Marriage Debate

Huntster said:
It wouldn't matter if I did, just like Kenny's irrational bias.
Click to expand...

I have an irrational bias towards freedom and equality for some reason, you are correct. You hate homosexuals, for some reason.

If we made same-sex marriage legal, it wouldn't be illegal, would it?
 
Huntster said:
It wouldn't matter if I did, just like Kenny's irrational bias.

It ain't legal, so law abiding citizens cannot legally do it.

Is that difficult to understand, my esteemed counsellor?
Click to expand...
Your circular reasoning is laughable.

But please humor me: were the gay couples who got married in San Fransisco criminals for doing so?
 
Huntster said:
It wouldn't matter if I did, just like Kenny's irrational bias.

It ain't legal, so law abiding citizens cannot legally do it.

Is that difficult to understand, my esteemed counsellor?
Click to expand...

So, if I go to Las Vegas, partake in gambling, and return home to Ohio with my legal winnings, does the state have the right to take them because gambling is illegal in Ohio?
 
Snide said:
Your circular reasoning is laughable.
Click to expand...

Enjoy the humor.

But please humor me: were the gay couples who got married in San Fransisco criminals for doing so?
Click to expand...

No, they were idiots. The mayor was the criminal:

From February 12 to March 11, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples, in apparent defiance of state law. This was highly controversial, with both the legality of issuing the licenses and the efficacy of the purported marriages being contested. During the month that licenses were issued, couples travelled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married. On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void.
Click to expand...

Source
 
wastepanel said:
So, if I go to Las Vegas, partake in gambling, and return home to Ohio with my legal winnings, does the state have the right to take them because gambling is illegal in Ohio?
Click to expand...

No, you didn't gamble in Ohio.

But Ohio can take those winnings via state income tax.

With government, you lose one way or the other.

Welcome to reality.............
 
Huntster said:
No, you didn't gamble in Ohio.

But Ohio can take those winnings via state income tax.

With government, you lose one way or the other.

Welcome to reality.............
Click to expand...

So what your argument boils down to is that Ohio has to recognize that Nevada has legalized gambling and taxes it as legal income? Hmmm...

Seems to be the point of the argument here. Some states recognize, some states don't. If a marriage is accepted in one state, why is it not in another?
 
wastepanel said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, you didn't gamble in Ohio.

But Ohio can take those winnings via state income tax.

With government, you lose one way or the other.

Welcome to reality.............
Click to expand...
So what your argument boils down to is that Ohio has to recognize that Nevada has legalized gambling and taxes it as legal income?
Click to expand...

No, that's your argument (do you think I didn't know where you were trying to go?)

Here's a clue, wastedpanel;

I don't like Vegas, either. I was there a couple of months ago only because I was threatened by the wife to accompany her and our children, and it damned sure won't happen again. The place sucks.

The part that pissed me off most were the illegal aliens standing on the sidewalk trying to hand me playing card size advertisements for whores while I walked along amid the crowds with my wife and grown daughters. When I asked them what the ◊◊◊◊ they thought they were doing, I had to repeat it in espanol so they couldn't play the "no comprende" game.

The Vegas analogy doesn't work with me. I say ban same-sex marriage, and burn Vegas.

Seems to be the point of the argument here. Some states recognize, some states don't. If a marriage is accepted in one state, why is it not in another?
Click to expand...

The same is true of drug laws, speed limit laws, firearms laws (despite the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as well as the comparable state constitutional guarantees regarding firearms), and a whole slew of comparable violations of the spirit of the law.

That's what the "slippery slope fallacy" is all about.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
And it might still be a socially stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...
It "might" be, but no credible evidence or reasons have been given to draw such a conclusion.
Click to expand...

"Credible evidence" is for folks who need common sense drilled through their thick skulls. It's like advice:

The wise don't need it, and the idiots won't heed it.
 
"common sense" is the argument of those who really don't know why they think their position is a good idea.
 
Even after 22 pages, it’s possible to learn something.

I think that with my last post, and the leadup to it, I have a fairly good understanding of how people view marriage. At least, I have a good understanding of how people don’t view marriage. Many people who support gay marriage don’t view it as a legal agreement that provides state power to enforce marriage vows, or at least penalize the violation thereof.

Assuming the views here are not extreme fringe wackiness, then it’s true that gay marriage won’t harm traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is already dead.


Yet, I desire traditional marriage, including legal powers of enforcement, and indeed I think it’s necessary. Count me in on the Covenant Marriage movement. Unfortunately, the political tides are such that there is no way that Covenant Marriage will be made available to homosexuals (unless they are willing to marry someone of the opposite sex, that is.)

Prediction: Backlash. Within twenty years, Lawrence v. Texas will be overturned. Anti-sodomy laws will be actively enforced in at least some southern and western states, and many of you will be stunned at such a reversion to barbarism. For the record, I will oppose any such step in that direction, and I predict I will lose.
 
Snide said:
Dodge and diversion. Nice. Showing everyone reading here you have lost on this point. Thanks for that...really.
Click to expand...

You asked a question, and I answered it completely and accurately.

Do you deny that?

I have also lost nothing. Again, the question was answered accurately, and with a citation to back it up.

You, on the other hand, have offered........................nothing.

But here's your chance;

Show me how I'm wrong, and explain what I have "lost".
 
Meadmaker said:
......Prediction: Backlash. Within twenty years, Lawrence v. Texas will be overturned. Anti-sodomy laws will be actively enforced in at least some southern and western states, and many of you will be stunned at such a reversion to barbarism. For the record, I will oppose any such step in that direction, and I predict I will lose.
Click to expand...

Prediction noted and agreed with, although I'm not sure of your 20 year timeline. The Roe v. Wade reversal timeline has surprised me. But it will go the same route eventually.

I, also, deplore a return to such political and social backlashing, oppose such steps, but agree that it will most certainly occur.

But, I think you can agree, unreasonable political zeal brings on such barbarism.

Some folks never learn...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom