Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:28 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Marriage equality outcomes Back to Topics
sgm4law

Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:23,321
Points:3,026,095
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Nov 6, 2012 10:37:37 PM

Four states, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, have some form of marriage equality on their ballot this year.

It's looking good for marriage in Maryland. How do you think the other states will do?

results updated here for Maryland ballot questions.
REPLIES (newest first) Topic is locked
Profile Pic
Don
Moderator
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 12:14:02 PM

"[...] it's time to put a stop to either the poster or the thread."

This can be arranged.

5 things that will get a topic closed #3

-Don
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 10:01:48 AM

"You didn't jump on the person that insisted homosexual couples had a high incidence of fooling around, and straight married couples almost never do."

And can you quote, with timestamps where that was explicitly stated? (Especially the "almost never" part).

(I could correct the record now, but I want to see how hilariously the response misses the point).

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 9:58:12 AM

rumble: "I ask why GTH is so fixated by the sex act."

reb4: "RUMBLESEAT, LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR POSTS..."

Nice one reb!

Indeed if it weren't for the homosexual act, there would be no issue about how to define marriage or talk of "gay marriage bans".

GTH: "Why are you defining a group essentially by their preferred sex act?"

rjhenn: "I'm not, you are. I'm defining them by who they love and want to commit themselves to."

BS. Everyone understands that these same-sex unions have sex with each other.

So why are rjhenn, rumbleseat and all the other redefiners here, fixated on that sex act?

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/3/2013 9:58:45 AM EST]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,457
Points:3,837,730
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 8:54:52 AM

And certain posters have absolutely no problem insulting others, baiting them into reactions, then trying, and in some cases, not only succeeding in getting them banned, but bragging about it.
If you don't like my posts, get me banned. But look at the seeming teflon robes that some have donned for years while ridiculing others and their opinions.
Are you asserting that my posting of those addresses, freely available on any web search is somehow pornographic? If so, your argument is with Yahoo, Google, Bing, et al. None of those addresses, or the hundreds of others I didn't publish, need "safe search" disabled to bring them up. And if you go to any of those addresses, you will find most of them about as graphic as the personals column in the daily newspaper.

You didn't jump on the person that insisted homosexual couples had a high incidence of fooling around, and straight married couples almost never do. Yet, when I post evidence pointing out that statement was untrue, you castigate me. Had I posted the information without links, I would have been criticized for making unproven statements, and justifiably so. Pretty tough to debate with dogma without gathering facts to counter some of the statements made.

Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,818
Points:2,470,825
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 8:39:11 AM

""I ask why GTH is so fixated by the sex act." RUMBLESEAT, LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR POSTS..."

Rumbleseat, your postings were readily still available at the time I posted last night from the topic thread. I remembered your keen sense of posting explicit sites. I xxxed out the sites with actual web links that you posted as well as the links you posted.

The only thing amazing here is that you are allowed to continue posting at all!

1. you continue to attack posters, like Gas_to_high,
2. you and others have turned this thread into something other than what it was originally setup for from the original topic posted.
3. It's turned ugly.

When people resort to posting the type of posts you have, it's time to put a stop to either the poster or the thread.



[Edited by: reb4 at 4/3/2013 8:40:45 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,391
Points:793,980
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 8:34:09 AM

As usual, whoever you are reb4, you're wrong.

If you'd bothered to check, you would have found that when rumbleseat typed his post about swinger's clubs, he was responding to a post that claimed that homosexuals were promiscuous and unfaithful while implying that heterosexuals were not. He was using the list of swinger's clubs to show that wasn't true and that heterosexuals not only are also guilty of what homosexuals were accused of, but that heteros have institutionalized and advertized it.

And he didn't have to go to much research to prove the anti-homosexual post wrong. I just googled “swingers club” and got 120,000 hits.

It was a similar situation with the list of gay animals. Somebody had posted that homosexuality was unnatural and that animals don't exhibit homosexuality. He was again proving them wrong. Googling “animal homosexuality” gets you 1.4 million hits. Any biologist can tell you that homosexuality is indeed widespread in the animal world.

If you want to engage in smear tactics and personal attacks, go ahead. But as with when you did it with me, just your say so doesn't cut it. You have to be able to support it with facts.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 8:19:13 AM

rumbleseat, so you know how to use The Google. Tres bien.

(And thank you for the posts and links that you used as support for your statements. They provide factual data that people can learn to educate themselves so they are not ignorant; which would prevent them from posting inaccurate things that other people do not have to spend time correcting.)
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,457
Points:3,837,730
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 3, 2013 1:07:37 AM

"Does your wife know about this??? may want to consider counseling."

Amazing. I posted something to prove that straight people have a fairly high number of people participating in sex outside marriage, and you hold on to it until you could turn it into a personal insult.

I am sorry you don't have a clue as to why I made that post. Perhaps a course in English comprehension would help.
Profile Pic
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:24,818
Points:2,470,825
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 10:21:06 PM

"I ask why GTH is so fixated by the sex act." RUMBLESEAT, LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR POSTS...

"Message Posted: Mar 21, 2013 6:01:36 PM rumbleseat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~````````````
"Everything old is new again!
Some time back I posted a list of swinger clubs, the purpose of which are to facilitate the open and partying mode of swapping spouses for sexcapades. Swinging has existed in the straight "lifestyle" throughout history, and it is by no means rare now.
Check out a website called (I xed out websites,I can't believe you put websites in this forum) xxxxxxxxxxxx.com or xxxxxxxxx.com/swingers/clubs
If you prefer, I could post a long list of websites for individual clubs, but I already did that, you just hoped we forgot."

Rumbleseat, You have a long list of swinger club websites? Does your wife know about this??? may want to consider counseling... Or we have this post..."Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 5:00:50 AM rumbleseat

"I thought we had seen the silliest and most insulting posts before. I was wrong. That one takes the cake for sheer lunacy.
Animals performing homosexual acts exist world-wide, waving your magic wand doesn't change the facts. Your magic wand doesn't work!
Since you prefer to live in the land of denial, I present these for you education and edification.
Top 10 homosexual animals
Gay Dogs
The 25 Gayest Animals
Gay Brown Bears"SMH
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 8:36:02 PM

>Why are you defining a group essentially by their preferred sex act?

Because that is how they, as couples, are being discriminated against by people like you.

Seriously - What is with these incredibly ludicrously easy questions???

.

You have to love GB formatting...

Quoted...
>But since no group is arbitrarily excluded from marriage now, by anything other than
>their own free choice, there is no 14th Amendment problem.
>There is only the outcome of freely chosen lifestyles.

Reply...
Hey look! Statements from 1966 about interracial marriage.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,457
Points:3,837,730
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 6:24:56 PM

GTH asks: "Why are you defining a group essentially by their preferred sex act?"

I ask why GTH is so fixated by the sex act.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 5:39:30 PM

Future discussions...

Fall 2013:
Ohio Same-Sex Marriage Amendment - Allowing same-sex marriage.

Fall 2014:
Arizona Marriage Amendment Repeal - Repeal definition of 1 man 1 woman marriage.
Illinois Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment - Ban same-sex marriage.
Indiana Marriage Amendment - Define marriage as one man and one woman.
Iowa Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment - Ban same-sex marriage.
New Mexico Marriage Amendment - Allowing same-sex marriage.
Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Amendment - Allowing same-sex marriage.
Pennsylvania Marriage Amendment - Ban same-sex marriage.

2016:
Arkansas Marriage Amendment - Allowing same-sex marriage.

Who wants to take bets now on how they will go???
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,961
Points:815,025
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 2:50:43 PM

My bet would be that it would not be answered ShanC.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 1:01:57 PM

>But since no group is arbitrarily excluded from marriage now, by anything other than
>their own free choice, there is no 14th Amendment problem.
>There is only the outcome of freely chosen lifestyles.Hey look! Statements from 1966 about interracial marriage.

>But an act of coitus which unites the opposite genders (which complement each other)
>can engender a bond that is wholly apart form any pleasure

But an act of sex which unites the same genders (which complement each other) can engender a bond that is wholly apart form any pleasure.

Hey look! We even used the exact same support for our statements!

>same-sex "marriage" redefinition will prevent children, one or both of whose biological
>parents are unavailable for whatever reason, from being raised by same-gender replacements

So from "mother and father" to "same-gender replacements"... OK. A little change, but still easily addressable.
#1) Since it is now "same-gender replacements" that is the actual concern, exactly HOW is that a concern as opposed to opposite-gender replacements?
In other words, back to your old 'same-sex couples cannot adequately raise children' hypothesis... which you have never once been able to fully explain. So - what are the exact and specific actions/behaviors that an opposite-sex couple displays, that an opposite-sex couple cannot, that is needed to adequately raise children?
#2) Without same-sex marriage, some children would STILL not be raised by same-gender replacements as single parents are by no means forced to remarry. So you are simply factually wrong due to this one fact.
#3) As BabeTruth stated: Those children are ALREADY being raised by same-sex couples. They are simply unmarried. And having them be married would be beneficial to those children. So you are also factually wrong due to this other fact.

>an available and willing biological parent might be pushed out of the picture

Exactly how would they be pushed out of the picture and have the cause be the one parent marrying someone of the same gender?

.

>>>
If something is already happening, which it is, doing something else, in this case allowing same-sex marriage, won't make it happen. If it's already happening, it can't start to happen since it's already happened.
But what same-sex marriage WOULD do is provide those children who are already in same-gender households with the benefits of being in married households. And your argument is to be fore the benefit of the children is it not? So why do you want to stop such children from getting benefits?
<<<

Bets on this being answered?
Will we see something like 'Here are the exact steps that would happen to cause this.' and 'The children would be harmed by their parent and partner OR adopted parents marrying because of this.'?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,750
Points:2,841,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 12:09:11 PM

gas_too_high - "But an act of coitus which unites the opposite genders (which complement each other) can engender a bond that is wholly apart form any pleasure."

If that were true, then the traditional norm would be to have sex, then commit, instead of the other way around.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,391
Points:793,980
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 12:00:14 PM

gas_too_high “But an act of coitus which unites the opposite genders (which complement each other) can engender a bond that is wholly apart form any pleasure.”

Unless you've tried the homosexual act, then that's nothing more than a supposition on your part. For all you KNOW, homosexual acts engender just as much of a bond as heterosexual acts, perhaps even more.

“But your dogma will not permit you to understand or acknowledge it, just as some clamor for "rights" they already have, yet refuse to make the proper choices to use those rights.”

* YAWN *

This constant redefinition of a dictionary word to make it say something that it doesn't say is getting more than a little tiresome.

If you want to have a word redefined, then go through a national process as you claim is being done with the word 'marriage'.

YOU can't unilaterally redefine a word. Legislators CAN however redefine the how a law is applied.

"And AGAIN, SSM would NOT remove ANY children from their parents, it would only allow children without parents to be raised by loving parents."

“No, same-sex "marriage" redefinition will prevent children, one or both of whose biological parents are unavailable for whatever reason, from being raised by same-gender replacements.”

You're wrong again, as usual.

Since children whose biological parent are unavailable for whatever reason are ALREADY being raised by same-gender replacements, then same-sex marriage won't make any difference at all.

If something is already happening, which it is, doing something else, in this case allowing same-sex marriage, won't make it happen. If it's already happening, it can't start to happen since it's already happened.

But what same-sex marriage WOULD do is provide those children who are already in same-gender households with the benefits of being in married households. And your argument is to be fore the benefit of the children is it not? So why do you want to stop such children from getting benefits?

“Or potentially, an available and willing biological parent might be pushed out of the picture. That is, it would deprive them of having either a father or a mother.”

Same-sex marriage wouldn't deprive children of having a biological mother and father. No same-sex couple is going to be able to force biological parents to give up their child. That's an absolutely ludicrous thing you're imagining.|
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,750
Points:2,841,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 11:56:46 AM

gas_too_high - "If my statements can be misinterpreted, redefiners will find a way. We know as much as in 1868 about the homosexual *act*: that it uses the genital organs in other than their designed function, and that such cats cannot procreate."

IOW, another strawman argument.

"same-sex attraction does not remove free choice. Therefore, the presence of aBSence of that attraction, although it may strongly influence certain choices such as the type of sex acts, relationships and unions, does not compel them."

And you have yet to establish any relevance to the subject. Heterosexuals are allowed free choice in who they want to marry. Homosexuals aren't.

"Why are you defining a group essentially by their preferred sex act?"

I'm not, you are. I'm defining them by who they love and want to commit themselves to. Why are you against commitment, and families, and children having loving parents?

"Why are you demanding to equate same-sex union to marriage?"

Because the differences between them have no relevance to anything except your religious dogma.

"Are you now saying all of those unions are celibate, merely platonic?"

And now you're just being ridiculous. Are you demanding that the partners in every marriage prove they're having regular coitus, and only coitus?

"As to the 14th Amendment, we are back where we started. The drafters knew in 1868 what marriage was and is, and nothing fundamental has been discovered since. Nothing that fits the definition of marriage (A union between a man and a woman) then in effect has been discovered that was not known then."

Well, it took almost a hundred years for the intent of the drafters in respect to racial equality to be enforced. And interracial marriage quite probably was not part of their original intent, given the social attitudes of the time.

"If you want to change the definition of marriage, and put it in the Constitution, then do it honestly. Amend the Constitution, as described in Article 5."

The Constitution has nothing to do with the definition of marriage, other than the requirement for equal protection.

And that's all that's necessary.

"But since no group is arbitrarily excluded from marriage now, by anything other than their own free choice, there is no 14th Amendment problem."

The very definition of marriage that you insist on arbitrarily excludes some from marriage, and you still can't justify that with anything except BS.

"There is only the outcome of freely chosen lifestyles."

And again with the "lifestyles" strawman.

"But an act of coitus which unites the opposite genders (which complement each other) can engender a bond that is wholly apart form any pleasure."

Not particularly evident in the real world.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,391
Points:793,980
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 11:47:34 AM

gas_too_high - "We don't really know much, if anything, more about homosexuality now, than in 1868."

gas_too_high “If my statements can be misinterpreted, redefiners will find a way. We know as much as in 1868 about the homosexual *act*: that it uses the genital organs in other than their designed function, and that such cats cannot procreate.”

So, when WE talk about homosexuality, you keep on admonishing us that we're not separating the orientation from the * act *. But when YOU talk about homosexuality, it's to be automatically understood that you mean only * the act *?

However, I'm certain that 5,000 years ago (or whenever it is you start your imaginary tradition of marriage) that everything about the actual physical aspect of intercourse was known too, at least in the same detail that you think the homosexual act is known.

And yet, with the discovery of hormones, neurology, microscopes, MRI's, mini-cameras and many other things, there is a LOT more known about the heterosexual act than there was even a couple of decades ago. What makes you think the same doesn't apply to homosexuals?

And since what goes on between the ears is far more important in sexuality than what goes on between the legs, the actual 'tab A in slot B' mechanics really aren't that important to a relationship. Homosexuals develop the same sort of bonding with their sexual acts and we heterosexuals do with outs.

“Some additional things have been learned about the *conbdition* of same-sex attraction. But one crucial fact has not changed.”

Back to the old referencing homosexual as if it was a disease.

“Same-sex attraction does not remove free choice. Therefore, the presence of absence of that attraction, although it may strongly influence certain choices such as the type of sex acts, relationships and unions, does not compel them.”

Just like heterosexuality doesn't remove free choice. And yet, a priest is still a heterosexual even though he's celibate. (Well, at least some of them are heterosexuals.)

Do you agree? Or is this going to be just another one of those points that you express tacit agreement with me by not even trying to respond?

GTH: "In any case, unless a same-sex attraction compels homosexual behavior, it is homosexual behavior -- not same-sex attraction -- that is relevant."

rjhenn: "Why is homosexual, or any sexual, behavior relevant? Why do you need to know what happens in someone else's bedroom?"

“Why are you defining a group essentially by their preferred sex act?”

Why is behavior in the bedroom between consenting adults any of our business? It doesn't affect ANY of us. It shouldn't matter to you any more than it matters to me, and believe me, I really have no interest in what a couple of gays do in the privacy of their own room. (A pair of lesbians, maybe.)

“Why are you demanding to equate same-sex union to marriage?”

Why are you refusing to allow them the same benefits as heterosexual couples? If a heterosexual couple doesn't have children, why should they be accorded more benefits than a homosexual couple that DOES have children?

“Are you now saying all of those unions are celibate, merely platonic?”

Again, what does it matter what they do in the privacy of their own bedroom? If you're so concerned about their sex lives, why aren't you trying to prohibit heterosexual marriages that don't procreate? Do you think must be celibate too?

“As to the 14th Amendment, we are back where we started. The drafters knew in 1868 what marriage was and is, and nothing fundamental has been discovered since. Nothing that fits the definition of marriage (A union between a man and a woman) then in effect has been discovered that was not known then.”

You keep forgetting that in 1868, they didn't say anything about heterosexual marriage in the 14th Amendment either. The 14th was about EQUALITY, not about marriage.

And since it was about equality, it can be applied to anywhere that people are not given equal status. That's why it's used for women's suffrage, and the disabled, and all sorts of other issues that weren't specifically mentioned in 1868 either.

“If you want to change the definition of marriage, and put it in the Constitution, then do it honestly. Amend the Constitution, as described in Article 5.”

Same-sex marriage doesn't have to be written into the Constitution as an amendment. Just like marriage isn't in the Constitution either.

“But since no group is arbitrarily excluded from marriage now, by anything other than their own free choice, there is no 14th Amendment problem.”

The 14th Amendment doesn't say that choice, free or otherwise is a factor in granting equality. Inequality is the factor. Nothing about WHY people are not treated equality or HOW they're treated unequally, just that they ARE treated unequally.

“There is only the outcome of freely chosen lifestyles.”

There are lots of possible freely chosen lifestyles in the modern world. All of them get equal treatment under the law except homosexuality. That's discrimination.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 11:04:24 AM

GTH - "Homosexual acts, it seems, do not engender the emotional bonds to the partners that coitus does. In opposite-sex couples, that leads to the emotional expectation of fidelity. "

ldheinz: "Actually, I have heard that the reverse is true. Homosexual people often say that since they have the same parts as their partner, they are more aware of what feels good to their partner and are therefore more capable of pleasing them physically."

That's not at all the same thing. All you're saying is that homosexual partners know how to pleasure each other better, perhaps because they know how to pleasure themselves. If anything, that makes the homosexual act equivalent to self-pleasuring.

But an act of coitus which unites the opposite genders (which complement each other) can engender a bond that is wholly apart form any pleasure.

But your dogma will not permit you to understand or acknowledge it, just as some clamor for "rights" they already have, yet refuse to make the proper choices to use those rights.

"And AGAIN, SSM would NOT remove ANY children from their parents, it would only allow children without parents to be raised by loving parents."

No, same-sex "marriage" redefinition will prevent children, one or both of whose biological parents are unavailable for whatever reason, from being raised by same-gender replacements. Or potentially, an available and willing biological parent might be pushed out of the picture. That is, it would deprive them of having either a father or a mother.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 11:03:56 AM

gas_too_high - "We don't really know much, if anything, more about homosexuality now, than in 1868."

If my statements can be misinterpreted, redefiners will find a way. We know as much as in 1868 about the homosexual *act*: that it uses the genital organs in other than their designed function, and that such cats cannot procreate.

Some additional things have been learned about the *conbdition* of same-sex attraction. But one crucial fact has not changed.

Same-sex attraction does not remove free choice. Therefore, the presence of absence of that attraction, although it may strongly influence certain choices such as the type of sex acts, relationships and unions, does not compel them.

GTH: "In any case, unless a same-sex attraction compels homosexual behavior, it is homosexual behavior -- not same-sex attraction -- that is relevant."

rjhenn: "Why is homosexual, or any sexual, behavior relevant? Why do you need to know what happens in someone else's bedroom?"

Why are you defining a group essentially by their preferred sex act?

Why are you demanding to equate same-sex union to marriage? Are you now saying all of those unions are celibate, merely platonic?

As to the 14th Amendment, we are back where we started. The drafters knew in 1868 what marriage was and is, and nothing fundamental has been discovered since. Nothing that fits the definition of marriage (A union between a man and a woman) then in effect has been discovered that was not known then.

If you want to change the definition of marriage, and put it in the Constitution, then do it honestly. Amend the Constitution, as described in Article 5.

But since no group is arbitrarily excluded from marriage now, by anything other than their own free choice, there is no 14th Amendment problem.

There is only the outcome of freely chosen lifestyles.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/2/2013 11:06:25 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,624
Points:3,000,970
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 9:01:07 AM

gas_too_high - "Your denial of the frequently-stated obvious only proves that you are blinded by dogma, as to the nature of the *natural* institution of marriage, and your desire to sever unnaturally the legal aspect of marriage."

And your "redefiner" nature betrays itself again. Please stop redefining "dogma" so that your complaints about redefining marriage can be seen as anything but hypocrisy.

gas_too_high - "And once again it comes down to your blind observance of dogma over allowing children to be raised by their fathers and mothers."

And once again please stop redefining "dogma". What is the authority enforcing a belief here, and essential element of the definition of "dogma"? Clearly, YOUR belief is dogma, as it is following the authority of the catholic church. It's just yet another example of you accusing others of what you know you're guilty of, and the more wrong you know you are the stronger your insistence that others are the guilty ones.

And AGAIN, SSM would NOT remove ANY children from their parents, it would only allow children without parents to be raised by loving parents. Is that what you are objecting to?
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 8:19:42 AM

>So is homosexual behavior as compulsive as drinking is to alcoholics?

Irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as the sexual behavior of *ANY* married couple.

>Then why don't alcoholics have special rights to ensure their equality,
>since they face discrimination in things like employment and driving,
>as a result of their drinking?

As said to you in past *NUMEROUS* times: Alcoholics have each and every single right that everyone else does (unless they want to marry someone of the same gender) - *UNTIL* their actions are the cause of some endangerment.
Alcoholics can and do have driver's licenses. They can and do have jobs. They do *NOT* face any discrimination in those privileges (or any of their Rights). Their drinking and their being an alcoholic does *not* cause them to lose any of those things.
But, just like everyone else, when their actions endanger other people or job performance - then they suffer consequences. (Try driving through a School Zone during bus pick-up times at 100 mph while passing busses, and see if you lose your driving privilege.)
Marrying someone of the same gender is not an action that endangers anyone, nor does it have any detrimental impact on their job.

So how is this difficult to comprehend?
IF dangerous THEN lose privilege.
IF NOT dangerous THEN NOT lose privilege.
And the same applies to having equal Rights.
Your comparison is beyond the realm of a Logical Equivalent, as is demonstrated above.

>as to the nature of the *natural* institution of marriage,

Marriage is not "natural". It is a man-made artificial construct within the legal system.

>and your desire to sever unnaturally the legal aspect of marriage

How does extending a legal contract between legally consenting adults, to other legally consenting adults, sever the legal aspect? (Other than you just saying so.)

>over allowing children to be raised by their fathers and mothers

Which you keep *saying*, but *never* explain HOW it could happen.
I can say that being boring keeps children from being raised by their fathers and mothers all I want... but it means nothing until I prove it.
So please explain step by step exactly how this would happen. (I will start it for you.)
Step #1) A child is born to a man and a woman.
Step #2) ___________________ [Your turn]
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,457
Points:3,837,730
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 3:52:10 AM

Rights should be rights, doling them out on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, or colour, makes them special privileges, and denying the right to marriage to a person of choice on the basis both persons are the same sex makes heterosexuals a privileged class.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,457
Points:3,837,730
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 3:30:53 AM

"Gay marriage" isn't a right.
However, if you talk of rights, then MARRIAGE itself would be a right, that some gleefully deny to gay persons who aren't willing to enter into sham marriages with people they aren't attracted to.
Using the "law" to separate people by orientation to deny rights is just as odious as using the "law" to separate people by colour to deny rights.

"Then why don't alcoholics have special rights to ensure their equality,"
Ridiculous comparison, but that is to be expected from the people who bring us such gems as "gay marriage means people will next be marrying goats and dogs", and "gay marriage means people will next be marrying children".
Besides, alcoholics, including those who have driven into and killed people, have the right to marry, just like child molesters, and convicted felons of all stripes including wife-beaters and murderers of husbands and wives. Yep, nothing like good old-fashioned family values!
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,750
Points:2,841,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 2, 2013 12:41:12 AM

gas_too_high - "That's your theory, not a scientific consensus."

It's got a lot more scientific acceptance than anything you've put forward.

"In any case, unless a same-sex attraction compels homosexual behavior, it is homosexual behavior -- not same-sex attraction -- that is relevant."

Why is homosexual, or any sexual, behavior relevant? Why do you need to know what happens in someone else's bedroom?

"Funny, that is exactly why the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution were passed. What amendments were passed to redefine marriage?"

The 14th amendment does that quite well.

"So is homosexual behavior as compulsive as drinking is to alcoholics? Then why don't alcoholics have special rights to ensure their equality, since they face discrimination in things like employment and driving, as a result of their drinking?"

Why does homosexual behavior even matter? Is sex a requirement for marriage?

"Your denial of the frequently-stated obvious only proves that you are blinded by dogma, as to the nature of the *natural* institution of marriage, and your desire to sever unnaturally the legal aspect of marriage."

And your adherence to dogma instead of fact only undercuts your arguments.

"And once again it comes down to your blind observance of dogma over allowing children to be raised by their fathers and mothers."

So now you're claiming that SSM will force children to be raised by someone other than their biological mothers and fathers?
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,624
Points:3,000,970
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 3:35:07 PM

Here's another argument of mine that was ignored by GTH:

GTH - "Homosexual acts, it seems, do not engender the emotional bonds to the partners that coitus does. In opposite-sex couples, that leads to the emotional expectation of fidelity. "

Actually, I have heard that the reverse is true. Homosexual people often say that since they have the same parts as their partner, they are more aware of what feels good to their partner and are therefore more capable of pleasing them physically. This seems reasonable, so clearly homosexual relations should be preferable to heterosexual relations with regards to "engender"ing "emotional bonds to the partners".

GTH - "That seems to be missing in same-sex unions; therefore, stability of those unions is less; therefore, they are less suitable for raising children."

And since the physical act is more pleasurable in homosexuals, by your arguments homosexual marriage is preferable to heterosexual marriage for raising children.

Also, with the world's population expanding exponentially, procreation should be seen as a negative aspect to marriage. Since homosexuals are just as capable of raising children but produce none of their own, homosexual marriage should be seen as the preferred type of marriage from a societal perspective.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,624
Points:3,000,970
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 3:30:34 PM

ldheinz - "It is unconstitutional to discriminate against ANY group, freely chosen or not."

gas_too_high - "While a law banning gold is extremely silly, it is not unconstitutional."

OK, assuming that you meant "golf", you have completely sidestepped the issue. I never said to ban golf, I said that it is a violation of equal protection to discriminate against people engaged in a legal action, whether or not the group is voluntary or not. This is just like it would be to have Roman Catholicism legal, but to discriminate against its practitioners. You have yet to address that question.
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,624
Points:3,000,970
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 1:54:51 PM

According to the cover of the current edition of Time Magazine, Gay Marriage is already won.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,321
Points:3,026,095
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 11:12:34 AM

"We don't really know much, if anything, more about homosexuality now, than in 1868."

Did you mean to post this today, April Fool's Day? Because then it makes sense.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,391
Points:793,980
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 11:10:15 AM

gas_too_high - "And the best way to describe your attempt at analogy is "silly."

ldheinz “Ever notice how the stronger our arguments are the more likely they are to simply dismissed without comment? (Presumably because you can't come up with anything to counter them.)”

Well of course I've noticed that. It's hard to miss.

And when the arguments are too strong for him to dismiss, then they simply get ignored altogether.

So I actually take it as a complement that he ignores more of my arguments than he dismisses, especially since even in his own words, not even attempting to respond to them is a tacit admission that they're right.

Note how when I responded to his link about King's speech, and pointed out that the Constitution says nothing one way or the other about marriage, so that his entire point was nullified, there was no answer.

But when I said, "Some people never respond to tough questions or points.", he responded with, “I'm not aware who that applies to ..”

If he had no idea who I was talking about, then why the particular response that he had? I made sure not to reference any specific person, but from his response, it looks like he recognized himself. Hmmmm.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 10:28:54 AM

Depends on whether you define homosexuality as the psychological condition, or the behavior. For the definition of marriage, only the latter is relevant.

GTH
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,961
Points:815,025
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 10:10:06 AM

<<We don't really know much, if anything, more about homosexuality now, than in 1868.>> gas_too_high

If some body does not understand scientific progress and how it works or what it has done since 1868 and think that we are still living so much in the past that would explain a lot.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 1, 2013 9:36:31 AM

gas_too_high - "We don't really know much, if anything, more about homosexuality now, than in 1868."

rjhenn: "We know that it appears to be a matter of natural fetal brain development, not a choice."

That's your theory, not a scientific consensus. In any case, unless a same-sex attraction compels homosexual behavior, it is homosexual behavior -- not same-sex attraction -- that is relevant.

GTH: "What has changed during that time is, not knowledge, but attitudes. And a changed attitude is insufficient to change the meaning of the Constitution."

rjhenn: "Funny, but that's exactly what happened with race."

Funny, that is exactly why the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution were passed. What amendments were passed to redefine marriage?

"Well, given that the current scientific evidence is that homosexuality is innate to many of those who practice it,…"

So is homosexual behavior as compulsive as drinking is to alcoholics? Then why don't alcoholics have special rights to ensure their equality, since they face discrimination in things like employment and driving, as a result of their drinking?

"…and your inability to show any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality that is relevant in any practical way to the civil institution of marriage…"

Your denial of the frequently-stated obvious only proves that you are blinded by dogma, as to the nature of the *natural* institution of marriage, and your desire to sever unnaturally the legal aspect of marriage.

"And once again it comes down to your prejudice against a "same-sex lifestyle", instead of any practical objections."

And once again it comes down to your blind observance of dogma over allowing children to be raised by their fathers and mothers.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,750
Points:2,841,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 7:09:48 PM

gas_too_high - "We don't really know much, if anything, more about homosexuality now, than in 1868."

We know that it appears to be a matter of natural fetal brain development, not a choice.

"What has changed during that time is, not knowledge, but attitudes. And a changed attitude is insufficient to change the meaning of the Constitution."

Funny, but that's exactly what happened with race.

"More specifically, the twin dogmas, that homosexuality is innate to those who practice it, and homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, have taken root."

Well, given that the current scientific evidence is that homosexuality is innate to many of those who practice it, and your inability to show any difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality that is relevant in any practical way to the civil institution of marriage, neither of those appears to be "dogma", simply fact.

"No, you're asking exactly the opposite -- suppressing consequences artificially. "changing the rules of the game" as no1oc points out."

But those rules, and the consequences they produce, are not necessary, in any social or legal sense.

Nor is changing them likely to make any difference at all to anybody except the families and children directly benefited.

"Anyone who thinks of themselves as a "second-class citizen" because they refuse to relinquish a same-sex lifestyle, while insisting on the status of those who practice a normal lifestyle, has only themselves to blame."

And once again it comes down to your prejudice against a "same-sex lifestyle", instead of any practical objections.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,750
Points:2,841,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 7:05:03 PM

gas_too_high - "Precisely. And this game is called "marriage"."

What's the matter? Worried that gays might be better at it than you are?

"Because, up to this point, it has been interpreted as it reads, not as some want it to read."

Precisely. And we want it enforced as it reads, not as you want it to read.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 4:22:06 PM

ldheinz: "It may come as a shock to you, but laws are passed BEFORE they are enforced. And apparently you are unaware that the US Constitution was passed well before 1868, yet it continues to be in effect. SCOTUS regularly rules things unconstitutional to this day."

GTH: "Mostly over novel issues not in existence in the time of the framers, based on cultural or other changes…."

rjhenn: 'And, at the time of the 14th Amendment, no one had any actual knowledge of what homosexuality was. Therefore, it's a novel issue "not in existence in the time of the framers, based on cultural or other changes."'

GTH: "Pure BS. They full well know what homosexuality was. They just disagreed with you, or with what "modernity" thinks."

"No, they had the mistaken belief that it was some sort of disease or sin, just like you."

We don't really know much, if anything, more about homosexuality now, than in 1868.

What has changed during that time is, not knowledge, but attitudes. And a changed attitude is insufficient to change the meaning of the Constitution.

More specifically, the twin dogmas, that homosexuality is innate to those who practice it, and homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, have taken root.

GTH: "Instead, treat them as individuals who can make individual choices with consequences. In other words, treat them like responsible adults."

rjhenn: "Exactly what we're asking for. We just want to get rid of the artificial consequences you insist on."

No, you're asking exactly the opposite -- suppressing consequences artificially. "changing the rules of the game" as no1oc points out.

"By continuing to treat some families and children as second-class citizens?"

Anyone who thinks of themselves as a "second-class citizen" because they refuse to relinquish a same-sex lifestyle, while insisting on the status of those who practice a normal lifestyle, has only themselves to blame. Perhaps they are projecting deep reservations about their lifestyle, onto others.

GTH
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 3:44:57 PM

>It is unconstitutional to discriminate against ANY group, freely chosen or not.

I would have added in "unjustly" before "discriminate".
That would have ensured that you meant the definition of "discriminate" to be: To make a *prejudicial* difference in treatment or favor on a basis of classification or membership in a certain group or category which causes no direct harm; rather than individual merit.
Otherwise, to use another looser definition, we do discriminate against groups of people like murderers and drunk drivers.
So remember, even though we have gone over and over and over and over a specific qualification of a point... it will still be taken differently the next day.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 3:27:22 PM

It seems that I typed "gold" instead of "golf." Apologies for the typo.

no1doc: "As for mixed metaphors: Homosexuals are free to golf, they just can't redefine the game"

Precisely. And this game is called "marriage".

ldheinz: "The 14th Amendment has existed for quite a while now, and the country survived it. "

Because, up to this point, it has been interpreted as it reads, not as some want it to read.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 3/30/2013 3:29:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,173
Points:2,422,300
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 10:03:30 AM

As for mixed metaphors: Homosexuals are free to golf, they just can't redefine the game - as GTH continues to point out.

Play the ball where it lies. One man, one woman. Change your stroke, not the game.

[Edited by: no1doc at 3/30/2013 10:06:37 AM EST]
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:40,971
Points:4,629,275
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 9:52:21 AM

ldheinz - "It is unconstitutional to discriminate against ANY group, freely chosen or not."

That is not true!
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,457
Points:3,837,730
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 9:42:36 AM

"While a law banning gold is extremely silly, it is not unconstitutional."

It is your allegation that gold is a lifestyle as well? Or is it maybe a religion?
The best way to describe YOUR attempt at analogy is "silly."
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,624
Points:3,000,970
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 30, 2013 9:12:39 AM

ldheinz - "It is unconstitutional to discriminate against ANY group, freely chosen or not."

gas_too_high - "While a law banning gold is extremely silly, it is not unconstitutional."

How is gold a group of people that are discriminated against? I'm sure this rationalization will be hilarious.

gas_too_high - "And the best way to describe your attempt at analogy is "silly."

Ever notice how the stronger our arguments are the more likely they are to simply dismissed without comment? (Presumably because you can't come up with anything to counter them.)

gas_too_high - "If your analogy were taken seriously, government would be unable to do anything, since any law would impact some identifiable group of people and "discriminate against them.""

The 14th Amendment has existed for quite a while now, and the country survived it.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 5:49:06 PM

>the group called "homosexuals" who *must* have the special privilege of
>an exception to the definition of marriage, to be 'equal.

Like the group called "women" who *must* have the special privilege of an exception to the definition of Voter, to be 'equal'?
Like the group called "Africans" who *must* have the special privilege of an exception to the definition of Free Men, to be 'equal'?

When they are granted the same Right as others it is not a "special privilege".

>That's the simple solution, which protects marriage and children.

Yes, allowing the marriage of same-sex couples, who are currently not allowed to marry and *are* raising children, protects children. That couple will now have the benefits you keep saying are needed so badly when raising children.
Yes, allowing the marriage of *all* couples, where two legally consenting adults wish to marry, protects marriage. It then would have the aspect of Equality instead of discrimination.

>The definition of marriage is fast becoming a festering issue like abortion,
>unresolvable due to deep splits in society.

The two issues have vast differences. No one has ever been able to successfully argue (as we saw in the SCOTUS cases) that same-sex marriage has any direct detrimental impact upon persons, society, economy, or community. Also, the difference of public opinion with same-sex marriage has changed *greatly* over the past two decades. With that trend, in another two decades, there will be no "deep split"... just a tiny minority hanging on to old beliefs that are long gone in implementation.

>such as how redefining marriage can deprive children of being raised by
>their mother and father

AGAIN... Could you *PLEASE* specify the exact steps in which a child would be deprived of being raised by their mother and father DUE TO same-sex marriage:
Step #1) A child is born with a biological mother and father. (They are either married or unmarried.)
Step #2) _______________________?????

Can you fulfill this process, or is it just some unrealistic fantasy that you invented as a scare tactic? You have a chance to do it. Prove your statement right... go for it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,750
Points:2,841,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 4:44:47 PM

gas_too_high - "Pure BS. They full well know what homosexuality was. They just disagreed with you, or with what "modernity" thinks."

No, they had the mistaken belief that it was some sort of disease or sin, just like you.

"To even think of using the 14th Amendment to redefine marriage is a gross (albeit unfortunately widespread) misunderstanding of that amendment and what it was intended to do."

It was intended to remove discrimination. That's all we're asking for.

"No, their social norms (news flash -- I was not born in the 19th century) differed from your beliefs."

You mean differed from reality, just as your beliefs do. Just as their beliefs about race did.

"An amazing statement, coming from you, since you want to define individuals with same-sex attractions by the group called "homosexuals" who *must* have the special privilege of an exception to the definition of marriage, to be 'equal.'"

And you're still building strawmen. there's no "special privilege" involved, just being treated like any other family based on a committed monogamous relationship. Which is treating individuals as individuals, instead of a group.

"Instead, treat them as individuals who can make individual choices with consequences. In other words, treat them like responsible adults."

Exactly what we're asking for. We just want to get rid of the artificial consequences you insist on.

"That's the simple solution, which protects marriage and children."

By continuing to treat some families and children as second-class citizens?

"The definition of marriage is fast becoming a festering issue like abortion, unresolvable due to deep splits in society."

You mean lots of propaganda, bigotry and ignorance in society. You have yet to present any rational arguments against SSM.

"And if more people heard the truth, such as how redefining marriage can deprive children of being raised by their mother and father, that support would shrink further."

Except that there's no truth in that claim. Just like all of your arguments against families and children.
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 1:14:54 PM

>We were discussing differences between the genders,
>for which the ability to give birth is highly relevant.

Incorrect.
"We" were discussing differences between the genders that matter to Legal Marriage. Giving birth is relevant in marriage *only* if the person or couple *chooses* it to be.
"You" are discussing differences between the genders in general; and even *there* the ability to give birth is *still* not relevant unless the person or couple *chooses* it to be.
Otherwise you must advocate for the immediate dissolution and future prohibition of all marriages that began/begin where the female was over 60 years old, or the woman had a hysterectomy, and of Sgt Bob and his wife.
But you do not. You only choose to be against infertile, 100% obvious non-procreative couples *IF* they are the same gender. If they are of the opposite gender you have no problem with those kinds of couples marrying. And that is exactly the fact that defines your argument as being unfairly discriminatory (as it has no valid reason) against same-sex couples; since opposite-sex couples fit into the very same parameters that you give (ie: "can never procreate").
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 10:32:56 AM

gas_too_high - "Sorry, you lose. Freedom of religion is expressly protected in the First Amendment. Not so with "freedom of freely chosen sexual lifestyles.""

ldheinz: "Yeah, I thought you'd use that red herring. I didn't say that it would be illegal to be catholic, just that your rights would be restricted unless you changed your freely chosen, completely legal behavior, just as if you were a homosexual. But let's eliminate your diversion. Let's assume that the law said that golfers were to be discriminated against. They could get their rights under the law by giving up golf, so by your argument it would be legal to discriminate against them. Fortunately, however, you are wrong. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against ANY group, freely chosen or not."

While a law banning gold is extremely silly, it is not unconstitutional. And the best way to describe your attempt at analogy is "silly." (But then again, I'm not an extreme libertarian as you seem to be).

If your analogy were taken seriously, government would be unable to do anything, since any law would impact some identifiable group of people and "discriminate against them."

rjhenn: "Limbaugh: The genie is out of the bottle"

Rush has always been lukewarm at best on social issues, being primarily an economic and patriotic conservative.

The real future is same-sex redefinition is likely a patchwork of state laws. Indications from this week's oral arguments are that, while SCOTUS might strike down DOMA and California's Prop 8 they will stop well short of forcing a national Constitutional redefinition of marriage. Everyone has seen what harm Roe v. Wade did to the Supreme Court.

And with good reason. The definition of marriage is fast becoming a festering issue like abortion, unresolvable due to deep splits in society. Support for same-sex "marriage" while rising in the wake of propaganda success of the redefiners, will reach a plateau and advance no farther.

The marriage redefiners have been crowing since November over their first ever statewide electoral victories. What they don't discuss, is that all 4 of those votes happened in states that also voted for Obama, and the marriage issues passed by slimmer margins than did Obama in each of those states. Suport for marriage redefinition is not as widespread as you redefiners want to think.

And if more people heard the truth, such as how redefining marriage can deprive children of being raised by their mother and father, that support would shrink further.

GTH


[Edited by: gas_too_high at 3/29/2013 10:35:17 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,404
Points:2,569,325
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 10:30:46 AM

ldheinz: "It may come as a shock to you, but laws are passed BEFORE they are enforced. And apparently you are unaware that the US Constitution was passed well before 1868, yet it continues to be in effect. SCOTUS regularly rules things unconstitutional to this day."

GTH: "Mostly over novel issues not in existence in the time of the framers, based on cultural or other changes…."

rjhenn: 'And, at the time of the 14th Amendment, no one had any actual knowledge of what homosexuality was. Therefore, it's a novel issue "not in existence in the time of the framers, based on cultural or other changes."'

Pure BS. They full well know what homosexuality was. They just disagreed with you, or with what "modernity" thinks.

To even think of using the 14th Amendment to redefine marriage is a gross (albeit unfortunately widespread) misunderstanding of that amendment and what it was intended to do.

GTH: "Which implies that the definition of marriage was always unconstitutional, whether we knew it or not. That is ridiculous, and if the drafters of that amendment ever though their amendment could be so interpreted, they surely would have written it differently."

rjhenn: "How is it ridiculous? The social norms of the time did not allow for a realistic view of homosexuality. You're proof of that."

No, their social norms (news flash -- I was not born in the 19th century) differed from your beliefs.

"So intuitively obvious that you have no idea what they are. As I've said before, the group does not define the individual, much as you would prefer otherwise."

An amazing statement, coming from you, since you want to define individuals with same-sex attractions by the group called "homosexuals" who *must* have the special privilege of an exception to the definition of marriage, to be "equal."

Instead, treat them as individuals who can make individual choices with consequences. In other words, treat them like responsible adults.

That's the simple solution, which protects marriage and children.

GTH
Profile Pic
ldheinz
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:23,624
Points:3,000,970
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 10:09:09 AM

GTH - "But marriage predates the US Constitution by thousands of years, so you cannot make the argument that marriage was never in existence when it was framed, or is a novel issue to the Constitution."

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant, as are most of your statements. Legal marriage has already been redefined because existing marriage laws were ruled unconstitutional. Interracial marriage used to be illegal until that was ruled unconstitutional. Clearly there is no legal impediment to ruling the same way for homosexuals.

gas_too_high - "Second of all, how do you make a "special class" out of a freely chosen behavior? It seems to me, you are denying that free choices have consequences and demanding in the name of the Constitution, that those consequences be erased."

ldheinz: "Special classes are regularly based on freely chosen behavior. For example, would you argue that since Roman Catholicism is a "freely chosen behavior" that it would be appropriate to discriminate against them?"

gas_too_high - "Sorry, you lose. Freedom of religion is expressly protected in the First Amendment. Not so with "freedom of freely chosen sexual lifestyles.""

Yeah, I thought you'd use that red herring. I didn't say that it would be illegal to be catholic, just that your rights would be restricted unless you changed your freely chosen, completely legal behavior, just as if you were a homosexual. But let's eliminate your diversion. Let's assume that the law said that golfers were to be discriminated against. They could get their rights under the law by giving up golf, so by your argument it would be legal to discriminate against them. Fortunately, however, you are wrong. It is unconstitutional to discriminate against ANY group, freely chosen or not.

gas_too_high - "When was the last time you heard of a man giving birth naturally?"

ldheinz - "Since giving birth is not and never has been a requirement for marriage, it is irrelevant to our discussion."

gas_too_high - We were discussing differences between the genders, for which the ability to give birth is highly relevant.

No, you were insisting that a marriage requires people with certain character traits, which you falsely insisted were to be found ONLY in one sex or the other. You introduced physical characteristics solely as a diversion, as it is clear that marriage has never required reproduction as a prerequisite, or older women could never have been allowed to marry, and this has never been done.

Clearly, since marriage has never required reproduction, ability to procreate is irrelevant to our discussion. Also, since marriage has never required people to possess certain character traits, that is irrelevant to our discussion as well. And since it's unconstitutional to discriminate against ANY group, freely chosen or not, THAT is irrelevant to our discussion, too.

Looks like ti's YOU who lose, on all points.

gas_too_high - "Your denying of the obvious seems to be a defining trait of foolishness."

ldheinz: "Fighting against Evil isn't foolish."

gas_too_high - "But fighting against Good and calling it Evil is at the very least foolish, if not actually Evil itself."

Then please stop doing it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,750
Points:2,841,570
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 29, 2013 1:23:10 AM

Limbaugh: The Genie Is Out Of The Bottle… “There Is Going To Be Gay Marriage Nationwide”

Whoops again.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/29/2013 1:24:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
ShanC
Champion Author Rochester

Posts:12,416
Points:418,085
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2013 8:31:15 PM

I keep seeing mention of two things recently:

1) Marriage tax penalty. Just to note - this only affects certain income levels, not all of them; and when their individual incomes have a large difference. For example, my spouse and I have incomes within $5,000 of each other. That very small percentage of difference means we actually have a marriage tax benefit. We would pay more tax by filing separately.

2) Sexual lifestyle. Does that mean that it would be perfectly acceptable to everyone for two males to marry, or two females to marry, if the couples did not have sex?
Topic is locked Back to Topics