Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[dilloduck]

Homosexuality is an abomination, perversity, and an aberration in the eyes of God, Nature and Man.

Herein is where your entire argument falls apart. The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy. As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of yourpost is your personal opinion, and I will not, debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.

Judges who decide the validity of laws issue opinions all the time-----they are as much a part of America as a law.

Interpreting the law is far different from legislating. That's what you guys seem to have a hard time understanding. What you keep calling "legislating from the bench" is nothing more than the judicial system doing what the Constitution set it up to do - interpret the law, and determine its constitutionality.

Interpreting the law sometimes changes the law with amounts to the same thing as passing new legislation.

Only if that law had already been altered in ways that are unconstitutional. Returning a law to its original is not "changing" the law; it is fixing the unconstitutional changes that were made to it.

Such as in this case. It was the addition of "one man, one woman" that unconstitutionally changed the laws. All the court rulings are doing is returning the laws to their original form.

That's not "legislating" that's interpreting. That's what the court is supposed to do. You just don't like the interpretation.

and it's done according to the opinion of a judge appointed by a politician.

 

[Boss]

Except you can't. That's the point. You already tried that when you attempted to redefine "marriage", adding the words "one woman, and one man" to the definition, and you have been shot down by the Federal Courts every time it gets there. Words. Have. Meanings. You don't get to change those meanings just because you don't happen to like the consequences of those meanings.

Sorry, but 1) courts have not decided any such thing. 2) courts are not always right. Words DO have meanings, and marriage is the union of a man and woman. You want to change that to include same-sex couples. 3) A constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage will trump anything any court has to say on this.

Why stop at 14? Let's make it 12 or 11! Or maybe not have an arbitrary age limit at all? Humans don't all reach sexual maturity at the same time, why should they be restrained by some arbitrary limitation? Seems like you just want to be a rigid moral fuddy-duddy who wants to impose his morality on the rest of us against our will and deny us the rights we should have to love who we please.

I'll let this one go, as I have already responded to this, and see no reason to repeat myself.

Sorry, not seeing any response from you on this. But hey... don't blame you for letting it go and running far far away, it's a brilliant point that is hard to defeat.

An animal does not have the ability to make a contract. It is not a person in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it cannot make a marriage contract. so argument fail.

Again, once was the time, males could not marry males and females couldn't marry females in the eyes of the law. Therefore, there was no such thing as Gay Marriage and it was an "argument fail" as well.

We simply need to redefine "persons" to include animals and how we determine "consent" and what that means under the law... same as we're doing with "marriage."

Again, this was dealt with above, when it was pointed out that you moralists do not get to arbitrarily change the meanings of words so that they fit your emotional arguments.

Well SURE we do! That's what we're debating here, right? If you can change marriage to fit your emotional arguments, then others can change meanings to fit theirs. Sounds like what you want is to be able to have what you want but deny others what they want. Are you just a flaming fucking hypocrite?

A dead person can't "love', as they lack you know, being alive.

But that's not their fault, they can't help that they are dead. Why should you deny their rights over something that isn't their fault? Who are you to deny the person who loves them the right to express their love? It's not hurting you in any way, it's certainly not hurting the dead person... what is the hangup?

Well...since a dead body is a thing, not a person, I suppose this would actually fall under property rights. So, as such, I would actually be okay with necrophiliacs fucking their dead bodies, so long as they can prove ownership. I think it's a little gross. But, Hey! Who am I to judge?

Ahh... GREAT... so now we have another peek into the future liberal agenda! Yes... let's get "gay marriage" settled as law of the land first, then we can have the national debate about fucking the dead! All of those opposed to such a thing can be called names and ridiculed by the liberal left, and we can push morality a little further down the crap hole. Wonderful!

 

[elektra]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

The marriage contract they enter into is not different, however; the law is the same regardless the gender configuration. Marriage is two consenting adult partners participating in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Yes I understand you want to call all things homosexual anything but homosexual.

The only way the Homosexuals win, is by changing the meaning of words, by not using any word that describes who they are, by killing any speech that speaks the truth.

Actually, it is not the Homosexuals who attempted to change the meaning of words - that would be the religious zealots, and the moralists, who attempted to revise the definition of marriage to include a restriction based on their religious, and moralistic desires to force people to behave the way they want them to. The Courts simply said, "Nope. You don't get to do that. Marriage is guaranteed to everyone." The moralist do that a lot.

Really, so back in 1824 homosexuals were being married? Other societies 100's of years ago, or even in the last Century called homosexual couples, married.

Please provide some insight. I love to be educated so prove your premise.

 

[TooTall]

I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?

If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.

I will repeat the question for you.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?

I will try and ask it in with smaller words if it is still too vague for you.

Okay, so it is just a condemnation on an atheist who doesn't give a shit what consenting adults do.

I already know from previous a post what one atheist doesn't give a shit about and still supports. My question is what else besides same sex marriage, polygamy and incest do you not give a shit about and still support?

Well...prostitution, drugs, suicide (not to be confused with euthanasia - two very different things). Here's a hint. If the law was designed to protect me from myself, the law is wrong. I really don't like morality laws that tell other people what they get to do with their own bodies, in their own lives.

When you posted this: "First, like most religious zealots, you presume that just because a person does not happen to believe your little fairy tail about the Magic Man in the Sky who is going to make everything okay by "sending" his kid to be brutalized and murdered at the hands of violent, stupid men, that this means that person has no morals." You insulted 88% of the people in the world that believe in God and 33% of the world population that is Christian. You didn't need to tell me what your moral compass was. I had already guessed.

My question was to Seawytch and I will wait for his/her answer.

 

[Bush92]

If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.

I will repeat the question for you.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?

I will try and ask it in with smaller words if it is still too vague for you.

Okay, so it is just a condemnation on an atheist who doesn't give a shit what consenting adults do.

I already know from previous a post what one atheist doesn't give a shit about and still supports. My question is what else besides same sex marriage, polygamy and incest do you not give a shit about and still support?

Well...prostitution, drugs, suicide (not to be confused with euthanasia - two very different things). Here's a hint. If the law was designed to protect me from myself, the law is wrong. I really don't like morality laws that tell other people what they get to do with their own bodies, in their own lives.

When you posted this: "First, like most religious zealots, you presume that just because a person does not happen to believe your little fairy tail about the Magic Man in the Sky who is going to make everything okay by "sending" his kid to be brutalized and murdered at the hands of violent, stupid men, that this means that person has no morals." You insulted 88% of the people in the world that believe in God and 33% of the world population that is Christian. You didn't need to tell me what your moral compass was. I had already guessed.

My question was to Seawytch and I will wait for his/her answer.

Fuck you

 

[elektra]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

The marriage contract they enter into is not different, however; the law is the same regardless the gender configuration. Marriage is two consenting adult partners participating in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

Yes I understand you want to call all things homosexual anything but homosexual.

The only way the Homosexuals win, is by changing the meaning of words, by not using any word that describes who they are, by killing any speech that speaks the truth.

That you perceive the issue in terms of 'winning' and losing' is both sad and telling.

Everyone 'wins' when all Americans are afforded their comprehensive civil liberties.

and as I stated, to win, you must not allude to what you are speaking of, you must not use any word that associates Homosexuality with what you advocate.

You must kill Free Speech, your reply confirms this.

 

[elektra]

Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

What are you babbling about? Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?

Sorry, your last post was a bit incoherent, what was your intent in denigrating my use of the term, homosexual.

No. My intent was to ridicule your laughable claim that you are not being allowed to use the term homosexual. The part that made it so funny was that you did that while using the term homosexual!

Yes, so funny, I am sure you really laughed.

So you are all in for Homosexual "Marriage", to include all that encompasses, the "civil-right" to buy Heterosexual Children, yes or no?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

What are you babbling about? Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?

Sorry, your last post was a bit incoherent, what was your intent in denigrating my use of the term, homosexual.

No. My intent was to ridicule your laughable claim that you are not being allowed to use the term homosexual. The part that made it so funny was that you did that while using the term homosexual!

Yes, so funny, I am sure you really laughed.

So you are all in for Homosexual "Marriage", to include all that encompasses, the "civil-right" to buy Heterosexual Children, yes or no?

With your failed 'argument' devoid of facts or evidence, you now resort to inane demagoguery.

 

[Czernobog]

One angle would be to find homosexuality to be harmful to the Republic and its citizens in some manner or another.

You're quite right. The moralists could try to do this to invalidate same-sex marriage. Unfortunately, they have yet to find a legitimate argument to make that case without falling into a logically fallacious "Slippery Slope' argument that convinces no one. But, hey! Good luck with that. You guys keep trying to do that. Lemme know how that works out for ya...

You're correct.

With the key word being 'yet'.

That's what 'continuing to try until you succeed' is all about.

We may know more within four to eight years of the beginning of the next conservative Presidency.

I think you had better hope,. strongly, that you guys win this next election. Because, if not, I suspect this will already be a dead issue. I mean in just 4 years we've gone from no states to 30 states. Just how long do you think it will take to get the last 20 to fall? After that, same-sex marriage is a thing. Debate over.

The faulty and irrational logic that now validates homosexuals calling themselves "married" still exists and will be used on the next identified "victims".

 

[Czernobog]

Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals

No they don't. And repeating that over and over again, doesn't magically make it true.

and they always have. Any of you comprehend that simple fact?

No they haven't, and repeating that over, and over again, doesn't magically make that true, either.

Marriage is about sheltering children

No its not, and it has never been. In fact, historically marriage was about securing property, and alliances. Then, when women stopped being thought of as chattel, it became about the personal choice of spending one's life with the person one loves. However, it has never been about "sheltering children". I have no idea where you got that insanely stupid idea from. It certainly wasn't history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

dilloduck said: ↑

“and it's done according to the opinion of a judge appointed by a politician.”


Incorrect.

Obviously you've not bothered to read any of the Marriage Cases rulings.

If you had you'd understand that the rulings are predicated on settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence dating back to the 19th Century (see, e.g., Mugler v. Kansas (1887)). Consequently the notion that Federal judges are ruling in a partisan and capricious manner is false, as the decisions are supported by both Supreme Court rulings as well as objective, documented evidence presented at trial.

 

[Czernobog]

really---I'm dying to know what atheist base their system or morals on that is different than ones already covered by religion.

It's irrelevant what atheists use for their moral base. The point is that just because their morals are different than yours doesn't make them "immoral". To suggest such is an indication of self-righteous religious prejudice.

not uncommon response when atheist claim to be more moral than religious people.

I never claimed I was more moral than anyone. Such a claim is ludicrous prima facia. Morality is not quantitative. People who claim to be morally superior to others, typically are self-righteous, pontificating hypocrites who feel the need to justify their behavior. You'll notice I never defended Seawytch , when she made that claim. I generally agree with most of the things she says. However, I have no intention of getting into a pissing match over whose morals are "better", as that serves no purpose, and the question of morals is always, and ought to be, a personal matter.

I only claimed that to say that atheists have no morals (the definition of immoral), simply because their morals differ is unfair, and inaccurate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MaryL said: ↑

“Gays have exactly the same rights as Heterosexuals”


Including the right to equal protection of the law, which the states seek to violate by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

 

[Czernobog]

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Okay. Your argument fails on three points. Allow me to point them out for you:

Ad hominem: "...immoral atheists". This is a form of logical fallacy. It relies on attacking your opponent directly, while ignoring the content of his argument, to avoid responding to the actual argument with a rational, reasoned, logical response. Such an emotional response usually indicates that the person employing the attack has run out of logical things to say, and simply does not wish to admit defeat.

Red Herring: "Child abuse comes to mind." This is a text book case. This is rarely cited logical fallacy; mostly because most debaters confuse red herrings for the strawman argument. The Red Herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. You see, nothing in this discussion legitimizes bringing up child abuse. That should not, in any way, be mistaken for an admission that your stupid red herring cannot be refuted - only that this particular discussion is neither the time, nor place for such a debate.

And finally, back to "immoral atheists". There are two problems with your little ad hominem. First, like most religious zealots, you presume that just because a person does not happen to believe your little fairy tail about the Magic Man in the Sky who is going to make everything okay by "sending" his kid to be brutalized and murdered at the hands of violent, stupid men, that this means that person has no morals. This is simply not true. It only means that they have a different set of morals from you. Second, you presume, apparently since you directed this at me, that I am an atheist, simply because I am not a Christian. You do get that there are a plethora of theologies, and religions that are outside of the three that grew out of the Middle East Monotheistic El Yeshua worship, right?

By all means, do lemme know when you'd like to return to a discussion that actually responds to what I said with logic.

Does this definition fit your theology?
athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
: a person who believes that God does not exist
: one who believes that there is no deity

Which has to do with what, exactly? I already know what an atheist is. It was your characterization of atheists as "immoral" which made it an ad hominem. Which I already explained in my post.

Like I said, when you would like to return to logical debate you lemme know.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Really? Child abuse comes to mind for who? You really believe that if someone doesn't give a shit about consenting adults entering into a polygamist relationship, that they must also support child abuse?

I asked the question. Do you care to answer it?

If there were a question, I'd answer it. Your comment was too vague and your meaning unclear. I'm not sure if you are saying that atheists don't care about child abuse or that polygamy has been known to be fraught with it. Only one of those statements even has a grain of truth.

I will repeat the question for you.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support?

I will try and ask it in with smaller words if it is still too vague for you.

how about you try asking it without the ad hominem of inaccurately describing atheists as "immoral".

What other right do hypocritical Christians think people should not have access to?

See what I did there? See how, by adding the word "hypocritical", it turns the question into an attack?

Carry on...

 

[Czernobog]

But it DOES affect you, it affects us all.

How? Fuck the rhetoric. Explain how someone else's marriage affects you personally in any way.

Marriage doesn't affect me. Changing marriage to include homosexual behavior affects me because it affects the morality of society in general. I don't wish to live in an immoral or amoral society. I've studied history and realize this has been the biggest cause of civilizations collapsing and I don't want that to happen with mine.

So... Marriage is fine, I have no problem with that... I am all for homosexual males finding a nice girl and settling down or homosexual females finding Mr. Right and doing the same. What I am opposed to is altering the term "marriage" so that it will include sexual proclivities of any kind.

And what gives you the authority to declare what is moral, and immoral? I wasn't aware that we had a morality committee, or that you have been appointed as its head.

When did this happen?

 

[elektra]

Yes, so funny, I am sure you really laughed.

So you are all in for Homosexual "Marriage", to include all that encompasses, the "civil-right" to buy Heterosexual Children, yes or no?

With your failed 'argument' devoid of facts or evidence, you now resort to inane demagoguery.

Call the truth what you may, but CCJones was quick to prove my point, those who, "WANT", Homosexual-couples to be called the same name as, "Heterosexual" couples, can only Win by censoring language.

CCJones must be vague, CCJones must not use any term that refers to the fact that we are specifically speaking about Homosexuals.

CCJones must also deflect the speech away from any detail of what exactly these, "civil rights" will be.

CCJones is in favor of Homosexuals buying Heterosexual Children.

I know it is a hard fact, correct me if I am wrong, but this is now one of the Civil Rights that Homosexuals demand. Homosexuals demand the Civil Right to buy Orphaned Heterosexual Children, at the age of 13, at the age of 1, they even demand the Civil Right to manufacture a baby of their own design.

Inane you say, what is Inane is the lack of discussion of what is being called, "civil rights".

Every thing I state is facts, facts are only, "Inane Demagoguery", to the person who is wrong.

 

[Czernobog]

Herein is where your entire argument falls apart. The United States is not, has never been, and will never a theocracy. As such what is, or is not "...an aberration in the eyes of God" is entirely irrelevant, as that is not, and cannot be, a measure for what should, and should not, be a point of law.

The rest of yourpost is your personal opinion, and I will not, debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they are simply not allowed to legislate based on those opinions.

Judges who decide the validity of laws issue opinions all the time-----they are as much a part of America as a law.

Interpreting the law is far different from legislating. That's what you guys seem to have a hard time understanding. What you keep calling "legislating from the bench" is nothing more than the judicial system doing what the Constitution set it up to do - interpret the law, and determine its constitutionality.

Interpreting the law sometimes changes the law with amounts to the same thing as passing new legislation.

Only if that law had already been altered in ways that are unconstitutional. Returning a law to its original is not "changing" the law; it is fixing the unconstitutional changes that were made to it.

Such as in this case. It was the addition of "one man, one woman" that unconstitutionally changed the laws. All the court rulings are doing is returning the laws to their original form.

That's not "legislating" that's interpreting. That's what the court is supposed to do. You just don't like the interpretation.

and it's done according to the opinion of a judge appointed by a politician.

And? That still doesn't make it "legislating". I'm sorry if you don't like the system of checks and balances that was set up by the Constitution. Maybe you should lobby to have that changed. Good luck with that...

 

[Czernobog]

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

What are you babbling about? Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?

Sorry, your last post was a bit incoherent, what was your intent in denigrating my use of the term, homosexual.

No. My intent was to ridicule your laughable claim that you are not being allowed to use the term homosexual. The part that made it so funny was that you did that while using the term homosexual!

Yes, so funny, I am sure you really laughed.

So you are all in for Homosexual "Marriage", to include all that encompasses, the "civil-right" to buy Heterosexual Children, yes or no?

What?!?! Are you on some prescription anti-psychotics we should know about? I don't even know what "buying Heterosexual Children" means, let alone what it has to do with marriage. Last time I looked, the buying and selling of human beings is referred to as "human trafficking" , and is illegal...pretty much everywhere in the world...

 

[elektra]

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

What are you babbling about? Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?

Sorry, your last post was a bit incoherent, what was your intent in denigrating my use of the term, homosexual.

No. My intent was to ridicule your laughable claim that you are not being allowed to use the term homosexual. The part that made it so funny was that you did that while using the term homosexual!

Yes, so funny, I am sure you really laughed.

So you are all in for Homosexual "Marriage", to include all that encompasses, the "civil-right" to buy Heterosexual Children, yes or no?

What?!?! Are you on some prescription anti-psychotics we should know about? I don't even know what "buying Heterosexual Children" means, let alone what it has to do with marriage. Last time I looked, the buying and selling of human beings is referred to as "human trafficking" , and is illegal...pretty much everywhere in the world...

Buying Heterosexual Children, I would of thought with your superior intelligence you could at the least, figure out I was referring to what Homosexuals have been doing even before you Homosexuals came up with the "same-sex", tactic.

Buying Heterosexual Children refers to Homosexuals purchasing surrogate mothers, impregnating them in laboratory, selectively aborting the babies if the sex is not what they paid for. It is a little under the radar. I am sure you have a politically correct term for this, go ahead and share. I understand that this is very expensive, done by private for profit Liberal/Democrat "doctors".

Buying Heterosexual Children also refers adoption, it took endless Lawsuits by homosexuals to break down the door to buying Heterosexual Children from Orphanages.

Marriage Equality, somehow when it is stated politically correct, I find your position disgusting.