[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Irrelevant.

I think it's very relevant. For the same reason you can't have a square circle, marriage cannot be male/male or female/female.

Logical fallacy. There would be no "new form" of marriage. Gays will simply be allowed to enter into the same legally recognized form of marriage as straight people are.

Sexual preference has never, nor is it now an issue in marriage. You're the one with the logical fallacy, sir.

Their marriages will be no more or no less special or carry more/less rights than yours will.

Except that it's not a "marriage".

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I think it's very relevant.

You also think theology should play a role in writing our laws despite that opinion being struck down repeatedly. As DentalFloss pointed out earlier, what you think doesn't matter. It's what you can make a reasonable argument for.

Sexual preference has never, nor is it now an issue in marriage. You're the one with the logical fallacy, sir.

If it's not an issue, than any two consenting adult men (or women) would be able to enter into a legally recognized marriage. With the exception of a few states, can they do that?

Except that it's not a "marriage".

How is it not?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

You also think theology should play a role in writing our laws despite that opinion being struck down repeatedly. As DentalFloss pointed out earlier, what you think doesn't matter. It's what you can make a reasonable argument for.

Non-sequitur.

If it's not an issue, than any two consenting adult men (or women) would be able to enter into a legally recognized marriage. With the exception of a few states, can they do that?

Except that it violates the essence of what "marriage" means. You seem to be unable to comprehend that the very nature of marriage is that it is male/female. You can't have a "marriage" that is not male/female, the same way you can't have a square circle. Think about that one for awhile.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Non-sequitur.

Explain. And please answer the question I asked.

If it's not an issue, than any two consenting adult men (or women) would be able to enter into a legally recognized marriage. With the exception of a few states, can they do that?

Except that it violates the essence of what "marriage" means. You seem to be unable to comprehend that the very nature of marriage is that it is male/female. The same way you can't have a square circle. Think about that one for awhile.

Marriage is whatever the law at the time says it is, hence any gay marriage performed in a state that allows them is legally the same as any heterosexual marriage.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Explain. And please answer the question I asked.

It's not relevant to the argument. That's what "non-sequitur" means.

Marriage is whatever the law at the time says it is, hence any gay marriage performed in a state that allows them is legally the same as any heterosexual marriage.

No....marriage is male/female. It always has been. You can't call a circle a "square" and you can't call 2 men who refer to each other as 'wife' "married".

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

It's not relevant to the argument. That's what "non-sequitur" means.

I know what a non-sequitur is. Explain how my statement meets that criteria.

And again, you still have not answered my question. Here it is a third time.

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

If it's not an issue, than any two consenting adult men (or women) would be able to enter into a legally recognized marriage. With the exception of a few states, can they do that?

No....marriage is male/female. It always has been. You can't call a circle a "square" and you can't call 2 men who refer to each other as 'wife' "married".

Two men in Iowa decide to get married. As part of the process they obtain a valid marriage license from the state of Iowa.

Are they not married?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I know what a non-sequitur is. Explain how my statement meets that criteria.

And again, you still have not answered my question. Here it is a third time.

Go back and re-read what I responded to. My statement of "non-sequitur" was you questioning of my reading of the Bible. It's not relevant to your question.

Two men in Iowa decide to get married. As part of the process they obtain a valid marriage license from the state of Iowa.

Are they not married?

Not according to what "marriage" is, no. If Iowa wants to call it "marriage" according to what a liberal court decided, then so be it. But it's no more a "marriage" than a circle can be square.

[McBain II]

Since you refuse to answer my question, you obviously have no logical response and prefer to ignore it rather than admit you are wrong.

Moving on...

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Go back and re-read what I responded to. My statement of "non-sequitur" was you questioning of my reading of the Bible. It's not relevant to your question.

I didn't question your reading of the bible. I showed how your opinion formed off that reading is irrelevant.

Not according to what "marriage" is, no.

So how do you explain it being a legally recognized marriage?

If Iowa wants to call it "marriage" according to what a liberal court decided, then so be it.

Ok, what about New York? Is a gay marriage really a marriage there because it was done through legislation and not the courts?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Since you refuse to answer my question, you obviously have no logical response and prefer to ignore it rather than admit you are wrong.

Whatever....if you don't want to ask a relevant question, so be it.

Moving on...
I didn't question your reading of the bible. I showed how your opinion formed off that reading is irrelevant.

yah. if you say so.

So how do you explain it being a legally recognized marriage?

Iowa stands for "I Owe the World an Apology?

If some liberal hack judge in Iowa wants to call it "marriage", so be it. I've never accused Iowa of being a state full of rocket scientists. Next thing you know some idiot judge will call a circle "square". It doesn't mean that it is. The court that created it in essence created a new form of marriage.

Ok, what about New York? Is a gay marriage really a marriage there because it was done through legislation and not the courts?

New York decided to alter the definition of "marriage", thus creating a new version of marriage for gay people. So what?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Whatever....if you don't want to ask a relevant question, so be it.

It is a very relevant question. You say sex is not an issue. I say if sex is not an issue, then a gay couple should be able to have a legal marriage. You refuse to respond because you know your logic has failed.

Iowa stands for "I Owe the World an Apology?

I was always told it was Idiot Out Wandering Around, but that was just because they were ****ty drivers.

If some liberal hack judge in Iowa wants to call it "marriage", so be it.

Actually, it was seven judges on the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously affirming the ruling of a District Court judge, bringing the grand total to eight, and I highly doubt all of those judges were liberal.

Using that logic though, what about Judge Vaughn Walker, who provided the ruling on Prop 8. He was not liberal, was nominated by not one but two conservative presidents and was originally blocked by liberals who felt he had an anti-gay bias. You can't use the "liberal hack judge" cliche on him, so who else do you explain his ruling?

New York decided to alter the definition of "marriage", thus creating a new version of marriage for gay people. So what?

Wrong again. No new version for gay people. They just get to join in with the straight marriages.