SSM. Seeking middle ground

[Pop23]

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....


i have no interest in arguing against any of your imaginary scenarios.

it is not necessary to 'argue against' them in order to argue FOR gay marriage.

Not to worry, I'm used to that dodge.

It is interesting though, the word bigot.

Bigot seems to be used a lot around here when it comes to those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage.

Also interesting is how the same sex marriage proponents seem to exclude straight same sex couples from marriage when they proclaim that gay marriage will become legal. I see no way that the USSC can discriminate againt straight same sex couples without creating another paradox.

That's OK that you bailed. You got further than most once they realized what the outcome of this progression will be in the end.

Anyone care to pick up where this poster left off?

 

[dcraelin]

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....


i have no interest in arguing against any of your imaginary scenarios.

it is not necessary to 'argue against' them in order to argue FOR gay marriage.

of course you dont, because they show the illogical base to your position.

marriage is really a relic of the church-state of England, as such it should not have a place in our government system which separates church and state.

There are aspects of their desires, visitation..(which no one wants to deny) , that the gay marriage crowd gets a lot of mileage from. others ..tax benefits.....should not be granted based on relationship status at all....they are unfair to singles....and show that the gay marriage crowd is not really interested in fairness.

each aspect of the law needs to be examined if in a court setting...it cannot be a blanket grant

but the most dangerous aspect of this is that it puts courts over people......the prop 8 case denied court standing to millions of Californians.....very dangerous...no matter what side of the gay marriage debate you are on. ...This should not be up to the courts.. gay marriage advocates should relax and put just a little trust in the people and in the republican/democratic process.

 

[Valerie]

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....


i have no interest in arguing against any of your imaginary scenarios.

it is not necessary to 'argue against' them in order to argue FOR gay marriage.

Not to worry, I'm used to that dodge.

It is interesting though, the word bigot.

Bigot seems to be used a lot around here when it comes to those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage.

Also interesting is how the same sex marriage proponents seem to exclude straight same sex couples from marriage when they proclaim that gay marriage will become legal. I see no way that the USSC can discriminate againt straight same sex couples without creating another paradox.

That's OK that you bailed. You got further than most once they realized what the outcome of this progression will be in the end.

Anyone care to pick up where this poster left off?

oh are you going to claim victory now?

i didn't use the word bigot. are you seeing things, pop?

i don't think there is a compelling state interest in arguing against any consenting adult couples unless there is an issue with predatory abuse or the possibility of inbreeding...

 

[Valerie]

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....


i have no interest in arguing against any of your imaginary scenarios.

it is not necessary to 'argue against' them in order to argue FOR gay marriage.

of course you dont, because they show the illogical base to your position.

marriage is really a relic of the church-state of England, as such it should not have a place in our government system which separates church and state.

There are aspects of their desires, visitation..(which no one wants to deny) , that the gay marriage crowd gets a lot of mileage from. others ..tax benefits.....should not be granted based on relationship status at all....they are unfair to singles....and show that the gay marriage crowd is not really interested in fairness.

each aspect of the law needs to be examined if in a court setting...it cannot be a blanket grant

but the most dangerous aspect of this is that it puts courts over people......the prop 8 case denied court standing to millions of Californians.....very dangerous...no matter what side of the gay marriage debate you are on. ...This should not be up to the courts.. gay marriage advocates should relax and put just a little trust in the people and in the republican/democratic process.

what 'position' is that exactly? i don't necessarily disagree that our government shouldn't be involved in sanctioning our private relationships..

 

[Valerie]

Pop23


"those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage."




YOU can't even meet your own challenge?

 

[Pop23]

Pop23


"those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage."




YOU can't even meet your own challenge?

What challenge would that be? Same sex marriage?

Using the basis of compelling state interest, I conceeded that quite a long time ago.

 

[Valerie]

unfair "to exclude straight same sex couples from marriage" ?



words mean things, pop. your strawman is the paradox.

"straight same sex couple" ?



again, those types of legal partnerships already have many different laws which apply to them.

 

[Pop23]

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....


i have no interest in arguing against any of your imaginary scenarios.

it is not necessary to 'argue against' them in order to argue FOR gay marriage.

Not to worry, I'm used to that dodge.

It is interesting though, the word bigot.

Bigot seems to be used a lot around here when it comes to those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage.

Also interesting is how the same sex marriage proponents seem to exclude straight same sex couples from marriage when they proclaim that gay marriage will become legal. I see no way that the USSC can discriminate againt straight same sex couples without creating another paradox.

That's OK that you bailed. You got further than most once they realized what the outcome of this progression will be in the end.

Anyone care to pick up where this poster left off?

oh are you going to claim victory now?

i didn't use the word bigot. are you seeing things, pop?

i don't think there is a compelling state interest in arguing against any consenting adult couples unless there is an issue with predatory abuse or the possibility of inbreeding...

Did I say you conceeded? You simply deflected to the normal tactic by using the slippery slope dodge.

There is no doubt the slope exists, that's been conceeded through the inability to defeat the compelling governmental interest argument. The only question is, is how long the slope is and how quickly we get to the bottom.

As for the use of the word bigot, you do understand I don't determine who is and who isn't, only those that are or are not can determine that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

You're just as ignorant and wrong as the OP.

 

[Valerie]

"those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage."

YOU can't even meet your own challenge?

What challenge would that be? Same sex marriage?

Using the basis of compelling state interest, I conceded that quite a long time ago.

you concede that there is no compelling state interest to deny homosexual marriage..?

excellent

 

[Pop23]

unfair "to exclude straight same sex couples from marriage" ?



words mean things, pop. your strawman is the paradox.

"straight same sex couple" ?



again, those types of legal partnerships already have many different laws which apply to them.

Why is that a paradox. Same sex s
Marriage is same sex marriage.

Great financial benefits await the straight same sex marriage couple that simply sign a paper and get reduced taxes, and spousal insurance rates.

What's the actual downside?

You realize that these dudes can keep dating the opposite sex, right?

 

[Pop23]

"those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage."

YOU can't even meet your own challenge?

What challenge would that be? Same sex marriage?

Using the basis of compelling state interest, I conceded that quite a long time ago.

you concede that there is no compelling state interest to deny homosexual marriage..?

excellent

For now, yes.

Care to continue?

 

[Pop23]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

You're just as ignorant and wrong as the OP.

Then join the discussion!

 

[Defiant1]

I think Pop's plan has a lot of merit. It would get govt. completely out of the love/relationship business. Liberals and fags should love it.

I don't think the traditional marriage, one man one woman, will be enforceable. There will be organizations, churches that will perform any wedding ceremony if asked. But that's okay, since most of society knows what traditional marriage is. Gays will say they are married but it will be like the person that buys a Rolex for $10 in Times Square.

I offer some amendments:
1. No grandfather clause. Once the bill is passed everyone has to apply for the new civil union card. Everyone gets a card, like a drivers license.
2. No limit to who or the amount of adults entering into a single union.
3. If anyone no longer wants to be in a union they turn in their card. Individuals will be responsible for hiring lawyers and private arbitrators to negotiate the split. No more divorce courts. Once the split is negotiated it is filed and if an ex reneges the offended party or parties can file a civil suit.
4. People can choose not to apply for a union card and only be married, but their union will not be recognized by any govt. agency.

You're just as ignorant and wrong as the OP.

How am I ignorant and wrong?

I'm for all relationships to be equal in the eyes of the government.

 

[dcraelin]

To argue against the couples I have cited in example is to argue against.....


i have no interest in arguing against any of your imaginary scenarios.

it is not necessary to 'argue against' them in order to argue FOR gay marriage.

of course you dont, because they show the illogical base to your position.

marriage is really a relic of the church-state of England, as such it should not have a place in our government system which separates church and state.

There are aspects of their desires, visitation..(which no one wants to deny) , that the gay marriage crowd gets a lot of mileage from. others ..tax benefits.....should not be granted based on relationship status at all....they are unfair to singles....and show that the gay marriage crowd is not really interested in fairness.

each aspect of the law needs to be examined if in a court setting...it cannot be a blanket grant

but the most dangerous aspect of this is that it puts courts over people......the prop 8 case denied court standing to millions of Californians.....very dangerous...no matter what side of the gay marriage debate you are on. ...This should not be up to the courts.. gay marriage advocates should relax and put just a little trust in the people and in the republican/democratic process.

what 'position' is that exactly? i don't necessarily disagree that our government shouldn't be involved in sanctioning our private relationships..

you dont "necessarily" disagree? I dont know what that means. I guess I assumed you were for the gay marriage advocates winning in the courts....

 

[Valerie]

you dont "necessarily" disagree? I dont know what that means.

it means you drew conclusions and made false claims about 'my position' which were not necessarily true based on what i'd posted, and/or what i know of my own opinions...

 

[Valerie]

"those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage."

YOU can't even meet your own challenge?

What challenge would that be? Same sex marriage?

Using the basis of compelling state interest, I conceded that quite a long time ago.

you concede that there is no compelling state interest to deny homosexual marriage..?

excellent

For now, yes.

Care to continue?

for what? cuz you get your jollies posting about incest straw?

 

[RKMBrown]

Could it be they've never had the opportunity to be a victim yet? Seems a great motivation wouldn't you say?

that doesn't make sense, if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

 

[Pop23]

"those who can't defeat the challenge of finding a COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST in denying same sex couple the rights and benefits to marriage."

YOU can't even meet your own challenge?

What challenge would that be? Same sex marriage?

Using the basis of compelling state interest, I conceded that quite a long time ago.

you concede that there is no compelling state interest to deny homosexual marriage..?

excellent

For now, yes.

Care to continue?

for what? cuz you get your jollies posting about incest straw?

Since I proved no slippery slope, it's now a strawman?

Good lord

 

[Pop23]

Could it be they've never had the opportunity to be a victim yet? Seems a great motivation wouldn't you say?

that doesn't make sense, if they existed and presumably wanted to marry each other but couldn't, their supposed plight already exists, independent of other partners who may wish to marry each other. the rare case of incestuous relationships usually already have a victim for one, plus there is the possibility of offspring. if they wanted to plead their case any time now to the state they could, but they don't and gay marriage isn't going to change that. you can mock imaginary slippery slope progress all you want, but you can't show how it has anything to do with denying existing loving homosexual partnerships...

Oh Dear,

This entire time, through the entire drill down of the progression I have asked one simple question at each stop. Just one.

Name the compelling state interest in denying these couples THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE BENEFITS AWARDED WITH MARRIAGE

At any time I will end the walk down the path at the time the question is answered in such a way that these minority groups are assured the Justice they deserve.

Oh, and to your first point, before a codification of SSM, the state had a compelling interest in the "traditional" meaning of incest. Now, as you can see through this entire exersise, that tradition seems to have been redefined, just like MARRIAGE.

Shall we continue down the path?

Right or wrong, you have to admit it's freaking interesting

I think we left off with an opposite sex sibling couple, unable to procreate, wanting the financial benefits from marriage. What is the compelling state interest in denying them a marriage license. Remember they can't procreate.

I already provided you with the answer to that question. You choose to ignore the answer.

No, not one that stands, and I tire of repeating my self to you.

Unless you come up with a better reason than, somehow a same sex sibling couple can procreate, you're not getting answered again.