Support for gay marriage may be leveling off

[MrPickins]

It hasn't been refuted at all.

if you can get your toaster to consent, I don't believe there's anyone who'd stand in the way of your marriage.

Q.E.D.

 

[nehalem256]

if you can get your toaster to consent, I don't believe there's anyone who'd stand in the way of your marriage.

Why does consent matter when it comes to marrying a toaster?

Your argument is really no different than saying if gay man grows a uterus he can grow marry a man.

Who is harmed by allowing someone to marry a toaster?

And in fact there are plenty of historical examples of marriage without the consent of one(or either) partner. For example some parts of Canada today.

 

[SlickSnake]

Are you going to insult or debate?

Clearly you always pick and choose what comments to ignore and debate after you make your stupid comparisons and observations, yet you either act completely clueless or have the unmitigated gall to dare to ask me this?

Troll troll troll your boat much?

You just keep on proving with your comments you are a stupid Stormfront troll, while hoping and pretending nobody else notices that fact.

Here, let me mention your darling baby Jesus and Santa Claus for you, so you can refuse to respond to my comments on religious grounds.

You hypocritical, bigoted Stormfront troll.

 

[MrPickins]

Why does consent matter when it comes to marrying a toaster?

Your argument is really no different than saying if gay man grows a uterus he can grow marry a man.

Who is harmed by allowing someone to marry a toaster?

Because marriage is a contact, and contracts require consent (as has been explained to you ad nauseum).

Seriously, if this is the best analogy you can come up with, you lost before you began.

 

[z1ggy]

Demanding the government be involved in our personal affairs is wanting less government involvement in your personal affairs...

Take your dunce cap off for a minute, then you might wrap your head around it.

Regardless if it's more government, less government or the same, you can't come up with one good reason why gays should legally be barred from marriage. You simply can't. Saying, "but ickkyyyy!!!" or "it's not natural!!" or "lil baby infant jesus told me it's not okay!" is not a reason, because none of those things are legally enforceable.

If you were to say, "gay marriage infringes on my #X amendment rights", then yeah sure, I'd be standing in the anti-gay line with you. But, you can't, so I am here in the logical side of things along with ~80% or so of people my age. The fact of the matter is, people being gay and/or gays wanting to marry does not effect your ability to be married as a heterosexual.

Eventually people with your mental stance on homosexuality will be worm meal, and these pointless debates will be a thing of the past. A welcome thought indeed.

 

[nehalem256]

Because marriage is a contact, and contracts require consent (as has been explained to you ad nauseum).

Seriously, if this is the best analogy you can come up with, you lost before you began.

You do realize that Canada declares people to married without their consent right?

And really contracts don't require consent. Society has just decided that contracts between people should have consent, because forcing another person into a contract is pretty clearly harming another person.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Because marriage is a contact, and contracts require consent (as has been explained to you ad nauseum).

Seriously, if this is the best analogy you can come up with, you lost before you began.

Maybe he could marry a lawnmower or weedeater instead, at least he could something constructive and useful with his spouse.

I just look forward to the day that people like him and Texashiler go all splodeyhead when SSM must be accepted by law in all 50 states.

 

[SlickSnake]

Demanding the government be involved in our personal affairs is wanting less government involvement in your personal affairs...

Thanks again for proving what a stupid Stormfront troll you really are. Or are you also braindamaged from toaster screwing, too?

 

[nehalem256]

Take your dunce cap off for a minute, then you might wrap your head around it.

Regardless if it's more government, less government or the same,

So are you conceding that people advocating for same-sex marriage are really advocating for more government invovlment in people's lives?

you can't come up with one good reason why gays should legally be barred from marriage. You simply can't. Saying, "but ickkyyyy!!!" or "it's not natural!!" or "lil baby infant jesus told me it's not okay!" is not a reason, because none of those things are legally enforceable.

If you were to say, "gay marriage infringes on my #X amendment rights", then yeah sure, I'd be standing in the anti-gay line with you. But, you can't, so I am here in the logical side of things along with ~80% or so of people my age. The fact of the matter is, people being gay does not effect your ability to be married as a heterosexual.

Eventually people with your mental stance on homosexuality will be worm meal, and these pointless debates will be a thing of the past. A welcome thought indeed.

Sure I can:

Just because I don’t agree with an argument, however, doesn’t mean it’s irrational. Marriage has historically been a sexual institution. A rational person can maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together—that is, two people of the same sex—can’t be a marriage. That argument doesn’t justify denying them the right to love one another openly, nor does it justify denying them the benefits and honors we bestow on couples for making lifetime commitments. But it can justify a person’s refusal to accept a same-sex relationship as a marriage.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/...e_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html

Again this argument is provided by someone who supports same-sex marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

Thanks again for proving what a stupid Stormfront troll you really are. Or are you also braindamaged from toaster screwing, too?

Marriage is inherently about demanding that the government be more involved in your life.

If you really want less government you should be advocating for the abolition of straight marriage.

 

[alzan]

Agree.

..but I'm wonder how that addresses my post.

It addresses your post in that: you can have all the moral objections you want; the core issue is that the government cannot violate a persons' or groups rights unless it has a good reason. In the case of SSM it does not have a good reason.

 

[nehalem256]

It addresses your post in that: you can have all the moral objections you want; the core issue is that the government cannot violate a persons' or groups rights unless it has a good reason. In the case of SSM it does not have a good reason.

There is no right to same-sex "marriage". Therefore clearly no person or groups rights have been violated.

 

[BurnItDwn]

What business is it of the government if I want to get a $20 hooker, bring her home and share some homemade moonshine? What I do in the privacy of my home is none of the governments business.

If my wife and I want to make some extra money selling services on craiglist, so what? Consenting adults, right?

I want hookers, moonshine, and multiple wives. One who cleans, one who cooks, and one who does laundry. Sign me up man! All these supid laws making great good things illegal are annoying.

 

[Retro Rob]

It addresses your post in that: you can have all the moral objections you want;

Thank you.

Your point simply didn't follow mines...I wasn't saying that the Government can violate anyone's rights anyway.

That's where we disconnected.

 

[z1ggy]

So are you conceding that people advocating for same-sex marriage are really advocating for more government invovlment in people's lives?



Sure I can:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/...e_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html

Again this argument is provided by someone who supports same-sex marriage.

I don't give a shit buddy. I couldn't care less. Clearly you're stuck on this whole involvement thing because you feel it's some talking point to support your argument for denying gays to marry. Sadly, it doesn't matter. No lawyer is going to use the level of government involvement to rationalize and argue for or against gay marriage. So... you can let that go now, it's futile.

I read the article. It's about the differences & similarities in the arguments used in the gay & inter racial marriage debate.

Conveniently you left this out though:

A rational person can maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together—that is, two people of the same sex—can’t be a marriage.

....
The argument has plenty of problems. We let old people marry. We let infertile people marry. We don’t insist that married couples produce kids. We welcome adoption and stepfamilies. Gay couples can have kids using donated eggs or sperm. Many gay people are already raising children, and doing it just as well as straight people.

 

[MrPickins]

You do realize that Canada declares people to married without their consent right?

So move to Canada. Maybe they'll let you marry your toaster.

(Funny, I thought we were talking about US law here. :hmm

And really contracts don't require consent. Society has just decided that contracts between people should have consent, because forcing another person into a contract is pretty clearly harming another person.

Please explain how a contract with an inanimate object works, even aside from the consent issue.

How does the object fulfill its contractual obligations?


Again, this has been refuted so many times that you look like you have a mental disability when you continue to cling to it.


Do you not have the capability for forming new, cogent arguments?

 

[MixMasterTang]

I don't give a shit buddy. I couldn't care less. Clearly you're stuck on this whole involvement thing because you feel it's some talking point to support your argument for denying gays to marry. Sadly, it doesn't matter. No lawyer is going to use the level of government involvement to rationalize and argue for or against gay marriage. So... you can let that go now, it's futile.

I read the article. It's about the differences & similarities in the arguments used in the gay & inter racial marriage debate.

Conveniently you left this out though:

Doctor: Toaster, I have some bad news for you. Nehalem was in a bad wreck and is on life support. Did Nehalem ever tell you what he would want if this happened?

Toaster:

Doctor: Toaster, are you even listening?

Toaster:

Doctor: Damnit Toaster, you must have the same IQ as T.H.

Toaster:

Doctor: Fuck it <pulls the plug>

 

[alzan]

Thank you.

Your point simply didn't follow mines...I wasn't saying that the Government can violate anyone's rights anyway.

That's where we disconnected.

Your (or anyone elses) moral objections to SSM mean exactly squat. If you like debating so much and the only argument you can make is based on morals then there is no point to the debate.

I'm debating the government's role, the disconnect occurs because you bring morals to the debate when they clearly don't belong.

 

[SlickSnake]

Doctor: Toaster, I have some bad news for you. Nehalem was in a bad wreck and is on life support. Did Nehalem ever tell you what he would want if this happened?

Toaster:

Doctor: Toaster, are you even listening?

Toaster:

Doctor: Damnit Toaster, you must have the same IQ as T.H.

Toaster:

Doctor: Fuck it <pulls the plug>

So, he pulled out the toasters plug AND KILLED IT??? Won't someone think of the homeless, untoasted bread???

 

[Texashiker]

I want hookers, moonshine, and multiple wives. One who cleans, one who cooks, and one who does laundry. Sign me up man! All these supid laws making great good things illegal are annoying.

That is exactly right.

You can marry a man, but not two men?

Gays are not fighting for true marriage equality. They are fighting for what they "think" marriage should be like.

In the end, gays are no different than traditional marriage supporters. What "they" think marriage should be is the only thing important to them.

 

[nehalem256]

So move to Canada. Maybe they'll let you marry your toaster.

(Funny, I thought we were talking about US law here. :hmm

Canada is a 1st World Western country. If consent is not required for marriage there then it stands to reason that consent is not a fundamental part of marriage and can be easily changed if we decide to.

The fact that you refuse to just show you are a butt-hurt bigot.

Please explain how a contract with an inanimate object works, even aside from the consent issue.

How does the object fulfill its contractual obligations?

Well at least you won't get any bitchin' from a toaster if you want it to make you a sandwich

Its also highly unlikely that the toaster will start flirting with other men.

 

[nageov3t]

Canada is a 1st World Western country. If consent is not required for marriage there then it stands to reason that consent is not a fundamental part of marriage and can be easily changed if we decide to.

wtf laws are you even referring to, btw?

I've never heard of a person forced to marry another without their consent in Canada.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your (or anyone elses) moral objections to SSM mean exactly squat. If you like debating so much and the only argument you can make is based on morals then there is no point to the debate.

I'm debating the government's role, the disconnect occurs because you bring morals to the debate when they clearly don't belong.

There is a measure of personal morality in law/Government because humans simply have morality in built into them.

You're trying to split hairs between morality and Government as if one can be completely divorced from the other. That simply isn't really possible.

 

[SlickSnake]

Its also highly unlikely that the toaster will start flirting with other men.

Well, you clearly haven't met my toaster.

And you are acting the bigot and implying only men sleep around on their toasters, as if women never sleep around on their toasters.

Your arguments grow stupider and stupider with every post, just like Takeahiker. Maybe you two need to get a room and explore each others toasters for a while. And Takeahiker knows a lot of 20 buck Craig's list whores he and the chicken, I mean wife, have been fooling around with and want to marry. And pics or shens on the outcomes. Because we all have needs, too, you know.

 

[MrPickins]

Well at least you won't get any bitchin' from a toaster if you want it to make you a sandwich

Its also highly unlikely that the toaster will start flirting with other men.

So, in short, you have no answer for my questions.

Does it not make you feel dumb to hold an opinion you can't successfully defend?