I have the constitutional freedom to be opposed to faggots marrying each other

7/20/2006 1:40:14 PM

Quote :

"The ability to force me to legally recognize something that I find abominable, and call it "marriage" and give it the same rights as marriage, is not part of ANY freedom."

there are plenty of marriages that i'm sure most americans would find abominable between men and women, that doesn't give us the right to deny these people the right to be married.

7/20/2006 1:42:05 PM

But they are marriage. They fit the basic definition. As opposed to this "relationship".

Forcing society to change the basic definition of a thousands of years old institution to fit your own whims of the day is NOT part of anyone's freedom either.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 1:43 PM. Reason : add]

7/20/2006 1:43:25 PM

so tell me why you're not a bigot?

slavery and monarchy and countless other things that fly in the face of our country are very old.

the constitution says man this man that. does this mean that women shouldn't be able to vote?

let me get this straight with you: this has nothing to do with a religious definition of marriage. it is a legal status/contract

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2006 1:43:54 PM

And the legal status is granted to a societal institution. Why should people have the right to demand that society change its institutions just to fit whatever left wing political whim happens to be in vogue at any certain time?

7/20/2006 1:52:36 PM

yeah because we just came up with homosexuality in the past few years. not like it's been present throughout all of written history or anything.

7/20/2006 1:53:56 PM

Haha why argue, dude? His ideas are based on a narrow, traditionally accepted interpretation of a document that was strung together centuries upon centuries ago.

7/20/2006 1:56:03 PM

Quote :

"a document that was strung together centuries upon centuries ago. "

you must mean the backbone of our entire country

7/20/2006 2:09:16 PM

the constitution?
or plato's republic?
or the magna carta?

7/20/2006 2:10:05 PM

No he means a rigid set of antiquated morals, backed up by a vacuous argument.

7/20/2006 2:12:00 PM

i dont care if fags get married, just dont let treetwista be allowed to post in soap box

7/20/2006 2:14:49 PM

Quote :

"The ability to force me to legally recognize something that I find abominable like interracial marriage, and call it "marriage" and give it the same rights as marriage, is not part of ANY freedom."

It's bigotry, plain and simple, and this bullshit argument could have been used during the women's suffrage movement, or during emancipation, or whatever else.

You're once again conflating your desire to impose your morality on people with religious rights.

Quote :

"Forcing society to change the basic definition of a thousands of years old institution to fit your own whims of the day is NOT part of anyone's freedom either."

Ahaha, so once again, emancipation, universal suffrage-- definitely NOT part of anyone's freedom.



[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2006 2:22:23 PM

at least when its a black guy marrying a white girl, for example, its a guy and a girl

better than two white dudes getting married

7/20/2006 2:23:20 PM

Quote :

"at least when its a black guy marrying a white girl, for example, its a guy and a girl better than two white dudes getting married"

Why does it matter? Why are you for denying happiness to two of age individuals just because they happen to be of the same sex? How can you logically justify such a position?

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ..]

7/20/2006 2:57:47 PM

because i personally dont agree with it and i have the right to not agree with it

7/20/2006 3:06:05 PM

it's a fight that's not going to be won, i'm afraid. maybe not this year or next. but i guarantee that in the next 10 years, gay marriage will be legal, most likely because of judicial action.

7/20/2006 3:10:09 PM

Quote :

"because i personally dont agree with it and i have the right to not agree with it"

Why? You still haven't given a reason. Saying "I don't like it" without giving a reason is what children do. You're an adult. Think like one.

7/20/2006 3:16:42 PM

Quote :

"most likely because of judicial action."

In that case there will be a severe backlash against Their Majesties the judiciary, and Americans will do whatever it takes to cast off the dictatorship of the judicary.

Quote :

"Why are you for denying happiness to two of age individuals just because they happen to be of the same sex?"

Misstatement of the issue. They can have all the happiness they want. It's just that the GOVERNMENT is not going to recognize their happiness as "marriage".

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 4:22 PM. Reason : add]

7/20/2006 4:22:09 PM

Quote :

" In that case there will be a severe backlash against Their Majesties the judiciary, and Americans will do whatever it takes to cast off the dictatorship of the judicary."

you're delusional. oh yeah and did this happen after brown vs. board of education?

that decision wasn't all that popular either.

^and:

if this weren't called "marriage" but ensured every one of the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual marriage, would you be ok with that?

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2006 4:26:45 PM

Quote :

"But they are marriage. They fit the basic definition."

they fit YOUR basic definition. Marriage is a social contract.

7/20/2006 4:35:08 PM

Quote :

"They can have all the happiness they want. It's just that the GOVERNMENT is not going to recognize their happiness as "marriage"."

Wolfpack2K, The beauty of the American government is that neither you nor the government has the priviledge of "recognizing" or not "recognizing" any of its citizens' liberties without just cause. Is civil marriage not a liberty?

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: The ability to force me to legally recognize something that I find abominable, and call it "marriage" and give it the same rights as marriage, is not part of ANY freedom."

The idea that whether or not you choose to recognize something has any bearing on other peoples' rights is entirely un-American.




[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2006 7:14:03 PM

Quote :

"Misstatement of the issue. They can have all the happiness they want. It's just that the GOVERNMENT is not going to recognize their happiness as "marriage"."

So why should heterosexual couples "happiness' be recognized then? What makes their "happiness" so much more important. Recognition for all or recognition for none. You still haven't come up with a good reason against it. Only because society doesn't want them to. That isn't good enough. The same idiotic arguments where made against blacks/whites marrying, giving women the right to vote, and freeing the slaves.

7/20/2006 9:40:03 PM

Quote :

"You're once again conflating your desire to impose your morality on people with religious rights."

But it's OK for you to impose YOUR morals on other people. Hypocrisy much?

7/20/2006 10:28:08 PM

Quote :

"But it's OK for you to impose YOUR morals on other people. Hypocrisy much?"

Christ this is such a retarded argument. Whose forcing anything on you? By legally recognizing gay marriage how are you forced to do anything? Hell, you have more freedom than you did before as you can marry a man if you so choose to do so. More freedom is always a great thing.

7/20/2006 10:59:14 PM

But they're making me give blacks women gay people equal treatment under the law!

7/20/2006 11:04:26 PM

hahaha. "More Freedom is a good thing." In that case, we should get rid of all laws. I should be "free" to murder you if I choose, because more freedom is good!

That you can't see how morality is being pushed is pretty stupid. Here's a hint: By the gov't allowing gay "marraige," the gov't is in effect saying that homosexuality is OK. That's a moral statement, buddy. Not that the gov't saying it isn't OK isn't a moral statement, either, mind you. Just don't be obtuse and pretend like you aren't pushing your morality on people.

I think I've made it clear in this thread that I don't know exactly where I stand on the issue of gay "marriage," though. Obviously, I am leaning a little more to the "no" side than not, but I'm not ready to take a definitive stand. Unfortunately, that is kind of a stand on the "no" side, because what I would do, were I asked, would be to vote for the status quo, seeing no absolutely compelling reason to change it. Obviously, that's not a great argument in defense of the ban, but I never claimed it was one. Rather, it's a justification for how I would vote, were I asked

Quote :

"But they're making me give blacks women gay people equal treatment under the law! "

If you want to play that anti-slippery-slope argument, then I'll go back to the question of why a man can't marry his dog. Why not polygamy? Why not pedophilia? It's simply replacing one word for another. You've got to provide more of an argument than a simple "replace the word," because we found reason in the past to overturn those errant ways of thinking. That we've overturned previous errors is not a reason to overturn current laws based simply on a proposed word change to suit your whims.

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 11:10:14 PM

Quote :

"I should be "free" to murder you if I choose, because more freedom is good!"

You're comparing something that hurts no one to something that causes someone to die.

Quote :

"By the gov't allowing gay "marraige," the gov't is in effect saying that homosexuality is OK."

No. By the government not legislating agianst gay marrriage the the goverment IS saying "we shouldn't legislate if two consenting adults can and can't marry".
The government doesn't have any laws agianst S&M or cheating on your spouse, or even gay sex. Does that mean the government is saying those are ok?

7/20/2006 11:19:40 PM

Quote :

"I should be "free" to murder you if I choose, because more freedom is good!"

Freedom is great. Especially the right to life, which prohibits murder.

Quote :

"By the gov't allowing gay "marraige," the gov't is in effect saying that homosexuality is OK. That's a moral statement, buddy."

No, it's actually saying, "it's absolutely none of our business, and denying services to law abiding citizens in not within our power, anyways."

Quote :

"If you want to play that anti-slippery-slope argument, then I'll go back to the question of why a man can't marry his dog. Why not polygamy? Why not pedophilia?"

You mean if you wanted to play the "I'm mentally handicapped" argument.

-Dogs can't enter into a legal contract, nor give consent to sexual acts.
-Minors can't enter into a legal contract, nor give consent to sexual acts.
-If you wanted to use a logical fallacy as your main argument, I suppose the type of people who give a crap about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms would agree with you on polygamy.


[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 11:28 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2006 11:25:17 PM

Quote :

" You're comparing something that hurts no one to something that causes someone to die."

I know. The idiocy is supposed to show the idiocy in saying "more freedom is good."

Quote :

"we shouldn't legislate if two consenting adults can and can't marry"

Ahhhh, but they are legislating. You see, homosexuals, by gaining "marraige," will gain gov't benefits currently granted only to heterosexuals. That is a de facto legislation at worst. S&M gets no benefits from the gov't. Cheating on your spouse is kind of given "OK" status by the gov't in "no-fault" divorces.

I've said several times that I think that before the gov't goes out and says "yes, we're gonna allow gay marraige" or "no, we won't," the gov't needs to, once and for all, define marriage. It just needs to say what it is, cause that's practically the heart of the issue. Everyone is dancing around the issue, really. And the gov't needs to try and define marriage as homogeneously as possible. Leave out as much targeted shit like race and sex and shit as possible. Only then can we really answer the question of who should be allowed to marry.

Quote :

"Freedom is great. Especially the right to life, which prohibits murder."

Prohibits, AKA restricts my freedom. BTW, a "right" is not freedom. sorry...

Quote :

"Dogs can't enter into a legal contract, nor give consent to sexual acts. "

Blacks used to not be able to enter into a legal contract. Nor could women. Your point?
Why do you feel the need to discriminate so heavily against dogs and children? WHY DO YOU HATE DOG-FREEDOM AND CHILD-FREEDOM?

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 11:28:30 PM

Quote :

"Only then can we really answer the question of who should be allowed to marry."

Holy. Shit.

It's not a difficult question.

bigotry v. freedom


[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 11:37 PM. Reason : .]

7/20/2006 11:31:40 PM

that you see it as that black and white when it so obviously isn't is precisely the need for a real definition. Polarization of the issue into black and white has completely hidden the underlying problem

7/20/2006 11:33:25 PM

Quote :

"The idiocy is supposed to show the idiocy in saying "more freedom is good.""

I believe a few things were implied there that you missed.

Quote :

"Ahhhh, but they are legislating."

No, they're not legislating. Making a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be legilslating. Not making that amendment would not be legislating. Surely this isn't a concept beyond your grasp.

Quote :

"You see, homosexuals, by gaining "marraige," will gain gov't benefits currently granted only to heterosexuals."

First off, right now it's determined by state courts. Secondly, it's offering marraige to everyone, thus removing discrimination.

Quote :

"I've said several times that I think that before the gov't goes out and says "yes, we're gonna allow gay marraige" or "no, we won't," the gov't needs to, once and for all, define marriage."

No it doesn't. The federal government has no business in marriage. It should be left up to churches and such. Offering tax breaks is enough.

Dogs aren't people. Maybe you can get a little bit sillier.

7/20/2006 11:38:54 PM

Arguing with anti gay marriage religious idiots is like arguing versus creationists.

You're right, but you're not gonna win.

7/20/2006 11:39:13 PM

Quote :

"Prohibits, AKA restricts my freedom."

Yes, your rights end where others' begin. How exactly is giving homosexuals equal treatment under the law infringing on anyone's rights?

Quote :

"BTW, a "right" is not freedom. sorry..."

But certain freedoms are rights, you dipshit.

Quote :

"WHY DO YOU HATE DOG-FREEDOM AND CHILD-FREEDOM?"

WHY DO YOU TAKE THE TIME TO ANSWER ME WHEN YOU HAVE NO INTEREST IN ACTUALLY ADDRESSING MY POINTS?

Quote :

"Polarization of the issue into black and white has completely hidden the underlying problem"

No, I addressed the underlying problem:

bigotry v. freedom

I'm sorry if you find the bigotry side of the argument so compelling.

7/20/2006 11:40:04 PM

Quote :

"Yes, your rights end where others' begin."

AKA, "more freedom is not necessarily good." you know, what I was responding to... remove sand from vaginaaaaaa.... NOW!

Quote :

"No, I addressed the underlying problem:"

actually, you didn't. Screaming at the top of your lungs that the sky is falling doesn't actually make it true. Doing it repeatedly doesn't either

Quote :

"Secondly, it's offering marraige to everyone, thus removing discrimination."

assuming that it's really something that should be free from discrimination. You know, something that needs to be proven, possibly in a truly defined term of marriage

Quote :

"SlavesBlacksJewsDogs aren't people. Maybe you can get a little bit sillier."

[Edited on July 20, 2006 at 11:53 PM. Reason : ]

7/20/2006 11:51:33 PM

Pack up and go home boys. You all did a great job showing the logical, correct point of view.

You can only waste your time from here on out.

7/20/2006 11:57:27 PM

Quote :

"AKA, "more freedom is not necessarily good." you know, what I was responding to... remove sand from vaginaaaaaa.... NOW! "

Ok, if you want to be a douche about this and not actually address my argument, if I increased my freedom beyond the point where others' began, then it would be at best a zero net gain if I were only impeding on someone else's freedoms. If I were impeding on multiple peoples' freedoms, then there would be a net loss.

So even if you're being a nit-picky troll, I'm still right, and more freedom is still necessarily good.

7/20/2006 11:59:49 PM

Quote :

"The ability to force me to legally recognize something that I find abominable, and call it "marriage" and give it the same rights as marriage, is not part of ANY freedom."

This from the guy who spent two pages arguing about "major premises." Miscegenation laws, anyone?

Seriously -- if you had been born forty years earlier, you'd be one of those southern lawyer "I wanna be a Senator when I grow up" types writing position papers defending miscegenation laws.

Oh wait, I forgot -- you're Catholic. You get a "get out of stupidity free" card.

[Edited on July 21, 2006 at 3:36 AM. Reason : fo]

7/21/2006 3:34:54 AM

Quote :

"In that case there will be a severe backlash against Their Majesties the judiciary, and Americans will do whatever it takes to cast off the dictatorship of the judicary."

If you hate judges so much, why did you choose a profession where you have to spend the majority of your working life kissing judges' asses?

Quite a Freudian thing you have going there.

7/21/2006 3:41:36 AM

salisburyboy makes better arguments than the ones in this thread. Jesus Christ.

I'll say it one more time because it never got a response.

Quote :

"The argument you keep throwing out is that not allowing gay marriage isn't a discrimination. So my question to you is do you think banning interracial "marriages" (let me try your frivolous use of quotation marks) would discriminate against anyone? SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY BIG PERVERSION TO ME."

7/21/2006 9:12:36 AM

Personally, I don't think the government , both on a state and federal level should be involved with marital affairs of any kind. They should only regconize a that two or more people are in a permanent consenting relationship , and nothing more . Furthermore, the government should not know any information about the marriage of the two people. Such information includes whether or not the two adults are male and female, whether they have children together , prior to their marriage or the names of the two adults,etc.

I don't think laws should be made based on a moralityheld by a certain group of people, because people will always have a different definition of morality and it would be unfair to favor one morality held by one group over a morality held by another group

The federal government should only make sure our borders are secure from invading countries and terrorists , and to make sure civil rights and eqaulity are protected . the state government should established laws that will help further maintain the status or increase the state 's economy.

7/25/2006 1:48:54 PM

well that's not going to happen without an abolition gov't. sorry. try again.

7/25/2006 1:53:24 PM

" well that's not going to happen without an abolition gov't. sorry. try again"

Why would there be an abolition of government ? What would come out of my proposal would be limited government. There is too much government involvement in personal and moral affairs . The government doesn't define marriage. I am not even sure who died and made the church define marriage.

People in ancient times where getting married way before the church or even organized religion were created.

The only time our government should ever get involved with any human activity or ritual should only be when one party is doing physical or mental harm aganist another party .

7/26/2006 4:37:43 PM

hey guyz. what's goin on?

7/26/2006 9:30:53 PM

You were losing an argument.

7/27/2006 12:39:57 AM