Gay Marriage - accepted or not?

obtuseobserver said:

You said Using your "I think" system; you are claiming that it is fact that some parts of Ohio do not recognize common law marriages. Those areas being "where I'm at"..

Click to expand...

CLMs are no longer legal in Ohio. You are playing word games and not effectively at that. Read what's there, not what you think is there.

No, I am becoming increasingly frustrated in my efforts to explain to you how the law operates.

Click to expand...

Well I was hoping you were learning....:cry:

Saying, "I think" is a juvenile why to wiggle out of an assertion once it has been shown to be inaccurate.

Click to expand...

Call it what you want. Just remember to practice it yourself. There is a difference between saying "I think" and "There is". Learn it.

The rest of your post is blabbering for self justification and for the sake of arguing.

The point is that you have provided no facts that shows that gay marriage not being made legal. Your claim of 'in the state's interest' is an opinion not supported by any facts at all what-so-ever.
Therefore, the only conclusion is that you obviously just like to argue for no other reason than to argue. People like that have nothing really worth saying.

Therefore, until you provide facts (facts including data, not just your opinion or wishes) to provide proof gay marriage shouldn't be made legal, your battle is with yourself, not anyone else.

Words are important things. You've not been very precise with yours.

With regard to the last two sentences, look you can hold that view as tightly as you wish but that's not how the world works. I've explained why the state has an interest in a particular family formation. You reject that notion. OK. But your rejection doesn't make it any less true that this is a fundamental purpose for the state sanction of marriage.

I've tried to explain to you how the law works and the best method of acheiving the goal of convincing society that we should expand the definition of marriage. You keep retreating to "tell me why I can't." Like I said, the real world doesn't operate like that and antagonising those whom you need to convince is a pretty good way to get them to tell you to go piss up a rope.

obtuseobserver said:

I've explained why the state has an interest in a particular family formation.

Click to expand...

See that's your problem. You explained why you think the state has an interest. You provided NO PROOF that your opinion is true, even though you state it like a fact.
And no, there's no need to re-read any of your blabbering because I read it once and, unless you added facts after the fact, there's no need.

I've tried to explain to you how the law works and the best method of acheiving the goal of convincing society that we should expand the definition of marriage.

Click to expand...

No, you continued to argue moot points.

You keep retreating to "tell me why I can't."

Click to expand...

Not exactly. The fact that you say that tells me that you haven't been reading correctly. :cry:

...the real world doesn't operate like that and antagonising those whom you need to convince is a pretty good way to get them to tell you to go piss up a rope.

Click to expand...

The real world is that, in the USA, the constitution states all mean are created equal. But there are those who like to say that, but not practice it by wanting to make gay marriage illegal/not legal. That is in violation of the constitution itself, as well as in tolerant simply because the 'I don't like gay stuff' attitude.
It's the 21st century and people in the US still have issue with human sexuality when it has nothing to do with them personally. That is truly sad.

connermt said:

See that's your problem. You explained why you think the state has an interest. You provided NO PROOF that your opinion is true, even though you state it like a fact.

Click to expand...

As I have pointed out, statistically the traditional nuclear family give children the best chance for success. Anecdotally the fact that most societies ever to exist used this form is pretty convincing. Thousands of years of human experience should account for something.

Further, I never offered it as my opinion. I offered it as the basis for the state sanctioning that type of marriage.

connermt said:

And no, there's no need to re-read any of your blabbering because I read it once and, unless you added facts after the fact, there's no need.

Click to expand...

Considering your failure to understand what I've written you're probably right.

connermt said:

No, you continued to argue moot points.

Click to expand...

Thing is, I'm not arguing. I explained how the law works. That's neither opinion nor argument.

I have argued that I believe it is wiser to find a positive argument for change rather than rely on challenging others to show why change shouldn't happen and calling people who disagree bigots. That certainly is opinion but I think a fairly reasonable one.

connermt said:

Not exactly. The fact that you say that tells me that you haven't been reading correctly. :cry:

Click to expand...

No, that is exactly what you have relied on throughout the thread.

connermt said:

The real world is that, in the USA, the constitution states all mean are created equal.

Click to expand...

You are thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

connermt said:

But there are those who like to say that, but not practice it by wanting to make gay marriage illegal/not legal. That is in violation of the constitution itself,

Click to expand...

How so?

connermt said:

as well as in tolerant simply because the 'I don't like gay stuff' attitude.

Click to expand...

An attribution you keep asserting that shows how empty your cup of ideas is.

obtuseobserver said:

As I have pointed out, statistically the traditional nuclear family give children the best chance for success. Anecdotally the fact that most societies ever to exist used this form is pretty convincing.

Click to expand...

Pretty convincing isn't a fact and is only appreciable to certain people.

Further, I never offered it as my opinion. I offered it as the basis for the state sanctioning that type of marriage.

Click to expand...

It's either your opinion or a fact. Being that you provided no facts, it's your opinion - like it or not.

Considering your failure to understand what I've written you're probably right.

Click to expand...

I understand exactly what you wrote and why. I have been around these types of places for a long time. I know how people like you act and why you typically say what you say.

Thing is, I'm not arguing.

Click to expand...

HA! Really?!? Going on and on and on and on with the same tripe isn't arguing? Too funny!

And yet, you have offered no facts that shows why gay marriage would be a negative/bad thing for society.
No, you aren't arguing for the sake of arguing at all.....
Get some facts (actual data - do you know what data is?!?) showing your point then get back to me.
Otherwise, you will be arguing with yourself going forward

connermt said:

Pretty convincing isn't a fact and is only appreciable to certain people.

Click to expand...

This is an area of great disconnect. You keep looking at individuals and I keep pointing out that the discussion is about marriage not Joe's or Cindy's or Bob's marriage. I have repeatedly noted that thee is no guarantee that the traditional family will raise great kinds not that the non-traditional will raise crappy kids. I have said, on whole the traditional nuclear familay offers the best odds. That you'd continue to argue this point suggests either you don't understand what I am saying or you refuse to. There is nothing controversial in the assertion that as a model the traditional family provides the best odds.

connermt said:

It's either your opinion or a fact. Being that you provided no facts, it's your opinion - like it or not.

Click to expand...

Another disconnect. It is not my opinion I'm pointing out (although I do share it). I am pointing out the state's interest in sanctioning marriage. This is a point of fact not an argument or an opinion.

connermt said:

I understand exactly what you wrote and why. I have been around these types of places for a long time. I know how people like you act and why you typically say what you say.

Click to expand...

This is called ad hominem. You are addressing the writer not the writer's comments.

Further, you are again assigning to me comments I made which explain why the state has an interest in sanctioning marriage. If I told you Hitler hated Jews would you think I hated Jews? I am explaining the state's interest.... not my own. Try to keep that in mind.

connermt said:

HA! Really?!? Going on and on and on and on with the same tripe isn't arguing? Too funny!

Click to expand...

Pointing out the basis for state sanctioning of marriage is a matter of fact, policy etc. That I have had to repeat it doesn't mean I am arguing.

connermt said:

And yet, you have offered no facts that shows why gay marriage would be a negative/bad thing for society.

Click to expand...

And as I have repeatedly said, the advocate of change has the burden of proving why change is desireable. Failing to do so provides a thin reed upon which to build one's nest. I have noted my opinion that "tell me why I cannot" and "tell me how it would be bad" and "you're a bigot" are not decent bases for change and they have the tendency to piss off the people whose support is necessary to acomplish the change you are advocating.

connermt said:

No, you aren't arguing for the sake of arguing at all.....
Get some facts (actual data - do you know what data is?!?) showing your point then get back to me.
Otherwise, you will be arguing with yourself going forward

Click to expand...

I understand, you refuse to offer up any reason why the change in the defintion of marriage is desireable so you demand that advocates of traditional marriage prove it would be bad. Doesn't work that way.

In any event. Glad to hear you're done. That way I don't have to keep clarifying the facts on the ground for you.

MO noted

obtuseobserver said:

Glad to hear you're done.

Click to expand...

:giggle:
Having the last word is all you're about. And yet you still have not providing facts to prove your point.
Your MO is noted.

Yes Indeed, but not always legal

In California, homosexuality if not gay marriage in general is accepted by most at my school, including myself. I actually used to be christian, but now I've denounced it not because my "eyes have been closed", or anything. They've been opened, actually. The bible contains racism, sexism and it's been the cause of soo many struggles and was used as justification for things such as slavery. It's obvious that it was written by unenlightened men from the way it reflects the biases of that culture, and not by prophets channeling a true and loving god. As far as gay marriage, it's not fair to deny them the right to marry the person they love, and no matter how many people in America are christian, we all have the right to be free from religious views and not have them imposed on us just like we all have the right to practice whatever religion we want. Not all religions oppose gay marriage, not even all christians do. Why should we be limited according to religious conservative views? You can believe what you want to believe, I just don't think it's right to oppose that on others.

Izlandzadi said:

In California, homosexuality if not gay marriage in general is accepted by most at my school, including myself. I actually used to be christian, but now I've denounced it not because my "eyes have been closed", or anything. They've been opened, actually. The bible contains racism, sexism and it's been the cause of soo many struggles and was used as justification for things such as slavery. It's obvious that it was written by unenlightened men from the way it reflects the biases of that culture, and not by prophets channeling a true and loving god. As far as gay marriage, it's not fair to deny them the right to marry the person they love, and no matter how many people in America are christian, we all have the right to be free from religious views and not have them imposed on us just like we all have the right to practice whatever religion we want. Not all religions oppose gay marriage, not even all christians do. Why should we be limited according to religious conservative views? You can believe what you want to believe, I just don't think it's right to oppose that on others.

Click to expand...

I just wish people would stop pushing so much "progressive" crap on me.

Izlandzadi said:

In California, homosexuality if not gay marriage in general is accepted by most at my school, including myself. I actually used to be christian, but now I've denounced it not because my "eyes have been closed", or anything. They've been opened, actually. The bible contains racism, sexism and it's been the cause of soo many struggles and was used as justification for things such as slavery. It's obvious that it was written by unenlightened men from the way it reflects the biases of that culture, and not by prophets channeling a true and loving god. As far as gay marriage, it's not fair to deny them the right to marry the person they love, and no matter how many people in America are christian, we all have the right to be free from religious views and not have them imposed on us just like we all have the right to practice whatever religion we want. Not all religions oppose gay marriage, not even all christians do. Why should we be limited according to religious conservative views? You can believe what you want to believe, I just don't think it's right to oppose that on others.

Click to expand...

The Bible has rape, child sacrifice, murder (on the first page)... etc etc. That is because the books record events, acts etc of human nature. That doesn't mean the Bible endorses murder etc.

Sexism... while there is obviously much evidence of this you must again take into account that the Bible is recording human nature and culture of its era. Find me the culture from the Biblical era that treated woman more to your liking. However, do keep in mind the prominent role of women like Sarah wife of Abraham. Consider the prominence of women in the NT. The last to see Jesus alive and the first to see him risen were all women.

Slavery... the fact is that the Bible does not endorse slavery. The anti-slavery movement worldwide was lead by Christians using Christian theology as the basis for their efforts.

The Bible contains many books. You cannot declare it the product of ignorant authorship without a great deal more than a declaration. That it would be subjectively written is pretty much a given as it was not intended as an objective and remote history but rather as a subjective text for a specific people.

Marriage... the state doesn't care about love. If the sole basis for making marriage legal is "love" we've got trouble. We deny people the right to marry the object of their love all the time. Same sex marriage is no different in that respect.

Not all religions... find me the religion that is cool with men marrying men. You mean some practitioners of some religions have no problem with same sex marriage. But as a pretty decent rule you'll find that they are violating the rules of their faith.

Well, for me I guess it's going to be my answer is "Accepted". We have freedom to choose whatever we're going to do. It's a democratic country and we're old enough to choose between right or wrong. We cannot change people's feelings.

Even if its accepted, there are laws in certain countries that still do not allow it. I dont have anything against it, but in the end its not up to us to decide :/

jtaylor said:

Even if its accepted, there are laws in certain countries that still do not allow it. I dont have anything against it, but in the end its not up to us to decide :/

Click to expand...

Uh, ya it it.

Weezer123 said:

Well, for me I guess it's going to be my answer is "Accepted". We have freedom to choose whatever we're going to do. It's a democratic country and we're old enough to choose between right or wrong. We cannot change people's feelings.

Click to expand...

Not everyone will choose between right and wrong properly ... that is why we have laws

feelings: we often cannot change another's feelings but the law makes no attempts to do so. The law restricts behavior. As such, your first comment comes into play... in a liberal democracy (a republic) such as ours one is free to think and feel what one wishes. One is not free to DO as one wishes.

David said:

Uh, ya it it.

Click to expand...

yup - in a democracy it IS up to us to decide

As for my opinion gay marriages should not be encouraged. God created two genders. male and female. Why should be do so if there is going to be marriages as such?

Reading though this thread I've learnt a lot of differernt things.

I think some people need to be reminded that the question is not Do you accept gays but Do you accept gay marriage.

When someone askes me Do you accept gay marriage then I will say yes. I accept that it is everyone's right to share there life with someone. It's been proven in psychological studies that we as humans have a natural instinct to share our life with someone. Why should be stop human nature?

This leads me onto the question of what do you determine to be marriage? Do you mean a full on:


Or simply a legal binding of 2 people together.

They can change all the laws they want. It does not change peoples minds or hearts. Those that don't like it will never respect it no matter how pretty it is wrapped.

DodgeFB said:

They can change all the laws they want. It does not change peoples minds or hearts. Those that don't like it will never respect it no matter how pretty it is wrapped.

Click to expand...

That is a very true fact. Some people will never respect it, and even more won't be able to stand the sight of it and so will rebel against it.

This has a flip side... How many kids drink under-age? How many people use Drugs illegal? There is always someone that doesn't like the laws and so will choose not to follow or respect them. It is something we see thoughout history and today.

Hair said:

Reading though this thread I've learnt a lot of differernt things.

I think some people need to be reminded that the question is not Do you accept gays but Do you accept gay marriage.

When someone askes me Do you accept gay marriage then I will say yes. I accept that it is everyone's right to share there life with someone. It's been proven in psychological studies that we as humans have a natural instinct to share our life with someone. Why should be stop human nature?

This leads me onto the question of what do you determine to be marriage? Do you mean a full on:

Or simply a legal binding of 2 people together.

Click to expand...

It is everyone's right to share there life with some one: true. However that doesn't mean anyone.

Human nature writ large is to find a mate to procreate with. Same sex couples can't do that so the nature part is a bit off.

I think you are asking two questions... 1) socially speaking how should we arrange our relationships but 2) this is necessarily something that should be disentangled from what relationships the state gives sanction to.

Hair said:

That is a very true fact. Some people will never respect it, and even more won't be able to stand the sight of it and so will rebel against it.

This has a flip side... How many kids drink under-age? How many people use Drugs illegal? There is always someone that doesn't like the laws and so will choose not to follow or respect them. It is something we see thoughout history and today.

Click to expand...

not terribly good analogies

drinking is permitted once one reaches 21... in most states one can't get old enough to marry a same sex partner

further, marriage is a fundamental building block of every society, and while I'd offer that drinking is too I think it probably would sell to the majority of reasonable people ;-)