Constitutional rights and equal protection (gay marriage related)

Status
Not open for further replies.

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
44
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟18,723.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Heh. Just try to get him to explain how heterosexuality and homosexuality being two different things has anything to do with equality under the law.
I'm not interested in what activities one participates in or desire to participate in. If they do intend to participate in heterosexual activities, it is good for society to set them in an institution that is stable for the purposes of raising children, as children so often occur from such activities. Society should also pay particular support to them for the purposes of cultivating a society particularly capable of accepting children.
 
Upvote 0

wanderingone

I'm not lost I'm just wandering
Jul 6, 2005
11,090
932
57
New York
✟30,779.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I see, so if someone has homosexual urges, even if they are faithfully married, you can conclude they are gay (they aren't really attracted to their spouse, say). That would be a married gay person.

If someone has these "homosexual urges" and are faithfully married .... to who? My cousin is married he and his husband I'm sure are gay, and are attracted to each other.. after all they've been together for a few decades now- (and legally married since it became their right in MA)

But I guess you mean you mean someone married to a person of the opposite gender? Didn't I say something about being bisexual? Why couldn't they be attracted to their spouse and be bisexual? They don't have to be unfaithful to be bisexual. Bisexual people do get married you know.

They also could be in a faithful marriage and have compromised on the sexual attraction thing. Our bodies can manage to respond depite not being completely interested. A person can compromise and choose a marriage of convenience, of cover. I don't know why anyone would want such a marriage but someone could be gay, and married and faithful that's their business. Why would I care if they chose to "pass" as straight. People do what they have to do.. there are whole families who thought they were "white" until they found out Great Aunt Helen was "passing" as "white" when she married Great Uncle Simon
 
Upvote 0

Sycophant

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
Mar 11, 2004
4,022
272
43
Auckland
✟13,070.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do you actually believe this? I perceive this lie as yet another attack on our humble faith.

Demonstrate that it's wrong, find other stats or good reasoning why those ones are not accurate.

Truth be told, atheists have the lowest divorce rate only because they can never get married in the first place!

What, we can't marry now either? Is this another ballot proposition I am not aware of? What about Hindus? Muslims? Scientologists?

Since when do pedophiles, homosexuals, prostitutes and other socially deviant individuals get married?

Well many pedophiles are married. Most are heterosexual, so no prohibition on their marriage. They can't marry kids though, except in some states, where they probably can. Prostitutes are probably most heterosexual too, so no prohibition on their nuptials either - it's not any question on the marriage license application as far as I know. So it's just teh gheys that can't marry then.

Why should a loving couple be denied the right to marry when it's perfectly okay for some couple who's known one-another for an hour to get hitched, or some champing-at-the-bit-for-sex teenage no-sex-before-marriage-so-we'll-marry evangelical couple?
 
Upvote 0

OphidiaPhile

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,919
188
56
Northern California
✟3,947.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Do you actually believe this? I perceive this lie as yet another attack on our humble faith. Truth be told, atheists have the lowest divorce rate only because they can never get married in the first place! Since when do pedophiles, homosexuals, prostitutes and other socially deviant individuals get married?
I hope that is meant as satire because from my experience intelligent thoughtful people tend to be atheist and ignorant uneducated people tend to be Christian.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
If equivalence doesn't exist, then there is no discrimination.

An objective truth such as one sex, is not equivalent to a self-identification or an activity.
You tired this argument before. It comes down to saying discrimination is morally acceptable as long as one is willing to lie and pretend that there is no discrimination. In the end honest people admit that discrimination is still discrimination
 
Upvote 0

Sycophant

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard
Mar 11, 2004
4,022
272
43
Auckland
✟13,070.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here's the thing about what 'gay' is...

Think about the attraction you feel toward the opposite sex, and all the intangibility that surrounds that. Why are you attracted to them? Who knows, you just are.

Turn that around and then you've got gay. That's all.
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
I've already heard those arguments too.

Some people have children! Still does not establish equivalence.
Your choice to hate minorities does not demonstrate “equivalence”


And as for what I think of Wolf's objections black people aren't black because of an activity they participate in or simply as a result of claiming that they are black.

It is interesting that your sig speaks about racism when here you are using the arguments of racism to prop up your own personal prejudices
 
Upvote 0
B

BigBadWlf

Guest
Do you actually believe this? I perceive this lie as yet another attack on our humble faith.
Do you have equivalent evidence showing this is not the case?

I doubt it.

Without that evidence all you have is you whining about not liking facts


Truth be told, atheists have the lowest divorce rate only because they can never get married in the first place!
And here you are changing the definition of marriage to further your own selfish political ends.

Since when do pedophiles, homosexuals, prostitutes and other socially deviant individuals get married?
this same tactic is and has been used by racists for generations. A racist will compare a person of color to a criminal, substance abuser or as a sexual deviant in order to try to justify their own petty personal prejudices and hatreds.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
44
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟18,723.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You tired this argument before. It comes down to saying discrimination is morally acceptable as long as one is willing to lie and pretend that there is no discrimination. In the end honest people admit that discrimination is still discrimination
Problems of unjust discrimination do not need to play a role in the marital system. It is a mere assertion, based on the current state of decay of marriage, rather than a reasonable, natural, and healthy excercise of marriage.

Ideally, it should be a system which channels the natural heterosexual energy of humanity into situation that are most appropriate for raising children. The ideal system, then, is much different than the all inclusive situation that it would become if gay couples were added, and it would also make reform of the contract requirements of the demographic more difficult.


It is not that I hate gay people. It is rather that I would like for the married demographic be nurtured so that there are far less numerous tragic situations effecting children.

I have yet to be able to have a conversation with you, in which I can get you to understand my perspective, in any way that you don't see as... sexualityist.

Thus, I need to describe the purpose of marriage from a natural perspective and try to get support for that situation, which will benefit all of society... rather than have it be pulled down to a mere self-centered institution.
 
Upvote 0

WatersMoon110

To See with Eyes Unclouded by Hate
May 30, 2007
4,738
266
41
Ohio
✟21,255.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Problems of unjust discrimination do not need to play a role in the marital system. It is a mere assertion, based on the current state of decay of marriage, rather than a reasonable, natural, and healthy excercise of marriage.

Ideally, it should be a system which channels the natural heterosexual energy of humanity into situation that are most appropriate for raising children. The ideal system, then, is much different than the all inclusive situation that it would become if gay couples were added, and it would also make reform of the contract requirements of the demographic more difficult.


It is not that I hate gay people. It is rather that I would like for the married demographic be nurtured so that there are far less numerous tragic situations effecting children.

I have yet to be able to have a conversation with you, in which I can get you to understand my perspective, in any way that you don't see as... sexualityist.

Thus, I need to describe the purpose of marriage from a natural perspective and try to get support for that situation, which will benefit all of society... rather than have it be pulled down to a mere self-centered institution.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are proposing. How do you feel "the married demographic" should be "nutured"? And how does this relate to gay marriage?
 
Upvote 0

OphidiaPhile

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,919
188
56
Northern California
✟3,947.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Problems of unjust discrimination do not need to play a role in the marital system. It is a mere assertion, based on the current state of decay of marriage, rather than a reasonable, natural, and healthy excercise of marriage.

Ideally, it should be a system which channels the natural heterosexual energy
of humanity into situation that are most appropriate for raising children. The ideal system, then, is much different than the all inclusive situation that it would become if gay couples were added, and it would also make reform of the contract requirements of the demographic more difficult.


It is not that I hate gay people. It is rather that I would like for the married demographic be nurtured so that there are far less numerous tragic situations effecting children.

I have yet to be able to have a conversation with you, in which I can get you to understand my perspective, in any way that you don't see as... sexualityist.

Thus, I need to describe the purpose of marriage from a natural perspective and try to get support for that situation, which will benefit all of society... rather than have it be pulled down to a mere self-centered institution.
Does this include wife swapping, group sex, anal sex, Sadomasochism, adult toys, brown showers, golden showers and many other common aspects of heterosexuality? How about Furries, if you need a definition either look it up or mail me privately.
 
Upvote 0

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
44
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟18,723.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are proposing. How do you feel "the married demographic" should be "nutured"? And how does this relate to gay marriage?
I'm not sure exactly what steps would work, and partly because so little of the western world has actually even attempted to deal with the issue... Aside from the Amish and Mennonites, which restrict travel to keep extended families together (it works). How one can partially replace extended family with neighbors is issue, then. This would also include at least an understanding that poor married people get divorced more often than those with more money (I think the financial pressure lessens at about $35K/year... it might be $45K and likely is tied to some extent with the number of children). Part of the reason we have these problems, I think, is that, the way employed people are cared for can be very impersonal, and jobs become very demarcated and monotonous, often with little room for advancement. This can be especially acute in blue collar work.

Government don't have the same interest in gay couples as they do in heterosexual couples, as a natural matter.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fated

The White Hart
Jul 22, 2007
8,617
520
44
Illinois (non-Chicago)
✟18,723.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Does this include wife swapping, group sex, anal sex, Sadomasochism, adult toys, brown showers, golden showers and many other common aspects of heterosexuality? How about Furries, if you need a definition either look it up or mail me privately.
No.
 
Upvote 0

WatersMoon110

To See with Eyes Unclouded by Hate
May 30, 2007
4,738
266
41
Ohio
✟21,255.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm not sure exactly what steps would work, and partly because so little of the western world has actually even attempted to deal with the issue... Aside from the Amish and Mennonites, which restrict travel to keep extended families together (it works). How one can partially replace extended family with neighbors is issue, then. This would also include at least an understanding that poor married people get divorced more often than those with more money (I think the financial pressure lessens at about $35K/year... it might be $45K and likely is tied to some extent with the number of children). Part of the reason we have these problems, I think, is that, the way employed people are cared for can be very impersonal, and jobs become very demarcated and monotonous, often with little room for advancement. This can be especially acute in blue collar work.
I think that you have many good points in this paragraph. There certainly seem to be more problems for poorer families (who are also more likely to have a larger number of children), and it would be nice to see more neighborhoods that function as communities. I think that jobs do need to be a bit more tolerant of parents needing to work flex time, and allowing more maternity and paternity leave.

However, I think that these things are separate issues from the legal benefits that go along with marriage. These things you've mentioned really seem to be more of a societal problem, and I wouldn't look to the government to fix it. I think that these issues do need to be dealt with, by individual communities, but I think that this is not really on-topic for this thread. Perhaps someone should make a separate thread about how to best help families and communities prosper?

Government don't have the same interest in gay couples as they do in heterosexual couples, as a natural matter.
I don't get this. I think that, as far as the government treatment of marriage goes, legal benefits should be the same no matter the gender of the adults that enter into a legal union. I don't really understand why you feel otherwise, could you explain it more in depth to me?
 
Upvote 0

OphidiaPhile

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2008
2,919
188
56
Northern California
✟3,947.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

Those are things that are practiced by a very large section of heterosexual couples and at least one or two is practiced by a majority of couples so if they are not healthy then marriage for them must not be healthy.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Pardon me, but it seems that one side is seeing one-man-and-one-woman as the sole marriages handed down by a God ordained natural law, and sweeping people not attracted to the opposite sex under the rug as deviant or irrelevant.

In law, a marriage is the contract between two people to live together faithfully as spouses. In 46 states, it's presently "man and wife" because gay marriages are not legal there as yet. But God does not enter into the civil law definition.

And children of a gay marriage -- whether adopted, the child of one spouse, or whatever -- do deserve the benefits of a legally sanctioned union. That's where fated's analysis falls apart: those children DO exist. That his church doesn't recognize their parents' marriage, or Hindu, atheist, or whatever marriages, is absolutely irrelevant to what the courts of law are bound to rule on. Unless he plans on making the Pope Absolute Theocrat of America -- at which point I turn into Henry VIII on him!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
453
46
Deep underground
✟8,993.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Problems of unjust discrimination do not need to play a role in the marital system. It is a mere assertion, based on the current state of decay of marriage, rather than a reasonable, natural, and healthy excercise of marriage.

Ideally, it should be a system which channels the natural heterosexual energy of humanity into situation that are most appropriate for raising children. The ideal system, then, is much different than the all inclusive situation that it would become if gay couples were added, and it would also make reform of the contract requirements of the demographic more difficult.


It is not that I hate gay people. It is rather that I would like for the married demographic be nurtured so that there are far less numerous tragic situations effecting children.

I have yet to be able to have a conversation with you, in which I can get you to understand my perspective, in any way that you don't see as... sexualityist.

Thus, I need to describe the purpose of marriage from a natural perspective and try to get support for that situation, which will benefit all of society... rather than have it be pulled down to a mere self-centered institution.
You can believe that you alone know best how marriage should be done writ large. You can use all your money, any public medium, and your last breath to try to convince the public that you are right. What you can't do is demand that the government pass laws or deny protections solely to support your idea of culture.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.