patrick.net

curious2 says

But that's irrelevant to the laws pertaining to marriage, which are part of government and subject to the Constitution, not any sect's holy text.

Then why do you keep bringing up "a sect's holy text"?

curious2 says

According to Samuel, King James translation, David called Jonathan's love "wonderful, passing the love of women."

That doesn't mean they were anally penetrating each other.

Yes, in our culture Love = Sex, but not in all cultures.

freak80 says

Then why do you keep bringing up "a sect's holy text"?

It was in reply to Quigley's false assertion that marriage was a "strictly religious tradition" and that the laws pertaining to it were "assumed by all" merely to establish and administer that religious tradition.

freak80 says

in our culture Love = Sex, but not in all cultures.

Speak for yourself. You're the one who started writing about anal penetration. Project much? According to Samuel, Jonathan defied his own father to save David, who was by all accounts gorgeous btw. David could have called Jonathan's love "passing the love of brothers," or "passing the love of friends," but Samuel quotes him specifically saying "passing the love of women." On a related point, since you often quote the Bible, you might read Luke, who quotes Jesus describing the rapture, when believers are supposed to be taken up while unbelievers are left behind: "in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other left." Notice he doesn't say, "both shall be condemned." Also you might want to re-read John, "the disciple [singular] whom Jesus loved," i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved in a way that was different from the way he loved the other disciples. (That is why Renaissance artists tended to depict John as more feminine than the other disciples, a detail that was given a different interpretation in The Davinci Code.) The purportedly (not really) "Christian" fear and loathing directed against two men in bed together requires a disingenuously selective reading. Ultimately it says more about the people making that claim than about the Bible or the people who lived at the time it was written, for example it was a useful subterfuge to distract Catholics while the priests molested children (of both sexes).

What really shocks me is that you base your opposition to the Democratic party on the party's support for the equal protection of the laws. You could have mentioned Obamneycare, NAFTA, or any number of other things, but no. For you, apparently, the party's unforgivable sin is supporting equal rights.

curious2 says

Project much?

You're the one that reading homosexuality into the text. Not me. And if you were really "open minded" about homosexuality you would *not* use the above as an insult.

curious2 says

since you often quote the Bible

What are you taking about? Where do I quote the Bible?

curious2 says

who quotes Jesus describing the rapture, when believers are supposed to be taken up while unbelievers are left behind: "in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

The whole "rapture" thing is a recent phenomenon that developed in certain protestant circles. It was never part of classical Christianity. Yes, classical Chrsitianity speaks of a "last judgement" but "The Rapture" is a recent innovation.

curious2 says

Also you might want to re-read John, "the disciple [singular] whom Jesus loved," i.e. the disciple whom Jesus loved in a way that was different from the way he loved the other disciples.

And you accuse ME of projection? You automatically assume love = sex. Yes, OUR culture is saturated with that idea, but not all cultures.

curious2 says

(That is why Renaissance artists tended to depict John as more feminine than the other disciples, a detail that was given a different interpretation in The Davinci Code.)

Ah, the Da Vinci Code. There's a reliable source for the intention of Renaissance artists. You know George Washington and the other founders look pretty feminine by today standards to. Hmmmm...

curious2 says

What really shocks me is that you base your opposition to the Democratic party on the party's support for the equal protection of the laws.

I assume you mean "equal protection under the law"? Who *doesn't* support equal protection under the law?

I believe people who engage in homosexual behavior are 5/5th of a person. Really! I just don't think such behavior should be codified into law, that's all.

curious2 says

For you, apparently, the party's unforgivable sin is supporting equal rights.

Again, you're arguing under a false premise. As you said above, "garbage in, garbage out."

No one is against equal rights. Nobody is trying to take away the right to vote, free speech/religion, fair trial, right to bear arms, etc etc based on sexual behaviors.

Marriage is an institution, not a "right."

And yet you accuse Quigley of sophistry.

freak80 says

You're the one that reading homosexuality into the text. Not me. And if you were really "open minded" about homosexuality you would *not* use the above as an insult.

He didn't say it as an insult. He just said you were closeted. Hope that helps!

freak80 says

What are you taking about? Where do I quote the Bible?

Wow, you really do have a faulty memory. Try checking your own comment history for your preferred authors and your favorite (selective) quotations:

http://patrick.net/comments.php?s=ecclesiastes&submit=Search

freak80 says

And you accuse ME of projection?

Yes. See the history above including the example copied immediately below.

freak80 says

in our culture Love = Sex

You said that, I didn't. You accuse me of saying it, when in fact only you said it. You're also the one who started writing about anal penetration.

freak80 says

the Da Vinci Code. There's a reliable source for the intention of Renaissance artists.

No, you're projecting again. I said the Da Vinci Code gave a different interpretation from the Renaissance Artists'. For a source on their intentions, consider for example Charles Nicholl's thoroughly researched biography of Da Vinci, which notes Da Vinci was gay btw.

freak80 says

Marriage is an institution, not a "right."

In law, marriage is a fundamental right. Institutions don't marry, they merge. Of course, with Mitt "corporations-are-people" Romney, the distinction can seem blurry.

freak80 says

I assume you mean "equal protection under the law"?

The Constitution says "equal protection of the laws." It means what it says.

freak80 says

Who *doesn't* support equal protection under the law?

You don't, because you contend that gay couples don't deserve the equal protection of the marriage laws. Also, perpetuating discrimination against gay couples is apparently so important to you that it is your sole proffered basis for condemning the Democratic party.

curious2 says

Wow, you really do have a faulty memory. Try checking your own comment history for your preferred authors and your favorite (selective) quotations:
http://patrick.net/comments.php?s=ecclesiastes&submit=Search

lol. That quote had *nothing* to do with homosexuality. The quote was in a different thread about a totally different subject.

curious2 says

You don't, because you contend that gay couples don't deserve the equal protection of the marriage laws. Also, perpetuating discrimination against gay couples is apparently so important to you

You just repeated the same stuff I already soundly refuted.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I said you often quote the Bible. You then asked: "What are you taking [sic] about? Where do I quote the Bible?" I provided a link with examples.

freak80 says

You just repeated the same stuff I already soundly refuted.

You haven't refuted anything. To the contrary, you've admitted that you oppose the equal protection of the laws relating to marriage, i.e. you insist there must be a "gay exception" to render gay couples strangers to the laws that everyone else takes for granted, and it remains your only basis for rejecting the Democratic party. BTW, if the Republican Party decrees that only Baptists can marry, or that Catholics should be restricted to marrying only other Catholics (which happens to be the position of the Vatican), will you continue to insist that it's a religious institution not a right?

freak80 says

One party says I "hate" just because I believe that marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.

I'm pretty sure that democrats are a-okay with you defining marriage for yourself as one man and one woman. The problem the pro-marriage-equality movement has is when you define marriage for all of us and force that definition and the legal consequences of it down our throats by making it into law.

I am a heterosexual male. I have no gay friends. But I find it absolutely unacceptable that gay people have to pay higher income taxes, are wrongfully denied health and other benefits, and are denied other rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. My support of marriage equality has nothing to do with the word or the definition of marriage and everything to do with equality under law. Hell, I've argued that there shouldn't even be a legal definition of marriage or any laws that use the word marriage.

You can have the word, but you can’t have other people’s rights.

Any law that directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly denies equal legal status and rights to same-sex couples as different-sex couples is a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and goes against the very foundation of our country: all men are created equal with the same rights.

The thing is, republicans are supposed to believe in this as well. Aren’t republicans always stating things like there are too many regulations, government should be small and nonintrusive, the individual matters not the group (i.e. socialism bad, capitalism good)? Well, shouldn’t there be less regulation of marriage? Doesn’t a small, nonintrusive government stay out of the marriage business?

Why should marriage equality even be a left vs. right issue if it’s not about bigotry and denying rights to people? Sure, you can be against gay marriage as a social and as a religious institution. But to be against gay marriage as a secular, legal institution is to be against the 14th Amendment.

freak80 says

If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

I know of no instance where anyone has accused a person of a hate crime for being against marriage equality. It would be a ridiculous accusation. Now maybe there are a few nuts that would make such a claim, but it is not a mainstream belief of democrats, liberals, or leftists.

curious2 says

basis for condemning the Democratic party.

I don't "condemn" the Democratic party. I just won't vote for them, since people like you represent the base. I'm not going to vote for a party that considers "traditional marriage" to be the same thing as "discrimination."

Not all "discrimination" is bad. There's a reason why one particular relationship (1 man + 1 woman) was given special treatment under the law. Can you think of it?

That doesn't mean the other relationships (like casual friendships, homosexual relationships, etc) are looked at as "necessarily inferior" in the eyes of the law.

I get the sense that you're trying to draw a false analogy between the "gay marriage" movement and the struggle to end slavery and/or abolish Jim Crow, etc. Nobody is trying to prevent gays from voting, having a fair trial, or sitting in the front of the bus. Not me, at least.

curious2 says

To the contrary, you've admitted that you oppose the equal protection of the laws relating to marriage, i.e. you insist there must be a "gay exception" to render gay couples strangers to the laws that everyone else takes for granted

You're putting words in my mouth. You're using the classic "straw man" tactic. It's on display for all to see.

I think two best friends shouldn't be able to marry (each other). I believe they should be able to marry a member of the opposite sex (within the usual restrictions of course). That doesn't mean those two folks don't have equal protection under the law.

freak80 says

There's a reason why one particular relationship (1 man + 1 woman) was given special treatment under the law. Can you think of it?

Actually no, I can't think of any reason that hasn't been soundly refuted. That's why marriage equality tends to prevail in court, where people have to present facts and laws to support their positions. Ballot measures driven by fear-mongering preachers and pols trying to gain money and power for themselves are a different story though.

Dan8267 says

I know of no instance where anyone has accused a person of a hate crime for being against marriage equality... Now maybe there are a few nuts that would make such a claim, but it is not a mainstream belief of democrats, liberals, or leftists.

It's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves. "Divide and misrule."

curious2 says

Actually no, I can't think of any reason that hasn't been soundly refuted.

Really? Surely you jest. There's nothing that makes a sexual relationship between a male and female fundamentally different than all other relationships?

freak80 says

You're putting words in my mouth.

Wow, your memory is faulty again. You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples. For example:

freak80 says

marriage should be defined as one man and one woman.

freak80 says

Not all "discrimination" is bad.

freak80 says

I just don't think such behavior should be codified into law, that's all.

And, you've confirmed that the subject is so important to you that you can't vote for a party that supports the equal protection of the marriage laws:

freak80 says

I'm not going to vote for a party that considers "traditional marriage" to be the same thing as "discrimination."

(BTW, "traditional marriage" means different things to different people. In places where same-sex marriage has been recognized for a long time, it's traditional. Again, check John Boswell's book about Catholic same-sex marriage ceremonies in pre-modern Europe. Or current Hungary, which recognized same-sex marriage at common law because it had always been that way.)

freak80 says

I don't "condemn" the Democratic party. I just won't vote for them, since people like you represent the base. I'm not going to vote for a party that considers "traditional marriage" to be the same thing as "discrimination."

The thing is they don’t. That’s exactly the type of bubble thinking that Bill Maher talks about on Real Time.

Aside from the fact that there are plenty of independents like me who are for marriage equality, not even the most leftist, hippie, non-bathing, pot smoking, vegan wiccan in the Democratic Party believes for one second that “traditional marriage” is discrimination. No one has ever proposed banning traditional, i.e. heterosexual, marriage. Absolutely no one.

Well, no one except me, but I only proposed eliminating it as a legal institution and rewriting our laws to be marriage agnostic. Not even I have proposed ending it as a social or religious institution. I just want to update the tax forms, health insurance contracts, etc. to not be based on marriage but rather dependents. By my philosophy, government shouldn’t even be in the business of marriage.

But certainly, allowing homosexual marriage does not in any way harm heterosexual marriage. Banning gay marriage does not protect straight marriage in any way. The rights of heterosexual couples are not infringed upon by extending those rights to homosexual couples. And to date, no opponent of gay marriage has ever given the slightest reason why the law should differentiate between heterosexual relationships and homosexual ones and why the law should treat the later as inferior. And that is the only pertinent matter to deciding whether or not gay and straight marriage should be equal under law.

Again, what happens in the legal code and business contracts does not in any way affect your religious ceremonies or your social status. It’s only about laws.

freak80 says

Really? Surely you jest. There's nothing that makes a sexual relationship between a male and female fundamentally different than all other relationships?

Really, no joke, and again you're back to sex and anatomy. Try reading the unanimous ruling written by the Iowa Supreme Court, affirming the district court that had reached the same conclusion:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20090403iowa-text.pdf

If you can find an argument they didn't consider, please let us know.

curious2 says

marriage equality

The "marriage equality" slogan could be used to justify almost *any* arrangement.

Do you "discriminate" against polygamist marriage? Does "marriage equality" apply to polygamists?

I'm not against "equality" just because I want to keep the 1 man + 1 woman definition of marriage. Any more than you are against "equality" when you put limitations (of any kind) on the definition of marriage.

Do you put *any* kind of limitation on the definition of marriage? If so, you are against "equality" (by your definition).

curious2 says

t's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves. "Divide and misrule."

Or as Bill Maher puts it, "the bubble that nothing gets through".

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wEElA5b4AkM

I really wished that the republicans on this site would disprove that they live in a bubble by comprehending what other people say. It's one thing to have a different opinion. It's another to not even understand the other person's opinion.

I understand the opposition's opinion. They think that marriage is a religious institution and their fictitious god hates homosexuality. However, marriage in our country is also a separate legal institution. The marriage equality movement isn't trying to get priests to marry gays; it's trying to get the state to change its un-Constitutional laws.

The legal marriage entity is completely independent of the religious marriage entity. The marriage equality movement is only addressing the legal entity.

curious2 says

Try reading the unanimous ruling written by the Iowa Supreme Court

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then? Why are they ok with "discrimination" against polygamists? Is it just because Polygamy hasn't become a potent political force yet?

freak80 says

Do you "discriminate" against polygamist marriage? Does "marriage equality" apply to polygamists?... Do you put *any* kind of limitation on the definition of marriage? If so, you are against "equality" (by your definition).

freak80 says

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then? Why are they ok with "discrimination" against polygamists? Is it just because Polygamy hasn't become a potent political force yet?

Instead of taking the time to read the court ruling, you've returned to the already-refuted-above argument about polygamy. Must I copy and paste the whole text for you? Can't you just click on a link?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20090403iowa-text.pdf

For your convenience, I have added the URL as a signature, so you can find it more easily.

freak80 says

Really? Surely you jest. There's nothing that makes a sexual relationship between a male and female fundamentally different than all other relationships?

In the eyes of the law: hell no! There may be things that make an interracial marriage fundamentally different from other marriages, but not in the eyes of the law. There certainly are things that make a marriage between an old man and a young woman way the hell different between two similar aged people, but not in the eyes of the law.

Why should the law treat one group inferior to another?

Well this thread should put to death the "social issues are just a distraction ginned up by Fox News" meme, at least on PatNet.

curious2 says

You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples.

Hey curious2, have you stopped beating your wife?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

You're clearly not engaging my arguments. You just keep arguing under the same faulty premise.

It's the very thing you accused Quigley of doing. If you can't make the distinction between an institution and "equal protection under the law" then there's no point on further discussion.

freak80 says

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then?

The question of polygamous marriage is independent of the question of gay marriage. Back in the 1960s, those who were against interracial marriage made two arguments. The first was that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, you might as well allow polygamy. The second was that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, it would be a slippery slope to bestiality.

Applying these two arguments against gay marriage is just as offensive and irrelevant. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal agreement and status and nothing more. The question of polygamy is one that deals with how many parties may enter the contract, not who may enter on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, or any other statuses protected because history has wronged minorities. As for bestiality, can you enter into a legal agreement with a giraffe? No, so it is a nonsensical argument.

But since you brought up polygamy, why the hell should that be illegal anyway? Again, my proposal that marriage shouldn’t even be a legal institution makes sense, but why shouldn’t multiple parties be able to enter a contract that two parties can? Preventing polygamy does not prevent orgies. Just ask open-marriage Newt Gingrich. Nor does the state have the right to prevent consensual orgies.

There is no legal justification for preventing polygamy. But again, this issue is independent of gay marriage.

curious2 says

For your convenience, I have added the URL as a signature, so you can find it more easily.

I did read the court ruling. Why the personal attack?

freak80 says

curious2 says

You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples.

Hey curious2, have you stopped beating your wife?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Well, that's easy to fix.

freak80, do you object to the 14th Amendment? If so, why?

freak80, do you object to the Supreme Court ruling in Loving vs Virginia that the 14th Amendment protects the right of interracial marriage? If so, what are your objections?

freak80, do you have any legal arguments as to why the 14th Amendment does not apply to gay marriages in the exact same way the Supreme Court ruled it applies to interracial marriages? If so, what are those arguments?

There, just answer the above questions honestly and sincerely and we can avoid any Straw Man arguments and make some progress in this discussion. These are exactly the questions that opponents of gay marriage must answer to justify not extending all marriage laws to include same sex marriages.

Curious2,

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

And if you are married and you don't yield spawn in 15 years, the Government should force you get a divorce or move to France.

And furthermore Gay people should be made to watch Porky's on a loop, not that it would solve anything, but it would give them a taste of their own over bearing pompous medicine. That way, we make it through an original HBO program with out a gratuitous frivolous gay scene, if nothing else.

curious2 says

It's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves.

Is it?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Speak for yourself....some of us have access to steroids...
Dan8267 says

There certainly are things that make a marriage between an old man and a young woman way the hell different between two similar aged people,

freak80 says

I did read the court ruling. Why the personal attack?

I don't understand how you can call providing a link to a unanimous court ruling, which affirmed a district court ruling, a "personal attack." But, you are actually starting to sound paranoid:

freak80 says

If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

Paranoia is a serious medical condition, and can be devastating. I'm usually the least likely to say someone needs medical attention, but it is something you might want to consider. Meanwhile, I will remove the URL from my signature so as not to enable further your misimpression of an "attack."

freak80 says

Is it?

Yes, your claim about "crime" is a shibboleth, or paranoia. I read your NPR link and nobody accused anyone of a crime or threatened to put anyone in jail. Businesses that make money encounter various regulations about how they will make money, for example the Methodist-owned business lost a tax exemption that it shouldn't have had anyway. Newspapers have to pay their taxes, and they are protected by the first amendment equally with religion.

freak80 says

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

Since you don't know the definition of marriage in your own State of New York, here are links:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM010_10.html

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM010-A_10-A.html

I hope you won't think I'm attacking you by providing links to the laws of the state where you live.

curious2 says

I don't understand how you can call providing a link to a unanimous court ruling, which affirmed a district court ruling, a "personal attack."

I was talking about this:

curious2 says

Must I copy and paste the whole text for you? Can't you just click on a link?

No, pointing out your ad hominem attack isn't paranoia. Sorry, you fail.

BTW, using the charge of mental illness as a personal attack says more about you than it does about me. And its on display for everyone to see.

@Patrick

Links to postings that are part of a thread with multiple page breaks are still not working. Example: http://patrick.net/?p=1214837#comment-851760

freak80 says

Curious2,

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

It does not matter what the religious or social definition of marriage is. All that matters is what the legal definition is, and that, my dear, is what this debate is all about. According to 1 USC § 7

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The whole debate revolves around 1USC § 7 violating the 14th Amendment. If that code had stated that the legal union required the two parties to be of the same race, it would be un-Constitutional as the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia. Well, it's just as un-Constitutional for requiring the two parties to be of opposite sex.

The requirement of two parties to be of opposite sex is further made ridiculous by the existence of hermaphrodites or intersexuals, persons with both male and female genitalia. How the hell does the one man and one woman thing apply when one or both parties are intersexuals?

And don't even get me started on robots and sentient extraterrestrial species with only one or more than two sexes. Like the law even attempts to handle that.

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

As I stated to Bap33 in this thread,

Also, by your argument, a heterosexual couple in which one or both were infertile would not be legally allowed to marry. Are you really going to try to make that argument? What about the old widow and widower who meet over a game of bingo at the local church and then decide to get marry and spend their golden years together? They aren't marrying to have children and can't reproduce. Should their marriage be illegal? What about straight married couples who choose not to have children? Should they be forced by the state to get a divorce? I know many straight, married, childless by choice couples.

The state does not and has never required that married couple can or do produce children. To do so would violate even the most basic of human rights.

As for the point… The point of gay marriage is to have equal legal status including
1. Equal taxation. Why should a gay couple have to pay higher income taxes than a straight couple?
2. Equal health and life insurance benefits.
3. Hospital visitation rights.
4. Rights of attorney.
5. Spousal benefits when a member of the military dies in combat.

And hundreds of other little legal rights that straight couples take for granted but make legal arrangements difficult or impossible for gay couples. And that's a pretty damn important point.

The bottom line is that it is obvious that gay marriage should and will become legally accepted at the federal level, just as it was obvious in the 1960s that eventually interracial marriage should and would become legally accepted at the federal level.

Personally, I hope all gay couples sue the fuck out of the IRS and US Treasury for overpaid taxes and for penalties and interest for the past 100 years!

Curious,

I'm aware of the recent decision about the issue in New York State. What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? Just because I may not agree with a law doesn't mean I'm not aware of it.

As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law, I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

freak80 says

What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? ... As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law,

You requested the definition, I provided links. I didn't call you stupid, you said that.

freak80 says

No, pointing our [sic] your ad hominem attack isn't paranoia.

freak80 says

I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail... enslaved.... For me, a vote for either party is a vote to slit my own throat.

Asking if I need to paste full text instead of a link is not an "attack," but you apparently believe it to be, and in the same thread you write that one major party wants you "put in jail," the other wants you "enslaved," and then you fall into violent imagery about slitting your own throat. Your reaction to marriage equality has revealed a side of your personality that I had never seen before, and which does worry me, because it sounds like the kind of thing two now-lost friends used to say before being hospitalized for clinical paranoia. Your reference to hate crimes, which you put in quotes, also worries me for a different reason:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-07/business/sns-rt-us-usa-wisconsin-shootingbre8740fp-20120805_1_white-power-music-end-apathy-sikh-temple

If you aren't paranoid, and are in fact planning something that would land you in jail for a hate crime, please stop and seek help immediately.

freak80 says

I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

I don't hold not knowing all the laws against you. However, you're failure to address any of the very precise arguments I've made against all objections to marriage equality implies that you have no counter-arguments to make.

This in turn would lead anyone reading this thread to conclude that there is no legitimate reason to object to same sex marriages being recognized by the federal government and through federal law by all state governments.

But just in case you've manage to think up a counter-argument, feel free to post it now. Of course, you're free to not do so, but as the old saying goes, he who remains silent is understood to consent.

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

Thanks for the link to the NPR article. This news article from a balanced non partisan source is pretty damning of the gay movement. When someone tells them "no" based on religious grounds, they hire lawyers and proceed to punish them with litigation fees. The first ammendment says "government shall make no law respecting religion or preventing the practice thereof. If your interpretation of the 14th ammendment would require a religious leader to set aside his/her beliefs in support of the gay agenda, guess which ammendment trumps?
This is all beside the point. The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"
We already give them equal rights, and perhaps marriage as defined by the state is just a contract, as Dan has pointed out. If gays just get the contract, they will be dissatisfied. They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant. It's our rights at stake. That is worth fighting for!

CL says

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

To be fair, the Captain said they should be sent to France after 15 years. France is a nice place. The Captain seemed to be be joking, too, unlike Quigley and freak80. The latter two seem to illustrate Bill Maher's observation about the bubble (see video above).

curious2 says

The Captain seemed to be be joking, too

Seemed like as good a place as any to interject with that salient point though. Marriage is for procreation breaks down as an argument when heteros can't procreate either, but are allowed to marry.

Logically, to ask if they can or intend to would be considered intrusive on the part of the Government. Why aren't gays afforded the same freedom?