Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

**Askthepizzaguy** · 10-15-2008, 21:16

All of your points were unrelated to the legal question of gays being married, or they didn't explain why a constitutional amendment was necessary to prevent states from allowing gay marriage.

Or, refute me and post a link, or quote yourself.

**Fragony** · 10-15-2008, 21:34

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

All of your points were unrelated to the legal question of gays being married, or they didn't explain why a constitutional amendment was necessary to prevent states from allowing gay marriage.

Or, refute me and post a link, or quote yourself.

All my mine points, well ours, is the discussion you guys seem to be elegantly, yet consistantly dodging. By doing so are doing this place a great disservice cheap personal shots are just that.

15 pages of link now, do that ready thingy so we can practys communicattsism

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-15-2008, 21:39

Originally Posted by Fragony

All my mine points, well ours, is the discussion you guys seem to be elegantly, yet consistantly dodging. By doing so are doing this place a great disservice cheap personal shots are just that.

15 pages of link now, do that ready thingy so we can practys communicattsism

Fragony, I seriously don't mean this in an insulting way, but do you understand what I mean when I say there is a difference between an opinion argument and a legal argument?

I can say I don't like charging interest, for example. That it's immoral and leads to usury and exploiting the poor and debt and poverty and making people homeless/penniless. And that my religious text teaches that it is immoral and should be discouraged. None of those can stand in court as a legal reason for overturning a constitutional law allowing the extension of loans with interest.

**Fragony** · 10-15-2008, 21:50

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Fragony, I seriously don't mean this in an insulting way, but do you understand what I mean when I say there is a difference between an opinion argument and a legal argument?

Glad you don't, now could we please actually make that difference between an opinion argument and a legal one as we have have been pleading for forever since page 1?

**Rhyfelwyr** · 10-15-2008, 21:56

Koga you are basically wanting to create a new institution, same-sex marriage. What exists is heterosexual marriages, these are defined by the fact there is one man and one woman. They are not discriminatory, a gay man could marry a woman if we wanted. But he won't want to. Just like some single straight guys won't want to. So should we let them 'marry' their best friend or whever since apparently everyone needs someone to make decisions for them in hospital and get tax cuts? That is all you see marriage as after all, you do not acknowledge it has always been solely for 1 man/1 woman.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 10-15-2008, 21:59

same-sex marriage, different-religion marriage, different race marriage.

At one time, they were all illegal.

Now, two out of three are legal almost everywhere. The third is legal in 3 states.

Your argument, Rhyfelwyr, doesn't hold water, because you're basically arguing "something was illegal for a long time, therefore it should be."

**Rhyfelwyr** · 10-15-2008, 22:20

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

same-sex marriage, different-religion marriage, different race marriage.

At one time, they were all illegal.

Now, two out of three are legal almost everywhere. The third is legal in 3 states.

Your argument, Rhyfelwyr, doesn't hold water, because you're basically arguing "something was illegal for a long time, therefore it should be."

And just because some things were legalised doesn't mean everything should be.

Marriage, as an institution, is based on the fact that there is one man and one woman involved. If they are of different religions, then it is up to them to judge at their discretion if marrying is compatible with their beliefs. As for race, I don't believe such a thing exists in any noteworthy form, so despite shameful attitudes in the past its a non-issue in this thread. So long as it is one man and one woman, it is marriage.

Any other combination does not = marriage.

If you make instutitions to allow for same-sex partnerships, then it is something totally seperate from the traditional idea of marrige.

If you change the definition of something, well then that doesn't mean that whatever you allow to happen through the changes are really legitimate in the original form of whatever you redefined.

Its like saying we should abandon the idea of heterosexuality because it discriminates against homosexuals. You can ban these two catagories and say only sexuality exists, but in the end you can't make homosexuals heterosexual in the traditional meaning of the word.

**Ser Clegane** · 10-15-2008, 22:02

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

apparently everyone needs someone to make decisions for them in hospital

Actually it is not about someone making decisions but about your beloved one making these decisions.
But I assume that the concept about actual love is alien to you in this context when you reduce the whole issue to "fetish" and "butt-sex".
Well - it seems we are living in somewhat different worlds...

**Askthepizzaguy** · 10-15-2008, 22:11

I could almost agree with the opposition, but for one problem with their argument:

They don't feel gays can fall in love with one another, that they are trapped by a sexual fetish or desire, and that if they were "cured" they could have "normal" sex and feel love for the first time.

Therefore, only heterosexual love exists, because that's what God designed.

Right... however, plenty of heterosexual people get married for money, for political power, for lust, and for security, not for love. So even if I conceded gay people can't fall in love (something I cannot concede, because it's not true...), they still have a right to get married, because straight people can get married, love or not.

People should have the right to choose their adult partner to spend the rest of their life with, be they different race, same race, different religion, same religion, no religion, be they same sex, opposite sex, or transgender.

To say that marriage is something only men and women should be able to have together, is the same argument used to deny different races, different religions, from marrying. Can atheist/agnostic people get married? Under the state, they can. So, why is it not possible for two people of the same gender to get married?

Also, what about transgendered people? Can they not get married to either sex because they are somehow "freaks"? It's the same kind of thinking.