Reality: Homosexual Marriage

[DamnYankee]

A dog has no capacity for consent, not an option. Two women, so long as they are all consenting and fully understand what they are getting into... Yes. That's just "Nunya".

Society has rightly determined that multi-car marriages are detrimental to society.

 

[Damocles]

And by your logic interacial marriages would be know as civil unions. Southern Man, would you support just adopting "civil union" as the legal term for EVERYONE? Then whoever wants to call their union "marriage" in conversation can freely do so. Legally it would be a civil union, which is what marriage is, by definition. Religiously, call it whatever your beliefs tell you is appropriate. If you disagree with this, why are words so important? Rights are still the same. The point is this: To heterosexuals the definition of marriage will ALWAYS be male and female, because hetero males fall in love with females and vice versa. To homosexuals the definition will always be same sex oriented, and for the same reason.

And to all the people saying it will destroy or cheapen the institution of marriage, this is what I noticed. Since the Mass. court ruling two things changed between me and my wife: nothing and zilch. Maybe this is because we define marriage as "the thing between us", and don't bother looking it up in dictionaries. I could care less what any dictionary defines it as. I could care less how it's always been, or never been, or if our concept of marriage is suddenly declared evil by the rest of the free world. If something like two men or women saying "We're married" will destroy your marriage, you might as well start looking for a good lawyer now, being that this has zero bearing on your life.

All licenses should be for "Unions" rather than marriages, they should be offered to any two consenting adults who are not related for any number of reasons.

"Marriage" should be solely left to the religions, the government has no place giving a "nod" to one religion, rejecting another, assigning dogmatic "definitions" of one type or another to it. Just let the religions deal with their own messes, let the government "recognize" a far more secular relationship.

 

[Damocles]

Here's the Dirty Little Secret... THEY DON'T CARE! The same nitwits who are now arguing for Gay Marriage, really do not give a shit if people marry dogs, cats, horses, or numerous women, men, tranny's... doesn't fucking matter to them! They have no morals, no ethics, no boundaries to civilization! It would suit them just fine if the laws ordained any and all sexually deviant behavior, because they are pond scum.

Inane. Again; dogs, cats, children, et al, do not have the capacity for consent. Each would be a victim of such a relationship. And, by the way, this is what I am talking about when I say that social "conservatives" are constantly trying to define "morality" based on their dogmatic rules.

 

[DamnYankee]

Inane. Again; dogs, cats, children, et al, do not have the capacity for consent. Each would be a victim of such a relationship.

A full size sex robot.

 

[Southern Chicken]

No, actually, I am the open minded one in this debate. I have proposed a solution which would give ALL SIDES what they claim to want, and it is summarily rejected by those who are too closed-minded to compromise any at all on their views.

But your solution would not be that simple. For example, there are about 1049 laws http://http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf relating to marriage that would have to be altered to apply to 'civil unions'; calling it what it is, a marriage, would eliminate that problem. Not to mention that I have a strong suspicion that every single one of those laws is going to wind up being a fight.

 

[Damocles]

A full size sex robot.

Also not something with the capacity for consent.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Inane. Again; dogs, cats, children, et al, do not have the capacity for consent. Each would be a victim of such a relationship. And, by the way, this is what I am talking about when I say that social "conservatives" are constantly trying to define "morality" based on their dogmatic rules.

I have had dogs all my life, and they most certainly DO have the capacity to "consent!" And who the fuck are YOU to decide what MY dog feels they are a "victim" of? Why are YOU the one who gets to determine that? Who gave YOU the right to cast your moral judgment on ME or my dog? ...All the SAME arguments made for homosexuals can also be made for people who "love" their pets! And you have NO MORAL ground to stand on, because you've frittered it away with the Gay Marriage issue! Enjoy the fucking MESS you've made!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I have had dogs all my life, and they most certainly DO have the capacity to "consent!" And who the fuck are YOU to decide what MY dog feels they are a "victim" of? Why are YOU the one who gets to determine that? Who gave YOU the right to cast your moral judgment on ME or my dog? ...All the SAME arguments made for homosexuals can also be made for people who "love" their pets! And you have NO MORAL ground to stand on, because you've frittered it away with the Gay Marriage issue! Enjoy the fucking MESS you've made!

 

[Damocles]

I have had dogs all my life, and they most certainly DO have the capacity to "consent!" And who the fuck are YOU to decide what MY dog feels they are a "victim" of? Why are YOU the one who gets to determine that? Who gave YOU the right to cast your moral judgment on ME or my dog? ...All the SAME arguments made for homosexuals can also be made for people who "love" their pets! And you have NO MORAL ground to stand on, because you've frittered it away with the Gay Marriage issue! Enjoy the fucking MESS you've made!

Get excited as you wish, capacity for higher thought is necessary for such consent. Hyperemotionalism is a sign of a liberal during an argument, I find it compelling you would take that tack.

 

[DamnYankee]

Also not something with the capacity for consent.

It could be programmed to say "I do".

Note: that is the only explanation on how I got my wife to say that with me at the altar.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Get excited as you wish, capacity for higher thought is necessary for such consent. Hyperemotionalism is a sign of a liberal during an argument, I find it compelling you would take that tack.

It's not "hyperemotional" to point out your hypocrisy! Capacity for higher thought is not necessary for "consent" and dogs, horses, and other animals are certainly capable of exhibiting "consent" or "non-consent" to humans. You want to be silly and act as if that isn't the case, but go watch the fucking Westminster Dog Show sometime!

I find it compelling you think someone gave you the moral authority to decide when a person and their pet are really "in love" and can demonstrate that love through marriage! Just who the fuck do you think you are? Where the fuck do you get off thinking YOU have that right? You want to "change the definition of marriage", you best get ready for this kind of challenge, because it's damn sure headed your way as soon as you do! And what's going to be funny, is how you'll be standing there looking like a foolish hypocrite without anything to really offer, except the same justifications as people currently have for opposing Gay Marriage!

 

[Damocles]

It could be programmed to say "I do".

Note: that is the only explanation on how I got my wife to say that with me at the altar.

So can a speak and spell, this gives it no more capacity than your alarm clock to consent to anything at all.

And your wife probably tells a different story as to why she has improved your life so immensely.

 

[Damocles]

It's not "hyperemotional" to point out your hypocrisy! Capacity for higher thought is not necessary for "consent" and dogs, horses, and other animals are certainly capable of exhibiting "consent" or "non-consent" to humans. You want to be silly and act as if that isn't the case, but go watch the fucking Westminster Dog Show sometime!

I find it compelling you think someone gave you the moral authority to decide when a person and their pet are really "in love" and can demonstrate that love through marriage! Just who the fuck do you think you are? Where the fuck do you get off thinking YOU have that right? You want to "change the definition of marriage", you best get ready for this kind of challenge, because it's damn sure headed your way as soon as you do! And what's going to be funny, is how you'll be standing there looking like a foolish hypocrite without anything to really offer, except the same justifications as people currently have for opposing Gay Marriage!

It is when you are projecting a see-through straw man. Consenting is the most important word, and there is no dog that has such a capacity.

Pretending the argument is the same is just Junior High silliness and wasted here. When dogs are capable of signing binding contracts and have no owners, then we can talk.

And you again pretend that I want to "change the definition of marriage" because you are lost in a desperate wish for everybody to disagree with you, to maintain this illusion, although we agree on how to fix the issue, you will pretend I say all sorts of things I haven't.

The government should grant licenses only for "unions", marriages are religious ceremonies you can have if you want. Dogs have no capacity to sign contracts, when they can we'll let them take part in these unions as they wish.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is when you are projecting a see-through straw man. Consenting is the most important word, and there is no dog that has such a capacity.

Pretending the argument is the same is just Junior High silliness and wasted here. When dogs are capable of signing binding contracts and have no owners, then we can talk.

And you again pretend that I want to "change the definition of marriage" because you are lost in a desperate wish for everybody to disagree.

The government should grant licenses only for "unions", marriages are religious ceremonies you can have if you want.

Dogs can consent by wagging their fucking tail or barking! They ALL have that capacity! When I attempt to bathe my dog, he routinely DOES NOT consent to it! If a woman enjoys being mounted by her Great Dane, I would imagine the dog consents, or he wouldn't mount her! Either you are completely ignorant of dog behavior, or you are ignorant as to what "consent" means. As for signing contracts and not having owners, neither of those things are necessary for consent or love, so why are you placing those particular restrictions on marriage? Everything you can argue to enable a redefining of marriage to include homosexuals, can also be enabled to include every other kind of deviant sexual behavior under the same principles and precepts. Not only CAN they be, they most certain WILL be, if we allow any redefinition to occur, and be codified into law. The Constitution guarantees it, and you with your restrictions and caveats, will not be able to deny the "right" because you've already established you can't deny such rights!

Yeah, I know you agree with what I proposed before about Civil Unions, so why the fuck are you now taking a position in defense of Gay Marriage, like some kind of goddamn moron? I think you are a fucking egomaniac who likest to think he is brilliantly infallible, and never has a wrong opinion on anything! What you are is a pathetic hypocritical JOKE!

 

[Damocles]

Dogs can consent by wagging their fucking tail or barking! They ALL have that capacity! When I attempt to bathe my dog, he routinely DOES NOT consent to it! If a woman enjoys being mounted by her Great Dane, I would imagine the dog consents, or he wouldn't mount her! Either you are completely ignorant of dog behavior, or you are ignorant as to what "consent" means. As for signing contracts and not having owners, neither of those things are necessary for consent or love, so why are you placing those particular restrictions on marriage? Everything you can argue to enable a redefining of marriage to include homosexuals, can also be enabled to include every other kind of deviant sexual behavior under the same principles and precepts. Not only CAN they be, they most certain WILL be, if we allow any redefinition to occur, and be codified into law. The Constitution guarantees it, and you with your restrictions and caveats, will not be able to deny the "right" because you've already established you can't deny such rights!

Yeah, I know you agree with what I proposed before about Civil Unions, so why the fuck are you now taking a position in defense of Gay Marriage, like some kind of goddamn moron? I think you are a fucking egomaniac who likest to think he is brilliantly infallible, and never has a wrong opinion on anything! What you are is a pathetic hypocritical JOKE!

Dogs do not have the brain capacity to understand the consequences of such decisions, they cannot sign contracts because there is no such capacity among them.

This argument is a toy, easily dropped back into the toy box.

For the past 10 years we have known each other I have made the same argument about "gay marriage".

1. The government should not be involved in marriage.
2. All licenses should be "Unions".
3. Marriages can happen at religious institutions in whatever manner they wish so long as it does not violate consent laws.
4. Only adults with the capacity to consent should be allowed to join a "Union" of any kind.
5. Multiple marriages (more than one wife/husband) should only be made with full knowledge.

This isn't "sudden" it's consistency.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's not "hyperemotional" to point out your hypocrisy! Capacity for higher thought is not necessary for "consent" and dogs, horses, and other animals are certainly capable of exhibiting "consent" or "non-consent" to humans. You want to be silly and act as if that isn't the case, but go watch the fucking Westminster Dog Show sometime!

I find it compelling you think someone gave you the moral authority to decide when a person and their pet are really "in love" and can demonstrate that love through marriage! Just who the fuck do you think you are? Where the fuck do you get off thinking YOU have that right? You want to "change the definition of marriage", you best get ready for this kind of challenge, because it's damn sure headed your way as soon as you do! And what's going to be funny, is how you'll be standing there looking like a foolish hypocrite without anything to really offer, except the same justifications as people currently have for opposing Gay Marriage!

lol....dogs can consent to marriage in dixie's world

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dogs do not have the brain capacity to understand the consequences of such decisions, they cannot sign contracts because there is no such capacity among them.

This argument is a toy, easily dropped back into the toy box.

Wow... Excuse me, but when did we start examining the "brain capacity" of homosexuals, or questioning whether they understood the consequences of homosexuality? It seems to me, you want to pick and choose where to apply your standards and deny people the right to do what makes them happy!

Spot? Bark twice to say "I do!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you consent to this marriage? Bark twice for "Yes!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you understand the consequences? Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you promise to love this person til death do you part? Ruff! Ruff!

Trigger? Stomp your hoof twice if you want to marry this woman! Stomp-Stomp!

See how easy that was Damo? Animals can (and do) consent! So who are YOU to deny a consenting dog or horse, and consenting adult, to enjoy their love how they wish? It's not hurting YOU Damo! It's not effecting YOUR marriage, Damo! Why are you being an intolerant bigot, Damo?

 

[Damocles]

Wow... Excuse me, but when did we start examining the "brain capacity" of homosexuals, or questioning whether they understood the consequences of homosexuality? It seems to me, you want to pick and choose where to apply your standards and deny people the right to do what makes them happy!

Spot? Bark twice to say "I do!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you consent to this marriage? Bark twice for "Yes!" Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you understand the consequences? Ruff! Ruff!
Spot? Do you promise to love this person til death do you part? Ruff! Ruff!

Trigger? Stomp your hoof twice if you want to marry this woman! Stomp-Stomp!

See how easy that was Damo? Animals can (and do) consent! So who are YOU to deny a consenting dog or horse, and consenting adult, to enjoy their love how they wish? It's not hurting YOU Damo! It's not effecting YOUR marriage, Damo! Why are you being an intolerant bigot, Damo?

*sigh*

None of which gives them the capacity to understand one whit of such things. This is silly, Dix, even for you. When dogs can sign binding contracts in full understanding of the consequences, then we can talk.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dixie, let me see if I have your solution right.

All gov't benefits would from a Civil Union. And Marriage would be a strictly religious institution.


Is that about right?

 

[/MSG/]

Dixie, let me see if I have your solution right.

All gov't benefits would from a Civil Union. And Marriage would be a strictly religious institution.


Is that about right?

Yes, that would be correct. His is a position I've advocated for several years and indeed, I believe Dixie has stolen it from me.