Quote :

"oh, and yes...the real answer is for marriage to be simply a social and/or religious ceremony, and the for the gov't to stay out of it to the max extent possible."

I agree.

Quote :

"It boggles the mind that he can be ridiculous and retarded enough to sit there and make that argument with complete seriousness."

Not at all. The claim of "unequal access" is predicated upon the notion that person X is prevented from doing thing Y. Well, gays, person X, can do thing Y, marry someone, so the original claim is false. Something cannot be discriminatory if anyone can access it freely. That someone chooses not to fulfill the basic requirements is of no consequence. I can't file for the First Time Homeowner tax credit without, you know, purchasing a house. This is no different.

It is simply shifting the burden to show that marriage should be anything other than a man and a woman.

1/29/2010 9:27:27 PM

Yes, I understand your argument. It's not complex or difficult to wrap my mind around.

It's that it's fucking stupid.

1/29/2010 9:28:46 PM

how? I'm not saying "problem solved, argument over." I'm dismissing an argument of discrimination and moving it to another level. Namely, I'm getting to the heart of the matter

1/29/2010 9:29:41 PM

Quote :

"Again, there is no prohibition against a homosexual marrying someone of the opposite sex. They have all legal access they would normally have."

You are just too obtuse for words.

Me: I would like to have some milk, but all that is available to me is orange juice unless I deny the very fiber of my being.

You: No one is stopping you from having milk. What's the fucking problem?!?!?!11!

Quote :

"Moreover, 17 year-olds can't vote"

Well, actually they can in 19 states. Voting age is defined in the various state constitutions as well as mandated federally as a minimum of 18. Some states allow 17 year olds to vote, but per the US constitution they must be allowed to vote if they are at least 18:

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age"

Marriage is not similarly defined in the US constitution. It is however defined as between a man and a woman in some state constitutions. In others it is not defined as such. In some, marriage between two men or two women is outlawed by statute, in some it is not. There is no consistency from state to state and there is no federal legislation defining it. Ultimately this will come down to a federal decision at some point.

I'm just going to stop addressing you now as you are clearly not capable of rational thought.

1/29/2010 9:36:09 PM

Quote :

"Ultimately this will come down to a federal decision at some point. "

And it should not, as granting marriage is NOT the power of the federal gov't. But, who gives a fuck.

Quote :

"I'm just going to stop addressing you now as you are clearly not capable of rational thought."

So, what you are saying, is that you can't defend your arguments and instead want to engage in personal attacks.

Look, state gov'ts said "we want to reward marriage." Not "two people living together and having sex." Duke is probably right in that we should not have rewarded marriage at all, but we did. If we are going to reward marriage, then we should reward only those things that are actually marriage. And, we will have to define what marriage is. You simply can't claim that anyone is being denied marriage. because they aren't.

Quote :

"Well, actually they can in 19 states."

Irrelevant. I was simply pointing out that citizens are not all treated equally. And this is a clear example of it.

1/29/2010 9:41:46 PM

Quote :

"So, what you are saying, is that you can't defend your arguments and instead want to engage in personal attacks."

Yeah, that's it. I can't defend my argument.

Hey, did you know that there is no current definition for marriage in the NC constitution, only via statute that explicitly states that it must be between a man and a woman. At some point that will be challenged in this state.

However, if one of the individuals gets a sex change post marriage they are still considered legally married. The end result: There are already legally married same sex couple in NC.

Actually, the federal government should step in in this case, as the US Constitution requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of every other state. It's not uncommon for people to cross state lines to get married if one of them is too young to get married in their home state and then go back home. Whammo, now they are legally married and this marriage must be recognized by the other state.

1/29/2010 9:50:33 PM

Quote :

"However, if one of the individuals gets a sex change post marriage they are still considered legally married. The end result: There are already legally married same sex couple in NC."

One would simply argue that they are still biologically male and female, despite outward appearances.

Quote :

"Whammo, now they are legally married and this marriage must be recognized by the other state."

That's fine, and, Constitutionally speaking, it should be so. But that doesn't mean that every state should also have to accept that definition of marriage for the purpose of applying for a new marriage license.

Quote :

"Hey, did you know that there is no current definition for marriage in the NC constitution, only via statute that explicitly states that it must be between a man and a woman."

Your point? The statute is the definition. I have never once mentioned the definition is in the constitution of every state.

1/30/2010 12:22:39 AM

Quote :

"One would simply argue that they are still biologically male and female, despite outward appearances."

One could, and one would be correct from a biological standpoint, but from a legal standpoint they would not be. There are also other cases of say, a person who is testicularly feminized marrying a man, or an XXY woman marrying a man. What are the biological and legal implications there? Even if you narrow the definition of marriage to "one man and one woman" you still have gray areas that could be questioned in court and possibly lead to that legal definition being found unconstitutional.

Quote :

"That's fine, and, Constitutionally speaking, it should be so. But that doesn't mean that every state should also have to accept that definition of marriage for the purpose of applying for a new marriage license."

Well, now that you've allowed for that would you then agree that even a state which does have a constitutional clause defining marriage as "one man one woman" must then accept a gay couples legal and valid marriage license from another state? I think you would have to agree that they must as the US Constitution trumps the state's constitution.

Quote :

"Your point? The statute is the definition. I have never once mentioned the definition is in the constitution of every state."

My point, if you hadn't figured it out yet is that without a definition within a state's constitution the constitutionality of statute's like the one NC has (and proposed legistlation which would refuse to recognize marriage licenses from states that do grant same sex marriages) will always come into question and will eventually be decided either by a court ruling or by an amendment to the state's constitution. Finally, although it has yet to reach the US supreme court, I think it's really only a matter of time before a case regarding gay marriage is heard and they either rule that:

A - It is up to the states to decide.

or

B - Refusing to grant a marriage license based on sexuality and gender either is or is not something that can be reconciled with the US Constitution.

Your argument that, it is legal to preclude two people of the same sex marrying because it does not meet the legal definition is not only circular (you should believe my fact because it is true!), but also incorrect given that there are many laws passed that are later overturned when challenged on a constitutional basis. Which incidentally is yet another way in which your "17 year olds can't vote" argument is flawed. In our legal system, the US constitution trumps all, and state constitutions trump state law.

1/30/2010 3:30:43 AM

Oh, and just for the record, there is no logical, moral reason to refuse to allow gays to marry. If you want to eliminate all marriage benefits that's fine and dandy, but from a moral standpoint there is absolutely no reason to preclude two or more consenting adults from joining there lives in whatever sense they would like (financially, legally, etc.). You can talk all you want about marriage historically being a precursor to procreation and the like, and it was, but in the modern age we live in it is not, nor should that particular institution be denied to people who don't wish to procreate or are incapable of procreation.

1/30/2010 3:38:56 AM

It doesn't even matter if it's a choice or not (it's not). Who the fuck are you to deny two consenting people the right to join together in marriage? It doesn't affect anyone else.

1/30/2010 9:17:14 AM

Quote :

"One could, and one would be correct from a biological standpoint, but from a legal standpoint they would not be."

how do you figure? the appearance does not make the biological sex.

Quote :

"Your argument that, it is legal to preclude two people of the same sex marrying because it does not meet the legal definition is not only circular"

My argument is not that it is legal because it is legal. Jeez, nice strawman.

Quote :

"Which incidentally is yet another way in which your "17 year olds can't vote" argument is flawed."

You clearly don't understand what my point was with that.

Quote :

"It doesn't even matter if it's a choice or not (it's not). Who the fuck are you to deny two consenting people the right to join together in marriage? It doesn't affect anyone else."

No one is denying them the right to marry. As has already been mentioned ad nauseum, they can marry. The only thing being denied here is gov't recognition of that marriage, specifically to people who do not fit the gov'ts definition of marriage

Quote :

"Oh, and just for the record, there is no logical, moral reason to refuse to allow gays to marry. If you want to eliminate all marriage benefits that's fine and dandy, but from a moral standpoint there is absolutely no reason to preclude two or more consenting adults from joining there lives in whatever sense they would like (financially, legally, etc.)."

Again, who the fuck is doing that? Who is walking door to door, checking houses, making sure there aren't two guys spending their lives together there? NO ONE.

1/30/2010 9:51:38 PM

Quote :

"You clearly don't understand what my point was with that."

Please, by all means, enlighten all of us. What exactly did you mean? From what I've been able to garner of your rambling you don't really have much of a point.

Quote :

"No one is denying them the right to marry. As has already been mentioned ad nauseum, they can marry. The only thing being denied here is gov't recognition of that marriage, specifically to people who do not fit the gov'ts definition of marriage."

What you don't seem to understand is that government recognition is the only thing that fucking counts. In a country of laws if something is not legally recognized it may as well not even occur. What is being argued is whether or not that government definition of marriage is Constitutionally consistent, i.e. whether that legal definition is actually legal.

Quote :

"Again, who the fuck is doing that? Who is walking door to door, checking houses, making sure there aren't two guys spending their lives together there? NO ONE."

You really are thick.

1/31/2010 2:54:45 AM

http://www.marriagetrial.com/
I haven't had a chance to watch it yet but I heard about it on NPR. It's a re-enactment using the trial transcript.

1/31/2010 1:36:43 PM

Quote :

"Please, by all means, enlighten all of us. What exactly did you mean? From what I've been able to garner of your rambling you don't really have much of a point."

my point was, if you bothered to read what I wrote, that the gov't doesn't always treat all citizens equally. Look at where I first referenced 17 year olds.

Quote :

"What you don't seem to understand is that government recognition is the only thing that fucking counts."

Bullshit. The SC ruled that people have a right to marry. Not that people have a right to gov't recognition of said marriage.

Quote :

"You really are thick."

How do you figure? You said there was no reason to keep people from joining their lives together. I said there was no one doing such a thing. Then you say I am thick? You just can't defend your arguments, so you will call me names.

1/31/2010 4:50:28 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. The SC ruled that people have a right to marry. Not that people have a right to gov't recognition of said marriage."

Actually, they've never done this. No same-sex marriage case has ever gone before SCOTUS.

Frankly your attempt to argue something which misses the point of the debate is why I am referring to you as thick.

Here's the debate *
















































Here you are *

1/31/2010 5:16:43 PM

Quote :

"Actually, they've never done this. No same-sex marriage case has ever gone before SCOTUS."

you are showing your ignorance here. I said nothing about a right to same-sex marriage. I said "right to marry," period. Something on which the SC has seemingly ruled.

Quote :

"Frankly your attempt to argue something which misses the point of the debate is why I am referring to you as thick."

Well, then, tell me the point of the discussion. You said it was wrong to deny people the right the join their lives. I said no one was doing so. What am I missing here that you did not say? Seems to me like you are, again, unable to defend your points, so you are just making attacks on people.

Part of this discussion hinges on what people do and do not have a right to obtain. Whether it is simple marriage or gov't recognition of marriage is exceedingly important.

1/31/2010 5:29:23 PM

Quote :

"you are showing your ignorance here. I said nothing about a right to same-sex marriage. I said "right to marry," period. Something on which the SC has seemingly ruled."

And this is why I say that you've missed the point of the discussion. Without government recognition there is no legal marriage.

[Edited on February 1, 2010 at 2:09 PM. Reason : asdfsd]

2/1/2010 2:07:17 PM

so, I guess people have been getting married for millennia without a reason...

2/3/2010 7:01:40 PM

It has always conferred social benefits, but recently (as in, the last 2 millenia or so) it has also conferred legal benefits. Now, considering the society we live in, only the legal benefits are important. This is especially true when considering the LEGAL ramifications of anything when discussing same sex marriage.

2/4/2010 4:32:44 AM