126 replies to this topic

[Jeff K.]

Quote

there are 18k ssm in california, that can not be denied.

Because a judge would not wait for the appeals process (which is the normal course of events).  The judge wanted a fait acompli, nothing more.

[Zeta-Flux]

Jaybear, on 01 February 2011 - 04:09 PM, said:

Pure semantics.

Marriage to a woman is right/privilege in most states that only men can enjoy, and women are refused, not because they refuses to wear a tux, because they are women.  

Not all women want to be teachers and nurses, and not all women want to marry a man.  


BTW, find me a black person that doesn't see this as a civil rights issue, and supports gay marriage. Of course, blacks that oppose gay marriage wont admit to the analogy.  Most of you here won't even admit that Prop 8 took away gay's right to marry.  You pretend that the court ruling recognizing such rights, and which allowing some 30,000 gays to marry was expunged from history.

Jaybear, what you say is incorrect.  There is no such institution as "marriage to a woman".  Two people, of opposite genders, enter into a marriage, together.

Edited by Zeta-Flux, 01 February 2011 - 05:57 PM.

[california boy]

Jeff K., on 01 February 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

No, you would just put Mormons back there, and then blame them for being there.

If you think that I somehow implied that I wanted to take away the rights of Mormons to believe what they want about marriage and to marry who they want, you are sadly mistaken.  I certainly defend the right of every Mormon to marry who and how they may.  It is their American right.  I hope that my position on this is clear.

Jeff K., on 01 February 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

I understand, society and changing the definition is more important to you than assuring the rights are met without changing the definition of marriage.  You seem a bit slow on that up take.  But one day, when they state that the age of consent is lowered and that pedophilia which we consider wrong now, will be accepted or more likely pederastry, you will of course state once again that the definition of romance for such groups is acceptable as the definition changes you will change and you will of course endorse those changes, just as you do now.  Society dictates what you will believe in, not God.  And you will do it under the auspices of ensuring the rights of all to do as society defines them.

Look Jeff, if you think gay marriage is a stepping stone to pedophilia, then go right ahead.  I personally find this totally irrational.  Gay marriage does not lead to acceptance of pedophilia any more than straight marriage does.  Nor did changing the definition of marriage to include inter racial marriage lead to an acceptance of pedophilia.  If this is your best argument against gay marriage, then is all I can say is good luck with that.  

Jeff K., on 01 February 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

Good for you, but I cannot agree with you because I do know what I stand for, unfortunately all society has to do is change the definition and you will change with it.  I have never understood people who accept such relativity so easily.

Fortunately, over time, equality for Americans becomes more important than a definition.  Are you still dealing with the fact that the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage to include inter racial couples as well?  Are you standing for that original definition of marriage that had been in the United States for almost 200 years?  AFter all, for you a definition is more important than equality.

Jeff K., on 01 February 2011 - 03:49 PM, said:

I suppose you get alng with just about anyone, evil and sin are just a words after all.  Change the definition and you can make it not mean anything.

I have been know to eat with publicans and prostitutes.

And one more thing.  Did you notice I can make my case without resorting to personal insults like "You seem a bit slow on that up take."  You might try that in the future.  It is a bit more civil.

[california boy]

There is a lot of discussion about what a gay marriage is.  Perhaps this testimony given in the Iowa legislature will help bring some understanding.
Testimony

[Eitan]

This question is for Paddy.

It is my understanding that there is majority support among Australians for marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. Is this accurate? My information is that the support is particularly high among younger voting age Australians, similar to what you find in the populations of other western nations.

Thx

Eitan

[Pahoran]

california boy, on 01 February 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

Nor did changing the definition of marriage to include inter racial marriage lead to an acceptance of pedophilia....

Are you still dealing with the fact that the Supreme Court changed the definition of marriage to include inter racial couples as well?

May I protest right now against this blatantly revisionist bit of propaganda?

Anti-miscegenation laws, held by a minority of US states and very few other places in the English-speaking world, did not establish the "definition of marriage."  The Supreme Court in Loving did not "change the definition of marriage."  Accordingly, this is not a "fact" at all, but the very opposite.

"Gay" advocates would do well to avoid mentioning Loving v. Virginia in their agitprop.  The SCOTUS relied upon the presumed traditional definition of marriage when they ruled:

Quote

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

It is immediately obvious that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" because it promotes the continuance of the human species.  Does "gay marriage" promote the continuance of the human species?  No, it does not; it creates genetic cul-de-sacs.  This may well be a good thing in the case of the individuals involved, but it has zero survival value.  When the SCOTUS talked about marriage as "fundamental to our very existence and survival," it is apparent that they didn't even imagine marriage as circumscribing any but heterosexual relationships.

Now you can possibly argue that that should be changed; but please drop the pretense that it was changed in Loving.  Because it wasn't.

Regards,
Pahoran

Edited by Pahoran, 01 February 2011 - 07:09 PM.

[Minos]

Automatic generated message


This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: This has degenerated into a fight about gay marriage.

Thank you,
Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff