Here we go again (gay marriage)

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

If that is your stance then you do not believe in self government and allowing other individuals to decide what constitutes marriage without your interference.

It is a shame that you are blinded from your own hypocrisy.

[Relbeek Einre]

Wow, Rsak, that illogic is even more waterheaded than usual.

"If you say no government should be allowed to discriminate against its citizens, you're against freedom!"

Congratulations, Bobo, you've resurrected the segregationist argument and put it in a whole new context.

[Riggen]

Seriously though, the whole debate comes down to morality freaks who don't know the first thing about being decent human beings.

People hate gay women and men so much

Really sucks when someone you hates wants to be equal to you doesn't it.

These kinds of quotes are the death of the argument to those opposed to gay marriage for any number of reasons having nothing to do with hate. Money, tradition, simple logic, desire to see a reform beyond the scope of marriage, etc are matters of principle, preference, and practicality. Attributing unsavory motivations like hate in blanket statements against those who disagree with you is itself hatemongering.

Separately,

Any church or organized group can deem anyone "not married' that they want. Governments, I believe, should not be in the game of putting the force of law behind it.

This I agree with completely. If such a thing is possible, I agree with the converse even more--that is that any church or organized group can deem anyone "married" that they want, but governments should not be in the game of putting the force of law behind it.

[Riggen]

I would add to my above statement the caveat that discrimination based on marital status should be disallowed. As I alluded in an earlier link, I think this step alone would fix a lot.

[Relbeek Einre]

I concur on all counts, Riggen, except I do not believe "simple logic" can yield an anti-gay-marriage stance, except in the context of an anti-legal-recognition-of-marriage-at-all stance.

[Riggen]

Relbeek, by simple logic I'm referring to the "it's similar but not materially the same thing, so why attach the same name" argument. You may agree or disagree with the priorities it holds, and argue based on that (which as I recall we have in the past) but considered directly it's hard to call it illogical.

I'm pretty close to, but not entirely on, that anti-legal-recognition-of-marriage stance. If there were no discrimination based on marital status I would have no objection to gay marriage.

[Kulaf]

So if I understand this whole bestiality by consent thing......we can conclude that it is ok to kill a cow to eat it.....but god help you if you screw it?

[Aabe]

So if I understand this whole bestiality by consent thing......we can conclude that it is ok to kill a cow to eat it.....but god help you if you screw it?

That depends your definition of "eat".

[Kulaf]

Ba da boom.

[Relbeek Einre]

Kulaf, if you have a thing for your cow, do whatever you feel you need to about it, just please, please don't talk about it.

[Kulaf]

Well I would but you wanna send me to jail for it.

[Rsak]

Nice attempt to twist my statements, but that is not what I said.

Freedom is a constituational right. Segregation is covered in federal law.

The ability to decide what is and what is not marriage is a right of the state that is not covered in those federal documents.

You claim to be all for letting other groups decide for themselves yet you feel that you should have a say over the goverment of that state over a matter that you have no relationship to.

Your abuse of logic, reasoning, and personal integrity will let you justify any stance you want due to your own delusions. Have fun with yourself.

[Relbeek Einre]

You amaze me, Waterhead.

[quote]Your abuse of logic, reasoning, and personal integrity will let you justify any stance you want due to your own delusions. Have fun with yourself.[/'quote]

Funny monkey! Hypocritical monkey!

I already stipulated that state governments have the legal right to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry (excepting, of course, those states whose constitutions forbid such a thing). I also acknowledge I do not (and really, SHOULD not) have the right to force them, and barring an amendment to the Constitution or a federal law, nobody but their own citizens can legally force them to stop discriminating against same-sex couples.

This doesn't make the discriminating state's actions just or moral. And as a citizen of this country I reserve the right to have my opinions on whether it is just or moral. And if you don't like it, you can rant and froth incoherently like you usually do. because as a citizen of this country you enjoy the same right.

Now if you've had a chance to vent off some of the pent-up energy your ridiculous personal vendetta, please go back to swinging placidly from tree to tree and eating your own feces.

[Narith]

As for the beastiality thing you notice that Beek said that animals can not enter into a legally binding contract, but the "morality" nut jobs tried to pull this off onto a tangent of health issues of sex with animals completly ignoring the legality issues.
.

Narith - You think one night stands are contracts? The act of sex isn't contractural. Marriage however, is.

And if you'll read up, it was Beek that made the argument that bestiality is a health issue. (Which is wrong, of course). Bestiality laws are morality laws, not health protection laws.

My bad, should have worded it propperly, not beastiality itself, which the laws may be for health reasons, legal reasons of consentiality, or morality, I meant the act of marrying an animal as discussed above. Yes I know Beek mentioned health reasons, but he also mentioned legality of marriage as well, yet people only focused on health issue arguement and abanodoned the legality arguement which is what gay marriage is about.

[Rsak]

Your advocacy does not fall under the realm of non-interference depsite your labeling it having your opinion.

But you are good at mislabeling things such as the fact that you are the only one with personel vendettas that include flat out lies, incivilty, name calling, and indefensible behavior. The wonderful thing about this country is the ability for one such as yourself to live your life believing your sad delusions of reality that let you convince yourself that you have any modicum of honor.

[Relbeek Einre]

Heh heh. The monkey's hypocrisy is becoming more compact, managing to make three hypocritical statements in a single sentence! Talented monkey! Shakespeare's works are fast approaching!

The monkey doesn't understand the difference between a vendetta and simply refusing to suffer fools gladly. Nor does the monkey understand the difference between opining and interference. Silly monkey.

[Klast Brell]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... &printer=1

A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

To kick off the argument i'll ask our conservatives this:

In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?

More fun questions are, will this increase adoption by gay couples or does being a married couple have an effect over not being married in adoptions. (would this be good or bad?)

It would probably increase them by loosening some of the restrictions on gay adoptions.

Should gay men (works for gay women as well) be encouraged only to adopt only boys, since their personal experience with monthy menstral cycles and other growing girl questions would be more difficult for them to answer than a mother could? (obviously single parent homes deal with this issue, on usually there is parent in or out of the home they can ask gender specific questions about.)

Gay men know women as well. It’s not as if there is a total rejection of all women everywhere. Gay parents have the same resources men raising girls without access to the mother (dead, in prison, deployed to Iraq, ran off to be a lesbian) have always had.

I think marriage was instituted mostly to support familys thousands of years ago. We as of late, we have let the institution down badly marked by the high divorce rates of people with children.

So you like it the way it was and you don’t want it to change any more than it already has. Is this the “because I said so argument”? Or the “I fear change argument”?

Gay women marrages have an edge over gay men marraiges, they just have to buy, beg or do some oral sex and not swallow to have kids. Gay men pretty much have to adopt, pay someone to carry a child for them or have a really good friend willing to get impregnated to bear them a child. Geez how fair is that, we already have a huge inequality between gay men and women marriages, I wonder how they are going to make that fair?

Gay men and women want to legal benefits of being married. The other issues affect anyone who wants to have children without access to a willing mate.

What difference is there between a marriage and a domestic contract? (why does calling it "marrage" really matter if it is "just" a consensual agreement? (why do gays want it called marrage and why do a lot of other people not want it called marriage? Is it just a word? Will calling a gay domestic agreement a marriage make it equal (what ever that means) to a hetosexual couples marriage? Will they be viewed the same by the general public?

Are you fresh off the turnip truck? Gay couples can make a lifetime commitment to each other without a legally recognized marriage. So can straight couples. But without the legal recognition they will not be able to access benefits extended to married couples such as; Government provided Social security survivors benefits, employer provided health insurance family plans, inheritance, hospital visits, etc.

Should we allow mother and sister to marry if one is 70 and the other 50 to gain a few extra rights and privileges, I have seen many that stuggle on limited incomes, seems a very worthy cause, expecially if the daughter is the caregiver to the mom.

Should we engage in slippery slope arguments? Siblings can't marry, nor can a parent and child. Those would be covered under the term incest, which like bestiality has nothing to do with the rights of gays to marry.

If as Beek says we allow any number of consenting adults to "marry' we could have 2 women and 4 men. (Would that have any effect on society or what effect would that have on children as they are raised, who pays for what if one of the 6 leaves the agreement?)

Take that up with Beek. Poligamy has nothing to do with the rights of gays to marry.

I guess if you argue marrage is nothing more or less than a contract between consenting adults. And you argue it has no special meaning or useful purpose in society than to provide legal protections. Then I can see your arguement and knock yourself out. But it seems to me quite a messy issue with many unseen unintended consequences.

Mainly dealing with the separation of church and state, the equal protection clause, and other issues for which we have a constitution. Perhaps that’s why some people are trying to change the constitution.

I really love it when someone does us such a great service, by taking a very complex issue of life like this and says "In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?" and boils it down to such a simple decision.

I really love it when someone uses slippery slope arguments and frivolous hypotheticals to avoid the question.

The elephant in the republican room is religious discrimination. God told you fagots were bad. To do anything that goes against this would be to break with God. That's how it harms you.

[Aabe]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... &printer=1

A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

To kick off the argument i'll ask our conservatives this:

In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?

More fun questions are, will this increase adoption by gay couples or does being a married couple have an effect over not being married in adoptions. (would this be good or bad?)

It would probably increase them by loosening some of the restrictions on gay adoptions.

Should gay men (works for gay women as well) be encouraged only to adopt only boys, since their personal experience with monthy menstral cycles and other growing girl questions would be more difficult for them to answer than a mother could? (obviously single parent homes deal with this issue, on usually there is parent in or out of the home they can ask gender specific questions about.)

Gay men know women as well. It’s not as if there is a total rejection of all women everywhere. Gay parents have the same resources men raising girls without access to the mother (dead, in prison, deployed to Iraq, ran off to be a lesbian) have always had.

I think marriage was instituted mostly to support familys thousands of years ago. We as of late, we have let the institution down badly marked by the high divorce rates of people with children.

So you like it the way it was and you don’t want it to change any more than it already has. Is this the “because I said so argument”? Or the “I fear change argument”?

Gay women marrages have an edge over gay men marraiges, they just have to buy, beg or do some oral sex and not swallow to have kids. Gay men pretty much have to adopt, pay someone to carry a child for them or have a really good friend willing to get impregnated to bear them a child. Geez how fair is that, we already have a huge inequality between gay men and women marriages, I wonder how they are going to make that fair?

Gay men and women want to legal benefits of being married. The other issues affect anyone who wants to have children without access to a willing mate.

What difference is there between a marriage and a domestic contract? (why does calling it "marrage" really matter if it is "just" a consensual agreement? (why do gays want it called marrage and why do a lot of other people not want it called marriage? Is it just a word? Will calling a gay domestic agreement a marriage make it equal (what ever that means) to a hetosexual couples marriage? Will they be viewed the same by the general public?

Are you fresh off the turnip truck? Gay couples can make a lifetime commitment to each other without a legally recognized marriage. So can straight couples. But without the legal recognition they will not be able to access benefits extended to married couples such as; Government provided Social security survivors benefits, employer provided health insurance family plans, inheritance, hospital visits, etc.

Should we allow mother and sister to marry if one is 70 and the other 50 to gain a few extra rights and privileges, I have seen many that stuggle on limited incomes, seems a very worthy cause, expecially if the daughter is the caregiver to the mom.

Should we engage in slippery slope arguments? Siblings can't marry, nor can a parent and child. Those would be covered under the term incest, which like bestiality has nothing to do with the rights of gays to marry.

If as Beek says we allow any number of consenting adults to "marry' we could have 2 women and 4 men. (Would that have any effect on society or what effect would that have on children as they are raised, who pays for what if one of the 6 leaves the agreement?)

Take that up with Beek. Poligamy has nothing to do with the rights of gays to marry.

I guess if you argue marrage is nothing more or less than a contract between consenting adults. And you argue it has no special meaning or useful purpose in society than to provide legal protections. Then I can see your arguement and knock yourself out. But it seems to me quite a messy issue with many unseen unintended consequences.

Mainly dealing with the separation of church and state, the equal protection clause, and other issues for which we have a constitution. Perhaps that’s why some people are trying to change the constitution.

I really love it when someone does us such a great service, by taking a very complex issue of life like this and says "In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?" and boils it down to such a simple decision.

I really love it when someone uses slippery slope arguments and frivolous hypotheticals to avoid the question.

The elephant in the republican room is religious discrimination. God told you fagots were bad. To do anything that goes against this would be to break with God. That's how it harms you.

You missed the point Klast.

All I was doing was pointing out there are LOTS of issues.

You open a door, lots of things come through. Often more than you wanted. Perhaps some that are far more important that the reason you opened the door.

Maybe all the stuff that comes through the door (unintended consequence) is wonderfulthey are all good things and does nothing but enrich our lives. Perhaps they are not.

If you read carefully I never did take a stand one way or the other. Each question I asked is enough to start a debate and thread on.

I can make a serious arguement either way on each of the points. Some I really haven't got enough information to decide on, including the one that lets sisters or mother daughters marry, if marrage is put wide open as a consensual agreement.

But to imply it is a simple matter is misleading, your single question presented as if its answer solved the arguement. "In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?" .Is an irresponsible simplification in my opinion.

My point was not to debate the issue or make a case either way, it was to show it is a VERY complex issue and thus should be handled as such. It should be handled responsibly.

Sorry, your missed the point.

[Kulaf]

He who stands for everything.....stands for nothing. Or something like that.

[Aabe]

He who stands for everything.....stands for nothing. Or something like that.

You prefer people that take ignorant stands than those that hold judgements on some issues untill they beleive they have enough information to make a reasoned stand? Like, oh, say skin heads definitely take some strong stands. I also will take strong stands, but on issues that evidence convinces me are strong stands, not emotion based.