North Carolina Amendment One "1 Man, 1 Woman"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

nyttyn:

I was once straight. I had a girlfriend. She was a cheating bitch. Now I'm bisexual.

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

Seekster:

nyttyn:

I was once straight. I had a girlfriend. She was a cheating bitch. Now I'm bisexual.

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

I did. It was the best decision I ever made.

As for the rest of your post, it is based on being a hypocrite and has no supporting argument behind it.

Your argument literally boils down to "OMGZ HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT HAVE THE SAME RELATIONSHIP AS US STRAIGHT FOLK"

Why? In fact, in your OWN POSTS you even admit "As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners."

So why can't they have marriage?

Seekster:

nyttyn:

I was once straight. I had a girlfriend. She was a cheating bitch. Now I'm bisexual.

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

.
The same reason why A christian that had forsaken Christianity was "NEVER A REAL CHRISTIAN TO BEGIN WITH"?
It's 'no true scotsman' all over again! Stop using it!

Seekster:
Right apparently a refresher course is required on the differences between men and women, particularly the ones that would be relevant in a relationship. The following is a list of general differences but many of those on the list are relevant to a relationship.

You know Seekster, we had this exact same discussion and I pointed out to you that those differences are superficial at best and have no baring on relationships. Anyways, let's analye your list.

"Human relationships."
This is the source provided to justify those claims:
http://www.fitbrains.com/

"Left brain vs. both hemispheres"
This is the source provided to justify those claims:
http://www.thirdage.com/

"Mathematical abilities."
The source on this one is an actual PHD so that's good. However, if you believe mathematical ability is a big enough difference to justify calling relationships between both sexes different then frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Besides, there are men who are terrible at math and women who are good at it so this means jack shit.

"Reaction to stress."
This is the source provided to justify those claims:
http://phillyfitmagazine.com/

"Language"
Another claim with an actual source to back up its claims, a government website no less. However, you're going to have to clarify how excelling in "language-based subjects" is enough of a reason to justify claiming that same sex relationships are fundamentally different.

"Emotions"
This is the source provided to justify those claims:
http://www.doctorhugo.org/

And I quote: "Welcome to the 'Art and Synesthesia' site of Dr. Hugo Heyrman, Ph.D. in Art Sciences."

"Brain size"
There is no source for this one.

"Pain"
Really? The way women perceive pain is the reason two men shouldn't be able to marry?

"Spatial ability."
There is no source for this one.

"Susceptibility to disorders."
A blog. That's the scientific source for this claim.

Seekster, even if you prove men and women are fundamentally different you still need to show how what effect those differences have on relationships. Otherwise, you're just spouting bullshit.

Seekster:
To summarize men and women approach relationships in different ways.

How did you reached that conclusion?

Seekster:
It would not be unfair to say that women in general are better at building relationships and are more sensitive to reading things like changes in mood and what have you.

Which means jack shit when it comes to relationships but whatever.

Seekster:
. By this difference alone a relationship between two women or two men is going to involve clear differences from a heterosexual relationship in how those involved in the relationships interact with their partner.

Seekster, you're going to have to prove that claim using science.

Seekster:
Also men and women approach dealing with stress in different ways as outlined in that link I posted. I don't think I need to tell you that a marriage can be stressful at times so having multiple ways of dealing with stress in the relationship is going to be useful.

The source provided to support that claim was a fitness magazine. Besides, that's at an individual level and as I've shown to you before, whilst these things might influence us they're not universal. Otherwise, we wouldn't see any women mathematicians.

Seekster:
I would not however say that one kind of relationship is necessarily better than another I am simply arguing that the relationships are going to be different because men and women are different.

Which is simply not true. You're talking as if marriage is defined by these differences, it's not. Hell, a hundred years ago marriage wasn't even about love. Honestly, you're just pulling shit out of your ass at this point.

Seekster:
Right apparently a refresher course is required on the differences between men and women, particularly the ones that would be relevant in a relationship. The following is a list of general differences but many of those on the list are relevant to a relationship.

http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/

As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners. As such a gay guy is still a guy and a lesbian woman is still a woman so these differences would apply to homosexuals just as much as they would heterosexuals.

To summarize men and women approach relationships in different ways. It would not be unfair to say that women in general are better at building relationships and are more sensitive to reading things like changes in mood and what have you. By this difference alone a relationship between two women or two men is going to involve clear differences from a heterosexual relationship in how those involved in the relationships interact with their partner. I don't think I need to prove that men and women communicate differently. Also men and women approach dealing with stress in different ways as outlined in that link I posted. I don't think I need to tell you that a marriage can be stressful at times so having multiple ways of dealing with stress in the relationship is going to be useful.

I would not however say that one kind of relationship is necessarily better than another I am simply arguing that the relationships are going to be different because men and women are different.

Bearjing:

Seekster:

Exactly, that is the ONLY reason this is even an issue. Ask yourself though, why do we have to ONLY gives these rights and benefits to married couples? We give these rights and benefits to make it easier to live as a family but nowadays many families exist without a marriage so wouldnt it make more sense to offer these benefits and rights based on a more encompassing factor rather than marriage?

So, who are these "families" who can't get married and aren't gay?

Well single mother or father families for example.

If women are better at building relationships wouldn't a lesbian couple be the perfect couple?

Edit Saying that a relationship between a man and a woman is different from a man and a man is meaningless since every female male relationship differ from one another and likewise with gay relationships. You need to actually show which differences (and why they matter) makes them unworthy of marriage. After that kindly show us that these differences only occur in same sex couples.

TheIronRuler:

Seekster:

nyttyn:

I was once straight. I had a girlfriend. She was a cheating bitch. Now I'm bisexual.

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

.
The same reason why A christian that had forsaken Christianity was "NEVER A REAL CHRISTIAN TO BEGIN WITH"?
It's 'no true scotsman' all over again! Stop using it!

You sir deserve all the cookies in the world for referencing NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN

nyttyn:

Seekster:

nyttyn:

I was once straight. I had a girlfriend. She was a cheating bitch. Now I'm bisexual.

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

I did. It was the best decision I ever made.

As for the rest of your post, it is based on being a hypocrite and has no supporting argument behind it.

Your argument literally boils down to "OMGZ HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT HAVE THE SAME RELATIONSHIP AS US STRAIGHT FOLK"

Why? In fact, in your OWN POSTS you even admit "As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners."

So why can't they have marriage?

You are telling me that you made a conscious decision to become a bisexual?

And no you and I can't have a discussion on this issue because no matter how much I support my argument and no matter how valid it is you will reject it offhand.

TheIronRuler:

Seekster:

nyttyn:

I was once straight. I had a girlfriend. She was a cheating bitch. Now I'm bisexual.

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

.
The same reason why A christian that had forsaken Christianity was "NEVER A REAL CHRISTIAN TO BEGIN WITH"?
It's 'no true scotsman' all over again! Stop using it!

Im actually part Irish, I assume you aren't talking about the fallacy no true Scotsman because if you were you would have to be willingly missing the point.

The point is that the pro-gay marriage crowd argues that a person cannot choose their sexual orientation. If being homosexual or in this case bisexual were a choice then the entire pro-gay marriage argument collapses. Now we have a guy claiming he was straight but then chose to be a Bisexual. Do you see the problem?

ChairmanFluffy:

Seekster:
Right apparently a refresher course is required on the differences between men and women, particularly the ones that would be relevant in a relationship. The following is a list of general differences but many of those on the list are relevant to a relationship.

http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/

As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners. As such a gay guy is still a guy and a lesbian woman is still a woman so these differences would apply to homosexuals just as much as they would heterosexuals.

To summarize men and women approach relationships in different ways. It would not be unfair to say that women in general are better at building relationships and are more sensitive to reading things like changes in mood and what have you. By this difference alone a relationship between two women or two men is going to involve clear differences from a heterosexual relationship in how those involved in the relationships interact with their partner. I don't think I need to prove that men and women communicate differently. Also men and women approach dealing with stress in different ways as outlined in that link I posted. I don't think I need to tell you that a marriage can be stressful at times so having multiple ways of dealing with stress in the relationship is going to be useful.

I would not however say that one kind of relationship is necessarily better than another I am simply arguing that the relationships are going to be different because men and women are different.

Bearjing:

So, who are these "families" who can't get married and aren't gay?

Well single mother or father families for example.

If women are better at building relationships wouldn't a lesbian couple be the perfect couple?

Edit Saying that a relationship between a man and a woman is different from a man and a man is meaningless since every female male relationship differ from one another and likewise with gay relationships. You need to actually show which differences (and why they matter) makes them unworthy of marriage. After that kindly show us that these differences only occur in same sex couples.

"If women are better at building relationships wouldn't a lesbian couple be the perfect couple?"

Depends on the individuals and the quality of a relationship is subjective anyway.

Has anyone pointed out that statistical differences between genders doesn't mean that any one man and a woman are going to perfectly match up as one or more or both may be outliers?

Seekster:

nyttyn:

Seekster:

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

I did. It was the best decision I ever made.

As for the rest of your post, it is based on being a hypocrite and has no supporting argument behind it.

Your argument literally boils down to "OMGZ HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT HAVE THE SAME RELATIONSHIP AS US STRAIGHT FOLK"

Why? In fact, in your OWN POSTS you even admit "As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners."

So why can't they have marriage?

You are telling me that you made a conscious decision to become a bisexual?

Yes. I figure, why limit myself?

And no you and I can't have a discussion on this issue because no matter how much I support my argument and no matter how valid it is you will reject it offhand.

So, you have a argument, and that's why you are right, but your not going to present it, because I'll reject it offhand?

That's...that's not a valid defense. You are literally telling me that you know you are right, but you won't tell me why.

TheIronRuler:

Seekster:

Um I don't think it works that way. Either you were bisexual all along or you arent really bisexual now. You can't choose your sexual orientation after all.

As for the rest of your post, its based on appealing to emotion and has no supporting argument behind it.

.
The same reason why A christian that had forsaken Christianity was "NEVER A REAL CHRISTIAN TO BEGIN WITH"?
It's 'no true scotsman' all over again! Stop using it!

Im actually part Irish, I assume you aren't talking about the fallacy no true Scotsman because if you were you would have to be willingly missing the point.

As am I. Get drunk as fuck every day whoo!

The point is that the pro-gay marriage crowd argues that a person cannot choose their sexual orientation. If being homosexual or in this case bisexual were a choice then the entire pro-gay marriage argument collapses. Now we have a guy claiming he was straight but then chose to be a Bisexual. Do you see the problem?

Some people just have preferences, like wine, or steak, from birth. However, you can acquire a taste, such as vodka.

Such as in the case of watching enough sexy shirtless men to decide that, indeed, shirtless men with rippling abs are visually appealing.

ChairmanFluffy:

Seekster:
Right apparently a refresher course is required on the differences between men and women, particularly the ones that would be relevant in a relationship. The following is a list of general differences but many of those on the list are relevant to a relationship.

http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/

As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners. As such a gay guy is still a guy and a lesbian woman is still a woman so these differences would apply to homosexuals just as much as they would heterosexuals.

To summarize men and women approach relationships in different ways. It would not be unfair to say that women in general are better at building relationships and are more sensitive to reading things like changes in mood and what have you. By this difference alone a relationship between two women or two men is going to involve clear differences from a heterosexual relationship in how those involved in the relationships interact with their partner. I don't think I need to prove that men and women communicate differently. Also men and women approach dealing with stress in different ways as outlined in that link I posted. I don't think I need to tell you that a marriage can be stressful at times so having multiple ways of dealing with stress in the relationship is going to be useful.

I would not however say that one kind of relationship is necessarily better than another I am simply arguing that the relationships are going to be different because men and women are different.

Well single mother or father families for example.

If women are better at building relationships wouldn't a lesbian couple be the perfect couple?

Edit Saying that a relationship between a man and a woman is different from a man and a man is meaningless since every female male relationship differ from one another and likewise with gay relationships. You need to actually show which differences (and why they matter) makes them unworthy of marriage. After that kindly show us that these differences only occur in same sex couples.

"If women are better at building relationships wouldn't a lesbian couple be the perfect couple?"

Depends on the individuals and the quality of a relationship is subjective anyway.

Wow, you are a master of completely sidestepping arguments. "It depends" is not a valid counterargument, as your statement of "it depends" is so vague that it could extend to include all sorts of couples without issue. I also enjoy how you ignore the fact that he's calling you out on your lack of evidence.

So, please, Seekster, tell us once and for all why, in hard facts, with genuine reasoning and cold evidence supporting them, why you are opposed to same sex marriage other then the fact that it threatens the very concept of "nuclear family" that you seem to have grown up on.

I'll give you my reasoning why we should allow same sex marriage:

Because why the fuck not. Marriage is a institution of love, and don't try to pull the slippery card bullshit on me, because we're still dealing with two living, breathing, high intelligent creatures capable of communicating and expressly desiring their love and want for a marriage. There is no reason, unless you are holding back some sort of magical catch-all answer in your ass, that Marriage should be denied to people who hold genuine love just because same-sex marriage would render the "Morals" and "Values" some people grew up with and hold so sacred would be proven wrong.

Are you honestly arguing that we should deny people who are in love the right to be married and expressly state their love, not to mention gaining the legal benefits that any other couple would obtain, just because it makes you feel ansty? Just because you have to explain it to your kids? Just because it will establish a non-existant imaginary slope? Are you arguing any of these things? I don't know if you believe in any of that, because you won't tell me. So I will have to assume, and my assumption is that you are crying out against this because it questions your sacred "values."

So seekester, I ask, are you just some mean old grumpy moral crusader attempting to enforce his world view upon us all, demanding that the world conform to his standards, or are you a rational human being who can actually acknowledge that all this does is deny the same-sex romantic relationship community equal rights?

Knight Templar:
This is the most funny thing I have read all night.

Thanks, I sometimes have my moments.

I honestly fail to see how that kind of argumentation is supposed to make sense when you can literally substitute any category or group for M + W here. It's basically tautological: I define M and W in specific ways so that adding them up in different ways nets different results and then I point to those differing results to say: There. See, they're different. Yes! Because you defined them to be!

Nah mate, cause if you let men marry other men, all guys will just marry their mates for the tax stuff, fraudulent marriages will be everywhere ay mate. It won't be special anymore ay.

Maaaaate.

Seekster:
Right apparently a refresher course is required on the differences between men and women, particularly the ones that would be relevant in a relationship. The following is a list of general differences but many of those on the list are relevant to a relationship.

http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/

As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners. As such a gay guy is still a guy and a lesbian woman is still a woman so these differences would apply to homosexuals just as much as they would heterosexuals.

To summarize men and women approach relationships in different ways. It would not be unfair to say that women in general are better at building relationships and are more sensitive to reading things like changes in mood and what have you. By this difference alone a relationship between two women or two men is going to involve clear differences from a heterosexual relationship in how those involved in the relationships interact with their partner. I don't think I need to prove that men and women communicate differently. Also men and women approach dealing with stress in different ways as outlined in that link I posted. I don't think I need to tell you that a marriage can be stressful at times so having multiple ways of dealing with stress in the relationship is going to be useful.

I would not however say that one kind of relationship is necessarily better than another I am simply arguing that the relationships are going to be different because men and women are different.

All shit I knew already, though a lot of sources there are pretty fucking questionable. How does any of this mean that we can't call a gay marriage a marriage? You conveniently left that part out.

Seekster:

And no you and I can't have a discussion on this issue because no matter how much I support my argument and no matter how valid it is you will reject it offhand.

The problem is you don't have a valid argument I have seen you countless times you just ring around whatever other people tell you with the only reasoning behind you thinking being 'Because I said so'. How about you answer the questions people are asking you then try think of a valid argument for your views

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Right apparently a refresher course is required on the differences between men and women, particularly the ones that would be relevant in a relationship. The following is a list of general differences but many of those on the list are relevant to a relationship.

http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/

As we have already established homosexuals are only different from heterosexuals in their taste in sexual partners. As such a gay guy is still a guy and a lesbian woman is still a woman so these differences would apply to homosexuals just as much as they would heterosexuals.

To summarize men and women approach relationships in different ways. It would not be unfair to say that women in general are better at building relationships and are more sensitive to reading things like changes in mood and what have you. By this difference alone a relationship between two women or two men is going to involve clear differences from a heterosexual relationship in how those involved in the relationships interact with their partner. I don't think I need to prove that men and women communicate differently. Also men and women approach dealing with stress in different ways as outlined in that link I posted. I don't think I need to tell you that a marriage can be stressful at times so having multiple ways of dealing with stress in the relationship is going to be useful.

I would not however say that one kind of relationship is necessarily better than another I am simply arguing that the relationships are going to be different because men and women are different.

All shit I knew already, though a lot of sources there are pretty fucking questionable. How does any of this mean that we can't call a gay marriage a marriage? You conveniently left that part out.

You can call it whatever you like, the issue is what the government calls a marriage, that is best left up to the people of each state.

Dood:

Seekster:

And no you and I can't have a discussion on this issue because no matter how much I support my argument and no matter how valid it is you will reject it offhand.

The problem is you don't have a valid argument I have seen you countless you just ring around whatever other people tell you with the only reasoning behind you thinking being 'Because I said so'. How about you answer the questions people are asking you then try think of a valid argument for your views

No my argument is valid enough but you can't win with some people.

Seekster's totally the Texan Chris Christie.

Apologies if this was brought up, but doesn't the NC Amendment violate the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Federal Constitution?

For the record, text of the amendment on the ballot (what was voted on):
Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

And the text of the actual legislation:

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.

Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution (Full Faith and Credit Clause):

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Sounds like it's unconstitutional to me. It says "We won't recognise the unions of other states". Thoughts?

Seekster:

Dood:

Seekster:

And no you and I can't have a discussion on this issue because no matter how much I support my argument and no matter how valid it is you will reject it offhand.

The problem is you don't have a valid argument I have seen you countless you just ring around whatever other people tell you with the only reasoning behind you thinking being 'Because I said so'. How about you answer the questions people are asking you then try think of a valid argument for your views

No my argument is valid enough but you can't win with some people.

Yet you still never actually type said vaild argument and of course you can't win when the other people bring something and you continue to show up empty handed.

Seekster:
You can call it whatever you like, the issue is what the government calls a marriage, that is best left up to the people of each state.

Why? Why do these differences make it an issue at all? How do they prove that this should be an issue worth thinking about? How do they prove that the government should put it up to a vote whether or not gay people can get married?

No my argument is valid enough but you can't win with some people.

Your argument so far has been, "Well, gay people kissing is different from heteros kissing because of science, so *mumble mumble mumble* states' rights." That's the long and short of it.

Amnestic:
Apologies if this was brought up, but doesn't the NC Amendment violate the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Federal Constitution?

The problem stems from DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act).

"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

Seekster:

Bohemian Waltz:

Seekster:
Yes I too have my misgivings about the language of the amendment, I am anxious to see how its applied. If its just definition of marriage thats fine but the language is rather ambiguous.

I'm still very curious what is ambiguous about it. As is it both defines marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman and stipulates that marriage is the only domestic union that shall be recognized by the state which does away with the prospect of civil unions and currently registered domestic partnerships. This isn't an opinion this is immutable fact.

If I recall correctly you're generally particular on the how rights and privileges are handled by the government. How do you feel about the domestic partnerships in North Carolina that have become invalidated by this amendment and the removal of rights and privileges afforded by them?

I also wouldn't tout this as glorious representation of the democratic process either considering the voter turnout to be a sparse 34.37% while polling from Public Policy Polling indicates that 60% of the public being uneducated and ignorant of the amendments effects. With an understanding of it's effects the polling indicated quite clearly that the bill would fail so by it's passing the will of the people is contorted into something they didn't want through what is quite frankly rampant stupidity. (Source) [Full report PDF]

So essentially a 1/3 of the population showed up to amend the state constitution against their own wishes. I would call that objectively bad politics aside.

It is quite ambiguous, I mean its an amendment about marriage and I do not think North Carolina currently has civil unions. If it does pre-empt civil unions as well then yes it goes too far I think but for now the only thing we know it will deal with is marriage.

Also that poll is funny for reasons I very much doubt most people here would get.

Again it also invalidates many domestic partnerships at the local level for public employees so it's not simply dealing with just marriage.

Further I'm still curious as to how it's ambiguous the text of the amendment is rather clear. I can cite a over 5 dozen news sources that will confirm that the amendment also bars civil unions or domestic partnerships of state recognition. Not to mention every legal analysis I've seen has confirmed this being the case.

When do we stop pretending things are ambiguous despite the clear language and in light of every credible mind surrounding the amendment explaining it's full effects.

Bohemian Waltz:

Amnestic:
Apologies if this was brought up, but doesn't the NC Amendment violate the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Federal Constitution?

The problem stems from DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act).

"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

How the fuck is that still standing if it basically takes full faith and credit and adds "no" and "same sex blah blah" to it?

evilneko:

Bohemian Waltz:

Amnestic:
Apologies if this was brought up, but doesn't the NC Amendment violate the full-faith-and-credit clause of the Federal Constitution?

The problem stems from DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act).

"Section 2. Powers reserved to the states. No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

How the fuck is that still standing if it basically takes full faith and credit and adds "no" and "same sex blah blah" to it?

Some point to the part that Amnestic didn't bold:

"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

DOMA is rather shaky, though. Which is probably why anti same-sex marriage amendments to the U.S. constitution keep popping up every now and then due to its judicial vulnerability.

Lets face it, there are people here actually calling me a bigot which is laughable. Those people are always going to say my argument is invalid no matter what argument I make and no matter how much supporting evidence I bring. I continue to make these arguments though because people need to know that it is not bigotry to not be on board with same-sex marriage.

The reason non-hetronormative couples want it to be considered marriage is because the wording for many things.

If a couple in a long term commited relationship, to the point of being common law marriage or actual marriage in some states, the partner would not receive any of the benefits that the partner in a heterosexual relationship would receive. Major points being health insurance for your partner as well as pensions in the event of deaths, they also don't receive reduced tax rates for joint filing that other couples do. Those in a "marriage" receive better benefits then those that are not considered in a "marriage."

TLDR; Homosexuals want the same benefits for being in stable established relationships as heterosexuals. I see no logically reason why they shouldn't receive said benefits.

Seekster:
Lets face it, there are people here actually calling me a bigot which is laughable.

big.ot
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


I'd say arguing for discrimination based on nothing but religious hatred qualifies as that. Untill the first-ever rational argument in favour of discrimination in marriages emerges (and it hasn't yet, I've seen them all) it's also going to stay the way.

What you call 'supporting arguments' have been mostly irrelevant things or consequences of religious hatred which need to be blamed on the source, and not on the symptom.


To name an example you brought up differences to approach of relationships between men and women. That's irrelevant. Marriage is formal recognition of a relationship. Homosexuals can have relationships. End of argument.

Also you made the mistake of confusing religious rituals and marriage yet again, as well as the fallacy of calling on tradition against Liliani. That something was, doesn't mean it's always right. Some 500 years ago you would've been executed as a heretic. Does that mean it would be justified to make a law in the US anno 2012 that says 'Any belonging to a baptist church are punishable by death'? Because it's exactly the same as you argued there: "It used to be like this in the past, so it's still a good thing".

Especially that last bit, think about it for a moment. You're denying others rights that you would've been denied in the past, using mostly the same arguments. Isn't the core of Christianity not to do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself?


Since all else is falling apart, what other reason than bigotry is there to argue for discrimination in marriage?

Seekster:
Lets face it, there are people here actually calling me a bigot which is laughable. Those people are always going to say my argument is invalid no matter what argument I make and no matter how much supporting evidence I bring. I continue to make these arguments though because people need to know that it is not bigotry to not be on board with same-sex marriage.

When are you going to explain how those differences between men and women mean gay marriage cannot be called a marriage and must be treated as separate?

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
Lets face it, there are people here actually calling me a bigot which is laughable. Those people are always going to say my argument is invalid no matter what argument I make and no matter how much supporting evidence I bring. I continue to make these arguments though because people need to know that it is not bigotry to not be on board with same-sex marriage.

When are you going to explain how those differences between men and women mean gay marriage cannot be called a marriage and must be treated as separate?

You are asking me to defend an argument I am not even making. I am saying that there is no right to a have a union recognized legally as a marriage if it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I am not saying that it cannot be called a marriage (I wouldnt call it one but if we are talking from a legal standpoint thats not my decision alone to make).

Seekster:
Lets face it, there are people here actually calling me a bigot which is laughable. Those people are always going to say my argument is invalid no matter what argument I make and no matter how much supporting evidence I bring. I continue to make these arguments though because people need to know that it is not bigotry to not be on board with same-sex marriage.

you are a bigot not because you do not agree with same sex marriage but because because you do so with a reason akin to "coz i said so". i have seen several arguments from you on this subject, it has gone from the sanctity of marriage to somehow gays ruining other marriages and family values to men and women being different. (even if the relationship between a man and a women and 2 gay men is different how is that a reason to not allow them to marry?)

none of your reasons have been valid and honestly i have always had the feeling they are simply a politically correct cover. nothing makes you look republican like the attempted politically correct reasoning. you see it from the republicans all the time with there attempts at anti black, gay, women legislation, they come out with some bullshit that sounds ok when in reality everyone knows the reason is simply they are racists/homophobic/think women belong in the 1950s.

anyway i obviously support gay marriage, but as a teenager i didnt. i thought gays were weird, i didnt understand them and so on. eventually though i thought, you know what, if some guy who likes to dress up in a diaper and get spanked while defecating himself is allowed to get married then why not gays, the only difference is their sexual preferences, just like the diaper guy. they are office workers, plumbers, electricians, politicians, they are just like you and me only they like penis instead of vagina (or vagina instead of penis for women). these days to me that difference is no more important then someone liking onions and me hating onions, after all im sure there are a lot of people who think not liking onions is weird.

Seekster:
There is no right to a have a union recognized legally as a marriage if it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I am not saying that it cannot be called a marriage (I wouldnt call it one but if we are talking from a legal standpoint thats not my decision alone to make).

So in states where gay marriage is legal, you have no problem with acknowledging it as a legal marriage?

I am done responding to anyone who calls me a bigot, if you arent willing to think for yourself I won't waste my time with you.

nyttyn:

Seekster:
There is no right to a have a union recognized legally as a marriage if it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I am not saying that it cannot be called a marriage (I wouldnt call it one but if we are talking from a legal standpoint thats not my decision alone to make).

So in states where gay marriage is legal, you have no problem with acknowledging it as a legal marriage?

None at all, each state has the right to legally define marriage and the definition, whatever it is should be respected even if you personally disagree with it.

Seekster:
You are asking me to defend an argument I am not even making. I am saying that there is no right to a have a union recognized legally as a marriage if it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I am not saying that it cannot be called a marriage (I wouldnt call it one but if we are talking from a legal standpoint thats not my decision alone to make).

Why wouldn't you call it one? You've asserted that you want civil unions to have same benefits and protections as a marriage, but don't call it marriage because it's gay and therefore sufficiently different that it needs to be called something else. Why? How is it so different that you can't give it the same name?

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
You are asking me to defend an argument I am not even making. I am saying that there is no right to a have a union recognized legally as a marriage if it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I am not saying that it cannot be called a marriage (I wouldnt call it one but if we are talking from a legal standpoint thats not my decision alone to make).

Why wouldn't you call it one? You've asserted that you want civil unions to have same benefits and protections as a marriage, but don't call it marriage because it's gay and therefore sufficiently different that it needs to be called something else. Why? How is it so different that you can't give it the same name?

I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to see a gay marriage as an actual marriage. That is my own personal view and its not even close to the strongest view I hold but you are asking me to do something I just can't bring myself to do. Its fine that you see things differently, I disagree with you but I can respect our different points of view.

And for the record if it were two straight guys entering a marriage say for some kind of tax dodge I would feel the same way about it not being a marriage for the same reasons, I just see marriage as being the union of the two halves of the human species, male and female.

Seekster:

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
You are asking me to defend an argument I am not even making. I am saying that there is no right to a have a union recognized legally as a marriage if it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I am not saying that it cannot be called a marriage (I wouldnt call it one but if we are talking from a legal standpoint thats not my decision alone to make).

Why wouldn't you call it one? You've asserted that you want civil unions to have same benefits and protections as a marriage, but don't call it marriage because it's gay and therefore sufficiently different that it needs to be called something else. Why? How is it so different that you can't give it the same name?

I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to see a gay marriage as an actual marriage. That is my own personal view and its not even close to the strongest view I hold but you are asking me to do something I just can't bring myself to do. Its fine that you see things differently, I disagree with you but I can respect our different points of view.

And for the record if it were two straight guys entering a marriage say for some kind of tax dodge I would feel the same way about it not being a marriage for the same reasons, I just see marriage as being the union of the two halves of the human species, male and female.

Finally, you admit your reason is simply your subjective view on it, and no more valid a reason to deny gays marriage than any other that's ever been made.

evilneko:

Seekster:

DrVornoff:

Why wouldn't you call it one? You've asserted that you want civil unions to have same benefits and protections as a marriage, but don't call it marriage because it's gay and therefore sufficiently different that it needs to be called something else. Why? How is it so different that you can't give it the same name?

I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to see a gay marriage as an actual marriage. That is my own personal view and its not even close to the strongest view I hold but you are asking me to do something I just can't bring myself to do. Its fine that you see things differently, I disagree with you but I can respect our different points of view.

And for the record if it were two straight guys entering a marriage say for some kind of tax dodge I would feel the same way about it not being a marriage for the same reasons, I just see marriage as being the union of the two halves of the human species, male and female.

Finally, you admit your reason is simply your subjective view on it, and no more valid a reason to deny gays marriage than any other that's ever been made.

Oh I am sorry, I have been saying that for months. My argument is that there is no sound reason why we can't allow same-sex marriage nor is there a sound reason why we MUST allow same-sex marriage but same-sex marriage is a distraction from the issue of equal rights for homosexuals, something I think we all want.

People kept asking me about my personal views so I gave them, I am sorry if I wasnt clear that my personal views really only determine how I personally would vote, it doesnt really matter much to others.

Seekster:

DrVornoff:

Seekster:
You are asking me to defend an argument I am not even making. I am saying that there is no right to a have a union recognized legally as a marriage if it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. I am not saying that it cannot be called a marriage (I wouldnt call it one but if we are talking from a legal standpoint thats not my decision alone to make).

Why wouldn't you call it one? You've asserted that you want civil unions to have same benefits and protections as a marriage, but don't call it marriage because it's gay and therefore sufficiently different that it needs to be called something else. Why? How is it so different that you can't give it the same name?

I'm sorry but I just can't bring myself to see a gay marriage as an actual marriage. That is my own personal view and its not even close to the strongest view I hold but you are asking me to do something I just can't bring myself to do. Its fine that you see things differently, I disagree with you but I can respect our different points of view.

And for the record if it were two straight guys entering a marriage say for some kind of tax dodge I would feel the same way about it not being a marriage for the same reasons, I just see marriage as being the union of the two halves of the human species, male and female.

That all pretty much boils down to giving black people Civil Unions as you don't think it's the same as 2 white people.

But that's completely and uttery irrelevant, as people don't care if X random person thinks their marraige counts, people just care what the government allows. Having civil unions are nice, but they're still seperate, which is why over here you can (or will be able to really soon at least) get married and have civil unions, regardless of what gender the person you're with is.

Seekster:
same-sex marriage is a distraction from the issue of equal rights for homosexuals, something I think we all want.

SUCH AS?

I keep asking and you keep not answering. For all your desires to refocus on other rights for them, you sure don't have much focus on what these other rights are exactly.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked