Choice

[Electric Skeptic]

No Temujin, romsih is essentially saying the same thing as I am. The species has two sexes with corresponding anatomies for sexual intimacy and reproduction. You are citing straight and gay which is sexual orientation, that is your first confusion because I as a straight man cannot have corresponding anatomy with someone UNLESS they are the opposite sex, a woman, regardless of whether they are straight or lesbian.
Pair bonding can occur with any coupling, so that isnt a criteria that can determine marriage.

You are failing to understand the phrase "corresponding anatomy". You as a biological male have corresponding anatomy with everyone else on the planet who is a biological male. Corresponding here means 'same'.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

OK... but how does a person with XX chromosomes live?

However they want.

What characterizes the life of a person with XX chromosomes?

Ask such a person.

 

[Eightcrackers]

However they want.

Ask such a person.

This is very evasive.

Can you characterize the life of an XX person without circularly referring to womanhood?

 

[Eightcrackers]

You are failing to understand the phrase "corresponding anatomy". You as a biological male have corresponding anatomy with everyone else on the planet who is a biological male. Corresponding here means 'same'.

I think the intended term is complementary.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

This is very evasive.

It's a nebulous issue.

Can you characterize the life of an XX person without circularly referring to womanhood?

Since an XX person experiences womanhood no, of course not.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I think the intended term is complementary.

That is the term that he THINKS is being used. It is not.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Then you concede the point I made all those replies ago - if the government isn't prepared to recognize gay marriage, it should stay out of marriage altogether.

I can live with that.

"Gay people have every right to marry somebody of the opposite sex." But they don't want to.

Says WHO? People marry for all kinds of reasons. People marry for financial reasons, family reasons, many reasons. Even heterosexual marriages do not always happen for the purposes of love. In fact--I think prior to modern times as you may have pointed out--it was a way to protect property.

But--fine--gay people do not wish to marry someone of the opposite sex. So? What do motives have to do with it? Motives are subjective. No one is forcing them to marry someone they do not want to marry. Just like no one forces heterosexual couples to marry people they do not want to marry.

Here is another point to consider: who says marriage HAS to be about love anyway? Since we have arbitrarily decided that marriage can involve same sex couples as well as opposite sex couples, why can't we equally as arbitrarily decide that marriage does not have to involve love?

Someone was telling me of an Anglican minister who lives with his boyfriend but is not married. Apparently, the Anglican bishop was upset with this arrangement----because----they were living together without being married. I remember laughing about the whole matter wondering why it mattered. I mean--they sold out on the whole Biblical teaching on marriage anyway--so what difference did it make whether he was living with his boyfriend and not married. If they can sell out on Biblical teaching concerning marriage, why not also sell out on the whole living together before marriage too? Again, what does it matter at that point?

Yes I brought up religion--but only to illustrate a point: why not just let people define for themselves what it means to be married--since---apparently----marriage has no essence, save whatever we subjectively decide it is?

What they want is the right to have their relationship recognized by law, a right that straight people have, that gays are denied.

As I pointed out--gays were not denied the right to have a relationship recognized by law. They had as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex who wanted to marry them, and to have that relationship recognized by law as heterosexuals did. Likewise, heterosexuals. Heterosexuals also probably do not want to marry someone of the same sex. Either way the effect of the law was the same: neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals could marry someone of the same sex.

Whether they wanted to exercise that right--isn't relevant. They had the right. Just because you have a right doesn't' mean you have to exercise it, nor want to exercise it.

 

[Eightcrackers]

As I pointed out--gays were not denied the right to have a relationship recognized by law.

A relationship.
Not their relationship.

"I want my relationship recognized by law!"
"Marry somebody of the opposite sex, then."

is an idiotic response.

You cannot be serious when you say that, because gays have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, they are being treated equally.
Because this is, as somebody else has already pointed out, sophistry, the kind of thing that's always preceded by

"Well, technically..."

 

[romishpopishorganist]

A relationship. Not their relationship.

Really? They are forbidden by law from committing themselves to each other? They are forbidden by law from loving each other?

"I want my relationship recognized by law!" "Marry somebody of the opposite sex, then."

is an idiotic response.

No, it isn't. The charge is that the law was treating homosexuals different from heterosexuals and discriminating against them. The effect of the law is the same for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you want the government to recognize the pairing, marry someone of the opposite sex. As this applied equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, there was no discrimination.

But---regardless--I think we both agree---that the solution to the problem is for the government to stop recognizing relationships period. Then no one has a claim on discrimination.

You cannot be serious when you say that, because gays have the right to marry people of the opposite sex, they are being treated equally.
Because this is, as somebody else has already pointed out, sophistry, the kind of thing that's always preceded by

"Well, technically..."

That is what the law is, sir: it is technically. The law is all about technicalities. Lawyers and judges LOVE haggling over technicalities. Many times, judges rule on technicalities rather than substantive legal questions.

The charge, sir, as you will recall is that homosexuals are being treated differently than heterosexuals. This different treatment is discrimination.

The law treated homosexuals and heterosexuals just the same: both had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who wanted to marry them, neither could marry someone of the same sex. Thus, no discrimination.

You say "But a homosexual does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex." I say: So? They had the right--whether they choose to exercise that right is their affair. What matters is whether the law is discriminating, not whether someone wants to exercise a right that they have.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Really? They are forbidden by law from committing themselves to each other? They are forbidden by law from loving each other?

They want it recognized by the law.

No, it isn't. The charge is that the law was treating homosexuals different from heterosexuals and discriminating against them.

Yes.

Straight people have the right to marry the person they love.
Gays do not have that right.

That is discrimination.


If everybody in the world had either size 5 feet or size 15 feet, and the government only allowed size 5 shoes, wouldn't you say that the size 15 people were discriminated against?

Wouldn't

"you have as much right to buy size 5 shoes as everybody else"

be an utterly inane justification?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Wait...you seriously think it was the left that tried to "destroy Christianity" in the first century?

No.

What I meant was that------for 2022 years------governments have been trying to destroy Christianity. Governments have never succeeded--despite---the power they have. Christianity not only did not get stamped out, it got stronger. For the first 300 years, the Roman emperors persecuted Christians and attempted to destroy the religion. How did that work out? The Vatican is built on land where Christians were slaughtered.

So I just meant that the left needs to understand--everything they are attempting to do the Church has been tried already. We aren't going anywhere and we will not be intimidated or bullied by the left.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

They want it recognized by the law.

Yes.

Straight people have the right to marry the person they love.
Gays do not have that right.

That is discrimination.

Who says love has to have anything to do with marriage? On what basis should we assume that love is what makes a marriage or that someone should have the right to marry someone they LOVE? The right to marry is given equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Whether they can marry someone they love--why should we assume love has to have anything to do with it?

See--this is where your skepticism comes back to bite you. This is ultimately why skepticism is incoherent and self-refuting.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Who says love has to have anything to do with marriage? On what basis should we assume that love is what makes a marriage or that someone should have the right to marry someone they LOVE? The right to marry is given equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Who says love has to be a part of this?

See--this is where your skepticism comes back to bite you. This is ultimately why skepticism is incoherent and self-refuting.

If everybody in the world had either size 5 feet or size 15 feet, and the government only allowed size 5 shoes, wouldn't you say that the size 15 people were discriminated against?

Wouldn't

"you have as much right to buy size 5 shoes as everybody else"

be an utterly inane justification?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

If everybody in the world had either size 5 feet or size 15 feet, and the government only allowed size 5 shoes, wouldn't you say that the size 15 people were discriminated against?

Who says what discrimination is or isn't? If a court of law ruled that it is not discrimination, then no, it would not be discrimination.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Who says what discrimination is or isn't?

Hmmm... seems that you can't answer the point, so you try to undermine the very terms themselves.

Very Clinton of you.

 

[Josheb]

You fail to understand....

Ad hominem noted. Thank you for your time. Do better next time.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Who says what discrimination is or isn't? If a court of law ruled that it is not discrimination, then no, it would not be discrimination.

Ah - so before slaves had rights, they weren't discriminated against because the law said they weren't?

Same with women, before they had the right to vote?

 

[Temujin]

Good. Then what I have proven--is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. That way----people can pair as they wish with whomever they wish. Whether people want incestious relationships, polygamous relationships, "pair bonding" with a tree, animal, etc, people are free to do as they wish. As long as it involves consenting adults---whatever floats their boat.

Wrong. Some potential pairings are definitely bad for society as a whole. Incest and polygamy both carry significant risk of exploitation and abuse of the vulnerable. Still, make your argument. Let's see if voters agree with you.

Churches can perform "pair bondings" according to the dictates of their theology, doctrine and consciences. Marriage would then be solely a religious affair between couples and their god, religion, pastors, and churches.

Churches do this already, in addition to legal marriage.

I am glad you like my....."sophistry?" is it? That is what you are calling it, are you?

I am glad you like my "sophistry." How was it....... "sophistry?"

I'm sure you have heard the term.

 

[Temujin]

Really? They are forbidden by law from committing themselves to each other? They are forbidden by law from loving each other?

No, it isn't. The charge is that the law was treating homosexuals different from heterosexuals and discriminating against them. The effect of the law is the same for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you want the government to recognize the pairing, marry someone of the opposite sex. As this applied equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals, there was no discrimination.

But---regardless--I think we both agree---that the solution to the problem is for the government to stop recognizing relationships period. Then no one has a claim on discrimination.

That is what the law is, sir: it is technically. The law is all about technicalities. Lawyers and judges LOVE haggling over technicalities. Many times, judges rule on technicalities rather than substantive legal questions.

The charge, sir, as you will recall is that homosexuals are being treated differently than heterosexuals. This different treatment is discrimination.

The law treated homosexuals and heterosexuals just the same: both had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex who wanted to marry them, neither could marry someone of the same sex. Thus, no discrimination.

You say "But a homosexual does not want to marry someone of the opposite sex." I say: So? They had the right--whether they choose to exercise that right is their affair. What matters is whether the law is discriminating, not whether someone wants to exercise a right that they have.

And the law has been changed. Technically, you are wrong.

 

[BMS]

And a woman.

No, a man.