Alabama Supreme Court halts all same-sex marriages

[Retro Rob]

no it does not.

Exactly.

because it's not legal

You just said it doesn't affect your marriage. So it being legal or not doesn't change that.

Again a 12 year old can not give consent. they are not adults

Wonderful...but that's not what I asked.

sheesh if this is the best argument you got...

I don't have an argument against gay marriage. The point of me asking was to show just how dumb and flawed your "its not affecting straight marriages" illogic is.

NO marriage affects YOUR marriage, so if that's your criteria by which something is deemed permissible, then we should allow anyone to marry whomever and whatever they want.

 

[Moonbeam]

Exactly.



You just said it doesn't affect your marriage. So it being legal or not doesn't change that.



Wonderful...but that's not what I asked.



I don't have an argument against gay marriage. The point of me asking was to show just how dumb and flawed your "its not affecting straight marriages" illogic is.

NO marriage affects YOUR marriage, so if that's your criteria by which something is deemed permissible, then we should allow anyone to marry whomever and whatever they want.

You put that hat on backward. The point is that homophobes imagine their marriages are affected by gay marriage when they are not and that is the doesn't affect you we are talking about. We can't have bigots being offended as a reason to ban gay marriage not that we allow anything that doesn't affect marriage to be allowed.

 

[shira]

It affects the whole country If it's somehow condoned by National policy.
Celebrating Homosexuality has been the ruin of quite a few advanced civilizations.
Do you like gay porn? I sure don't.
That's what homosexuality is really about..the stuff you would see in gay porn if you watched it.
Do you really think that kind of behavior should be "normalized"?
I do not.
I say let them do what they wanna do..until it imposes on my rights..then..We have a problem.
It seems we are having a problem these days.

If homosexuality is "really about gay porn," then why on earth do gays want gay marriage to be legal? Presumably all those gay porn-seekers have no interest in monogamous relationships and want to spend all their time seeking out gay porn.

You're mind is so filled with loathing that you can't even recognize how utterly inconsistent your views are.

And even if this astonishingly distorted version of reality were true, and all gay people wanted to do was look at gay porn, then what's that to you? How is that a "problem" to you? How does that "impose on your rights?" How does "normalizing that (porn-seeking) behavior" do ANYTHING negative to your world or the world's of other straight people?

Oh, that's right, the "ick" factor. How do you even keep down your meals when you're surrounded by so many gay porn-seekers?

 

[Aikouka]

I guarantee more than 80% of America thinks gay sex is gross..more ..even

I don't know about that. Lesbian porn is quite popular!

Also, you do realize that you don't actually have to see it, right? You also don't have to see straight sex either since public sex acts are against the law in many, many places.

Also, I saw something about anal sex earlier. You know that straight couples do that too, right? 😱

 

[mikeymikec]

I guarantee more than 80% of America thinks gay sex is gross..more ..even and nobody wants to see that.

I must have missed the bit in marital contracts/vowels that involved public viewing...?

I don't know about you, but I don't want to see most hetero people having sex, but since we don't have any right to tell them that they should or should not have sex and/or marry, where does that leave your argument exactly?

PS: I'm heterosexual and married.

Do you like gay porn? I sure don't.

Then stop watching it? Or do you have some sort of compulsion to imagine every married couple you encounter having sex? If not, then bear in mind that I'm just trying to link your comments together into some sort of coherent argument.

That's what homosexuality is really about..the stuff you would see in gay porn if you watched it.
Do you really think that kind of behavior should be "normalized"?.

If this is an argument against gay marriage, I'm surprised that you're not arguing for all marriage to be made illegal! After all, you don't want the kind of behaviour one can see in porn to be "normalised", do you? (and/or ban all porn of course)

If you believe there's that much of a connection between porn and maintaining a marriage, I wouldn't be surprised if you're going to have, having, or had serious problems in marriage!

shira's post is right on the money IMO.

 

[fskimospy]

The question isn't one of consent, I specifically asked whether or not it affects your marriage.

Answer the question; does a 60 year old man marrying a 12 year old affect your marriage?

You're only exposing the absurdity of the anti same sex marriage argument. They are the ones who keep talking about 'defending marriage'.

In life, the general rule is that things should be legal unless they affect someone else negatively. In the case of the wedded 12 year old I am not personally negatively affected, but the individual who is under the age of consent very likely is.

Affecting 'your marriage' is not the only standard.

 

[Paratus]

The bottom line is the rights go to the states/people.
I guarantee more than 80% of America thinks gay sex is gross..more ..even
and nobody wants to see that.
If you wanna do it and all that..ok..
Well I'm not going to hate on ya,but we ain't making it National policy either.
No you do not have the right to fuck another man in the ass cuz that's how you roll.
No
If they cave to the homosexual agenda..
They say a man has a right to uck.
No..Shiet..God says it's an abomination..and i guarantee 80% of people feel the same way.
just..blech

....Things are more obvious than you may realize.

Oh there's something's that are now quite obvious about you. .....

 

[brycejones]

The bottom line is the rights go to the states/people.
I guarantee more than 80% of America thinks gay sex is gross..more ..even
and nobody wants to see that.
If you wanna do it and all that..ok..
Well I'm not going to hate on ya,but we ain't making it National policy either.
No you do not have the right to fuck another man in the ass cuz that's how you roll.
No
If they cave to the homosexual agenda..
They say a man has a right to uck.
No..Shiet..God says it's an abomination..and i guarantee 80% of people feel the same way.
just..blech

You sure have posted a lot about gay sex for someone who is disgusted by it. Are you doing tug jobs with texashiker?

 

[Retro Rob]

Affecting 'your marriage' is not the only standard.

Its the primary standard espoused by the pro-gay marriage caucus. I was pointing out the obvious pothole in that argument.

 

[K1052]

Its the primary standard espoused by the pro-gay marriage caucus. I was pointing out the obvious pothole in that argument.

Vaporizing Zambia with megaton range nuclear weapons also doesn't affect your marriage thus this line of argument is bad. Look, I can also take arguments to illogical extremes.

Seriously?

It's one (reasonable) point of many in the case for SSM when defending it from the "traditionalists".

 

[fskimospy]

Its the primary standard espoused by the pro-gay marriage caucus. I was pointing out the obvious pothole in that argument.

It is most certainly not.

There is no hole in that argument whatsoever, by the way, because no one has ever argued that all things that do not personally affect you in particular should be legal.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You know it's true Cerpin..

I know that *what* is true?

No one could have the outlook on life that you do without that being the case.
Things are more obvious than you may realize.

Do you think I am offended and/or angry that you are calling me a homosexual? Do you suppose that I take it as an insult? That I am afraid that people might think I'm gay?

In my experience, persons who suppose being called gay is insulting in fact have fundamental insecurities about their own sexuality. Naturally, they project those insecurities onto others, and then formulate their insults assuming those insecurities and attacking them.

Do you know who isn't insulted by being called gay? People that aren't insecure about their sexuality, both gay and straight.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is most certainly not.

There is no hole in that argument whatsoever, by the way, because no one has ever argued that all things that do not personally affect you in particular should be legal.

I never said that people are arguing that "all things" that do not affect you personally should be legal...I was specifically speaking about marriages.

Strawman found and bypassed.

Waggy, whom my initial post was in response to, WAS arguing that if it doesn't affect "straight marriages", we should allow it.

I then asked how does underage marriage affect any marriage, and he moved goalposts to avoid the uncomfortable answer.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I never said that people are arguing that "all things" that do not affect you personally should be legal...I was specifically speaking about marriages.

Strawman found and bypassed.

Waggy, whom my initial post was in response to, WAS arguing that if it doesn't affect "straight marriages", we should allow it.

I then asked how does underage marriage affect any marriage, and he moved goalposts to avoid the uncomfortable answer.

No, in reality this is just you being a disingenuous fucktard, like always.

Underage marriage is disallowed for wholly separate reasons that are irrelevant to the point that the existence of other adult marriages has no affect on any particular marriage.

Apparently waggy gave you too much credit in assuming you had a reliable grasp of the relevant nuances. I'm sure he won't make that mistake again in the future.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said that people are arguing that "all things" that do not affect you personally should be legal...I was specifically speaking about marriages.

Strawman found and bypassed.

Waggy, whom my initial post was in response to, WAS arguing that if it doesn't affect "straight marriages", we should allow it.

I then asked how does underage marriage affect any marriage, and he moved goalposts to avoid the uncomfortable answer.

This is incorrect. The argument was clearly not that anything that does not affect straight marriages should be allowed, that's a straw man that you have created. Do you believe he thinks that releasing Ebola in an orphanage should be allowed because it doesn't affect straight marriage? Of course not. You then provided a circumstance of child rape as if it countered his argument. It doesn't, it's just your own straw man.

What people are saying when they argue it doesn't affect your marriage is in fact a direct response to the anti same sex marriage crowd who continually argue that they are 'protecting marriage'. If you don't like the arguments about what affects marriage or not you have same sex marriage opponents to attack, not him.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, in reality this is just you being a disingenuous fucktard, like always.

Underage marriage is disallowed for wholly separate reasons that are irrelevant to the point that the existence of other adult marriages has no affect on any particular marriage.

Apparently waggy gave you too much credit in assuming you had a reliable grasp of the relevant nuances. I'm sure he won't make that mistake again in the future.

The argument matters when someone uses the "affect you" nonsense to argue one into silence.

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you believe he thinks that releasing Ebola in an orphanage should be allowed because it doesn't affect straight marriage? Of course not.

Is releasing Ebola a form of marriage?

What people are saying when they argue it doesn't affect your marriage is in fact a direct response to the anti same sex marriage crowd who continually argue that they are 'protecting marriage'.

Since when does something need to affect you for you to "protect it"?

 

[fskimospy]

Is releasing Ebola a form of marriage?

Who cares? You decided that an arrangement that is considered child rape in the United States is a form of marriage.

Since when does something need to affect you for you to "protect it"?

I don't think it needs to affect you personally, actually, but the argument comes down to the simple idea that in order to prevent someone from doing something you should be able to articulate how you or someone else would be harmed. This is something that same sex marriage opponents have never been able to do.

There's a reason why prop 8 was struck down on grounds that it was irrational. It is nearly impossible to lose on a rational basis grounds in US courts. THAT is how bad the argument against same sex marriage is.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The argument matters when someone uses the "affect you" nonsense to argue one into silence.

No, it doesn't. Allowing minors the power of consent affects everyone in multitudinous ways that you take for granted because you're not smart enough to think past the end of your nose. Underage marriages are generally disallowed for very good and independent reasons. Adult marriages do not affect other marriages, so his point stands.

You're focusing on underage marriage because you are quite obviously devoid of any legitimate counterargument. You are an embarrassment. You need to STFU and GTFO.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're focusing on underage marriage because you are quite obviously devoid of any legitimate counterargument. You are an embarrassment. You need to STFU and GTFO.

It should have been obvious that I had no counterargument last night...well, at least to those with BASIC reading abilities:

I don't have an argument against gay marriage. The point of me asking was to show just how dumb and flawed your "its not affecting straight marriages" illogic is.

I never attacked gay marriage anyway, nor the legalizing of it...just what I thought was bad logic.

Calm down, bruh...and read.

 

[Retro Rob]

Who cares? You decided that an arrangement that is considered child rape in the United States is a form of marriage.

Fair enough, but you're intelligent enough to get the thrust of my point.

I don't think it needs to affect you personally, actually.

Neither do I. Know this, you initially didn't make the argument.

the argument comes down to the simple idea that in order to prevent someone from doing something you should be able to articulate how you or someone else would be harmed.

One cannot always reasonably articulate future implications of an idea until the idea becomes law and the consequences are realized after they happen.

But I DO understand your point.

There's a reason why prop 8 was struck down on grounds that it was irrational. It is nearly impossible to lose on a rational basis grounds in US courts. THAT is how bad the argument against same sex marriage is.

Well, I agree. I don't oppose SSM anyway. I have my opinions, but don't try to make them law.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It should have been obvious that I had no counterargument last night...well, at least to those with BASIC reading abilities:

I'm not talking about your arguments -- or lack thereof -- against gay marriage. I'm talking about your distinct lack of counterarguments to waggy's point. How was that not clear to you?

I never attacked gay marriage anyway, nor the legalizing of it...just what I thought was bad logic.

It wasn't "bad logic." It merely assumed a premise that you lacked the sophistication and candor to acknowledge.

Calm down, bruh...and read.

I am reading. Are you?

 

[Moonbeam]

No, it doesn't. Allowing minors the power of consent affects everyone in multitudinous ways that you take for granted because you're not smart enough to think past the end of your nose. Underage marriages are generally disallowed for very good and independent reasons. Adult marriages do not affect other marriages, so his point stands.

You're focusing on underage marriage because you are quite obviously devoid of any legitimate counterargument. You are an embarrassment. You need to STFU and GTFO.

Personally I prefer he continue to argue his bigoted position. He was propagandized into believing at an age before he could reason that homosexuality is evil. This belief, coupled with the belief that there is a good become mentally conjoined such that when you argue he is wrong about homosexuality that implies there is no such thing as the good. He is right in a way that there is a good, it is our raw being state, but not the good he was programmed to believe, something from a religious text. There is always the chance that he may die to his bigoted beliefs and face an empty existential state of meaninglessness. It is in that state of emptiness of all moral faith, that the true meaning of the good can appear. He could discover there that there is only love and that the duality of imaginary good and evil creates hate.

He is actually the evil that he fears because he wishes to deny humanities great gift, the unity of two beings by the vows of eternal love.

To cast out those who divide is division itself. Truth without compassion is empty, I think.