Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What about polygamy and bestiality? Every time you relax the standards, the improbable gets less unlikely.
Why is it that someone who stands on principle becomes a bigot in the eyes of Progressives?
Don't assume I am a Progressive. I am not.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between harmful and harmless?
I'm not arguing harmful/harmless. I'm arguing the meaning of words.
Many people still don't accept interracial marriages either. You don't have to personally accept....but in legal matters, you do
Interracial marriage is about rights. Gay marriage is about definitions.
Right to marry the person you love
No one is calling for the doors to be blown off the contract of marriage. It's still a contract. Open to two parties of the age of majority. Two parties who are willing to form a third legal entity. Two parties who want to meld their fortunes together legally. Two parties who enter into this contract through their love for one another.Who the fuck are YOU to doubt my respect for anything, except maybe you?
Hey if we're going to redefine marriage, why stop with gays. Why NOT multiple spouses, children, sheep? Where does it stop. We need constants in life.
I vote we make Pi 3.25 It will be a lot more convenient.
Because most sane and "normal" human beings wouldn't "go there", thinking that polygamy, pedophilia or bestiality is synonymous with same sex marriages. It stops at consensual human beings, not related and of legal age. The world is changing, and you can't stop it...your only option is to accept and adapt. Sorry.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Really? So...if my wife and I move to Virginia, we are as recognized as a legally married couple as any of our straight friends would be?
No, but last I checked couples don't have rights. As individuals, however, you both would have the same right as your straight friends regarding whom you can marry.
You should write to Justice Roberts and let him know that the Supreme Court really screwed the pooch in the Loving v. Virginia case because they determined that the couples rights had been denied. The decision was based on how the couple was discriminated against.
The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same claim, that there was no discrimination because each individually had access to Civil Marriage, therefore there was no discrimination. The court ruled against that logic.
>>>>
If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.
I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.
Brittany fucking Spears went to Vegas and got married for three days, but I can't call my 17 year relationship a marriage? Screw that.
I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.Of course you do, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.Right...and anti miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. Tried and failed. We don't have the right to legally marry the non-familial consenting adult partner of our choice. You do. We don't have the same rights.
Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, PERIOD.
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
It's a matter of ridiculousness.Ernie does not need any defense as he is quite capable but let me give you my experience this as I am in the deep south:
1. Homophobes which is Ernie is not.
2. Against gay marriage which Ernie is and I believe him to be wrong but that does not make Ernie a bigot.
If someone was opposed to my receiving the same privileges which others enjoy, all things being equal with the exception of a quality of mine which they do not like, I would say it is inarguable that person is a bigot toward that particular quality.
I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.
Total Bull shit there Ernie.
They said the same thing with interracial marriage and women's right to vote.
40 years ago gays were treated like 2nd class citizens and that was the norm.
Well, look back to what was considered normal back when laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down. No one in their right mind would have considered we'd be having this discussion either.
and 150 years ago, people didn't think we'd have the discussion of women being allowed to vote either.
Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.
Well, not exactly. Aberrant is essentially defined as abnormal or unusual so gay is, by that definition, definitely Aberrant. You cannot argue that something that 5% of the population practices or experiences is normal. It is the way that it is but lets not get caught up in language because we feel that there are negative connotations here.
By your definition being left handed or having red hair is aberrant.
It is. Lefties and redheads are significant minorities, though red hair isn't aberrant in Ireland and Scotland.Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.
Well, not exactly. Aberrant is essentially defined as abnormal or unusual so gay is, by that definition, definitely Aberrant. You cannot argue that something that 5% of the population practices or experiences is normal. It is the way that it is but lets not get caught up in language because we feel that there are negative connotations here.
By your definition being left handed or having red hair is aberrant.
What protections? Benefits like medical insurance offered by an employer. Hospital visitation privileges, tax code benefits, next of kin designations. And if you can raise one argument against Gay marriage that isn't predicated on hate, fear, misunderstanding or bigotry, please do so!I cannot and will not argue with the 'spiritual' part. That's between you and God. But the legal part is what can and must be debated because we the people determine the legality of the marriage contract. The license issued by the state, the contract granted by the state, the union recognized by the state. Denying access to this license, these protections, this contract to two committed individuals simply because they do not meet the requirements set forth by someone's interpretation of Scripture is on its face wrong.Of course you do, as long as that person is of the opposite sex.
Marriage is the legal and spiritual union of one man and one woman, PERIOD.
What protections are there in having a legal marriage?
We do not conduct business based on Scripture in America. If you're looking for a society that DOES legislate according to a Holy mandate, try Iran. We the people make the laws.
And there is no sense, no logic, no valid argument against same sex marriage in America today. Sober, tax paying citizens of the age of majority have the same rights to contract law protections as any other sober, tax paying citizen of the age of majority.
Says who? You're pretending to argue a general truth when you're arguing for some specific, undefined right you don't have. Nobody's saying people can't marry, but the debate is over how we should define marriage.
Don't assume I am a Progressive. I am not.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between harmful and harmless?
I'm not arguing harmful/harmless. I'm arguing the meaning of words.
Yeah. You are making a very old, very tired, very lame attempt to conflate homosexuality with harmful behaviors. That much is obvious. Which is exactly why I pointed out that is a logical fallacy.
No, but last I checked couples don't have rights. As individuals, however, you both would have the same right as your straight friends regarding whom you can marry.
You should write to Justice Roberts and let him know that the Supreme Court really screwed the pooch in the Loving v. Virginia case because they determined that the couples rights had been denied. The decision was based on how the couple was discriminated against.
The Commonwealth of Virginia made the same claim, that there was no discrimination because each individually had access to Civil Marriage, therefore there was no discrimination. The court ruled against that logic.
>>>>
For some reason I think I've explained this to you, but that's not what the court said. Otis and Mildred Loving were already married, but they faced punishment because they were committing a crime to have a legal marriage in a state that criminalized interracial marriage between whites and non-whites. Loving v. Virginia found that the state can't restrict one's marriage because their spouse is of a different race, not that interracial couples have the same rights as single-race couples. And, even if we were to entertain the idea that Loving was about couples' rights, still it involved the union of a man and a woman, not a gay couple or polygamous couple or any other type of couple that might be seen as controversial.
The court made the argument that because they were both punished under the law that it wasn't racial discrimination. That was the argument the court ruled against.
Granted, but words have meanings and if we redefine the word for one aberrant group, the flood gates are open for Mormons who want to practice polygamy, NAMBLA, Muslims that want to marry off their daughters at age 8 and lonely shepherds.
Far fetched? Yup, today, but 40 years ago, gays who lived together knew that they wouldn't get a Priest of a Justice of the Peace to perform a marriage ceremony for them because their relationship couldn't be considered a "marriage".
Sorry guy I may have to adapt, but I don't have to accept.
Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.
ab·er·rant
/ˈabərənt/
Adjective
Departing from an accepted standard.
Diverging from the normal type.
Departing from an accepted standard. ie. departing from the accepted standard of 1 man and 1 woman. I see nothing abhorrent about about you shacking up with who ever you choose. Just don't call it persimmon.
No, but last I checked couples don't have rights. As individuals, however, you both would have the same right as your straight friends regarding whom you can marry.
Right...and anti miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory because they applied equally to men and women. Tried and failed. We don't have the right to legally marry the non-familial consenting adult partner of our choice. You do. We don't have the same rights.
Why are you comparing anti-miscegenation and gay marriage as if they're the same thing? One dealt with penalties placed on marriages otherwise similar to legal marriages except for a difference in race, which if you know anything about race-based jurisprudence, demands a higher level of review than just about any other classification.
Other thing is, there isn't a right to marry whomever you want. The "right" is that you can have a husband if you're a woman or a wife if you're a man. Diddling in semantics doesn't change that. You have the same rights as everyone else. You just don't like it. You want an extra right.
I am NOT opposed to your receiving the same privileges which others enjoy. I am opposed to you calling it marriage, popcorn or bandanna.
It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of definitions.
Brittany fucking Spears went to Vegas and got married for three days, but I can't call my 17 year relationship a marriage? Screw that.
No, because it's not. I have a good friend who was in a long term relationship with his gay lover. 10 years, I believe. When Johnny was in the hospital, dying of AIDS, John wasn't allowed to visit him in ICU. I thought that sucked. Since then, I have advocated civil unions, but I refuse to call it marriage. Sorry. Nothing against you or your guy.
Aberrant? You have your nerve. You insult me, and other gays in the forum, to our faces, in open forum, and I'm supposed to abide you???????? Who cares if you don't accept.
Well, not exactly. Aberrant is essentially defined as abnormal or unusual so gay is, by that definition, definitely Aberrant. You cannot argue that something that 5% of the population practices or experiences is normal. It is the way that it is but lets not get caught up in language because we feel that there are negative connotations here.
Um...we are not having problems with jobs and college scholarships. Many of us own the businesses and run the colleges. All we want are equal civil rights. But I can understand you feeling threatened.
You have equal civil rights.
You hate normal people and want to persecute them via AA. Next question.
Um...we are not having problems with jobs and college scholarships. Many of us own the businesses and run the colleges. All we want are equal civil rights. But I can understand you feeling threatened.
You have equal civil rights.
You hate normal people and want to persecute them via AA. Next question.
You are not a normal person. A normal person would not start a hateful thread like this one.
