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

[Hetta]

This is where one of those clavicles would come in handy.

I prefer the full cover up & chomping on a cigar these days.

 

[Aldebaran]

I know God.

And also:

So is it "who cares" or is it "we are here to lead people to Christ"? It can't be both.

I didn't write that sentence. WeakSaint wrote that.

 

[poolerboy0077]

So any other takers who want to make the case that barring gays from marrying does have some connection to heterosexuals procreating? That was the argument by defendants anyway.

 

[Hetta]

So is it "who cares" or is it "we are here to lead people to Christ"? It can't be both.

I didn't write that sentence. WeakSaint wrote that.

Ah sorry. Too many similarities.

 

[Skaloop]

So any other takers who want to make the case that barring gays from marrying does have some connection to heterosexuals procreating? That was the argument by defendants anyway.

Yeah, I've been waiting a while for that. Will allowing same-sex marriages reduce the birth rate? Will not allowing same-sex marriage increase the birth rate?

If the argument is that marriage is recognized because procreation is in the interest of the state, then one would need to demonstrate how same-sex marriage affects the rate of procreation in order to argue that it goes against the state's interest in procreation.

 

[Glass*Soul]

So any other takers who want to make the case that barring gays from marrying does have some connection to heterosexuals procreating? That was the argument by defendants anyway.

What we have learned so far:

1. SCOTUS should consult Genesis and Leveitcus when making their rulings.
2. God defined marriage at creation.
   • This definition included brother/sister incest. We know this because there is no mention of anyone other than Adam and Eve having children, yet their sons found wives.
   • Sex was different back then in some undefined way that made this less icky. We know this despite nothing of the sort being mentioned.
3. The definition of marriage can't be changed from the above.
4. Procreation.

Honestly, poolerboy. If that doesn't answer your questions, I don't know what would.

 

[Aldebaran]

What we have learned so far:

1. SCOTUS should consult Genesis and Leveitcus when making their rulings.
2. God defined marriage at creation.
   • This definition included brother/sister incest. We know this because there is no mention of anyone other than Adam and Eve having children, yet their sons found wives.
   • Sex was different back then in some undefined way that made this less icky. We know this despite nothing of the sort being mentioned.
3. The definition of marriage can't be changed from the above.
4. Procreation.

What I just learned:
I'm not really on your "ignore list" after all.

 

[Cute Tink]

Beats me! I never made that claim. I wasn't implying that either. Can't clear it up since I never said it in the first place.

I must have misunderstood.

The comment you quoted was about religious and moral arguments not being legitimate.

You decried freedom and values being handed over to the government and stating that smaller and less intrusive government was better.

I figured that, somehow, you were suggesting that smaller and less intrusive government would somehow support the religious/moral arguments against homosexuality (gay marriage being the topic at hand and all).

 

[poolerboy0077]

What we have learned so far:

1. SCOTUS should consult Genesis and Leveitcus when making their rulings.
2. God defined marriage at creation.
   • This definition included brother/sister incest. We know this because there is no mention of anyone other than Adam and Eve having children, yet their sons found wives.
   • Sex was different back then in some undefined way that made this less icky. We know this despite nothing of the sort being mentioned.
3. The definition of marriage can't be changed from the above.
4. Procreation.

Honestly, poolerboy. If that doesn't answer your questions, I don't know what would.

I'm just so stupid.

 

[Aldebaran]

t

I must have misunderstood.

The comment you quoted was about religious and moral arguments not being legitimate.

You decried freedom and values being handed over to the government and stating that smaller and less intrusive government was better.tha

I figured that, somehow, you were suggesting that smaller and less intrusive government would somehow support the religious/moral arguments against homosexuality (gay marriage being the topic at hand and all).

I guess what I meant was that marriage was once something that was between a man and woman who were committing themselves to one another in holy matrimony. But now that it's an activity that is licensed by the government, it seems to have more to do with how property is divided up and what taxes are paid and at what percentage. If the federal government would just stick to it's original main purpose (national defense), then people wouldn't have to rely on lawyers and judges to tell us how we can do things. That's when freedom and traditional values are able to exist, when government isn't a part of it.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm just so stupid.

Nobody's perfect.

 

[Skaloop]

t

I guess what I meant was that marriage was once something that was between a man and woman who were committing themselves to one another in holy matrimony. But now that it's an activity that is licensed by the government, it seems to have more to do with how property is divided up and what taxes are paid and at what percentage. If the federal government would just stick to it's original main purpose (national defense), then people wouldn't have to rely on lawyers and judges to tell us how we can do things. That's when freedom and traditional values are able to exist, when government isn't a part of it.

Unfortunately, freedom and "traditional values" often butt heads, to the point where I don't think it's possible to have both. Especially when the "tradition" and the "values" of which you speak are not shared by all.

 

[Hetta]

t

I guess what I meant was that marriage was once something that was between a man and woman who were committing themselves to one another in holy matrimony. But now that it's an activity that is licensed by the government, it seems to have more to do with how property is divided up and what taxes are paid and at what percentage. If the federal government would just stick to it's original main purpose (national defense), then people wouldn't have to rely on lawyers and judges to tell us how we can do things. That's when freedom and traditional values are able to exist, when government isn't a part of it.

You seem to have some kind of idea that this perfect land once existed where everyone was Christian and all marriage was 'holy'. No such thing.

You can choose a church wedding or a wedding in front of a registrar. It's up to you which you choose. Or you could choose to just stand up and say vows to each other as they did before there were churches or registrars. It's entirely up to you.

"Traditional values" always makes me laugh. What, like child labor, votes for only rich white men, and slavery? You can keep your traditional values.

 

[Aldebaran]

Unfortunately, freedom and "traditional values" often butt heads, to the point where I don't think it's possible to have both. Especially when the "tradition" and the "values" of which you speak are not shared by all.

That's true.

 

[Aldebaran]

"Traditional values" always makes me laugh. What, like child labor, votes for only rich white men, and slavery? You can keep your traditional values.

People voted for our current guy because they thought the same thing. They wanted change, because they were made to feel guilty if they voted for the white man. Our national debt has now tripled and Iraq is back in the hands of Al-Queda. Martin Luther King was right when he said that we should judge a person based on their character rather than the color of their skin.

 

[Skaloop]

You seem to have some kind of idea that this perfect land once existed where everyone was Christian and all marriage was 'holy'. No such thing.

Yeah, there have been unholy non-"traditional" marriages since the founding of the country. Jews got married, Muslims got married, Buddhists got married, atheists got married, Scientologists got married; pretty much anyone could get married in a non-holy, non-"traditional" ceremony, and it was all cool. Suddenly there's a push to recognize two men or two women who get married, and now it's "wait, wait, wait, that's not holy traditional marriage!" Which is odd because holy "traditional" marriage has never even been a requirement for government recognition of marriage.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, there have been unholy non-"traditional" marriages since the founding of the country. Jews got married, Muslims got married, Buddhists got married, atheists got married, Scientologists got married

How many of them were SSM?

 

[Hetta]

People voted for our current guy because they thought the same thing. They wanted change, because they were made to feel guilty if they voted for the white man.

Yeah, that's just silly.

 

[Cute Tink]

t

I guess what I meant was that marriage was once something that was between a man and woman who were committing themselves to one another in holy matrimony. But now that it's an activity that is licensed by the government, it seems to have more to do with how property is divided up and what taxes are paid and at what percentage. If the federal government would just stick to it's original main purpose (national defense), then people wouldn't have to rely on lawyers and judges to tell us how we can do things. That's when freedom and traditional values are able to exist, when government isn't a part of it.

Nobody is being stopped by the addition of homosexual marriage from believing in Holy Matrimony. Freedom and traditional values are able to exist. What you have never truly had the right to do (it was just allowed to happen when people didn't speak up strongly enough) was force everyone to abide by your idea of freedom and traditional values.

Have your own marriage be your ideal of Holy Matrimony. Nothing says you can't.

I'll accept (if I get married again) that my spouse will have the right to see me in the hospital, make decisions for me when I can't, automatically get my stuff when I spontaneously combust and so on. At the same time, in the event that I make [another] poor decision in whom to marry, I get a variety of protections that wouldn't exist without the government.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, that's just silly.

Of course it is! Do you think it makes sense to vote for a guy based on the color of his skin? MLK would indeed think that would be silly, but the sheeple of America did just that.