Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by yavoon
the state in no way limits who can marry w/o state recognition. I'm sure there's a church that'll do it.

If a church does it (actually, you can self-ordain in this looney country and create your own church), it can only do it in accordance with state law. The states assert that they have a compelling public interest in regulating marriage, at least since 1896, when Congress informally interjected itself in the Utah statehood petition and made a doctrinal renunciation of polygamy by the Mormon church an off the books condition of granting statehood to the Utah Territory.

and it wasn't an answer at all, it was a question.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "rhetoric?"

learn the difference.

Eat me.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.

That's right children. It's ok to hate as long as the state says it is!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Originally posted by mindseye

Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man?

No.

But you expect gays to be satisfied?

False dilemma. I could opt not to marry a man, and choose to live as a celibate. Yes I do believe I could control my sexual urges. I would find this vastly preferable than taking the hand of the man.

So then gays really don't have equal access to marriage then, do they? You are asking them to marry some one of their non-preferred gender, something you just admitted you could not do. As you just pointed out, the only other choice they have is to "opt out" of marriage.

You call that "equal access"?

[Combat Ingrid]

Interesting fact about the Swedish welfare system:
I have shared my apartment with several roommates over the years. When we were of opposite gender, the government would happily subsidise the apartment because since we lived under the same roof we were a couple (unless we stated differently). On the other hand, when we were of the same gender, we would not be subsidised unless we first registered homosexual partnership.

[Drake Tungsten]

Eat me.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If a church does it (actually, you can self-ordain in this looney country and create your own church), it can only do it in accordance with state law. The states assert that they have a compelling public interest in regulating marriage, at least since 1896, when Congress informally interjected itself in the Utah statehood petition and made a doctrinal renunciation of polygamy by the Mormon church an off the books condition of granting statehood to the Utah Territory.





Have you ever heard of the concept of "rhetoric?"





Eat me.

if its so rhetoric to u why do we spend 5 posts going back and forth. giving two smartass question replies, when a simple answer would have sufficed. I really don't understand.

I want to know why gay ppl want the state recognition of marriage. but u dont answer me. is this how u treat all ppl who ask honest questions? w/ venom and uninspiring attempts at wit?

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG:

(sorry mindseye)

The state has no interest in the outcome.

Not the first time I've addressed this question either. What qualitative benefits does society retain from traditional marriage? The first is that a stable marriage is the best environment for raising children. Why, if the state has no interest in the preservation of marriage, do they work to decrease the divorce rate?

That means we can marry who we choose, assuming the respective lucky women will put up with us.

But we cannot marry a man, nor can we marry 6 women who happen to strike our fancy should we desire them. So does Mr. Fun. He can marry a nice woman if she also desires to marry him. Same rights, same equality.

If he does not desire a woman, that is not discrimination, but his own decision not to marry.

denied the right to marry the partner of your choice, for no good reason.

No good reason? Care to address my point about the interchangeability of genders? Society does not have a requirement to provide all benefits equally, otherwise, you would have to give unmarried bachelors the same provisions as a married couple.

Your argument could just as easily be used to bring back miscegenation statutes, and you haven't demonstrated any difference in the reasoning for prohibiting one type of partner selection as opposed to another.

Reason with me here. What tangible differences will marrying a black woman have for the marriage, as marrying a white woman? Will the children in one be more likely to be deformed, as in the other? Would the black woman be less able to care for a child than the white woman? No. However, we can say that the two will create a tangible difference in both incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Yavoon: how many times do you want the same answer?

The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do

[Pekka]

I'll call this one on simple logic: Two people marry each other because they love each other, bottom line.
If the two people happens to be both men or women, why should it not be possible, after all they love each other, right? Who cares if two lovers wants to make it official? I don't care if two gay people marry each other, it's none of my business. Let them. Why not, it doesn't affect my life, so I don't want to object it either. So this wonders me how anyone else thinks it will affect their lives, and why would they object it, because it' s not about them, but the two people. It's their thing.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Yavoon: how many times do you want the same answer?

The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do

state them.

state why gay ppl want the state to recognize their marriage

if u keep this up much longer I will suspect its a smoke screen for an actual lack of an answer

also realize this was not some super anti gay marriage trap I'm leading u all down. it was an honest question that so far no1 has had the courtesy or ability to answer.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

But we cannot marry a man, nor can we marry 6 women who happen to strike our fancy should we desire them. So does Mr. Fun. He can marry a nice woman if she also desires to marry him. Same rights, same equality.

If he does not desire a woman, that is not discrimination, but his own decision not to marry.

That is, by far, the most bull**** statement ever. Not only does it ignore the fact that homosexuality is a orientation, it also indicates you APPROVE of people taking advantage of the marraige laws in order to take benifits from the state without perhaps the most IMPORTANT quality for a marraige: love.

I don't understand that...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by yavoon

state them.

state why gay ppl want the state to recognize their marriage

MtG Question to you: so just to check why do ppl want to marry again?
Your response: if u ask me why I want to marry its to show love and commitment to the same person and raise a family.

And you are straight, right? So you actually answered your own question

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


MtG Question to you: so just to check why do ppl want to marry again?
Your response: if u ask me why I want to marry its to show love and commitment to the same person and raise a family.

And you are straight, right? So you actually answered your own question

obviously u lack the ability to quote the entire post.

did u purposefully leave out the part where I said "neither requires the gov't." or was that mere naivete. somehow I doubt the latter.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Holy ****ing ****. You seriously want me to answer every word for you, you can't just take meaning from me answering most?

Neither do require the government. But say the government suddenly said that only women could vote. Women have the same reasons as men why they want to vote, they just can't. Why should the government be able to deny them the benefits of voting even though their needs are the same as men?

I honestly can't believe that you can't associate the two. How old are you, 12?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Holy ****ing ****. You seriously want me to answer every word for you, you can't just take meaning from me answering most?

Neither do require the government. But say the government suddenly said that only women could vote. Women have the same reasons as men why they want to vote, they just can't. Why should the government be able to deny them the benefits of voting even though their needs are the same as men?

I honestly can't believe that you can't associate the two. How old are you, 12?

another post w/o answering the question. tho in place of smartass question replies. u've stuck condescention and flaming. obviously we are working our way up the ladder here.

and the right to vote IMO holds discernable and substantial differences from who the gov't decides to recognize as married. thus it is a poor(tho obviously advantageous to u) analogy.