[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

Come on man, you're a bigger person than that.

I try, but some people are just so downright ignorant (or in Calvin's case, intentionally hard headed) that they need to be reminded of this fact.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

I try, but some people are just so downright ignorant (or in Calvin's case, intentionally hard headed) that they need to be reminded of this fact.

No..I think it's really the fact that you have not really demonstrated what "right" is being denied. Gay people have the right to marry. The issue is that you think they should be able to marry in a specific way--one that is not guaranteed to ANYONE--gay or straight. I realize this is an emotional issue, but let's take a step back and look at facts. While I have a right to marry, I do have to adhere to certain standards that the state has defined.

Instead of actually making a legitimate argument, you're growing frustrated at your lack of ability to make your case, and growing emotional about it. I'm sorry that you can't provide an intelligent answer. I really am. But stooping to personal attacks just isn't cool, and it violates forum rules.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

No..I think it's really the fact that you have not really demonstrated what "right" is being denied.

Wrong. I gave you three very specific laws which remove or restrict the rights of gays to marry, and you responded by claiming they were "defining" what marriage is.

Yep, and so were all those laws that led to slavery and civil rights violations. They weren't restricting rights, they merely "defined" what rights they do have.

That of course assumes we're ignoring cases like Prop 8, which was specifically done to skirt around the California Supreme Court's ruling that bans on same sex marriages was unconstitutional.

Gay people have the right to marry.

And little 14 year old Johnny has the right to make his own driver's license, yet in both cases neither are officially recognized and therefor worthless.

The issue is that you think they should be able to marry in a specific way--one that is not guaranteed to ANYONE--gay or straight.

Wrong again. Gay marriages are 100% legal and recognized in 5 five states and Washington D.C.

I do have to adhere to certain standards that the state has defined.

Which have been found unconstitutional at almost every turn.

Instead of actually making a legitimate argument, you're growing frustrated at your lack of ability to make your case, and growing emotional about it. I'm sorry that you can't provide an intelligent answer. I really am. But stooping to personal attacks just isn't cool, and it violates forum rules.

Let's get something straight here. Your attempts at twisting words and facts might make for interesting verbal Judo, but it doesn't make you smart or your arguments legitimate, nor does it frustrate me at all as I'm not effected by the outcome of this debate.

In all honesty, it's still downright laughable. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I can't think of any other way to characterize your "they have the same rights I do!" mantra while the issue continues to be fought out in courtrooms all across the country. If gays had the same rights us straight people do, then the lawyers and judges wouldn't be hashing it out, and that's the bottom line.

I'll also point out again that you continue to refuse to state your reasons for supporting bans on gay marriage, so once again, I'll ask...

Why do you feel gay marriage should not be recognized?

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Wrong. I gave you three very specific laws which remove or restrict the rights of gays to marry, and you responded by claiming they were "defining" what marriage is.

You gave circumstances that they cannot marry that I am also not eligible to marry in.

Yep, and so were all those laws that led to slavery and civil rights violations. They weren't restricting rights, they merely "defined" what rights they do have.

Irrelevant. This isn't a debate on skin color or civil rights violations.

That of course assumes we're ignoring cases like Prop 8, which was specifically done to skirt around the California Supreme Court's ruling that bans on same sex marriages was unconstitutional.

And?????

The shame and horror at the people actually expressing their view!!!!!!!!

And little 14 year old Johnny has the right to make his own driver's license, yet in both cases neither are officially recognized and therefor worthless.

You're right. But little Johnny can get a school permit to drive in some states, or he can get a legal license when he's 16. He just has to obey by the laws. Likewise, gay people CAN get married if they do so within the rules. Thanks for making my point.

Honestly, you're the one being hard-headed here. Come back when you have something new to add.

[McBain II]

You've refused to answer the question Calvin. Tell me why you feel that same sex marriages should not be recognized.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

You've refused to answer the question Calvin. Tell me why you feel that same sex marriages should not be recognized.

For the same reason that we shouldn't allow special categories of marriage between any 2 small minority groups. We have marriage. That's good enough.

To use your racial argument, we don't have "black marriage" and "white marriage". We have marriage. There are certain regulations regarding marriage. The answer is not to create a special class of marriage.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

For the same reason that we shouldn't allow special categories of marriage between any 2 small minority groups. We have marriage. That's good enough.

No special categories. We simply extend the same recognition of marriage to gays. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tell me why that shouldn't happen.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

No special categories. We simply extend the same recognition of marriage to gays. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tell me why that shouldn't happen.

They have the exact same rights I have already. There is no law stating that a person who is gay cannot get married. I understand what your'e saying--you want a special recognition of 2 men marrying...but I don't have that and neither should anyone else. That's just the way it is. To make the jump to recognizing 2 men marrying would be to redefine marriage.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

They have the exact same rights I have already. There is no law stating that a person who is gay cannot get married. I understand what your'e saying--you want a special recognition of 2 men marrying...but I don't have that and neither should anyone else. That's just the way it is. To make the jump to recognizing 2 men marrying would be to redefine marriage.

You're trying to play games again Calvin. I'm asking you why same sex marriages should not be recognized like their straight counterparts, in the same exact way.

Try to keep up, and answer the question.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

No special categories. We simply extend the same recognition of marriage to gays. Nothing more and nothing less.

Tell me why that shouldn't happen.

I'm not get into the middle of the peeing match here, and this is not a "slippery slope" argument.

I am curious though, assuming we broaden the meaning of marriage to include homosexual marriage, what other "pairings" ought to be included under the umbrella of marriage?
- Multiple wives/husbands, assuming they all consent?
- Family members as close as first-cousins, or maybe closer?
- Arranged marriages?
- Marriage for consenting minors? If so, at what age?
- Others?


Again, I'm not being snarky here, nor am I asking a leading question. This whole debate just has me curious regarding what, exactly, we believe should be definable as marriage.