Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Freodin]

You can say whatever you want and approach it from any angle you want. You can talk about gay Christians, gay Jews, or gay leprechauns if you want to.

It won't change the fact that God instituted marriage and that our modern day marriage has it's basic root in the tradition codified by Moses.

If you want to believe something different, that's up to you.

Personally if I was gay I'd just get a civil union. At least in my country, civil unions were on paper EXACTLY the same as marriages except for name. I wouldn't want anything to do with the 'horrible God of the Bible.'

...then again we all want everything these days don't we. Even that which is not ours to claim. That's all i'm gonna say.

Just a simple question: can non-Christians get married in New Zealand?

 

[Queller]

Then I guess it's not about "being able to love the person you want" anymore, it's now about getting special recognition.

It's not special recognition when you are simply getting the same recognition others are already getting.

 

[Blessedj01]

Just a simple question: can non-Christians get married in Australia?

I don't know because I don't come from Australia.

...and you expect me to take your word on the origins of marriage when you can't even get my country right?

 

[Aldebaran]

Just like there are atheists who get married - a different situation, but same recognition. Allowed though.

You notice what you did though? You just admitted nobody is trying for "special", just the same. Can I expect you to not pull out the "they want special" argument anymore?

Wanting same recognition for something different is special recognition.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not special recognition when you are simply getting the same recognition others are already getting.

Not for the same thing. A man and woman getting married compared to a man and woman getting married is the same thing. Man and man--not the same.

 

[AirPo]

Wanting same recognition for something different is special recognition.

It's not something different.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok, so which of these 3 do you want to use? It's best to get that out of the way before demanding an answer. Otherwise, it just invites arguments and misunderstanding.

Is there a reason you skipped the first portion of the definition from Webster?

What has the discussion been about, what is the thread about?

Do you actually think you are fooling anyone?

So, I will ask again; are you for protecting people from being discriminated against?

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not something different.

Do you have a cogent reason to support that assertion?

 

[Cute Tink]

Wanting same recognition for something different is special recognition.

Except that it is only different in your eyes. Legally, it is exactly the same. I am not discussing religious marriages.

It is e x a c t l y the same legally.

 

[Freodin]

I don't know because I don't come from Australia.

...and you expect me to take your word on the origins of marriage when you can't even get my country right?

Sorry, the similar flags confused me for a second. But I think you understood my question, and are just now distracting from my point.

So how about New Zealand... can non-Christians get married there?

 

[Aldebaran]

Is there a reason you skipped the first portion of the definition from Webster?

What has the discussion been about, what is the thread about?

Do you actually think you are fooling anyone?

So, I will ask again; are you for protecting people from being discriminated against?

Based on which of the 3 definitions? Look, you're talking like a prosecutor who asks a question knowing that the witness may understand the definition of the words you're using differently, and then when he gets his answer, he hold the witness accountable for the prosecutor's own definition. I'm not going there. So, first answer my question about which definition you want to use and we'll go from there.

 

[Blessedj01]

Sorry, the similar flags confused me for a second. But I think you understood my question, and are just now distracting from my point.

It's okay, I figured as much. I really don't know the answer to that though.

 

[Aldebaran]

Except that it is only different in your eyes. Legally, it is exactly the same. I am not discussing religious marriages.

It is e x a c t l y the same legally.

Are you asking about peoples' opinions about the law, or about our opinions about whether gays SHOULD be granted the same priviledges as hetrosexuals, or are you concerned about what a "gay marriage" should be called?

 

[Belk]

Do you have a cogent reason to support that assertion?

Marriage, in secular law, is the binding contract of two people who are committing themselves to joint ownership of resources and responsibility for family. Since nothing in that definition requires the parties to be of opposite sexes they are the same in the eyes of the law.

 

[bhsmte]

Based on which of the 3 definitions? Look, you're talking like a prosecutor who asks a question knowing that the witness may understand the definition of the words you're using differently, and then when he gets his answer, he hold the witness accountable for the prosecutor's own definition. I'm not going there. So, first answer my question about which definition you want to use and we'll go from there.

Why are you so evasive?

Why did you skip the very first portion of the Webster definition when you posted what you did? Was it just an honest mistake on your part, that you went further down to find the part you liked? And I act like a prosecutor? You act like a witness with something to hide.

See the definition below, which everyone on this thread knew I was referring to except you who decided to skip over it with the Webster definition and cherry pick.

So, one more time; are you for protecting people from being discriminated against?

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making

 

[Aldebaran]

Marriage, in secular law, is the binding contract of two people who are committing themselves to joint ownership of resources and responsibility for family. Since nothing in that definition requires the parties to be of opposite sexes they are the same in the eyes of the law.

Yikes! Does that mean that 2 people who have their names on a house title as joint owners are considered married?

 

[Cute Tink]

Are you asking about peoples' opinions about the law, or about our opinions about whether gays SHOULD be granted the same priviledges as hetrosexuals, or are you concerned about what a "gay marriage" should be called?

Here's the rub. No matter what it is called legally, people are going to call themselves married. Marriage is the current legal term used for the relationship and has been. "Unionized" means something else entirely.

Opinions about the law are largely irrelevant, since nobody can seem to come up with a logical secular reason to deny marriage to homosexuals that doesn't immediately eliminate marriage for a substantial group of hetrosexuals as well. The should is basically taken care of in that sense.

Functionally, "gay marriage" and "straight marriage" are the same in the legal sense.

Religious marriage is and should always remain up to the religious beliefs of the church

 

[Freodin]

It's okay, I figured as much. I really don't know the answer to that though.

After a short google search: the answer is "yes". There is no requirement to be Christian to be married in New Zealand.

How do you think this is possible?

 

[Cute Tink]

Yikes! Does that mean that 2 people who have their names on a house title as joint owners are considered married?

What does the title of a house say about responsibility for a family?

 

[Aldebaran]

Why are you so evasive?

Why did you skip the very first portion of the Webster definition when you posted what you did? Was it just an honest mistake on your part, that you went further down to find the part you liked? And I act like a prosecutor? You act like a witness with something to hide.

See the definition below, which everyone on this thread knew I was referring to except you who decided to skip over it with the Webster definition and cherry pick.

So, one more time; are you for protecting people from being discriminated against?

Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated".[1] It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making

Well, going by that definition, I guess I could join any group or organization I want. So maybe I should join a black group, even though I'm white. Or maybe a lesbian group, even though I'm a straight male. Or a high-end sportscar enthusiasts group, even though all I have is a Chevy Cavalier. Maybe any kid in school who ever gets picked on should file a lawsuit against other kids who don't like him.

So, based on the definition you're using, a person can't even choose to associate with the people of their choice.