A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[BluePhantom]

Eliminating the governments role in issuing civil marriage licenses, AKA "marriage privatization", won't work and is not in the best interest of the gay and lesbian community.

It's great sound bites for libertarians and conservatives who want only the churches to marry citizens.

And what kind of a sound byte is it for the 56.63% of the voters in ultra-liberal Oregon who voted in favor of Ballot Measure 36 in 2004 which amended the state constitution banning gay marriage? How about the overwhelming liberal majority in the state legislature that refused to recognize civil unions?

How about ultra-liberal Michigan? What kind of a sound byte does it make for that liberal state that voted 59% in favor of State Proposal 04-02 that not only banned gay marriage, but civil unions and domestic partnership benefits?

How about Proposition 8 in California? 52.24% voted in favor of banning gay marriage in that liberal stronghold. How are those sound bytes working out for them?

The anti-homosexual movement is not limited to conservatives and libertarians. Liberal politicians love to claim that the Democratic party is a friend to the GLBT community but it's complete bullshit. They take action only when they are dragged kicking and screaming, usually in an election year so they can give the appearance of giving a shit, and usually the action they take is as minimal as possible so they can get the votes they need and then push them to the side again. Liberal voters have shown pretty clearly that despite the friendly rhetoric coming from the DNC, they sure aint no ally of the gay community. Oh and don't even try the "Republican obstructionism" angle. Liberals had the white house and Super-majorities in both houses of Congress for two years and what did they do for the gay community? Not a fucking thing. As the election year started to close in they got rid of DADT.....yippie fucking skippy. So save your breath on that one.

So cut the "libertarians and conservatives" bullshit. Liberals are just as much to blame for the despicable treatment the GLBT community receives as anyone else.

 

[Toro]

A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate is to allow gay people to get married.

It's going to happen anyways. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Artevelde]

Word for word...you didn't. But that's essentially your message

Thanks for admitting that you are a liar.

 

[Artevelde]

Technically, you referred to the sacraments...however, the sacraments are supposed to be based upon scripture are they not?

I only referred to the sacraments when somebody changed the topic of discussion and started about religious marriage. I never referred to the sacraments when I talked about civil marriage.

Again, you're a liar.

 

[Artevelde]

If you oppose gay marriage you are ignoring the constitution.

Really funny circular reasoning.

So you're contention is that for the past 225 years the whole of the US has been ignoring the constitution?

 

[Artevelde]

You may want to check your definitions. I think on this thread I have a) listened to every opposing view offered and responded, b) for the most part avoided resorting to personal attacks, c) made it clear on several occasions that those who oppose gay marriage are perfectly entitled to their opinions and defended their right to hold and express those opinions, d) refuted the claims you (and others) have made with a reasonable degree of respectfulness while providing supporting documentation when necessary to enforce my position.

What you are doing now is trying desperately to ignore the challenge I have made because you know good and damned well you can not meet the challenge and instead you are attacking me personally in the hope that the challenge will be forgotten and you won't be stuck to the wall on a point you know good and well you can't win.

Typical stuff really. I am starting to think you are a tenured professor at the rDean Institute of Scholarly Debate.

No, in this posting you have again been illustrating how you simply can't tolerate the fact that somebody disagrees with you on this. Somebody who disagrees with you on gay marriage has to be anti-gay, anti-constitutional and can only be motivated by religion. You decide tyhat for other people.

You and Joseph McCarthy would have gotten on famously.

 

[Artevelde]

Jesus man.....is this all you can do? "You're a bigot because I say so." "Gays suck because I say so." "they are making a mockery of scripture because I say so." "Fuck the Lemon Test. We should ignore the constitution and gay marriage should be banned because....well....because I say so." "Damn...Blue hit me with that Lemon Test challenge again and since I can't meet that challenge I will.....I KNOW....call him a bigot to divert from the point."

Where did I say "Gays suck"? You said that, not me.
Where did I refer to scripture? You did.
Where did I say the Constitution should be ignored?

Are you too stupid to read? I don't think so. You are simply so bigotted that you can't get over the fact that somebody doesn't agree with you. Therefore, you are a bigot.

Arte, why do you hate so badly?

You've got that backwards. You are the hater of diversity here, not me.

 

[Artevelde]

Eliminating the governments role in issuing civil marriage licenses, AKA "marriage privatization", won't work and is not in the best interest of the gay and lesbian community.

It's great sound bites for libertarians and conservatives who want only the churches to marry citizens.

Ah, there still are some people with a functioning brain left in this thread.

 

[Artevelde]

A reasonable solution to the gay marriage debate is to allow gay people to get married.

It's going to happen anyways. It's just a matter of time.

It's an unreasonable solution to a non-existent problem.

The world will end. That's just a matter of time too. Doesn't mean it's a great thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where did I say "Gays suck"? You said that, not me.
Where did I refer to scripture? You did.
Where did I say the Constitution should be ignored?

Are you too stupid to read? I don't think so. You are simply so bigotted that you can't get over the fact that somebody doesn't agree with you. Therefore, you are a bigot.

Arte, why do you hate so badly?

You've got that backwards. You are the hater of diversity here, not me.

Arte, you are now the hater of definitions as well.

 

[nitroz]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass where is it legal to marry your cousin in North Carolina?

 

[nitroz]

Dumb ass where is it legal to marry your cousin in North Carolina?

statelaws

It's legal, but with exceptions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass where is it legal to marry your cousin in North Carolina?

statelaws

It's legal, but with exceptions.

Activists, victims and prosecutors have lobbied over the last few years to change the law and similar statutes in 36 other states. By 2003, North Carolina, Illinois and Arkansas had repealed their incest exception laws; it's hoped that California's change will increase the ripple effect.
Incest Exception | Ending an awful irony - Los Angeles Times

 

[BDBoop]

Word for word...you didn't. But that's essentially your message

Thanks for admitting that you are a liar.

I've noticed you have a tendency to say that when you lost the argument.

Thanks for admitting you lost.

 

[BluePhantom]

You may want to check your definitions. I think on this thread I have a) listened to every opposing view offered and responded, b) for the most part avoided resorting to personal attacks, c) made it clear on several occasions that those who oppose gay marriage are perfectly entitled to their opinions and defended their right to hold and express those opinions, d) refuted the claims you (and others) have made with a reasonable degree of respectfulness while providing supporting documentation when necessary to enforce my position.

What you are doing now is trying desperately to ignore the challenge I have made because you know good and damned well you can not meet the challenge and instead you are attacking me personally in the hope that the challenge will be forgotten and you won't be stuck to the wall on a point you know good and well you can't win.

Typical stuff really. I am starting to think you are a tenured professor at the rDean Institute of Scholarly Debate.

No, in this posting you have again been illustrating how you simply can't tolerate the fact that somebody disagrees with you on this. Somebody who disagrees with you on gay marriage has to be anti-gay, anti-constitutional and can only be motivated by religion. You decide tyhat for other people.

You and Joseph McCarthy would have gotten on famously.

Do you realize you just posted four times in a row continuing to attempt to deflect from the point? How many times do I have to ask for this? This is exactly what it all comes down torovide an argument that meets the standards of the Lemon Test as to why homosexuals should be denied equal access to the law and be denied their rights as US citizens.

The Lemon Test again has three criteria and they are very simple:

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor hinder religion
3) It may not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion

Now cut out the personal attacks and the desperate attempts to avoid answering the question. Provide the argument that meets those three criteria. If you can't (and it's pretty obvious you can't) then be a man and say "I can't provide one". I imagine you will gain far more respect by simply saying "I can't" rather than throwing a tantrum and calling people liars, bigots, etc because of your inability to provide a legitimate legal argument.

 

[BluePhantom]

No, in this posting you have again been illustrating how you simply can't tolerate the fact that somebody disagrees with you on this.

BTW...you seem to be the one throwing the tantrum, not me.

 

[Gadawg73]

No one gives a shit if gays get married. It affects no one.
Only politicians pandering for votes and old mother hen busy bodies care if gays get married.
It is a non issue to everyone else with a brain.

 

[Artevelde]

Word for word...you didn't. But that's essentially your message

Thanks for admitting that you are a liar.

I've noticed you have a tendency to say that when you lost the argument.

Thanks for admitting you lost.

I know honesty isn't your strong point. But can you point out where I said anything anywhere near "gays suck"? I didn't, because that is not my opinion.

I can say however that in my opinion you are pretty pathetic.

 

[BDBoop]

Thanks for admitting that you are a liar.

I've noticed you have a tendency to say that when you lost the argument.

Thanks for admitting you lost.

I know honesty isn't your strong point. But can you point out where I said anything anywhere near "gays suck"? I didn't, because that is not my opinion.

I can say however that in my opinion you are pretty pathetic.

I guess that would matter - if I actually ascribed value to your opinion.