Gay Marriage - Legal Question

@spendius,

Who care if a medical disorder had a history of being legislated against anymore then at one time we burn people alive for witchcraft.

Thanks to the courts that is a thing of the past.

Soon even the US military is going to join the modern age.

As far as gay marriages are concern if there was a logical reason to promote and license such relationships I would support that becoming legal also.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.

It was.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

BillRM wrote:
If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.

It was.

Obviously, it was not, for it still goes on on a regular basis today.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
BillRM wrote:
If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.

It was.

Obviously, it was not, for it still goes on on a regular basis today.

Cycloptichorn

That's gay conduct. You could participate in it right now. Doesn't the left claim that there is such a thing as "being gay"?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
EmperorNero wrote:
BillRM wrote:
If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.

It was.

Obviously, it was not, for it still goes on on a regular basis today.

Cycloptichorn

That's gay conduct. You could participate in it right now. Doesn't the left claim that those people "are gay"?

I don't know who you are talking about. Let's review:

Bill made a statement that 'If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.'

You responded by saying 'It was,' clearly answering that Homosexual behavior was 'bred out' of Humanity a million years ago (hyperbolic exaggeration of time frame duly noted and excepted).

It clearly isn't true, because people still engage in Homosexual behavior today. So I pointed that out. You are incorrect.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
EmperorNero wrote:
BillRM wrote:
If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.

It was.

Obviously, it was not, for it still goes on on a regular basis today.

Cycloptichorn

That's gay conduct. You could participate in it right now. Doesn't the left claim that those people "are gay"?

I don't know who you are talking about. Let's review:

Bill made a statement that 'If homosexuality was very harmful to humans it would had been breed out of us a million years ago.'

You responded by saying 'It was,' clearly answering that Homosexual behavior was 'bred out' of Humanity a million years ago (hyperbolic exaggeration of time frame duly noted and excepted).

Bold where you do the switch from 'homosexuality' to 'homosexual behavior'. Nobody denies that homosexual behavior exists, you're the ones assuming that homosexuality exists.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Bold where you do the switch from 'homosexuality' to 'homosexual behavior'. Nobody denies that homosexual behavior exists, youre the ones claiming that homosexuality exists.

You're splitting hairs here in an attempt to cover up your stupid statement above. There is no effective difference between the two.

Are you a homophobe? By which I mean, are you afraid of homosexuals and homosexual behavior?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Nobody denies that homosexual behavior exists, you're the ones assuming that homosexuality exists.

Pointless words playing games.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Bold where you do the switch from 'homosexuality' to 'homosexual behavior'. Nobody denies that homosexual behavior exists, youre the ones claiming that homosexuality exists.

You're splitting hairs here in an attempt to cover up your stupid statement above. There is no effective difference between the two.

Ok then, if homosexuality is the same as homosexual behavior, then those who participate in gay behavior are gay, and those who don't are not.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Are you a homophobe? By which I mean, are you afraid of homosexuals and homosexual behavior?

We went three posts on the topic of gay marriage without a bigot-card, that gotta be a record.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Ok then, if homosexuality is the same as homosexual behavior, then those who participate in gay behavior are gay, and those who don't are not.

I assure that neither I, nor those who engage in homosexual behavior, give one fig for your attempts to define and codify their behaviors. So I would recommend referring to them however you like.

Quote:

We went three posts on the topic of gay marriage without a bigot-card, that gotta be a record.

I just asked you a simple question; can you answer it? I would be interested to see the answer.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Ok then, if homosexuality is the same as homosexual behavior, then those who participate in gay behavior are gay, and those who don't are not.

I assure that neither I, nor those who engage in homosexual behavior, give one fig for your attempts to define and codify their behaviors. So I would recommend referring to them however you like.

Well, if "being gay" and participating in gay behavior are the same thing, then it's a choice. The state can discriminate against a choice.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I just asked you a simple question; can you answer it? I would be interested to see the answer.

I am not afraid of homosexuals or homosexual behavior.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Well, if "being gay" and "acting gay" are the same thing, then it's a choice, and all pro same sex marriage arguments break down.

2 points:

1, your argument uses faulty logic. If 'being gay' and 'acting gay' are the same thing, perhaps people act that way because they are that way and they don't have a choice. You have reached a conclusion which is unsupported by the evidence.

2, Your conclusion doesn't cause the argument for same-sex marriages to break down in any way, because people are not required to justify their reasons for engaging in behaviors to you or anyone else. If they wish to marry, because they CHOOSE to marry someone of the same sex, there is no legal or moral reason they should not be allowed to. Your judgment over whether they should or should not doesn't matter at all.

Quote:

I am not afraid of homosexuals or homosexual behavior.

Great! You're a supporter of their right to marry those of the same sex, then?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

perhaps people act that way because they are that way and they don't have a choice.

'Being that way' would have been bred out of us a million years ago.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

2, Your conclusion doesn't cause the argument for same-sex marriages to break down in any way, because people are not required to justify their reasons for engaging in behaviors to you or anyone else. If they wish to marry, because they CHOOSE to marry someone of the same sex, there is no legal or moral reason they should not be allowed to.

Correct, nobody needs to justify their reasons for engaging in behaviors. But marriage is not a behavior. It is a privilege, received by the state. A privilege, like unemployment benefits, does not have to be handed out equally to everyone. Those who want it have to justify getting it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Great! You're a supporter of their right to marry those of the same sex, then?

I am a supporter of getting the state out of marriage. But that's far down my list of what I want the state to stop doing.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

'Being that way' would have been bred out of us a million years ago.

Fallacious assertion. You don't know what 'would' or 'should' have been bred out of Humanity.

Quote:

Correct, nobody needs to justify their reasons for engaging in behaviors. But marriage is not a behavior. It is a privilege, received by the state. A privilege, like unemployment benefits, does not have to be handed out equally to everyone. Those who want it have to justify getting it.

No, they don't. The State has to justify why people shouldn't enjoy privileges. This is why you have seen Supreme Courts legalizing gay marriage in many states - there is no legal justification for barring them from marrying, because no harm is done to them or anyone else by doing so.

Quote:

I am a supporter of getting the state out of marriage. But that's far down my list of what I want the state to stop doing.

Good enough for me. Civil unions for everyone!

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Marriage in "the eyes of God" was brought in precisely because civil unions were so fragile and the breaking up of them presented a serious challenge to the institution of private property. Attacks on the latter institution are Marxist and their failure has led to attacks on the institution underpinning it which Cyclo daren't attack.

Unstable as modern marriage is it would be far more unstable with civil unions which might be logically extended to one-night-stands as Huxley forsees in Brave New World.

How about civil baptisms and funerals Cyclo? Your thinking is as shallow as an oil stain on a wet road but hardly as colourful. You are sweeping a casual hand over 1,000 years of history.

Would you have "illegal sex" rather than adultery.

How many states are you referring to with the phrase "many states"?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
'Being that way' would have been bred out of us a million years ago.
You don't know what 'would' or 'should' have been bred out of Humanity.

Correct, I don't know that. But I am not making an assertion, I shouldn't have to prove a negative. If you think that "being gay" exists, as distinguished from "participating in gay behavior", that's an assertion, it's making a proposal. If same sex marriage advocates base their argument on that premise, they should have to back it up, right? If they just assume it out of thin air their whole argument about unequal treatment under the law breaks down.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Correct, nobody needs to justify their reasons for engaging in behaviors. But marriage is not a behavior. It is a privilege, received by the state. A privilege, like unemployment benefits, does not have to be handed out equally to everyone. Those who want it have to justify getting it.

No, they don't. The State has to justify why people shouldn't enjoy privileges.

That's how it works for rights, not privileges. Those who want to receive a privilege have to justify getting it. Everyone doesn't get unemployment benefits as a default and those who have work are exempted from getting it. It's the other way around; if you want unemployment benefits you have to show that you fulfill the criteria.

The argument for same sex marriage states that those who are heterosexual can marry who they want, but those who "are gay" can't. Therefore those who "are gay" are not treated equal if same sex marriage is restricted to opposite sex couples. Being treated equal is a right. But that argument requires that "being gay" exists, and this whole argument breaks down because that assumption is never substantiated.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is why you have seen Supreme Courts legalizing gay marriage in many states - there is no legal justification for barring them from marrying, because no harm is done to them or anyone else by doing so.

Supreme courts have been legalizing same sex marriage because it is politically expedient. They have simply assumed one sides premise in the way they phrased the case. They ask: "Is there enough reason to exclude gays from getting married?", that way they simply assumed that "being gay" exists. So those decisions are really just begging the question.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I am a supporter of getting the state out of marriage. But that's far down my list of what I want the state to stop doing.

Good enough for me. Civil unions for everyone!

Yup. But the unequal treatment under the law argument for same sex marriage still breaks down. And shoving same sex marriage through the supreme courts on false premises is anti-democratic.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Supreme courts have been legalizing same sex marriage because it is politically expedient.

Unsubstantiated assertion; and what more, completely false. Your argument fails due to a complete lack of knowledge of the subject. I suggest you read the recent Iowa Supreme court decision if you want to be educated on the laws involved and why legally it is very difficult to justify discrimination against gays who want to marry those of the same sex.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

it is very difficult to justify discrimination against gays who want to marry those of the same sex.

If there is no such thing as "being gay" then obviously there aren't any "gays" that could be discriminated against. And if there is no discrimination, it is fine that two groups receive unequal privileges.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
it is very difficult to justify discrimination against gays who want to marry those of the same sex.

If there is no such thing as "being gay"

This is an erroneous conclusion on your part, which does not follow logically from your earlier arguments. Basically, you are casting out for a way to justify your belief that gays should be discriminated against, and you are trying to avoid the whole question by determining that they do not exist at all.

However, the fact is that many of them specifically disagree with your contention and a large body of evidence does as well - many gays and lesbians have been the way they are ever since they were tiny children, far before they could make any sort of informed decision about their behavior and it's correctness or incorrectness.

Quote:

then obviously there aren't any "gays" that could be discriminated against. If there is no discrimination, it is fine that two groups receive unequal privileges.

Your whole argument is nothing more than a flimsy house of cards. It is based on a false premise, an assertion that you have declared true - but isn't.

That notwithstanding, I maintain that you have zero knowledge of the legal arguments behind the recent SC decisions to legalize marriage in several states. Your accusation that they did it out of political expediency is unfounded and unprovable - it is basically an admission that you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject. I implore you to study up before making comments such as this, because they make you look quite foolish.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
it is very difficult to justify discrimination against gays who want to marry those of the same sex.

If there is no such thing as "being gay"

you are casting out for a way to justify your belief that gays should be discriminated against,

In an earlier thread you would pride yourself on your ability to understand complexity, you should apply that ability now: The privilege to get married is different from the right to be treated equal.
A group not receiving some privilege is the default. Not discrimination. It does not have to be justified, those who think they should receive the privilege have to justify it. You don't get a housing subsidy unless you show that you own a house. Discrimination?
If you think that a group should be receiving a privilege, because it not receiving this privilege is discrimination, then you are the one who has to show that to be the case. It's not conservatives that have to justify discriminating, it is you who has to show that it is discrimination. Just assuming that them not receiving this privilege is discrimination is begging the question.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

and you are trying to avoid the whole question by determining that they do not exist at all.

Your side is the one making that assertion because your argument is based on it, I'm just a skeptic expecting you to substantiate that assumption.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

However, the fact is that many of them specifically disagree with your contention and a large body of evidence does as well - many gays and lesbians have been the way they are ever since they were tiny children, far before they could make any sort of informed decision about their behavior and it's correctness or incorrectness.

And many do agree with it, if not the majority, as they became gay later in life.
That supposed "large body of evidence" doesn't appear to be very existent either.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
then obviously there aren't any "gays" that could be discriminated against. If there is no discrimination, it is fine that two groups receive unequal privileges.

Your whole argument is nothing more than a flimsy house of cards. It is based on a false premise, an assertion that you have declared true - but isn't.

Actually, I don't have a premise nor an assertion, I'm the skeptic. I just criticize your sides assertions.

0 Replies

Gay Marriage - Legal Question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know