Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Comments (Page 122)

Showing posts 2,421 - 2,440 of17,506
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2544
Feb 18, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
One that you have a great difficulty defending.
That was a response to "Not Yet Equal"'s statement:

"Each indiviudual is free to conceptualize marriage for themselves, anyway they choose."

Would that line mean, anything goes?
The "right" to marry a partner to whom one is not attracted is no right at all. That may appear to be "equal treatment", but it is not equal protection, which is what the law requires.
The right to marry is, or at least was, nationwide, is the right to enter into a legally recognized conjugal union of husband and wife. Based on that, you have that right. The law does not require the right to marry be tailored to every sexual predisposition, desire, and/or orientation.
Feel free to provide evidence how allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage would interfere with this interest.
Same-sex couples should be afforded the right to obtain a civil marriage because there is no legitimate governmental interest in denying it.
The fact that marriage is not longer understood to be an exclusive, and distinct, legally recognized relationship of husband and wife, illustrates this. What governmental interest is there in calling a same sex intimate sexual relationship marriage? What is the foundation? What is the specific governamental interest? Would anything happen if government were not recognize such relationships as marriage?
Apparently, you've conceded the argument on the basis of the sex of the partners, and wish to switch to arguments about already closely related persons.
No, just pointing out the flaw in the argument that SSCs rasising children should be allowed to marry. Is it ok not to treat two adult siblings who are raising children unequally?
The one common denominator in ALL civil marriages is that civil marriage establishes kinship between unrelated (or not closely related) adults. Siblings are already closely related.
So, first cousins are related as well, not really that far removed from siblings. Why would it matter if two same sex siblings married? There's no risk of children being conceived should they be intimate with each other. Remember, SSM changes the standard. Its fun to watch you try and argue that SSM is the line in the sand, and that no other significant changes should be allowed.
Or are you claiming that your only argument against "sibling marriage" is dependent or contingent on the argument against same-sex couples being allowed to marry? So you've lost that argument, too?
The current definition, at least in 32 states plus, of marriage as a union of husband and wife, doesn't need to be changed. It works just fine.
Circular reasoning that begs the question.
When was SSM created again in this country? 1604? or 2004? The answer to that question may determine, upon what relationship, Husband and wife", or same sex spouses for life, marriage laws customs, tradtition, etc, were based. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say the first one, husband and wife.
The laws that deny civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners don't offer equal protection.
What "equal protection" are you specifically refering to? How is the wife and husband not equally protected?

to be continued.....

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2545
Feb 18, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
The easy answer is justice and liberty.
That's your answer to my statement:
Pietro Armando wrote:
By what reasoning to we pass a law that ignores biology, and the the differences between the sexes? By what reasoning to we fundamentally legally redefine a relationship, that has been throughout time and place, a union of male and female, and is the relationship upon which society builds itself?
Well if its "liberty and justice", you're after, why stop there? Plural marriage? Liberty and justice demands it. Siblings? Ditto
Your arguments are weak and lazy. "Ignoring biology?" How does allowing same-sex couples to marry "ignore biology" if procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient for the legal establishment of a civil marriage?
Procreation doesn't need to be a requirement. Its a simple concept actually. Marriage transforms a man and woman into husband and wife. They have sex, conception has a good chance of occuring, other factors not withstanding, babies are born. The law presumes a married couple will consumate their relationship, and engage in "marital relations". It doesn't need to require it. It happens naturally. Didn't anyone ever explain where babies come from?
How does allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage alter, change or deny the ability of opposite-sex couples to form that which you claim "is the relationship upon which society builds itself"?
Jerald

You seem like a bright fella. Once the standard is changed, and it has in several states, it changes the, orientation, so to speak of marriage as union of husband and wife centered around the products of their union, children. To be fair, marriage has been on a downward tract over the past several decades. High divorce rates, increased out of wedlock birthrates, greater frequency of cohabitation, and decreased interest in marriage in general. If those conditions were not present, the idea of a "same sex marriage" would be, inconceivable. Alas that is where we are as a society. Let's say for the sake of discussion, ssm is legal nationwide. What's next? Plural marriage, more than likely considering that its already being discussed in the context of legal ssm, and the Brown family lawsuits, and expressed support for ssm. Will we reach a point, as a society, when marriage doesn't mean anything, because it means everything?

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuali...

This piece was written ten years ago in Canada. One of the authors is gay. This is an excerpt from thier conclusion:

No one can predict the future of this experiment. People are not like rats in a lab. Mistakes are much more costly. And unforeseen things are just as likely to happen because of social engineering as they are because of any other kind. We try to fix every problem, but we usually end up replacing one with another. Forty years ago, it seemed like common sense that changing the divorce laws would be an act of compassion for the few but one that would make little or no difference to the many. That was naive, to say the least. Now, we know better. It changed us in ways that no one could have imagined. For better or worse — better for some, worse for others — we now live in a "divorce culture."42

Most people like to consider their society a tolerant one, and this is certainly laudable. But no society could endure if tolerance were taken to its ultimate conclusion: the belief that "anything goes." In addition to tolerance — otherwise known as "love," "caring," or "compassion" — every society must be guided by wisdom. And that requires citizens to be as reasonable as they are tolerant. Canadians should think twice, therefore, before redefining marriage.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2546
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes biologically related to the child's mother and father. Human reproduction still requires the genetic materials of both sexes.
<quoted text>
no it doesn't. one woman is enough now. through stem cell research, which has developed female sperm from a woman's own bone marrow stem cells, no male sperm donor is necessary.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2547
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you did not understand what I wrote. I said since birth, not simply being raised by SSCs, which does not take into account the opposite sex biological parent, and his/her involvement in raising the child(ren).
What the heck are you trying to say? You must have confused yourself. There are plenty of same-sex couples that raise children from birth. That is what I said and that is what you asked and that is what I meant. I'm standing by the statement.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Glad to hear it. That first line sounded "Spock-ish". How about, "I'm very lucky to have had my biological Mom and Dad to raise me".
Oh how kind of you to put words in my mouth. But please allow me to take them back and do not try to spin them around. If you question what I meant, ask. Don't misstate what I wrote.

How about I was lucky to have the parents who raised me. They happen to have been my biological parents. I also have a half-brother and half-sister who were raised by the same parents. They consider themselves very lucky to have the same parents I do.

I'm going to type slowly now so that you can follow along. I know many people whose parents weren't biologically related at all, or who were aunts, uncles, grandparents, or even foster parents. Many of them feel very lucky to have been raised by those people. Some do not feel so lucky. Some who were raised by their biological parents do not feel so lucky, either.
Unless you refered to them as "Biological Parent #1", and "Biological Parent #2". I doubt you thought either one was expendable.
I called one of my parents "mom" and the other "dad." I am very glad that both parents lived as long as they did, and my dad is still alive.[My sister, half-brother, half-sister and myself are going home to celebrate his 90'th birthday this weekend.] I have no doubt, however, that either of my parents would have managed the family and continued to provide a good home had circumstances forced them to continue on their own.

Would I consider either of them expendable? Of course not. Do you think that Zach Wahls considers either of his parents to be expendable?

You really need to work on a new routine.
Grandparents involved?
The only grandparent I ever met died when I was barely 3.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2548
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wastey!
Che si deech? How the heck are ya?
Very good my friend. Are you having fun yet?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2549
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to marry is, or at least was, nationwide, is the right to enter into a legally recognized conjugal union of husband and wife. Based on that, you have that right. The law does not require the right to marry be tailored to every sexual predisposition, desire, and/or orientation.
Again, telling me that I may exercise a right that I am unable to enjoy is no right at all.

Would heterosexual couples feel the same way if all civil marriages were same-sex unions? They would have the same right to marry, just someone of the same sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The fact that marriage is not longer understood to be an exclusive, and distinct, legally recognized relationship of husband and wife, illustrates this. What governmental interest is there in calling a same sex intimate sexual relationship marriage? What is the foundation? What is the specific governamental interest? Would anything happen if government were not recognize such relationships as marriage?
The governmental interest in civil marriage is the same regardless of the sex of the partners: it's good for the couples, good for any children they may have, and good for society.

Citizens don't exist to protect state interests; the state exists, in part, to protect the rights of its citizens.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No, just pointing out the flaw in the argument that SSCs rasising children should be allowed to marry. Is it ok not to treat two adult siblings who are raising children unequally?
You have failed to establish why this is logically a "flaw" in the argument for removing gender restrictions in civil marriage.

Logically, why isn't it just as much a flaw in the argument for heterosexual marriage?
Pietro Armando wrote:
So, first cousins are related as well...SSM changes the standard. Its fun to watch you try and argue that SSM is the line in the sand, and that no other significant changes should be allowed.
There is no logical reason that, because one change in a law is made, other changes in law are required. That does not logically follow.

Should a contingent of siblings wish to change the law of civil marriage to remove the restrictions against consanguinity, they are free to make their case on its own merits. Their argument wouldn't be contingent on any other, including the argument based on sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The current definition, at least in 32 states plus, of marriage as a union of husband and wife, doesn't need to be changed. It works just fine.
Again, you're begging the question. The argument isn't whether the union of "husband and wife" works just fine. It's WHY civil marriage needs to be limited on the basis of sex. Husbands and wives will still be able to marry.
Pietro Armando wrote:
When was SSM created again in this country? 1604? or 2004?... tradtition, etc, were based. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say the first one, husband and wife.
As a legal construct, "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage" doesn't exist. Neither does "interracial marriage" or "interrfaith marriage."

What exists is CIVIL MARRIAGE.

The argument from history is one of the worst logical fallacies. Just because a particular discrimination has always been popular doesn't mean that discrimination is justified.
Pietro Armando wrote:
What "equal protection" are you specifically refering to? How is the wife and husband not equally protected?
to be continued.....
Again, you beg the question. Your inability or unwillingness to grasp basic logic demonstrates an ignorance or an obstinance that suggests a rigidity of thought bordering on bigotry.

The equal protections of the law are denied to same-sex couples seeking civil marriage, and/or same-sex couples who are offered an inferior "separate but equal" domestic partnership or civil union.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2550
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if its "liberty and justice", you're after, why stop there? Plural marriage? Liberty and justice demands it. Siblings? Ditto
Giving up on the argument based on sex because you cannot successfully make your case?

Need to move on to arguments based on consanguinity or number? Find another thread.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Procreation doesn't need to be a requirement. Its a simple concept actually. Marriage transforms a man and woman into husband and wife. They have sex, conception has a good chance of occuring, other factors not withstanding, babies are born. The law presumes a married couple will consumate their relationship, and engage in "marital relations". It doesn't need to require it. It happens naturally. Didn't anyone ever explain where babies come from?
Were you taught that babies come from marriage? Perhaps you need to sit down with someone and have this explained again for you. Babies don't come from marriage. Babies come from couples having sex.

Feel free to explain how allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage will in any way change, alter, or interfere with heterosexual couples ability or willingness to conceive children.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Jerald
You seem like a bright fella. Once the standard is changed, and it has in several states, it changes the, orientation, so to speak of marriage as union of husband and wife centered around the products of their union, children.


It's never been that standard. No state defines civil marriage based on the ability or willingness to conceive and bear children. YOU define it solely on a basis that is unnecessary or insufficient for its legal establishment.

And you do so only to preclude same-sex couples in civil marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
To be fair, marriage has been on a downward tract over the past several decades. High divorce rates, increased out of wedlock birthrates, greater frequency of cohabitation, and decreased interest in marriage in general.


And same-sex couples are responsible for this... how, exactly?
Pietro Armando wrote:
If those conditions were not present, the idea of a "same sex marriage" would be, inconceivable.


You'll have to prove this claim.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Alas that is where we are as a society. Let's say for the sake of discussion, ssm is legal nationwide. What's next? Plural marriage, more than likely considering that its already being discussed in the context of legal ssm, and the Brown family lawsuits, and expressed support for ssm.


You'll have to prove why one change in law HAS TO produce some other change in law.

It doesn't logically follow.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Will we reach a point, as a society, when marriage doesn't mean anything, because it means everything?
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuali...
This piece was written ten years ago in Canada. One of the authors is gay. This is an excerpt from thier conclusion:
No one can predict the future of this experiment....Canadians should think twice, therefore, before redefining marriage.
Whether it was written by a gay or straight person, the argument fails on its merits, since there is no rational basis, let alone a legitimate governmental interest, in denying civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.

You certainly haven't provided one, and neither has some writer quoted on a Catholic religious website.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any harm in allowing same-sex couples the right to obtain a civil marriage.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any benefit in denying civil marriage solely on the basis of the sex of the partners.

NONE.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2551
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Can a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex, or should the law require marriage only within one's orientation?
<quoted text>...
Many gay people have married straight people. Are you suggesting that this is a good thing? That happy and successful marriages come from unions of people who aren't sexually compatible? That denying same-sex couples the right to marry fosters these desirable unions?

You claim that gay people already have the same right to marry as straight people. Apparently, you believe that such unions should be encouraged by law.

Would you recommend to your daughter that she marry a gay man, or your son that he marry a lesbian?

Do you even think through the logical consequences of your arguments?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2552
Feb 18, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Many gay people have married straight people. Are you suggesting that this is a good thing? That happy and successful marriages come from unions of people who aren't sexually compatible?
Are you suggesting the law should prohibit people from marrying outside of their orientation? Does any state require a "statement of orientation" as a prerequisite for a marriage license?
That denying same-sex couples the right to marry fosters these desirable unions?
The right to marry is an individual right not a "couples right".
You claim that gay people already have the same right to marry as straight people. Apparently, you believe that such unions should be encouraged by law.
Do you believe such unions should be prohibited by law? Should only allow same orientation unions?
Would you recommend to your daughter that she marry a gay man, or your son that he marry a lesbian?
like Josh Weed did?
Do you even think through the logical consequences of your arguments?
Do you? After all if the purpose of legal SSM is to prevent unsuccessful marriages between gay people and straight people, then clearly the gov't should require gay people only marry same sex gay people, and straight people only marry opposite sex straight people.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2553
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you suggesting the law should prohibit people from marrying outside of their orientation? Does any state require a "statement of orientation" as a prerequisite for a marriage license?
Feel free to quote any post of mine where I suggest such thing.

No state denies civil marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. The discrimination is solely based on the sex of the partners.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The right to marry is an individual right not a "couples right".
One that is routinely denied solely because of the sex of one partner RELATIVE to the other.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you believe such unions should be prohibited by law? Should only allow same orientation unions?
Of course not. The government has no business limiting civil marriage on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Feel free to show where I've ever argued such a thing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
like Josh Weed did?
Josh Weed should be able to marry the person of his choice without regard to sex.

You ducked the question of whether you would recommend this to your son or daughter, especially if you think it's such a good idea for Josh Weed.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Do you? After all if the purpose of legal SSM is to prevent unsuccessful marriages between gay people and straight people, then clearly the gov't should require gay people only marry same sex gay people, and straight people only marry opposite sex straight people.
More weak and lazy logical fallacies. This is a strawman argument. I never made the claim or argument that the "purpose of legal same-sex marriage is to prevent unsuccessful marriages between gay people and straight people." You've apparently attributed this claim to me, falsely.

You may not have noticed, and you may not comprehend why, but I never use the false construction "same-sex marriage." No such legal construct exists.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2554
Feb 18, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What the heck are you trying to say? You must have confused yourself. There are plenty of same-sex couples that raise children from birth. That is what I said and that is what you asked and that is what I meant. I'm standing by the statement.
Define "plenty"? Please elaborate, of those "plenty" how many do so with, and without the opposite sex biological parent involved? How many of these children are adopted? Biological offspring of one partner?
Oh how kind of you to put words in my mouth. But please allow me to take them back and do not try to spin them around. If you question what I meant, ask. Don't misstate what I wrote.
How about I was lucky to have the parents who raised me. They happen to have been my biological parents.
You seem reluctant to refer to them as your mother and father.
I also have a half-brother and half-sister who were raised by the same parents. They consider themselves very lucky to have the same parents I do.
Again an ommission of refering to your mother and father as that, or as "Mom and Dad".
I'm going to type slowly now so that you can follow along. I know many people whose parents weren't biologically related at all, or who were aunts, uncles, grandparents, or even foster parents. Many of them feel very lucky to have been raised by those people. Some do not feel so lucky. Some who were raised by their biological parents do not feel so lucky, either.
As do I.
I called one of my parents "mom" and the other "dad." I am very glad that both parents lived as long as they did, and my dad is still alive.[My sister, half-brother, half-sister and myself are going home to celebrate his 90'th birthday this weekend.] I have no doubt, however, that either of my parents would have managed the family and continued to provide a good home had circumstances forced them to continue on their own.
Glad to hear you did call your parents "Mom and Dad". As to your Dad, Fantastic. That's amazing, 90 years old. God bless him. WWII vet?Sadly my father passed away almost 15 years ago. Mom's still here though.
Would I consider either of them expendable? Of course not. Do you think that Zach Wahls considers either of his parents to be expendable?
"Zach Wahls"? Oh yes the man with two lesbian mums, self described LGBT activist. There's always a flip side to that. Not every man raised by two women, lesbians or straight, doesn't wish he knew, and interacted with his father. Is Zach the exception to the rule?

Children conceived through anonymous sperm donors are speaking out and demanding their right to know who their bio father is. And yes I know, before you say it, its not only lesbians who use freeze pops.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/606...

Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View

by Robert Oscar Lopez

August 6th, 2012

The children of same-sex couples have a tough road ahead of them—I know, because I have been there. The last thing we should do is make them feel guilty if the strain gets to them and they feel strange.

Between 1973 and 1990, when my beloved mother passed away, she and her female romantic partner raised me. They had separate houses but spent nearly all their weekends together, with me, in a trailer tucked discreetly in an RV park 50 minutes away from the town where we lived. As the youngest of my mother’s biological children, I was the only child who experienced childhood without my father being around.

After my mother’s partner’s children had left for college, she moved into our house in town. I lived with both of them for the brief time before my mother died at the age of 53. I was 19. In other words, I was the only child who experienced life under “gay parenting” as that term is understood today.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2555
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View
by Robert Oscar Lopez
...
Trotted out and funded by NOM's Witherspoon Institute to support the Regnerus study.

Gee, you think we can come up with a story by someone who didn't like his opposite-sex parents?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2556
Feb 18, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to quote any post of mine where I suggest such thing.
Just looking for clarification.
No state denies civil marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. The discrimination is solely based on the sex of the partners.
Oh so if a lesbian marries a gay man, there's no discrimination?
One that is routinely denied solely because of the sex of one partner RELATIVE to the other.
Of course not. The government has no business limiting civil marriage on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. Feel free to show where I've ever argued such a thing.
Let's take it one step futher, or number of participants. It really boils down to how marriage is defined. By defining it as a union of husband and wife, both sexes are included.
Josh Weed should be able to marry the person of his choice without regard to sex.
Waitamint here! Why would you recomend this harm to continue? Doesn't the state have a vested interest in preventing harm, if at all possible? Should the state invalidate his marriage for his own good, and the good of his wife, and children.
You ducked the question of whether you would recommend this to your son or daughter, especially if you think it's such a good idea for Josh Weed.
Its a two way street, is it not. The Weeds are married, even though its a "mixed orientation" marriage. Should I tell my daughter not to marry a gay man? Is Josh's marriage any less valid than any other conjugal marriage of husband and wife?
More weak and lazy logical fallacies. This is a strawman argument. I never made the claim or argument that the "purpose of legal same-sex marriage is to prevent unsuccessful marriages between gay people and straight people." You've apparently attributed this claim to me, falsely.
Did I implicitly state you said that? No. Should the state require a "statement of orientation" prior to issuance of a marriage license? It could say a lot of heart ache.
You may not have noticed, and you may not comprehend why, but I never use the false construction "same-sex marriage." No such legal construct exists.
Sure it does. First, every marriage license has two names on it. If the names on it are of two men, or two women, its a same sex marriage license. Second, the legal language specifically referencing the sexual union of husband and wife, can be applied to a same sex couple. Thus, there is same sex marriage. "Consumation", as in the first act of coital sexual intercourse, "marital relations" another reference to cotial sexual intercourse, "presumption of paternity",.....

Deny it all you want, but same sex marriage as a legal construct is just that, and it does exist. It was legally created by the state in 2004, was it not? Or is your argument, that the state simply recognized it?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2557
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh so if a lesbian marries a gay man, there's no discrimination?
Based on what? Sexual orientation -- no. Sex -- yes, in states that deny civil marriage based on sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Let's take it one step futher, or number of participants. It really boils down to how marriage is defined. By defining it as a union of husband and wife, both sexes are included.
Both sexes are still able to marry if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Opposite-sex couples aren't prohibited from marrying in states that allow same-sex couples to marry. You keep avoiding this basic fact.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Waitamint here! Why would you recomend this harm to continue?
Did I say that this was always harmful in every instance?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Doesn't the state have a vested interest in preventing harm, if at all possible? Should the state invalidate his marriage for his own good, and the good of his wife, and children.
Why should it? If the partners are happy and content, what interest does the government have in limiting civil marriage on the basis of the sex or sexual orientation of the partners? What shouldn't be required is that all civil marriage have to be opposite-sex, when the partners aren't.

YOU argued that the state has an interest in denying civil marriage on the basis of sex.

I NEVER argued that the state has an interest in denying civil marriage on the basis of sexual orientation.

That's called moving the goal posts, in addition to creating a strawman argument.

Trying to hit all the fallacies you can, eh?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Its a two way street, is it not. The Weeds are married, even though its a "mixed orientation" marriage. Should I tell my daughter not to marry a gay man? Is Josh's marriage any less valid than any other conjugal marriage of husband and wife?
No, and I never said it was.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Thus, there is same sex marriage.Deny it all you want, but same sex marriage as a legal construct is just that, and it does exist. It was legally created by the state in 2004, was it not? Or is your argument, that the state simply recognized it?
Feel free to link to any "Same-sex marriage" certificate or license language in any state that recognizes civil marriage for same-sex couples.

Or link to a "Interracial Marriage" certificate. Or an "Interfaith Marriage" certificate.

They don't exist as legal constructs.

What does exist is CIVIL MARRIAGE. Period.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2558
Feb 18, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Trotted out and funded by NOM's Witherspoon Institute to support the Regnerus study.
Gee, you think we can come up with a story by someone who didn't like his opposite-sex parents?
WAAAAAYYYYYY too easy!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2559
Feb 18, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
Oh so if a lesbian marries a gay man, there's no discrimination?
Lots of people marry for reasons with which you or I might not agree. Fortunately for them, they need neither your approval nor mine. Whatever their reasons, I wish all couples the best of luck!

[QUOTE}Let's take it one step futher, or number of participants. It really boils down to how marriage is defined.[/QUOTE]
Are you still unwilling to tell us how you'd change the law to support these multiple marriages? Tell us what you have in mind. Then we'll find out if any polygamous couples are interested in living under your "solution." If they are, we can consider the merits of your suggestion.

But you have to make a suggestion before we can consider it. You may as well be blowing soap bubbles.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2560
Feb 18, 2013
 
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
WAAAAAYYYYYY too easy!
It's called evidence by anecdote, a weak form of supporting an argument or claim.

And Lopez makes for a pretty poor anecdote. In need of "scholarly" support for the failed Regnerus claim, NOM and its Witherspoon Institute found this assistant professor of English at Cal State Northridge.

Ooooooo. Talk about bringing out the big guns.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2561
Feb 18, 2013
 
Kudos to Pietro Armando, good arguments!

Gender segregated marriage would endanger inmates in our prisons and children in our schools. I favor gender diverse marriage, the perfect affirmative action of one man and one woman. All things being equal, let's side with integration against same gender marriage. Marriage like mom and dad's.

“CAPS LOCK CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2562
Feb 18, 2013
 
Derren Brown: for my next trick I will make a straight man gay
The television illusionist Derren Brown is courting controversy again by planning his most audacious trick yet – persuading a straight man he is gay.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/987713...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2563
Feb 18, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Trotted out and funded by NOM's Witherspoon Institute to support the Regnerus study.
Oh but of course any funded and trotted out by LGBT M.O.U.S.E. supporting organizations is right on the money every single time.
Gee, you think we can come up with a story by someone who didn't like his opposite-sex parents?
Everyone has opposite sex parents, even you, and poster boy Zach too. The may not be raised by their bio parents, but they still have them.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 2,421 - 2,440 of17,506
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••