Gay Marriage - accepted or not?

obtuseobserver · Aug 10, 2010

connermt said:
Yes. That's part of nature. It's not murder as murder is when a person kills another person.

Why not?

connermt said:
I said a good reason.

Sophistry will avail you little. Good is a qualifiable term not a quantifiable one. You can declare any reason that does not reach your approved conclusion "not good" but that doesn't mean that the bulk of society hasn't arrivesd at a different conclusion and declared it good.... for thousands of years cutting across cultures globally.

connermt said:
To a point, yes.

You'll have to explain what you mean. Society builds concensus on what it thinks is good, bad, ugly indifferent, tolerable, intolerable etc.

connermt said:
Perhaps. Ideal in what way? When did this concept start? When it started, was it any more "ideal" than the concept it replaced?

I'll refer you to the previous several thousand years of human civilization which is replete with examples leading one to this conclusion. You can find plenty of exceptions along those thousands of years and cultures but you'll find it is the most common manner for societies to structure the family.

connermt said:
Fact is, holding onto traditions (meaning not changing) in a world what is changing is the making for a potential disaster.

You're not offering any reason for change except that we need to avoid a potential disaster. What disaster?

You are advocating for change in the definition of marriage. OK. Advocates of change have the burden of persuasion. Make your case. Advocate. How will expanding the definition be a good thing for society?

connermt said:
As an example, look at the auto industry. The Big 3 didn't change their ways until the late 90's early 2000's. Now they are battling back to become relevant again.

Not analogous in the slightest.

connermt said:
Not sure how true that statement is.

Find me the culture that primarily uses other models and how that is better than mom/dad and kiddos raised in same home.

connermt said:
It depends on the people involved.

Sure. But you declared that opposing same sex marriage was a result of fear and hate. That is not nexcessarily true.

connermt said:
The fact is, pro-gay marriage people are asking for their family style to 'replace' the traditional family, simply exist along side it. Many in the traditional family set don't only refuse this idea, but accepting gay marriage at all. That, to me, isn't tolerance nor acceptance. That's fear and hate pure and simple.

I was speaking to the role of the state in deciding what form of marriage it will lend it's sanction to.

Individuals attitudes towards same sex marriage will vary greatly. Some will be the jerks you refer to (we'll never get rid of them - they kinda have a constitutional right to be that way - makes them no less jerks though) but that certainly won't be true in all cases and difficult to pin down in terms of reliable numbers.

connermt said:
PS - sorry for messing up your quotes - sometimes when I click QUOTE not everything copies over as a QUOTE

mweh... no worries. took me forever to figure it out and then those forum regulator cats go and change rules when they upgrade!!!

connermt · Aug 11, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
Why not?

Because murder is the killing of another person.

Good is a qualifiable term not a quantifiable one. You can declare any reason that does not reach your approved conclusion "not good" but that doesn't mean that the bulk of society hasn't arrivesd at a different conclusion and declared it good.... for thousands of years cutting across cultures globally.

My comment of showing a "good" reason was meant as a joke - sorry if it wasn't clear.

Society builds concensus on what it thinks is good, bad, ugly indifferent, tolerable, intolerable etc.

Most every (all?) society answers to a set of governing laws/rules/body. When the govering laws/rules/body sees society mistreating the rights of another group within that society, this body steps in. So yes, the society does build a concensus, but if it goes against what the body believes is against rights of its citizens, its job is to step in and make corrections.

I'll refer you to the previous several thousand years of human civilization which is replete with examples leading one to this conclusion.

Several thousand....? Not sure about that one. Many ancient cultures had one man with many wives and children. That's not the traditional family setup we know today. Religion seems to have mostly dictated this setup for no other reason than to adhere to its rules and regulations. Besides, many things happened to human society that today wouldn't be acceptable. If your claim of traditional family setup is true, then should society revert back to everything that was happening at that time? Should we stop making cars and start riding horses? Stop showering everyday and using soap? Should we re-start slavery? Basic thought is this: Just because "it's always been that way" or "that's the way it was when it started" doesn't mean that's the best way to live currently.

You're not offering any reason for change except that we need to avoid a potential disaster. What disaster?

Pick one. When a society doesn't evolve, it will eventually become obsolete and fail.

Not analogous in the slightest.

Your incorrect opinion.

Find me the culture that primarily uses other models and how that is better than mom/dad and kiddos raised in same home.

See above response.

...you declared that opposing same sex marriage was a result of fear and hate. That is not nexcessarily true.

Not necessarilly untrue either. Until there is a legitimate reason (causing harm to another individual or set of individuals) I see no other reason to oppose it.

obtuseobserver · Aug 11, 2010

connermt said:
Because murder is the killing of another person.

but the examples I gave are analogous... just not done by people

connermt said:
My comment of showing a "good" reason was meant as a joke - sorry if it wasn't clear.

lol - it'll take some time to catch on to user sarcasm - I'm new here

connermt said:
Several thousand....? Not sure about that one. Many ancient cultures had one man with many wives and children.

two key facts

1) ancient
2) marriage partners of opposite sex

Romans often had same sex lovers. They only married people of the opposite sex. Why? The issue of children.

connermt said:
That's not the traditional family setup we know today. Religion seems to have mostly dictated this setup for no other reason than to adhere to its rules and regulations.

Odd that so many (all) would reach the same conclusion huh? The reason is, again, children.

connermt said:
Besides, many things happened to human society that today wouldn't be acceptable.

So you're noting something we've left behind as unacceptable... like slavery.

We're not talking about what was once acceptable that no longer is. We are talking about that which has heretofore been unacceptable. They are not synonymous.

connermt said:
If your claim of traditional family setup is true, then should society revert back to everything that was happening at that time?
...

Just because "it's always been that way" or "that's the way it was when it started" doesn't mean that's the best way to live currently.

Nope. If it is true, should society decide to no longer regard other prohibitted practices as valid and acceptable? Which other prohibitted acts would you like the state to approve of?

And understand, I don't oppose same sex marriage as a general matter. I oppose judges telling me that opposing it is irrational. I oppose people telling me that preferring traditional marriage over same sex marriage is a product of fear, hate or bigotry.

connermt said:
Pick one. When a society doesn't evolve, it will eventually become obsolete and fail.

How about you offer one to pick from? Vague assertions that society will fail if we don't adopt same sex marriage come across as a bit silly. Why hasn't it already collapsed?

connermt said:
Your incorrect opinion.

Yes, it is my opinion that manufacturing cars and the definition of marriage are not analogous. I think it an easy opinion to accept.

connermt said:
See above response.

answer the question directly. Find me the culture that primarily uses other models and how that is better than mom/dad and kiddos raised in same home.

connermt said:
Not necessarilly untrue either.

OK. But you asserted that it was... and it isn't.

I simply pointed that out.

connermt said:
Until there is a legitimate reason (causing harm to another individual or set of individuals) I see no other reason to oppose it.

Well, "tell me why I cannot" is no valid basis for changing the most basic building block of society. If you are the profferor of change the burden of persuasion remains with you. You must make a positive showing rather than demand others tell you why you cannot. I've offered arguments for why human society has arranged the notion of marriage consistently across societies, across the history of human existence. You've offered, "tell me why I cannot." I think you should have a better argument than that.

connermt · Aug 16, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
but the examples I gave are analogous... just not done by people

No matter. Murder is killing of a person by a person.

Romans often had same sex lovers. They only married people of the opposite sex. Why? The issue of children.

Maybe, maybe not. But in order to compare apples to apples, one must look at how their same sex counterparts were treated legally. Beyond that, this seems to be a "this is the way it was no reason to change it now" thinking. Which isn't always advantageous.

We are talking about that which has heretofore been unacceptable.

Again, "it's always been that way, no reason to change it" thinking. Society evolves and the needs change throughout time.

I oppose judges telling me that opposing it is irrational.

Well, I can't help you there!

I oppose people telling me that preferring traditional marriage over same sex marriage is a product of fear, hate or bigotry.

Such is life. We will all have to deal with things we don't like.

Vague assertions that society will fail if we don't adopt same sex marriage come across as a bit silly.

It goes beyond this one example. It's the overall point.

Yes, it is my opinion that manufacturing cars and the definition of marriage are not analogous.

Again, it was an example of the overall concept, not specific to this one instance.

If you are the profferor of change the burden of persuasion remains with you. You must make a positive showing rather than demand others tell you why you cannot. I've offered arguments for why human society has arranged the notion of marriage consistently across societies, across the history of human existence. You've offered, "tell me why I cannot." I think you should have a better argument than that.

You indicate tradition and children as your basis to oppose gay marriage. Neither are sufficient enough to hender the legal acceptance of gay marriage. Why? Because:
Traditions aren't laws. They are accepted practices of a specific time. When times change, it requires changes to society, individuals, business practices, etc.
Children can be raised fine within same sex couples, different sex couples, independent individuals, group family, etc.
Children can be produced within a married couple, unmarried couple, single individuals even in test tubes.
Thus, heterosexual marriage may have been traditionally thought to be the only/best way to live and raise children, but modern times show that is not the case.
Therefore, there is nothing that can be shown that indicates legalizing gay marriage would be harmful to society, individuals, religion or anything else.
It's simply (IMO) a product of fear and hatred.

David · Aug 16, 2010

Marriage is a traditionally civil institution that was hijacked by Christianity and Islam who's more delusional adherents now try to actually pass marriage off as some kind of sacred religious rite. If called out for it, they throw the word 'tradition' around hoping people slept the their wold history classes in high school.

It actually quite amusing. :giggle:

connermt · Aug 16, 2010

David said:
Marriage is a traditionally civil institution that was hijacked by Christianity and Islam who's more delusional adherents now try to actually pass marriage off as some kind of sacred religious rite. If called out for it, they throw the word 'tradition' around hoping people slept the their wold history classes in high school.

It actually quite amusing. :giggle:

To add to this, most people don't give two hoots if the [insert religious institution here] accepts the marriage or not. It's mostly about having the same legal rights as another married couple.

obtuseobserver · Aug 16, 2010

David said:
Marriage is a traditionally civil institution that was hijacked by Christianity and Islam

ppfpfptttttttssspptptfff

Find me the "civil" western nation that looked at marriage a distinct from the religious instiutution.

I'll save you the time. It doesn't exist until the late 20th century in northern europe.

David said:
who's more delusional adherents now try to actually pass marriage off as some kind of sacred religious rite.

In the Catholic church it IS a sacrment. And has been so for a couple thousand years. If there's any hijacking going on it is by secularists.

David said:
It actually quite amusing. :giggle:

I don't think you're relying on valid facts to produce that amusement.

obtuseobserver · Aug 16, 2010

connermt said:
You indicate tradition and children as your basis to oppose gay marriage.

No. I said that's the argument made by the state. I said my complaint was that judges were taking it upon themselves to decide what the people will get despite their votes to the contrary. I said it was annoying that some many advocates of change cannot offer up a basis for change other than calling the other side bigots. That's just cheap crap. If you advopcate change... the advocate. Why is the change an improvement... "you cannot tell me I cannot... you bigot" is no argument.

connermt said:
Neither are sufficient enough to hender the legal acceptance of gay marriage. Why? Because: Traditions aren't laws.

No, but laws are often traditions. I'm not arguing, "because it's always been that way. You're assigning that argument to me as a strawman to avoid actually coming up with a reason that the change is a good idea. Change for the sake of change is just as dumb as no change for the sake of no change.

connermt said:
They are accepted practices of a specific time. When times change, it requires changes to society, individuals, business practices, etc.

And as the Prop 8 results indicate... that time has come not for the people but for a judge. That's what pisses me off. He substituted his judgment of fact for that of 7,000,000 voters.

connermt said:
Children can be raised fine within same sex couples, different sex couples, independent individuals, group family, etc.

Yes. I stated this explicitly several times but it avoids the meat of what I said. The state has chosen to endorse a specific form of marriage that it holds as the preferred form.

connermt said:
Children can be produced within a married couple, unmarried couple, single individuals even in test tubes.

Not relevant. The preferred family format is husband/wife and kids. How they are born is not an issue.

connermt said:
Thus, heterosexual marriage may have been traditionally thought to be the only/best way to live and raise children, but modern times show that is not the case.

No, it still shows that the traditional family is the best. It has also shown that there is nothing inherent to being a gay parent, solo parent etc that makes them de facto bad parents. Don't confuse the two points.

You're slipping into looking at individual cases rather than marriage as an institution.

connermt said:
Therefore, there is nothing that can be shown that indicates legalizing gay marriage would be harmful to society, individuals, religion or anything else. It's simply (IMO) a product of fear and hatred.

There you go with the same argument... and the same assertion of fear hate etc.... please knock it off... at least when you're talking to me because it's really goddamn tedious.

If you advopcate change... the advocate. Why is the change an improvement... "you cannot tell me I cannot... you bigot" is no argument.

You're arguing that changing the definition of marriage isn't necessarily bad.... that's a defensive argument. Make an advocate's argument and tell my why it is a good thing... if you can do that I think you'll be on to something.

Until then... you have bumper sticker logic

connermt · Aug 17, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
No. I said that's the argument made by the state. I said my complaint was that judges were taking it upon themselves to decide what the people will get despite their votes to the contrary. I said it was annoying that some many advocates of change cannot offer up a basis for change other than calling the other side bigots. That's just cheap crap. If you advopcate change... the advocate. Why is the change an improvement... "you cannot tell me I cannot... you bigot" is no argument.

No, but laws are often traditions. I'm not arguing, "because it's always been that way. You're assigning that argument to me as a strawman to avoid actually coming up with a reason that the change is a good idea. Change for the sake of change is just as dumb as no change for the sake of no change.

And as the Prop 8 results indicate... that time has come not for the people but for a judge. That's what pisses me off. He substituted his judgment of fact for that of 7,000,000 voters.

Yes. I stated this explicitly several times but it avoids the meat of what I said. The state has chosen to endorse a specific form of marriage that it holds as the preferred form.

Not relevant. The preferred family format is husband/wife and kids. How they are born is not an issue.

No, it still shows that the traditional family is the best. It has also shown that there is nothing inherent to being a gay parent, solo parent etc that makes them de facto bad parents. Don't confuse the two points.

You're slipping into looking at individual cases rather than marriage as an institution.

There you go with the same argument... and the same assertion of fear hate etc.... please knock it off... at least when you're talking to me because it's really goddamn tedious.

If you advopcate change... the advocate. Why is the change an improvement... "you cannot tell me I cannot... you bigot" is no argument.

You're arguing that changing the definition of marriage isn't necessarily bad.... that's a defensive argument. Make an advocate's argument and tell my why it is a good thing... if you can do that I think you'll be on to something.

Until then... you have bumper sticker logic

Look...it's really simple. There is nothing legitimate that would show that gay marriage is a negative force on society. Nothing. Zero. The only thing that exists is personal dislike for gay people and anything associated with gay people.
Your argument is one of personal taste, which is fine - you have that right. But personal taste is slowly being weeded out in the legal process.
You like to say that a straight couple is the ideal way to raise a child. Maybe, maybe not. Just because "it's always been that way" doesn't mean it's ideal. Many children are raised in less than traditional households and are just fine. Likewise, many children are raised in traditional households and turn out to be terrible people.
Here's the point: It's not about what the parents are attracted to that determines a good/bad child, it's how well the parents raise the child. And that is independent of one's sexual preference.
Once people realize this, they will all be better off.
Oh, and you might want to watch the language....

David · Aug 17, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
ppfpfptttttttssspptptfff

Find me the "civil" western nation that looked at marriage a distinct from the religious instiutution.

How about every human civilization to ever exist, Christian and Islamic civilizations excepted? Marriage was (and still is outside said civilizations) a simple matter of legally merging 2 or more families (thus the term 'in-law'). Originally a diplomatic tool, love became a factor as nation-states and the associated network of treaties came into being lessening the need for marriage to establish alliances and peace agreements.

I'll save you the time. It doesn't exist until the late 20th century in northern europe.

See above.

In the Catholic church it IS a sacrment. And has been so for a couple thousand years. If there's any hijacking going on it is by secularists.

And marriage has existed for about a quarter million years in some form, what's a few thousand?

I don't think you're relying on valid facts to produce that amusement.

The above quoted post and the ease in which I've demolished it is an example of my source of amusement. You'll now reject what I've said out of hand while offering no real counterargument.

obtuseobserver · Aug 17, 2010

connermt said:
Look...it's really simple. There is nothing legitimate that would show that gay marriage is a negative force on society. Nothing. Zero. The only thing that exists is personal dislike for gay people and anything associated with gay people.

little point in continuing here...

Your argument doesn't hold water. It is a vague, false and overbroad claim to assert that the only reason to oppose changing the definition of marriage is hate, fear, (now you added dislike) for homosexuals. I've explained that there are many ways a family may construct itself. It is perfectly reasonable when presented with an array of options to choose one over the others - its been pretty close to a universal standard for the entirety of human civilization. When you eat at a restaurant and you choose the linguini and clams does that mean you hate, fear and dislike everything else? Of course not, but that's the argument you're trying to sell.

Your argument further asks the defender of the staus quo to demonstrate why change should be disallowed. This is a logical fallacy. The advocate of change bears the burden of persuasion. As long as proponents of change argue "you can't tell me I can't.... you bigot" they'll win very little support from the vast numbers of straight people who don't appreciate being called bigots. People who's support they'll need to win referenda.

obtuseobserver · Aug 17, 2010

David said:
How about every human civilization to ever exist, Christian and Islamic civilizations excepted?

We don't live in them and those other societies were not secular.

So, marriage in western culture has never been a secular or civil institution. It has always been wrapped up in religion.

David said:
Marriage was (and still is outside said civilizations) a simple matter of legally merging 2 or more families (thus the term 'in-law'). Originally a diplomatic tool, love became a factor as nation-states and the associated network of treaties came into being lessening the need for marriage to establish alliances and peace agreements.

Which cultures were these?

Certainly marriages amongst the highest levels of society were often politically motivated... however, in the west... they'd get married.... in a church. Why? Because it was wrapped up in religion. Think of Henry VIII... why did he split from Rome? The Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment. Tell me, did religion play a role in this matter?

David said:
And marriage has existed for about a quarter million years in some form, what's a few thousand?

Civilization (to say nothing of secular civilization) hasn't existed for a quarter million... but religion has.

Find me these societies that existed for so long without religion.

David said:
The above quoted post and the ease in which I've demolished it is an example of my source of amusement. You'll now reject what I've said out of hand while offering no real counterargument.

I'm not offering counter argument. I'm telling you that you're operating with a fund of knowledge that does hold up to the light of day and as such you havbe no argument.

The ease with which I've shown your arguments to be baseless is tedious.

feel free to peruse for many many examples of religion and its role in m arriage across cultures and across eras

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Marriage_and_religion

I'll wait for your list of secular and civil societies and how they regarded marriage before religion messed it all up.

to save you some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_marriage

David · Aug 17, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
We don't live in them and those other societies were not secular.

So, marriage in western culture has never been a secular or civil institution. It has always been wrapped up in religion.

Which cultures were these?

Civilization (to say nothing of secular civilization) hasn't existed for a quarter million... but religion has.

Find me these societies that existed for so long without religion.

I'm not offering counter argument. I'm telling you that you're operating with a fund of knowledge that does hold up to the light of day and as such you havbe no argument.

The ease with which I've shown your arguments to be baseless is tedious.

Oy, why do I bother?

Western Civilization isn't the end all and be all of human civilization, Western Civilization is largely secular today and for most of it's history was pagan, marriage has nothing to do with civilization or religion greatly, predating the 1st by about 150,000+ years and unrelated to the 2nd until 2,00 years ago. You're argument boils down to, "This institution disagrees with my religion, so it must be evil so I have to redefine it to fit." You then try to counter counterarguments by pretending that the old definitions don't exist and ignore them when someone brings them up. It's not just religion ether.

obtuseobserver · Aug 17, 2010

David said:
Oy, why do I bother?

Western Civilization isn't the end all and be all of human civilization, Western Civilization is largely secular today and for most of it's history was pagan, marriage has nothing to do with civilization or religion greatly, predating the 1st by about 150,000+ years and unrelated to the 2nd until 2,00 years ago. You're argument boils down to, "This institution disagrees with my religion, so it must be evil so I have to redefine it to fit." You then try to counter counterarguments by pretending that the old definitions don't exist and ignore them when someone brings them up. It's not just religion ether.

You are attributing a straw man argument to me that I not only did not make but explicitly refuted in an effort to ignore the fact that your prior argument was based on a pretty terrible understanding of the facts involved.

So - yes - if you are going to continuing to argue on my behalf I'll let you continue to do so and let you do it by yourself.

David · Aug 17, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
You are attributing a straw man argument to me that I not only did not make but explicitly refuted in an effort to ignore the fact that your prior argument was based on a pretty terrible understanding of the facts involved.

So - yes - if you are going to continuing to argue on my behalf I'll let you continue to do so and let you do it by yourself.

What are you talking about, the 1st full 1/2 of that post was a refuting of you're utterly illogical and historically ignorant post.

obtuseobserver · Aug 17, 2010

What I am talking about is that you attributed to me an argument I did not make. It is an argument I specifically said was crap. I didn't bring religion into the debate - you did. I simply illustrated that your claim that marriage existed as a civil institution long before religion got involved is without merit. For my part, in the US today, I do not believe that one's religion should be a factor in how the state defines marriage. I explained why the state promotes a specific form over others. Again, disagreeing is your prerogative but that certainbly doesn't mean that people who do are illogical. They simply disagree. Further, you presume I don't support same sex marriage... which is not the case. I was only pointing out the argument that is made by the state. It is not an unreasonable argument. Nor is the argument for changing the definition (excepting the "tell me I can't you bigot" - that's a complete pile of crap that only serves to polarize people.) I have objected to calling people who disagree bigots. I have objected to judges subverting the democratic process.

What I am talking about is that I offered up evidence to support my point and you didn't. You simply made claims without evidence, claims for which I offered evidence in refutation.

I explained the state's argument pretty clearly. That you do not accept it as valid is your prerogative. To assert that its illogical is illogical. Demonizing a dissenting point of view when you are in the minority opinion is no way to build support for your opinion.

connermt · Aug 18, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
little point in continuing here...

Your argument doesn't hold water. It is a vague, false and overbroad claim to assert that the only reason to oppose changing the definition of marriage is hate, fear, (now you added dislike) for homosexuals. I've explained that there are many ways a family may construct itself.

And yet, you refuse to see the right for two people of the same sex to have a family of their own and, if they so choose, to share the same rights a heterosexual couple has with their family. So it's either out of hate, fear or ignornance or the like. You falsely claim "it's always been that way so it must be the right way to raise children' when in fact, it hasn't always been that way.

My argument is that if there was any legitimate reason not to allow two people of the same sex to marry (like, causing harm to society, causing pain to others, etc) then it shouldn't be legal. Just like stealing, which harms another person, is illegal. But gay marriage harms no one, doesn't harm the society, doesn't create a threat to the country, etc.
You have provided nothing to show that there is any detriment to society or individuals for allowing Bob and Jon or Mary and Jane down the street to marry. Thus, there is no legitimate reason why it shouldn't be legal. Other than you just don't like it. And that's fine for you, but isn't legally withstanding.

obtuseobserver · Aug 18, 2010

connermt said:
And yet, you refuse to see the right for two people of the same sex to have a family of their own and, if they so choose, to share the same rights a heterosexual couple has with their family. So it's either out of hate, fear or ignornance or the like. You falsely claim "it's always been that way so it must be the right way to raise children' when in fact, it hasn't always been that way.

No. You refuse to read what I write. I have many times in this thread stated explicitly, and, for your benefit will do so again, that there is NOTHING inherent to sexual orientation, lack thereof, single parent, curly haired parent, god forbid left handed parent that necessarily means that cannot be a great parent. Did you catch that? Let me tell you again so we can be done with you assigtning to me an argument Ihave never made....

there is NOTHING inherent to sexual orientation, lack thereof, single parent, curly haired parent, god forbid left handed parent that necessarily means that cannot be a great parent

connermt said:
My argument is that

Disagreement with your view is bigotry... got it. It is an argumenbt based on faith... that is on belief lacking evidence.

connermt said:
if there was any legitimate reason not to allow
two people of the same sex to marry (like, causing harm to society, causing pain to others, etc) then it shouldn't be legal. Just like stealing, which harms another person, is illegal. But gay marriage harms no one, doesn't harm the society, doesn't create a threat to the country, etc.
You have provided nothing to show that there is any detriment to society or individuals for allowing Bob and Jon or Mary and Jane down the street to marry. Thus, there is no legitimate reason why it shouldn't be legal. Other than you just don't like it. And that's fine for you, but isn't legally withstanding.

Yes, you keep making the argument. I keep asking you to give up the "tell me I can't you bigot" argument and try to come up with an argument IN FAVOR of your point. Which you steadfastly refuse or cannot do.

On the other side... I offered legitimate reasons that the state may choose one form of family over another to sanction and endorse.

Interestingly enough... "tell me why I can't" isn't a legal argument. Though I have heard it on the playground quite a bit.

When you propose such a fundamentally radical shit in such a basic unit of society (not just ours but humanity's for recorded existence) "tell me why I can't" is a pretty weak basis.

Let me tell you why that matters very very much. Let's say you win with that argument. It is so logically vapid that it is easily brushed aside with little trouble.

Now, a solid, advocacy for why change is good (rather than you big bad poopie heads can't tell me I can't) is not easily brushed away.

You are treading water in a sea of victimhood here. Take a stand and demonstrate to society why they should want the change rather than call them bigots for disagreeing....

David said:
marriage has nothing to do with civilization or religion greatly,

Why do most people planet wide for thousands of years do it in a religious ceremony then?

David said:
predating the 1st by about 150,000+ years and unrelated to the 2nd until 2,00 years ago.

Hmmm... where was this society without religion that had secular and civil marriages 150,000 years ago? 15,000 years ago? 1500 years ago? 150 years ago? Surely you must have a few specific examples in mind to back up your claim.

Oh, just wanted to bring up the "in-laws" thing you mentioned... what law?

Cannon Law... what's cannon law you ask? Religious law.

I know - you're the black knight - you always triumph

you win

connermt · Aug 20, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
there is NOTHING inherent to sexual orientation, lack thereof, single parent, curly haired parent, god forbid left handed parent that necessarily means that cannot be a great parent

Then we agree on that. So then why do you not want gay marriage to be legal, if, as you (incorrectly) say, the whole point of marriage is to raise a good, healthy child?

Disagreement with your view is bigotry...

You're painting yourself into a corner with something I never said. This is very common with people of faith.

I keep asking you to give up the "tell me I can't you bigot" argument and try to come up with an argument IN FAVOR of your point. Which you steadfastly refuse or cannot do.

And you kept going on and on and on about marriage being for children and that "it's always been that way so it shouldn't change" argument. Which is bull-kaka. My argument is that there is nothing that shows gay marriage is negative to anyone. Now, did you get that?

Why do most people planet wide for thousands of years do it in a religious ceremony then?

I don't want to speak for David, but many religions assimiliate all kinds of cultural activities into their ranks - it's happened with holidays, festivals even even other deities. This is no different.
Even so, non-religious people are allowed to get married (legally and accepted by the church), yet you want to deny that legal right to others? That's selfishness, elitest and totally unacceptable in a land governed by laws and who allows religious freedom.

obtuseobserver · Aug 20, 2010

connermt said:
Then we agree on that. So then why do you not want gay marriage to be legal, if, as you (incorrectly) say, the whole point of marriage is to raise a good, healthy child?

OK. You're not reading my posts. You're reading into them what you want to find. Its getting tedious. Please please please read what I write - do noty read into it.

1) I have said explicitly that I was explainging the state's point of view
2) I noted that I favor same sex marriage
3) I did not say the point of marriage was to have childrenm - I said the interest of the state is to endorse a certain type of family structure.
4) I noted explicitly that I had two major complaints
A) judges dismissing votes
B) advocates of change calling defenders of the status quo bigts

connermt said:
You're painting yourself into a corner with something I never said. This is very common with people of faith.

That is probably true in your mind because you have a notion of your own construction there rather than an ujnderstanding of what I wrote.

You have remained nailed to the floor for this entire discussion

You continue to say that there's no reason not to change the definition of marriage and that those who disagree are bigots.

That has two huge problems... advocates of change have the burden of persuasion and differences of opinion do not equate to bigotry. If you stay on that position all you do is alienate the large numbers of straight people you need to convice that change is a good thing. They will regard you as a snotty twerp and dig in after you call them bigots.

Gay Marriage - accepted or not?

Similar threads