A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[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.

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.

I can't help it that you are too stupid to read and have to resort to lies.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

 

[nitroz]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

Last I remember, People didn't want government defining marriage and insisted that it should be left to the churches.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

Last I remember, People didn't want government defining marriage and insisted that it should be left to the churches.

Marriage is a government institution. We can't deny that at this point. But frankly, I'd be for govt. not sanctioning marriage any longer before I'd be for govt. needlessly endorsing gay marriage as a means to endorse the morality of one's sexual proclivities.

 

[JoeB131]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

Again, why are you so concerned with it?

I mean, despite you going on about Obama's "shaft" and some lurid fantasies. (ever notice homophobes are the first ones to graphically describe gay sex in the most lurid terms like bad slash-fic?) I'll assume you are totally straight. At least as straight as Rush Limbaugh, anyway.

Gays can get married. How does this effect your life in any way shape or form?

 

[JoeB131]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

Last I remember, People didn't want government defining marriage and insisted that it should be left to the churches.

Marriage is a government institution. We can't deny that at this point. But frankly, I'd be for govt. not sanctioning marriage any longer before I'd be for govt. needlessly endorsing gay marriage as a means to endorse the morality of one's sexual proclivities.

So you'd burn down the clubhouse before you'd let them in?

 

[Toro]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Big Gubmint Conservative

 

[Toro]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

Last I remember, People didn't want government defining marriage and insisted that it should be left to the churches.

I don't want only the church to define marriage. Marriage is also a legal contract, and I don't want the church to be the sole determiner of the law.

 

[Gadawg73]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

How is that reasonable for those that are banned from marriage?
Where is morality mentioned in THE LAW?

 

[Artevelde]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

How is that reasonable for those that are banned from marriage?
Where is morality mentioned in THE LAW?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?

 

[KevinWestern]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

How is that reasonable for those that are banned from marriage?
Where is morality mentioned in THE LAW?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?

I think marriage is a union between any two adult, consenting humans who love each other and wish to spend their lives together...

.

 

[BluePhantom]

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.

I can't help it that you are too stupid to read and have to resort to lies.

In other words you can't. And since you can't provide an argument that meets those criteria (which isn't terribly shocking because neither can anyone else including the lawyers arguing in favor of banning gay marriage) then it mean that you have no legal basis upon which to deny homosexuals their constitutional rights. So you are endorsing an unconstitutional position. That a) runs contrary to conservatives' claim of being "defenders of the constitution" and b) explains perfectly why, despite claims from conservatives about "activist judges", the courts keep ruling in favor of gay marriage.

 

[Artevelde]

How is that reasonable for those that are banned from marriage?
Where is morality mentioned in THE LAW?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?

I think marriage is a union between any two adult, consenting humans who love each other and wish to spend their lives together...

.

So brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children should be able to marry according to you?

 

[Artevelde]

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.

I can't help it that you are too stupid to read and have to resort to lies.

In other words you can't. And since you can't provide an argument that meets those criteria (which isn't terribly shocking because neither can anyone else including the lawyers arguing in favor of banning gay marriage) then it mean that you have no legal basis upon which to deny homosexuals their constitutional rights. So you are endorsing an unconstitutional position. That a) runs contrary to conservatives' claim of being "defenders of the constitution" and b) explains perfectly why, despite claims from conservatives about "activist judges", the courts keep ruling in favor of gay marriage.

I have on several occasions offered my rationale why gay marriage is a bad idea. You have simply chosen to ignore my arguments.

 

[KevinWestern]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?

I think marriage is a union between any two adult, consenting humans who love each other and wish to spend their lives together...

.

So brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children should be able to marry according to you?

Frankly, I don't care. What are we talking maybe 1 couple out of every 500,000 or more in America?

Zero effect on society.

 

[Artevelde]

I think marriage is a union between any two adult, consenting humans who love each other and wish to spend their lives together...

.

So brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children should be able to marry according to you?

Frankly, I don't care. What are we talking maybe 1 couple out of every 500,000 or more in America?

Zero effect on society.

If marriage is that insignificant to you then the logical thing would be to simply abolish marriage in civil law.

 

[BluePhantom]

I can't help it that you are too stupid to read and have to resort to lies.

In other words you can't. And since you can't provide an argument that meets those criteria (which isn't terribly shocking because neither can anyone else including the lawyers arguing in favor of banning gay marriage) then it mean that you have no legal basis upon which to deny homosexuals their constitutional rights. So you are endorsing an unconstitutional position. That a) runs contrary to conservatives' claim of being "defenders of the constitution" and b) explains perfectly why, despite claims from conservatives about "activist judges", the courts keep ruling in favor of gay marriage.

I have on several occasions offered my rationale why gay marriage is a bad idea. You have simply chosen to ignore my arguments.

Oh you have already provided that argument? Oh well, fantastic. Just tell me what the post numbers are and I will have a look. Now I have seen you make some argument's yes, but none that meet the standards of the Lemon Test.

 

[KevinWestern]

So brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children should be able to marry according to you?

Frankly, I don't care. What are we talking maybe 1 couple out of every 500,000 or more in America?

Zero effect on society.

If marriage is that insignificant to you then the logical thing would be to simply abolish marriage in civil law.

No, what I said was insignificant is the number of people who would actually want to take part in an incestuous marriage.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's a suggestion let everybody marry whom or what they want to marry as many times as they want to marry and when they want. no divorces

 

[Gadawg73]

The reasonable solution is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and then we can just tell all the bitches to stfu; government is not going to stamp your morality with their stamp.

How is that reasonable for those that are banned from marriage?
Where is morality mentioned in THE LAW?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?

Yes, we should ban mass murderers from marrying.

I am sure we will save this nation from every problem we face if we ban two people that are committed to each other of the same sex to get married.
Just last night I woke up shocked by the fact that somewhere near me there may be 2 men or 2 women that love each other laying in their bed as they sleep. Then I had this terrible thought? What if they want to get married? I spent the rest of the night worrying about the devestating impact that would have on my life, my marriage and career if 2 gays or 2 lesbians were allowed to have a wedding ceremony to get married. If that was allowed I just do not know how I could go on with my life. What would be the purpose in my life if those 2 homosexuals were allowed to get married and make that kind of commitment to each other?
And now we have those that want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and set all of us at ease. We have needed this for such a long time. How fitting to use The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, rather than tell the GOVERNMENT what it can not do which is what the Constitution was founded on.
No, we do not need tax reform, we do not need to end the massive deficit, we do not need energy reform, healthcare reform, tax reform and earmark reform. We do not need fiscal responsibily.
What we need is a Constitutional Amendment to ban gays from marrying and all of a sudden that makes us a moral nation again over night and everything else is solved.