Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[bodecea]

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

Now you're just trolling...or dense...or both

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

It would indeed be refreshing to get this out of the weeds.

A good start would be to agree that there are two distinct demographic groups, very different from each other within this discussion.

One group, same sex couples cannot procreate within the couple. This is an absolute truth. Any and all offspring created by these couples must be created by using material provided by an outside source.

These couples have no need for birth control when interacting with each other, nor do they have to worry about the side effect of, or the long term health problems certain forms of birth control can cause. This is a considerable economic and health benefit to the same sex couple.

The lack of ability to procreate within the coupling has nothing to do with age, disability, fear or possible economic damage to the unit.

The second group, opposite sex couples must be concerned about procreation. Their interaction will often create a pregnancy. This pregnancy can cause health complications including death. Expensive steps most often times are required to not procreate in this group. Certain birth control methods have both immediate and long term health consequences. Others involve surgery. None of this applies to same sex couplings.

Should these couples find it difficult or impossible to procreate it is always due to injury, disability, age, fear of physical damage or economic damage to the unit.

The dynamics of these two groups, in this, the most basic need of success of the species, could not be more different.

How's that for a start

In other words, one group is gay, and the other isn't. That is what you are trying to justify singling out, right? I don't know why you don't just fly your bigot flag high. Why does the lack of the ability to procreate only matter for the homosexual couples? Is procreation important, or is heterosexual important? Which is the part that matters?

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

Here's a story for you:

After the end of WWII in Europe, in Occupied Berlin, an American soldier and a Soviet soldier met for drinks in a bar. They got to talking about their own countries and the American bragged, "In the United States we have Freedom of Speech. I can call President Truman an S.O.B. and I won't get in trouble." The Soviet soldier replied, "In Soviet Russia we too have Freedom of Speech. I too can call President Truman an S.O.B. and not get in trouble. Same Freedom of Speech."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.

The Federal courts do have the authority to invalidate state measures that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, such as measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TheOldSchool: The word regulated in the 2nd amendment refers to the mechanism for proper functioning. As in, a well regulated engine is necessary for the performance of an automobile. That does not imply that regulation should be placed on it.

The Federal courts also have the authority to invalidate state measures that violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, something you and others on the right take no issue with, as in such cases you have nothing but contempt for the 'will of the people.'

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

 

[Boss]

This is a fundamental states-rights issue because it is the state who issues marriage licenses. The Federal role can only be to oversee this process to ensure fairness and equality, and that is where this whole movement is directed and aimed at, having the Fed tell the states what is acceptable. The ultimate danger in this is, what happens if there is a conservative sweep of power and the evangelicals simply have government 'undo' all the heathen marriage? Why give the government power over your choices and your life?

I'm still waiting for you to square your "states rights" position on civil marriage with:

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail.

You can't use the race dodge on those.

Well I realize that some liberals think states rights ought never exist in any form, but since that is how the Constitution established our nation, we're going to stick with the 10th Amendment and the fact that states do retain power in our system.

Does the federal government issue marriage licenses? No. It is something authorized by the state, not the federal government. It is a state function, a state right.

So you can't square your opinion with those actual court rulings...you could have just said that.

I think way too much is made out of the court rulings. Courts have ruled all kinds of outrageous shit over the years, they aren't always right by any stretch. The People retain the right to set our boundaries and establish our laws, not the courts. It took The People ratifying two Constitutional amendments to rid ourselves of slavery. If it were left to the courts, people were chattel.

Also, in almost every case, when you Gay Marriage nuts start reeling off these court cases, you fail to comprehend the cases were about specifics. There were two or more invested parties who were at an impasse. The court made a ruling on their case, not on the issue of nationalized gay rights.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, I am an advocate of civil unions. Removing government from the role of determining what constitutes marriage in our country. This gives THE PEOPLE the ultimate Civil Right. WE get to determine what marriage is, not the government. I proposed a solution to the problem. One that I believe would have wide popular support because it resolves this issue forever. Not only does it resolve it, but to the mutual satisfaction of virtually all interested parties. The ONLY people who don't get what they want are activists who want to cram their beliefs down society's throat against their will and be intolerant of compromise.

 

[Pop23]

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

Just telling it like it is

Are you now going to redefine truth?

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

It would indeed be refreshing to get this out of the weeds.

A good start would be to agree that there are two distinct demographic groups, very different from each other within this discussion.

One group, same sex couples cannot procreate within the couple. This is an absolute truth. Any and all offspring created by these couples must be created by using material provided by an outside source.

These couples have no need for birth control when interacting with each other, nor do they have to worry about the side effect of, or the long term health problems certain forms of birth control can cause. This is a considerable economic and health benefit to the same sex couple.

The lack of ability to procreate within the coupling has nothing to do with age, disability, fear or possible economic damage to the unit.

The second group, opposite sex couples must be concerned about procreation. Their interaction will often create a pregnancy. This pregnancy can cause health complications including death. Expensive steps most often times are required to not procreate in this group. Certain birth control methods have both immediate and long term health consequences. Others involve surgery. None of this applies to same sex couplings.

Should these couples find it difficult or impossible to procreate it is always due to injury, disability, age, fear of physical damage or economic damage to the unit.

The dynamics of these two groups, in this, the most basic need of success of the species, could not be more different.

How's that for a start

In other words, one group is gay, and the other isn't. That is what you are trying to justify singling out, right? I don't know why you don't just fly your bigot flag high. Why does the lack of the ability to procreate only matter for the homosexual couples? Is procreation important, or is heterosexual important? Which is the part that matters?

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

Here's a story for you:

After the end of WWII in Europe, in Occupied Berlin, an American soldier and a Soviet soldier met for drinks in a bar. They got to talking about their own countries and the American bragged, "In the United States we have Freedom of Speech. I can call President Truman an S.O.B. and I won't get in trouble." The Soviet soldier replied, "In Soviet Russia we too have Freedom of Speech. I too can call President Truman an S.O.B. and not get in trouble. Same Freedom of Speech."

Fun story

Care to comment on my presentation on the differences between the two demographic groups.

 

[Pop23]

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage? That is your position? And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

 

[Pop23]

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.

So....you are saying Loving v Virginia is an invalid ruling?

Only when misrepresenting the history behind it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

Let's see what we can do to get this dialog out of the weeds.

You seem up for questions that I can never get answered....so here goes.

Traditional marriage protection folks have never been able to describe any significant monetary, quantitative, or qualitative damage that would cause harm to traditional marriages if gay people were to enter into them as well.

It would indeed be refreshing to get this out of the weeds.

A good start would be to agree that there are two distinct demographic groups, very different from each other within this discussion.

One group, same sex couples cannot procreate within the couple. This is an absolute truth. Any and all offspring created by these couples must be created by using material provided by an outside source.

These couples have no need for birth control when interacting with each other, nor do they have to worry about the side effect of, or the long term health problems certain forms of birth control can cause. This is a considerable economic and health benefit to the same sex couple.

The lack of ability to procreate within the coupling has nothing to do with age, disability, fear or possible economic damage to the unit.

The second group, opposite sex couples must be concerned about procreation. Their interaction will often create a pregnancy. This pregnancy can cause health complications including death. Expensive steps most often times are required to not procreate in this group. Certain birth control methods have both immediate and long term health consequences. Others involve surgery. None of this applies to same sex couplings.

Should these couples find it difficult or impossible to procreate it is always due to injury, disability, age, fear of physical damage or economic damage to the unit.

The dynamics of these two groups, in this, the most basic need of success of the species, could not be more different.

How's that for a start

In other words, one group is gay, and the other isn't. That is what you are trying to justify singling out, right? I don't know why you don't just fly your bigot flag high. Why does the lack of the ability to procreate only matter for the homosexual couples? Is procreation important, or is heterosexual important? Which is the part that matters?

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

Here's a story for you:

After the end of WWII in Europe, in Occupied Berlin, an American soldier and a Soviet soldier met for drinks in a bar. They got to talking about their own countries and the American bragged, "In the United States we have Freedom of Speech. I can call President Truman an S.O.B. and I won't get in trouble." The Soviet soldier replied, "In Soviet Russia we too have Freedom of Speech. I too can call President Truman an S.O.B. and not get in trouble. Same Freedom of Speech."

Fun story

Care to comment on my presentation on the differences between the two demographic groups.

The presentation that means absolutely nothing to this discussion? That one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.

So....you are saying Loving v Virginia is an invalid ruling?

Only when misrepresenting the history behind it

Not to worry, Pop: every time you try to misrepresent it, we correct you.

We always will correct you. Not to worry.

 

[Pop23]

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.

So....you are saying Loving v Virginia is an invalid ruling?

Only when misrepresenting the history behind it

Not to worry, Pop: every time you try to misrepresent it, we correct you.

We always will correct you. Not to worry.

^^^ little guy claims to be ignoring me

 

[Pop23]

The federal government has no authority/right to approve/sanction marriage whether it be straight or gay.

So....you are saying Loving v Virginia is an invalid ruling?

Only when misrepresenting the history behind it

Not to worry, Pop: every time you try to misrepresent it, we correct you.

We always will correct you. Not to worry.

Begin then knucklehead.

Oh, that's right

You can't.

 

[bodecea]

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage? That is your position? And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

So...your way or the highway, eh?

 

[Pop23]

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage? That is your position? And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

So...your way or the highway, eh?

Ones a interstate highway the other a dirt road.

 

[martybegan]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

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

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,

Just like a baker and a gay couple?

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

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

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,

Just like a baker and a gay couple?

Oh snap

How does that baker refusing service to that couple effect your relationship?

 

[Plasmaball]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

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

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,

Just like a baker and a gay couple?

sigh....im not getting into that punt

 

[martybegan]

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

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

How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

its not a "slippery slope" it just should be. who i enter into a contract with shouldnt be your concern,

Just like a baker and a gay couple?

sigh....im not getting into that punt

Because you just got served Yo.

 

[Czernobog]

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

Okay, lemme try that question again, emphasizing the part you seemed to have missed. Actually, I know you didn't miss it. You just don't want to answer the question honestly, because you are well aware of the shitstorm you would open with an honest answer. But, I'm gonna keep asking the question until you either answer it honestly, or admit your position is bullshit:

So, you think in order to to access the benefits come with being married, gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, and marry someone of the opposite sex, correct?

 

[Czernobog]

Gays don't have to marry same sex

But nice try

We are trying to get this discussion out of the weeds and in walks Mr. Thistle

So, you think gays should just pretend to be heterosexual, if they want to access the benefits of marriage? That is your position? And, by "pretend to be heterosexual", I mean marry someone of the opposite sex.

No, they can stay single if they wish

That's the beauty of freedom

So...your way or the highway, eh?

Oh! It's more than that. I want him to say that he thinks they should marry people of the opposite sex. Because, the logical conclusion of that behaviour is gonna be all kinds of fun, which is why he won't actually say that.

 

[Truman123]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

I've never understood why polygamy was outlawed.


Doesn't it fall under freedom of religion?