Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[N35t0r]

Again. Two sides believe that sex is relevant to marriage and that whether someone's partner is a man or a woman is a big deal.

Two sides?

Your side is arguing that gay marriage is important because then men can marry men and women can marry women.

No, 'my side' is arguing that restricting marriage to only heterosexual marriage is discriminatory.

My side is arguing from the same preposition that sex is relevant

The same preposition to what? Also, your only arguments so far are religious.

and argues that gay marriage is contrary to the concept of two sexes".

'Concept' of two sexes? So somehow if gay marriage were allowed, then the sexes would 'cease to exist'?


A third argument is that 'Sex is irrelevant to marriage', and that "it shouldn't matter what sex you marry because that's not what marriage is about.

You still believe that sex is crucial to marriage

um, no?

[N35t0r]

I'm merely taking the position that civil unions are a more rational argument against/compromise with gay marriage forces than "well they can marry people of the opposite sex if they want." Granted that's not a very high bar I set for myself though.

Well, they are a copromise, but somehow I don't see why there should be a compromise in this case.

[Ben Kenobi]

How would allowing gays the ability to enter into a civil union with all the tax implications of straight marriage lead to the deaths of 6 million Jews and other assorted minorities?

In every state it's been introduced, gay marriage has immediately followed within a couple years. It's a compromise inasmuch as only having 1 concentration camp was to the holocaust.

Dinodoc knows this, which is why I'm curious he's advancing this argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, 'my side' is arguing that restricting marriage to only heterosexual marriage is discriminatory.

Your side is arguing that a man marrying another man is a fundamental and important goal without which his life cannot be lived and fully expressed. So again, sex is extremely relevant to marriage.

The same preposition to what? Also, your only arguments so far are religious.

The argument that there exists two sexes, men and women for a reason - because they were designed to be with one another is no more religious than evolution is. .

'Concept' of two sexes? So somehow if gay marriage were allowed, then the sexes would 'cease to exist'?

That men and women are complementary is a presupposition that my side believes and your side does not.

A third argument is that 'Sex is irrelevant to marriage', and that "it shouldn't matter what sex you marry because that's not what marriage is about.

The problem, NES is that your argument is untenable. All of your prepositions do not line up together. I suspect you are using preposition 2 (Men must marry men), to advance preposition 3 (sex is irrelevant).

See, you really don't believe in marriage, or sex. You believe that neither are fixed, they are 'constructs' of the mind which cannot be changed. IOW - a fixed sexual orientation is a myth.

[Ben Kenobi]

How would allowing gays the ability to enter into a civil union with all the tax implications of straight marriage lead to the deaths of 6 million Jews and other assorted minorities?

Every state that has introduced it has seen it followed up with gay marriage. It's no more a compromise than a capitulation.

[Ming]

So you think that because sometimes parents die an untimely death that we should deliberately separate children from their mother or father? Children have a right to their mother and father, and that isn't trumped by whatever the desires of the adults are at the time.

God deliberately separates children from their mother or father all the time, so God must not think that children have that right.

[Ben Kenobi]

God deliberately separates children from their mother or father all the time, so God must not think that children have that right.

Would you argue that AIDS was God's judgment?

[Berzerker]

You say, "the Catholic church was never subject to persecution". I cite an example which you brush off. Don't you ever tire of playing this crap game?

I do get tired of it, Ben... I never said that so why do you put it in quotes and accuse me of saying it? I said the Catholic Church has been using the state to persecute people for ~1700 years and your rebuttal is, Catholics were persecuted in England. Your claim has nothing to do with mine. Both statements are true, they're not contradictory.

I want dope out of my community after dopeheads stole from me and my family to pay for their habits.

You believe in collective guilt...sometimes...when its supported by your biases. But you dont want that standard applied to you. If Catholics do bad things then by your logic, the religion should be banned and Catholics thrown into cages. Its the same argument for alcohol prohibition and not allowing different looking people moving into the neighborhood. And one more thing, if you ban the dope the cost and profit margins for defeating the ban rise and along with it property crime rates. You ban the stuff and people steal from you to pay the increased cost.

You say 'dope is a harmless drug'

I never said that either, I dont know if anything in life is harmless. Even aspirin can cause death from internal bleeding and water carries pollutants and it dont take much to drown in it.

I don't see smokers stealing from me. I don't see drinkers stealing from me. I thought you believed in private property. Clearly dope >>> private property.

There's your collective guilt again... Those products are legal and cheap, during prohibition there was plenty of stealing. And dope is private property.

Good question. Because marriage is a public institution. If it were wholly private, there would be no divorce laws, no protection of either spouse in the case that they are left alone, no division of property a whole not of nothing. Everything with marriage is publicly regulated - from wills all the way down. Why? Society values marriage to the point where it is willing to enforce norms on those who marry.

Unmarried people have wills and property to pass along - private property. Not your property, theirs. The state is concerned with property, who becomes the rightful owner when we die. Thats why the state keeps track of our wishes, if children are involved it doesn't matter if the parents are married or not.

I believe in the English Common Law definition of marriage, which has existed as long as there has been an English common law. I believe in matrimony, which has existed since the time of the Roman Empire.

Is that insufficiently 'traditional' for you? Yes, I believe that each husband should have his own wife and not have to share. Each wife should have her own husband and not have to share.

Polygamy and bigamy are traditional forms of marriage. You oppose them, dont tell us you believe in traditional marriage. It aint true.

Do you think divorce laws should be enforced? Laws barring incest? Polygamy? Bigamy?

People should be free to divorce, and no to the rest.

Any marriage conducted in private without a public witness is not valid. This is the law.

The marriage didn't require a witness, the law required a witness. Adam and Eve married and had no witness and there was no law. You've said that was the ideal marriage, ironically to deny gay marriage. Now their marriage aint good enough for you.

It's there for a good reason. Ironically, your argument completely destroys legal recognition of gay marriage, as you are arguing they should not be awarded marriage licenses, should not receive any recognition at all.

Whats the good reason? I dont believe in state licenses (permission slips) to get married. The state's recognition of marriage is limited to property - wills, inheritances, etc.

[Ming]

Would you argue that AIDS was God's judgment?

You probably would... But you still haven't addressed the issue. Like usual, you are trying to change the discussion since you don't like the way it's going.

[N35t0r]

Your side is arguing that a man marrying another man is a fundamental and important goal without which his life cannot be lived and fully expressed.

Do show me where I said this.

So again, sex is extremely relevant to marriage.

Oh, so I think sex is extremely relevant to marriage because you say so. OK.

The argument that there exists two sexes, men and women for a reason - because they were designed to be with one another is no more religious than evolution is. .

So there are two sexes because of marriage. OK... Then how do animals do?

That men and women are complementary is a presupposition that my side believes and your side does not.

Complementary? Does either sex fly? Does either sex have telepathy? Does either sex breathe underwater? OTOH, both sexes have (generally) two legs, two arms, hear and see in the same frequencies (again, generally)... That's a lot of ways in which they do not complement each other. Or only the ways which you care about count?

The problem, NES is that your argument is untenable. All of your prepositions do not line up together.

Then why do you go off in tangents, put words in my mouth, and argue things I didn't say instead of showing this?

I suspect you are using preposition 2 (Men must marry men)

I never said that. I can also suspect you are using preposition 345 (giraffes are green), but if you never said that, then it's irrelevant, don't you think?

to advance preposition 3 (sex is irrelevant).

Which is my argument (that sex is irrelevant WRT marriage).

See, you really don't believe in marriage,

False, else I wouldn't be getting married in a couple of months.

or sex.

I do believe in sex, in fact, I practise lots of it. I just don't believe it's relevant WRT marriage.

You believe that neither are fixed,

Um, marriage clearly isn't fixed, otherwise the church wouldn't be marrying people.

I don't care whether sex is fixed or not, since I don't believe it should matter WRT marriage.

they are 'constructs' of the mind which cannot be changed.

lolwut? you just said I don't believe either is fixed, and now you say that I think they cannot be changed? Make up your mind. Also, stop telling me what I believe in. No matter how much you repeat it, I'll still believe what I believe, not what you think I believe.

IOW - a fixed sexual orientation is a myth.

Well, clearly, since there are gay people, then sexual orientation is not fixed.

[Ben Kenobi]

You probably would... But you still haven't addressed the issue. Like usual, you are trying to change the discussion since you don't like the way it's going.

You're the one who's arguing the ridiculous non-sequitor that people's deaths are a sign of God's judgment.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do show me where I said this.

Ok, fair enough. If you're stating that people can live without gay marriage, and that gay marriage isn't fundamental to their well-being your argument now makes sense.

It just doesn't work as an argument for gay marriage anymore.

Oh, so I think sex is extremely relevant to marriage because you say so. OK.

Logically someone arguing that marrying a woman is something they do not want and that they want to marry a man, that the sex of their partner *is* important to them.

So there are two sexes because of marriage. OK... Then how do animals do?

The argument is that marriage came second, evolution has men and woman. Therefore marriage between men and women is a logical outgrowth. Gay marriage makes no sense whatsoever.

Complementary? Does either sex fly? Does either sex have telepathy? Does either sex breathe underwater? OTOH, both sexes have (generally) two legs, two arms, hear and see in the same frequencies (again, generally)... That's a lot of ways in which they do not complement each other. Or only the ways which you care about count?

What it means is that men and women are fundamentally different and yet their strengths, (when together), compensate for each other's weaknesses. If there's an evolutionary advantage, we'd also see men and women selected, over time, for these characteristics. All right there in Darwin's books, NES.

Then why do you go off in tangents, put words in my mouth, and argue things I didn't say instead of showing this?

Because I attempted to demonstrate why you've got two prepositions that don't work together, and wasn't making any headway with you.

Which is my argument (that sex is irrelevant WRT marriage).

Then it's impossible that discrimination based on sex is harmful.

False, else I wouldn't be getting married in a couple of months.

Does it matter to you if your partner is a man or a woman?

I do believe in sex, in fact, I practise lots of it. I just don't believe it's relevant WRT marriage.

So you don't believe in sex in marriage. Ok.

I don't care whether sex is fixed or not, since I don't believe it should matter WRT marriage.

If your partner got a sex-change, it wouldn't matter to you?

lolwut? you just said I don't believe either is fixed, and now you say that I think they cannot be changed? Make up your mind. Also, stop telling me what I believe in. No matter how much you repeat it, I'll still believe what I believe, not what you think I believe.

Do you believe that sex is a societal construct? That people can choose to be either male or female?

Well, clearly, since there are gay people, then sexual orientation is not fixed.

Then therapy to correct unwanted sexual attraction is kosher.

[Ming]

You're the one who's arguing the ridiculous non-sequitor that people's deaths are a sign of God's judgment.

Gee.. where did I say that. Oh, that's right... I didn't.
I just stated that God must not agree with your "every children has a right to a mother and father" because he takes parents away from children all the time.

[Ben Kenobi]

I do get tired of it, Ben... I never said that so why do you put it in quotes and accuse me of saying it? I said the Catholic Church has been using the state to persecute people for ~1700 years and your rebuttal is, Catholics were persecuted in England. Your claim has nothing to do with mine. Both statements are true, they're not contradictory.

Ok, so you're stating then that the Catholic church was in fact persecuted in England. Thank you. That is the point I was trying to make. America is not a Catholic country. Arguing that the Catholic church hasn't been persecuted in America is also a non starter.

You believe in collective guilt

I believe that dopeheads are willing to lie so that they can get high, absolutely I do.

...sometimes...when its supported by your biases. But you dont want that standard applied to you. If Catholics do bad things

When you bring up stuff from 17 centuries ago? You really think Catholics today should be responsible for what happened then?

Its the same argument for alcohol prohibition

So your argument is because alcohol contributes to a significant number of crimes, that it means it's ok for dopeheads to commit crimes too?

and not allowing different looking people moving into the neighborhood. And one more thing, if you ban the dope the cost and profit margins for defeating the ban rise and along with it property crime rates. You ban the stuff and people steal from you to pay the increased cost.

So you're saying it's ok to steal from me because dope is illegal?

I never said that either, I dont know if anything in life is harmless. Even aspirin can cause death from internal bleeding and water carries pollutants and it dont take much to drown in it.

I have known a fair number of dopeheads, one was willing to make dope the highest priority in her life. How well do you think that worked out for her? Bright lady. Take a guess where she ended up.

There's your collective guilt again... Those products are legal and cheap, during prohibition there was plenty of stealing. And dope is private property.

So how does that justify theft of other people's property to get your fix? What is more important to you - dope or private property?

Unmarried people have wills and property to pass along - private property. Not your property, theirs. The state is concerned with property, who becomes the rightful owner when we die. Thats why the state keeps track of our wishes, if children are involved it doesn't matter if the parents are married or not.

So again, marriage, as it concerns property is a public act. This is a refutation of your argument.

Polygamy and bigamy are traditional forms of marriage. You oppose them, dont tell us you believe in traditional marriage. It aint true.

It's the tradition in America. Are you arguing otherwise?

People should be free to divorce, and no to the rest.

Why? If people love each other who are you to say no?

The marriage didn't require a witness, the law required a witness.

In order for the marriage to receive state recognition. Are you arguing that gay people should be permitted to marry in private, but not get licenses?

You've said that was the ideal marriage

I'm not quite sure how the argument that Adam and Eve were created for each other can be used to justify gay marriage.

I dont believe in state licenses (permission slips) to get married.

Then why are you supporting gay marriage?

The state's recognition of marriage is limited to property - wills, inheritances, etc.

Again, just like NES, this is untenable. Marriages must be witnessed in order for the state to recognize them. Basic law.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gee.. where did I say that. Oh, that's right... I didn't.
I just stated that God must not agree with your "every children has a right to a mother and father" because he takes parents away from children all the time.

Terrible argument. At least we have confirmation from Ming if someone dies it was God's punishment for sins.