Posted by tecwrg on 5/16/2012 11:54:00 AM (view original):
I'm pretty sure that jrd is incapable of independent thought.  

Hence his inability to answer questions on why he holds the "opinions" he does.  

All he has done for nearly 30 pages in this thread is say "A is legal, B is illegal", or he avoids answering direct questions by deflecting/asking questions of his own.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/16/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
The majority should never be voting on rights for the minority.

So minorities should have carte blanche to do as they please?    No rules or laws for them?

I think examples work best for you.

African Americans are a minority.  If the majority got together and passed a law taking away the right to vote from African Americans, that wouldn't be legal. 

Posted by toddcommish on 5/16/2012 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 10:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 10:28:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/16/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):
The majority should never be voting on rights for the minority.

So minorities should have carte blanche to do as they please?    No rules or laws for them?

I think examples work best for you.

African Americans are a minority.  If the majority got together and passed a law taking away the right to vote from African Americans, that wouldn't be legal. 

You really don't have a grasp on "legal" vs. "illegal", do you?

If a LAW PASSED, by definition, it is legal.  It may not be moral, fair, or constitutional, but as long as it's on the books, it's LEGAL.

"Civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" are legal.  Same-sex marriage, by law in CA and many other states, is NOT.

Now, if you want to parse the definitions of "union" vs. "marriage", that's one thing, but you've demonstrated no grasp of what is "legal/illegal" vs. what is moral/immoral/fair/unfair.  Until you actually demonstrate you understand that a law, legally passed through whatever legislative system is in place, is LEGAL.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 11:13:00 AM (view original):
You didn't answer.

Couple A is in a legal romantic relationship.

Couple B is not in a legal romantic relationship.

Which couple should be allowed to marry?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 11:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 11:04:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 8:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/15/2012 8:49:00 PM (view original):

I don't make judgements on lifestyle choices.   I don't care about the lifestyle choices when it doesn't affect me.

Now, if you would answer the question.   I'll tighten it up for you:

Sure.  I'll lay out a scenario for you.  You tell me the problem.

Your mother puts you in a trash can when you're an infant because you're an annoying bastard.   The trashman finds you and raises you as his own.  He never mentions finding you in a smelly trash can.

25 years later, you meet a girl.   You date, you fall in love.   Turns out, your mother and father decided to try to make a better baby after you were discarded.   You're now dating, and nailing, your sister.     Incest is illegal.   

What's the difference between you and your sis in this situation and two dudes in love, morally speaking?

Children from incestual relationships often have massive birth defects.  The government has an interest in preventing that.  That concern is obviously not present with regard to same sex relationships.  So incest is illegal, homosexuality isn't.

Thank you.   Now I'll explain my point.

Can a pregnant women walk into a store and buy a pack of smokes and a case of beer?   Hasn't smoking and drinking proven to cause birth defects?
Can a grossly obese man walk into McDonald's and buy 5 Big Macs and a diet Pepsi?   Hasn't obesity proven to be a major health issue?
Doesn't the government have an interest in preventing those problems?  

Incest is illegal due to a moral standpoint(probably religion-based but I really don't know).  Sibling/parental manipulation is obviously a concern so that's why, in my example, the siblings were complete strangers.   Their marriage would be denied.   Even if both were sterilzed in order to prevent any possibility of birth defects.   Their "right" to marry the one they love would just be denied due to a law based on morality.  And that's why states are banning SSM.   Like it or not, homosexuality is considered immoral by a large amount of people.

No response?

I guess I'll quote your big irrelevant post again.

Homosexuality isn't illegal.  Incest is.

Why?

In this situation, why would this marriage "right" be denied?
Sibling/parental manipulation is obviously a concern so that's why, in my example, the siblings were complete strangers.   Their marriage would be denied.   Even if both were sterilzed in order to prevent any possibility of birth defects.   Their "right" to marry the one they love would just be denied due to a law based on morality.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 11:13:00 AM (view original):
You didn't answer.

Couple A is in a legal romantic relationship.

Couple B is not in a legal romantic relationship.

Which couple should be allowed to marry?

Who determines legal?
The same people who determine who is allowed to marry?

I think you have your answer. 

But, since you don't quite get "it", the people who determine "legal" and "allowed to marry" will make that call.     And they are.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 12:45:00 PM (view original):
I see you still don't get it.   "Legal" and "right to marry" is determined by someone in power.    That is who will decide which, either or neither couple will be allowed to marry.   

Which words are confusing you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I've already told you my opinion.  I don't care who gets married or is denied the ability to get married.   They have the "right" to get married when the person handing out marriage licenses(which isn't me) says "OK, you can get married."    Even then, their local govt may not recognize the marriage in their state. 

Which words are confusing you?


To put it another way(for the 100th time), marriage isn't a right.   You have to meet acceptable guidelines.    This isn't my "cause" so I don't care what those guidelines are or who fails to meet them.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 1:00:00 PM (view original):
I've already told you my opinion.  I don't care who gets married or is denied the ability to get married.   They have the "right" to get married when the person handing out marriage licenses(which isn't me) says "OK, you can get married."    Even then, their local govt may not recognize the marriage in their state. 

Which words are confusing you?


To put it another way(for the 100th time), marriage isn't a right.   You have to meet acceptable guidelines.    This isn't my "cause" so I don't care what those guidelines are or who fails to meet them.

If you don't care who gets married, why spend 20 pages arguing about it?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 1:04:00 PM (view original):
I've already answered that one too.

Because you're so fired up about "rights" and "legal".     

Your utopian world doesn't exist.    It's fun to point that out.