Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va [W: 86,235]

davidtaylorjr said:

Marriage is one man and one woman. There is no purpose for SSM. None whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Nor is there any biological purpose.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Yes it is actually. And if you don't want to put restrictions, siblings need to be allowed to marry, people should be allowed to marry their pets...etc...etc...

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

Your definition of marriage as only a man and a woman is merely opinion, personal belief, nothing more. Redefinition of marriage means absolutely zilch legally. What means anything in the law is how marriage operates and how changes would possibly affect that operation. Since men and women (adults) are treated the same regardless of their sex/gender under US law, then there would be no change in how marriage operates as a legal contract with two people of the same sex. A man can easily take the place of a woman within a legal contract without any legal problems. An animal cannot take the place of any adult human within a legal contract. Even when an animal is willed money, a human must be named/made their legal "guardian" in order to spend the money (presumably in the animal's best interest).

Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:

Ah. The dumb slippery slope argument... the one that has been destroyed countless times here at DP. If you want to continue to present this debunked and meritless argument, be my guest, but recognize that you all have failed to prove it's validity the last 189 times you presented it and will fail the next 189 times, too. The problem is that you do not seem to understand the concept of consistent analogy.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

And you don't understand morality.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

yeah sure thats why we are still waiting for you to explain the earlier failed post you made equating equal rights for gays to bestiality.

Like i said earlier, there isnt even one shred of factual logic to make them equal.

do animals have human rights? are animals protected from discrimination and granted equality? can animals enter into a marriage contract?
it was a horribly inane statement

when you are ready please let us know how bestiality is equal in comparison to equal rights and a marriage contract

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

So how about siblings? How about Parent and child? Should that be allowed to in the name of equality? What about polygamy? Should that be allowed under equality?

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

thats what i thought you got NOTHING. SO will you admit it or continue to try and deflect
also your other examples are FACTUALLY not "equality" by any legal precedence, denying of equal rights or illegal discrimination.


but if you would like to discuss those possibilities of new rights/law id be happy too but theres no legality link between them and hetero/homosexual marriage and i wont discuss them untill you are honest about there being not equality between hetero/homosexual marriage and bestiality.

lets see if you can do it.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

My definition was in the dictionary until just recently. :shrug:

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

So were many other definitions. Still doesn't make it the correct one. Definitions change. That is why what "defines" something, such as a contract, within our laws is how the thing functions, not the restrictions placed upon it.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

So how about siblings? How about Parent and child? Should that be allowed to in the name of equality? What about polygamy? Should that be allowed under equality?

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Exactly, they changed the definition to make people feel good like I said. Thanks for proving my point.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

The state is able to successfully articulate/justify how restrictions against parent/child or sibling marriages further a legitimate state interest and actually protect more people than not having such restrictions would, particularly since such relations already have the main thing that marriage grants for every person in a marriage, legal kinship. Now, I wouldn't fight against opening up marriage to legal kin in the way that most same sex marriage foes fight it, but I do believe it is a bad idea. Luckily, I don't think enough honest support would be found for such a proposal in the near future. It simply isn't as in demand as same sex marriages, especially since there is good evidence that at least a good majority of such relationships began prior to age of consent. And there is an assumed intimacy involved in marriage.

Marriage in the US is based around 2 people and only 2 people within the legal relationship. It is only able, with the laws as they are currently, to reasonably protect one spouse and recognize one spouse as such. A spouse does hold a level of kinship that puts them as the closest relative of their spouse. You cannot legally have two people to fill that role without major legal problems, just as you cannot have two people named as your medical proxy, legally (which is in fact another thing spouse automatically holds unless there is some other legal document saying otherwise).

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Didn't deflect, I said those things in my first comment as well, you guys left that off to spin the conversation the way you wanted it to go.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Gay marriage is no different.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

Same sex marriage is very different. The people do not already have the kinship and they are only two people. There is no problems with the legal contract and how it works because man can be substituted for woman within any of our laws and vice versa, but 2 or more people cannot substitute for one without problems. And there is no real reason to suspect undue influence in the majority of same sex relationships, unlike those relationships where someone was raised with/by another, most familial relationships. Plus, there is no chance of genetic deformities in offspring of same sex couples, whereas there is a huge chance with 1st tier relations, parent/child or siblings.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

wow your posts are so dishonest.
so are you ready to admit the fact that bestiality is not equal to hetero/homosexual marriage?

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Exactly, they changed the definition to make people feel good like I said. Thanks for proving my point.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

How was I dishonest? Do tell. Oh wait, you can't because that was a lie.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Increased chance of HIV though.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Gay marriage is no different.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Increased chance of HIV though.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

Not for lesbians.

And that isn't because of their relationships. In fact, with marriage, there is a reduced chance of HIV because marriage reduces the chance of HIV. It is a monogamous relationship for many couples, even those who were more open prior to entry into marriage. Same sex marriage will not increase chance of HIV.

Click to expand...

davidtaylorjr said:

Increased chance of HIV though.

Click to expand...

WorldWatcher said:

Let me get this correct.

The reason for denying Same-sex Civil Marriage is because promoting monogamous relationships will increase the chance of HIV?

The reciprocal of that then is that denying Same-sex Civil Marriage, thereby promoting multiple partners will decrease the chance of HIV?



>>>>

Click to expand...