Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The topic is marriage. People are not born married. They choose to be married. If you think that traditional marriage is open to absurd and colorful alternatives, you must allow for poygamy.
It is not the crux of what I am getting at. Please do not attempt to cloud the issue -- which is homosexual "marriage." I find it parodic. I have no opinion about your relationships, though I certainly wish you health and happiness, as I do all people.
You have an opinion about gay relationships, you're just unwilling to own up to it. You attempt to prevaricate the issue by calling gay marriage "absurd and colorful" and then state that it is synonymous with polygamy. Again, polygamy is something you choose; it's a lifestyle choice. Being gay is not. They have NOTHING to do with each other. When you realize that fundamental point and all that it entails, you'll be well on your way to establishing something in the way of rational credibility.
The topic is marriage. People are not born married. They choose to be married. If you think that traditional marriage is open to absurd and colorful alternatives, you must allow for poygamy.
We're speaking about civil marriage within the framework of our legal system. Colorful marriage has already been legalized, actually- it's also known as interracial marriage. I see nothing absurd in interracial marriage or same-sex marriage. Care to explain exactly what qualifies them as absurd, given that "traditional" marriage had to be changed to accommodate both?
There can certainly be instances in which a kid will be confused. Like if two 7-year-old kids meet and becomes friends on a playground. One says to the other, "Is your Mom nice," or "What did your Mom make you for lunch." If one of the kids has two males as "parents," it would be a confusing question.
Also, let's stop this comparison with humans to animals. Humans are a completely different species. I don't know of any animals which can build a high-rise building, or perform open-heart surgery or invent things like TVs, air conditioning, pacemakers or computers.
Wouldn't this "mom" issue also come about if the parents were divorced and the child lived with the dad, or if the mom had passed away? Most children I know have enough logic to respond with "my dad made me a PB&J" or "my dad is awesome, he took me to a game the other day." I grew up w/o a father in the picture. If someone asked about my dad, I said he wasn't around. Wasn't too hard for me to figure out...I wasn't confused by it either...
What in Loving v. Virginia referenced the "marriage" of homosexuals? As I recall, it involved a man and a woman. As marriages do.
Perhaps it was this part...
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
-- Mr. Chief Justice Warren
Your problem is that, just as Virginia did, you presume the right of marriage to be within your purview as some sort of authority, rather than as a right invested within the private realm of each individual, protected by the Constitution from your every unwarranted attempt at corruption and interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Why does every conversation with you eventually involve an accusation that the other person, having not acceded to your way of thinking, is either mentally deranged or guilty of some deep moral flaw?
I suppose it could be more than just coincidence that you feel this to be the case, but I shall merely ask under the circumstances how many other posters you have in the past few hours alone recommended to counseling over some suggested disorder or other?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Of course I made the "call" on gay "marriage" as a parody. That is my opinion, and in the absence of little more than personal insults directed at me by those who disagree with me, a reasonable one. This is after all an opinon forum.
It you don't want your opinions critiqued, or feel that they aren't in fact sufficiently defensible to withstand critique and are apt to become emotional if and when that fact is revealed, I suggest that you consider not posting quite so many of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
It is amazing to me how often people who claim to represent "progressive" viewpoints are so intolerant of other peoples' opinions that they would consistently descend to personal slurs by way of extinguishing dissent from what amounts to their divinely received wisdom.
I merely caution that your stance on this matter leaves you open to potential charges of the nature suggested. I make no other claim and recognize no source from which wisdom or anything else could be divinely received. The basis and nature of your dissent, meanwhile, becomes material the moment you put it on the server. It seems that huff-and-puffery is about all we should look forward to in terms of backing any of that up.
Wouldn't this "mom" issue also come about if the parents were divorced and the child lived with the dad, or if the mom had passed away? Most children I know have enough logic to respond with "my dad made me a PB&J" or "my dad is awesome, he took me to a game the other day." I grew up w/o a father in the picture. If someone asked about my dad, I said he wasn't around. Wasn't too hard for me to figure out...I wasn't confused by it either...
What do you mean you weren't confused? Children get confused by everything outside of the traditional norm! What horrible consequences has this had for you?
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
-- Mr. Chief Justice Warren
Your problem is that, just as Virginia did, you presume the right of marriage to be within your purview as some sort of authority, rather than as a right invested within the private realm of each individual, protected by the Constitution from your every unwarranted attempt at corruption and interference.
Not at all. When have I ever argued that anyone is deprived of the right to marry, or that anyone should have the right to corrupt and influence their choice of partners -- as long as those partners are drawn from the opposite sex, as the traditional definition of marriage -- and the vast majority of human societies throughout history -- would have it. Were Justice Warren alive, I have no reason to doubt that he would take my side in what is, prima facie, an absurd argument by your side.
Quote:
I suppose it could be more than just coincidence that you feel this to be the case, but I shall merely ask under the circumstances how many other posters you have in the past few hours alone recommended to counseling over some suggested disorder or other?
And I shall merely answer that my suggestion was made to someone who purposely and mendaciously misinterpreted my post, and was, unlike your frequent ill-spirited remarks, made at least partially tongue-in-cheek.
Quote:
It you don't want your opinions critiqued, or feel that they aren't in fact sufficiently defensible to withstand critique and are apt to become emotional if and when that fact is revealed, I suggest that you consider not posting quite so many of them.
My opinions are one thing -- my character is quite another. I would suggest that if you are unable to bully proponents of opposing viewpoints into silence, you man up a little and entertain the distinct possibility that your emotions may also sometimes be immodestly and prodigiously displayed.
Quote:
I merely caution that your stance on this matter leaves you open to potential charges of the nature suggested. I make no other claim and recognize no source from which wisdom or anything else could be divinely received. The basis and nature of your dissent, meanwhile, becomes material the moment you put it on the server. It seems that huff-and-puffery is about all we should look forward to in terms of backing any of that up.
You're making progress. Before it was flummery and mummery or the like. Now it's huffery-puffery. This is the stuff of Samuel Pepys.
I don't think you have the foggiest notion of my stance on the matter, since you've spent most of this thread pointing out the flaws in my personality.
You have an opinion about gay relationships, you're just unwilling to own up to it. You attempt to prevaricate the issue by calling gay marriage "absurd and colorful" and then state that it is synonymous with polygamy.
That is untrue.
Quote:
Again, polygamy is something you choose; it's a lifestyle choice. Being gay is not. They have NOTHING to do with each other. When you realize that fundamental point and all that it entails, you'll be well on your way to establishing something in the way of rational credibility.
I refuse to repeat my previous post, which refutes your absurd misstatements, since I assume you will simply disregard it.
We're speaking about civil marriage within the framework of our legal system. Colorful marriage has already been legalized, actually- it's also known as interracial marriage. I see nothing absurd in interracial marriage or same-sex marriage. Care to explain exactly what qualifies them as absurd, given that "traditional" marriage had to be changed to accommodate both?
Never in this thread have I stated any opposition to interracial marriage, nor would I, especially since I am married to someone of another race myself.
In your attempt to score debating points, please do not attempt to paint me as a racist bigot using the same unscrupulous tactics as "nodixieforme." It is mendacious, it is transparently false, and it does you and your side no credit.
Since California began allowing gay marriages, how many straight marriages have been destroyed?
Don't know on the marriages, but read an AP story today on the workers in the County Clerks offices in California ( think it was in San Diego, specifically). Some are refusing to take care of the "gender neutral" couples and are citing it is due to their religious beliefs; they say they will still take care of people coming to be a traditional couple. They aren't being allowed; they are getting moved to other jobs and some have the jobs on the line over it. Isn't that discriminiation?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What horrible consequences has this had for you? 
