays have always had the right to fuck each other 
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So my question to you is; how would you justify discrimination against gay marriage? [/quote]
I wouldn’t justify it.
Assuming by gay marriage you mean same sex marriage, I see no legal, governmental reason the government could use that justifies disallowing two people of the same sex from entering into the contract that is marriage, without the government getting more and more involved in our individual lives.
It comes down to basic freedom in my mind. If I am to sit here and say I want government out of my life as much as possible, than I have to say that the government view marriage as a contract between people that boils down to custody.
My biggest issue is people conflating homosexual with same sex. Just because homosexuals are likely to take advantage of this ruling in numbers far greater than heterosexuals, doesn’t mean the government can start asking what your sexuality is before issuing the license. This is a far more dangerous issue with this whole conversation than any recognized coupling could be.
We, as Americans, need to re-evaluate our perception of our government and its role in our life.
[quote]
Edit: Furthering the question; do you believe that denying homosexual marriages the same federal status and rights that are/were afforded to heterosexual marriages, beneficial to society? Why?[/quote]
You, and others are confusing the fact I’m upset with the justification for this ruling, with me being upset with the ruling.
Again, I think the ruling is the correct one. I just think turning same sex marriage it into a “gay rights” battle has significant unintended consequences, that could be avoided, because you don’t even have to bring up one’s sexuality to justify why the government has no basis to prevent same sex marriage.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So my question to you is; how would you justify discrimination against gay marriage? [/quote]
I wouldn’t justify it.
Assuming by gay marriage you mean same sex marriage, I see no legal, governmental reason the government could use that justifies disallowing two people of the same sex from entering into the contract that is marriage, without the government getting more and more involved in our individual lives.
It comes down to basic freedom in my mind. If I am to sit here and say I want government out of my life as much as possible, than I have to say that the government view marriage as a contract between people that boils down to custody.
My biggest issue is people conflating homosexual with same sex. Just because homosexuals are likely to take advantage of this ruling in numbers far greater than heterosexuals, doesn’t mean the government can start asking what your sexuality is before issuing the license. This is a far more dangerous issue with this whole conversation than any recognized coupling could be.
We, as Americans, need to re-evaluate our perception of our government and its role in our life.
I have never considered this line of argument. I agree with it. Why do we even need the government to give us a license to get married? If you want to get married then write a contract between you and your spouse. I was married in a church and the pastor married us. People heard our vows, and they saw us get married. That is a legal contract. Rings were given to each other so that binds the contract.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I have never considered this line of argument. [/quote]
It is similar to the pro-aborts who love the idea of the “free” birth control in AHA.
I don’t see how anyone with any ounce of logical consistency can in one breath say “keep the government out of my vagina” and then turn around and say “thank god the government regulates pills that control my vagina, by forcing people to provide them, free even.”
Am I the only one who sees the issues with thoughts like this?
You can’t say “the government needs to stay out of my bedroom” and then turn around and say “the government needs to grant me privileges based on what happens in my bedroom”. Particularly when you don’t even need to bring up what happens in your bedroom to make a sound legal argument as to why same sex marriage should be recognized.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I have never considered this line of argument. [/quote]
It is similar to the pro-aborts who love the idea of the “free” birth control in AHA.
I don’t see how anyone with any ounce of logical consistency can in one breath say “keep the government out of my vagina” and then turn around and say “thank god the government regulates pills that control my vagina, by forcing people to provide them, free even.”
Am I the only one who sees the issues with thoughts like this?
You can’t say “the government needs to stay out of my bedroom” and then turn around and say “the government needs to grant me privileges based on what happens in my bedroom”. Particularly when you don’t even need to bring up what happens in your bedroom to make a sound legal argument as to why same sex marriage should be recognized. [/quote]
That is a very sound and logical argument, and I agree. The liberal mindset IMO is mentally baffling.
There are enough inconsistences in the arguments and beliefs at BOTH ends of the Political Spectrum to make ones head explode.
Illogical thinking is not exclusive to one side or the other.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
There are enough inconsistences in the arguments and beliefs at BOTH ends of the Political Spectrum to make ones head explode.
Illogical thinking is not exclusive to one side or the other.
Mufasa[/quote]
Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Just used the example that came to mind first.
No problem, CB.