Consenting adults

again, jealousy of what Christians enjoy, is not a valid reason for more rights and benefits.


have some gays find a country based on gay values, and knock yourself out with giving everyone anything they want. Future societies can compare the success rates of both groups.

- - - Updated - - -

Gay isn't genetic like black is

your analogy only works for a Catholic marrying a Protestant (choices of religious lifestyles)

 

My analogy works exactly- your argument is the argument of the State of Virginia

And such was said when the topic was inter-racial marriage.

No more than one spouse
opposite gender
No close relations
marry someone of the same race

Everything was equal- in the eyes of the bigots who didn't want blacks and whites to marry.

In their eyes- the Lovings simply wanted more- while calling it "equal".

Yes- you are just like the people who thought it was wrong for the Lovings to marry.

The Lovings made the mistake of falling in love with someone the State said that they should not marry. You are telling homosexuals that is their mistake too.

 

except you can't change being black

 

What Christians enjoy? What a non-response to the logical conundrum you would be in- if you really cared about the 'logic' of your position.

It IS a stumper for those antipathetic to gay rights, huh?

If they say homosexuality is genetic....then discrimination against gays is equivalent to discrimination against racial minorities.

If they say homosexuality is "chosen".....then discrimination against gays is equivalent to discrimination against those who CHOOSE to be a Christian, Jew, whatever.

and are left with "It's different, is all!!!!!!" schoolyard excuses.

- - - Updated - - -

And?

My analogy works exactly- your argument is the argument of the State of Virginia

And such was said when the topic was inter-racial marriage.

No more than one spouse
opposite gender
No close relations
marry someone of the same race

Everything was equal- in the eyes of the bigots who didn't want blacks and whites to marry.

In their eyes- the Lovings simply wanted more- while calling it "equal".

Yes- you are just like the people who thought it was wrong for the Lovings to marry.

The Lovings made the mistake of falling in love with someone the State said that they should not marry. You are telling homosexuals that is their mistake too.

 

......

 

*sigh* suggesting that people making a given statement have some hidden agenda doesn't do away with their clear cut point. You can't say that you believe in "marriage equality" and then exclude certain groups of adults - that's like saying, "i believe in marriage equality, just not for blacks or gays." It'd an absurdity. And you can't say that you believe sex between two consenting adults is okay, but oppose legal sex between consenting plural couples or siblings just because it's icky. That is, again, an absurdity.

And of course (just in case anyone tries to take this tired old puerile route) when I say, "you can't say x" I'm not talking about your freedom of speech or capacity to type, I'm talking about logical consistency. You can say these things, you just can't say them while being intellectually honest.

 

I said "stumper" and you prove my point. Try it for yourself, Javis.

Is homosexuality genetic....or chosen?

And whichever one you pick....we'll see if you can defend discrimination against gays?

Choose.

 

because the rights of 2 outweigh the rights of 3.

- - - Updated - - -

moving to NJ.

 

While it may be fairly called unfair, injust etc., we can not be intellectually honest and say that a gay man doesn't have the same marital rights as a straight man. Both, according to law, have the right to apply for a license to marry a woman over 18 who they are not related to, and who is of sound mind and capable. The difference is that a gay man wouldn't *want* to marry such a woman (assumedly), but that doesn't change the rights of either man. The law does not say that the straight man has the right to what he wants.

Suggesting that the rights of the two are different is absurs, and would be like saying I'm being denied equal rights with you because you want a pistol and can get it, but I want an M1 Abrams and I can't get what I want (though can still get a pistol).

 

I surely can.

When the Lovings sued the State of Virginia they were suing for marriage equality- the equal right to marry someone of an opposite race.

That the Lovings did not argue at the same time that homosexuals or brothers and sisters should be able to marry did not make their argument intellectually dishonest.

When African Americans were fighting for the equal right to vote, failing to also fight at the same time for the right of women to vote did not make their argument intellectually dishonest.

The other circumstances you mention- are different issues- with different reasons for them not being legal- and ignoring those differences is intellectually dishonest.

 

O yay, more straw men and deflection. Try to pay close attention to words, because they have meaning. I never said anything like that blacks not advocating for the women's vote in the 1800s made them intellectually dishonest. You can have a discussion without making a million strawmen, Jeff. However, if they had advocated "voting equality: the right of all adults to vote", then it would have been intellectually dishonest.

I can't say this enough - words have meaning, and straw men get you no where. They're. .. intellectually cheap.

 

Christ, are you still here? I'll say it again. It's complete equine excrement. Yes both the gay man and a straight man can marry a woman. But how would you like it if the tables were turned, most people were gay, only same sex marriage was legal, and YOU were told that you have equality because, like the gay man you too could marry a man? If you can't grasp that it's only because you can't accept or believe that two people of the same sex can feel about each other is EQUAL to how you can feel about a woman.

And, while the law does not guarantee that anyone will get what they want, it does not prevent straight people from seeking out what they want and having it to the extent that the other party is willing. Not so with gay people in many places. Tell the truth, do you really believe this inane clap trap? Don't tell me about intellectual or any other kind of honesty.

One more thing. I asked this of someone else just today who putting this same moronic horse(*)(*)(*)(*) out there but I did not get an answer. We know that the anti equality people have tried every trick and legal theory imaginable. If this argument makes any sense at all, why has it not been used in any court case? As far as I know it has not, but if I'm mistaken, we can talk about how it was received by the court . Not very well I would guess. The argument is so stupid and insensitive that it would be laughable if it were not for the fact that we're talking about real people, with lives and feeling, which you don't seem to be able to fathom.

 

I'm flattered that you would say so, but I am not the Christ.

Calm down and actually read for once. "Like" doesn't have jack "equine excrement" to do with equality. If you don't like that I have the right to own a pistol, same as you, that doesn't change the fact that we have the same gun rights, not one iota.

I'm not sure what the "anti quality" people are about, but all that I'm telling you about I'd logical consistency, "which you don't seem to be able to fathom." I say again, read, for once. And quit the "so stupid and.. laughable" straw men. It's "moronic horse-stars." Here's what I said in answer to your question, before you even asked it, that you would have caught if you weren't just rattling off parroted rants.

"It may be fairly called unfair, injust...."

 

Now you're not making any sense at all. You can't make an argument for equal gun rights and apply it to marriage. The premise that they are the same thing is a logical fallacy. You are not address the points that I made, or answered my questions at all. All that you are doing is blowing smoke.

 

You apparently are unaware of analogies.

As I pointed out- others have argued for equality without arguing that every conceivable other human is also equal.

When the Lovings sued the State of Virginia they were suing for marriage equality- the equal right to marry someone of an opposite race.

That the Lovings did not argue at the same time that homosexuals or brothers and sisters should be able to marry did not make their argument intellectually dishonest.

When African Americans were fighting for the equal right to vote, failing to also fight at the same time for the right of women to vote did not make their argument intellectually dishonest.

When women fought for the vote, they were fighting for equality even though they were not fighting for the rights of American Indians to vote.

Or for 18 year olds.

The other circumstances you mention- are different issues- with different reasons for them not being legal- and ignoring those differences is intellectually dishonest.

 

You mean now you're confused. It's probably because you earlier presupposed an argument that I didn't make. It helps to just stop making strawmen.

Like here. I never said that guns and marriage are the same exact thing. You wouldn't compare the number 4 with the number 4, things font need to be identical to be comparable. however both gun rights and marital rights are rights (duh), and are comparable insofar as they are rights.

I did respond to all of your Q's and points. They were mostly strawmen and I noted as such. I don't need to respond to every straw man you make as if it were true. And you've failed to even understand the main point I've made for what it is, let alone actually address it.

 

Continually accusing others of resorting to straw man arguments, misrepresenting you and of not being able to comprehend what you saying does not change that fact that what you are saying does not make any sense legally, or logically. I'm still waiting for someone to show me where and when this "theory" was used successfully.

 

Ah jesus, more straw men. I'll give It one final shot, hopefully you'll actually pay attention this time.

It is not intellectually dishonest to argue for a certain right for certain people "without arguing that every other conceivable human is also equal, " nor did I say anything of the sort. That is a straw man. Pay attention to words, because they have meaning.

However, to say something that is just flat out untrue is intellectually dishonest. For example, to say, " I'm for marriage equality, just not for blacks" is just as disingenuous as it is to say, "I'm for marriage equality, just not for x", where x may be gays, siblings, etc.

Likewise, to say, "i support the right of all men to vote" when you mean only white men is intellectually dishonest. A person with such views should instead be saying that they support the right of white men to vote.

And again, pay attention. The women's suffrage advocates generally talked about the rights of women, they didn't overreach (at least not usually) in some grandiose rhetoric beyond what they meant.

Please pay attention to what you respond to, and understand what you're reading before you respond to it. That's how you avoid making straw men.

 

Oh no it makes perfect sense, you just have have a really hard time taking it for what it is. Forget your past arguments with others and see the simple and straightforward logical point for what it is - stop continually trying to make strawmen and respond to phantom arguments. That you keep asking when it has legally been used successfully just shows that you don't get what was said. I'd encourage you to go back and read my original point, the one that made you call me the Christ.

 

I have not seen anyone make that claim. However, until the decision comes out from SCOTUS re: SSM, we won't have any idea if the reasoning behind their decision will give ammo to incestuous or plural marriages. It may, or it may not, but even if it does it would require a whole new set of cases to win and go all the way to SCOTUS for the law to be impacted. Supreme Court rulings are very narrow in scope.

For the record, while I seek neither, I have no objection to either or both being legal, though at the same time I realize there are a HUGE logistical hurdles for plural marriage. (Power of Attorney, Taxes, Divorce Laws, etc, etc.)

 

That is actually how things work now, with the exception that "legal marriage" and "religious marriage" both use the same term. From the governments perspective, in fact it is NOT a religious event. While clergy members are generally empowered by law to legally bind a couple in marriage, they are not required. I was married by a friend of mine who is a Notary public. On a beach. Nothing religious about it.

 

And nowhere did I make any such statement.

 

^_- and I didn't say that you did, or that that was the form of your statements.

 

Great- our conservation- such as it was- is over then.

 

Glad we could clear that up.