BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 26,608
- 113
How exactly is it discrimination?Why should they have to call it something different? As long as it is only discrimination against a percentage of the population it's just feel good? What's the percentage where it matters?
Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and woman and God. <get popcorn now>
ALWAYS. No need to redefine it. Call same sex unions what they are....same sex unions. No shame in that. This isn't a religious battle, it's a civil battle.
Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place? Call it civil unions, grant all rights previously afforded through marriage solely through civil unions, and call it a day.
In deference to religion's prior role in such unions, and to make things easier in general, allow any clergy whose unions conform to existing law to continue to officiate.
Ummm...that's not true. Not even in your bible, is that true. While there were many 2 couple marriages, polygamous marriages were rife in the bible and in the region of the world it came from. Other societies practiced other forms of marriage. One man multiple women, one woman multiple men, multiple women multiple men. It's been a very diverse institution over the span of humanity. Same sex marriage has even been practiced. This monocular view that some people have just doesn't stand up in the face of history.
How exactly is it discrimination?
Just because you throw that word out does not mean you win. It should not be such a big deal as it is being made to be because it affects so few people. If I feel put upon in some way because something in my personal life does that mean every person should have to bend to my will so my feelings don't get hurt?
You find what, probably less than 1% of the population that wants to marry somebody of the same sex? That number would probably be about the same men wanting to marry children if law allows. Does that mean they should be able to?
It is a twisted argument to say that everybody has a RIGHT to what was orinally a religious ceremony even if their lifestyle goes against that religion. Who is calling the Mosques trying to force them to marry two men? This is an extension of the ongoing attack on Christianity, nothing more.
How is it not discrimination? Once you reach the age of consent, you are free to marry who you choose. Unless you are gay.
The strawmen come out early and often. We aren't talking about pedophiles. No one is lobbying to change the age of consent. If they do, we will address that issue when it comes. Animals, last I heard, are property and not citizens, and are not legally able to decide if they want to marry. Toaster ovens also don't have the ability to consent.
If it's an attack on Christianity, then perhaps you will remember that not everyone here is Christian, nor required to be, nor required to abide by your religious codes. "Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." so you probably don't want to make this a religious argument.
The simple fact is it has no affect on you. You suffer no harm. None at all. Not the tiniest iota of harm. So if only 1% of the population is affected because they can't get married, exactly 0% of the population is harmed if they can. The only thing you have is strawmen and religious arguments.
I hope SCOTUS upholds individual states rights. Fat chance.
I hope so, too.
I think it's bound to happen in the next couple years. Seems SSM and marijuana legalization are inevitable. But will two "liberal" victories (even though they are bipartisan for some) give momentum to keep electing liberal presidents?
Is is it a strawman argument every time somebody takes things on a LOGICAL progression?
Your knowledge of historical marriages is very limited and lacking. You are coming at it from an exceptionally narrow viewpoint. Is it your contention that only the Abrahamic 3 have a lock on what constitutes "marriage"? Because if it is then we have nothing to discuss. Your lack of knowledge and snarky quips show your ignorance on the matter.Yawn...one man one sheep...must be talking about ISIS. J...there are no same sex marriages in the Torah, the Quran, the KJV, the Sears Catalog, Dr Suess, or the Joy of Sex. So don't try and go all old testament here, it's not relevant, it's a stinky nasty hairy rotten red herring.
<popcorn at the ready>
the marijuana argument is slowly becoming bi-partisan. Heck, I saw something yesterday that a republican lawmaker in Colorado said (or voted, can't remember) in favor of legalization because G** is perfect and what he creates is perfect.
I hope SCOTUS doesn't allow states to pick and choose who they discriminate. Same idiots who screamed "states rights" during the 50s and 60s in the south in favor of segregation are doing it now with same sex marriage. It's a dumb cop-out excuse to impose "morality" on the populace.
It was Texas and he made essentially that argument, from a conservative point of view. Both of the these issues should be fully backed by conservatives, but they won't follow conservative principles. They're too enmeshed with the evangelicals.
Except that this isn't about racial segregation. Your argument is just another straw man tossed on the path of enlightenment. <heheh> This isn't 60 years ago, it's the here and now. Marriage doesn't need redefined. Hell, call it a federally sanctioned union....no one will give a rip then. Crazy people do crazy things.....can't we just all get along doesn't mean I have to agree with every stupid idea someone comes up with.
<sounds of popcorn being munched>
Your knowledge of historical marriages is very limited and lacking. You are coming at it from an exceptionally narrow viewpoint. Is it your contention that only the Abrahamic 3 have a lock on what constitutes "marriage"? Because if it is then we have nothing to discuss. Your lack of knowledge and snarky quips show your ignorance on the matter.