ES Gay Marriage Poll

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes, we legislate relationships between minors and adults, that has nothing to do with the relationship between two consenting adults. There are a lot of things that adults can legally do that children cannot, using that as an example of dictating relationships is very poor and does nothing to negate my original argument.

Sure it does, because it is our shared philosophy that there is a difference between an adult and a child that allows us to see the need for laws protecting the 13 year old, but that philosophy is far from universal. And our impassioned defense of children does not change that fact. So we talk about things like "consenting adults" because according to our philosophy those things are important factors, but there are societies around the world today that perform arranged marriages where the those being married are not consenting. Is that wrong? And how do you determine that apart from your philosophy? This is the whole point I'm making, in that we DO dictate what relationships will be recognized by the state.

[Unforgiven]

You said that we cannot dictate the relationships with others who do not share our convictions, I just used our laws against certain relationships (i.e. pedophilia) as an example that we already do so, and we celebrate it whats more. Today we say it is against the law for a 30 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. But, you want to argue that we shouldn't use law to dictate relationships. The reality is that the disagreement is with which relationships we should dictate through law.

I also left out in the other post that I never said anything like "we shouldn't use the law to dictate relationships" at all. I simply said your religious beliefs shouldn't be used to dictate to other people who may not believe them. There is a huge difference.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I actually got laid off that site. I have never gotten laid because of my posts here. Zoony did offer me a handy once.

Quoted forever!!!!!!!! :rotflmao:

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 02:00 PM ----------

I also left out in the other post that I never said anything like "we shouldn't use the law to dictate relationships" at all.

Sorry' date=' you're right, that was Unforgiven, sorry I'm working this discussion on several fronts.

I simply said your religious beliefs shouldn't be used to dictate to other people who may not believe them. There is a huge difference.

Why not? It has already been argued that my religious beliefs are just really philosophical beliefs with more ceremony, what makes "philosophical" convictions less worthy than yours?

[Major Harris]

. I learn more there by shutting up.

i do that HERE.

I used to post on wrestling boards in the late 90s and early aughts. I stopped when I realized that I was a 28-year-old with two degrees arguing with 15 year olds.

:rotflmao:

But you can reason with a WVU fan. You can also reason with a chair for all the good it will do you.

c'mon' date=' pleaseblitz is reasonable.

. Zoony did offer me a handy once.

dam. i thought i was special.

[Unforgiven]

Sure it does, because it is our shared philosophy that there is a difference between an adult and a child that allows us to see the need for laws protecting the 13 year old, but that philosophy is far from universal. And our impassioned defense of children does not change that fact. So we talk about things like "consenting adults" because according to our philosophy those things are important factors, but there are societies around the world today that perform arranged marriages where the those being married are not consenting. Is that wrong? And how do you determine that apart from your philosophy? This is the whole point I'm making, in that we DO dictate what relationships will be recognized by the state.

The problem is you're trying to steer the argument away from the simple fact of your opposition to something that harms you in no way simply because it's a religious belief. What they want does not harm you, what you want takes away something from them. No one is trying to tell you that *you* must do something that opposes your beliefs.

If we keep going back and forth like this we're going to get so far away from the original point, it's just not worth the time.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The problem is you're trying to steer the argument away from the simple fact of your opposition to something that harms you in no way simply because it's a religious belief. What they want does not harm you, what you want takes away something from them. No one is trying to tell you that *you* must do something that opposes your beliefs.

And I have already demonstrated that your philosophy allows you to deny certain relationships between others that in no way affects your life.

If we keep going back and forth like this we're going to get so far away from the original point, it's just not worth the time.

Again, the point is that we already agree that laws can and should be used to regulate relationships, the difference is which relationships should be regulated?

[Unforgiven]

Quoted forever!!!!!!!! :rotflmao:

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 02:00 PM ----------

Why not? It has already been argued that my religious beliefs are just really philosophical beliefs with more ceremony, what makes "philosophical" convictions less worthy than yours?

This is pretty simply, your beliefs seek to limit the rights of others. Mine simply serve to make everyone equal while harming no one.

It can't be made any simpler for you, I'm sorry.

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is pretty simply, your beliefs seek to limit the rights of others. Mine simply serve to make everyone equal while harming no one.

It can't be made any simpler for you, I'm sorry.

See post #584

[Unforgiven]

And I have already demonstrated that your philosophy allows you to deny certain relationships between others that in no way affects your life.

Again, the point is that we already agree that laws can and should be used to regulate relationships, the difference is which relationships should be regulated?

So, your logic is that because I'm fine with a pedophile not being able to marry a young child that proves you right in some way that I want to deny certain relationships? Therefore you have just as much right to choose some you want to deny? You have to see the absurdity in this argument.

Again, not going to keep going down this road where you want to dodge and obscure the fact you want to use religion to limit the rights of two adults. You never want to simply acknowledge the fact you oppose this because God said so, you just want to try keep this in a constant digression to somehow give you equal footing where we all have reasons to oppose different relationships because of different beliefs, therefor your have just as much right to oppose gay marriage as I have to oppose 30 year old to marry a 13 year old. This is ridiculous.

[rick1796]

See post #584

by your argument allowing consenting adults to do what they want is the same as allowing anyone to do anything they want. You are literally arguing that having consent laws including age of consent is the same as regulating to people who meet those consent laws. Consent laws are designed to protect minors from themselves as much as from adults. Removing those laws would do harm to those minors. So how would allowing consenting adults to marry affect your life? Again I realize this isn't necessarily your belief but more logic puzzle. . . just saying I get it.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So, your logic is that because I'm fine with a pedophile not being able to marry a young child that proves you right in some way that I want to deny certain relationships? Therefore you have just as much right to choose some you want to deny? You have to see the absurdity in this argument.

The point is that we both agree that limiting certain relationships is a good thing, the difference is which relationships to regulate.

Again, not going to keep going down this road where you want to dodge and obscure the fact you want to use religion to limit the rights of two adults. You never want to simply acknowledge the fact you oppose this because God said so, you just want to try keep this in a constant digression to somehow give you equal footing where we all have reasons to oppose different relationships because of different beliefs, therefor your have just as much right to oppose gay marriage as I have to oppose 30 year old to marry a 13 year old. This is ridiculous.

You need to read all my posts, specifically the one written in reply to Predicto on page 38.

BTW, whether God said so (for the religious) or some ethicist (for the secular) said so the result is the same, we both have equal right to attempt to shape our nation's laws according to our convictions.

[Unforgiven]

You need to read all my posts, specifically the one written in reply to Predicto on page 38.

BTW, whether God said so (for the religious) or some ethicist (for the secular) said so the result is the same, we both have equal right to attempt to shape our nation's laws according to our convictions.

Yeah, I missed part of this, got in late. Also have to give me a post #, I use more posts per page than most people on here I think...so I see this post on page 15.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to say "for religious beliefs, I don't believe so and so should be legal." I'm not trying to take away your voice on the issue, I'm simply saying at the most basic point of all this there is one side that wants to limit the rights of people that in no way harms them, and the other side simply wants everyone to be equal.

How is equality a bad thing? I mean what about equality in this situation is harmful? If they got their way, what is the negative impact on you?

[AsburySkinsFan]

by your argument allowing consenting adults to do what they want is the same as allowing anyone to do anything they want. You are literally arguing that having consent laws including age of consent is the same as regulating to people who meet those consent laws. Consent laws are designed to protect minors from themselves as much as from adults. Removing those laws would do harm to those minors. So how would allowing consenting adults to marry affect your life? Again I realize this isn't necessarily your belief but more logic puzzle. . . just saying I get it.

The only point I'm making is that our philosophy sees things like consent and adulthood as important determining factors, but that this philosophy is not universal. I use the marriage between a 30 year old man and a 13 year old girl as an example of a relationship that certain philosophies would regulate. Sure there are good reasons according to our shared ethics and philosophy to do so, but they aren't universal.

[Chachie]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a ****?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a “no-brainer,” members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter.

Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be ****ing kidding me,” under his breath.

“I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. “Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog ****, and you are wasting our time.”

“Should gay marriage be legal?” Ginsburg continued. “Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?”

Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be “downright silly” for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“I’m a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I’m looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law,” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. “So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God’s green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I’m saying is, who the **** are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?”

Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it’s just “common goddamn sense,” and then addressed gay men and women directly.

“Get married, don’t get married, do whatever you want,” Roberts said. “It’s the opinion of this court that we don’t give two ****s what you do.”

“C’mon, let’s go get some food,” added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door.

[The Evil Genius]

If I'm intolerant of intolerance, does that mean I hate myself more than I already do?

[rick1796]

The only point I'm making is that our philosophy sees things like consent and adulthood as important determining factors, but that this philosophy is not universal. I use the marriage between a 30 year old man and a 13 year old girl as an example of a relationship that certain philosophies would regulate. Sure there are good reasons according to our shared ethics and philosophy to do so, but they aren't universal.

What you are doing is making a generalized statement that we do regulate relationships. I agree, but only becasue in the sense that we regulate things that do harm. Consent laws being the example you chose and so i am running with it. I can show numerous examples of why consent laws exist, how they prevent harm. To argue against homosexual marraige you need to be able to present example of how it does harm to individuals. You arguement is bordering on the often used and always wrong "slippery slope" arguement. Saying that once homosexual marraige is legal what else now will be made legal becasue we have changed a regulation on consenting adults. . .

[Koolblue13]

The only point I'm making is that our philosophy sees things like consent and adulthood as important determining factors, but that this philosophy is not universal. I use the marriage between a 30 year old man and a 13 year old girl as an example of a relationship that certain philosophies would regulate. Sure there are good reasons according to our shared ethics and philosophy to do so, but they aren't universal.

You are so far off topic. Minor laws have zero comparison to laws between consenting adults. ZERO.

I still have yet to get an answer to my question. Is religion the only reason that SSM would be unconstitutional?

[Predicto]

lol at the Onion.

[mistertim]

BTW, whether God said so (for the religious) or some ethicist (for the secular) said so the result is the same, we both have equal right to attempt to shape our nation's laws according to our convictions.

Well, its not really the same, if you're coming from a purely religious viewpoint (teh ghey is not allowed in the bible so gay marriage is not ok). The Constitution prohibits that, which religious people and institutions acknowledge, even if implicitly, by the fact that when they are trying to change or introduce laws to comport with religious doctrines they have to come up with secular "workarounds" and not actually mention the bible.

So are you part of a religion or a philosophy? How do you define yourself? How is a religion differentiated legally from a philosophy? At this point we're just going down a rhetorical and semantic rabbit hole.

[Koolblue13]

lol at the Onion.

I read that earlier. So funny. I love that news group.

[DjTj]

You are so far off topic. Minor laws have zero comparison to laws between consenting adults. ZERO.

I still have yet to get an answer to my question. Is religion the only reason that SSM would be unconstitutional?

Unlawful. Not unconstitutional. Nobody is arguing that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The constitutional question is whether a majority of voters or representatives can authorize heterosexual marriage but deny same-sex marriage.

And I would say that it is religion and culture that are driving the opposition to same-sex marriage. Those are somewhat intertwined, but not everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is extremely religious - some of them just hold strong to traditional cultural beliefs. But religion and culture aren't really the arguments going before the Supreme Court. After questioning from the Justices, the only real argument that same-sex marriage opponents had was that traditional father and mother families may be better for children than same-sex parents, but the evidence for that was pretty mixed.

[TheItalianStallion]

This poll needs another option. It should read "get the government out of marriage altogether."

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not hiding from ya'll, I had to go get my kids from school, I will respond to ya'll later.

BTW, this has been good, hopefully it'll continue to be.

[Koolblue13]

Unlawful. Not unconstitutional. Nobody is arguing that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The constitutional question is whether a majority of voters or representatives can authorize heterosexual marriage but deny same-sex marriage.

And I would say that it is religion and culture that are driving the opposition to same-sex marriage. Those are somewhat intertwined, but not everyone who opposes same-sex marriage is extremely religious - some of them just hold strong to traditional cultural beliefs. But religion and culture aren't really the arguments going before the Supreme Court. After questioning from the Justices, the only real argument that same-sex marriage opponents had was that traditional father and mother families may be better for children than same-sex parents, but the evidence for that was pretty mixed.

Thanks for that explanation. It makes a lot more sense, sort of.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 01:49 PM ----------

I'm just happy that the poll is finally in the green for yes.

[Unforgiven]

I'm not hiding from ya'll, I had to go get my kids from school, I will respond to ya'll later.

BTW, this has been good, hopefully it'll continue to be.

Yeah, I have to take off in a few, will check back in later to see whats going on.