Trolling Ben

[Asher]

I wasn't aware that I was required to make your arguement for you. Perhaps you'd care to provide the research you say exists while at the same time explaining why an arrangement practiced the world over (and not always with man and multiple wives) should be denied the same equal rights you are seeking for yourself.

Because, DinoDoc, unlike you my time is valuable. Researching what is common sense on the internet to display it to a mentally challenged religious nutbar doesn't do me any good, and it would never change your mind because you're not serious about this argument anyway.

You just whip out the slippery slope fallacy and wish the problem of gays getting status away. You're not worth the time -- just like Ben. Your brains have been completely compromised by your faith and are demonstrably incapable of rationality.

Given the fact that I've insisted no such thing, I fail to see the point of this histrionic outburst. Perhaps you should be a little less womanly (*****y and emotional to borrow from you) about the matter and actually read what people write.

So if marriage is NOT a religious concept,why does it matter to you if a man and another man marry?

It's a civil contract, so why doesn't the government have any business in regulating it?

If it's strictly a civil contract with no religious implications, then there is ABSOLUTELY no reason for it to be gender-specific. Marriage is a union of two people, unless you listen to most religions.

Once again, you fail to connect any dots...

[Arrian]

Vermont

Trolling Ben

-Arrian

[DaShi]

I just want to see how far this thread will go without Ben.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Evidently you have never heard of the phrase "common-law wife".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Actually, common law wife is still a wife, at least in the US; it's a decision by the state to accord legal spousal status to a couple who have been together long enough, even if they haven't been through a marriage. Rickety click's "wife" may indeed be a wife, depending on where he lives (in the US, common law designations vary state by state).

But I think the point is that what makes a spouse a spouse is the designation of a person as such by the State, not the warm fuzzy feeling in one's heart -- which is why gay marriage matters.

And, for what it's worth (and this at rickety and kitman, not you, Asher), I was with my now-wife for years before we got married, and we raised a kid together; I never once in that time referred to her as my wife, and that never seemed to bother anyone.

[Asher]

Actually, common law wife is still a wife, at least in the US; it's a decision by the state to accord legal spousal status to a couple who have been together long enough, even if they haven't been through a marriage. Rickety click's "wife" may indeed be a wife, depending on where he lives (in the US, common law designations vary state by state).

Which is why he called her his wife?

He was clearly referring to GETTING MARRIED (as in, a proper marriage).

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Which is why he called her his wife?

He was clearly referring to GETTING MARRIED (as in, a proper marriage).

Maybe. Interesting he didn't mention his status under Aussie law right away, though; instead, he implied that she's his wife because they agreed on it, and he would consider her so even if Australia didn't accord her that legal status. And I'm just saying that that line of thinking is bollocks.

[Q Classic]

Interestingly, one of the top chefs in the world, Cat Cora, is female.
And gay.

And she and her partner have a kid.

From my understanding, though, haute cuisine is still very much a boy's club.

[Q Classic]

It's suitably non-gendered, so I don't see what the problem is?

It's unnecessary and therefore sounds odd because no one else uses it.

*shrugs* Just because no one else uses it doesn't mean that I won't. I prefer it, actually.

[DinoDoc]

(However, the State can limit the number of parties who enter into a contract without violating any equal protection clause, so it can still outlaw polygamy.)

This one is actually a good argement against that position. However, I would like to know in what other instance the State regulates the number of parties that can enter into a contract based on such capricious and shallow reasoning as has been displayed by Asher thus far.

Marriage is a union of two people, unless you listen to most religions.

2 points, Asher. 1) That's not always been the case historically. However if we want to go the tradition route wrt defining the term, you're out in the cold as marriage has traditionally been defined (at least in the past few centuries) as being between a man and woman. 2) Re religions: That's not really the case either as there exists some evidence of gay marriage cerimonies in the early catholic church.

[Asher]

Your obliviousness astounds.

You're probably being intentionally obtuse, but I will not rule out the fact that your religion is causing your IQ to drop by an order of magnitude

I love how you can't even write one paragraph without mind****ing the reader with amazing contradictions.

marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and woman.

there exists some evidence of gay marriage cerimonies in the early catholic church

[DinoDoc]

Hooked on phonics clearly didn't work for you.
(at least in the past few centuries)

[Asher]

Hooked on phonics clearly didn't work for you.
(at least in the past few centuries)

I omitted your arbitrary and inconsistent qualifier for obvious reasons.

PS: Someone who constantly spells argument as "arguement" really should not make comments like that.

[DinoDoc]

I omitted your arbitrary and inconsistent qualifier for obvious reasons.

Inability to respond?

PS I wasn't being critical of your spelling. Only your ability to read and comprehend.

[Asher]

Inability to respond?

PS I wasn't being critical of your spelling. Only your ability to read and comprehend.

Yes, I know you weren't critical of my spelling because my spelling was fine. My comment, which you ironically did not comprehend, was taking a shot at you for chronically misspelling "argument" as "arguement". If you understood how "hooked on phonics" works, you'd see why this kind of misspelling indicates you had to use hooked on phonics yourself to read. Which explains why you still apparently have issues with it.

As for why I left it out -- it's because it's utterly irrelevant. You can't cherrypick your history, not that history is relevant anyway in this case.

My issue is very simple: I think "marriage" does have religious roots in today's societies, and the #1 reason Christian whackjobs are so opposed to it is they feel like legalizing it in government is an attack on Christianity. The solution is to have the government only give out "civil union" contracts to two individuals. Churches and marry or not marry whoever they wish. The point here is the government does not meddle with religious freedoms, nor does it inhibit personal freedoms of gay citizens. Everybody wins.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except for #7, these apply to gay men too.

QFMFT.

No further posts necessary.