- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The implications of the forced gay marriage legislation
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:59 am to the808bass
Posted on 9/8/14 at 9:59 am to the808bass
It's purely about legitimacy. When ballscaster put forward emotional arguments (hedonism), you pressed him and he immediately reverted to the simple legal definition and equating of gay/straight marriage. Because at the end of the day it's purely about legitimacy. Is that basically what you're saying?
2
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:00 am to the808bass
quote:I argued that marriage was the opposite of hedonism. Marrying someone is not an act of hedonism, regardless of the sexes or sexualities of the consenting parties.
Someone said that homosexual marriage was about hedonism. You argued that it was the opposite of hedonism.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:01 am to the808bass
quote:This has nothing to do with whether or not it is Constitutional to ban a citizen from signing a marriage license solely based on sex.
You're arguing practice and not function, which is more convenient for your argument but it still sucks. The percentage of monogamous homosexuals in long-term relationships has been found to be rather low (like less than 10% low) in multiple studies by homosexual publications. So it's not like outliers are being discussed.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:01 am to ballscaster
quote:
This has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of a same sex marriage ban.
But it does have everything to do with the marketing of the idea. Amirite? "We're just the same as you. I mean completely different, but let's ignore that until we get this whole gay marriage thing through."
I agree that the government has no basis to deny homosexuals a right to couple up and if they want to call it marriage, so be it. It won't change the actual definition of marriage or the purpose of marriage. And they'll still be longing for acceptance and trying to fill the void and blaming heteronormacy for it all.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:02 am to genro
quote:I didn't inject hedonism into the discussion. Someone else did.
When ballscaster put forward emotional arguments (hedonism)
I responded to the argument by saying that marriage is not a hedonistic bond.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:03 am to ballscaster
quote:
I argued that marriage was the opposite of hedonism. Marrying someone is not an act of hedonism, regardless of the sexes or sexualities of the consenting parties.
A heterosexual marriage can be hedonistic so I see no reason to assume what you assumed. Removing monogamy and child-rearing from the equation, and marriage seems to be something completely other than self-restraint.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:04 am to ballscaster
quote:The part where you said sexuality isn't pertinent is patently false. Consummation is a legal requirement of marriage in most if not all states. A heterosexual marriage can be annulled if one party is found to be homosexual.
Also, "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are not relevant terms to the Constitutionality of same sex marriage. A gay man and a lesbian woman may marry each other, and no one in this dialogue has expressed a desire to ban this type of marriage. Two straight men may not marry; neither may two gay men. Therefore, sexuality isn't a factor in the equation. The sole issue here is whether or not it is Constitutional to disallow a person from signing a contract/licence solely on the basis of his or her sex. Obviously, that is not Constitutional.
And culturally, sex is widely understood to be part of marriage. My father in law knows that I frick his daughter, even though I've never told him
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 10:05 am
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:04 am to the808bass
quote:No, uarenotrite. Up to the point of having the right to sign a marriage contract, men and women are the exact same according to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (and common sense).
But it does have everything to do with the marketing of the idea. Amirite? "We're just the same as you. I mean completely different, but let's ignore that until we get this whole gay marriage thing through."
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:04 am to genro
quote:
Because at the end of the day it's purely about legitimacy. Is that basically what you're saying?
Yes.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:05 am to ballscaster
Are you claiming that there's no propaganda involved in the push for gay marriage? If we can't have basic levels of honesty, there's no discussion.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:07 am to genro
quote:The right to marry exists regardless of a person's desire to have sex. You are so obsessed with other people having sex that you can't stick to the relevant points of this issue as it pertains to the actual words of the Constitution. Hint: it never mentions "heterosexual" or "homosexual."
The part where you said sexuality isn't pertinent is patently false. Consummation is a legal requirement of marriage in most if not all states. A heterosexual marriage can be annulled if one party is found to be homosexual.
And culturally, sex is widely understood to be part of marriage. My father in law knows that I frick his daughter, even though I've never told him
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:08 am to the808bass
quote:Read my posts. I've said exactly what I mean.
Are you claiming that there's no propaganda involved in the push for gay marriage?
ETA: your question is more interesting than that for which I originally gave it credit. There is propaganda in the push, and there is far more in the opposition. I find it easy to ignore it all and am not a belligerent in any propaganda-related turd-slinging. Sort of like my ability to talk about sports in depth without watching ESPN, I can talk about the Constitutionality of same sex marriage without picturing a man placing his erect penis into the anus of another man. There are MANY on this board who haven't that ability.
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 10:11 am
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:08 am to ballscaster
quote:
The right to marry exists regardless of a person's desire to have sex.
But you stated, completely incorrectly, that sexuality was irrelevant to marriage. That is obviously false.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:09 am to ballscaster
I'm not obsessed. I'm pointing out logical flaws in your argument. You said sexuality is irrelevant to marriage, thus gay marriage is only about sex, not sexuality. That is an incorrect logical deduction, as sexuality is indeed pertinent to marriage. Please avoid emotion and personal assumptions about me and continue the discussion.
This post was edited on 9/8/14 at 10:10 am
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:09 am to ballscaster
Dodge. Fundamentally dishonest and not a great debater. I'm out.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:12 am to the808bass
quote:I did not. Quote me. You will see your error.
But you stated, completely incorrectly, that sexuality was irrelevant to marriage.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:13 am to genro
quote:That's two of you who are misquoting me on this. Copy and paste the quote.
You said sexuality is irrelevant to marriage
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:13 am to ballscaster
quote:
But you stated, completely incorrectly, that sexuality was irrelevant to marriage.
I did not. Quote me. You will see your error.
quote:Clear as day.
Also, "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are not relevant terms to the Constitutionality of same sex marriage. A gay man and a lesbian woman may marry each other, and no one in this dialogue has expressed a desire to ban this type of marriage. Two straight men may not marry; neither may two gay men. Therefore, sexuality isn't a factor in the equation.
Posted on 9/8/14 at 10:15 am to genro
quote:Sexuality isn't a factor in the Constitutionality of same sex marriage.
Also, "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are not relevant terms to the Constitutionality of same sex marriage. A gay man and a lesbian woman may marry each other, and no one in this dialogue has expressed a desire to ban this type of marriage. Two straight men may not marry; neither may two gay men. Therefore, sexuality isn't a factor in the equation.
Never did I state that sexuality isn't a factor in marriage. That would have been a stupid thing to say.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News