Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):

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?

So you wouldnt care if a 70 year old man married his 12 year old granddaughter?

Are you asking me?

I was using hyperbole to show that in fact you accept that certain things are wrong.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 1:28:00 PM (view original):
I was using hyperbole to show that in fact you accept that certain things are wrong.

12 year olds can't enter into contracts.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 1:28:00 PM (view original):
I was using hyperbole to show that in fact you accept that certain things are wrong.

12 year olds can't enter into contracts.

They can if the parents sign off on it. 

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):

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.

Rights and legal do exist and are very important.

They do.  Until rights are removed and legal is changed.  Both are determined by someone other than us. 

But that's not the point.    It's fun because you're so worked up over it.  When certain holes are made in your arguments(and many have been pointed out), you quickly move to something else.   Watching you squirm is also fun.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 1:09:00 PM (view original):

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.

Rights and legal do exist and are very important.

They do.  Until rights are removed and legal is changed.  Both are determined by someone other than us. 

But that's not the point.    It's fun because you're so worked up over it.  When certain holes are made in your arguments(and many have been pointed out), you quickly move to something else.   Watching you squirm is also fun.

You certainly haven't point out any holes.

I'm still waiting for a legal reason to not allow same sex marriage.  You haven't given one yet, and since you don't care, I'm sure you won't be able to come up with one.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 1:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 1:28:00 PM (view original):
I was using hyperbole to show that in fact you accept that certain things are wrong.

12 year olds can't enter into contracts.

They can if the parents sign off on it. 

I don't know if parents can sign minors that young into marriage contracts.  I would guess they can't.  And either way, this falls under incest laws.

Incest is only illegal based on morality.  We've already determined that the government doesn't care about health issues.  Religious folk consider homosexuality immoral.   Something has to give.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Incest is only illegal based on morality.  We've already determined that the government doesn't care about health issues.  Religious folk consider homosexuality immoral.   Something has to give.  

See if you can understand this:

A is considered immoral (by some people) and is also illegal.
B is considered immoral (by some people) and is not illegal.

This will always be the case with many different activities.  Just because A is illegal, doesn't mean we should make B illegal.

It also doesn't me we can't. 

Your problem, and it may be because you've never left the house, is that you're trying to deal in absolutes.  Pure black and white.   That world doesn't exist.   I thought we were making some progress when you admitted that legal documents are open to interpretation but you've fallen back to legal/illegal.   No grays.  No blurry lines.   The world is a gray, blurry line.   Accept that and you'll feel better.

And quit with "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!"   That means nothing when the governing body that GAVE you those rights decides to take them away.   If you don't think that can happen, see how close you can get to protest the Prez.  Or just ask your OWS buddies who spent the night in jail when they refused to disperse.

It also doesn't me we can't.

Sure, but we should have a reason for doing so.

Your problem, and it may be because you've never left the house, is that you're trying to deal in absolutes.

 

It's my opinion.  It should be absolute.  Things are open to interpretation.  Judges have bias.  I know.  But I'm not arguing that no judge will ever disagree with me or that he won't let his beliefs influence his decision in a way that he shouldn't.  In my opinion there is no valid legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.  You say you don't care if they marry.  Great.  If you think they shouldn't marry, that's ok too, here is where you can say why.

Is it legal to marry a gender reassignment individual?  Like, can a chick who likes chicks become a dude and legally get married?

You've already dismissed religious reasons.    I assume you don't feel that religi-folk have valid opinions/reasons.    I've said, repeatedly, that many of our laws have moral backgrounds.   And many of our moral backgrounds come from religion.  If laws are going to be passed for moral reasons, that seems like a legal reason.    You just don't like that. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
You've already dismissed religious reasons.    I assume you don't feel that religi-folk have valid opinions/reasons.    I've said, repeatedly, that many of our laws have moral backgrounds.   And many of our moral backgrounds come from religion.  If laws are going to be passed for moral reasons, that seems like a legal reason.    You just don't like that. 

If you were going to go to court and argue that same sex marriage should be banned, how successful do you think you would be if your only argument was, "some religious people consider it immoral"?

The question is what vital interest does the court have in overturning the will of the people?