Gay Marriage

[nnmartin]

As for incest, as much as I find it highly disturbing and disgusting, as long as they're consenting adults there's no valid reason to ban it. There is the problem with potential inbred pregnancy, but we can mandate abortion for such instances

So according to you it is ok to marry your sister or brother.

It is even ok to make your sister pregnant because the state will mandate abortion.

Where are the rights there?

According to your logic then it would be ok to have a same-sex marriage with your own brother.

Thankfully there are laws in place to protect society from your kind of twisted liberal agenda.

 

[jubilee131]

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you actually read the article? It said the marriages had no legal standing. So how did society sanction these marriages? I can perform a marriage between 2 people. That doesn't make them married.

Now name one society that actually sanctioned a same sex marriage prior to the year 2000 . And does that society exist today? Why would that be?

 

[nnmartin]

The happy loving married couple.

This is perfectly acceptable for society - we can all get married because discrimination is the worst evil known to man.

A question to bear in mind: Would you want these two adopting your baby?

Same-sex, same family = double abomination.

Yet the liberals want to legalise it!

Go figure.

 

[turk179]

I have not been proven wrong - just been told that I am wrong, a big difference there.

Of course though, Martin must be wrong as he opposes gay marriage - he must be a bigot too!

No. You've been proven wrong because you disregard any evidence to your beliefs, stating facts are pointless or some other fluff along those lines. Debating you is pointless.

 

[turk179]

Did you actually read what I said? I did not compare same sex marriage to animals & children. What I said was: If you claim that marriage is a right as justification for same sex marriage then that same right applies to everyone including polygamists, incest, bestiality and pedophiles. If a right only applies to only 1 group it isn't a right.

I was pointing out that the age of consent could be set to 3 yrs old and a 3 yr old would be a consenting adult, so there is nothing magical about the term "Consenting Adult". That term is meaningless.

People were making the claim that children and animals cannot enter into contracts so under age marriage and human - animal marriages were not possible. I was demonstrating that children and animals have been under contract to refute their claims.

I was pointing out that their claims of advocating personal freedoms were merely a disguise for trying to legislate their version of morality.

Did you even read what I said? I proved that what you are claiming is not even close to the truth. Children and animals do not enter into contracts. Animals are entered into contracts by their owners for financial reasons because they are property. Children can not get married unless they can prove to a court that they can support themselves as an adult. Otherwise they will be protected by their parents or legal guardian.

 

[Enlighten]

So according to you it is ok to marry your sister or brother.

It is even ok to make your sister pregnant because the state will mandate abortion.

Where are the rights there?

According to your logic then it would be ok to have a same-sex marriage with your own brother.

Thankfully there are laws in place to protect society from your kind of twisted liberal agenda.

Stop twisting words into your own agenda here, that is not what he said. He infact said "As for incest, as much as I find it highly disturbing and disgusting, as long as they're consenting adults there's no valid reason to ban it. There is the problem with potential inbred pregnancy, but we can mandate abortion for such instances" Therefore no where did he say it is ok to have a same sex marriage with his brother, he infact said it is highly disturbing. The point he was arguing was they would be CONSENTING adults, meaning they are fully aware of what they are getting into.

 

[Enlighten]

The happy loving married couple.

This is perfectly acceptable for society - we can all get married because discrimination is the worst evil known to man.

A question to bear in mind: Would you want these two adopting your baby?

Same-sex, same family = double abomination.

Yet the liberals want to legalise it!

Go figure.

As you pick and choose points in others posts to respond to, I will show you the same courtesy. So we should now ask adoption agencies to only adopt vulnerable children to postcard perfect looking straight couples? I know nothing of the individuals you have posted, so how can I possibly judge whether they would be fit to raise a child purely from a photo you have posted?

 

[nnmartin]

Stop twisting words into your own agenda here, that is not what he said. He infact said "As for incest, as much as I find it highly disturbing and disgusting, as long as they're consenting adults there's no valid reason to ban it. There is the problem with potential inbred pregnancy, but we can mandate abortion for such instances" Therefore no where did he say it is ok to have a same sex marriage with his brother, he infact said it is highly disturbing. The point he was arguing was they would be CONSENTING adults, meaning they are fully aware of what they are getting into.

He said 'there's no valid reason to ban it' = it should be legal.

He said 'I find it highly disturbing and disgusting' - yet he still thinks it should be legal.

The question you must ask yourself is- 'why are you defending a person who thinks that incest should be legalised'?

 

[nnmartin]

I know nothing of the individuals you have posted, so how can I possibly judge whether they would be fit to raise a child purely from a photo you have posted?

Ok, I'll put it in a simpler format.

-Judging by the appearance of the two individuals in the photograph would you be happy for them to adopt your baby?

 

[jubilee131]

I think most people let their emotions interfere with their brains on this topic. Society is trying to maximize it chances of survival. It has said that a marriage is defined as between 1 man & 1 woman. Why? If you put a man and a woman in close proximity the odds are they will reproduce. Does it guarantee it? No! But the odds are better than a woman and her dog. Can gays have children? Yes, but how many would want to?

Society feels natural parents are the best to raise children. Why? In the majority of cases people in love who have children see the child as an extension of their partner and they have invested 9 months in bringing that life into the world, so there is a greater love for the child. Does that mean adoptive parents do not love their children? No. Society is going for the maximum chance of success.

Is society saying you can't love someone of the same sex? No. You are free to love whom ever you wish. You are free to live with whom ever you wish. You are free to have children with whom ever you wish. If you want society's sanctions on your union you must meet their criteria. If you feel no need to have a piece of paper to sanction your union so be it.

It is like applying for a scholarship. If you meet all of the criteria you get the scholarship, but miss 1 of the criteria and no scholarship. If 1 of the criteria is you must have blue eyes and yours are green, you are out of luck. The people giving out the money get to make the rules. Society is giving out benefits, they get to make the rules.

 

[Enlighten]

He said 'there's no valid reason to ban it' = it should be legal.

He said 'I find it highly disturbing and disgusting' - yet he still thinks it should be legal.

The question you must ask yourself is why are you defending a person who thinks that incest should be legalised?

Again, there is not one point in his post where he said it should be legal, not one. You are summing up using your own opinion. I am defending someone who simply used that scenario to get a point across to show the difference between a child of 12 years old being subjected to a pedophile marriage and a consenting adult. There is not one point where he condoned or said it should be legal.

 

[jubilee131]

Did you even read what I said? I proved that what you are claiming is not even close to the truth. Children and animals do not enter into contracts. Animals are entered into contracts by their owners for financial reasons because they are property. Children can not get married unless they can prove to a court that they can support themselves as an adult. Otherwise they will be protected by their parents or legal guardian.

What you say is true under the current laws. But any law can be changed to make those same things legal. Same sex marriage is currently not allowed and all it takes to change that is a change in the law. Based upon your logic the current law is all that can be considered so same sex marriage is never a possibility.

Currently a child cannot enter into a contract, but a guardian can and the child is bound by that contract. The definition of a child can also change. A minor who gets married is considered an adult. The animal is property and has no rights. No one got the animals permission to be purchased and be a pet either

 

[Enlighten]

Ok, I'll put it in a simpler format.

-Judging by the appearance of the two individuals in the photograph would you be happy for them to adopt your baby?

How can I judge purely on appearance, that would be very shallow minded of me to do so. For all I know, these people could be doctors, lawyers, brain surgeons who could adequately support any child.

Do you know what I look like? Do I know what you look like? Do I know what many on here look like? For all you know, I could be one of those in the photo!

 

[Caladan]

Now name one society that actually sanctioned a same sex marriage prior to the year 2000 . And does that society exist today? Why would that be?

Leaving aside the fact that there were Roman citizens of the same sex who were married to each other.
take a look at the changes of the last couple of centuries. society has made some dramatic changes. the abolition of slavery, equal pay for women reforms, and other major changes. the same rights that other segments of society received and are still fighting to receive today are also confronted by people who are not heterosexual. adults deserve the same rights and the same benefits regardless of their sexual orientation. they are involved in the same adult life as the rest of us. they pay their taxes, vote for reprasentitives to support their causes and are expected to participate as the rest of us.
just like women started to receive equal pay some decades ago, so are GLBT rights begin to develop.

 

[turk179]

I think most people let their emotions interfere with their brains on this topic.

I agree.

Society is trying to maximize it chances of survival.

True but society is not that worried about keeping our population healthy with all the straight people running around.

It has said that a marriage is defined as between 1 man & 1 woman.

Not lately by several states in the U.S. and other countries.

Why?

Irrelevant due to my last sentence.

If you put a man and a woman in close proximity the odds are they will reproduce.

Osmosis maybe?

Does it guarantee it? No!

Right!

But the odds are better than a woman and her dog.

Well duh. What is it with you and dogs anyways?

Can gays have children? Yes, but how many would want to?

That's pretty much up to them to decide.

Society feels natural parents are the best to raise children. Why? In the majority of cases people in love who have children see the child as an extension of their partner and they have invested 9 months in bringing that life into the world, so there is a greater love for the child. Does that mean adoptive parents do not love their children? No. Society is going for the maximum chance of success.

Opinions change. That is why gays are allowed to adopt in some areas.

Is society saying you can't love someone of the same sex? No. You are free to love whom ever you wish. You are free to live with whom ever you wish. You are free to have children with whom ever you wish. If you want society's sanctions on your union you must meet their criteria. If you feel no need to have a piece of paper to sanction your union so be it.

As I said earlier, more and more gays are meeting that criteria and getting that piece of paper. :clap Society seems to be changing it's opinion.

It is like applying for a scholarship. If you meet all of the criteria you get the scholarship, but miss 1 of the criteria and no scholarship. If 1 of the criteria is you must have blue eyes and yours are green, you are out of luck. The people giving out the money get to make the rules. Society is giving out benefits, they get to make the rules.

Actually society just gets to vote for who makes the rules. The government does the rule making.

 

[turk179]

What you say is true under the current laws. But any law can be changed to make those same things legal.

So they could legalize murder too? Having laws that protect children are not going to be changed any time soon. I've already stated this. You will not see it done in your life time and i bet many many lifetimes afterwords.

Same sex marriage is currently not allowed and all it takes to change that is a change in the law.

Same sex marriage is allowed in many states in the U.S. and other countries as well. You should really watch the news some times.

Based upon your logic the current law is all that can be considered so same sex marriage is never a possibility.

Based upon my logic, the safety of children is all that is to be considered. Obviously my opinion is that laws change. I've said that numerous times on my last post. But laws that endanger children will not be changing any time soon.

Currently a child cannot enter into a contract, but a guardian can and the child is bound by that contract. The definition of a child can also change. A minor who gets married is considered an adult.

Not if it involves something that could harm them.

The animal is property and has no rights. No one got the animals permission to be purchased and be a pet either

So at least we are in agreement that your pet theory in your op is incorrect. Now if only I can get you to believe me that it's all about the safety of the children

 

[McBell]

I never said it should be banned. I believe it can be banned.

I disagree with your statement:

Society is trying to encourage certain behavior to reap certain benefits so they offer benefits to those who will "marry". Society gets to define what marriage is to derive the intended benefits. No one is guaranteed they will qualify for marriage. If you meet the criteria you can get married and reap the benefits. Society is offering to pay you for certain behavior. No behavior no pay. You are free to choose whether you want to take advantage of the offer or not. No one has the right to marriage! Society can change the requirements to achieve the desired benefits. You can cry and stamp your feet all you want and it will change nothing.

You are ignoring the fact that marriage is a legal contract.
Legally it cannot be banned unless there is a legitimate legal reason to do so.
Why do you think the federal government has stay away from the issue?
It is simply because when a same sex marriage ban gets legally represented in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will have no other option than to declare all bans on same sex marriage unconstitutional.

Why?
Because there has to be a legitimate legal reason to ban it.
And there is not a legal reason to ban same sex marriage that does not also apply to heterosexual marriage.

 

[McBell]

At least 200 years in this country. Do you consider that long?

Source please.

 

[McBell]

I have not been proven wrong - just been told that I am wrong, a big difference there.

You have been shown and proven wrong more often that you have supported anything you have ever said on RF.

Your denial of this fact is nothing more than another in a long long list of denials.

But at least you are consistent....

Of course though, Martin must be wrong as he opposes gay marriage - he must be a bigot too!

Your sad attempt at playing the martyr is rather comical.

 

[gnomon]

Did you actually read what I said? I did not compare same sex marriage to animals & children. What I said was: If you claim that marriage is a right as justification for same sex marriage then that same right applies to everyone including polygamists, incest, bestiality and pedophiles. If a right only applies to only 1 group it isn't a right.

I was pointing out that the age of consent could be set to 3 yrs old and a 3 yr old would be a consenting adult, so there is nothing magical about the term "Consenting Adult". That term is meaningless.

People were making the claim that children and animals cannot enter into contracts so under age marriage and human - animal marriages were not possible. I was demonstrating that children and animals have been under contract to refute their claims.

I was pointing out that their claims of advocating personal freedoms were merely a disguise for trying to legislate their version of morality.

I've already pointed out the error in your thinking yet you refuse to address it.

Claiming that if someone believes that two individuals of the same sex should be allowed to have their marriage recognized than the same should be true of polyamorous relationships or that between a human and an animal is pointless. It was the same argument made when the government didn't recognize interracial marriages. They even made the argument that banning interracial marriage was better for society. Turned out that was wrong.

This whole thread is ridiculous. Your only argument is that the state can change definitions.

No kidding! They do it all the time. Usually in the arena of search, seizure, 4th Amendment rights, etc. The government can ban anything it wants. It could ban marriage entirely if it wanted to. But just because the government bans something doesn't mean the people will accept it nor does it have much bearing on the arguments.

Which brings us back to the entire premise of this thread being moot and do you or do you not have any arguments in support of or opposition to same sex marriage?

The answer to that after so many pages is you don't.

As for the term consenting adult the term is very important. Just because the age of consent can be changed not only for marriage but for the minimum age to work, as another example, it still carries a practical legal meaning. As opposed to believing that a dog signed a contract to be in a TV show. You don't understand the term or it's implications but that's okay. You have access to a computer and the internet.

And your last argument is that we must work within society's mandates. Really? Is that why black people are still working the farms and calling me 'masser'? Is that why the Chinese immigrants are currently building the roads? Is that why women do not currently hold any important business leadership positions, science positions and definitely not any political positions?

Of course not. Because the culture has changed. It changes often through the force of law and in my opinion it's been a good thing as well. Recognition of same sex marriage is just the next step. A step so simple I cannot believe we are still having this debate in the 21st Century by allowing religious addled minds to hold society up.