Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Tuffstuff Do not tell me what I will think.



I had a long drawn out response but This isnt worth my time. You seem to think this is a battle and if the gays win everything will fall and soon Joe bob will marry his goat. Dont assume simply because I dont mind two men playing in the mud to solidify there relationship is the same as bestiality.

---

I suspect that you will think it is fine once a few happy animals walk in front of you with loving and committed owners.

You don't see a trend in favor of more rights for animals? When do you think it will cross that logical line that gay marriage did into the land of reality?

Did you say years ago that gay marriage would be a reality? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You don't see a trend in favor of more rights for animals? When do you think it will cross that logical line that gay marriage did into the land of reality?

---

Animals can't give consent however if you do know a goat that can say yes please point him or her out to me as I find goats to be less demanding and warmer than females.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

---

So wait.... the "point" of marriage is to give special privileges to heterosexual couples? There is no other purpose? And allowing every kind of consenting adult couple to have the same legal rights will take away that special privileged status? You realize the same argument was made for the special racial status of white people in not recognizing white marriages with other races. My genealogy, for instance, dead-ends with my great-grandparents. Because my great-grandmother was white and my great-grandfather was Blackfeet, and their marriage was illegal at the time they married in Arkansas.

I'm trying to keep up with your arguments, Tuff, but they're chameleoning on me.

Quote:

---

I suspect that you will think it is fine once a few happy animals walk in front of you with loving and committed owners.

You don't see a trend in favor of more rights for animals? When do you think it will cross that logical line that gay marriage did into the land of reality?

Did you say years ago that gay marriage would be a reality? I doubt it.

---

So in other words, you oppose this only because you find it disgusting and on par with humans engaging in bestiality. Even though the issues of hospital and medical decisionmaking, property rights and inheritance rights utterly don't apply in the case of an animal.

If that's really your stance, just come out and say it. You've hinted as much but why pretend this is a legally righteous point you are defending?

Quote:

---

That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problem

---

Strike is correct. (And great points you've been making btw STFS.)

Don, your argument is bunk and it's sheer fear tactics from the religious right and people who oppose gay marriage. Churches have NEVER been coerced to conduct marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs or traditions. My friend at work, for instance, was just telling me a story about how her friend from Japan married a Mormon guy in Utah. The parents came out for the wedding but, because it was a very traditional Mormon Church, they were not allowed inside the actual ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

Churches will never be "forced" to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. Individual preachers and priests break with their denomination and do them privately all the time, but I don't see how that's any concern to anyone but him/her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Animals can't give consent however if you do know a goat that can say yes please point him or her out to me as I find goats to be less demanding and warmer than females.

---

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not? Do you own pets, have you ever interacted with an animal? They most assuredly have personalities, likes and dislikes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not? Do you own pets, have you ever interacted with an animal? They most assuredly have personalities, likes and dislikes.

---

Can my dog tell my doctor what my medical directives are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Can my dog tell my doctor what my medical directives are?

---

That depends on what your medical directives are. I know some people who couldn't relay medical directives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not?

---

You try asking your horse to marry you. What's it going to do, neigh?

Besides, Mr. Hands wouldn't agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not? Do you own pets, have you ever interacted with an animal? They most assuredly have personalities, likes and dislikes.

---

What is consent? Do you like being obtuse?

"Mary would you like to marry me?"

"Yes John"

"Goat would you like to marry me?"

There are no quotes for the goat because the goat cant talk how unfortunate.

Oh jesus now you're going to bring up deaf people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

That depends on what your medical directives are. I know some people who couldn't relay medical directives.

---

Tuff even going back to the beginning of literacy, consent has been either oral or by making one's mark. Animals can't even do that unless trained to do so and even then are merely repeating a trained action and have no idea what it is they are "signing."

You are too smart to believe this ridiculous argument you are making. Try another tack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Tuff even going back to the beginning of literacy, consent has been either oral or by making one's mark. Animals can't even do that unless trained to do so and even then are merely repeating a trained action and have no idea what it is they are "signing."

You are too smart to believe this ridiculous argument you are making. Try another tack.

---

If people are born being attracted to animals and it hurts nobody, why is it wrong?

Aside:
Just curious, but where is there a federal prohibition against discrimination against personal practices or lifestyle choices in Federal law?

I can see how such laws in Connecticut have led to their recent ruling - Thank goodness our Federal law hasn't passed yet.

Well TSM you want 'freedom' this is what happens.

EDIT: Meant TSM not TSF. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Don, your argument is bunk and it's sheer fear tactics from the religious right and people who oppose gay marriage. Churches have NEVER been coerced to conduct marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs or traditions. My friend at work, for instance, was just telling me a story about how her friend from Japan married a Mormon guy in Utah. The parents came out for the wedding but, because it was a very traditional Mormon Church, they were not allowed inside the actual ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

Churches will never be "forced" to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. Individual preachers and priests break with their denomination and do them privately all the time, but I don't see how that's any concern to anyone but him/her.

---

Yeah, I just make this crap up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

If people are born being attracted to animals and it hurts nobody, why is it wrong?

---

And what of the animal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yeah, I just make this crap up.

---

That's a protest, not a law. What's your point? People can show up protesting a traditional rule of their own church, or someone else's church. This is a free country after all. I don't think they have any basis, they can go form their own church, or they can join a church with friendlier attitudes and traditions. There are many now. But this article is a far cry from saying the law is going to require churches to conduct ceremonies they do not condone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

And what of the animal?

---

What of the animal? Do you know a dog on earth who wouldn't appreciate more one on one time with their owner? Couldn't they say that a dog humping your leg was consent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

If people are born being attracted to animals and it hurts nobody, why is it wrong?

Aside:
Just curious, but where is there a federal prohibition against discrimination against personal practices or lifestyle choices in Federal law?

I can see how such laws in Connecticut have led to their recent ruling - Thank goodness our Federal law hasn't passed yet.

---

Maybe because picking and choosing who to allow access to equal rights based upon whether you like their religious views or political views or what type or race of woman they marry or what kind of sex they like isn't a good thing? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

That's a protest, not a law. What's your point? People can show up protesting a traditional rule of their own church, or someone else's church. This is a free country after all. I don't think they have any basis, they can go form their own church, or they can join a church with friendlier attitudes and traditions. There are many now. But this article is a far cry from saying the law is going to require churches to conduct ceremonies they do not condone.

---

You're right. They are within their rights to protest the Churches decision. We've seen what they've tried to do to the boy scouts, though. It doesn't seem to be a far cry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What of the animal? Do you know a dog on earth who wouldn't appreciate more one on one time with their owner?

---

You say a man and his dog should be able to marry due to sexual attraction. It's already well known that animals are animals and have sex for the purpose of breeding, and they often do. However, a dog cannot give consent to marry, cannot say "I do" and cannot make decisions in the event of your incapacitation. Therefore- they cannot marry. Have all the wild sex you want, but unless you get the dog to say "I do" and sign a legal document that it knows what it states, your argument is silly. We're talking about two consenting adults, not a man and his fetis for his dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Maybe because picking and choosing who to allow access to equal rights based upon whether you like their religious views or political views or what type or race of woman they marry or what kind of sex they like isn't a good thing? :)

---

C'mon - that wasn't an answer.

My point is that the legislation against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual identity should fail at the Federal level in order to avoid this exact type of situation. The Federal protection doesn't currently exist for made up sexual identity - but it might soon. Then the Supreme court may use the same excuse to find the current marriage laws unconstitutional. People should know what they support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Those things that you've quoted all required amendments, they were decided by the legislature. Oh man! You mean the legislature is capable of doing that?! It's been so long since I have heard of them making any social policy that I had forgotten what we were capable of!

---

Yes they did. My point was that giving those right was the correct moral thing to do. Gay marriage will be looked at like that as well. Your children or grand children will look back at this time and wonder what we were thinking by not giving gay couple the right to marry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

You say a man and his dog should be able to marry due to sexual attraction. It's already well known that animals are animals and have sex for the purpose of breeding, and they often do. However, a dog cannot give consent to marry, cannot say "I do" and cannot make decisions in the event of your incapacitation. Therefore- they cannot marry. Have all the wild sex you want, but unless you get the dog to say "I do" and sign a legal document that it knows what it states, your argument is silly. We're talking about two consenting adults, not a man and his fetis for his dog.

---

So you don't believe that there should be laws against bestiality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

C'mon - that wasn't an answer.

My point is that the legislation against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual identity should fail at the Federal level in order to avoid this exact type of situation. The Federal protection doesn't currently exist for made up sexual identity - but it might soon. Then the Supreme court may use the same excuse to find the current marriage laws unconstitutional. People should know what they support.

---

You do realize there is federal regulation against discrimination based on sex. It protects federal workers from being discriminated in the workplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

Yes they did. My point was that giving those right was the correct moral thing to do. Gay marriage will be looked at like that as well. Your children or grand children will look back at this time and wonder what we were thinking by not giving gay couple the right to marry.

---

People always adapt. Remember the third reich? People would have come to accept the destruction of undesirables with time, had the Germans won the war. Do you doubt this? People used to watch men torn apart for sport.

The question shouldn't be "what will people get used to". The answer will disturb you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

You do realize there is federal regulation against discrimination based on sex. It protects federal workers from being discriminated in the workplace.

---

Sex is defined as male/female. There is a pending bill dealing with sexual orientation, but it is not law yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

People always adapt. Remember the third reich? People would have come to accept the destruction of undesirables with time, had the Germans won the war. Do you doubt this? People used to watch men torn apart for sport.

The question shouldn't be "what will people get used to". The answer will disturb you.

---

Funny thing is we no longer watch people kill each other for sport. In fact as a society in at whole we are no were near as brutal. There are many examples of mass killing that are still looked on as wrong. Including the killing of Native Americans by the US government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Sex is defined as male/female. There is a pending bill dealing with sexual orientation, but it is not law yet.

---

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the fact that not allowing gay couples to marry is sexual discrimination. I can marry a women but not a man, why, becasue of our sex, not our sexual orientation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

So you don't believe that there should be laws against bestiality?

---

That isn't the point, and now you're going off topic.

I'm the only one left against Gay marriage on these boards it seems. I guess I'll just move out of the way and let progress happen.

I do want marriage out of the government purview though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You're right. They are withing their rights to protest the Churches decision. We've seen what they've tried to do to the boy scouts, though. It doesn't seem to be a far cry.

---

Well it's just like how people say, you can sue for anything. It doesn't mean you're going to win. I don't like this "well I guess I'm not really against that per se, except I consider that a gateway drug into all kinds of changes I definitely don't want, so I'll oppose even reasonable stuff." Things like copkiller bullet laws would be an example for the gun issue, and things like civil unions or legal gay marriage are that for the religious crowds. Nothing about anyone's heterosexual Christian life is going to change after gay marriage, nor is it any broad-based, mainstream agenda to force any such change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

C'mon - that wasn't an answer.

My point is that the legislation against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual identity should fail at the Federal level in order to avoid this exact type of situation. The Federal protection doesn't currently exist for made up sexual identity - but it might soon. Then the Supreme court may use the same excuse to find the current marriage laws unconstitutional. People should know what they support.

---

You keep saying this over and over, Tuff. You saying homosexuality is "made up" doesn't make it so. What exactly makes you think your personal rationalization for the right to discriminate against gay people (because they're "choosing" something undesirable, not born that way) should have more weight than what millions of gay people say?