Arkansas judge strikes down same sex marriage ban.

[nehalem256]

The main issue is people deciding what other people can or cannot do just because they feel like it.
They take ownership of the idea of marriage - it ONLY means what THEY want it to mean - and decide for others.
What gives anyone the right? All such laws are BS "morality laws".

(1) Marriage is societal recognition of relationships. If you are saying that society cannot decide which relationships it can recognize you are fundamentally saying that marriage cannot exist

(2) And supporters of same-sex marriage believe exactly the same. It only mean what THEY want it to.

Many women suck their husband's cock, same as gay men.

Many men stick their dicks in their wife's behind, same as gay men.

Many men lick their wife's vagina and breasts, and put their fingers inside, same as lesbians

So explain to us the huge differences again?

Gay men don't stick their penis's in their boyfriends vagina.:sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

That's like acknowledging that the colour red is not green, it provides no basis for logic. I think we're coming back once again to your "fundamental" notion of marriage being about reproduction, which I think most people would disagree with, as well as the obvious facts like for example that a marriage licence is not a licence to propagate the species.

Err, what?

1) Without marriage, people would continue to have sex.

Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?

2) People don't marry purely because they want to have sex with each other.

The only ways I can readily think of to logically and correctly associate sex and marriage are:

1) People who get married are likely to have sex.

2) People who get married are almost invariably sexually attracted to each other. I say "almost invariably" because I can imagine a very elderly couple wanting to get married because they're simply that close to each other, but neither experience much in the way of sexual urges any more. I'm not saying all/most elderly people are like this btw...

Neither of these two points fundamentally restrict the right to marry based on sexual orientation between two consenting adults.

(1) I think its a lot more than "likely". It also seems like someone is unfamiliar with the idea of consummating a marriage

(2) Cool. Seems like you are basically conceding the point to me. Marriage is inherently connected to sex. Glad we agree.

Utterly, utterly irrelevant. Just like arguing for or against the notion of heterosexual marriage and bringing up people who don't want to get married would be utterly, utterly irrelevant.

It is relevant to his claim that same-sex marriage would reduce STDs.

 

[nehalem256]

Hmmm, married 27 years based on love and not sex? If loving her is wrong then I don't wanna be right. :awe:

People love their children, but they don't marry them.
People love their parents, but they don't marry them.
People love their pets, but they don't marry them.
etc

People love their spouse, but they do marry them.

So, what is the distinguishing difference for why you marry your spouse?:hmm:

If you still don't believe me perform an exercise. Try telling your wife that you are having sex with someone else and see what she says...

 

[mikeymikec]

Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?

You did, here:

Your claim would make sense except for the fact that marriage is about sex, not love.

If marriage is about sex (and not love), then people would get married to have sex. Since people can have sex without getting married, why add the unnecessary complication?

Your latest definition of marriage is still lacking I think.

 

[nehalem256]

If marriage is about sex (and not love), then people would get married to have sex. Since people can have sex without getting married, why add the unnecessary complication?

If marriage is about love (and not sex) then people would get married to have love. Since people can have love without getting married, why add the unnecessary complication?

Your latest definition of marriage is still lacking I think.

And yours isn't(see above)?

And really the answer is simple. Marriage was created by society to control heterosexual sexual relationships. They added the complication because they viewed people engaging "arbitrary" sex to be bad for society.

And this is quite simply where I believe the real difference between liberals and conservatives is. Liberals don't believe in marriage. They do however like giving sweet government benefits to groups they like

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Poor nehalem, it's hard being a bigot isn't it?

Now that more and more discrimination isn't being allowed, it must really be hard for you.

 

[mikeymikec]

If marriage is about love (and not sex) then people would get married to have love. Since people can have love without getting married, why add the unnecessary complication?

Since I didn't make any statement that marriage was exclusively about one of those, it doesn't work trying to turn it around in order to avoid conceding the point.

And really the answer is simple. Marriage was created by society to control heterosexual sexual relationships. They added the complication because they viewed people engaging "arbitrary" sex to be bad for society.

I agree with this as far as it goes.

And this is quite simply where I believe the real difference between liberals and conservatives is. Liberals don't believe in marriage. They do however like giving sweet government benefits to groups they like

Once again "liberal vs. conservatism" irrelevant bullshit. I don't subscribe to it, so I'm just going to skip past it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Funny. There was a court case shortly after the Loving v. Virginia case that found there was no right no same-sex marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

A case with amply answers the question of the rational reason reason for excluding a minority from marriage.

Look up a marriage vow, nowhere does it mention sex between partners or having children.
Marriage license is about property, age and health.
Divorce is 1000% property and children as property.

edit: found some mentioning children, New Age not traditional.

 

[MongGrel]

Personally, I'm pretty flexible on most things, and I'm fine with Civil unions with the whole Gay community, but I still think marriage is a man/women thing.

 

[WHAMPOM]

If marriage is about love (and not sex) then people would get married to have love. Since people can have love without getting married, why add the unnecessary complication?



And yours isn't(see above)?

And really the answer is simple. Marriage was created by society to control heterosexual sexual relationships. They added the complication because they viewed people engaging "arbitrary" sex to be bad for society.

And this is quite simply where I believe the real difference between liberals and conservatives is. Liberals don't believe in marriage. They do however like giving sweet government benefits to groups they like

Marriage is about property, first, second and last. With the bride thrown in as part of the chattel. Or are you unaware of the time women could own no property, not even their own bodies. A daughter was under the ownership of her father and that ownership was passed to the husband through marriage.

 

[WHAMPOM]

(1) Marriage is societal recognition of relationships. If you are saying that society cannot decide which relationships it can recognize you are fundamentally saying that marriage cannot exist

(2) And supporters of same-sex marriage believe exactly the same. It only mean what THEY want it to.



Gay men don't stick their penis's in their boyfriends vagina.:sneaky:

You're way behind the times. Medical science can now grow artificial vaginas on a substrate from a donor's own cells. But why are we/you talking about sex changes?

 

[jerk-chicken]

Do yourselves a favor:

http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist
nehalem256
Incorruptible

thanks

 

[nehalem256]

Since I didn't make any statement that marriage was exclusively about one of those, it doesn't work trying to turn it around in order to avoid conceding the point.

And really the answer is simple. Marriage was created by society to control heterosexual sexual relationships. They added the complication because they viewed people engaging "arbitrary" sex to be bad for society.

I agree with this as far as it goes.

Cool. So you agree that marriage was created to control heterosexual sexual relationships.

So marriage is fundamentally about controlling opposite-sex relationships. So if homosexuals want in it is their responsibility to show why society should care about controlling their relationships as well.

Put another way. It isn't necessary to show why gays should be excluded. It is their job to show why they should be included.

Once again "liberal vs. conservatism" irrelevant bullshit. I don't subscribe to it, so I'm just going to skip past it.

Typing liberal or conservative is a lot easier than typing "person who supports same-sex marriage" or "person who disagrees with same-sex marriage"

Also, in this case liberal is the correct term. Because the idea of marriage as controlling sexual activity is pretty much 100% opposed to liberal views on sex and procreation.

 

[nehalem256]

Look up a marriage vow, nowhere does it mention sex between partners or having children.
Marriage license is about property, age and health.
Divorce is 1000% property and children as property.

edit: found some mentioning children, New Age not traditional.

Pretty sure it also mentions something about "until death do you part"...

 

[DrDoug]

People love their children, but they don't marry them.
People love their parents, but they don't marry them.
People love their pets, but they don't marry them.
etc

People love their spouse, but they do marry them.

So, what is the distinguishing difference for why you marry your spouse?:hmm:

If you still don't believe me perform an exercise. Try telling your wife that you are having sex with someone else and see what she says...

The children are already mine so I love them as my children.
My parents are mine so I love them as my parents.
My pets are mine so I love them as my pets.

The stranger I met and fell in love with was not mine, with her consent I made a commitment to her and made her mine.

Before I got married I had plenty of sex and never once felt like I needed to marry that person. The way you sound is like the first time you have sex you're gonna get married!

With this dick I thee wed...

 

[DrDoug]

Personally, I'm pretty flexible on most things, and I'm fine with Civil unions with the whole Gay community, but I still think marriage is a man/women thing.

Let me guess, Mormon?

 

[MrPickins]

People love their children, but they don't marry them.
People love their parents, but they don't marry them.
People love their pets, but they don't marry them.
etc

People love their spouse, but they do marry them.

So, what is the distinguishing difference for why you marry your spouse?:hmm:

If you still don't believe me perform an exercise. Try telling your wife that you are having sex with someone else and see what she says...

Can you seriously not tell the difference between romantic and familial or platonic love?

 

[MrPickins]

Pretty sure it also mentions something about "until death do you part"...

You should mention that to the 50% of heterosexual couples that threaten the sanctity of marriage by getting a divorce, then...

 

[shira]

And really the answer is simple. Marriage was created by society to control heterosexual sexual relationships. They added the complication because they viewed people engaging "arbitrary" sex to be bad for society.

If this is true, then allowing same-sex couples to marry furthers the same interest in reducing "arbitrary" sex. So the government should embrace allowing same-sex couples to marry.

But of course, all laws against fornication in the U.S. were abandoned decades ago, and if a state TRIED to prosecute a couple for fornication, the case would be thrown out of court. On a voluntary basis, only a very small and shrinking percentage of the population, mostly far-right Christians, strive to be celibate prior to marriage.

In essence, your argument has been reduced to claiming that marriage is for the small fraction of the heterosexual population who are virgins before marriage and celibate between marriages, and who have never committed adultery. And if you REALLY believe this, then clearly you also believe that the laws should be amended to prevent non-virgin heterosexuals from marrying. That's how batshit crazy you are.

 

[mikeymikec]

Cool. So you agree that marriage was created to control heterosexual sexual relationships.

So marriage is fundamentally about controlling opposite-sex relationships. So if homosexuals want in it is their responsibility to show why society should care about controlling their relationships as well.

To begin with, please concede the point you were wrong about earlier in this thread when you were said that marriage is "about sex, not love".

Logical fallacy. I agreed that marriage was to control heterosexual sexual relationships, not that it is. The reasons why it was are obvious, for example to encourage men to take part in child rearing, to provide an element of protection, and to stop them shagging everything that moves. Women were considered mostly only good for child and home care stuff for a long time, and now their role in society is virtually identical to man's except they spend a short period of time pregnant and feeding a child (typically speaking, if they have a child at all).

As for the present day, IMO the relevance of marriage as far as society is concerned is as follows (as far as I've given it thought anyway):

1) Humans tend to prefer being in a relationship to being alone (so it encourages healthier behaviour mentally)
2) Children are likely to benefit from having more stable role model figures around than less
3) A household with two financial incomes ought to be more stable than one

All three of those apply to gay people just as much as hetero.

Put another way. It isn't necessary to show why gays should be excluded. It is their job to show why they should be included.

In your opinion, which in my experience tends to be as narrow-minded a view as you can manage in order to justify excluding gays from marriage. Every time we've talked about it, for example you won't even acknowledge that people marry to publicly declare their long-term commitment to each other, which is a pretty crucial start to any discussion on it. If people don't want to get married any more, that is the end of marriage, so the "why" is pretty damn important.

Typing liberal or conservative is a lot easier than typing "person who supports same-sex marriage" or "person who disagrees with same-sex marriage"

In the UK, a conservative-dominant government legalised gay marriage. So no, I still disagree with your labels. Considering also the childish pie-throwing on this forum regarding "liberal vs. conservative", in the pursuit of a mature and reasoned discussion on the topic, I suggest keeping politics out of this.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Pretty sure it also mentions something about "until death do you part"...

And?

Marriage and Divorce

(Data are for the U.S.)

• Number of marriages: 2,118,000
• Marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population
• Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C.)

Sources: National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends (data shown are provisional 2011)


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm

 

[MagickMan]

Many women suck their husband's cock, same as gay men.

Many men stick their dicks in their wife's behind, same as gay men.

Many men lick their wife's vagina and breasts, and put their fingers inside, same as lesbians

So explain to us the huge differences again?

Shens. All the fun stuff ends after you're married.

 

[Cozarkian]

I simply don't understand the opposition to allowing gay marriage. How does it hurt you to allow same-sex marriage? Gay couples can already do almost everything a heterosexual couple can. They can hire a priest to conduct a wedding ceremony, declare their love and intent to live in monogamous relationship in front of their friends and family, change their names to share a surname, buy a house together, pool their finances, live together, add each other to their wills and life insurance policies, etc... Preventing them from getting married doesn't stop them from living a homosexual lifestyle, it just makes it more inconvenient for them because they can't use a marriage license to expedite the process.

That said, gay couples are denied at least one extremely important privilege, the right to visit their loved one in the hospital in those situations where only immediate family is allowed. This is an extremely important privilege for the gay couple and in my opinion, but it is such a small part of the overall marriage relationship that there is zero harm to traditional marriage in allowing it. There is no legitimate reason why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

That said, I also disagree that denying same-sex marriage is a constitutional violation, based on sexual orientation, of the equal protection clause. Let's look at a couple comparisons:

Anti-Misogyny Laws

White man CAN marry white woman.
Black man CANNOT marry white woman.

Here, the white and black men are treated differently solely based on race. Thus, we have discrimination, and absent a legitimate reason, a violation of equal protection.

Anti-Same Sex Marriage Laws

Heterosexual man CAN marry woman.
Homosexual man CAN marry woman.

Heterosexual man CANNOT marry man.
Homosexual man CANNOT marry man.

Here, heterosexual and homosexual men are treated precisely the same, regardless of the difference in their sexual orientation. Thus, there is no discrimination and no violation.

Traditional Marriage Laws - A Second Look

Man CAN marry woman.
Woman CANNOT marry woman.

Here, man and woman are treated differently based solely on their gender. Thus, we do have discrimination, and absent a legitimate reason, a constitutional violation.

 

[werepossum]

The Supreme Court, tasked with the job of finding the objective truth as to whether this or that matter is constitutionally accurate, will decide the matter, in my opinion, only if that judgment in it's objective form, corresponds to what is popularily believed by the people in general, and in particular, popularily believed by that party leaning represented by each judge. In short, I believe that tHe obvious fact that a person who is gay should be able to marry another gay person, if both desire it, will become law exactly when conservatives realize truth, this truth, for what it is.

Bingo. When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

I give it two more years.

 

[irishScott]

Woah, something significant happened in Arkansas.