Miss California Just Lost Me

[aps45819 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

It would have to be a very intelligent goat to meet my criteria.

Doesn't matter You're not the one that want's to marry it

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

That means you agree they should be allowed to marry

Provided we define "marry" the same way, we agree. And, they can marry anyone they want, provided it meets that definition.

Again, they can't marry someone too young. They can't marry someone too closely related. They can't marry more than one person. They can't marry someone of the same gender. All of these things have to be equally disallowed, or equally allowed as the argument to allow any would be to allow the others. I've yet to hear/read a compelling argument to change this.

Every time I see you say that I hear that quote by Henry Ford " You can have it in any color you want... as long as it's black"

ok. What you're suggesting is that people only have the choice of what's available. In this case, what's available for state recognition (for 94% of states) is that state recognition of the relationship only goes to one man/one woman relationships.

This doesn't stop two people of the same gender from living in every meaningful way as married.

Definitions change over time, you're just going to have to get used to it.

Why? What's the compelling reason? Where is the gain to society to alter the centuries old standard?

I understand the argument fine, that you wouldn't want to argue the points that make your position look weak I understand

Please, bring on argument against what I'm saying that are weak. I'll argue those, but not the ones I'm not making.

The argument is marrying the person you want, not the restricted subset that the state says is legel at this time.

No, the argument is what constitutes "marriage" for the state recognition.

Marrying someone "you" want is not prohibited in any way, shape, or form. State recognition of that relationship is what is being questioned. Where is the compelling argument to recognize other unions than those which historically have provided stability to society?

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

Provided we define "marry" the same way, we agree. And, they can marry anyone they want, provided it meets that definition.

Again, they can't marry someone too young. They can't marry someone too closely related. They can't marry more than one person. They can't marry someone of the same gender. All of these things have to be equally disallowed, or equally allowed as the argument to allow any would be to allow the others. I've yet to hear/read a compelling argument to change this.ok. What you're suggesting is that people only have the choice of what's available. In this case, what's available for state recognition (for 94% of states) is that state recognition of the relationship only goes to one man/one woman relationships.

This doesn't stop two people of the same gender from living in every meaningful way as married. Why? What's the compelling reason? Where is the gain to society to alter the centuries old standard? Please, bring on argument against what I'm saying that are weak. I'll argue those, but not the ones I'm not making.No, the argument is what constitutes "marriage" for the state recognition.

Marrying someone "you" want is not prohibited in any way, shape, or form. State recognition of that relationship is what is being questioned. Where is the compelling argument to recognize other unions than those which historically have provided stability to society?

The supreme court answered that question in 1967

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State

change that one word "race" to "gender" and the same ruling fits.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Merlin99

The supreme court answered that question in 1967



change that one word "race" to "gender" and the same ruling fits.

Not really. Two races, be they black and white, asian and hispanic, whatever, would still be a man and a woman.

I've never suggested race had anything to do with it, and to replace race and gender is implying that gender has no more meaning to a relationship than race. That's absurd.

No, marriage is marriage. Interracial marriage is still marriage, because it's still a man and a woman. Something as relatively meaningless to a relationship as the race of those involved can't be compared to the gender of the individuals involved.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

You know we're still waiting for you to explain how making it easier to get out of a marriage, divorce, has led to an increase in unwed mothers and welfare costs and crime (from fatherless children).

I've actually explained it a couple of different ways. I suggested that it weakened the concept of marriage, thereby causing people to either get in the family way without the "bother" of getting married, and I explained it the same way you did here

See its easier to get out of a marriage, thereby if anything there would be an increase in the number of marriages. Dont like your marriage, get rid of it and get another.

So, if people don't put as much weight on marriage, they both have kids without getting married, or fathers are more willing to abandon families as you've explained there.

I am not debating that there is an increase in unwed mothers, nor an increase in fatherless children, which may lead to an increase in crime, i want an explanation on how making marriage easier to get out of, has led to those upswings.

Kids raised without significant input from fathers have been shown in study after study to be disproportionately represented in jailed criminals. People raised in "broken" homes are disproportionately represented. What is it here you DO argue with?

The reality is Hetero's have been able to get married, and get out of it easier, yet are not.

"yet are not"? You haven't noted a rise in the divorce rate in the last 40-50 years?

You have not been able to explain how preventing others who want to complete an act, that others are not even attempting (Heteros' getting married) will affect or harm the institution. If anything it strengthense it since more people want and will get married.

I think I've explained it repeatedly, but you just don't seem to understand.

Married has, for a bunch of centuries now, been considered one man and one woman in western culture. Anything which expands that definition dilutes the meaning (kind of a simple concept I would think - the more things that make up something, the less well defined it is, thus the weaker the definition).

Again, where is the evidence that suggest broadening the definition of "marriage" would be societally worthwhile? Where is the justification to suggest that these relationships offer the same societal stability to justify offering the same advantages?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

I'll respond to your drivel when I get home.

Have you made it home yet?





Here were the questions you were going to get back to me on

Did you ever come up with how a homosexual is being discriminated against when he/she can do the same thing as a heterosexual?

did you ever come up with a good justification to call provide the tax benefits something it's not gets?

Originally Posted by This_person

Have you made it home yet?





Here were the questions you were going to get back to me on

Did you ever come up with how a homosexual is being discriminated against when he/she can do the same thing as a heterosexual?

did you ever come up with a good justification to call provide the tax benefits something it's not gets?

Here you go, since you missed it earlier:

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

If you're so bent up to have a debate, you can wait 'til I'm good and ready. I'm busy enough with work, doing stuff for the site, racing, and maintaining the beaverdam that I've barely had time to sleep -- nonetheless have a pointless debate about politics.

And if you don't want me to cuss you out, don't send me Private Messages like these:





1. It's called equal rights. Gays are told they can't marry the one they love because they're equal. Read the 14th Amendment again.

2. I'm against tax cuts for married couples period. But they either gotta have none or both.

Now, go hug your Bible and pray to Jesus.

Thanks
Andy

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

Here you go, since you missed it earlier:

Originally Posted by Beaver-Cleaver

If you're so bent up to have a debate, you can wait 'til I'm good and ready. I'm busy enough with work, doing stuff for the site, racing, and maintaining the beaverdam that I've barely had time to sleep -- nonetheless have a pointless debate about politics.

You said you'd answer Friday. It's Tuesday. I think I had good reason to think you were trying to avoid the debate. Your answers below demonstrate that you are very unprepared to enter the debate.

And if you don't want me to cuss you out, don't send me Private Messages like these:

Go ahead and cuss me out. I need a good laugh

1. It's called equal rights. Gays are told they can't marry the one they love because they're equal. Read the 14th Amendment again.

I'll assume you mean "un"equal.

They're not unequal. They're asking for a certificate that says something is true that's not actually true. Marriage is one thing, their union is something else. Not unequal, different.

If you can demonstrate the equal benefit to society (you know, the actual question that was asked) please do. Clearly you can't, and that's why you're clearly unprepared for substantive debate.

2. I'm against tax cuts for married couples period. But they either gotta have none or both.

Actually, "they" don't.

The state does not provide a semi driver's license for someone who's passed only a car license test. "They" don't provide a marriage license for someone who's demonstrated only a civil union test. That's not lack of equality, that's lack of being the same thing.

Now, go hug your Bible and pray to Jesus. Thanks Andy

I'll ask you again to show me where I am using religion in my positions on this issue.

At least try and be better than Nuck - try and argue the positions being made, not the ones you are assuming.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

As long as the three sisters knowingly and willingly enter the relationship, then why not? as to the Goat it does not have the mental capacity to enter the relationship, and is just a misdirection.

For me personally, I agree with both of your points - who cares if somebody is diddling their consent age, willing sisters? And, the bestiality angle is changing species so it doesn't apply.

However, the issue of marriage law isn't whether they can do these things. The issue of marriage law is whether the state will recognize the relationship, and, if they do, if they'll provide it with the same benefits as other relationships. Which leaves the question still hanging (since Andy clearly can't handle it, but you're far smarter than he is) - where is the study, the experience of other countries, ANYTHING which suggests these other relationships offer anything towards the same societal benefits traditional marriage does?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

A study of benefit is not necessary, since benefit to society is not a requirement of the institution.

You could demand a study explaining why you should deny the institution, since that is an action taken beyond the scope of Government as framed by the original Founding Fathers.

Actually, we agree on the first statement - it's not a requirement for the institution. However, neither is state recognition of the institution. Thus, we seem to still agree that people can marry without state recognition.

But, for the tax benefits, traditional marriage has demonstrated for centuries the stabilizing effect it has on society at large. To provide those benefits would require some justification of the benefit to society of the civil union.


But, we disagree on whether marriage was within the scope of the government. From my point of view, the 9th and 10th amendments mean the states can establish and regulate marriage as they see fit.