Choice

Except that some gays want the government version.

I doubt that I will ever vote in my life, but I still want the right to vote, and would consider it disciminatory, were I denied it.

And, on that note, imagine if the goverment, for some reason, did not count any votes but those for one candidate, and it's the one you would never vote for - would

"You're not being disriminated against - you have just as much right to vote for John Borden as anybody else"

make it not discriminatory?
The point is if--we get the government out of the marriage business and just let people decide for themselves what marriage is--and then make their choices according to their own standards---then we no longer have the problem of discrimination.

If the government is not involved in marriages, it is sort of hard to change the government with discrimination.
 
The point is if--we get the government out of the marriage business and just let people decide for themselves what marriage is--and then make their choices according to their own standards---then we no longer have the problem of discrimination.

If the government is not involved in marriages, it is sort of hard to change the government with discrimination.
You are making your pitch in the wrong place. Write to your congressman.
 
Except that the government IS a part of it. It legislates any number of things regarding marriage. Given that, why should same-sex marriage be exempted?

That's not skepticism.

That's not skepticism either.
Wait--you want to quibble over terminology? You wan to tell me that what I am talking about---isn't skepticism, but something else?

Yet when it comes to what is a woman or what is man--you do not quibble over terms, do you? If a transgender woman (biological woman) claims to be a man, you don't say "You are not a man." You say "Well, if you identify as a man, and after surgery, look like a man, you must be a man. Who am I to question?"

Why not just apply that same logic here? It is skepticism becasue I identified it as skepticism; therefore, it is.
 
I agree, but only insofar as the government needn't validate marriage. The problem is that nobody has to accept anyone else's definition either. For example, the word "marry" comes from a Latin word which means "to impregnate" so all a church has to do is point out that they're sanctioning marriages to become absolved from any claims to homophobia, hatred of homosexuals, transgendered etc.
Churches are different. The government cannot force churches to condone marriages they feel are immoral or otherwise not marriages.

So the government gets out of the marriage business altogether and leaves it to the citizens individual beliefs and or their religion to figure out what marriage is for themselves.

Thus, churches that want to marry polygamous couples (the Mormons) are free to do so according to the dictates of their religion. Churches that want to marry gay couples may do so. Churches that marry only heterosexuals may do so. People that want to marry their car or a tree may do so too. People who want to marry their parents or their cousins may do so.
 
The point is if--we get the government out of the marriage business and just let people decide for themselves what marriage is--and then make their choices according to their own standards---then we no longer have the problem of discrimination.
If the government is not involved in marriages, it is sort of hard to change the government with discrimination.
And if the government opens the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, discrimination also goes away.

I think we would agree that it is extremely unlikely for the government to get out of marriage altogether, why not open the door?

What harm would it do? Why are you so opposed to it?
 
And if the government opens the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, discrimination also goes away.

I think we would agree that it is extremely unlikely for the government to get out of marriage altogether, why not open the door?

What harm would it do? Why are you so opposed to it?
Why am I opposed to the redefinition of reality to something it isn't?

For the same reason a mathematician would be opposed to redefining 2+2=4- 2+2=5.

You can't just redefine reality through legislation--not without consequences anyway. When one starts to attempt to redefine reality--what winds up happening is mass confusion--becasue then no one knows what is truly real--and reason winds up out the window.

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Period. It is a contradiction in terms.

As I said, sir, if we can redefine marriage to include gays--becasue--reasons, then we have no basis upon which to deny anyone marriage to whatever or whomever with how many ever they want--becasue--same reasons.

Someone brought up--that love is a component of marriage. Who says love has to be a component? Traditionally, yes, love is seen as a major component. But since we are now so good at challenging traditional assumptions as to what marriage is or is not, who says love has to be a part of it?
 
And if the government opens the definition of marriage to include gay marriage, discrimination also goes away.

I think we would agree that it is extremely unlikely for the government to get out of marriage altogether, why not open the door?

What harm would it do? Why are you so opposed to it?
Well we have given the reasons we are opposed, but I would say the issue is it should be something like civil partnership to distinguish it from marriage because its significantly different
 
Why am I opposed to the redefinition of reality to something it isn't?
Definitions are arbitrary - marriage is whatever we say it is.

You're acting as though there is some "correct" definition - if this is to be the basis of your objection, you must prove that this "correct" definition is correct.
For the same reason a mathematician would be opposed to redefining 2+2=4- 2+2=5.
2 + 2 = 4 can be proven objectively; see Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.

Please prove that marriage = "one man, one woman", objectively.
You can't just redefine reality through legislation
You act as though "one man, one woman" is a law of physics, or something - why?
Where is this objectivity coming from?

Also, is interracial marriage legal?
Has it always been so?

Marriage has been redefined before.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron. Period. It is a contradiction in terms.
Only under the "one man, one woman" definition.
Prove that this is the "correct" definition.
As I said, sir, if we can redefine marriage to include gays--becasue--reasons, then we have no basis upon which to deny anyone marriage to whatever or whomever with how many ever they want--becasue--same reasons.
This is a slippery slope fallacy; there would still be provisions for things like age of consent, and mental capacity.
 
Churches are different. The government cannot force churches to condone marriages they feel are immoral or otherwise not marriages.
They can force churches to pay for abortifacients which the church deems immoral. This has forced churches out of business running thrift stores, hospitals etc. The government can just as easily force churches to cease discriminating against homosexuals by not marrying them. This will probably happen within the court system.
So the government gets out of the marriage business altogether and leaves it to the citizens individual beliefs and or their religion to figure out what marriage is for themselves.

Agreed.
Thus, churches that want to marry polygamous couples (the Mormons) are free to do so according to the dictates of their religion.
Churches that want to marry gay couples may do so. Churches that marry only heterosexuals may do so. People that want to marry their car or a tree may do so too. People who want to marry their parents or their cousins may do so.
Agreed, but as I already pointed out, no one has to abide or recognize these marriages due to the fact that the government has gotten out of the marriage validation business. This doesn't just extend to churches either. The guy who is married to a dog or his pet rock cannot claim his spouse as another passenger in his car and drive in the carpool lane without getting a ticket. Some states have laws against bestiality that would preclude the man/dog marriage from being consummated without being in violation of those laws.

Ultimately, we're just claiming that it's okay to redefine words, but that's a recipe for confusion. They're already redefining "gay" to be a pejorative term. If they can redefine marriage, what's to stop us from redefining homosexuality or transgenderism to mean or include heterosexuality and those who claim to be lesbians trapped within a man's body as well? At some point all labels become pointless, and just like the Star-bellied Sneeches and the Plain-bellied Sneeches, nobody knows who they are anymore..
 
Definitions are arbitrary - marriage is whatever we say it is.
Then so is everything else. Everything is subjective. See--here goes your skepticism again.
You're acting as though there is some "correct" definition - if this is to be the basis of your objection, you must prove that this "correct" definition is correct.
There is. Definitions should reflect reality.
2 + 2 = 4 can be proven objectively; see Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.
Just like gender is objective--but that does not stop people from redefining what it is to be a woman or a man.
Please prove that marriage = "one man, one woman", objectively.
Okay. Objectively speaking, does a gay relationship even have the CAPACITY for reproduction? NO. Does a heterosexual relationship? YES.

Gay marriages, therefore are not equal to heterosexual marriages for that reason. What makes a heterosexual relationship special--is not "love" since that is subjective, or any other subjective reason a couple might be motivated to marry. What makes the relationship unique objectively speaking is that it has the CAPACITY for reproduction. Note the use of the word CAPACITY. By this I mean POTENTIAL. I do not mean to suggest that EVERY SINGLE heterosexual relationship leads to reproduction. I mean to suggest that the NATURE of the relationship, by design, is that it has the CAPACITY for reproduction. Homosexual relationships do not even have the CAPACITY and never will, of their very NATURE and DESIGN.
You act as though "one man, one woman" is a law of physics, or something - why? Where is this objectivity coming from?
The nature of the relationship--that is objective.
Also, is interracial marriage legal? Has it always been so?
No. However---note that you are comparing apples and oranges.

The objection to inter-racial marriage was actually based on what marriage, by nature, is. The whole point was that becasue marriage, by nature, leads to the production of off-spring, if inter-racial marriage is allowed, then the races will be mixed, the genes polluted. Racists did not want black and white mixing. They wanted to keep the genetic pool pure--what they saw as pure anyway.

The objection to gay marriage is different. No one is objecting to gay marriage becasue they are afraid of homosexuality, gay relationships, hatred of gays, the desire to discriminate against gays, etc. The objection to gay marriage is rooted in the nature of the relationship itself. The objection to gay marriage is based on the fact that marriage cannot be defined based on the whims of the government. No one cares what two or more consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their homes in their bedrooms. The objection to gay marriage is the exact same objection to polygamy, incest relationships, bestiality, etc: that isn't what a marriage IS.
Marriage has been redefined before.
Huh? You mean historically, there was a time when societies recognized the marriage of homosexuals?
This is a slippery slope fallacy; there would still be provisions for things like age of consent, and mental capacity.
No, fallacy sir. The argument is not "If we allow gay marriage, therefore polygamy, incest, etc, will happen."

The argument is that------there is no basis NOT to allow any kind of relationship and call that a marriage. There is no foundation of marriage itself.
 
Definitions are arbitrary - marriage is whatever we say it is.

You're acting as though there is some "correct" definition - if this is to be the basis of your objection, you must prove that this "correct" definition is correct.

2 + 2 = 4 can be proven objectively; see Russell & Whitehead's Principia Mathematica.

Please prove that marriage = "one man, one woman", objectively.

You act as though "one man, one woman" is a law of physics, or something - why?
Where is this objectivity coming from?

Also, is interracial marriage legal?
Has it always been so?

Marriage has been redefined before.

Only under the "one man, one woman" definition.
Prove that this is the "correct" definition.

This is a slippery slope fallacy; there would still be provisions for things like age of consent, and mental capacity.
no one can prove it. However as I keep pointing out, the existence of the two sexes with corresponding anatomy is an objectively sound reason for man/woman
 
The NT teachings of Jesus tend to lend themselves to some of what we call capitalism and socialism. Christians look at the teachings, not the politics
Bahahahahaha. Conservative so-called 'Christians' look at nothing but the politics.
In the human species a man and the woman unite in sexual intimacy and conceice and offspring, and then raise. Its what has always happened and has always been seen as marriage and yet you ask what has it got to do with marriage.
You're butting in again (implied is that you are doing so without even bothering to get the context).
Its the most significant logical rational observable criterion to marriage that makes it distinct from same sex coupling.
So what? Yes, it's different from same sex coupling. So what? Why should that exclude it from marriage?
No other argument needed
Yeah, lots of other arguments needed.

Because if use a different meaning to words how do we communicate?
This has been addressed any number of times - we ARE communicating. Your claims that we can't are obvious nonsense.
 
Wait--you want to quibble over terminology? You wan to tell me that what I am talking about---isn't skepticism, but something else?
Terminology? No. Meanings of words. You complain about skepticism and make claims about it, and cite things that have nothing to do with skepticism.
Yet when it comes to what is a woman or what is man--you do not quibble over terms, do you? If a transgender woman (biological woman) claims to be a man, you don't say "You are not a man." You say "Well, if you identify as a man, and after surgery, look like a man, you must be a man. Who am I to question?"
Yup.
Why not just apply that same logic here? It is skepticism becasue I identified it as skepticism; therefore, it is.
Sorry, not how it works.
 
no one can prove it. However as I keep pointing out, the existence of the two sexes with corresponding anatomy is an objectively sound reason for man/woman
Complementary, not corresponding. You have corresponding anatomy with other biological males.
 
Back
Top