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

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Well then, why not deny it to miscegenators, ******s, spics, anyone else we don't want to "reward?" Simple fact, if the state chooses to make marriage available to two consenting adults, why in hell should the state care what gender they are?

If you make something available to one person or class of persons, and make it unavailable to another, you are by definition infringing the liberty of that person.

The hypocrisy in this law is that Ohio and these other states are saying "marry someone of the opposite gender who you can't stand, who you will never live with or do anything else with, and who you will never raise a child with, and we'll give you all these benefits, because that's the "sanctity" of marriage. But if you want to 'marry' an individual of the same gender who you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with, then it's our policy to deny that to you."

ur assuming that marriage was defined as available to two consenting adults. and therefore to deny it to gay ppl is illogical. but I see no reason to believe that was the supposition of marriage originally.

and I ask again, why do gay ppl want marriage? I am wondering. I answered ur silly smartass retort. so why do u not answer my honest original question?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Please don't. Ben has the same right to hold his views and express them as you have to hold yours and express them.

Don't worry, I won't. Besides, I would never deny anyone their right to state their views, no matter how disgusting I find them. I like to be able to spot the jerks so I can avoid them

[Ben Kenobi]

In matters which are properly subject to government regulation,

Marriage falls into this category. This is why they can regulate bigamy, polygamy, etc.

However, IMO, there are extensive realms of private, non-commercial conduct between consenting individuals for which I believe no level of government has proper regulatory authority.

Marriage is as much a private institution, as getting a birth certificate is private. Marriages are recognised by the state, hence the state has some authority over the regulation of marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

I like to be able to spot the jerks so I can avoid them

It must be a very small room where everyone agrees with you.

I prefer sparring with those I disagree. I find them very intelligent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Simple fact, if the state chooses to make marriage available to two consenting adults, why in hell should the state care what gender they are?

In this instance there are discernable differences that do effect the outcome. Men and women are not inchangeable parts, for which to replace one with the other affords no loss of efficiency.

If you make something available to one person or class of persons, and make it unavailable to another, you are by definition infringing the liberty of that person.

Everyone has access to marriage. I fail to see how the current decision denies rights to some that are available to others.

"marry someone of the opposite gender who you can't stand, who you will never live with or do anything else with, and who you will never raise a child with, and we'll give you all these benefits, because that's the "sanctity" of marriage.

Hardly. If you don't want to get married to a woman, then don't get married! The state does not force anyone to marry.

But if you want to 'marry' an individual of the same gender who you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with, then it's our policy to deny that to you.

So I love my parents. Should I marry my mom? Marriage is about more than just love.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I prefer sparring with those I disagree. I find them very intelligent.

I also like to discuss with people I disagree with. It gives me an opportunity to reevaluate my opinions and evolve develop as a person. However, if those I debate with are not at all interested in reevaluating their opinions, I don't see why I should bother to waste my energy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by yavoon


ur assuming that marriage was defined as available to two consenting adults. and therefore to deny it to gay ppl is illogical. but I see no reason to believe that was the supposition of marriage originally.

Marriage existed without state recognition for centuries. I'm not assuming anything. If the state wants to limit who can marry (as slave states generally did not recognize "marriage" by slaves who were not baptized Christians)

and I ask again, why do gay ppl want marriage? I am wondering. I answered ur silly smartass retort. so why do u not answer my honest original question?

It wasn't a "silly smartass retort" You just didn't like the answer. Why assume that gays motivation for getting married is fundamentally different from that of heterosexuals?

[mrmitchell]

bumping this so it can be right above the "burn in hell" titled thread

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Marriage existed without state recognition for centuries. I'm not assuming anything. If the state wants to limit who can marry (as slave states generally did not recognize "marriage" by slaves who were not baptized Christians)




It wasn't a "silly smartass retort" You just didn't like the answer. Why assume that gays motivation for getting married is fundamentally different from that of heterosexuals?

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

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

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


In this instance there are discernable differences that do effect the outcome. Men and women are not inchangeable parts, for which to replace one with the other affords no loss of efficiency.

The state has no interest in the outcome. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. The state certainly shows no interest if a couple of Jerry Springer rejects do a Vegas marriage then get divorced and do it again ten times over. If there's no qualitative interest in who gets married, then why the hangup over queers?

Everyone has access to marriage. I fail to see how the current decision denies rights to some that are available to others.

We have the benefit (well, I'm speaking for myself, the way you carry on with MrFun, I'm not so sure about you ) of being heterosexual adults. That means we can marry who we choose, assuming the respective lucky women will put up with us. MrFun, if he wants to get married to his partner, can not do so. Why? And what is it that gives the state a compelling interest in this?

Hardly. If you don't want to get married to a woman, then don't get married! The state does not force anyone to marry.

It's not a question of being forced. It is a question of being denied the right to marry the partner of your choice, for no good reason.

So I love my parents. Should I marry my mom? Marriage is about more than just love.

Although one would wonder about you and your mom's psychological health, as long as both of you were mentally competent to give consent, and chose to do so freely, the only compelling reason I can see for prohibiting the marriage is concern for the wellbeing of any children of the marriage due to increased probability of hereditary diseases and genetic defects. That is the only compelling reason to prohibit the marriage, IMO. Society may not like it, but it wasn't long ago that we didn't want ******s, spics and others polluting our Great White Race. 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.

If a prohibition of gay marriage doesn't discriminate, because a gay man can still marry any competent adult woman, whether he wants to or not, then a miscegenation statute doesn't discriminate, because any white can marry any other competent adult white of the opposite gender, and any non-white can marry someone of his or her race. It's the same argument, unless you can give me any compelling reason for making the distinction?

I've yet to hear one advanced by anybody, other than something that essentially boils down to "we don't like them fudgepackers."

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Everyone has access to marriage. I fail to see how the current decision denies rights to some that are available to others.

This is the third time I've seen you post this rubbish. Last time (thread: "Canada shelves gay marriage legislation"), I called you on it. I twice asked you the following, but you never answered. I'm going to try again:

Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man? Do you think that you could, as you put it, "control your sexual urges" towards women, and instead take a man's hand at the altar? And enjoy that honeymoon? And set up a life-long love nest with him? Could you really do that? I'm not kidding here, I want to know.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, if those I debate with are not at all interested in reevaluating their opinions, I don't see why I should bother to waste my energy.

I've changed my mind before. Just ask Berz.

Secondly, I'm not Catholic, so clearly I have an open mind to relgious opinions that are not my own.

If you really want to get me to change my opinion, start by answering yavoon's first question. Why do gay people want to get married?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you really want to get me to change my opinion, start by answering yavoon's first question. Why do gay people want to get married?

Because they love each other?

[Ben Kenobi]

mindseye:

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

No.

Do you think that you could, as you put it, "control your sexual urges" towards women, and instead take a man's hand at the altar?

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.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why do gay people want to get married?

As a gay person, let me clear this up for you. MtG already answered it perfectly: we want to get married for the same reasons straight people do.

Why do you think gay people are so different from straights? Except for the matter of the gender of the people we fall in love with, we're just the same. Love is love.

edit: formattting