Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Joe Republic]

You know, it wouldn't matter to pro gay marriage advocates what anti gay marriage advocates said about this issue, or what arguments against gay marriage they put forward.

That's a cowardly answer if ever I saw it.  If you don't think your arguments against gay marriage are being taken seriously, then clearly you aren't articulating them very well, or defending your points effectively.  Either that, or they're just not very good lines of argument.

Gays and gay marriage advocates would always fall back on the tired old lines of equality, rights, calling anyone opposed to their view bigots, and cry discrimination, while putting forward absolutely nothing to state why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Gays want marriage.  The onus is on them to show why gay marriage would be a benefit to society.

Yeah, damn those tired old issues like equality and rights.  Things were so much better back in the good ol' days, huh?

Given that these concepts - plus freedom - are inherent in our nation, the onus is on people like you to explain why gay marriage would personally affect you in a negative way.

I'm happily married to my wife, and I know for a fact that I couldn't give a damn if two men or two women want to do the same thing.  I wouldn't feel that their marriage would demean mine.  I'd be happy for them that they've chosen to become as happy as my wife and I are.  It's thoroughly depressing that you would prefer for them to be unhappy, even though it doesn't affect you in any way.

If you are basing your "crumbling" comments on my marriage and children statements, then you are mistaken in thinking that this point is not valid, just because, obviously, many heterosexual couples cannot have children.  One reason for marriage is and always has been to bring children into the world.  Only a fool would believe just because there are married heterosexual couples who cannot have children that this point is not valid.  To dismiss this point on this basis is ludicrous.  We all know there are various reasons why some couples cannot or do not have children.  This fact in no way detracts from the fact that one of the reasons for marriage is children.

Why do you not understand that your argument here is logically inconsistent?  You acknowledge that some heterosexual couples cannot have children, and yet you claim that one of the purposes of their marriage is to have children.  You also ignore the fact that you don't need to be married to have children, so this line of argument is entirely irrelevant anyway!

But let me guess, you're going to either ignore this post, or revert to just re-stating your opinion over and over without any new lines of reasoning.  Why break the habit of a lifetime?

[??????????]

The biggest issue is that the union of two men or women would fundamentally change the definition of marriage. If you can define marriage as between two individuals of the same sex, why not three or four or five? I mean, if they're consenting and loving, why not? Where does it end? Where is the line drawn in the sand?

[Joe Republic]

The biggest issue is that the union of two men or women would fundamentally change the definition of marriage. If you can define marriage as between two individuals of the same sex, why not three or four or five? I mean, if they're consenting and loving, why not? Where does it end? Where is the line drawn in the sand?

How does it affect you?

[??????????]

The biggest issue is that the union of two men or women would fundamentally change the definition of marriage. If you can define marriage as between two individuals of the same sex, why not three or four or five? I mean, if they're consenting and loving, why not? Where does it end? Where is the line drawn in the sand?

How does it affect you?

It fundamentally changes the definition of the word marriage and alters society as a whole.

[Joe Republic]

That's not what I asked.

[??????????]

That's not what I asked.

Obviously if it were to alter society it would affect me. And even if it doesn't am I not allowed to have an opinion on the issue? I apologize if I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.

[Joe Republic]

Obviously if it were to alter society it would affect me.

In what way would you be personally affected by an alteration to society in which gay marriage were allowed?

And even if it doesn't am I not allowed to have an opinion on the issue?

Of course you are, but you'd have to admit that there'd be no further reason to forbid two people from doing something that in no way affects you.

[??????????]

That's not what I asked.

Obviously if it were to alter society it would affect me. And even if it doesn't am I not allowed to have an opinion on the issue? I apologize if I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.

You can have an opinion, but why does your opinion override theirs?  You believe only men and women should marry and you married a woman.  Others believe men and men or women and women can marry so does it matter to you if they do?  They're not making you divorce your wife and marry a man, they just want to do it themselves like you have married your wife yourself.  If I were to get married today to a man and not tell you, would you feel any adverse affects from it?

The historic definition of marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Like I said before, where does it end? Can five men marry one woman? Why not?

Obviously if the DEFINITION of the word is going to be changed and expanded why not legalize polygamy as well??

[Associate Justice PiT]

That's not what I asked.

Obviously if it were to alter society it would affect me. And even if it doesn't am I not allowed to have an opinion on the issue? I apologize if I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the matter.

You can have an opinion, but why does your opinion override theirs?  You believe only men and women should marry and you married a woman.  Others believe men and men or women and women can marry so does it matter to you if they do?  They're not making you divorce your wife and marry a man, they just want to do it themselves like you have married your wife yourself.  If I were to get married today to a man and not tell you, would you feel any adverse affects from it?

The historic definition of marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Like I said before, where does it end? Can five men marry one woman? Why not?

Obviously if the DEFINITION of the word is going to be changed and expanded why not legalize polygamy as well??

     Good question. Why not legalize polygamy?

[MK]

In order for our society to accept or even tolerate same-sex marriage, a lot of fairly basic, deep-rooted ideas have to change. The way we define family. The way we think of what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman. The importance of sex and sexual fulfillment and rising children. Yeah, you're right in that Adam and Michael getting married today will not affect Jim and Jane who lives across town.  But over time it will affect society and the next generation and one could argue for the good ( if on the looney liberal side), however over the last 30 years of liberal social ideals have seen taken its toll on hetro marriage. Theres no wonder why the middle class has shrunk and the other host of social problems that making it harder for those at the bottom of the ladder to ever reach the top. The break down of the father/ mother home does have an affect just look that the "ghettos" as you call it.


For some of you to brag about being smarter then people like me, you sure don't understand our society.

[Joe Republic]

I'm disappointed that States has chosen to ignore my last post.  Nevertheless...

The historic definition of marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Like I said before, where does it end? Can five men marry one woman? Why not?

Obviously if the DEFINITION of the word is going to be changed and expanded why not legalize polygamy as well??

How would any of those affect you personally?

[Joe Republic]

In order for our society to accept or even tolerate same-sex marriage, a lot of fairly basic, deep-rooted ideas have to change. The way we define family. The way we think of what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman. The importance of sex and sexual fulfillment and rising children. Yeah, you're right in that Adam and Michael getting married today will not affect Jim and Jane who lives across town.  But over time it will affect society and the next generation and one could argue for the good ( if on the looney liberal side), however over the last 30 years of liberal social ideals have seen taken its toll on hetro marriage. Theres no wonder why the middle class has shrunk and the other host of social problems that making it harder for those at the bottom of the ladder to ever reach the top. The break down of the father/ mother home does have an affect just look that the "ghettos" as you call it.

I partially agree with your assertion that the breakdown of more and more families over time has indirectly led to certain perceived negative consequences in today's society, but I fail to see why allowing more people to form families will cause things to get worse.

[??????????]

I didn't ignore your post, you're just trying to lead me down another path. Again, if you literally change the definition of the word marriage, where does it end?

How would any of those affect you personally?

Answer my question first, where does it end?

[??????????]

No fallacy, you simply can't answer the question.

[War on Want]

No fallacy, you simply can't answer the question.

No one could answer that question, because marriage is something that has changed over the ages due to changes in society. How am I supposed to know what developments will take place in the next one hundred years that could change marriage? You are essentially saying that changing marriage laws will change society but society has already changed to the point where marriage isn't a religious institution for large amounts of people. In other words marriage has already changed, this is only about giving a group of people their equal rights, not about changing people's definitions of marriage. It could be a minor side effect but that is not the point of pushing for gay marriage.

[Joe Republic]

I didn't ignore your post, you're just trying to lead me down another path. Again, if you literally change the definition of the word marriage, where does it end?

How would any of those affect you personally?

Answer my question first, where does it end?

I asked my question in this thread long before you asked yours, but whatever.

My answer to your question is that I don't care how people define marriage, as long as it doesn't affect me.

Now, will you answer my question?

[MK]

No fallacy, you simply can't answer the question.

No one could answer that question, because marriage is something that has changed over the ages due to changes in society. How am I supposed to know what developments will take place in the next one hundred years that could change marriage? You are essentially saying that changing marriage laws will change society but society has already changed to the point where marriage isn't a religious institution for large amounts of people. In other words marriage has already changed, this is only about giving a group of people their equal rights, not about changing people's definitions of marriage. It could be a minor side effect but that is not the point of pushing for gay marriage.

You liberals keep ranting societal change, yet like Ive pointed out these changes have already affected marriage in a neg way.  Adding gay marriages is just another nail.

[Joe Republic]

No fallacy, you simply can't answer the question.

No one could answer that question, because marriage is something that has changed over the ages due to changes in society. How am I supposed to know what developments will take place in the next one hundred years that could change marriage? You are essentially saying that changing marriage laws will change society but society has already changed to the point where marriage isn't a religious institution for large amounts of people. In other words marriage has already changed, this is only about giving a group of people their equal rights, not about changing people's definitions of marriage. It could be a minor side effect but that is not the point of pushing for gay marriage.

You liberals keep ranting societal change, yet like Ive pointed out these changes have already affected marriage in a neg way.  Adding gay marriages is just another nail.

I note that you too have ignored my response to your last post here, which asked you to address the assertion you've just repeated.

[MK]

You liberals keep ranting societal change, yet like Ive pointed out these changes have already affected marriage in a neg way.  Adding gay marriages is just another nail.

Such as?

Naw dude, I'm too dumb to research this stuff remember ( bag of hammers)   You find that answer yourself.

[War on Want]

No fallacy, you simply can't answer the question.

No one could answer that question, because marriage is something that has changed over the ages due to changes in society. How am I supposed to know what developments will take place in the next one hundred years that could change marriage? You are essentially saying that changing marriage laws will change society but society has already changed to the point where marriage isn't a religious institution for large amounts of people. In other words marriage has already changed, this is only about giving a group of people their equal rights, not about changing people's definitions of marriage. It could be a minor side effect but that is not the point of pushing for gay marriage.

You liberals keep ranting societal change, yet like Ive pointed out these changes have already affected marriage in a neg way.  Adding gay marriages is just another nail.

Societal change will happens, whether you like it or not. Liberals and real Conservatives(like Fezzy) just choose to react in a responsible manner. Not giving gays their rights is immoral and is blatantly going against new accepted beliefs in what marriage is.

Besides what bad things have happened to marriage that are caused by liberals? I have yet to see one...

[??????????]

Liberals and real Conservatives(like Fezzy) just choose to react in a responsible manner.

Yeah, because the only difference in the two ideologies should be the name!

[??????????]

Liberals and real Conservatives(like Fezzy) just choose to react in a responsible manner.

Yeah, because the only difference in the two ideologies should be the name!

Ah, there he is!  Just here to argue my far leftism or care to jump back into the discussion?  By the way, that one's called ad hominem.

I'm not even talking about you, so stop acting like you're something special. I struck your name out, are you happy?

[Joe Republic]

Whoops, StatesRights forgot to answer my question again!

[??????????]

Whoops! Joe Republic forgot to answer my question again!

[War on Want]

Liberals and real Conservatives(like Fezzy) just choose to react in a responsible manner.

Yeah, because the only difference in the two ideologies should be the name!

There are huge differences. Real Conservatism believes in lassiez faire economics but at the same time also recognizes that reforms are necessary to preserve said system, while at the same time believes in personal liberty. Fezzy is more liberal than this but really all that I am doing here is saying that the Tories in the UK and the CDU in Germany are real conservatives, while the modern Republican Party is something very different.