Gay marriage in California (Bishop: shops, catholics, quality)

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter

It's not marriage, you fool!

Ad hominem... naughty naughty naughty. Apologize to the nice lady.

[TheCalifornianWriter]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

In summary: Allowing same-sex marriage will destroy "marriage", despite the fact that there is no evidence that this is true.

The standard should be that you have to prove why gay marriage will hurt "traditional" marriage, not that same-sex marriage has to somehow make society "stronger".

There is absolutely no empirical evidence to suggest same-sex marriage hurts traditional marriage in any way.

If you expect ANY kind of respect, stop taking our terms and repurposing them for yourselves.

You know, if you just agreed to not literally being able to marry, but having the same rights and whatnot, then maybe we'd respect you.
But no; you want to undermine us and make fun of us. Vile anarchists, all of you.

[TheCalifornianWriter]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Ad hominem... naughty naughty naughty. Apologize to the nice lady.

No.
Fine. Sorry.

I get very animated in such issues. You'll have to forgive me.

[TheCalifornianWriter]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

But that isn't true. You do care, and you care passionately. You spend a lot of time around here defending same-sex "marriage", or at least defending people who believe that homosexual "unions" should be legally recognized as a marriage. So you must think that marriage, or at least the legal right to enter into marriage, is extremely important on some level.

On the other hand, perhaps all you really care about is sticking it to social conservatives or religious people, and the same-sex "marriage" thing is just a pretext for your favorite hobby.

Quite. *smokes pipe*

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by Flame Angel

It isn't gay marriage, it is same-sex marriage. Two homosexuals, IMHO, can marry as long as one is a man and the other a woman. They might not like it, but that isn't the standards.

I see no reason whatrsoever to meddle in the traditional definition of a bedrock institution that has served us so well. The fact that it has been damaged by no-fault divorce, is all the more reason to take every step to preserve it, and under the "first, do no harm" concept doctors follow, in the absence of overwhelming evicence same-sex marriage will benefit SOCIETY by STRENTH?ENING MARRIAGE, I would rely on the accumulated wisdom of past generations upon generations who felt not an urge to change it.

I say, resist the temptations and distraction the spittle-lickers throw at you, and take a very long and very careful, eyes-wide-open view of the entire issue. The standard to apply "what is best for all of society as a whole". Further understand, once you erase the definition, you have erased the definition, and anything will go, and you'll have no foot to stand on when momma's want to marry their offspring, or brother wants to marry sister, for you will have destroyed the definition already. There will be no going back, no unringing the bell, no putting marriage back together again. It will be broken forever.

.

Best for society's whole... Is the Whole point we pro's are standing for!!!!!!!!

I have more confidence in our species, "your laws" are not what hold us together as a society... It is the underlying human nature........ I bet you anything, we simply will not have many women getting married to warehouses, or momma's to sons.. Statistically the numbers would be microscopic...IMO

[TheCalifornianWriter]

This whole issue makes me burned out.

Anyway, I seem to remember some slack-jawed such-and-such calling me "Don" and showing me as a Crusading knight of yore.
Well, here are my reinforcements and don't be so obtuse in the future.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Wait ... are you saying that marriage is objectively defined as a "mutual loving relationship"? And that relationships which are not "mutual" or "loving" cannot be true marriages? Hey, that's progress! Some dogma from Nullgeo!

Sorry to disappoint you -- but no. I am not saying any definition of marriage. I used that phrase as a commonly held concept of marriage in the present day. I don't define marriage beyond a legal contract and obligation for practical purposes given the laws we currently live under.

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Just curious, though. Surely you are aware that polygamous and polyandrous relationships can be "mutual" and "loving". Not to mention incestuous relationships, and adult-child relationships, and so forth. So, I presume that you have no problem with these kinds of "relationships" being legally recognized as marriage by the state. Am I correct?

Well, here, as often with you -- and FlameAngel -- you are trying very hard to paint me in bad color by taking liberties with assumptions ... you want desperately to find a [negative] label for me. If I say I am a "free thinker" you will create "free thinking" scenarios of a dark nature and say that: since nullgeo is a free thinker ... and since goat - human sex is an example of the possibility of free thinking: then nullgeo must be in favor of goat - human sex. And this, Pilgrim, is exactly where your call for ability with syllogisms comes in. Go back to your Logic 101, get out your paper and pencil and draw your logical inferences and start diagramming them ... you will find that your attempt at logical connection has, once again, as always, failed.

Firstly though, I previously pointed out that I don't define marriage as a "mutually loving relationship" -- as that, though some marriages are mutually loving, has been repetitively proven false.

Secondly, as jaijai pointed out several times previously, mutually loving is not consistent with one party taking advantage of another -- as is always the case in adult - child and incestuous relationships (yes, even in brother - sister sex, one is always older and dominant)

As for polygamous and polyandrous, I really don't care how many wives and husbands -- as long as (once again credit jaijai for stating previously) their is no unfair domination at work. Mutual is mutual.

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

I want to be clear about what you're saying here. When the North American Man-Boy Love Association proposes that mutual, loving, man-boy relationships ought to be recognized as marriages by the state, you're going to come out swinging for them, just like you do for adult homosexuals, condemning all who oppose the idea as bigoted, intolerant, religious fanatics. Thanks for clearing that up.

So no, I wouldn't support any relationships based on manipulation of power.

When people reach too far for things, they often fall flat on their faces -- which is what you are doing here. You're really not at all good at this, you know.

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

This makes you a moral monster who is probably even more dangerous than homosexuals who just want to marry each other. They, after all, have at least some idea that marriage is a transcendent reality worth participating in, even if they are a bit confused about what it means exactly.

Aside from having previously debunked your specious, fallacious attempts at logical reasoning above that would paint me a "moral monster" (a term that most readers here apparently think applies to you, sir), I like that you have written this as it provides, once again, a great example of how bigoted you are toward homosexuals; equating them as moral monsters by inference with your [poorly constructed] line of reasoning about Man-Boy love ... a subject, btw, particularly associated of late with Catholic priests.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

The warehouse thing is absurd on its face. I invite Western Pilgrim and Flame Angel and whomever else to view the definition of a CONTRACT:
contract legal definition of contract. contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

As the warehouse (or a pet, or whatever other ridiculous comparisons you are making) is NOT a person or entity that can provide CONSIDERATION, the example you provided fails. The same is true for children, who cannot legally enter into contracts.

And marriage is most definitely a contract, as it creates normative or legal obligations between the parties.

Correct and well presented. A legally binding contract. Plain and simple.

[TrueTimbers]

Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter

It's not marriage, you fool! It's CIVIL UNION! Get the terminology right...

OK define the difference please...????

Lets keep this civil... Try to understand the sides to this dilemma...

I define civil union to be the same as marriage, without the blessing of a church.

After some thought, I do not understand why if you can tolerate civil union, why not marriage, if it is performed in a church by a religion that accepts homosexuality...

You can not tell me one religion has the right to dictate what another religion feels is "acceptable".

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

But that isn't true. You do care, and you care passionately. You spend a lot of time around here defending same-sex "marriage", or at least defending people who believe that homosexual "unions" should be legally recognized as a marriage. So you must think that marriage, or at least the legal right to enter into marriage, is extremely important on some level.

No, I don't care about the institution of marriage passionately. I care that: if some people claim a right, all people should be included in the same kind of opportunity. As long as religious fanatics such as yourself claim marriage as a special contract, but one that excludes homosexuals specifically because you judge homosexuality as a sin -- in a free society dedicated to freedom of religion but also complete separation of church and state -- then I stand for the equality that you speciously deny based on your personal / religious prejudices.

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

On the other hand, perhaps all you really care about is sticking it to social conservatives or religious people, and the same-sex "marriage" thing is just a pretext for your favorite hobby.

That too ... very entertaining. "God help me, I love it so".