What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[Nosmo King]

so as a people we are supposed to just dump the very core beliefs that have contributed so much to the success of the Western world.....just because some minority wants us to approve of their sodomy....?

Isn't tolerance one of the core American virtues? How could we build such a great nation with people from all over the world and not have some tolerance for our differences? Not acceptance, but simple tolerance. You're Chinese, but that doesn't give me the right to refuse you service in my store. You're Black, but that doesn't make it right for me to burn a cross on your front yard. You're Irish, but that doesn't mean I can fire you for that.

Tolerance. A virtue lost on Conservatives when marriage equality is proposed.

Tolerance is, indeed, an American virtue. But at what point does "tolerance" become a "hindrance"? Frankly, gay marriage doesn't bother me in the least. However, my Christian beliefs tell me that it is wrong. Here's where I disagree with popular opinion - They will answer to God. It is not my place to judge. I am human and I GUARNTEE you that I have made my share of mistakes. THEY don't have to believe in God - God believes in THEM.

But now, and more to the point, where does it end? Where does your "tolerance" become a "hindrance" on MY rights? You see, to liberal "enlightened" pseudo-intellectuals, "if it feels good, do it" can have dire consequences on a large segment of any society. Should a 30 year old man be allowed to marry an 11 year old child? No? What about "tolerance"? Should NAMBLA be allowed to recruit children for their little "clubs"?? No? Again, what about "tolerance"? Should terrorists be allowed to take up residence in America? ......you get my point.

Who will be the arbiter of deciding at what point YOUR rights begin to infringe on MY rights?

Pedophilia is a crime. Children cannot enter into legal contracts like marriage due to their age and immaturity. You are offering a straw man argument here. Unless you are committing a crime, it is not legal, it is not moral it is not part of our national ethos to deny people the rights and protections provided by the state.

Homosexuality has been a part of human sexuality forever. What degradation befalls society after marriage equality that has not been part of the human condition all along?

 

[RandallFlagg]

If homosexuals are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

But polygamy is a crime. And brothers already have a relationship established, unlike people about to wed. Marriage establishes a relationship in the eyes of the law, so there is no need for brothers to wed. And bisexuals are marrying as heterosexual couples right now. How are their rights being repressed?

If homosexuals are not criminals by simply being homosexuals, why are their rights being repressed? Is it right to refuse tax paying American citizens their rights if they have committed no crime?

Gay was illegal in nearly all of America for years. Polygamy is now being featured on reality shows (I believe) to demystify it and change the laws. In every case of "unpopular" societal laws, litigation by lawyers has sued for change.

Whether you like it or not, once you start down that "slippery slope", there usually is no turning back. You might keep that in mind....

 

[RandallFlagg]

Isn't tolerance one of the core American virtues? How could we build such a great nation with people from all over the world and not have some tolerance for our differences? Not acceptance, but simple tolerance. You're Chinese, but that doesn't give me the right to refuse you service in my store. You're Black, but that doesn't make it right for me to burn a cross on your front yard. You're Irish, but that doesn't mean I can fire you for that.

Tolerance. A virtue lost on Conservatives when marriage equality is proposed.

Tolerance is, indeed, an American virtue. But at what point does "tolerance" become a "hindrance"? Frankly, gay marriage doesn't bother me in the least. However, my Christian beliefs tell me that it is wrong. Here's where I disagree with popular opinion - They will answer to God. It is not my place to judge. I am human and I GUARNTEE you that I have made my share of mistakes. THEY don't have to believe in God - God believes in THEM.

But now, and more to the point, where does it end? Where does your "tolerance" become a "hindrance" on MY rights? You see, to liberal "enlightened" pseudo-intellectuals, "if it feels good, do it" can have dire consequences on a large segment of any society. Should a 30 year old man be allowed to marry an 11 year old child? No? What about "tolerance"? Should NAMBLA be allowed to recruit children for their little "clubs"?? No? Again, what about "tolerance"? Should terrorists be allowed to take up residence in America? ......you get my point.

Who will be the arbiter of deciding at what point YOUR rights begin to infringe on MY rights?

Pedophilia is a crime. Children cannot enter into legal contracts like marriage due to their age and immaturity. You are offering a straw man argument here. Unless you are committing a crime, it is not legal, it is not moral it is not part of our national ethos to deny people the rights and protections provided by the state.

Homosexuality has been a part of human sexuality forever. What degradation befalls society after marriage equality that has not been part of the human condition all along?

As has pedophilia, beastiality, polygamy, et al. Your point? We have MILLIONS of eager lawyers in this country alone who LOVE to "change" America.

 

[Nosmo King]

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

But polygamy is a crime. And brothers already have a relationship established, unlike people about to wed. Marriage establishes a relationship in the eyes of the law, so there is no need for brothers to wed. And bisexuals are marrying as heterosexual couples right now. How are their rights being repressed?

If homosexuals are not criminals by simply being homosexuals, why are their rights being repressed? Is it right to refuse tax paying American citizens their rights if they have committed no crime?

Gay was illegal in nearly all of America for years. Polygamy is now being featured on reality shows (I believe) to demystify it and change the laws. In every case of "unpopular" societal laws, litigation by lawyers has sued for change.

Whether you like it or not, once you start down that "slippery slope", there usually is no turning back. You might keep that in mind....

If the institution of marriage was static, you might have a point. But marriages used to be arranged, neither spouse even meeting the other until the wedding day. Marriages used to be purely political, to maintain the peace between two kingdoms. Marriages have not always been recognized by the state, but simply a sacrament performed by clergy. Marriage has changed a great deal in societal history. And that should also be kept in mind.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There's a civil-right to parents??

if you can say there is a 'civil right' to gay marriage...why not...?

OR are we to become a society that just discards one's real father...or mother...after their initial 'usefulness' is over with just so the gay couple can have a baby "together".....?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

To obtain financial benefits (joint tax returns and spousal social security benefits) without having to rear children?

No one doubts this.

"You may be as straight as an arrow, and you may have a friend that is as straight as an arrow. Say you had a great job with the government where you had this wonderful health plan. I mean, what would prohibit you from saying that you're gay, and y'all get married and still live as separate, but you get all the benefits? I just see so much abuse in this it's unreal."

-- Georgia Republican Party Chairwoman Sue Everhart, quoted by the Marietta Daily Journal, arguing against same-sex marriage.

April 1, 2013

Cuck & Larry;
When REALITY Doesn't Work

"If avoiding fraud is paramount, does the chairwoman of the Georgia Republican Party want to prohibit all marriages?"​

.

.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If homosexuals are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

But polygamy is a crime. And brothers already have a relationship established, unlike people about to wed. Marriage establishes a relationship in the eyes of the law, so there is no need for brothers to wed. And bisexuals are marrying as heterosexual couples right now. How are their rights being repressed?

If homosexuals are not criminals by simply being homosexuals, why are their rights being repressed? Is it right to refuse tax paying American citizens their rights if they have committed no crime?

homosexuality used to be a crime....now polygamy can move 'forward' too....

why can't two brothers enhance their relationship with marriage.....will you deny their civil rights...?

bisexuals NEED both a man and a woman in marriage.....how can you repress their need for marrying two people of the opposite sex....?

wow....you are really one backwards respressive.....dare i say it.....conservative!....

 

[KevinWestern]

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

But polygamy is a crime. And brothers already have a relationship established, unlike people about to wed. Marriage establishes a relationship in the eyes of the law, so there is no need for brothers to wed. And bisexuals are marrying as heterosexual couples right now. How are their rights being repressed?

If homosexuals are not criminals by simply being homosexuals, why are their rights being repressed? Is it right to refuse tax paying American citizens their rights if they have committed no crime?

Gay was illegal in nearly all of America for years. Polygamy is now being featured on reality shows (I believe) to demystify it and change the laws. In every case of "unpopular" societal laws, litigation by lawyers has sued for change.

Whether you like it or not, once you start down that "slippery slope", there usually is no turning back. You might keep that in mind....

Slippery slope? As far as I'm concerned polygamy is the only additional form of marriage that could come after gay marriage and this is going to affect like a total of 500 couples nationwide. Non-issue, and it’s not worth worrying about. Hopefully you agree with me in that very few in the US accept or want to partake in polygamy (and those who do are already doing so in some form, anyways).

People bring up the animal thing, or the underage child thing, but the simple fact is that these will NOT be allowed because these relationships involve someone having their rights infringed upon. The child is too young to consent, and the animal – being a non-human, non-talker – will never be able to consent no matter how old.

Do you agree?

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

But polygamy is a crime. And brothers already have a relationship established, unlike people about to wed. Marriage establishes a relationship in the eyes of the law, so there is no need for brothers to wed. And bisexuals are marrying as heterosexual couples right now. How are their rights being repressed?

If homosexuals are not criminals by simply being homosexuals, why are their rights being repressed? Is it right to refuse tax paying American citizens their rights if they have committed no crime?

homosexuality used to be a crime....now polygamy can move 'forward' too....

why can't two brothers enhance their relationship with marriage.....will you deny their civil rights...?

bisexuals NEED both a man and a woman in marriage.....how can you repress their need for marrying two people of the opposite sex....?

wow....you are really one backwards respressive.....dare i say it.....conservative!....

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"



http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...aw-man-argument-and-a-few-minds-on-trial.html

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The homosexual marriage issue is just part of the larger demoralization, and slow decline
of an American empire, and society that is following in the foot steps of many past
societies, ie the Roman, and Greek empires are prime examples of countries
that allowed homosexuality to florish, and saw their societies degeneration, and
then invasion by barbarians, who then proceeded to loot and pillage and destroy those countries.

I'm sorry, I thought only buildings with weak foundations crumbled into themselves.

I think we are headed to an even more moral society, and I see it every day.

To you: freedom of expression is bad when it's using things you find bad or icky, like words or sex.

To me, considering words "bad words" and giving a fuck about other people's sexuality is frivolous and has no logical standing or backbone, especially in a discussion about freedom.

The British Empire collapsed due to Oscar Wilde.

Ah, yes....where would we be, without those Texas-approved History-textbooks??!!!!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If homosexuals are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

If polygamists or bisexuals or two brothers or just two-same sex friends who want to get bennies are not criminals, why should their rights be repressed?

Not my fight. If you can take your case to court and no one is able to demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it, best if luck to you.

you mean like the societal harm of denying children their real mother or their real father....?

if you hurt just one child.....you hurt the world....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But polygamy is a crime. And brothers already have a relationship established, unlike people about to wed. Marriage establishes a relationship in the eyes of the law, so there is no need for brothers to wed. And bisexuals are marrying as heterosexual couples right now. How are their rights being repressed?

If homosexuals are not criminals by simply being homosexuals, why are their rights being repressed? Is it right to refuse tax paying American citizens their rights if they have committed no crime?

homosexuality used to be a crime....now polygamy can move 'forward' too....

why can't two brothers enhance their relationship with marriage.....will you deny their civil rights...?

bisexuals NEED both a man and a woman in marriage.....how can you repress their need for marrying two people of the opposite sex....?

wow....you are really one backwards respressive.....dare i say it.....conservative!....

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"



http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...aw-man-argument-and-a-few-minds-on-trial.html

it's the same damn argument....not absurd or ridiculous at all....

people used to think gay marriage was absurd or ridiculous and scoffed at it ever happening...

 

[RandallFlagg]

But polygamy is a crime. And brothers already have a relationship established, unlike people about to wed. Marriage establishes a relationship in the eyes of the law, so there is no need for brothers to wed. And bisexuals are marrying as heterosexual couples right now. How are their rights being repressed?

If homosexuals are not criminals by simply being homosexuals, why are their rights being repressed? Is it right to refuse tax paying American citizens their rights if they have committed no crime?

Gay was illegal in nearly all of America for years. Polygamy is now being featured on reality shows (I believe) to demystify it and change the laws. In every case of "unpopular" societal laws, litigation by lawyers has sued for change.

Whether you like it or not, once you start down that "slippery slope", there usually is no turning back. You might keep that in mind....

Slippery slope? As far as I'm concerned polygamy is the only additional form of marriage that could come after gay marriage and this is going to affect like a total of 500 couples nationwide. Non-issue, and it’s not worth worrying about. Hopefully you agree with me in that very few in the US accept or want to partake in polygamy (and those who do are already doing so in some form, anyways).

People bring up the animal thing, or the underage child thing, but the simple fact is that these will NOT be allowed because these relationships involve someone having their rights infringed upon. The child is too young to consent, and the animal – being a non-human, non-talker – will never be able to consent no matter how old.

Do you agree?

.

To a point, yes. However, we live in a country today that produces (I believe) 40,000 new, liberal trained lawyers each year. Whose to say that, just like Gay Marriage, lawyers, at some point, don't decide to litigate say, minor children being allowed to marry? In many states to this day, a 16 year old is allowed to marry. Will you be intolerant towards these people? Don't THEY have the right to happiness also? Or is it merely gay couples that the laws should be changed to accommodate?

You seem to forget that to the vast majority of straight people in this world view gay as a perversion and, in several countries results in an immediate death sentence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

The "slippery slope" thing is the logical progression of things. Again, Gay was (and in some places still is) considered a killing offense. Now, in America, we are doing the PC thing to accomodate. Who can say what will be the next "accommodation" in 20-30 years????

 

[Mr. Shaman]

When there's no proof of God, and no forced Religious Law in a free Country, than God-based morals need not be discussed when arguing Civil Law.

that's bullshit...this country was established by religious people.....and laws reflected their morals right from the beginning...

Where does it say in the Bible that women should not vote?

Pretty-much.....

....EVERYWHERE!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Gay was illegal in nearly all of America for years. Polygamy is now being featured on reality shows (I believe) to demystify it and change the laws. In every case of "unpopular" societal laws, litigation by lawyers has sued for change.

Whether you like it or not, once you start down that "slippery slope", there usually is no turning back. You might keep that in mind....

Slippery slope? As far as I'm concerned polygamy is the only additional form of marriage that could come after gay marriage and this is going to affect like a total of 500 couples nationwide. Non-issue, and it’s not worth worrying about. Hopefully you agree with me in that very few in the US accept or want to partake in polygamy (and those who do are already doing so in some form, anyways).

People bring up the animal thing, or the underage child thing, but the simple fact is that these will NOT be allowed because these relationships involve someone having their rights infringed upon. The child is too young to consent, and the animal – being a non-human, non-talker – will never be able to consent no matter how old.

Do you agree?

.

To a point, yes. However, we live in a country today that produces (I believe) 40,000 new, liberal trained lawyers each year. Whose to say that, just like Gay Marriage, lawyers, at some point, don't decide to litigate say, minor children being allowed to marry? In many states to this day, a 16 year old is allowed to marry. Will you be intolerant towards these people? Don't THEY have the right to happiness also? Or is it merely gay couples that the laws should be changed to accommodate?

You seem to forget that to the vast majority of straight people in this world view gay as a perversion and, in several countries results in an immediate death sentence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

The "slippery slope" thing is the logical progression of things. Again, Gay was (and in some places still is) considered a killing offense. Now, in America, we are doing the PC thing to accomodate. Who can say what will be the next "accommodation" in 20-30 years????

Thank gawd we live in America and what people in other nations believe is not what we base our laws on or where we gather our rights from

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Relativism is where Religions contrived their "morals." And, ya can't prove otherwise.

how can that be....? relativism by definition has no morality....

Because Religiously written morals were derrived from men, not from a deity.

They're arrived at based on reason.

Yeah.....no conflict, there!!

​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

homosexuality used to be a crime....now polygamy can move 'forward' too....

why can't two brothers enhance their relationship with marriage.....will you deny their civil rights...?

bisexuals NEED both a man and a woman in marriage.....how can you repress their need for marrying two people of the opposite sex....?

wow....you are really one backwards respressive.....dare i say it.....conservative!....

Straw Man argument

An argument similar to reductio ad absurdum often seen in polemical debate is the straw man logical fallacy. A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") is absurd or ridiculous, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition. For example:

Politician A: "We should not serve schoolchildren sugary desserts with lunch and further worsen the obesity epidemic by doing so."
Politician B: "What, do you want our children to starve?"



http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...aw-man-argument-and-a-few-minds-on-trial.html

it's the same damn argument....not absurd or ridiculous at all....

people used to think gay marriage was absurd or ridiculous and scoffed at it ever happening...

Same argument? Hardly. If you were a lawyer you'd suck big time.

Polygamy was happening early in America and gay marriage was not.

Two brothers is an interesting issue. Why not? What overriding state interest is there that would warrant denying it?

 

[kaz]

we live in a country today that produces (I believe) 40,000 new, liberal trained lawyers each year

It's an unfortunate case where 90% of lawyers make them all look bad...

 

[KevinWestern]

To a point, yes. However, we live in a country today that produces (I believe) 40,000 new, liberal trained lawyers each year. Whose to say that, just like Gay Marriage, lawyers, at some point, don't decide to litigate say, minor children being allowed to marry? In many states to this day, a 16 year old is allowed to marry. Will you be intolerant towards these people? Don't THEY have the right to happiness also? Or is it merely gay couples that the laws should be changed to accommodate?

You seem to forget that to the vast majority of straight people in this world view gay as a perversion and, in several countries results in an immediate death sentence. Like it or not, that's the way it is.

The "slippery slope" thing is the logical progression of things. Again, Gay was (and in some places still is) considered a killing offense. Now, in America, we are doing the PC thing to accomodate. Who can say what will be the next "accommodation" in 20-30 years????

I really don’t buy that, Randall. You’re comparing apples with organges (an act where no one’s rights are infringed vs one where someone’s rights are infringed).

America is known for allowing it’s citizens to do what they want – whether it comes to speech, self expression – so long as it’s not infringing on another individual’s rights. This is one of the foundations of our great country. People aren’t afraid to wear anti-gov’t t-shirts in the same way Iranians are.

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

So, with that said, not sure how you can take that argument and somehow have that be set as the precedent for allowing future relationships to occur in the future where one of the individual's rights are infringed and exploited (ie an adult marrying a little girl, ect). You know what I mean?

In order for this to happen, we have to somehow go from (1) gay marriage equality to (2) a society where people are allowed to infringe on the rights of others and exploit children, ect. There’s no logical connection I can come up with.


.

 

[kaz]

The argument (a very American one, btw) is that gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else’s rights and therefore should be legalized. This is an extremely valid point.

"Infringe" on is a bad choice of words here. Gays decide gay marriage = straight marriage, then they demand government recognition and benefits. It's not infringing on rights that's the issue here, it's demanding recognition and benefits (tax treatment, ...) that's the issue. If gays can demand recognition and benefits, then why can't other groups do it?

Personally I don't see why ANYONE needs government to validate their relationship. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to gays arguing that this is a pretty good indication that marriage is not a universal definition, so let's get government out of the marriage business. That would be an extremely valid point. Saying that demanding recognition and benefits doesn't infringe on rights actually isn't if you think about it.