Reality: Homosexual Marriage

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

*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.

*sigh* Just because you don't understand what my dog thinks or feels, doesn't mean that I don't understand it or he doesn't understand it! You are trying to apply YOUR standards and criteria to someone else! What gives you that right if you've already given up that right and conceded it is not YOUR place to make that determination? You simply CAN'T have it both ways and NOT be a HYPOCRITE!

There IS a point here, you just keep missing it!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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 WB, My solution was to have comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would remove Government from the "marriage" business altogether and replace that state sanctioning with a contractual arrangement between any two legal age adults, without regard for race, gender, sexual lifestyle, or relationship. In other words, ANY two people, whether they were in a "sexual" type relationship or not, whether they were related or not related, whether they were gay or straight or bi, could have such a contract. This contract would serve in the same capacity as marriage contracts currently serve, and all marriage licenses would effectively become CU contracts. Any Insurance regulation, tax benefit, or other 'perk' associated with "married couples" would thereto apply for CU partners. It solves ALL problems for ALL sides, and resolves this issue completely. The problem is, those who are pushing and arguing FOR Gay Marriage, are not willing to accept this proposal, and no one has yet to give me a valid reason why.

 

[Damocles]

*sigh* Just because you don't understand what my dog thinks or feels, doesn't mean that I don't understand it or he doesn't understand it! You are trying to apply YOUR standards and criteria to someone else! What gives you that right if you've already given up that right and conceded it is not YOUR place to make that determination? You simply CAN'T have it both ways and NOT be a HYPOCRITE!

There IS a point here, you just keep missing it!

Again, when dogs have the capacity to sign and comprehend contracts, we can talk. Until then this is just a silly diversion from a more consequential argument.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Again, when dogs have the capacity to sign and comprehend contracts, we can talk. Until then this is just a silly diversion from a more consequential argument.

Well, when Homosexuals have the capacity to tell me they understand the effects of homosexual behavior on the human body, and the detrimental effects to society as a whole, we can talk! Until then, it's just as silly an argument.


You keep attempting to apply YOUR CRITERIA to something that is not your affair! You are saying on one hand, it's not your business what other people do, it's not your place to decide what is right and wrong for them, but on the other hand, you want to establish criteria and restrictions, and apply your own standards to others. Like I said, you simply CAN'T have it both ways, and not be a hypocrite! You can pretend you're not, you can keep blathering your idiocy like you're not being a hypocrite, but that is EXACTLY what you have articulated here... You don't have any say in the standards or criteria for people marrying people, but by god you got all kinds of criteria and standards when it comes to animals... why the fuck is that?

 

[Damocles]

Well, when Homosexuals have the capacity to tell me they understand the effects of homosexual behavior on the human body, and the detrimental effects to society as a whole, we can talk! Until then, it's just as silly an argument.


You keep attempting to apply YOUR CRITERIA to something that is not your affair! You are saying on one hand, it's not your business what other people do, it's not your place to decide what is right and wrong for them, but on the other hand, you want to establish criteria and restrictions, and apply your own standards to others. Like I said, you simply CAN'T have it both ways, and not be a hypocrite! You can pretend you're not, you can keep blathering your idiocy like you're not being a hypocrite, but that is EXACTLY what you have articulated here... You don't have any say in the standards or criteria for people marrying people, but by god you got all kinds of criteria and standards when it comes to animals... why the fuck is that?

Um... They can and do tell you.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well, when Homosexuals have the capacity to tell me they understand the effects of homosexual behavior on the human body, and the detrimental effects to society as a whole, we can talk! Until then, it's just as silly an argument.


You keep attempting to apply YOUR CRITERIA to something that is not your affair! You are saying on one hand, it's not your business what other people do, it's not your place to decide what is right and wrong for them, but on the other hand, you want to establish criteria and restrictions, and apply your own standards to others. Like I said, you simply CAN'T have it both ways, and not be a hypocrite! You can pretend you're not, you can keep blathering your idiocy like you're not being a hypocrite, but that is EXACTLY what you have articulated here... You don't have any say in the standards or criteria for people marrying people, but by god you got all kinds of criteria and standards when it comes to animals... why the fuck is that?

and hetrosexual affairs, divorce, and anal sex are awesome!!!!

you are a hypocrite

 

[Damocles]

Well, when Homosexuals have the capacity to tell me they understand the effects of homosexual behavior on the human body, and the detrimental effects to society as a whole, we can talk! Until then, it's just as silly an argument.


You keep attempting to apply YOUR CRITERIA to something that is not your affair! You are saying on one hand, it's not your business what other people do, it's not your place to decide what is right and wrong for them, but on the other hand, you want to establish criteria and restrictions, and apply your own standards to others. Like I said, you simply CAN'T have it both ways, and not be a hypocrite! You can pretend you're not, you can keep blathering your idiocy like you're not being a hypocrite, but that is EXACTLY what you have articulated here... You don't have any say in the standards or criteria for people marrying people, but by god you got all kinds of criteria and standards when it comes to animals... why the fuck is that?

Um... They can and do tell you.

And the entire discussion is about "how" you make criteria for the government to follow when making rules. Your supposed goal to "reconcile" any differences between libertarians and social "conservatives" seems to be entirely a false premise. Nobody suggests anarchy, pretending that they do may make your "argument" easier, but it doesn't make it any more than nonsense.

Consent, Dixie. That is the key word. Live it, love it, wallow in it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes WB, My solution was to have comprehensive Civil Union legislation which would remove Government from the "marriage" business altogether and replace that state sanctioning with a contractual arrangement between any two legal age adults, without regard for race, gender, sexual lifestyle, or relationship. In other words, ANY two people, whether they were in a "sexual" type relationship or not, whether they were related or not related, whether they were gay or straight or bi, could have such a contract. This contract would serve in the same capacity as marriage contracts currently serve, and all marriage licenses would effectively become CU contracts. Any Insurance regulation, tax benefit, or other 'perk' associated with "married couples" would thereto apply for CU partners. It solves ALL problems for ALL sides, and resolves this issue completely. The problem is, those who are pushing and arguing FOR Gay Marriage, are not willing to accept this proposal, and no one has yet to give me a valid reason why.

And this solution would remove gov't from marriage completely, and would leave the religious institution strictly as a religious institution.

Now, there are several religions that have no problem with homosexual marriage. So they would be able to perform their religious ceremonies to wed two gay men or two gay women, and it would be a marriage.

The CU gives the benefits and marriages are performed by religious organizations.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Um... They can and do tell you.

And the entire discussion is about "how" you make criteria for the government to follow when making rules. Your supposed goal to "reconcile" any differences between libertarians and social "conservatives" seems to be entirely a false premise. Nobody suggests anarchy, pretending that they do may make your "argument" easier, but it doesn't make it any more than nonsense.

Consent, Dixie. That is the key word. Live it, love it, wallow in it.

Consent is entirely possible and happens all the time with animals and their owners. You have not established otherwise, and you can't! You are setting up a false standard of criteria based on your own morality and your own sense of what is right and wrong, no different than anyone opposed to same-sex marriage.

 

[Damocles]

Consent is entirely possible and happens all the time with animals and their owners. You have not established otherwise, and you can't! You are setting up a false standard of criteria based on your own morality and your own sense of what is right and wrong, no different than anyone opposed to same-sex marriage.

No, consent is not possible without comprehension.

Dix, you've really gone into the realms of inanity again, dogs do not have the capacity to understand and consent to any contract at all.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

oh...so you believe it is ok to deny equal protection and enjoyment of the laws if one is not "normal"...

i think we should lock you up and throw away the key, you are highly abnormal

you know perfectly well that the basis of my objection is the imposition of acceptance by force of law......your juvenile attempts to paint it as something else shows just how worthless your arguments are....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Interracial Marriage was considered abnormal as well-Hell, women voters were even considered abnormal-whats your point

there are still some who will pretend there is a parallel in this between racism.....I merely pity their inability to see the truth.....beyond that I will ignore your attempts to derail the debate....

{by the way, you should try to avoid raising your pet arguments when you're wearing your troll suits}

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I am not married, so it doesn't "effect" my marriage one way or the other, and YES, I am focused on the word "marriage" because that's what the fuck the conversation is about, moron! If it were about something else, I probably would focus on that instead, but it's not.

My civil unions SOLUTION is nothing remotely similar to "separate but equal" because I have never suggested civil unions for the gays while straights keep marriage! IF that were my suggestion, you would have a valid point, but I have NEVER suggested it. I did offer a viable SOLUTION to the stated problem, and it isn't accepted because it doesn't really accomplish what you wish to accomplish, which is destroying a religiously respected institution. You can't give me ANY valid reason for why you would oppose what I have suggested, because there isn't a valid reason, other than what I have stated.

As for the law changing, it's not going to happen. You can keep dreaming, you can keep hoping, and you can continue to further polarize everyone by insulting them and denigrating what they believe in, but it's just not something you are ever going to see made law of the land. It can't be made law, for the reason's I have stated before. Once you establish a law based on what kind of sex someone is having, then you MUST (according to the Constitution) offer the same consideration for ANY sex someone is having! That's not paranoia, it's written in plain English, in the Constitution. If homosexuals can "marry" then so can necrophiliacs, polygamists, bigamists, people who fuck animals, and everything else under the sun, you've established the LAW based on this criteria, and you've opened that can of worms. This is why it must NEVER be made the law of the land, regardless of how much you whine, moan, and belittle others.

Now, Civil Unions? Totally different thing... it could certainly be made law of the land, and it would completely solve every problem and issue of every gay couple, as well as many other 'couples' who would benefit from such a contract. It's a viable solution, one that could and would be accepted by most of America. But what you are going to do, is polarize people so much, they will even oppose Civil Unions, just to be spiteful.

How is this destroying a "religiously respected institution", when it's already been shown that the religious institution can still deny to preform the ceremony and can't be forced to marry anyone.

The rest of your "slippery slope" presentation is a strawman argument and is nothing more then a terrible attempt to appear to know what you're attempting to talk about.
Plus it was akin to the arguments that people used to try and prevent Blacks from voting, different races from marrying, people from sitting in the front of buses, eating at food counters, selling them homes in specific areas, allowing the military to be integrated, and many more asinine areas in our past.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And this solution would remove gov't from marriage completely, and would leave the religious institution strictly as a religious institution.

Now, there are several religions that have no problem with homosexual marriage. So they would be able to perform their religious ceremonies to wed two gay men or two gay women, and it would be a marriage.

The CU gives the benefits and marriages are performed by religious organizations.

I have NEVER said that I want to dictate what religious institutions do, and I don't think any of us have that right, if my understanding of the Constitution is correct. My solution addresses the governmental involvement with "marriage" and the systemic benefits we have already established for "married couples" in America. We can't undo those, and we may not want to undo them, for a variety of reasons. We can't change and alter the definition of 'marriage' for a variety of reasons as well. But what we COULD do, is remove government from the 'marriage license' business altogether, and replace that with a CU contract arrangement instead. That is doable, that is something that could work, and it wouldn't entangle the government in religion or sexual lifestyle sanctioning of any kind. As I have said, it solves the problem from ALL SIDES, gives everyone what they CLAIM to want, and ENDS this issue completely... takes it off the table forever... done, handled, finished, problems solved! Why can't it be embraced?

 

[Damocles]

I have NEVER said that I want to dictate what religious institutions do, and I don't think any of us have that right, if my understanding of the Constitution is correct. My solution addresses the governmental involvement with "marriage" and the systemic benefits we have already established for "married couples" in America. We can't undo those, and we may not want to undo them, for a variety of reasons. We can't change and alter the definition of 'marriage' for a variety of reasons as well. But what we COULD do, is remove government from the 'marriage license' business altogether, and replace that with a CU contract arrangement instead. That is doable, that is something that could work, and it wouldn't entangle the government in religion or sexual lifestyle sanctioning of any kind. As I have said, it solves the problem from ALL SIDES, gives everyone what they CLAIM to want, and ENDS this issue completely... takes it off the table forever... done, handled, finished, problems solved! Why can't it be embraced?

It can. It only took 8 years of explaining this solution to you before you took up the call. Since then we've spent 2 years with you suggesting I want to "denigrate what you believe in"...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

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.

This statement of yours, does nothing more then show you to be ignorant.
Whether or not it's genetics or willful, is up for argument.

 

[Damocles]

you know perfectly well that the basis of my objection is the imposition of acceptance by force of law......you're juvenile attempts to paint it as something else shows just how worthless your arguments are....

Nobody would be forcing you to "accept" anything, there would be no action to force your church or your beliefs to coincide with such unions.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How is this destroying a "religiously respected institution", when it's already been shown that the religious institution can still deny to preform the ceremony and can't be forced to marry anyone.

The rest of your "slippery slope" presentation is a strawman argument and is nothing more then a terrible attempt to appear to know what you're attempting to talk about.
Plus it was akin to the arguments that people used to try and prevent Blacks from voting, different races from marrying, people from sitting in the front of buses, eating at food counters, selling them homes in specific areas, allowing the military to be integrated, and many more asinine areas in our past.

No it's not the same at all. No one is denying homosexuals ANY right that other people have! NONE! NADDA! ZILCH! ZIPPOLA! If you come up with something that non-homosexual people can do, which is prohibited to homosexuals, let me know about it! As it stands, they can marry a person of the opposite sex, no one even ASKS you if you're homosexual! No straight or non-gay person is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, doesn't matter what color they are! The same exact rule applies across the board regardless of your sexuality or race, and there is nothing even remotely similar to racial discrimination. It is absurd, apauling, and downright sickening for you to continue to make this inane argument. It's a total affront to the Civil Rights struggle, and everything we have accomplished since the 1960s! If I were a black man in proximity of you when you spewed this crap, I'd slap your teeth out for it!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nobody would be forcing you to "accept" anything, there would be no action to force your church or your beliefs to coincide with such unions.

And no one would force you to accept Doggie Marriage either, Dumo!