[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[AGENT J]

You da man!

not me just facts but like i said youre welcome!
Good luck avoiding your issue in the future and let me know if theres any other factual mistakes i can help you with!

 

[Lursa]

From the 4/16th and 17th

Yes, more than 300 posts in.

The quotes with the arrows was helpful.THe 2nd was esp. so, since you distinctly called out what began our initial conversation on closely related couples marrying.

That would be a good argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Instead they only extended marriage to gays, because its not about equality and is instead inequality by design for the benefit of gays.

That's not about discrimination against all not receiving marriage benefits...it's about marriage and 2 consenting adults.

Cheers!

 

[CLAX1911]

I see. So you don't debate, you just want to annoy people by rubbing it in people's faces. I hear you.

Well sure, as long as you can your face into it an bitch and moan, yes. If you left me alone about it I'd leave you alone. But you decided you had to come into this discussion and tell me how it isn't marriage in your opinion despite me not asking.

Secondly, when I say "rubbing it in people's faces", I dont mean just here. I mean out there in real life, too.

Keep your stupid face out of it than nobody will.

Gays constantly shriek and wail when they don't get their way.

So do everybody else, one that seems to be quite common is busy body Christians. They shriek and wail when they don't get their way. If you want change, you have to change.

Lol, you just insinuated that I am a closet homosexual like it's a bad thing.

No, you are female I am male. That wouldn't be homosexual on your part. Just like straight men that like thinking about lesbians. The only difference is straight men aren't bashful about liking it.

This is further proof that deep down, you know being gay is shameful and bad.

See above, your dishonesty is evidence that I touched upon some truth.

My point was that this whole gay marriage issue is not simply a matter of gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. It goes beyond that.

Yeah I know you think it alters the meaning of marriage for the worse. Again, think whatever you want.

I am not going to go back to the previous pages and look for your posts, but I am quite sure I did not seek you out. I believe I was talking to Jasper and then you started to chime in and responded to me.

You posted publicly on the subject, if me talking to you is such an issue don't respond. The only way I know you quoted me is because I get notified when you do.

I don't want to stop talking to you. You usually have good posts and you are civil (well, most of the times).

I tend to be civil up until people stop being civil with me. Then all bets are off. Respect and civility is a two way street.

This titillates me. Please tell me more.

You would like that wouldn't you?

 

[Wan]

Well sure, as long as you can your face into it an bitch and moan, yes. If you left me alone about it I'd leave you alone.

How did I "not leave you alone"? And no, responding to your posts here is not the same as not leaving you alone.

But you decided you had to come into this discussion and tell me how it isn't marriage in your opinion despite me not asking.

So what that I stated my opinion without you asking? You know that I could be doing this for the benefit of other posters, or lurkers, right?

Please tell me why the fact you did not ask for my opinion means I was wrong to have stated my opinion.

Keep your stupid face out of it than nobody will.

"Stupid" face? Lol. Try not to lash out so much. Secondly, I HAVE been trying to keep my face out of other people's businesses. I do not try to tell gays what to do. But by bringing this gay marriage into the public spotlight, in a sense they are making it my business. And they ARE rubbing it in my face. I certainly did not stick my face into the gay community and ask for it to be rubbed. They came to me, I did not go to them.

So do everybody else, one that seems to be quite common is busy body Christians. They shriek and wail when they don't get their way. If you want change, you have to change.

I am not a Christian if that's what you are thinking. I am agnostic. Furthermore, I have no control over what Christians do.

No, you are female I am male. That wouldn't be homosexual on your part. Just like straight men that like thinking about lesbians. The only difference is straight men aren't bashful about liking it.

See above, your dishonesty is evidence that I touched upon some truth.

Lol! What is this "truth" you speak of? I could use a laugh. And this whole I female you male thing isn't even important. You were insinuating that I am a homosexual (doesn't matter if it's gay or lesbian) like it's a bad thing. Why do you think being homosexual is bad, Clax?

Yeah I know you think it alters the meaning of marriage for the worse. Again, think whatever you want.

No. I am simply pointing out to the gays that they are using the word "marriage" in a way that is incorrect. I am allowed to do this.

You posted publicly on the subject, if me talking to you is such an issue don't respond. The only way I know you quoted me is because I get notified when you do.

First of all, I do not have a problem with you talking to me. Secondly, I said what I said because you asked me why I was talking to you. And I explained to you, it's because you quoted me first.

I tend to be civil up until people stop being civil with me. Then all bets are off. Respect and civility is a two way street.

No disagreement here.

You would like that wouldn't you?

Yes I would. Now I expect to see bawdy tales of your sexual exploits in my inbox. Preferably with pictures.

 

[JasperL]

I never said gays could not try to change laws. What I was saying is that you are wrong when you said this was simply a matter of gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. It's not. What they are doing has real-life consequences.

Of course being denied or having access to RIGHTS has real-life consequences. What rights or benefits or privileges of "marriage" would you deny gay couples? Be specific.

But after this part, you said you'd rather trust a gay person over Dixon (slightly paraphrasing). You did not outright state it but your post implied that the reason you rejected Dixon's view was precisely because he is not gay. You did not say anything about the sample size being too small.

Yeah, I figured it was obvious. Anecdote implies a small sample size.... :roll:

 

[JasperL]

From the 4/16th and 17th

"That would be a good argument that any two consenting adults should be able to marry. Instead they only extended marriage to gays, because its not about equality and is instead inequality by design for the benefit of gays."

Yes, of course by that twisted definition, anything involving "marriage" recognized by the state is about the "inequality" of married couples versus straight couples. "Married" couples have certain rights and benefits, and certain obligations, unique to 'married' couples. That's understood, a given, for purposes of the entire debate.

The only option for perfect "equality" with regard to "marriage" is to dissolve all marriages for purposes of the state. We're not talking about that, though, we're discussing making the "unequal" benefits and obligations of "marriage" as recognized by governments available to gay couples on the same basis they're available to straight couples. So if you want to be technical, it's about equal access for same sex couples to the "inequality" of marriage. But we all understand this, so why are you pointing this out? If 'marriage' didn't entitle a couple to 'inequality' it would be pointless to marry and have it recognized by the state. We all know it's not pointless, and it's why many couples marry - to access that inequality!

So all you've done is create a new set of goal posts for us to kick to, as a way to divert attention from the original goal posts. It's not an honest way to debate.

 

[wolfsgirl]

But nobody is taking rights away from gay couples. They can still have civil union.

Not in my state. They banned civil unions, domestic partnerships and any contract approximating marriage for same sex couples before SSM was made legal nationwide.

 

[Divine_Wind]

the amusing thing is, even if gays had only been granted civil unions, they'd still call it marriage and say they were married. Call themselves husbands, wives. :lol: That was the case in CA when they had same sex unions.

So the reasoning behind the illegal 'separate but equal' 'solution' would be meaningless in reality.

If there is no difference in rights and benefits between "marriage" and "civil union", then I agree. It's just a name people can call anything they like. The problem, however, was that "civil unions" were only recognized at the state level thus still being a 14th Amendment issue at the Federal level.

 

[ecofarm]

If there is no difference in rights and benefits between "marriage" and "civil union", then I agree. It's just a name people can call anything they like. The problem, however, was that "civil unions" were only recognized at the state level thus still being a 14th Amendment issue at the Federal level.

It seems a fix enough, but let's carry out the logic. We have created a new term because the previous is religious? And law? Unless we wanna start writing supposed religion into law, it's all or nothing (with either term, who cares).

 

[Lursa]

If there is no difference in rights and benefits between "marriage" and "civil union", then I agree. It's just a name people can call anything they like. The problem, however, was that "civil unions" were only recognized at the state level thus still being a 14th Amendment issue at the Federal level.

Another limitation. Thanks.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Another limitation. Thanks.

Limitation on government? Yes. A Constitutional right? Yes.

 

[Wan]

Of course being denied or having access to RIGHTS has real-life consequences. What rights or benefits or privileges of "marriage" would you deny gay couples? Be specific.

Except I never disputed any of this. Nor did I say I want to deny gay couples right. I was merely pointing out that when you said, paraphrased, that this whole issue is just gays choosing to use a word in a certain way, you are in fact wrong.

Yeah, I figured it was obvious. Anecdote implies a small sample size.... :roll:

Not sure what you are saying. Anyway, my point is that you seemed to reject Dixon's observation strictly on the grounds of him being straight.

 

[Divine_Wind]

It seems a fix enough, but let's carry out the logic. We have created a new term because the previous is religious? And law? Unless we wanna start writing supposed religion into law, it's all or nothing (with either term, who cares).

Marriage was never in the Constitution. There are reasons why the government became involved, mainly to protect women (before they had more rights) and children and reasons for government to stay involved but only to protect rights, not limit rights.

 

[ecofarm]

Marriage was never in the Constitution. There are reasons why the government became involved, mainly to protect women (before they had more rights) and children and reasons for government to stay involved but only to protect rights, not limit rights.

My point is that if we use two terms on the basis of one term being religious then we have written religion into law. Unless you have another basis that people were employing against using the term marriage for same sex couples.

 

[wolfsgirl]

In California they had same sex unions identical to same sex marriages and the gays and their advocates boo hooed our constitutional rights are violated if we don't get the word marriage.

Those civil unions were not federally recognized and did not have the same federal protections that marriage did. So not identical.

 

[Lursa]

Limitation on government? Yes. A Constitutional right? Yes.

What's a Constitutional right (in the context of this discussion)?

 

[wolfsgirl]

I did not say the laws are the straight people's only. I was responding to Jasper. He seemed to be saying that the whole issue is simply gays choosing to use a word in a certain way. This is not true. They introduced an issue into the public sphere with possible legal ramifications.


I don't have any "argument". I just want to correct gays' incorrect usage of the word "marriage" and I did.

Definition of marriage
1a see usage paragraph below : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected
especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

Seems that you are adding to the definition. No where there does it say only for heterosexual couples.

 

[CLAX1911]

How did I "not leave you alone"? And no, responding to your posts here is not the same as not leaving you alone.

Repeatedly telling me that my MARRIAGE isn't real. You can believe that, but if you rub your moronic opinion in my face in doing it right back. You get what you give.

So what that I stated my opinion without you asking?

You accuse me of rubbing it in your face when I do the exact same thing.

You know that I could be doing this for the benefit of other posters, or lurkers, right?

Ditto.

Please tell me why the fact you did not ask for my opinion means I was wrong to have stated my opinion.

You aren't wrong for stating your opinion, you're just hypocritical when you cry about me stating mine.

"Waa waa waa, you're rubbing your MARRIAGE in my face... Boohoo."

"Stupid" face? Lol. Try not to lash out so much. Secondly, I HAVE been trying to keep my face out of other people's businesses. I do not try to tell gays what to do.

Don't cry when others state different opinions. If you don't want to hear about it STFU.

But by bringing this gay marriage into the public spotlight, in a sense they are making it my business. And they ARE rubbing it in my face.

I'm just stating my opinion. And because that triggers you I'm going to keep doing it.

You still can get your face out of it and then it won't be rubbed in your face. But as long as you cry about the meaning of marriage I'm going to remind you that same sex MARRIAGE is recognized. You could keep your opinion to yourself and I'll keep mine to myself but you choose not to.

You are rubbing your face in it. Nobody is doing it to you. Quit being a snowflake.

I certainly did not stick my face into the gay community and ask for it to be rubbed. They came to me, I did not go to them.

You came here and rubbed your face into it. Voicing opinions on laws is you rubbing your face in it.

I am not a Christian if that's what you are thinking. I am agnostic. Furthermore, I have no controIl over what Christians do.

I can't control what other gay people do. But if nee simply pointing out that same sex marriage being legal triggers you, than maybe you should get some help.

Lol! What is this "truth" you speak of? I could use a laugh. And this whole I female you male thing isn't even important.

Well it does undermine the idea that I was calling you a homosexual. I was not.

You were insinuating that I am a homosexual (doesn't matter if it's gay or lesbian) like it's a bad thing.

False, I invented l insinuated nothing, you inferred incorrectly. I said that my sexuality titillates you blatantly.

Why do you think being homosexual is bad, Clax?

When did I say I did?

No. I am simply pointing out to the gays that they are using the word "marriage" in a way that is incorrect.

You are incorrect. Same sex MARRIAGE is indeed the correct usage of the word.

I am allowed to do this.

And I'm allowed to show you how wrong you are, and me doing that isn't rubbing anything in your face. It's just reality not matching up with your fantasy.

First of all, I do not have a problem with you talking to me. Secondly, I said what I said because you asked me why I was talking to you. And I explained to you, it's because you quoted me first.

So when you cry about things being rubbed in your face are you just joking?

No disagreement here.


Yes I would. Now I expect to see bawdy tales of your sexual exploits in my inbox. Preferably with pictures.

too bad, I'm a gentleman I don't kiss and tell.

 

[Wan]

Repeatedly telling me that my MARRIAGE isn't real.

I said "gay marriage" isn't real. I didn't say YOUR marriage isn't real. I knew almost nothing about you. So basically, I was just stating my disagreement with gay marriage IN GENERAL and somehow you took this as an affront against you personally. And you have the gall to call me a snowflake.

You can believe that, but if you rub your moronic opinion in my face in doing it right back. You get what you give.

Huh what? I am not even sure what you are talking about and I am too lazy to go back to the origin of our exchange to even see what you are referring to.

You accuse me of rubbing it in your face when I do the exact same thing. Ditto.

I didn't say you could not rub it in my face.

You aren't wrong for stating your opinion, you're just hypocritical when you cry about me stating mine.

No. I would be a hypocrite if and only if I believed in something to be bad but I nevertheless still chose to do this bad thing. "Complaining" (which I'd argue I didn't) about you stating your opinion is not an instance of me engaging in hypocrisy. Hypocrisy concerns the relationship between what one believes in and what he does. It does not concern the behavior between two people.

"Waa waa waa, you're rubbing your MARRIAGE in my face... Boohoo."

I'd argue I wasn't crying. But feel free to mis-characterize what I did.

Don't cry when others state different opinions. If you don't want to hear about it STFU.

Prove that I was "crying". Also, I DO want to hear about other people's opinion, even when it's wrong. Case in point: I listened to your opinion.

I'm just stating my opinion. And because that triggers you I'm going to keep doing it.

Trust me, I am not "triggered". But feel free to be a dick. It seems like being gay is not bad enough.

You still can get your face out of it and then it won't be rubbed in your face.

Why do you keep talking as if I made it my business? I didn't. Gays came to me. I didn't go to them.

But as long as you cry about the meaning of marriage I'm going to remind you that same sex MARRIAGE is recognized.

Yes. Recognized by crazies, liberals, and gay-enablers.

You could keep your opinion to yourself and I'll keep mine to myself but you choose not to.

*Sigh*. You realize that not once, did I say you could not state your opinion, right? I might object to your opinion however this is not the same as my objecting to your right to state an an opinion. You seem confused by these two.

You are rubbing your face in it. Nobody is doing it to you. Quit being a snowflake.

Sorry but this is incorrect. Gays are rubbing their gay "marriage" in my face. It's like I said, the gays came to me. I didn't go to them.

You came here and rubbed your face into it. Voicing opinions on laws is you rubbing your face in it.

Nope. Gays rubbed it in my face.

I can't control what other gay people do. But if nee simply pointing out that same sex marriage being legal triggers you, than maybe you should get some help.

Nope. Not being "triggered", though you do like to put a negative spin on things I say and do. And no, I don't need "help". Being grossed out by gays and their gay-dom is a very natural response.

Well it does undermine the idea that I was calling you a homosexual. I was not.

You did not state it explicitly but your post implied it. Although I admit this is subject to personal interpretation.

False, I invented l insinuated nothing, you inferred incorrectly. I said that my sexuality titillates you blatantly.

Maybe not "titillate" nor "blatantly", but I do have a little bit of curiosity about you and your homosexual relationships.

You are incorrect. Same sex MARRIAGE is indeed the correct usage of the word.

To gays and gay-enablers. Yes.

And I'm allowed to show you how wrong you are, and me doing that isn't rubbing anything in your face. It's just reality not matching up with your fantasy.

So tell me, what "fantasy" do I have?

So when you cry about things being rubbed in your face are you just joking?

Prove I was crying.

too bad, I'm a gentleman I don't kiss and tell.

Can you at least tell me if you are a top or a bottom? I bet you'd say top. Most gays I have ever talked to try to salvage what is left of their dignity by claiming they are tops.

 

[Quag]

the amusing thing is, even if gays had only been granted civil unions, they'd still call it marriage and say they were married. Call themselves husbands, wives. :lol: That was the case in CA when they had same sex unions.

So the reasoning behind the illegal 'separate but equal' 'solution' would be meaningless in reality.

I already mentioned this earlier. The result will be that the term marriage WILL be the term used by almost everyone so why waste a single penny coming up with another that will be ignored by the vast majority of people and pretty mush everyone who actually gets "civil unioned" or whatever silly term would be used to appease the haters?

 

[Divine_Wind]

My point is that if we use two terms on the basis of one term being religious then we have written religion into law. Unless you have another basis that people were employing against using the term marriage for same sex couples.

That is part of the problem. Our government is secular. It requires a marriage license and has laws regarding married couples, children and survivorship. Aside from that it doesn't care if people are married in a $100K Church wedding, $20 at the County Clerk office or in a ceremony involving beheading a chicken and drinking its blood. Gays have been getting married for years. The problem was the US government wasn't recognizing those marriages thus denying them the same rights and benefits under the law as married straight couples.

 

[Divine_Wind]

What's a Constitutional right (in the context of this discussion)?

Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Haven't you noticed that almost every SCOTUS ruling on the matter mentioned it?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from
the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due
Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a
profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal
protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of
the other.

 

[CLAX1911]

I said "gay marriage" isn't real. I didn't say YOUR marriage isn't real.

you do realize I'm gay right?

I knew almost nothing about you. So basically, I was just stating my disagreement with gay marriage IN GENERAL and somehow you took this as an affront against you personally. And you have the gall to call me a snowflake.

That's false, I don't care if you disagree with it.

Huh what? I am not even sure what you are talking about and I am too lazy to go back to the origin of our exchange to even see what you are referring to.

I didn't say you could not rub it in my face.

No. I would be a hypocrite if and only if I believed in something to be bad but I nevertheless still chose to do this bad thing. "Complaining" (which I'd argue I didn't) about you stating your opinion is not an instance of me engaging in hypocrisy. Hypocrisy concerns the relationship between what one believes in and what he does. It does not concern the behavior between two people.

I'd argue I wasn't crying. But feel free to mis-characterize what I did.


Prove that I was "crying". Also, I DO want to hear about other people's opinion, even when it's wrong. Case in point: I listened to your opinion.

Trust me, I am not "triggered". But feel free to be a dick. It seems like being gay is not bad enough.

Why do you keep talking as if I made it my business? I didn't. Gays came to me. I didn't go to them.

Yes. Recognized by crazies, liberals, and gay-enablers.

*Sigh*. You realize that not once, did I say you could not state your opinion, right? I might object to your opinion however this is not the same as my objecting to your right to state an an opinion. You seem confused by these two.

Sorry but this is incorrect. Gays are rubbing their gay "marriage" in my face. It's like I said, the gays came to me. I didn't go to them.

Nope. Gays rubbed it in my face.


Nope. Not being "triggered", though you do like to put a negative spin on things I say and do. And no, I don't need "help". Being grossed out by gays and their gay-dom is a very natural response.

You did not state it explicitly but your post implied it. Although I admit this is subject to personal interpretation.


Maybe not "titillate" nor "blatantly", but I do have a little bit of curiosity about you and your homosexual relationships.

To gays and gay-enablers. Yes.

So tell me, what "fantasy" do I have?

Prove I was crying.


Can you at least tell me if you are a top or a bottom? I bet you'd say top. Most gays I have ever talked to try to salvage what is left of their dignity by claiming they are tops.

Nobody is running anything in your face.

 

[Wan]

you do realize I'm gay right?

Yes, but I did not know you were married.

That's false, I don't care if you disagree with it.



Nobody is running anything in your face.

Anyway, I just realized how hurtful my last sentence was. I want to take it back. I like you as a poster, Clax.

 

[Lursa]

I already mentioned this earlier. The result will be that the term marriage WILL be the term used by almost everyone so why waste a single penny coming up with another that will be ignored by the vast majority of people and pretty mush everyone who actually gets "civil unioned" or whatever silly term would be used to appease the haters?

I guess I missed it but it's nice to see that it's pretty obvious to others too...but strong bias tends to put blinders on people. They miss reality, truth.