senojekips
Active member
Perhaps if you read the posts preceding this "point" you might understand that the point being made, was not that the two acts are both legal, or illegal, but that they are similarly reprehensible.
Last edited:
Government Laws on Marriage
AeolusDallas
Active member
Thats simply an opinion. The state makes laws are based on demonsterable need or harm . You have yet to demonstrate that there is any actual harm in consenting adults of the same gender having relations with each other. Or any actual need for the state to regulate it. You have only provided your own personal and therefore irrelevant religious beliefs. You have also repeatedly tried to use the excuse that if 2 men or 2 women can get married then people can marry animals. That is a false and dishonest argument. marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT between two individuals (or in some nations several individuals) Animals cannot sign contracts. That means they cannot get married to people..period. It is that simple. There is no " point being made that they are of similar reprehensibility" That is no point at all. Simply your legally unimportant opinion that it's yucky
senojekips
Active member
Pardon,.... where have I EVER said as you state.
Yucky,.... who do you think I am, a three year old? It's not "Yucky" it's no more than an anti social act, this has also been previously been done to death.
So,... It is no point at all. If that were true, you would never have had the need to answer it, so obviously, it is a valid point, and it's veracity worries you.
Please read the thread before replying, you will find that virtually all of your arguments have been previously answered. e.g. Religion,... which has been shown to have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate, unless of course you are a "god botherer" Also the fact that marriage is a "Legal State" has similarly been done to death earlier,... by myself.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Quite honestly though Spike, you never conceded that it WAS only your opinion. It doesn't matter than more people in California and other states agree with you, it's still only people's opinion. There is nothing hard and fast that says homosexuality is wrong (and backs it up with fact).
AeolusDallas
Active member
I have read the entire thread. You just keep bringing up the same legally irrelevant arguments over and over. You ignore or spin every response to your posts. And yes most of your "arguments add up to "it's yucky"
How is it an anti social act? How is it a point? You have provided no evidence of any kind. You have repeatedly tried to use your own religious views in this argument. In your post I responded to you did. You said "but that they are similarly reprehensible. That is quite clearly a religious view, not backed up with any evidence.
I am not a "god botherer" I respect your right to believe in any god you wish to. You just can't use it to make laws to control the acts of those who either don't believe in your god or disagree with the interpretations of you religions beliefs.
As an example ,sense the idea of two people of the same sex loving each other is clearly something you have a hard time dealing rationally with, if your faith said you cannot dance or eat ice creme then it would be well within you rights to never dance or eat ice creme. It would also be within your rights to tell people you thought that eating ice creme or dancing was a sin. Heck you could protest ice creme parlors and dance halls if you wanted to. Once you try and ban those things however you have crossed a line. It is even more so with the concept of homosexual marriage. Since that involves sexual discrimination. You are saying two parties are able to sign a contract. Then saying two otherwise identical parties can't when the only difference is the sex of parties. Then there is Loving vs Virginia where the Court ruled that marriage was a right.
senojekips
Active member
Now it was you who stated that what i said was merely my opinion, and that is possibly quite true, now you need to come to grips with the fact that the same applies to what you say on this point. Your last line above merely showing your twisted interpretation of my posts. I have no objection to your opinion, but please do not try to tell me what I think, as obviously you have no intention of reading what I say. I find your use of the word "yucky" childish and, it does nothing for my impressions of the writers views on the subject. I had hoped that as adults the debate was a little more robust that to accuse someone of thinking something was "yucky" that is the language one would use with pre schoolers.
You state that you have read the thread, but bring up my alleged "religious" beliefs as a support for my argument. You are making wild guesses here and falling on your butt.
If you wish to be a little better informed on this debate, it all started here: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/california-overturns-gay-marriage-t69361.html
And this present thread was merely a diversion from that debate, which was going badly for it's supporters, so they tried a new angle hoping that by approaching from another angle they could achieve a different answer to the same question. There, you will find my statements regarding homosexuality's anti social aspect and my argument against religion's part in this debate. Just for your enlightenment, you need never use religion as a reason for any statement on my behalf, as I am an atheist and have been since about 5 years of age, my views on this subject are well known on this forum.
Last edited:
Chukpike
Banned
President Obama's stance on Gay Marriage
CA Prop. 8, one-man-one-woman marriage
Presidential candidates can command instant national attention when they want it. But John McCain and Barack Obama each took a hushed approach to letting the world know where they stand on the California ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.
The muted announcements--McCain supports the proposed ban, Obama opposes it--will have little if any bearing on the presidential contest in California, but the ramifications are serious elsewhere.
Obama first announced his opposition to the measure only in response to media inquiries. He said the nation should recognize lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans "with full equality under the law."
Obama called the ballot measure "divisive and discriminatory" and concluded by congratulating "all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks." Left unstated was that Obama has declined to endorse gay marriage, saying that civil unions would suffice to protect partners' rights.
Source: By Michael Finnegan and Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times Jul 2, 2008
(California allows civil unions)
Q: Do you think marriage is a human right?
Barack Obama's response: "I don't think marriage is a civil right, but I think that not being discriminated against is a civil right. I think making sure that we don't engage in the sort of gay-bashing that, I think, has unfortunately dominated this campaign-not just here in Illinois, but across the country-is unfortunate, and that kind of mean-spirited attacks on homosexuals is something that the people of Illinois generally have rejected."
Source: IL Senate Debate Oct 26, 2004
Does not seem President Obama sees marriage as a civil right, along with the majority of the population of the United States.
Rob Henderson
Banned
But gee, isn't that funny that he thinks that a lack of discrimination is a civil right... Let's look up the definition of discrimination just to make sure I'm not making any assumptions here...
Okay, so, with that definition in mind, let's lay the scenario out: A man wants to marry another man. These two men are homosexual (this is the group/category into which they fit). The thinking of heterosexuals (we men and women) that homosexuals do not deserve to get married (a right that we see fit to bestow upon heterosexual human beings) is DISCRIMINATION (because it is making a distinction against a person based on the group to which that person belongs). Is that correct, Chukpike? Am I missing anything?
AeolusDallas
Active member
Legally I don't see why the sexual discrimination argument alone is not enough. Two parties are able to sign a contract. Then saying two otherwise identical parties can't when the only difference is the sex of parties.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Because ethics matter to an atheist... ???
AeolusDallas
Active member
How are personal ethics a valid legal argument?
Rob Henderson
Banned
Another excellent point, Aeolus.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Okay, whatever, I'll go with that for now. It's better than the typical "they get no rights and will all go to hell" that we're used to hearing.
senojekips
Active member
Do I detect a hint of blind emotion here?
That is a really good, and absolutely typical argument against our "religious" (particularly christian) followers. Who seem to think that they are the only persons with a legitimate opinion when it comes to ethics and morality. I could choose hundreds, more likely thousands, of examples to disprove this, paedophile priests, religious money factories posing as churches, etc., etc. Don't even think of getting me started on it.
I'm afraid to say that you, (and your echo), are both WRONG!!... yet again. Obviously grasping at straws. I can understand this of you Aeolus, because you haven't followed the debate from it's inception and obviously just gloss over all the argument previously presented because it does not suit your line of thought.
This raises the question, that you have just popped up out of the blue so to speak, as a one subject commentator. Please forgive my presumption, that to many more circumspect persons than myself it might easily look, as if you are a "ring in".
Last edited:
AeolusDallas
Active member
This is just the first thread that caught my fancy. Quite frankly it was your constant dodges and illogical arguments that prompted me to respond.
You have yet to present a single rational reason to deny homosexuals their rights. Yes rights, Loving vs Virgina quite clearly labels marriage as a civil right. Even if you don't take that as enough of a reason there is the sexual discrimination argument. I have noticed that you have avoided answering that.
Looking back you also tried to use the practically insane argument that homosexuals should be denied marriage because they don't make children. Do you have any idea where that argument leads? No marriage for barren women, no marriage for any man who looses his testicles in an accident, no marriage for post menopausal widows and no marriage for any heterosexual couple that "comes out" as people who don't want children.
It's simple there is absolutely no legal reason to deny homosexuals the right to sign a marriage contract.
senojekips
Active member
How so are my arguments illogical?
For a start, if you would have read the thread in it's entirety, you would have found out that the subject being debated is not a "Right", but merely an "expectation". They do not have a right, just as no one else has a right to flout the law of the land. This is a debate about the law as it stands, not religion or personal desires, all of which has been previously covered. If you don't agree with it, try to change it by all means but until then....
I did not say that homo marriage should be denied because they do not make children,... read what I said,.. not what you would like to think I said. Of course that would suit your argument, but I'm too old and have seen your method of twisting the words of others before. In short, I argued that homos should not be entitled to the monetary benefits paid to those who are populating our respective countries, breeding tax payers and workers. It was more that that, but that i suppose is the nub of it.
I will not keep repeating past debate. This mode of wearing people down, has been tried many times before. You will find that I just give the same answer as previously. I will certainly ignore you should you continue, but don't be of the opinion that you have changed anything, or perhaps silenced me, as my opinion still remains here, where those who have a genuine interest can still see and read it.
For a start, if you would have read the thread in it's entirety, you would have found out that the subject being debated is not a "Right", but merely an "expectation". They do not have a right, just as no one else has a right to flout the law of the land. This is a debate about the law as it stands, not religion or personal desires, all of which has been previously covered. If you don't agree with it, try to change it by all means but until then....
I did not say that homo marriage should be denied because they do not make children,... read what I said,.. not what you would like to think I said. Of course that would suit your argument, but I'm too old and have seen your method of twisting the words of others before. In short, I argued that homos should not be entitled to the monetary benefits paid to those who are populating our respective countries, breeding tax payers and workers. It was more that that, but that i suppose is the nub of it.
I will not keep repeating past debate. This mode of wearing people down, has been tried many times before. You will find that I just give the same answer as previously. I will certainly ignore you should you continue, but don't be of the opinion that you have changed anything, or perhaps silenced me, as my opinion still remains here, where those who have a genuine interest can still see and read it.
Chukpike
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:
The Other Guy
Spam King
I'll pretend I didn't hear that.
On the note of civil unions, marriage should be downgraded from a government thing to a church-only thing. The term marriage should be specific to religion; civil union is the government version.
Chukpike
Banned
Has potential.
Problem is the gays want the laws changed to allow same sex marriage. Will they be satisfied with a downgraded religious marriage?
Civil union has not satisfied them.
senojekips
Active member
Why might I ask, are you going back over previously resolved debate, it has been shown conclusively that Marriage along with any other name you might wish to give it, is a "legally recognised" status and the administration of it has nothing whatsoever to do with the church or any other body, except in that an official of the church who is licenced by the state may marry people, but only where all of the legal requirements are met.
Who would marry atheists, agnostics and worshippers of the Black Sabbath etc. Would marriages performed by the Baptist Church be recognised by the Roman Catholics? Who would oversee all of this stupidity? and don't evern try to tell me that it would not happen, as the churches can't agree on anything, many of them regarding other would be christians as "not true christians" Which is very "christian' of them.
What next,... perhaps we could consign the right to print our country's legal tender to Sears Roebuck or some other vaguely related group who has handled money at some stage.