- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
that sounds about right.
So....like stillballin75 asked...whats the holdup?
that sounds about right.
Well, forgive me if I think it's an irrational position for you to support gay marriage, but not want to call it gay marriage.
i understand.
I don't think you do, Thunder. Post #50 was an invitation to explain the inconsistency in your position.
A completely subject judgment that is not based on any objective evidence whatsoever, but is rather based upon religious attitudes, many of which are inherently irrational.
Am I for SSM and homosexuals being able to adopt? Yes.
Am I for taking away the rights of states to define marriage? No.
Is there a point in the history of mankind where the state hasn't defined marriage? It didn't seem to be an issue until the homos wanted to get marriage.
Marriage being defined by the state wasn't a problem until the homos wanted to get married too.
I think he meant "states" as in the fifty states.
As to your second point, interracial marriage.
Not sure what you mean but I think you should read up on your civil rights history. Opposition to interracial marriage wasn't based around an opposition to state recognition of marriage. It was based around opposition to the interracial marriage itself (miscegenation laws). As a matter of fact states had laws which made it a point to not interracial marriage (most of them were still active up until the late 60s in the Southern US).
that's very rude.
this thread is asking peoples' opinions on issues of gay rights.
its very rude for people to then be attacked, for giving their opinions...especially if they do it politely & civily.
.......this thread wasn't created to trap & ambush folks.
Alright my bad i misunderstood your position.
But a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is based on the opposition to gay marriage itself, wouldn't you say?
Yes. That's precisely my point. The whole "The state shouldn't recognize marriage" is a schtick the intellectually dishonest religious fringes fall back on to justify their opposition to gay marriage. I wish there was a poll that showed how many people were against state recognition of marriage 30 years ago vs how many there are today. If compared to support for SSM I bet you that they'd both rise similarly. Legal or governmental recognition of gay marriage undermines the whole farce that is this "christian nation". We can't have that.
"States rights" is a fallback for whatever discrimination conservatives support.
this thread is asking peoples' opinions on issues of gay rights.
its very rude for people to then be attacked, for giving their opinions...especially if they do it politely & civily.
.......this thread wasn't created to trap & ambush folks.
First of all, there is no such thing as gay rights, so I didnt vote in the poll. There are only individual rights that apply to each person equally. Among the rights you have is to associate with whomever you choose and engage in whatever living arrangements and sexual practices you wish with the only caveat being that they be between consenting adults. The issue isnt do you have the right to marry, it is must the state recognize any contractual arrangement as a marriage? And who decides? This doesnt strike me as an issue for judges to determine, but for the public to determine. Should marriage be between one man and one woman? Why not two men? Why not two men and one woman? Why not brother and sister? Father and son? That none of those groups can be rightly denied the freedom to choose to live in such arrangements is, or should be, beyond question. That society must recognize each of those arrangements as a marriage is another matter. And I believe it is one of those societal things that should be decided by popular vote.
Then you wont mind debunking it for me now then. Besides, if I have a "fundamental" right to marry, then upon what grounds do you decide to deprive me of my right to marry two women?It shouldn't be a states rights issue or be put up to the public to vote on. Marriage is a fundemental right, this was determined by society and SCOTUS long before SSM came into the picture. And rights can only be denied if there is a legitimate state interest to do so. And the only legimate reason for the State to deny a fundemental right is if the exercise of that right in a particular situation is harmful to someone or to society as a whole.
As for the rest of your post. Three words for ya...Slippery Slope Fallacy. And every single one of them has been debunked many times over.
Then you wont mind debunking it for me now then. Besides, if I have a "fundamental" right to marry, then upon what grounds do you decide to deprive me of my right to marry two women?
Then you wont mind debunking it for me now then. Besides, if I have a "fundamental" right to marry, then upon what grounds do you decide to deprive me of my right to marry two women?
And there are still societies on this planet where children are "married".
Rights cannot be absolute and unlimited, obviously.
There are a great many men who are offended by the very idea of "gay" marriage , this includes me... but to vote against it ???
Why is our government even involved in marriage ?
I say - if two people or even a man and his horse wish to share the same bed - so be it...
But, as far as children go ....there has to be a limit......
Well, forgive me if I think it's an irrational position for you to support gay marriage, but not want to call it gay marriage.