Posted by toddcommish on 5/17/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
My argument for same sex marriage is that same sex couples want to get married.  We should let them.

A lot of people WANT to do things that are illegal.  That isn't an "argument", that's a capitulation.

MikeT: I want to expose myself on the street corner to small children
LAW: Sorry, but that's against the law
MikeT: But what about my rights?!?!
Jrd_X: Go ahead and expose yourself, Mike, it's ok with me.  If you WANT to, we should let you

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/2012 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about "dangerous" either.  

Being 400 lbs and eating 10 Big Macs is dangerous.   Does our government have laws in place to stop that?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/2012 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about "dangerous" either.  

Being 400 lbs and eating 10 Big Macs is dangerous.   Does our government have laws in place to stop that?

You don't have to care, but that is the legal reasoning behind it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/2012 1:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 1:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/2012 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about "dangerous" either.  

Being 400 lbs and eating 10 Big Macs is dangerous.   Does our government have laws in place to stop that?

You don't have to care, but that is the legal reasoning behind it.

Suppose the street is deserted and straight.

More "dangerous" than a fat guy gorging himself on fast food every day?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 12:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 11:19:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

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.

Since you're obviously so capable of independent thought, I'll try you.

Mike asks why a couple, who don't know each other and have been sterilized, but happen to be brother and sister, shouldn't be allowed to get married, while two gay guys who aren't related, should.

My answer is that one relationship is illegal while the other isn't.  That's an important distinction.  In order for incestual marriage to be legal, incest itself would need to be legal.  If you or mike want to make that argument, go ahead.

My question to mike (or you) is this:

Couple A is in a legal romantic relationship.  They want to get married.
Couple B is not in a legal romantic relationship.  They want to get married.
Which couple should be allowed to get married?

OK, I'm getting tired of jerking you around, as fun as it's been.

I'm a "traditional values" kind of person.  Thousands of years of human culture and social norms have defined marriage as a bond between a man and a woman.  Marriage is the bond that creates and holds the traditional family unit together.  Traditional family being a man/husband/father, a woman/wife/mother, and zero to many children.  I hold these traditional definitions of marriage and family to be the correct ones.  As have many billions of people throughout the course of human history.

Same-sex marriage is a perversion of tradition, and spits in the face of thousands of years of human culture and social norms.  The majority of people in this country do not want it, as can be seen by the fact that so many states have chosen to very specifically and emphatically define marriage as "the legal union of one man and one woman".

You can talk about the legality and constitutionality of same-sex marriage all you want.  The FACT is that, legally, marriage has been defined at both a federal level and the state level as described above . . . one man and one woman.  Yes there have been challenges, and some of these laws have been overruled in the courts, but every one of these overrulings are currently under appeal and have not definitively been upheld.  Unless and until that happens, the constitutionality of same-sex marriage has not been established, and the traditional definition of marriage is still the legal law of the land.

1.  Your values are great...for you.  Why do you (figuratively) get to decide what someone else gets to do with their life?

2. There have been all kinds of cultural and social norms throughout history that were complete bags of **** that needed to be changed.

3. Same sex marriage is legal in at least seven states right now.  There are also thousands of same sex couples that have valid California marriages.  Currently, at least in seven states  actively marrying same sex couples plus California, the definition of marriage includes same sex couples.

1.  I don't get to decide.  Lawmakers and judges do.  I get to vote on the lawmakers who, hopefully, will take the views of their constituents who they represent into account when they make laws.  Federal judges and Supreme Court justices are political appointees.  Again, I get to vote for the President who, hopefully, will take the views of the U.S. citizens into account when making their political appointments.  Also, my first amendment rights allow me to express my opinions, which include what I feel that people should be allowed to do or not do.

2.  Please name one cultural and social norm that is/was as widely accepted throughout human history as traditional marriage that was a "complete bag of ****" that needed to be changed, and explain why you think that is.

3.  Again, what you fail to acknowledge is that just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right.  As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, slavery was once legal in the United States.  If you were around in 1860, would you have been making the same argument in support of the institution of slavery (i.e. "it's legal, so it must be OK") as you are now for same-sex marriage?

What, exactly, is your personal agenda here in this discussion?

1. Your exact words: "I'm a 'traditional values' kind of person."
There is nothing wrong with that.  But if someone else isn't, why do they have to live according to those traditional values?

2. The subjugation of women.

3. You're the one arguing that tradition should be our guide.

My agenda in this discussion?  I think it's ridiculous that we try to deny same sex couples the right to marry.  I don't like one group in society forcing people to adhere to their values without a good reason.  I personally have nothing to gain, I'm straight and I'm getting married next spring. 

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 5/17/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
My argument for same sex marriage is that same sex couples want to get married.  We should let them.

A lot of people WANT to do things that are illegal.  That isn't an "argument", that's a capitulation.

MikeT: I want to expose myself on the street corner to small children
LAW: Sorry, but that's against the law
MikeT: But what about my rights?!?!
Jrd_X: Go ahead and expose yourself, Mike, it's ok with me.  If you WANT to, we should let you

Ah, ok.  We're making some progress here.

I know you see the difference between an act that infringes on the rights of others and same sex marriage.

If you don't, then you lack the brain power to argue effectively about anything, let alone something with legal implications.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Allowing same sex marriage doesn't force anything on you.  You can still choose to marry or not.  Or stay married.  Or get divorced.  Or remarry. Or anything else you want to do.  Your values are still yours to live by.

Posted by toddcommish on 5/17/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 5/17/2012 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 1:08:00 PM (view original):
My argument for same sex marriage is that same sex couples want to get married.  We should let them.

A lot of people WANT to do things that are illegal.  That isn't an "argument", that's a capitulation.

MikeT: I want to expose myself on the street corner to small children
LAW: Sorry, but that's against the law
MikeT: But what about my rights?!?!
Jrd_X: Go ahead and expose yourself, Mike, it's ok with me.  If you WANT to, we should let you

Ah, ok.  We're making some progress here.

I know you see the difference between an act that infringes on the rights of others and same sex marriage.

If you don't, then you lack the brain power to argue effectively about anything, let alone something with legal implications.

Isn't nudity just another societal taboo that is unrelated to actual damage to anyone?  Kinda like homosexuality...

Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 2:05:00 PM (view original):
Allowing same sex marriage doesn't force anything on you.  You can still choose to marry or not.  Or stay married.  Or get divorced.  Or remarry. Or anything else you want to do.  Your values are still yours to live by.

Of course it forces something onto me.  It forces a re-definition of marriage on me.  One which I (and millions and millions of Americans) do not agree with.

Posted by toddcommish on 5/17/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):

Well, if you're going to ask me to speculate on "valid legal reasons" that lawmakers have for passing a law, it only seems reasonable to believe you know why.   I assumed you were leading me into an "AH-HA!!!" situation.   I guess I was wrong.  You're clueless as to why laws that you say lack legal grounds are being passed.  Go figure.

I'm not asking you to speculate.  I'm asking if you can give me an argument against allowing same sex marriage that you could use in court.  Obviously you can't go into court and win with "it should be banned because some people consider it immoral."

If you don't have an argument against it, that's ok. 

You persist in missing the point.  You fail to see the converse of your own arguments.

What is your argument FOR same-sex marriages?  First, you'd have to find some benefit to "marriages" that gay people are being excluded from enjoying.  (Offhand, I really can't think of any).  Then you'd have to prove that the benefit to "marriages" is somehow a RIGHT that is abrogated by current law.

I believe civil unions/domestic partnerships are already recognized nationwide for the purposes of insurance and survivorship benefits, so I don't see WHY gay people need to have anything beyond that...  I've actually been to a "partnership ceremony", and it was just like a wedding... they had a minister and everything.