GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue

[OrByte]

The liberal argument for gay marriage is that not allowing it is discrimination, and that discrimination is wrong.

Therefore pointing out other groups who are discriminated against with regards to marriage is quite important.

Why are liberals only fighting some discrimination?

Why do you only therefore choose to fight for bestialitist, polygamists, and incestualists?

Do you have an affinity to those discriminated parties?

The list of groups that "theoritically" are being discriminated against could be quite long..if we want to go down this illogical reasoning

I want to marry a Star in the Milky Way Galaxy. I'm being discriminated against
I want to marry the color Blue
I want to marry my baby teeth
I want to marry the Golden Gate Bridge
I want to marry Santa Claus
I want to marry Elvis
I want to marry the LA Lakers Organization

etc etc

This is why we have logic and reasoning and critical thinking skills. To keep rift raft fallacies from clouding the issue.

Focus on why gays can/cannot be legally married.

IF you wish to see polygamists etc be legally married, take the issue to court.

 

[nehalem256]

False.

There is no "creation" of any rights. People are already guaranteed equal rights under the Constitution, and a prohibition of same-sex marriage is in fact the denial of that guaranteed right.

If Jane has the right to marry Steven, but John does not have the right to marry Steven, then Jane and John do not have equal rights. Ceasing to prohibit John from marrying Steve is not creating a new right. It is extending a right that already exists to a class of people who have been guaranteed equal protection yet denied it.

Sounds like you have just destroyed age-of-consent laws that allow close age exceptions.

Neither Jane, nor John, nor Steven have the right to be polygamists, incestuous, or copulate with animals, and everyone is denied that right equally.

But if Jane has the right to marry Steven, but his brother Billy Bob does not have the right marry Steven then Jane and Billy Bob do not have equal rights.

So I assume you would agree after all that incestuous marriage is a protected right?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The liberal argument for gay marriage is that not allowing it is discrimination, and that discrimination is wrong.

Therefore pointing out other groups who are discriminated against with regards to marriage is quite important.

Why are liberals only fighting some discrimination?

I repeat my earlier response to you, which you have conveniently pretended does not exist.

Same-sex marriage prohibition is discrimination again people who are entitled to a right that other people already enjoy. Nobody has the right to be a polygamist, incestuous, or copulate with animals.

This is why people hold you in such low regard around here.

 

[OrByte]

Marriage is not a matter of personal freedom. Marriage is about giving up personal freedom for the good of society by creating a new stable family to raise children. In return for giving up this freedom you receive certain benefits.

I almost want to sig this

good one dude!! lol!

 

[soulcougher73]

Marriage is not a matter of personal freedom. Marriage is about giving up personal freedom for the good of society by creating a new stable family to raise children. In return for giving up this freedom you receive certain benefits.

Im an agnostic atheist who is married and got married knowing before hand i wasnt going to create a family.

My personal freedom to decide allows me to not create a family if i so desire.

Also what freedom am i giving up exactly for these so called benefits?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Sounds like you have just destroyed age-of-consent laws that allow close age exceptions.

Doesn't sound that way to me. Why don't you go ahead and explain it to me.

But if Jane has the right to marry Steven, but his brother Billy Bob does not have the right marry Steven then Jane and Billy Bob do not have equal rights.

Apples and oranges. The prohibition of inter-family marriages is ubiquitous. This was already covered, but apparently you're a little slow on the uptake.

So I assume you would agree after all that incestuous marriage is a protected right?

Nope.

 

[nehalem256]

Apples and oranges. The prohibition of inter-family marriages is ubiquitous. This was already covered, but apparently you're a little slow on the uptake.

1.) Ubiquitous... you mean like the how prohibition against same-sex marriage was until say 10 years ago

2.) How does it being ubiquitous make it not discrimination. Hint: It doesnt.

 

[nehalem256]

Why do you only therefore choose to fight for bestialitist, polygamists, and incestualists?

Do you have an affinity to those discriminated parties?

The list of groups that "theoritically" are being discriminated against could be quite long..if we want to go down this illogical reasoning

I want to marry a Star in the Milky Way Galaxy. I'm being discriminated against
I want to marry the color Blue
I want to marry my baby teeth
I want to marry the Golden Gate Bridge
I want to marry Santa Claus
I want to marry Elvis
I want to marry the LA Lakers Organization

etc etc

This is why we have logic and reasoning and critical thinking skills. To keep rift raft fallacies from clouding the issue.

Focus on why gays can/cannot be legally married.

IF you wish to see polygamists etc be legally married, take the issue to court.

Quite the contrary. Marriage means something distinctly unique to every single individual. You do not get to tell others what other things mean to them. It is the height of idiocy to suppose that one could, and no surprise, therefore, to hear it from the likes of you.

Liberals keep telling me that marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. So based on that belief I should be able to marry Santa Claus.

Of course I agree that is silly. But so is allowing same-sex marriage. But that is because I think marriage does have A definition. This is something liberals have repeatedly rejected.

 

[soulcougher73]

Liberals keep telling me that marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. So based on that belief I should be able to marry Santa Claus.

Of course I agree that is silly. But so is allowing same-sex marriage. But that is because I think marriage does have A definition. This is something liberals have repeatedly rejected.

I would say a liberals definition of marriage would be something along the lines of "Two consenting adults regardless of gender joined together and recognized as such by the government and states".

No mention of a religion need be involved. They are free to use a church to marry them if they are religious and the church is also willing to marry them.

And again keep this on topic. No inputting beastiality of polygamy in there for fun. Apples and oranges.

 

[nehalem256]

I would say a liberals definition of marriage would be something along the lines of "Two consenting adults regardless of gender joined together and recognized as such by the government and states".

So incest is acceptable then right?

And your definition makes clear what I said earlier. The only point of marriage is getting benefits from the government.

 

[techs]

I'm sure Huckabee and Santorum will remind the country of where the Republicans stand on gay marriage when they speak at the convention.

 

[soulcougher73]

So incest is acceptable then right?

And your definition makes clear what I said earlier. The only point of marriage is getting benefits from the government.

Nope that is a right no one has access to legally. They want the same right to the benefits straight couples have. Why is that so hard to understand?

Does it make you (not you Nehalem in particular) people against SSM feel superior that you can control a certain portion of the population or something?

 

[OrByte]

Liberals keep telling me that marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. So based on that belief I should be able to marry Santa Claus.

Of course I agree that is silly. But so is allowing same-sex marriage. But that is because I think marriage does have A definition. This is something liberals have repeatedly rejected.

If you wish to argue the definition of marriage then that is fine.

But coming at it sideways (beastiality, incest, etc etc) is a stupid line of reasoning worthy of ridicule.

I don't agree with you on the "liberal" definition of marriage. You are employing yet another type of logical fallacy with that statement.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope that is a right no one has access to legally. They want the same right to the benefits straight couples have. Why is that so hard to understand?

So if no one has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex there is no discrimination. Equality for all!

Does it make you (not you Nehalem in particular) people against SSM feel superior that you can control a certain portion of the population or something?

Does it make you feel superior that you can control a certain portion of the population (those want incest, polygamy, or bestiality)? Why can you not understand that they just want the same rights as straight couples?

 

[OrByte]

So incest is acceptable then right?

And your definition makes clear what I said earlier. The only point of marriage is getting benefits from the government.

Historical legal precedent, incest AND Polygamy are not acceptable because it is not a contract entered into "free and willing"

Historically, that is the law... I'm not interested in looking that up for you. feel free.

Argue that all you want...

 

[nehalem256]

Historical legal precedent, incest AND Polygamy are not acceptable because it is not a contract entered into "free and willing"

Historically, that is the law... I'm not interested in looking that up for you. feel free.

Argue that all you want...

Historically the law is that same-sex marriage is not legal...

 

[soulcougher73]

So if no one has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex there is no discrimination. Equality for all!




Does it make you feel superior that you can control a certain portion of the population (those want incest, polygamy, or bestiality)? Why can you not understand that they just want the same rights as straight couples?

Again with the strawmans. If you want to start a cause to allow the government to allow the same marriage rights as straight couples for incest, polygamy, or bestiality maybe you should start a thread on that and see what kind of support you can drum up.

Edit: And for the record I personally would be ok allowing those things as long as it meets the concenting adult part (minus beastiality as they cannot give concent). But that is not the topic at hand but thought it might appease you to know.

 

[OrByte]

Historically the law is that same-sex marriage is not legal...

1. I think you are wrong on that. Check your facts. Historically I don't think there has been any law that specifically outlaws same sex marriage either federal or state. That is only beginning to happen now.

I do believe the State of Utah and Arizona have laws on the books that specifically outlaw polygamy and marriage for incest couples. Its been a while since I researched that.

2. The great thing about this country, is that you can challenge legal precedent all the way up to SCOTUS

Again I say, if you have any affinity/predesposition/yearning to seeing incest/polygamy/beastiality legalized in this country, take your case to court.

That might make you happy Although I can't imagine why....

or can I....

Edit: Aren't you getting tired of this poor reasoning circle you keep hanging yourself with over and over and over?

Just admit, you don't want to see gays married because you don't like it. And move on.

it is OK to admit that. I swear!

 

[nehalem256]

1. I think you are wrong on that. Check your facts. Historically I don't think there has been any law that specifically outlaws same sex marriage either federal or state. That is only beginning to happen now.

I do believe the State of Utah and Arizona have laws on the books that specifically outlaw polygamy and marriage for incest couples. Its been a while since I researched that.

2. The great thing about this country, is that you can challenge legal precedent.

Again I say, if you have any affinity/predesposition/yearning to seeing incest/polygamy/beastiality legalized in this country, take your case to court.

That might make you happy Although I can't imagine why....

or can I....

Edit: Aren't you getting tired of this poor reasoning circle you keep hanging yourself with over and over and over?

Just admit, you don't want to see gays married because you don't like it. And move on.

it is OK to admit that. I swear!

1.) In fact I pointed this out. There was no need to outlaw same sex marriage, because marriage was inherently between a man and a woman. I imagine there is no law specifically outlawing marriage between a person and animal for the same basic reason.

2.) So in other words you have no argument against prohibitions against incest being unconstitutional.

 

[OrByte]

1.) In fact I pointed this out. There was no need to outlaw same sex marriage, because marriage was inherently between a man and a woman. I imagine there is no law specifically outlawing marriage between a person and animal for the same basic reason.

2.) So in other words you have no argument against prohibitions against incest being unconstitutional.

1. Good then that means you are beginning to understand our legal system...if only juuuust a little bit. Now that laws have been introduced, and States have had their say/input..the court cases continue to wind their way to SCOTUS. They way its supposed to...and thats what would happen if you went to go fight for your right to marry your dog fido...or your sister...or whatever it is you are arguing for. I don't want to know what....honestly

2. I'm not arguing anything about incest, only you are...and that is the disturbing part

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

1.) Ubiquitous... you mean like the how prohibition against same-sex marriage was until say 10 years ago.

You still don't understand. That figures, since you're a conservative, but I'll attempt to educate you AGAIN.

The marriage restrictions were not ubiquitous. Jane could marry Steve even while John could not. Billy Bob, Steve's brother, could never marry Steve because of his unique relationship to Steve. Continuing to disallow Billy Bob to marry Steve is not a violation of Billy Bob's right to equal protection, because nobody gets to marry their own brother.

Billy Bob is a red herring that you've introduced in a desperate attempt to avoid facing reality. Grow up.

2.) How does it being ubiquitous make it not discrimination. Hint: It doesnt.

Again, your say-so is about as worthless as tits on a bull. If a restriction is ubiquitous, who is being discriminated against?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Liberals keep telling me that marriage means whatever anyone wants it to mean. So based on that belief I should be able to marry Santa Claus.

Why do you think it would be against the law to marry Santa Claus?

Of course I agree that is silly. But so is allowing same-sex marriage. But that is because I think marriage does have A definition. This is something liberals have repeatedly rejected.

Nothing has A singular definition, moron. This belief of yours is an extension of your pathetic affinity to prostrate yourself before the authoritarians that dictate your reality.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So if no one has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex there is no discrimination. Equality for all!

False, for reasons already given, and apparently too nuanced for a mind as simple as yours.

Does it make you feel superior that you can control a certain portion of the population (those want incest, polygamy, or bestiality)? Why can you not understand that they just want the same rights as straight couples?

They do have the same rights as straight couples.

 

[actuarial]

Does it make you feel superior that you can control a certain portion of the population (those want incest, polygamy, or bestiality)? Why can you not understand that they just want the same rights as straight couples?

First off, why do you keep mentioning bestiality? That would be a legal contract between a human and an animal, and that is not allowed for any contract.

To clear things up for you, the following are types of marriage that you've mentioned and the basis they are discriminated on:
1) SSM: Gender
2) Incest: Familial Relation
3) Polygamy: Marital Status
4) Bestiality: Species

Only one of those things has ever been brought up in civil rights legislation: gender. It is not illegal to discriminate based on any of the others. That is why the situations are not comparable.

 

[nehalem256]

You still don't understand. That figures, since you're a conservative, but I'll attempt to educate you AGAIN.

The marriage restrictions were not ubiquitous. Jane could marry Steve even while John could not. Billy Bob, Steve's brother, could never marry Steve because of his unique relationship to Steve. Continuing to disallow Billy Bob to marry Steve is not a violation of Billy Bob's right to equal protection, because nobody gets to marry their own brother.

Billy Bob is a red herring that you've introduced in a desperate attempt to avoid facing reality. Grow up.

So if nobody gets to marry their own brother, and that is not discrimination.

then clear

if nobody gets to marry someone of their own gender, that is also not discrimination.