Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

...Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

Child sexual molestation is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Bestiality is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Necrophilia is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

Morality has not one thing to do with why those are illegal. They are illegal because every one of them transgresses the boundary of the law - they protect me from you. With the possible exception of necrophilia. Since a dead body is a thing, not a person, that would be more about property rights. So long as you actually own the dead body in question, what you do with it behind closed doors is, I suppose, none of my business.

Homosexuality is immoral - and people who believe that, probably also believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

The only reason why homosexuality is disappearing from the list of taboos is an unfortunate and grotesque relaxation of related morals in The West.

However, vast numbers of people believe that homosexuality should remain on that list of taboos, and most probably believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

And, subsequent to that, vast numbers of people believe that gay marriage serves to normalize or legitimize an immoral state of affairs.

Most of those, too, probably believe in liberty - there is no conflict.

I would submit that what you are calling a "grotesque relaxation of morals", I would call a much needed shift in moral comprehension. "The West", as you put it, is finally recognizing that homosexuals are people first, and , as such, the moral, and ethical choice is always to let people make decisions about their personal lives for themselves without self-righteous judgement from others over personal choices.

 

[Czernobog]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

 

[Czernobog]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

If the argument for same sex marriage centers around consenting adults who love each other being able to get married, there is no difference. Same applies to close relatives marrying if the argument is truly about equality.

Actually that's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits to marriage that would require completely new verbiage, and considerations, due to polygamy. For instance, if you become incapacitated you spouse has the right to make your medical decisions for you. Now, if you were engaged in polygamy, which spouse? Would it have to be a consensus among all of them? If not, how would it be determined which spouse has more authority than the others? That's just one example of how the policies, and procedures would need to be rewritten to accommodate for polygamy. So, there actually is a legislative onus added to legitimizing polygamy that doesn't exist with same-sex marriage. After all, spouse means spouse; no re-writing necessary.

 

[Czernobog]

...religious morality has included Crusades, Jihads, torture of heretics, burning of witches, suppression of science and a lot of other bullshit every time a King got horny and wanted a new wife...

No, those are examples of the twisting and perverting of religious morality - and marketing those perversions to an illiterate populace - to accomplish worldly objectives.

Ah, the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy!

"When the Churches burned witches, they were perverting religious morality!"

Um... no.

It says to kill witches, right in the Bible.

"Thou Shall not Suffer a Witch to Live!"

The bible tells us to murder witches and people who work on the Sabbath and our kids if they talk back to us and a whole lot of other things, but no one but crazy people take that seriously today.

Jesus of Nazareth:

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"

"Love thy neighbor, as thee love thyself"

The New Testament trumps the Old.

And, yet, it is consistently the Old Testament - Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." - that Christians call on to justify their attitude toward homosexuality. I love how Christians use the Old Testament to club people over the head with when it suits their purpose, but, when the violence, and savagery of the Old testament is pointed out, suddenly it's all,"Wellll...that's Old Testament. It doesn't really count,"

And they wonder why so many of us perceive them as hypocrites...

 

[Ravi]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

 

[Conservative65]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

If the argument for same sex marriage centers around consenting adults who love each other being able to get married, there is no difference. Same applies to close relatives marrying if the argument is truly about equality.

Actually that's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits to marriage that would require completely new verbiage, and considerations, due to polygamy. For instance, if you become incapacitated you spouse has the right to make your medical decisions for you. Now, if you were engaged in polygamy, which spouse? Would it have to be a consensus among all of them? If not, how would it be determined which spouse has more authority than the others? That's just one example of how the policies, and procedures would need to be rewritten to accommodate for polygamy. So, there actually is a legislative onus added to legitimizing polygamy that doesn't exist with same-sex marriage. After all, spouse means spouse; no re-writing necessary.

All that tripe doesn't change the fact that the argument used by the same sex supporters is about the process itself even occuring not about how it functions.

 

[Czernobog]

The New Testament trumps the Old.

The Old is there as both an early attempt to explain existence and as historical narrative.

Uh. NO. Not even a nice try.

Your argument would hold water if you all stopped doing the stupid shit after Jesus.

But "Christians" were still burning witches as late as the 18th century.

List of people executed for witchcraft - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you operating under the impression that I dispute the idea that so-called Christians burned witches?

No. I dispute your attempt to distance yourself from the actions by reffering to them as so-called Christians. They were so-called, because that is what they were. The Inquisition was conducted by The Catholic Church, the oldest, most well respected Christian organization in existence. The witch hunts of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries were headed by Puritans, and Quakers. They were Christians who were faithful, and devout, and absolutely believed in the divine guidance, and approval of their actions. These were not small groups of fanatics who were disavowed by the religious masses of their day. They were the religious masses of their day.

If you would like to be seen as something other than a hypocrite, the least you can do is stop trying to diminish the historical actions of your religion by qualifying your responses with terms like "so-called".

 

[Czernobog]

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.

It does now. I'll guarantee it didn't until a bunch of homophobic old white guys ran off to their state legislature to have the definition changed.

 

[Conservative65]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong. Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

 

[Czernobog]

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

What people applied for has nothing to do with how the law was written. The fact is that the law was written with no such restriction. You are not arguing the definition of the law, or the words; you are arguing the actions of the people. Those are two very different things. Guess what? Interracial couples didn't apply for marriage licenses before 50 years ago. However, when the law was attempted to be changed so that there were racial limitations, the people attempting to change the meaning of the words were told, "Sorry, just because no one did it before, doesn't mean that the words don't mean what they mean".

Same here. Just because no one did it before doesn't mean that the words do not mean what they mean. Thus adding a limiting phrase, in order to alter the definition was something you guys did. The rest of us just want the definition changed back to what it was before your meddling.

 

[Pop23]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That as always, Pop, you make a fallacy of false comparison.

 

[Ravi]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

 

[Czernobog]

Polygamy isn't the same as SSM. SSM can be covered exactly the same as any other two person marriage. Not the same with polygamy. New laws would have to be put in place to cover all eventual outcomes like death, divorce, child custody, federal and private bennies...

If the argument for same sex marriage centers around consenting adults who love each other being able to get married, there is no difference. Same applies to close relatives marrying if the argument is truly about equality.

Actually that's not entirely true. There are a number of benefits to marriage that would require completely new verbiage, and considerations, due to polygamy. For instance, if you become incapacitated you spouse has the right to make your medical decisions for you. Now, if you were engaged in polygamy, which spouse? Would it have to be a consensus among all of them? If not, how would it be determined which spouse has more authority than the others? That's just one example of how the policies, and procedures would need to be rewritten to accommodate for polygamy. So, there actually is a legislative onus added to legitimizing polygamy that doesn't exist with same-sex marriage. After all, spouse means spouse; no re-writing necessary.

All that tripe doesn't change the fact that the argument used by the same sex supporters is about the process itself even occuring not about how it functions.

Perhaps. And I don't disagree that polygamists - were they to demand the right of their marriages being recognized - would, most likely, win that debate. However, that would not necessarily automatically win them the right they demand, as they would have an added hurdle of function to overcome that standard same-sex couples don't have.

 

[Czernobog]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references?

The right does exist. Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

 

[Conservative65]

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.

It does now. I'll guarantee it didn't until a bunch of homophobic old white guys ran off to their state legislature to have the definition changed.

You can guarantee it? That requires proof and proof involves more than you saying you can guarantee it.

Actually the practice of a man and woman only is nothing new in my State. You would know if you actually looked rather than running your mouth about what you think you can guarantee.

 

[Czernobog]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

The difference is that you are not referring to writing new law to accommodate for technology that did not exist 100 years ago. You are talking about changing existing law in order to support your continued discrimination that certainly did exist 100 years ago.

 

[Conservative65]

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

What people applied for has nothing to do with how the law was written. The fact is that the law was written with no such restriction. You are not arguing the definition of the law, or the words; you are arguing the actions of the people. Those are two very different things. Guess what? Interracial couples didn't apply for marriage licenses before 50 years ago. However, when the law was attempted to be changed so that there were racial limitations, the people attempting to change the meaning of the words were told, "Sorry, just because no one did it before, doesn't mean that the words don't mean what they mean".

Same here. Just because no one did it before doesn't mean that the words do not mean what they mean. Thus adding a limiting phrase, in order to alter the definition was something you guys did. The rest of us just want the definition changed back to what it was before your meddling.

You guys? Do you mean those of us that support the normal version of marriage not two homos trying to make it as if what they want comes anywhere close to it.

 

[Conservative65]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Should I take your support for what you call “marriage equality” to mean you believe close relatives, even a brother and sister, can get married? Or someone having multiple spouses? Be careful how you answer. It will determine whether you really support equality or an agenda for two homos.

I can't speak for Luddly, but I have said repeatedly, "yes". However, I find it rather amusing that not one single person has come forward to actually demand the "right" to marry a close relative, or to engage in polygamy. The only people who seem inordinately interested in peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that right. Someone really needs to tell me why that is...

Since polygamous marriages actually exist, your statement that no one has is wrong.

Here in the United States? Really? Would you care to support that with references? The right does exist.
Exercising a right and the right being in place aren't the same thing. If you think they are, you would have to claim that every same sex couple will get married.

Getting the government to recognize that right is not a battle that needs to be fought without someone to fight it on behalf of. I would still like one of you to explain why the only people who seem inordinately interested in the government recognizing peoples' "right" to engage in polygamous, or incestuous marriages are the very people who would oppose the government recognizing someone's right to engage in incestuous, or polygamous marriage, were someone to actually step forward to demand that recognition.

I don't support incestuous marriages. However, if the supporters of the homos argue based on equality then deny support for those types, they are hypocritical.

 

[Conservative65]

There were never laws against SSM until about 20 or 30 years ago. Therefore, SSM is legal and constitutional and any effort to deny a right to any couple that is not committing a crime is in and of itself unconstitutional.

There were never laws against flying jet airliners without certification in 1825.

What's your point?

My point was that conservatives love to make things illegal that shouldn't be illegal. Big government lovers all.

Shouldn't be illegal based on what, what you believe?