Homosexual Marriage In The Usa.

Wheeee · January 2005

never mind, make a new topic and stop dragging this one ot <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Nadagast · January 2005

Why....? Just respond <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

reasa · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 19 2005, 01:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 19 2005, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> We all need to get together and have a round table discussion sometime. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
That table'd better be stocked with <i>lots</i> of liquor.

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I find more cents I Make afer a few rinks...

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

BathroomMonkey · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 19 2005, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jan 19 2005, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I find more cents I Make afer a few rinks...

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yeah, I find that you make more sense when <i>I've</i> been drinking.

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

torque · January 2005

Er. I've opted to stay out of this discussion as far as debating, but just providing some info:

Regarding transexual rights - actually, it really depends. As long as the person has had the operation and his or her papers legally identify them as their current sex, they can usually get through legal systems as per norm. Non-ops and those that haven't had their legal status changed generally have a lot of problems.

So far even male and female marriages (in which one is a transexual and post-operative prior to the marriage) have had issues, because there are cases in court where some groups are trying to make marriage based on chromosomes only - that post-operative or not, if both partners have male or female chromosomes, that the marriage is void.

There was a case filed last November in which immigration rights are being denied due to the marriage status of one of the partners (who underwent SR surgery in 1981); her husband is facing deportation because she is a transexual (though all her legal papers identify her and her legal status is female). There are currently two other cases waiting for appeals.

I think that given these grounds, if a heterosexual couple were married and then one underwent transition and SRS, it would still be legally valid, even though it would be a homosexual relationship at that point.

Sky · January 2005

I'm still waiting on the answer to, "Are atheists who get married in a court of law really married?" Just in case you forgot while you were playing Devil's Advocate for....4 pages....defending dog-man marriages....wth? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />

I'll say this, if I didn't know this forum and the people in it, and someone pointed me to this thread, I'd think it were a joke. I'll just ignore that section of this discussion, because I don't think it even warrants attention anymore.

That said, back to 'love is not a prerequisite for marriage'. I said give me an example where people would marry for something other than love, or an arranged marriage. I assume your answer was "tax breaks". Besides all the financial reasons why that doesn't always work, as outlined in I-forget-who's post, I have to ask you: Why would you marry without love and get a tax break, when you can marry <u>with</u> love AND get a tax break? Makes no sense. Tax breaks aren't a reason for getting married; at best they're a perk of being married. Truly sad argument; I hope you don't know anyone who has done this because they can't find anyone to love....but they <i>really</i> want that reduction.

reasa · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 19 2005, 02:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Yeah, I find that you make more sense when <i>I've</i> been drinking.

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Oooo tahsts it *smashes bottle off the table*

...yea maybe it's best we can't...say...leap over the table and pummel each other. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Athena @ Jan 19 2005, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> So far even male and female marriages (in which one is a transexual and post-operative prior to the marriage) have had issues, because there are cases in court where some groups are trying to make marriage based on chromosomes only - that post-operative or not, if both partners have male or female chromosomes, that the marriage is void.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Er, that doesn't work. What about downs people?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That said, back to 'love is not a prerequisite for marriage'. I said give me an example where people would marry for something other than love, or an arranged marriage. I assume your answer was "tax breaks". Besides all the financial reasons why that doesn't always work, as outlined in I-forget-who's post, I have to ask you: Why would you marry without love and get a tax break, when you can marry with love AND get a tax break? Makes no sense. Tax breaks aren't a reason for getting married; at best they're a perk of being married. Truly sad argument; I hope you don't know anyone who has done this because they can't find anyone to love....but they really want that reduction.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Look, if you couldn't follow my argument, as skulkbait and bathroommonkey could, I have nothing more to say to you. I've already explained some of the reasons people get married, and just to let you know I had a psych prof who married her best friend (even though they weren't "in love"). Got it?

Deus_Ex_Machina · January 2005

I give up.

I appreciate you guys (and girls) taking part in this discussion. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Edit: I suppose I should clarify. I am not conceding, just giving up hope on a good counter to my argument. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

Sky · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>LMAO. Do you think all people marry out of love? Even if they're not arranged marriages? That's just hilarious. Pardon me for a while while I go and laugh into a paper bag.

AHAHAHAHAHA.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's because I see marriage as unique, and saying "legalize **** marriage" is like saying "elephants are pink." Where I was going with that argument was "the prerequisite for marriage is a legal contract between a man and a woman." The reason the state recognizes this is because it's a pretty universal human institution. So basically I want proof (objective proof) that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual marriages. Otherwise it's like saying "I love my dog and he/she/it (in case it's neutered) love sme, so I demand rights for us."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Not precisely true. And even disregarding that argument, what defines a marriage? I've already presented my definition. If you want to expand that definition solely on the basis of "I love <xxx>," then that means marriage becomes meaningless. If you wanted to marry a dog, you could. So basically there would be no reason not to marry. And you know people would do it just to jack the tax benefits. That's why I say that redefining marriage makes it meaningless. Hospitals would have to make stupid rules like "no dogs are allowed to visit, even if they are married to the patient." Hence, bureacracy. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As to your argument against heterosexual marriage - I've already addressed that in a previous post. You can't legislate love. Many people marry for money, and I'm sure some for the tax breaks. But the very definition of marriage is why there are tax breaks in the first place. Therefore, since you can't legislate love, how would you define marriage? Oh, right, I already told you that.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Do they need a ring and some pieces of paper to define their love?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ever heard of common-law marriages?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Look, if you couldn't follow my argument, as skulkbait and bathroommonkey could, I have nothing more to say to you. I've already explained some of the reasons people get married, and just to let you know I had a psych prof who married her best friend (even though they weren't "in love"). Got it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Here's every single statment made by you that has anything to do with marriage since I made my rather indignant post concerning your views of love and marriage. That is, everything that <u>didn't</u> also relate to a dog showing consent to marry by humping your leg or something. Congradulations on that triumph of logic, by the way.

Now, I'm searching, I'm searching, but I'm not finding any solid argument. Heck, even your example is flawed; how do you know they don't/didn't love each other? Can you read their thoughts? Their subconscious thoughts? How would your friend know? What is love if not built on the foundation of a solid friendship? Lust, that's what. Maybe your friend had been best friends with this man so long she grew to need him like a woman needs the man she loves (and vice versa) without her knowing so.

That said, I still see no argument to support the "love is not a prerequisite to marriage" statement. Oh, sure, in the <u>literal</u> sense that the state doesn't require you to love each other in order to be married, but that is some of the coldest logic I have ever seen. And not cold as in calculated and insightful, cold as in devoid of humanity. When I pose the question, "Could you marry someone you don't love?" to someone, I expect the emotional answer, "Of course not," not the logical (and unfeeling), "Well, technically I can....." It's so far beyond the realm of emotion and humanity that it's not even something worth applying to real life. In this situation, your logic is more false than simple emotion.

Now, as for the rest of my post which you CONTINUE to ignore, I'm going to spell this out very clear; I want an answer. So far, you've been very good at simply dodging the difficult questions posed to you, whilst not one of your comments has gone unchallenged. So answer this, and I swear if you respond to this post without commenting on the following line I declare you unfit to carry on a rational discussion on this topic. Note that that's just my opinion, but then again it's a smear easily avoided by a simple answer. Now,
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Are atheists who get married in a court of law really married?</span>

Wheeee · January 2005

i didn't feel like answering the question because it is a total non sequitur. Yes, atheists who get married are still married. WTH does that have to do with anything? How did I know they didn't get married out of love? Because she [the prof] told me... What are you talking about? she even told me "you should marry your best friend too and not date around looking for the 'perfect girl'". Jebus, it's like you don't want to admit that it's possible or something. <b>Just because you would never get married to someone you didn't love, doesn't mean that other people wouldn't. </b>

Pepe_Muffassa · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 19 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I'm still waiting on the answer to, "Are atheists who get married in a court of law really married?" Just in case you forgot while you were playing Devil's Advocate for....4 pages....defending dog-man marriages....wth? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' />

I'll say this, if I didn't know this forum and the people in it, and someone pointed me to this thread, I'd think it were a joke. I'll just ignore that section of this discussion, because I don't think it even warrants attention anymore.

That said, back to 'love is not a prerequisite for marriage'. I said give me an example where people would marry for something other than love, or an arranged marriage. I assume your answer was "tax breaks". Besides all the financial reasons why that doesn't always work, as outlined in I-forget-who's post, I have to ask you: Why would you marry without love and get a tax break, when you can marry <u>with</u> love AND get a tax break? Makes no sense. Tax breaks aren't a reason for getting married; at best they're a perk of being married. Truly sad argument; I hope you don't know anyone who has done this because they can't find anyone to love....but they <i>really</i> want that reduction.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I havent been following the argument too closely, but here are some reasons other than "love" to marry:

1. Tax breaks
2. Emmegration status (mail order bride anyone?)
3. Girl got pregnent
4. Got drunk in Las Vegas and woke up with a ring
5. Money (see John Kerry)
6. Power (see Theresa Heins Kerry)
7. arranged marriage - usually involving a transfer of #5 or #6
8. Desparate
9. Lonely
10. Enjoy each other's company

So there you have it - 10 reasons other than "love" to marry someone.

BathroomMonkey · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 21 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 5. Money (see John Kerry)
6. Power (see Theresa Heins Kerry)

So there you have it - 10 reasons other than "love" to marry someone. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, since we're using this opportunity for a little gratuitous partisan sniping,

6.1) Current version of wife gets inconveniently old/sick (See Newt Gingrich)
6.2) Desperately need deferment to avoid serving your country in war (See **** Cheney. Note: This is also a great reason to have kids)
6.3) Need beard (Texas governor Rick Perry . . . and, to be fair, New Jersey governor James McGreevey)
6.4) To demonstrate the remarkable consistency between the lifestyle and values you preach and those you actually adhere to (see Ann Coulter)

14 reasons to get married that are only marginally related to the topic at hand!

Aegeri · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wheee, saying something stupid</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> (Athena @ Jan 19 2005, 02:20 PM)
So far even male and female marriages (in which one is a transexual and post-operative prior to the marriage) have had issues, because there are cases in court where some groups are trying to make marriage based on chromosomes only - that post-operative or not, if both partners have male or female chromosomes, that the marriage is void.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Er, that doesn't work. What about downs people?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Downs people have trisomy 21, which is not a sex chromosome so it doesn't relate to his argument unless he was discussing eugenics. Either you are making an irrelevant point or you aren't sure about what the written statement means.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> i didn't feel like answering the question because it is a total non sequitur.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This from someone who has been trying to establish homosexual marriage is comparable to beastiality/marrying animals.

Sky · January 2005

I like you pepe, you actually try to answer questions, without drama.Some of these examples I agree with to a certain extent, others not so much:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1. Tax breaks</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Like I said, not a strong enough reason for anyone to get married. More of a conditional perk than a reason.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>2. Emmegration status (mail order bride anyone?)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Funny, I never thought women would volunteer themselves this way; I thought they were driven to it from poverty and/or forced into it. In any case, it involves a different country/culture, which I'm not going to judge.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>3. Girl got pregnent</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This is true. Though I would hope that a couple like this would be on their way to marriage anyway, and the kid just kinda helped things along. The way I see it, either they were going to eventually marry anyway, or if the man never intended to marry the woman he'd just leave her. In the end, no marriage where none would have been without the girl getting pregnant.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>4. Got drunk in Las Vegas and woke up with a ring</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Britney Spears anyone? The divorce will come.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>5. Money (see John Kerry)
6. Power (see Theresa Heins Kerry)</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Ahh, here are two legitimate reasons other than love. But then again, with all of the rich people in this country to choose from, there has to be <i>some</i> characteristic that brings someone closer than all the others. Maybe not love....but there's something at least.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>7. arranged marriage - usually involving a transfer of #5 or #6</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well I kinda said "except for arranged marriages" a while ago <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /> You weren't following the conversation, no big deal.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>8. Desparate</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
A man wouldn't marry a desperate woman or vice versa out of pity; there still has to be a connection. Granted the desperate person has more of an incentive to woo his or her partner...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>9. Lonely</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What, can't get friends but can get someone to marry you?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>10. Enjoy each other's company</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Like I said, what is love if not built on the foundation of a strong friendship?

Now for this:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>i didn't feel like answering the question because it is a total non sequitur. Yes, atheists who get married are still married. WTH does that have to do with anything?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
As for my question being offtopic, no it's not. If you recall, back before this discussion turned to crap because of ridiculous bestiality comparisons, you said that marriage was defined as marriage because that's how it's defined in the Bible. Now, I take this to assume you believe that the only true marriage is one sanctioned by the church, as in, the sacrament of marriage that bonds two souls together for enternity. It's right up there with Communion as a sacrament, a ritual of the church, not just a musty definition.

Atheists marriages are NOT sanctioned by the church, yet you don't seem to have a problem calling them true marriages. So if there are exceptions for the Christian definition of marriage for atheists, why not for homosexuals? I fail to see how you can say atheists who get married outside of God is acceptable, yet homosexuals can't get married outside of God's definition of marriage.

Aegeri · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>14 reasons to get married that are only marginally related to the topic at hand!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

15: Getting married to get a more favourable student allowance that doesn't consider your parents income first. Some students who flat together did get married to simply get around having their parents income tested for their student allowance, and would hence get the full amount. After they finish studying, they just get divorced.

~Many non-anecdotal examples available to prove this point incidently. The NZ government recently changed this system for a reason. Definitely are reasons to marry without love, or hell, pretty much anything even physical contact.

Wheeee · January 2005

to all the people who replied so far:

Thanks pepe and BM for providing examples; no thanks to sky or aegeri for putting words in my mouth.

BathroomMonkey · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 21 2005, 09:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> to all the people who replied so far:

Thanks pepe and BM for providing examples; no thanks to sky or aegeri for putting words in my mouth.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yeah, but mine were pretty snarky <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Count_Zeno · January 2005

A <a href='http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf' target='_blank'><u>1997 GAO report</u></a> found over 1000 legal benefits that attach to marriage. The difference between being married and not is hardly insignificant. Not being married makes a difference in legal rights regarding health care, pensions, military benefits, social security, the right to plan a funeral, adoption, housing, taxes, etc. Homosexual couples are not afforded these legal rights and protections.

We generally recognize equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court decided to strike down anti-sodomy laws in Texas in their opinion in <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i>. Justice Scalia, in the dissent, immediately made the same argument that is reflected in this thread. Granting equal protection to homosexuals is fundamentally to commit our legal system to recognizing beastiality, polygamy, and whatever other perversion might claim a right.

That picture is simply untrue. The <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i> opinion clearly stated that there was a limit; equal protection does not apply provided that there is a compelling state interest in treating the groups differently. That is perfectly reasonable; treat everyone the same unless there is a reason to treat them differently. What homosexuals are claiming is that there is no reason to treat them differently <i>under the law</i>. We have a reason to treat pedophiles differently because they harm others. Do we have any reason to treat monogamous homosexual couples differently than monogamous heterosexual couples?

Given that the federal government represents no particular religion (set aside the state vs. federal question for a bit) the answer appears to be: No. What compelling state interest could there be? It has been proposed in this thread that there is an interest in protecting the sanctity of marriage as a union between man and woman as it has always been understood.

Well that isn't very convincing. This isn't supposed to come from any religious understanding, of course, since that would mean that the government was getting involved in sanctioning a religious institution. What's left? At that point the argument is basically that it has always been thus and so it should always be so. Others have pointed that out already. But, even if it isn't accepted that that is a poor argument in form, there are precedents one would need to ignore to really take it seriously. We used to define “citizen” in a one way. It had, for the United States, and its European ancestry, always been a person who was a white male property owner. We went from treating people as slaves, three-fifths of a person for some purposes, to eventually recognizing full and equal rights of citizenship. Those who stake their claim against same sex marriage on the grounds of tradition are running against history. Granting marriage rights to homosexual couples will no more inevitably lead to human-canine marriages than granting status as a “citizen” to African-Americans or Native-Americans will inevitably lead to granting citizenship to all mammals.

The only real argument I’ve ever heard – I’m just going to ignore the homosexuality destroys our civilization claim – is that there is some inherent social interest in promoting marriage because it leads to child-rearing. Of course homosexual unions aren’t going to further that goal. If allowing homosexual marriage were to undermine the stability of marriage as an institution of bearing and raising children, there might actually be a case against it.

Can anyone actually make that case? For my part I doubt they can. There is, despite the actions in Florida, no good evidence that homosexual couples are less capable of raising healthy and well-adjusted children. Nor is there any reason to think that allowing homosexual marriage will really change marriage itself. If anyone is cheapening marriage as an institution it is heterosexuals. If you need an example, just look to Brittany Spears. Massachusetts, by the way, has a lower divorce rate than many “conservative” states. So, until I see some real evidence that allowing homosexual marriage has an actual – and quantifiable – impact on society, I am not going to buy that there is any good reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry and acquire the benefits that we confer to such unions.

Now, if people who oppose same-sex marriage – or propose a <i>constitutional amendment</i> against it – are really willing to say that the State should not grant a "marriage" to any couple, I might be willing to accept that. The State grants some set of rights for a “civil union” but never a "marriage". If a couple wants a "marriage", they need to get an approval from their religious group that carries no civil benefits. If they want to be married and have social benefts they need both. Otherwise, we are looking at a legal institution akin to citizenship, and there is no reason not to change it when it becomes apparent that the current practice is unjust.

lolfighter · January 2005

Thanks to Count Zeno for putting into words what I found myself incapable of doing. A big AMEN to what he says.

Sky · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 21 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> to all the people who replied so far:

Thanks pepe and BM for providing examples; no thanks to sky or aegeri for putting words in my mouth.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Putting words in your mouth? You first say that homosexual marriage is not "marriage" because Christians have defined marriage, then you say atheists can truly be married. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm pointing out your inconsistencies, and how silly it is to consider **** marriage not really marriage.

Of course, Count Zeno pretty much wreaked the case against homosexual marriages in one fell swoop, so I suppose pointing out the holes in your arguments is unnecessary now.

Aegeri · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 21 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> to all the people who replied so far:

Thanks pepe and BM for providing examples; no thanks to sky or aegeri for putting words in my mouth.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Pointing out your arguments strawmans and other misconceptions is hardly putting words in your mouth, especially as you have been comparing homosexual marriage with marrying animals throughout this thread. As for the other part I mentioned, demonstrating that your point was irrelevant is hardly putting words in your mouth.

Wheeee · January 2005

Sky and Aegeri, please try to read posts objectively before you talk. It makes things easier and wastes less time with needless misunderstanding. I already said that at no point did I compare homosexuality to bestiality, nor did I say "marriage is a man and a woman because Christians say so" - earth to sky, marriage has been around, as a man and a woman, since WAY before christ lived. Hell, the only time I mentioned a time period was with the classical Greeks - hundreds of years before Christ came around. Just what are you trying to prove by constantly insisting that I say stuff because I'm a Christian? I already told you that being Christian has little bearing on my argument. Sheesh, how many times do I have to repeat this?

@Aegeri: If you read carefully, you would have realized that I never equated homosexuality with bestiality. I merely stated that, in my eyes, legalizing **** marriage would lead to the eventual legalization of bestiality, USING THE SAME LOGIC, NOT BY SAME NATURE. Is it that hard to understand the "subtlety" here? I made a fairly good case for it, it ended with a technicality, and I dropped it. You seem so eager to find flaws in my argument as to neglect the fact that your accusations of straw man are themselves straw men. And as I saw it, if bestiality were legalized, there would be no reason not to marry, as it would be easy and a quick way to get tax benefits. You put words in my mouth so you could attack my argument as a straw man when in fact I said something quite different. Try again.

Aegeri · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 22 2005, 04:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Sky and Aegeri, please try to read posts objectively before you talk. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I did, and I still found your position absurd.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It makes things easier and wastes less time with needless misunderstanding. I already said that at no point did I compare homosexuality to bestiality</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes you have been, by bringing up this inane idea that somehow legalising homosexual marriage will somehow lead to the union of people of animals, you are. You are saying they are equivalent because somehow having one (homosexual marriage) predates the allowance of the other. Next up you'll be implying marrying rocks and similar things.

You ARE in the end doing exactly that, what amazes me is you still don't even realise it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>nor did I say "marriage is a man and a woman because Christians say so" - earth to sky, marriage has been around, as a man and a woman, since WAY before christ lived.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, you've dragged this one around as well to no particular avail. I'm not exactly sure what the point of this is, we've been burning witches in the past as well, should we continue doing so today?

How about another Wheeee, should we still have slavery (endorsed by the bible) because we have had for thousands of years? Shall we still deny women rights to do things like vote, have a job and the like because again, society has not permitted women to have significant rights for many years?

Explain to me Wheeee, why you feel it is ok to change our laws and systems, to give women rights they never had like to vote, yet it is not ok to change our laws and traditions in other areas to say allow homosexuals, who happen to be consenting ADULT HUMANS to marry? Where is your logic in saying one is different than the other, in the context of your argument here?

I could define the role of the woman as "in the kitchen at home" and the man as "the provider/defender of the country". I could then point out that this is the way human society has operated since well before biblical times. Now if we go back to 1900 and have a similar discussion about giving women the vote, I've made the exact same argument with the exact same logical basis as you have with homosexuals marrying.

Here let me demonstrate:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>nor did I say "a womans place has been in the home because Christians say so*" - earth to sky, women have been working at home and men providing for the family WAY before christ lived.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

*Position of women in society is biblically orientated, see a book called "Women in 1600 England", which describes in detail how Christianity played a large part in ensuring the enforcement of gender roles (Noting that this is for western society, using England as a general example)

A final note should be that marriage has nothing to do with the Church/religion anymore in many cases, hence why sky is asking you if atheists marrying (without any religious rite or similar) is still marriage (THIS was a 'subtle' argument that YOU missed). I can give you several legal reasons why you shouldn't be able to marry your dog, cat, budgie or whatever. Can you give a single LEGAL reason why homosexuals may not marry? Remembering that a womans place in society is no longer dictated by the religion or Church anymore.

So now, either you invalidate your own argument or you're a hypocrite. Which is it Wheeee? Do you think we shouldn't have given women rights? Same logic as you have used here to justify not allowing homosexuals to have similar rights.

Again, as others have challenged you to do, and as you've failed to do every time, provide ONE *LEGAL* reason why homosexuals shouldn't marry.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hell, the only time I mentioned a time period was with the classical Greeks - hundreds of years before Christ came around. Just what are you trying to prove by constantly insisting that I say stuff because I'm a Christian?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This is skys argument, not mine oh one who loves to complain others put words in their mouths.

I realise you say things because you are you, not because you are Christian though I could certainly source it as an area of definite bias. I know several of my Christian friends who couldn't care less about Homosexuals marrying, and I know of a Christian church in New Zealand that has threatened 'militaristic like' action to prevent civil unions (**** Marriages).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I already told you that being Christian has little bearing on my argument. Sheesh, how many times do I have to repeat this?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's not an uncommon thing to note that these discussions often come down to the Christians vs. everyone else.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>@Aegeri: If you read carefully, you would have realized that I never equated homosexuality with bestiality. I merely stated that, in my eyes, legalizing **** marriage would lead to the eventual legalization of bestiality, USING THE SAME LOGIC, NOT BY SAME NATURE.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Which you don't even realise IS equating homosexuality with beastiality, even though the two things are extraordinarily different. By saying that homosexual unions could lead to those with animals, you ARE directly inferring that making one right will enable another (between species) to suddenly become right. Your 'logic' is simply pathetic as even on basic grounds someone can see there is a vast amount of difference between two consenting HUMAN adults, and a human and an animal.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Is it that hard to understand the "subtlety" here?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There is no subtlety.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I made a fairly good case for it,</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Not really, there are several principles that make animals somewhat different from two consenting human adults. The fact you're blind to this little point is amazing, I didn't actually respond to your inital points because your 'good case' was already demolished by sky and others previously.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>it ended with a technicality, and I dropped it. You seem so eager to find flaws in my argument as to neglect the fact that your accusations of straw man are themselves straw men.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, in order to do that I would need to actually make your argument an absurdity, which it is itself to begin with. Of course, I don't need to straw man your argument, because your argument is already ridiculous and has poor grounds initially.

Again, you are trying to reason that legalising **** marriages, can lead to the legalisation of marriage with animals. The huge problems, aside from the fact animals are not a part of human society, you cannot predict if the 'animal' is consenting (or would you envision barks being accepted as "I do"?) and many other factors that would initially seperate what is in the end two consenting human adults marrying.

In your ridiculous assertation, there would be no consent (or hard to define) unlike in a homosexual union, the two things are of entirely different species leading to a wide variety of health risks (sex) and animals aren't even a part of human society in the manner you insist.

Additionally, people already have many of the rights ascribed to married couples by default with their pets that legalising **** marriage is supposed to provide. You can decide to turn off your animals life support if is on deaths door (two homosexuals in love cannot do this, it has to be blood relative of the family to decide, normal married couples CAN), you are allowed to see the animal if it is in the vet illl (homosexuals can be barred by the family, see an earlier argument) and so on.

When you actually think about it, you already have more rights to decide certain things with your beloved pet than you do with someone you love deeply who happens to be the same gender.

You then run around yelling for the whaaaambulance that we are strawmaning your already ridiculous strawman? What are we getting to now anyway, a haystack?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And as I saw it, if bestiality were legalized, there would be no reason not to marry, as it would be easy and a quick way to get tax benefits.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again, another ridiculous statement as you again imply that marrying for tax breaks would be the main incentive for two homosexuals to marry. I already gave two above that can be important to a wide range of people. What about to decide if your loved one gets their life support terminated or to be allowed to see them in hospital? You can already do that with your pet wheeee, why do you find it absurd to let two homosexual humans do that? Do you think that it's ok to be able to decide if your dog gets put down if critically ill, but not to have any right to decide if your partner gets turned off life support or not? You may call that "logic" I call it abusrd and plain indignant.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You put words in my mouth so you could attack my argument as a straw man when in fact I said something quite different.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Sky and myself never needed to put words in your mouth to attack your argument as a strawman, you already did that yourself. Noting that your logic is shaky to begin with and you've clearly tried to establish that homosexual marriages is the equivalent to opening the floodgates of marrying animals if you like it or not. I'm only surprised you fail to see how inane that argument is.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Try again.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I only need to try once Wheeee .

Deus_Ex_Machina · January 2005

I don't see how homosexual marriage would lead to bestial marriage, but it's a moot point. The fact is that right now in America, homosexuals are subject to all the laws and taxes as everyone else but don't receive all the benefits heterosexual Americans do. That is wrong and needs to be changed. Just because people are uncomfortable with homosexual marriage doesn't give them reason to deprive some American citizens of their rights.

Aegeri · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I don't see how homosexual marriage would lead to bestial marriage, but it's a moot point. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

His 'logic' works as such.

A) Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman because it has always been so.

B) Redefining marriage to something else other than between a man and a woman, will cause it to have no meaning anymore and just be an excuse to get tax breaks.

Ergo

C) If marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, then OBVIOUSLY we should start defining it for out of species marriages (humans and animals).

D) It will CLEARLY destroy the sanctity of marriage and make people marry for NO reason other than tax breaks/whatever else.

E) Think of the children! (Hypothetical argument that has probably yet to be trotted out by Wheeee).

Of course, it ignores things like evidence and supporting arguments that are built a bit better than 'just because it has always been this way', but what the hey, if we used that logic in the 1900's women would still not be able to vote for the same reasons.

I can picture it now:

"Voting is defined as being something only a man can do, because that has been the way it has been since before Christ! If we give women the vote then soon we'll be allowing dogs and inanimate objects to vote"

For example:

<a href='http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/suffrage/Anti.html' target='_blank'>http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/suffrage/Anti.html</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Just because people are uncomfortable with homosexual marriage doesn't give them reason to deprive some American citizens of their rights.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't like it, I find homosexual behaviour rather revolting but I'll damn well support their right to decide for themselves who they love, marry and what they choose to do. Unless there is a good reason by law, not 'just because' for homosexuals not to marry then I support it.

Sky · January 2005

My turn.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sky and Aegeri, please try to read posts objectively before you talk. It makes things easier and wastes less time with needless misunderstanding.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This coming from the guy who steered this conversation down into a discussion on the possibilities of marrying your dog at some point in the future. And <i>I</i> should think about what I post before I post it? Right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I already said that at no point did I compare homosexuality to bestiality</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
An analogy is a comparison. You never should have even ventured into that territory; you KNEW that it would stir up trouble. Yet you did it anyway, according to you, just to play Devil's Advocate. So either you're incredibly short-sighted and didn't realize the trouble delving into those argumentative waters would cause (which I doubt), or somewhere in the back of your mind that idea actually exists, as much as you try to deny it when it comes out in public. Neither option looks too good for you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>nor did I say "marriage is a man and a woman because Christians say so" - earth to sky, marriage has been around, as a man and a woman, since WAY before christ lived. Hell, the only time I mentioned a time period was with the classical Greeks - hundreds of years before Christ came around. Just what are you trying to prove by constantly insisting that I say stuff because I'm a Christian?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You've consistently used the Christian (actually, I should say Western right now) definition of marriage as your basis for arguing that marriage has <u>always</u> been between a man and a woman. Example:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>logically speaking, though, the homosexual marriage you're referring to is a contradiction in terms. that was the point i was trying to make, that homosexual marriage is totally unrelated to marriage.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (schloom)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>How? its a union of 2 loving people. I see no difference </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>see, that's because you're altering the definition.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You're clearly ignoring the fact that other cultures may consider the definition of marriage to be something entirely different. However, since you never even thought that what you call marriage could be defined as anything other than "1 man - 1 woman", you obviously are using the definition that Christians (among others) use, and at the same time you insist that because this definition has been around the longest, it is the most valid. There are two things wrong with that:
1) "Leave it alone, it's been that way forever" is an inherently bad argument
2) You have no idea how long or how widespread other definitions of marriage have existed.

Point being, of course, that you can't conclusively say that "1 man - 1 woman" is the <u>only</u> definition of marriage.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hell, the only time I mentioned a time period was with the classical Greeks - hundreds of years before Christ came around. Just what are you trying to prove by constantly insisting that I say stuff because I'm a Christian? I already told you that being Christian has little bearing on my argument.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Now about the Christian part: You use the definition of marriage Christians use, and you are often quite irrational in proving your arguments (example: claiming that homosexual marriage cannot be the same as marriage, with no backing other than basically "It just isn't" and a lot of stupid analogies - this is how you argued in the first few pages of this thread). You are a Christian, and a decidedly fundamental one at that if we examine your posts in other related threads. Is it <i>really</i> such a big leap of logic to claim that you get your beliefs from your faith? Of course, this is odd, because a fundamentalist Christian like yourself, who has no argument against something other than "tradition stands against it" yet continues to fight shouldn't accept atheist marriages as true marriages.

Of course, you claim that you're not arguing from a Christian standpoint (which I consider bull, but I'll have to prove that). This means that you accept atheist marriages because it doesn't go against the view of marriage you've taken now: the "1 man - 1 woman" style. The Christian argument is backed up by faith, but you've traded that in for an argument backed up by history and tradition. Except, as I've already pointed out a few paragraphs ago, you can't possibly hope to base your arguments on this definition you've chosen for yourself. You no longer have the benefit of arguing with God on your side - you forfeited that when you conceded atheists can get married - and now I say that your stance holds no water, because it is solely based on something like past human conduct. Yes, lets model our whole societies after the past, that's just wonderful. Oh wait, Aegeri already did one of these little comparisons:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>nor did I say "a womans place has been in the home because Christians say so*" - earth to sky, women have been working at home and men providing for the family WAY before christ lived.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you read carefully, you would have realized that I never equated homosexuality with bestiality. I merely stated that, in my eyes, legalizing **** marriage would lead to the eventual legalization of bestiality, USING THE SAME LOGIC, NOT BY SAME NATURE. Is it that hard to understand the "subtlety" here?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Actually, you directly compared two homosexuals getting married to you marrying your dog, very early on I might add:

Of course, then you backtracked, and now you're trying to say that you were only demonstrating the "slippery slope" argument. By the way, "slippery slope" is baloney; if it were true, the introduction of the death penalty would have led to the ability for cops to kill known murderers indiscriminately, and that's just one example of how society has managed to do controversial (yet often necessary) things without them leading to far worse societal catastrophies.

One more sidenote, and I'm surprised anyone said this: easy way to allow **** marriage, but never allow pet-owner marriages? Throw a "has to be the same species" clause into the law for marriages. Then if someone challenges it as denying their pet rights or something, the courts can shoot down the claim with all of the arguments found in this thread, and that'll be the end of that. There will never be a second claim to marry a dog because of legal precedent.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I made a fairly good case for it, it ended with a technicality, and I dropped it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Are you kidding? You thought that was Discussion-forum worthy? It's a joke, that's what it is. You never even believed yourself, and that's not putting words in your mouth, you truly said:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm close to the end of the "devil's advocate" stick. I don't like arguing this position, but I feel compelled to, just to see where it leads.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You seem so eager to find flaws in my argument as to neglect the fact that your accusations of straw man are themselves straw men.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It seems to me that just <u>one</u> of the arguments against you is better supported than any of the arguments that you yourself have made, so to say that people are ignoring logic when debating you is just slightly ludicrous.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And as I saw it, if bestiality were legalized, there would be no reason not to marry, as it would be easy and a quick way to get tax benefits.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
....what in the hell does this have to do with anything? You are the one who brought up bestiality; like I said, something in the back of your mind must have connected it to the topic, because otherwise you never should have gone there.

I suppose you're <i>trying</i> (very poorly I might add) to say that, if homosexual marriages are legalized, ALL homosexuals would rush to get married, just for the tax breaks. Ultimate argument against this one: I still see single heterosexual men and women around, despite the magical allure of tax breaks from getting married. So obviously it's not a pull of such great magnitude.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You put words in my mouth so you could attack my argument as a straw man when in fact I said something quite different.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Words in your mouth....I wouldn't want to come anywhere near your mouth. Your entire argument is a straw man - you have no basis for your position. I've already proved this; if you don't understand how then you skimmed my post and might want to </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Try again.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Epidemic · January 2005

Ye, if ya allowed black people/slaves to marry, what wouldnt it lead to! I mean, sodomism and what's worse!

And wait, news just in, let's make a law that disallows being black!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>nor did I say "a womans place has been in the home because Christians say so*" - earth to sky, women have been working at home and men providing for the family WAY before christ lived.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But not before the bible began, where is was outlined females are a property of a man.

Sky · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Jan 22 2005, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And wait, news just in, let's make a law that disallows being black!  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Epidemic wins the thread.

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 22 2005, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> stuff </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Someone give this man a cookie for the winningest ad hominem attack ever.

By the way - I suppose you're referring to polygamy when you mention other culture's views on marriage. They still follow the 1 man 1 woman formula, they just posit that a man can have multiple wives. In fact, in the Judaistic history, there have been many cases of polygamy that weren't frowned upon. You confuse yourself by assuming and applying prejudged labels to me.

Secondly, the "it's always been that way" argument doesn't prove anything, true, but if you examine WHY it's always been that way, it does hold water. For example, I think you would agree that "stealing is not generous" is correct. If I then said, "stealing is not generous and it's always been that way," that wouldn't necessarily be an argument, but it would call into consideration WHY it's not generous - namely the fact that you're taking away from someone, instead of giving.

Thirdly, my argument is that you can't legislate love, therefore there must be some other basis for defining marriage. You've failed to provide a satisfactory alternative.

Fourth, "it just isn't" - saying a square is a circle doesn't really make a square a circle, does it? It's up to you to prove that homosexual marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, and I posit that it can't be done.

Fifth: the cop argument, let's have it. And backtracking? I started arguing the slippery slope from the beginning; the slippery slope only fails when there's insufficient evidence to back it up, or if I claim that A->B without any supporting proof. I gave both.

Sixth: Why should you apply an arbitrary limit to species? That's as arbitrary as the "1man-1woman" limit is that you so loudly and vehemently decry. So, when it comes to the happiness of others you're just fine being prejudiced, as long as you're happy screw everyone else so you can feel secure in your self-worth?

Lastly, I am not a fundamentalist. That is all.

Homosexual Marriage In The Usa.

Comments