Do you think gays should be allowed to marry?

[M14 Shooter]

I do believe that a few people in this very debate have made it part of the argument. Are you refusing to answer the question or are do you not have an answer?

I'm refusing to include it in the dscussion because its irrelevant to the topic - you might as well be asking about gun control or the drinking age as it relates to gays.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because they are completely different and have NOTHING to do with each other

False.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
Changing "man" to "woman" or vice versa is as fundamental a change as changing the singular to the plural.

As a test of your sincerity, will you suddenly become a supporter of gay marriage if public opinion in your state swings in favor of it?

You misunderstand my inclusion of the "defined by the state" argument -- I brought it up becaue several people have tried to equate "marriage" to "religion" and argung that religion should have nothing to do with it, and that the government should not stand in the way of a same-sex couple that wants to wed.

 

[jallman]

I'm refusing to include it in the dscussion because its irrelevant to the topic - you might as well be asking about gun control or the drinking age as it relates to gays.

So you dont think its applicable as a respectful compromise? And I disagree, it is integral to the debate as an outlet for allowing constitutional freedoms without stepping on the toes of those who want to protect the religious sanctity of marriage.

 

[jallman]

False.
Marriage is a union of a man and a woman.
Changing "man" to "woman" or vice versa is as fundamental a change as changing the singular to the plural.

I think you might want to refresh yourself on the definition of fundamental. It is not a fundamental change to allow for man and woman to be changed to person...it is an inclusive change.

 

[M14 Shooter]

. In truth, the slippery slope argument is ridiculous and most people know it.

Rather than avoid the issue, why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

Nice try, but it doesnt hold water. Same sex marriage would not involve a fundamental change

LOL
And you mentioned 'asinine"...
Allowing same-sex marriages is at LEAST a fundamenta change in the concept of marriage as allowing multiple-partner marriages.

I do believe that most religious institutions and most of your conservative peers would disagree with you on that notion. In fact, most of the liberal mass would disagree with you on that, also. I dont feel a need to touch this one.

Really.
People are married outside a church all the time - how can there be secular marriages is marriage is not a creation of the state?

Oh, my bad, I was trying to avoid boring our readers by rehashing a tired and solidly debunked debate. I didnt realize I was talking to Johnny Come Lately, but ok. For you, I will summarize the conclusion of that debate of months ago.

Puh-leeze. If you can't make the argument, dont waste my time.
As mentioned above:
Rather than avoid the issue, why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you dont think its applicable as a respectful compromise?

"Do you thinkg gays should be allowed to marry?"
This is a binary question - yes or no.

If the topic were "Do you think gays should be allowed to marry or should they have civil unions" you might have something.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think you might want to refresh yourself on the definition of fundamental. It is not a fundamental change to allow for man and woman to be changed to person...it is an inclusive change.

LOL

Marriage is fundamentally based on the concept of a union between a man and a woman. A man. A woman.

Change any part of that and you make a fundamental change.

 

[jallman]

Rather than avoid the issue, why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?


LOL
And you mentioned 'asinine"...
Allowing same-sex marriages is at LEAST a fundamenta change in the concept of marriage as allowing multiple-partner marriages.


Really.
People are married outside a church all the time - how can there be secular marriages is marriage is not a creation of the state?


Puh-leeze. If you can't make the argument, dont waste my time.
As mentioned above:
Rather than avoid the issue, why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

Allow me to quote the portions of the same post you conveniently ignored:

Yes, polygamous marriage would make a fundamental change in the definition of marriage...the inclusion of more than two partners, the parental relationship would be expanded, divorce would be complicated, tax law to be rewritten, medical rights would be complicated by multiple partners, death benefits would have to be redefined, insurance rights reworked...it goes on and on.

Nice try, but it doesnt hold water. Same sex marriage would not involve a fundamental change, only a change in nomenclature. You know, the same kind of change that was made when the interracial marriage ban was repealed. Still one person married to one person...using the same laws that are in place now and no added laws. Now I can already hear you hemming and hawing about adoption...but gays are already adopting and have been for some time. Adoption laws are not directly tied to marriage laws...this is pure misinformation on the part of anti-liberty zealots. The undeniable truth is that allowing for civil union or gay marriage is no more a change to the marriage contract than any other change that has been made in the past 50-100 years and any opposition to it is based in the same bias that was shown to interracial marriage less than 60 years ago.

Would you like to speak to the points above, or are we only subject to your opinions and biases when it comes to the topic? It seems the only one avoiding issues is you. Is it because you cant hold your own or because you believe your opinions and biases are fact? Either way, you arent very good at this, are you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would you like to speak to the points above, or are we only subject to your opinions and biases when it comes to the topic?

I did.
Chaning the gender of one of the partners in a marriage is a fundamental change in marriage, given that marriage is fundamentally based on the concept of a union of one man and one woman.

So then, how about speaking to these points:
Why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

People are married outside a church all the time - how can there be secular marriages if marriage is not a creation of the state?

 

[jallman]

I did.
Chaning the gender of one of the partners in a marriage is a fundamental change in marriage, given that marriage is fundamentally based on the concept of a union of one man and one woman.

So then, how about speaking to these points:
Why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

People are married outside a church all the time - how can there be secular marriages if marriage is not a creation of the state?

I see, avoid the points and then make a suggestion that I am avoiding the points. On the first point...let me again re post what was said. Do try and read it this time.

Yes, polygamous marriage would make a fundamental change in the definition of marriage...the inclusion of more than two partners, the parental relationship would be expanded, divorce would be complicated, tax law to be rewritten, medical rights would be complicated by multiple partners, death benefits would have to be redefined, insurance rights reworked...it goes on and on.

Same sex marriage would not involve a fundamental change, only a change in nomenclature. You know, the same kind of change that was made when the interracial marriage ban was repealed. Still one person married to one person...using the same laws that are in place now and no added laws. Now I can already hear you hemming and hawing about adoption...but gays are already adopting and have been for some time. Adoption laws are not directly tied to marriage laws...this is pure misinformation on the part of anti-liberty zealots. The undeniable truth is that allowing for civil union or gay marriage is no more a change to the marriage contract than any other change that has been made in the past 50-100 years and any opposition to it is based in the same bias that was shown to interracial marriage less than 60 years ago.

As for your second point, the main opposition comes from the religious institution. Secular marriages should not bar two individuals from taking part in the contract. However, it is the church's right as a religious and private institution to bar marriages based on their particular dogmas. However, traditionally, marriage is seen as a sacrament of the church. We are not talking about common law here, we are talking about active involvement in the contract by two consenting adults.

Now, I have played your game. Can you speak to the above points or shall we just settle on your inability to argue a defenseless position. I wont look down on you...it is a very flimsy stance and I am sure you are doing your best.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I see, avoid the points and then make a suggestion that I am avoiding the points. On the first point...let me again re post what was said. Do try and read it this time.

Repeating your argumrent doesnt support it or negate mine.
You are trying to re-define 'fundamental' to suit your pusposes, and its not going to work -- and wen you have to re-define a term to support your argument, its a clear indication that your argument is unsound.

There is nothing more fundamental to marriage than "a man" and "a woman".

As for your second point, the main opposition comes from the religious institution.

Doesnt really address the issue, does it? Marriage is a creation of the state, period.

Now, I have played your game. Can you speak to the above points or shall we just settle on your inability to argue a defenseless position.

As the desert said to the grain of sand.

And, AGAIN:
Why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

 

[jallman]

Repeating your argumrent doesnt support it or negate mine.
You are trying to re-define 'fundamental' to suit your pusposes, and its not going to work -- and wen you have to re-define a term to support your argument, its a clear indication that your argument is unsound.

There is nothing more fundamental to marriage than "a man" and "a woman".


Doesnt really address the issue, does it? Marriage is a creation of the state, period.


As the desert said to the grain of sand.

And, AGAIN:
Why dont you tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

This is pointless. I did give you plenty to respond to on that topic, you have refused. I wont take your lack of response as capitulation. However, it is proof positive that you are out of your league in this discussion. Perhaps you might want to stick to guns or whatever it is that you might know about and be able to defend.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is pointless. I did give you plenty to respond to on that topic, you have refused.

On the contrary - I have responded to your points, each of them that were relevant, anyway. You still havent responded to mine:

-There is nothing more fundamental to marriage than "a man" and "a woman".
-Marriage is a creation of the state, not the church.
-Tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

Now, run away.

 

[FinnMacCool]

God damn whats with all this technical bullshit? The reason people don't support gay marriage is because they think that the gays are going to invade their home or something.There is no reason for the state NOT to allow it unless they personally have a prejudice against gays.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Now, run away.

You ask him to run away after that? Your tough.

 

[M14 Shooter]

God damn whats with all this technical bullshit? The reason people don't support gay marriage is because they think that the gays are going to invade their home or something.

This is, of course, a strawman devised to discredit those opposed to same-sex marriage.

There is no reason for the state NOT to disallow it unless they personally have a prejudice against gays.

I think you need to edit this line.
And I think you'll have a hard time proving what you meant to say.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You ask him to run away after that? Your tough.

No, I was describing what he was doing.

 

[FinnMacCool]

This is, of course, a strawman devised to discredit those opposed to same-sex marriage.

Okay then enlighten me. Why exactly do you personally oppose same-sex marriage?

 

[jallman]

On the contrary - I have responded to your points, each of them that were relevant, anyway. You still havent responded to mine:

-There is nothing more fundamental to marriage than "a man" and "a woman".
-Marriage is a creation of the state, not the church.
-Tell me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages?

Now, run away.

I answered you and re posted the answer and re posted the answer again. You tossed out that I hadnt answered in a noble attempt at covering for the fact that you had no response. Try contrasting the two points. You do know what a contrast is dont you? If you are the best the opposition has to offer, I am confident that within the decade there will at least be civil union.:rofl

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay then enlighten me. Why exactly do you personally oppose same-sex marriage?

I already answered that. Look thru the posts.

 

[FinnMacCool]

I already answered that. Look thru the posts

I already did but I didn't see anything :shock:

 

[M14 Shooter]

I answered you and re posted the answer and re posted the answer again.

You asnwered with a re-statement of your argument. Your argument is unsound, and so re-stating it doesnt do much for you.

You tossed out that I hadnt answered in a noble attempt at covering for the fact that you had no response. Try contrasting the two points.

I did. You simply dont accept that your argument is fatally flawed if for no other reason that you have to ref0define "fundamenta" to make it work.

I am confident that within the decade there will at least be civil union.:rofl

And thats relevant, because...?

Note that you STILL havn't tolld me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hmm...

1)Jane wants to marry Jack, Jack wants to marry Jane. Who's business it, and what gives them the authority to say "no"?

It's not my business, why is it yours?

2)Jill wants to marry Hilda, Hilda agrees. Who's business it, and what gives them the authority to say "no"?

It's still not my business, why is it yours?

3)Jeff wants to marry Hank, Hank agrees. Who's business it, and what gives them the authority to say "no"?

It's STILL not my business, why is it yours?

4) Jack meets Heather, thinks she'd be a fine trophy for the family, and introduces her to Jane. Jane likes her, and wouldn't mind some help with the dishes. Jack wants to marry Heather, and stay married to Jane.

If it's okay with Jane, why should anyone else butt in and say "no"? Property complications, you say? You want to restrict individual freedom to make a bureaucrat's life easier? First off, go learn about bureacrats. The more complicated things get, the more they can justify budget increases. Lawyers like it too. But no matter what, it's not my business, and it ain't yours. Butt out.

Yep, laws would have to be crafted to protect the children. That's what politicians are for. Besides that, MOST women, if their husband even suggested such a thing, would say, "Sure, go ahead and marry Heather, Jack. I'm keeping the house and the car and the kids and half your paycheck"

Clearly the fear of polygamy (and polyandry, perhaps Jack is a real nice guy but Jane wants John Holmes) is a red cape the conservatives are waving at the bull of freedom.


And this nonsense about "marriage". At one time, back in the bad old days, the Church was also the State. In fact, that's the norm of history. So marriages, which are formal affairs serving to announce to the community that so-and-so and such-and-such are now an officially recognized pair, used to always have religious implications.

The rise of the secular state divorced the recording from the ceremony. The state needed to know who was married to who, because government like keeping tabs on everyone, and the church had to keep up it's pretense of relevancy by continuing to do the mumbo-jumbo scene. But in a secular state, the only thing that matters is that documents are signed and duly noted that such-and-such is now married to so-and-so.

Leaving rarities such as polygamy aside, it makes absolutely no difference to the official recognition of any marriage if the two joined have matching or complementary sexual equipment.

So what's the big deal?

And yes, I am opposed to homosexual couples adopting stray children. IMO it IS an unnatural situation that children shouldn't be exposed to. But guess what? Since laws regulating adoption are supposed to be for the protection of the children, it's no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to demand adoptive parents be married and complementarily equipped.

Can anyone explain why they care what two other people do? I've seen some vague generalities posted. Be specific. If two men got married, how would it affect you directly?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already did but I didn't see anything :shock:

Post 15:
No.
Marriage, by definition, is a union of a man and a woman.

 

[jallman]

You asnwered with a re-statement of your argument. Your argument is unsound, and so re-stating it doesnt do much for you.


I did. You simply dont accept that your argument is fatally flawed if for no other reason that you have to ref0define "fundamenta" to make it work.


And thats relevant, because...?

Note that you STILL havn't tolld me how the argument behind same-sex marriages -- that consenting adults and be allowed to marry who they want -- doesnt also apply to multiple-partner marriages.

Note that I DID tell you how the argument behind same sex marriages--that TWO consenting adults should be allowed to marry whom they want to under the present contract--does not apply to multiple partner marriages which would involve recreating a whole new contract with different complications. Your refusal to answer the points made does not lend any credence to your flimsy and indefensible position. I find your whole stance laughable in light of your inability to give reasons for your opposition.