Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Then why mention the "natural tendancy" as if there were not two such tendencies?
What I meant by “natural tendency” was that we are far
more prone than otherwise to form opposite sex partnerships.
We may also be far
more prone to form multiple partnerships too, so the single partnership is still not a clear natural tendency.
Quote:
At least, that’s what living in a cave taught me. You know we bonk our women on the head with a club and drag them back home by their hair when…well…whenever we feel inclined. You gotta be careful though. If you hit too hard or too often, they start to get stupid and you have to go find another one…assuming you don’t have multiple already…or you’re homosexual cave man.
I thought that was the goal .... keeps 'em docile. The early version of barefoot and pregnant.
Quote:
Quote:
But the law has to be equal across the country under the Constitution, so there has to be a single right for all.
Once again, there is.
No there is not. Homosexuals may be married in some states, but not others and the marriage is not recognized as being legal. That is by definitition a non-equalty under the law in the US, just as the laws against interacial marraige created a non-equality under the law.
Quote:
Quote:
Prejudice which had to be overcome.
For women and blacks, sure.
Quote:
Quote:
And not homosexuals? Have you really been living in a cave?
What part of “they already have the right” is unclear to you?
The part where they can choose the partner to whom they are attracted. It is a smokescreen and a lie.
Quote:
If one has the right to vote then that’s what they have the right to do as it is legally defined. A required input to the voting process is an election. If there is no election, they aren’t disenfranchised.
Yes they are if there is NEVER an election. The semantical gymnastics fail you here.
Quote:
They are able to do so when the circumstances are appropriate.
If the circumstances are never appropriate it is too bad? No, stacking the deck is still not going to work.
Quote:
Quote:
We had a custom practiced a certain way for as long as it was.
What custome was that? Not marriage because there have been plural marriages for as long as there has been the practice and that is not the definition currently being presented as THE new definition.
Quote:
An animal rights proponent sees some cow on video being abused every, say, 6 months or so, probably less frequently. Never mind the tens of thousands of others that were handled just fine, they call for the abrupt end to factory farming. It is defined by what they see.
And every day there are people arrested for animal abuse that the majority of us believe is abuse. How does that line of argument relate to the history showing a custom was always
as it is now? Dog fighting was always a popular passtime, until it was viewed as abuse. The same for cock fighting. Not to forget the old standby of the bear baiting. All of which were customary and then overtime were not.
Quote:
Now, I think you know better than that, but perhaps I am mistaken. I know you didn’t grow up in Utah, so that can’t be it.
But I have seen a few polymarriage arrangements outside of Utah. I just used the common reference.
Quote:
You’re better off simply making the case that there was never a legal definition. Suggesting that we as a society didn’t understand our own custom because a relative few took exception to it, isn’t the way to go.
No, I am suggesting you do not know what the society had as a custom because you are excluding all of the society that did not fit the custom you wish to portray.
Quote:
Quote:
Giving my opinions in your statements?
Unless you think someone’s rights are compromised by legalizing gay marriage. Please let me know, I don’t want to speak for you if it is incorrect.
No, I do not think anyone's rights are compromised by not preventing gay marraige as it is already legal in the US, just not universally recognized.
Quote:
Quote:
You cannot grant homosexuals the right to marry without opening the option to others who stray from what's considered standard practice--those who engage in incest, polygamy, and chain marriages. Perhaps that's what they mean by "destroy". I simply see it as needless change.
Those are being practiced even now. Some are not caught and are considered legal while others are not even attempted to be made legal. It is legal in this state to marry your first cousin if you want.
Quote:
Yes, thank you, I know. You’ll have to excuse me. I’m too confused over factory farm abuse to see the forest for the trees.
So we are being treated to illustrations of your confusion.
Quote:
Quote:
THAT is the point, it has not been practiced the same since its inception.
Doesn’t have to be. Just has to be enough doing it the say way for a while such that it is effectively defined.
So why is it defined as such now when it was defined differently before and was changed? If the effective definition changed, then why is it etched in stone now? The logic does not follow.
Quote:
If it was so variable and unpredictable, there would be no controversy and we wouldn’t be having this discussion because gay marriage would have blended into the existing noise.
Yes we would because one segment of the population is rabidly anti-gay and they are very vocal.
Quote:
Quote:
No, just trying to get past the semantical gymnastics you have been presenting.
So you’re telling me that my opinion becomes prejudice soon as someone else attempts to practice something a different way?
In a manner of speaking, yes. Any change would have some opposition to prejudice against change whether consciously or not.
Quote:
Sure, okay, but I don’t recall a controversy of this magnitude over polygamous marriage, and that’s actually been around a while.
That might be due to the smaller number of such marriages or the historical opposition that drove them underground.
Quote:
That’s my indicator that you’re not in this for the rights aspect.
No, that is my focus.
Quote:
You’re doing it because you want there to be preferential treatment. Maybe you want it and don’t realize it.
What is "preferential treatment" about allowing the same right to others? That is an argument based in misrepresentation, sorry.
Quote:
Quote:
Despite that being the case, one still legally becomes the opposite sex.
Now we can just define one person in the gay marraige as a man and the other as a woman and you would be happy?
Quote:
We could, but that would be nonsensical, and I don’t support stuff like that.
More or less nonsensical that saying wanting the same rights is wanting preferntial treatment?
Quote:
Quote:
Because enough have an sufficient understanding of the custom to know what it is and isn't.
Why not just say because of bigotry and be done with it.
Quote:
Because it isn’t.
But most of the opposition is based solely on bigotry supported by relgious underpinnings.
Quote:
Quote:
Just like it was always one man and one woman? Except when it was not. The "custom" is variable and yet held as being absolute.
Yes, yet you as well as I know that variability doesn’t necessarily render one’s perception so out of focus that they can’t make distinctions.
But making distinctions involving the ignorance of that with which you disagree is still not a focused perception.
Quote:
Quote:
No one was imposing any beliefs before. It may appear that way, but it's not.
Homosexuals just decided to make themselves outcasts and deny themselves rights because they wanted to?
Quote:
I never said that there wasn’t discrimination. I’m saying that for the purpose of marriage, there isn’t now.
And you are wrong because there is an implied "Heterosexual" tacked onto the term "marriage" that is not there in reality.
Quote:
Quote:
They need it as much as I need an abortion, redefined or not.
I agree, the addition of the need for a partner of the opposite sex is not necessary.
[/quote]
Quote:
Not what I meant, you know that, but still true nonetheless. That’s the funny thing about all this. It’s purely subjective.
Not really, as the legal definition will eventually be soldified in the USSC and this will fall into the realm of "they did not actually think this way then did they" as we do with interacial marriage now.
Login
Register
FAQ
