Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

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.

Actually 1) They have. That is why the unconstitutional language that you used to change the meaning of the word marriage has been removed in 19 states (11 states had already legalized some-sex marriage). 2) I would agree. However, once the courts have ruled, stomping your feet, and insisting you're right, and they're wrong, doesn't change the fact that the law of the land is now what it is in accordance with how the courts interpreted the Constitution, and subsequent laws. 3) No it wouldn't. You had that, remember? It was called DOMA. The Supreme Court said, "Fuck you. It contradicts already established Constitutional guarantees," and struck it down.

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.

It was actually part of post # 337, in response to your inaccurately referring to "pedophilia". lemme repost my response for your edification:

Yes, it does. However, what you are describing does not fall under pedophilia. Pedophilia requires, by definition, that the "children" in question be pre-pubescent. That means they haven't even begun to sexually mature, yet, let alone reached sexual maturity. As to the question of age of consent. I have argued for some time that our "age of consent" laws are purely arbitrary. As you pointed out, by 14, or 15 these adolescents have reached sexual maturity. What we need is a Master-Johnson type comprehensive study of adolescents to determine, quantifiably, when they are capable of making emotional, and cognitive maturity. We have neurological evidence that the frontal cortex doesn't reach full maturity until age 26, however, we have no actual data on when adolescents develop the ability to make reasoned decisions. Once we have that information, if the data says 14, then 14 should be the age of consent. If it says 16, then it should be 16. If it says 19, then it should be raised to 19. The point is that "age of consent" should be demonstrably based on verifiable evidence, not some arbitrary number that makes "mommy, and daddy" feel "comfortable".
​

Does that clear up my position on adolescent sex, and "age of consent"?

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?

The hypocrisy would be yours, as you moralists were the ones who added words to the meaning of marriage in order to make it fit your personal oral positions. All we did was petition the courts to return the word to its original meaning. I understand that you don't think arbitrarily adding words to a definition changes the meaning of a word, but then you think you have the right to dictate your morals to everyone else, so, really, who gives a fuck what you think, in the end. Reality is what it is. When one adds words to a definition, that changes the meaning of a word.

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!

Only if you see an army of necrophiliacs lining up to demand their rights. I don't. But, whatever...

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

The fact that no homosexual took advantage of the fact that the definition of marriage was a contract between two people, during a time when homosexuals were not considered people, in no way invalidates the fact that this was, in fact, the definition of the word, and you moralists decided to try and change that definition when gay people figured out that they were people, too.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Hey! First, the only one who posted that they "... don't give a shit about and still supports..." marital rights for anyone other than homosexuals was me. So, why in the fuck would you direct a question about a person's views to anyone other than the person who's views you're questioning? Second you're a hypocritical lying sack of shit. The post you are quoting from me was quoted from a direct response to a question you asked me. Finally, the guy who starts with personal attacks doesn't get to get pissy about an attack - not, and expect to be taken seriously, anyway.

Now, in spite of your hypocrisy, and offensive characterization of atheists, I answered your silly question to me. Do you have an opinion on what I said, or not?

 

[Czernobog]

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

Or, there's that...

 

[Czernobog]

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.

A little under the radar?!?! It is so far under the radar that no one is talking about it! how about you come back when you have something other than nutcake, outer limits conspiracy theories.

Until then:

 

[JoeB131]

Hey, I don't give a damn if you want to reply to my points or not. In fact, I've pwned that ass so well, I kinda don't blame you for running away.

Guy, all you do in these talks is come off like a huge douchebag. I'm not sure if that's something you want to be proud of.

Well, it doesn't work for me, nor does it work for a majority of Americans. You can grow the fuck up and realize you live in a collective society and not your own personal Kingdom, or you will face the wrath of pissed off people who will pass a constitutional amendment to ensure you never ever get to define marriage again.

Guy a majority supports gay marriage now. Trying to scare us with necrophilia isn't going to fly.

I don't want to burn any clubhouse. I want to remove government from being in a position of determining what we call marriage. I don't want YOU defining it, I don't want government defining it, and I don't want a court defining it. I want THE PEOPLE to define it as they please, and government to stay the hell out of it.

Wow, am I dealing with a LiberTARDian? Guy, you need government to define it. Otherwise all sorts of other rules like community property and parental rights couldn't be defined. You guys are just mad because the Gays can get into the clubhouse now.

Look.. the Greeks built a great civilization filled with enlightenment and some of the greatest philosophy ever known to man, and they were having sex with children left and right... thought of it as proper training for any child coming of age.

They also believed that slavery was acceptable and you could read the future in chicken entrails. Now we know better.

Yeah, you're good with polygamy, so we can already see what's next up on the docket for liberals, after we get gay marriage in the books, huh? Then it will be on to pedophilia, beastality, necrophilia... what-the-fuck-ever... if it feels good, do it!

Someone should have explained to you at a young age that repeating the same flawed arguments doesn't make them any better.

When corpses, dogs and small children can legally enter and understand contracts, then we'll have something to talk about.

 

[Ravi]

Gays +1
Fundies -5

It will never stop amusing me to know that if Fundies hadn't spent so much time demonizing gay people SSM would never have been taken seriously.

Thank you, founding peoples.

 

[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.

Appeals to antiquity assume that older ideas are better, that the fact that an idea has been around for a while implies that it is true. This, of course, is not the case; old ideas can be bad ideas, and new ideas can be good ideas. We therefore can’t learn anything about the truth of an idea just by considering how old it is.

The fact that no homosexual took advantage of the fact that the definition of marriage was a contract between two people, during a time when homosexuals were not considered people, in no way invalidates the fact that this was, in fact, the definition of the word, and you moralists decided to try and change that definition when gay people figured out that they were people, too.

Yes, I am appealing to antiquity, nothing more. But what was this post about that I commented to? Religious zealots, moralists, that attempted to revise marriage, obviously from what it was known to include, which must mean in the past, as in "Antiquity" (as you put it).

"Marriage", is not a simplistic definition determined by un-elected men in black robes, as in the courts.

Marriage was a contract between two people.

That is what the government dictates, that people must have a contract that the government can rule and regulate and control through Judges, Lawyers, and Politicians.

Marriage is much more, than a contract, the contract part is what Government imposes or dictates. The Contract you speak of costs citizens 100's of billions of dollars in Legal fees, billions and billions of dollars the courts collect ruling and regulating through Contracts.

How is that the Liberal/Democrat Homosexual supporters demand their relationship be dictated by legal government contracts while in at the same time accusing of Christians of being those extending the strong arm of the government into the family.

Government does so much harm, through divorce courts, ruling and regulating that "marriage contract". People literally go mad enough to kill their own children.

And now Liberals are creating a new society, intruding into every aspect of life, of Liberal design.

A Marriage Contract of Liberal design.

Religious Zealots simply stopped what always was, and now Obama and the Democrats are changing things back to normal?

I am sure, over time you will win with that argument.

 

[Boss]

Gays +1
Fundies -5

It will never stop amusing me to know that if Fundies hadn't spent so much time demonizing gay people SSM would never have been taken seriously.

Thank you, founding peoples.

Sorry, the only "fundies" I see in this thread are liberal fundies who are dead set on being as dishonest and rude as they have to be in order to force society to accept gay marriage.

It wasn't more than 10 years ago, these very same liberal fundies were blaming Karl Rove for getting Bush re-elected by putting gay marriage on the ballot in key swing states.... now suddenly, a majority of America is all for gay marriage?

Then we have the constitutionality of DOMA. The only part of DOMA ruled unconstitutional is Section 3, which attempts to define marriage for the states... a power the Federal government does not have under the 5th Amendment. That's NOT a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, sorry!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Sorry, the only "fundies" I see in this thread are liberal fundies who are dead set on being as dishonest and rude as they have to be in order to force society to accept gay marriage.

It wasn't more than 10 years ago, these very same liberal fundies were blaming Karl Rove for getting Bush re-elected by putting gay marriage on the ballot in key swing states.... now suddenly, a majority of America is all for gay marriage?

Then we have the constitutionality of DOMA. The only part of DOMA ruled unconstitutional is Section 3, which attempts to define marriage for the states... a power the Federal government does not have under the 5th Amendment. That's NOT a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, sorry!

exactly. People voted for Bush and they didn't get gay marriage banned, but what they did get was more war and recession and the damned fool nearly let Wall Street Loot the Social Security Trust Fund.

What happened in the 10 years since then is that people got a chance to really think about it. And they figured out we had bigger problems than a couple of dudes getting married.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes, I am appealing to antiquity, nothing more.

As soon as I read this, I saw no reason to read any further. As soon one admits to using a logical fallacy - an illogical argument - then any positions they come to after that are irrelevant as they are all built on on illogical premise.

You are dismissed.

 

[Boss]

[
Sorry, the only "fundies" I see in this thread are liberal fundies who are dead set on being as dishonest and rude as they have to be in order to force society to accept gay marriage.

It wasn't more than 10 years ago, these very same liberal fundies were blaming Karl Rove for getting Bush re-elected by putting gay marriage on the ballot in key swing states.... now suddenly, a majority of America is all for gay marriage?

Then we have the constitutionality of DOMA. The only part of DOMA ruled unconstitutional is Section 3, which attempts to define marriage for the states... a power the Federal government does not have under the 5th Amendment. That's NOT a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional, sorry!

exactly. People voted for Bush and they didn't get gay marriage banned, but what they did get was more war and recession and the damned fool nearly let Wall Street Loot the Social Security Trust Fund.

What happened in the 10 years since then is that people got a chance to really think about it. And they figured out we had bigger problems than a couple of dudes getting married.

LMFAO... If Bush ran for president today, he'd beat Obama in a landslide.
And he wouldn't even have to mention marriage.

 

[Boss]

Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other.

I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other either. I do give a shit what my government does, what it sanctions, and the laws it establishes for society to live by.

 

[Czernobog]

Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other.

I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other either. I do give a shit what my government does, what it sanctions, and the laws it establishes for society to live by.

So do I. I want our society to be what it is meant be: One that protects people's right to live their private lives as they see fit, to love whomever they choose, to commit their lives to whomever they choose, and to marry whomever they choose, without moralistic busybodies telling them they are "less worthy" just because they don't personally like their behavior.

 

[Boss]

Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other.

I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other either. I do give a shit what my government does, what it sanctions, and the laws it establishes for society to live by.

So do I. I want our society to be what it is meant be: One that protects people's right to live their private lives as they see fit, to love whomever they choose, to commit their lives to whomever they choose, and to marry whomever they choose, without moralistic busybodies telling them they are "less worthy" just because they don't personally like their behavior.

Well, but our society has never been one where everyone is just free to do whatever the hell they want with no regard for morals. If people want to engage in homosexual activity behind closed doors, I am all for government protecting their right to do so, as long as they are consenting adults. If they want to pretend they are husband and wife... I don't care about that either. If they want to dress up or do role play... don't care... Even if they want to run around in public doing PDAs... I can live with that. I am opposed to the US Government legitimizing or sanctioning homosexuality through marriage. I think it's a dangerous precedent and will lead to bigger and more undesirable problems down the road.

Not gonna change my mind. You can call me names. You can insult me. You can refuse to recognize my point of view. Never going to change my mind. I am willing to meet you half way... I favor comprehensive civil union reforms which would remove government from the "marriage license" business and replace that with simple contracts between any two adults of legal age. I think that is a reasonable solution which allows churches and religious groups to maintain sanctity of traditional marriage and also allows homosexual couples the ability to obtain benefits and whatnot. If you can't compromise, oh fucking well.... we will just have to keep fighting and keep defending traditional marriage. This isn't going away.

 

[Czernobog]

Her answer remains the same. I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other.

I don't give a shit what consenting adults do with each other either. I do give a shit what my government does, what it sanctions, and the laws it establishes for society to live by.

So do I. I want our society to be what it is meant be: One that protects people's right to live their private lives as they see fit, to love whomever they choose, to commit their lives to whomever they choose, and to marry whomever they choose, without moralistic busybodies telling them they are "less worthy" just because they don't personally like their behavior.

Well, but our society has never been one where everyone is just free to do whatever the hell they want with no regard for morals. If people want to engage in homosexual activity behind closed doors, I am all for government protecting their right to do so, as long as they are consenting adults. If they want to pretend they are husband and wife... I don't care about that either. If they want to dress up or do role play... don't care... Even if they want to run around in public doing PDAs... I can live with that. I am opposed to the US Government legitimizing or sanctioning homosexuality through marriage. I think it's a dangerous precedent and will lead to bigger and more undesirable problems down the road.

Not gonna change my mind. You can call me names. You can insult me. You can refuse to recognize my point of view. Never going to change my mind. I am willing to meet you half way... I favor comprehensive civil union reforms which would remove government from the "marriage license" business and replace that with simple contracts between any two adults of legal age. I think that is a reasonable solution which allows churches and religious groups to maintain sanctity of traditional marriage and also allows homosexual couples the ability to obtain benefits and whatnot. If you can't compromise, oh fucking well.... we will just have to keep fighting and keep defending traditional marriage. This isn't going away.

Your entire rant is based on that phrase in bold, and red. Your alleged "harm" is one of of presumed moral position. Which brings me back to my earlier question, which you pretended wasn't asked.

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

 

[Boss]

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

 

[Silhouette]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

The laws rendered defunct by the Supreme Court's "limbo/attrition" non-decision de facto Decision do no longer prohibit polygamy. Two people isn't protected. Polygamy is legal now until further notice/amended laws etc..

 

[AceRothstein]

Marriage Equality