Latest gay marriage flareup

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the state need to recognize marrage at all?

The solution to this is simple. No state sanctioning of marrage for anyone. Everyone should be happy with that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. It's only when government is brought into this issue to begin with that people on both sides start getting pissed off.

People want the government to officially recognize a certain class of citizens (married ones), and then they get pissed off because the government is only recognizing a certain class of citizens!!!

Government is about as essential as paps on a bull where marriage is concerned, but it's become some kind of us-vs-them news channel game show for the the unwashed masses unable to think outside the box.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the state need to recognize marrage at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. It only benefits women. Men have to give up their freedoms that come with being a bachelor, devote their lives to one woman, never have sex with any other woman, and, if they screw up, they lose half of their stuff.

If the wife screws up, she gets the kids and half of your stuff.

[CaptainFreedom]

Guys you are missing something. Dicks in butts!!! Gross!!

I think there's a big double standard when it comes to anal sex between two dudes and anal sex between male and female couples/wives.
I have no idea how or why the guy who called gays perversions isn't banned yet.

[Phil153]

Wow, a lot to answer.

Firstly, no one ever called gays "perversions". I was talking about the act - and that society shouldn't recognize it or put it on par with male-female marriage - and shouldn't have to if they don't want to. This is the whole crux of the reason why gay marriage isn't recognized. If you want to bury these types of comments, then how can we have a candid discussion?

Equal protection - only applies if marriage is taken to mean a union between any two people, and not its original meaning of a man and a woman. Marriage is a special institution that recognizes one man and one woman - homosexual couples are free to contract in any other way they see fit. I don't see this as being different to the law that requires the president to be US born or that allows race-based affirmative action.

[ QUOTE ]
And if what you say is true, then why do you think you have a right to stop them using violence or the threat of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought I did answer this. Nothing is being stopped with violence. Society has a choice whether or not it wants to accept gay marriage as legitimate, if gays want to get married under the religion of their choice, they can do so according to the whims of that religion.

Difference between racial intermarriage: Well, that's clear discrimination based on race. As I said, if the act is defined as one between a man and woman (which I think it is), then gay marriages can't be marriages. I think it's a stretch to suggest that anyone ever intended marriage to mean "between a white man and white woman".

edit: iron just PMed me and said the perversion comment is bigoted and not allowed here. Fair enough. I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[Richard Tanner]

A question I've always had: Is the issue here over Gays marrying (using the term) or Gays getting the rights and privileges of marriage.

If the issue is the term, then yeah that seems like a fair, although useless and backhanded, issue. If it's the rights then it's obvious discrimination.

Oh and my bigger issue, what business of the government is it how "two people decide to pair off, split expenses and eventually stop having sex with each other".

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Equal protection - only applies if marriage is taken to mean a union between any two people, and not its original meaning of a man and a woman. Marriage is a special institution that recognizes one man and one woman - homosexual couples are free to contract in any other way they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, so if we argue that the "original meaning" of a "lunch counter" is "somewhere for white people to eat" then equal protection doesn't apply?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as being different to the law that requires the president to be US born or that allows race-based affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old "previous inconsistencies justify current and future inconsistencies" defense.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I did answer this. Nothing is being stopped with violence. Society has a choice whether or not it wants to accept gay marriage as legitimate, if gays want to get married under the religion of their choice, they can do so according to the whims of that religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society cannot make choices. Society has no rights. Society is not a moral agent.

And violence is employed.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[/ QUOTE ]

kbaithx

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, no one ever called gays "perversions". I was talking about the act - and that society shouldn't recognize it or put it on par with male-female marriage - and shouldn't have to if they don't want to.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying homosexuality is a perversion but homosexuals aren't perverts? Good one.

A large part of society didn't want black people to be able to vote or use the same schools. I don't think it needs to be explained why they weren't allowed to do this even though they wanted to. What is the difference? Oh, right, the gays are choosing to pop boners over something that everyone else finds repulsive. Homosexuality sounds like the biggest conspiracy theory in the history of the universe by your definition.


[ QUOTE ]
homosexual couples are free to contract in any other way they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]
But those contracts won't be legally recognized. Are you opposed to civil unions? I don't think anyone will care if they don't get to use the apparently magical "marriage" term.


[ QUOTE ]
I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like you learned something from NotReady after all.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will stay out of these threads in future, so enjoy your one sided viewpoint and "vigorous debate".

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like you learned something from NotReady after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not fair. Honest debate of the reasons for the disallowing of gay marriage is not allowed to be discussed here. The PC police are out in force. Which is hilarious given the gay rights movement talk of "freedoms". Can you spell hypocrisy?

Yes I support civil unions, of a sort. Adults should generally be allowed to contract freely with others, including giving legal status for another to manage their affairs, visit them when they're sick, share bank accounts, decide inheritance without legal interference, and so on.