gay marriage...

[Busta]

The new law would be in line with the Constitution, as should ALL of our laws be.

Marriage is currently in line with the Constitution. I see no reason to change it.

 

[Columbusite]

Marriage is currently in line with the Constitution. I see no reason to change it.

So same-race marriage OK, same-sex marriage not OK. This is constitutional how (definition of "traditional" marriage is moot since the government is involved and we must treat ALL Americans equally under the law)?

 

[shuamort]

So same-race marriage OK, same-sex marriage not OK. This is constitutional how (definition of "traditional" marriage is moot since the government is involved and we must treat ALL Americans equally under the law)?

And let's stop the lame argument at the pass here. "Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want" doesn't fly. No other contractual obligations that are given to all of the citizens necessitate a penis/vagina combination.

 

[Columbusite]

And let's stop the lame argument at the pass here. "Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want" doesn't fly. No other contractual obligations that are given to all of the citizens necessitate a penis/vagina combination.

I don't how people can say we live in the "land of the free" when you can't marry someone depending on what is or isn't in their pants. We as Americans still hate our Constitution and will do anything to keep it from being followed through.

 

[Busta]

So same-race marriage OK, same-sex marriage not OK. This is constitutional how (definition of "traditional" marriage is moot since the government is involved and we must treat ALL Americans equally under the law)?

That is exactly correct.
Same race is OK, same sex is NOT.
Same race is OK, same family is NOT.
Same race is OK, same age is suspect: no 2 children may marry; no child may be married to an adult. Only consenting legal adults may marry.
Different genders are mandatory, different species are forbidden.
Each spouse may only have 1 spouse total.

 

[Columbusite]

That is exactly correct.
Same race is OK, same sex is NOT.
Same race is OK, same family is NOT.
Same race is OK, same age is suspect: no 2 children may marry; no child may be married to an adult. Only consenting legal adults may marry.
Different genders are mandatory, different species are forbidden.
Each spouse may only have 1 spouse total.

Same family? Ehh, I believe that depends on the state and the relation (2nd cousin for example). Same age? Yes, as long as they are of age they will get married. So only TWO constenting legal adults may marry. Can you provide any logical (this is crucial) explanation for why same-sex couples should be denied what opposite-sex couples receive?

 

[Busta]

Lets look at this in a different light:
Civil Unions include both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals claim that the right to marry someone of the same gender is a civil right being denied by the current definition of marriage. If the current definition of marriage is denying homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same gender, than the current definition of marriage is denying heterosexuals this right, also.

Why should heterosexuals persue a right to marry someone of the same gender?

 

[Busta]

Same family? Ehh, I believe that depends on the state and the relation (2nd cousin for example). Same age? Yes, as long as they are of age they will get married. So only TWO constenting legal adults may marry. Can you provide any logical (this is crucial) explanation for why same-sex couples should be denied what opposite-sex couples receive?

They are denied nothing. Heterosexual couples do not have the right to marry some one of the same gender, either.

If a gay person chooses not to comply with the requirements for marriage, that is their personal choice.

Many heterosexuals also make a similer personal choice.

 

[Columbusite]

Lets look at this in a different light:
Civil Unions include both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals claim that the right to marry someone of the same gender is a civil right being denied by the current definition of marriage. If the current definition of marriage is denying homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same gender, than the current definition of marriage is denying heterosexuals this right, also.

Why should heterosexuals persue their right to marry someone of the same gender?

Umm, they wouldn't have to. If you are inferring that the system could be abused by, say, two straight guys: that argument doesn't hold water. You can't keep the law the way it is because someone, someday might abuse the system. And if you think it hasn't already been abused you would have to be as naive as can be.

 

[Columbusite]

They are denied nothing. Heterosexual couples do not have the right to marry some one of the same gender, either.

If a gay person chooses not to comply with the requirements for marriage, that is their personal choice.

Many heterosexuals also make a similer personal choice.

They are denied nothing. Interracial couples do not have the right to marry one of another race, either.

If a black person chooses not to comply with the requirements for marriage, that is their personal choice.

Many whites also make a similar personal choice.

(If this doesn't open your eyes, I don't know what will. Note how "logical" this argument is.)

 

[Busta]

Umm, they wouldn't have to. If you are inferring that the system could be abused by, say, two straight guys: that argument doesn't hold water. You can't keep the law the way it is because someone, someday might abuse the system. And if you think it hasn't already been abused you would have to be as naive as can be.

"Umm, they wouldn't have to."
Sure they would, if they wanted to get the benefits of marriage and have a same sex partner. I could imagine a number of different situations why 2 strait people would want to do this.

If you are inferring that the system could be abused by, say, two straight guys: that argument doesn't hold water.

It happened in Canada,
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/08/09/fox-news-straight-men-marry-in-canada-for-tax-benefits/

It's only a matter of time before some collage students in Connecticut figure out that they can do it too.

"You can't keep the law the way it is because someone, someday might abuse the system."

Sure we can, though that is not my reason.

 

[Busta]

They are denied nothing. Interracial couples do not have the right to marry one of another race, either.

If a black person chooses not to comply with the requirements for marriage, that is their personal choice.

Many whites also make a similar personal choice.

(If this doesn't open your eyes, I don't know what will. Note how "logical" this argument is.)

The origin of marriage never had a racial requirement.

Though, in order to properly make your comparison between gender and race, you must assert that marriage was only permisable between 1 Black and 1 White; and that the fight was over a person's right to marry someone of the same race.

 

[Columbusite]

The origin of marriage never had a racial requirement.

So what? We are talking about CIVIL marriage.

 

[Columbusite]

"Umm, they wouldn't have to."
Sure they would, if they wanted to get the benefits of marriage and have a same sex partner. I could imagine a number of different situations why 2 strait people would want to do this.

If you are inferring that the system could be abused by, say, two straight guys: that argument doesn't hold water.

It happened in Canada,
http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/08/09/fox-news-straight-men-marry-in-canada-for-tax-benefits/

It's only a matter of time before some collage students in Connecticut figure out that they can do it too.

"You can't keep the law the way it is because someone, someday might abuse the system."

Sure we can, though that is not my reason.

Pffft. American Family Association? Give me a real source. At least now I have a good idea about your motives. This is not a theocracy buddy, our laws are based on the Constitution, not your Bible and whatever definition of marriage is in it. So you ARE that naive.

 

[Columbusite]

The origin of marriage never had a racial requirement.

Though, in order to properly make your comparison between gender and race you must assert that... the fight was over a person's right to marry someone of the same race.

No I don't. Any racial ban on marriage has no place in a free country.

 

[Busta]

Pffft. American Family Association? Give me a real source. At least now I have a good idea about your motives. This is not a theocracy buddy, our laws are based on the Constitution, not your Bible and whatever definition of marriage is in it. So you ARE that naive.

Sure:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/purcell/s_363151.html

http://www.dummocrats.com/links/view_comments.php?thread_id=34122

http://jiblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/straight-men-marry-in-canada.html

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=93280

I'm going out of my way to keep my faith out of this discussion. As of yet, I have not mentioned it.

Though I am disapointed to see that you are already calling names.

 

[shuamort]

The origin of marriage never had a racial requirement.

It had a religious one in the bible, but it also didn't have a gender requirement either. Kinda makes your point moot.

 

[Columbusite]

Sure:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/purcell/s_363151.html

http://www.dummocrats.com/links/view_comments.php?thread_id=34122

http://jiblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/straight-men-marry-in-canada.html

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=93280

I'm going out of my way to keep my faith out of this discussion. As of yet, I have not mentioned it.

Though I am disapointed to see that you are already calling names.

Calling names? You want to keep same-sex marriage illegal because of the future abuses that will be done to the system. In order for you to take that stance you must believe that such abuses haven't already happened in opposite gender marriage. "Naive" perfectly describes this. (I will have to end this for now, so take your time with your next response.)

 

[Busta]

It had a religious one in the bible, but it also didn't have a gender requirement either. Kinda makes your point moot.

A religious requirement was added later.
The origin of marriage never had a religious requirement, either.

 

[jallman]

Lets look at this in a different light:
Civil Unions include both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals claim that the right to marry someone of the same gender is a civil right being denied by the current definition of marriage. If the current definition of marriage is denying homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same gender, than the current definition of marriage is denying heterosexuals this right, also.

Why should heterosexuals persue a right to marry someone of the same gender?

You know, I was buying into your whole logic for like two seconds but it has become clear to me that the crux of your argument is this:

We have it current (marriage), and you dont deserve it.

The bottom line is that the argument is one of aggressive denial of an liberty based on flimsy arguments of "we dont need a change." The legality is screwed, the spirituality is irrelevant, the evolutionary stand point is moot, and the slippery slope is absurd. Come on busta, I have faith in you. You can do better than this.

 

[Busta]

Calling names? You want to keep same-sex marriage illegal because of the future abuses that will be done to the system. In order for you to take that stance you must believe that such abuses haven't already happened in opposite gender marriage. "Naive" perfectly describes this. (I will have to end this for now, so take your time with your next response.)

Again, I do not object to strait people taking advantage of existing law.
Please, take advantage of any legal loophole you can (I'm not without my financial games). Big Bro. needs a good but-kicking once in a while.

As far as Canadian law is concerned, I did give evidence.....but this isn't Canada, so I'll keep my eye on the headlines (as allways).

Of-coarse people abuse strait 'marriage (going around immigration rules comes to mind first....). People abuse laws all the time. I would indeed be naive if I thought that this was not true.

 

[Busta]

You know, I was buying into your whole logic for like two seconds but it has become clear to me that the crux of your argument is this:

We have it current (marriage), and you dont deserve it.

The bottom line is that the argument is one of aggressive denial of an liberty based on flimsy arguments of "we dont need a change." The legality is screwed, the spirituality is irrelevant, the evolutionary stand point is moot, and the slippery slope is absurd. Come on busta, I have faith in you. You can do better than this.

In point of fact, I was trying to honestly approach the subject from a new angle. I think that Columbusite thought that I was trying to use an "abuse of law" angle.

It's nice to know that you baut my logic, though....even if only for 2 seconds. I'm making progress.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

*The three-step propagandist*

1st.: Change the name; It's not a gay 'marriage, it's a civil union; It's not a child, it's a fetus; it's not guns used in crime, it's assult weapons; it's not a rais in taxes, it's repealing the tax cut......
2nd. Sterilize and dehumanize the object of your focus; explain that it is a simple matter of "facts" and/or law, speak about your view in a manner so as to intimidate compliance by appealing to a persons natural need to be accepted.
3rd. Label, insult and discredit any who will not turn; Self explanitory.

I would like to note that "gay marriage" and "civil unions" aren't exactly propagandistic intrinsically. They are different entities that come with different sets of rights. The latter does not have all that the former has.

I honestly wasn't trying to propagandize or sterilize. I only see marriage as a binding union contract between one or more individuals for economic and other desired reasons. Marriages are in fact legal contracts, so I am not making that up. This is why bessie the cow cannot marry her master. One does not have legal consent ability. No matter how much a propagandist spins it, I would never accept cow marriage because cows aren't citizens and the 14th amendment doesn't protect them or give them contract rights.

As well, non gays can engage in civil unions as well. It's not something that the gay community made up to disguise the notion of gay marriage.\

As for assault weapons---that's an actual category of weapon. How is that propaganda. What do you call an assault weapon? Just a gun? That seems awefully vague.



Denying homosexuals the right to marry is simply not just. Everyone under the 14th amendment deserves to have equal protections and privlidges that are possible given the circumstances.

You cannot say that homosexuals have equal marriage rights to heterosexuals, because a gay marrying a straight is patently absurd. A "right" is pointless if you have no reasonable way to access it. You cannot expect someone who is incapable of opposite-sex attraction to force himself into that type of marriage or get nothing; furthermore, no one is being hurt by the practice.



As for the Burden of proof.

1. YEs. Burden of proof is on those wanting to make a new law, but it is not on those who are enforcing the law already, which is what is going on. ANti-homsexual marriage proponents are denying the 14th amendment to gays.

Even if one had to prove that gay marriage should be made a law, that's not hard, since there is no valid ethical objection to the practice. You ought not make something illegal unless there is some objective reason to do so. Since marriage is a personal matter and none of the business of the State who gets married to what individual, it should keep its nose out of it, unless someone's rights are being violated or unless there are injuries resulting.

The burden of proof for legality should be on those who say something should be illegal, not for someone say it should be legal. If you want something illegal, you have to justify denial of freedom, because freedom of association is a given. If you cannot show why it cannot, there's no reason to disallow it.

 

[MrFungus420]

Marriage is currently in line with the Constitution. I see no reason to change it.

Really, where in the Constition does it grant the federal government the power to regulate marriage? The Constitution defines the powers of the federal government. If it isn't in the Constitution, then the federal shouldn't be involved in it.

 

[shuamort]

A religious requirement was added later.
The origin of marriage never had a religious requirement, either.

Great, got a source for that claim?