Subway Sandwich.

Ok:
It has no impact on straight couples who are currently married, because those marriages are not based on who else is married.
It has no impact on straight couples in the future who may get married, because their marriages are not based on who else is married.
It is a dramatic improvement in the standard of living for gay people, because they will have the same legal rights as any other tax payer.

Does it even occur to you that people 50 years from now will look at your current opinion the way we look at bigots who said "races shouldn't mix" 50 years ago?

 

When you change the definition and the purpose of marriage---you change the sandwich from Spicey Italian to ....baloney with relish. The meaning and the definition changes for everyone...not just for the gay people.

Now...if you want to ADD a sandwich to the menu---fine. We could call that new sandwich---Civil Unions. But it won't be the same sandwich.

 

Answer my question- do you think that I as an employer should be able to deny my Musilm employees' spousal benefits if I don't like Islam? (hint- that's not legal, BTW)

Go look it up. I'm not gonna spoonfeed you. There are all kinds of things that you can't get with POA.

 

My analogy works---because if gay marriage was deemed equal then the definition and purpose of marriage would change. The sandwich is entirely different.

 

Uhhhh, yeah? That's what we do here, fella. We share our views.

Not in the slightest. My view on government marriage law comes from my objective analysis of the facts.

Not my argument. As previously stated, my argument is based on my dispassionate, objective analysis of the facts. It is a FACT that two men enjoying the same legal status as a man and a woman harms no one. You can not prove otherwise, no matter how hard you try.

We need to define our terms here. For my part, when I say "government marriage" that's exactly what I mean--the body of law surrounding marriage as recognized by the state. That is my only concern in this argument--the citizen's relationship to his government. In that context, your position is absolutely wrong. There are only a handful of states where "anyone can marry right now any time they like."

Exactly. That's all I'm arguing.

That's all I'm arguing.

The amendment already exists: See #14.

Laws are changed all the time when it is determined that they are incorrect. The 14th Amendment already prohibits the arbitrary stipulations in the many and various state statutes.

That is certainly not part of my argument.

What other rational basis for law should exist in a nation of free men?

Again, the former is not my argument and the latter is the essence of governing a nation of free men. To quote Jefferson: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." In other words, the default condition is freedom, and in a nation of free men, the government really has only one simple task: To protect and preserve liberty. Making laws concerning marriage is--in my view--contrary to that end and exceeds the very limited authority that we, as free men, should grant our government. You may disagree, and I suspect you do. I'd love to hear your rebuttal.

This is an open debate forum. I was responding specifically to your comments.

It's not arrogance, rather objectivity. My position is derived from a dispassionate, rational consideration of the issues here. You want to prove that consenting adult citizens of the same gender enjoying the constitutional protections like every other American is somehow harmful. You have yet to even put forth a premise, let alone an argument. And harm MUST be the standard for law lest we all become petty tyrants.

It's not an opinion. It's a fact. Prove me wrong.

What's amazing is the lack of faith you have in your own argument as demonstrated by your continued ad hominem attacks on my intelligence.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Tell me, why should I be concerned about someone's "reaction to gay marriage" as you suggest here? NB: Be careful answering this one.

Harm is not a matter of opinion. You need to be able to clearly demonstrate the harm done by a particular action if you wish to prohibit it by force of law--at least as long as it is your interest to live in freedom. If it is not your wish to live in freedom--and I suspect it is not based on your arguments--then you may use whatever subjective standards you wish to make your arguments and your laws. Just don't come crying to me when the government tells you what kind of lightbulbs you can buy, how much soda you can drink, and how many bullets you can put in your gun.

This is a forum where we share opinions. And mine is that a smaller government is preferable to a larger one. Mine is also that government must make law only when necessary, and only to address demonstrable harm IF WE WISH TO LIVE IN FREEDOM. You may differ with me. You may be a statist who wants to use the power of government to shape society in a manner that pleases you. Fine. The only cost is your freedom.

I have already done so. Actually, my position is that government should not be involved in marriage at all--as previously stated--because it oversteps the bounds of a government limited by its obligation to strictly defend liberty. But if it is going to be in the people's private lives to that extent, the 14th Amendment GUARANTEES equal protection under the law. Ergo, the arbitrary stipulation to gender in the many and various marriage statutes is unconstitutional.

I have not even remotely suggested making more laws.

I believe government should defend liberty. Period. You believe government should be used to shape society. I am a lower-case 'l' libertarian. You are a statist, a social engineer. We will likely never agree on this topic. I believe in the smallest possible government necessary to defend liberty. You believe in something else. Would be interested to know what that is exactly.

This is the objective standard from which I derive my position: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harm?s=t

 

But you are not prevented from eating the sandwich of your choice. What you want is to dictate the kind of sandwich that certain kind of people can eat. I say have your sandwich and never you mind what kind of sandwich someone else wants.

 

All this talk of sandwiches is getting me hungry for a midnight snack! What do you prefer on yours, roast beef (haha) or hot Italian sausage (tee hee!)?

I agree with you BTR. All legally consenting adults should have the freedom to marry, aka enter into a government sponsored contract, with whomever they choose to regardless of gender.

 

Yes. I think you should be able to. In fact, I'd like for people to have the freedom to discriminate all they want. Just put it right on the front door. I think in most towns, they will go out of business.

Nothing. The same answer I always get.

 

If you learn to respect the views of others, you won`t be so angry.

 

True, marriage is a heterosexual institution. For gays to try to gatecrash marriage, is completely inconsiderate, and intolerant of the beliefs of others. The majority of heterosexuals tolerate homosexuals, homosexuals should display a bit of tolerance toward others too.

 

"If you don't tolerate our intolerance then you are intolerant!"

That argument (usually put forward by anti-gay Christians with persecution complexes) never ceases to amaze.

 

What's the purpose of marriage? If it were exclusively about the regulation of offspring as I'm sure you're going to tell me, why are so many heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce permitted to do so - to the extent that the government will even support them in their aim of creating a family with fertility treatments/surrogacy? A same-sex couple are identically situated, so NOTHING is being altered.

 

I know people who started out in life as atheists AND formerly-Spirit-filled, Born Again Christians who became Atheists... that would confidently and wholeheartedly tell you that you are 'in-error'.

I'd say that you seriously need to rethink what you are claiming above.

 

homosexuality is natural - gay marriage is inevitable and does not harm straight marriages.
your side just needs to accept this and move on. you're on the wrong side of history on this one.
your argument opposing gay marriage is emotion based and without merit.

 

I don't. Discrimination is wrong in public business and services and is damaging for obvious reasons.

Since you're too damn lazy to do a google search, I did it for you. Read and learn.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/0...marriage-when-a-loved-one-is-in-the-hospital/

You want more? Go look it up yourself. I'm done spoonfeeding you.

 

Your argument is tiresome.
Yes. Marriage is about children, or more accurately about the families they are brought up in.
Yes, its about encouraging children to be born in committed homes with mother and a father.
Yes, that is why we had shotgun marriages in the day when people weren't trying to twist it to fit and twist to sexual attractions.
Yes--it pertains to heterosexuals who accidently and on purpose have kids all the time.
Yes, we don't micromanage to make sure all heterosexual couples who are married have kids---because that is simply not necessary to have marriage achieve its purpose.
This marriage sandwich has different ingredients then what would work for those who just want benefits, and tax breaks.

The civil union could be put on the menu to accomodate that.

 

Hysteria dosen`t change anything. Tolerance has to be a two way street. I didn`t bring religion into this, I`m an agnostic anyway. I happen to believe that marriage is a heterosexual institution. Do you respect my right to that belief?

 

You sound exactly like anti-gay marriage people.

 

Given that I am a heterosexual who has been happilly married for 17 years and has several kids, I am respecting the views of others.

- - - Updated - - -

Really? I don't see how "Phil and Bill" being married would change the relationship I have with my wife. Please elaborate.

 

Hang on, a gay person wanting to have the same rights as a straight person is a sign of "intolerance" towards straight people?
That's like saying that a black person wanting to have the same rights as a white person is being intolerant of whites...

Broken.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (no matter how wrong they are)...
Everyone is not entitled to impose their opinions on others. Gay people are not trying to change your heterosexual relationship in any way, so why should their relationships be limited in ways yours aren't?

 

Illustrate why families consisting of a gay couple are worse for kids than those that consist of a straight couple or single parent.

According to who? Certainly not the Bible.
Biblical marriage is a man arranging to buy a girl from her father for an agreed upon purchase price (Genesis 29:1.
Biblical marriage is a wife “giving”, regardless of her maid servant's wishes, her servant to her husband as a “wife” for sex and procreation (Genesis 16:2-3, Genesis 30:3, Genesis 30:9, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party murdering the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of a people but saving the young virgins because they want “wives” [i.e. women to capture and rape, legally] (Judges 21:10-14)
Biblical marriage is a raiding party lying in wait to capture more women as “wives” to legally rape (Judges 21:20-24)
Biblical marriage is a victim being forced to marry her rapist with no hope of divorce [but don't worry – her father is suitably compensated in cash for the trouble, and this is only valid if the woman is not already another man's property...so relax, no property rights are violated by this arrangement!] (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Biblical marriage is selling your daughter as a slave to be given to her owner or owner's son for sexual exploitation as a “wife” [though denied the minimal protections of a wife] (Exodus 21:7-11)
Biblical marriage is one man taking multiple, even hundreds, of wives and concubines (see: David, Solomon, Jacob, Abraham, etc.)
Biblical marriage is a woman as property whose own happiness is inconsequential, but whose property status is absolute (see: David and Michal)

Besides, marriage existed before Christianity (or even Judaeism), so why should it conform to your specific dogma?

You mean for those girls who weren't shipped off to secretly have their kids, who were then put into orphanages or raised as "siblings"...

 

Can`t agree, gay people wanting to muscle in on the heterosexual institution like marriage, is abusive and intolerant. A lot of people put a lot of value on heterosexual marriage, why not respect their views. We can respect each other, despite our differances, but that dosen`t mean that everybody can be everything.

- - - Updated - - -

Just curious, have you ever entertained the notion that you could be wrong? Nothing is surer than a closed mind.

 

"I don't respect people who insist on having all the rights I enjoy. If only they'd accept their innate inferiority, we could all get along... The fact that they don't understand my view that they are less deserving people is a direct insult to me. How dare they."

I am occasionally wrong, but I KNOW that hypocrisy and bigotry are wrong. I believe extending courtesies to others that we expect in return is right. Nobody is denying you anything, other than the "right" to treat others as inferior.