Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[snoopy369]

And now that this has become a pileup of everyone on poly vs. ben, I'm out.

Hard to be on the wrong side isn't it

Sadly, this is my frustration with threads like this - I would love to debate the real issues with people of differing opinions and a serious desire to have a serious discussion on the matter. It's just too hard to do that with the interference from people with agendas and no such desire.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, bigotry as defined in the english language is oppressing someone else for having a contrary opinion. That's rather different from simply holding that opinion... the _action_ is what is relevant.

Telling someone that they are sinning if they engage in sodomy is oppression?

Even the Catholic Church doesn't really care about this anymore, to a large extent.

It's right up there in the catechism. Would you like me to quote our brand new spanking Pope Francis, or would you prefer the german Panzerkardinel vintage of Benedict XVI Pope Emeritus?

The fact that some people (~30%?) won't is irrelevant.

Why would you believe that those who are opposed to homosexuality are embarrassed to hold said opinion? That I find a curious statement. I believe you are motivated by your conscience. Is it impossible to concede that those who are opposed to you are also motivated by their conscience?

I said that I suspected California would pass a new ballot proposition confirming gay marriage in the state, even if Prop 8 is invalidated, because enough people in the state would feel embarrassed at having supported Prop 8 and/or not opposed it sufficiently and/or being associated with the people who did support it that they needed a strong statement pro-gay marriage.

And I stated that 1, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand as it concerns Prop 8 which did pass, and 2, that this is all mere speculation unless a proposition does in fact pass, and 3, that even if it does pass, it doesn't indicate that those who believe gay marriage to be sinful are 'embarrassed' by their beliefs.

What is does indicate is that you don't believe that opposition to gay marriage is motivated by the conscience of the people who are opposed.

Why was this such a big issue for you? Just reading comprehension problems?

It is important to me to understand your rationale for support as it is for me to have you understand the rationale of opposition.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If it's nobody's business to know who I am married to, then why can't I marry 2 women? Yes, it is someone's business. This is why you are pushing for the state to recognize your opinion and enforce it by law.

Let's be honest here, MtG.

I personally don't give a ****, if there's a consistent and predictable legal framework for the child custody, visitation, and property status in multiparty marriages. It's no skin off my ass one way or another.

[Ben Kenobi]

debate the real issues with people of differing opinions and a serious desire to have a serious discussion on the matter. It's just too hard to do that with the interference from people with agendas and no such desire.

Why do you believe you are not already engaged in a serious discussion of these matters?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Hard to be on the wrong side isn't it

Sadly, this is my frustration with threads like this - I would love to debate the real issues with people of differing opinions and a serious desire to have a serious discussion on the matter. It's just too hard to do that with the interference from people with agendas and no such desire.

QFT

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe your face is sinful and harmful to everybody.

Stirring rebuttal Sava. I'll have to add that to "Sava's greatest hits of 2013".

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why do you believe you are not already engaged in a serious discussion of these matters?

Because you're participating with your same-old fun and games of parsing, distorting, misquoting and digging out the same tired non-starters like "gay people can marriy."

[Ben Kenobi]

Explain to me how you personally or any third party other than the consenting participants are actually harmed if MrFun or Asher or any other gay wants to marry their same-sex partner?

How am I harmed if Mr. Fun and Asher were to be killed by their respective partners and then were to kill each other?

We don't base the legal system this way, MtG.

[MRT144]

That's a good question.

Why for me personally? Because I believe homosexuality is sinful and harmful to the participants.

Well you don't get to decide based on your imaginary supernatural morality being.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because you're participating with your same-old fun and games of parsing, distorting, misquoting and digging out the same tired non-starters like "gay people can marriy."

They can, just not to each other. Hence my crucial distinction between being able to marry, which everyone can, and being able to marry whomever they want, which no one can do.

Your arguments against my arguments have amounted to the following - that bigamy and polygamy ought to be permitted and that it's really no one's business whom you are married to and how many people you are married to.

Which I find intriguing because if that's the case - then I don't see how one can argue for all the components of 'civil' marriage. If no one cares or no one has a business to get involved, then none of these protections are there either.

It seems to me that you want to remove one thing - but keep all the rest. Which is inconsistant. You want involvement, insofar as it agrees with you and no involvement where it is inconvenient or unwanted. Like I said earlier - you aren't going to be able to keep the provisions attached to civil marriage. Either it is kept and one thing goes, or the protections go and you get the rest.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well you don't get to decide based on your imaginary supernatural morality being.

1st Amendment says, yes I can. You asked me, "why do *I* wish to do this". And I answered your question.

[Hauldren Collider]

Hard to be on the wrong side isn't it

Sadly, this is my frustration with threads like this - I would love to debate the real issues with people of differing opinions and a serious desire to have a serious discussion on the matter. It's just too hard to do that with the interference from people with agendas and no such desire.

I never said I agreed with ben, man. To the extent I do it is primarily happenstance. My position is quite a bit more nuanced.

[snoopy369]

I never said I agreed with ben, man. To the extent I do it is primarily happenstance. My position is quite a bit more nuanced.

Fair enough, though I didn't say you were on Ben's side, just the wrong one

[MichaeltheGreat]

How am I harmed if Mr. Fun and Asher were to be killed by their respective partners and then were to kill each other?

We don't base the legal system this way, MtG.

Yes we do. Murder does not involve consent of the parties, hence it is a public offense, not private.

You don't even have an adequate understanding of the fundamentals of the American legal system to participate intelligently.

[MRT144]

1st Amendment says, yes I can. You asked me, "why do *I* wish to do this". And I answered your question.

You want to have laws based on religion. GTFO.