Ohio governor signs bill making state 38th to ban gay marriage

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Well then, why not deny it to miscegenators, niggers, spics, anyone else we don't want to "reward?" Simple fact, if the state chooses to make marriage available to two consenting adults, why in hell should the state care what gender they are?

If you make something available to one person or class of persons, and make it unavailable to another, you are by definition infringing the liberty of that person.

The hypocrisy in this law is that Ohio and these other states are saying "marry someone of the opposite gender who you can't stand, who you will never live with or do anything else with, and who you will never raise a child with, and we'll give you all these benefits, because that's the "sanctity" of marriage. But if you want to 'marry' an individual of the same gender who you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with, then it's our policy to deny that to you."

ur assuming that marriage was defined as available to two consenting adults. and therefore to deny it to gay ppl is illogical. but I see no reason to believe that was the supposition of marriage originally.

and I ask again, why do gay ppl want marriage? I am wondering. I answered ur silly smartass retort. so why do u not answer my honest original question?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Please don't. Ben has the same right to hold his views and express them as you have to hold yours and express them.

Don't worry, I won't. Besides, I would never deny anyone their right to state their views, no matter how disgusting I find them. I like to be able to spot the jerks so I can avoid them

[Ben Kenobi]

In matters which are properly subject to government regulation,

Marriage falls into this category. This is why they can regulate bigamy, polygamy, etc.

However, IMO, there are extensive realms of private, non-commercial conduct between consenting individuals for which I believe no level of government has proper regulatory authority.

Marriage is as much a private institution, as getting a birth certificate is private. Marriages are recognised by the state, hence the state has some authority over the regulation of marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

I like to be able to spot the jerks so I can avoid them

It must be a very small room where everyone agrees with you.

I prefer sparring with those I disagree. I find them very intelligent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Simple fact, if the state chooses to make marriage available to two consenting adults, why in hell should the state care what gender they are?

In this instance there are discernable differences that do effect the outcome. Men and women are not inchangeable parts, for which to replace one with the other affords no loss of efficiency.

If you make something available to one person or class of persons, and make it unavailable to another, you are by definition infringing the liberty of that person.

Everyone has access to marriage. I fail to see how the current decision denies rights to some that are available to others.

"marry someone of the opposite gender who you can't stand, who you will never live with or do anything else with, and who you will never raise a child with, and we'll give you all these benefits, because that's the "sanctity" of marriage.

Hardly. If you don't want to get married to a woman, then don't get married! The state does not force anyone to marry.

But if you want to 'marry' an individual of the same gender who you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with, then it's our policy to deny that to you.

So I love my parents. Should I marry my mom? Marriage is about more than just love.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I prefer sparring with those I disagree. I find them very intelligent.

I also like to discuss with people I disagree with. It gives me an opportunity to reevaluate my opinions and evolve develop as a person. However, if those I debate with are not at all interested in reevaluating their opinions, I don't see why I should bother to waste my energy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by yavoon


ur assuming that marriage was defined as available to two consenting adults. and therefore to deny it to gay ppl is illogical. but I see no reason to believe that was the supposition of marriage originally.

Marriage existed without state recognition for centuries. I'm not assuming anything. If the state wants to limit who can marry (as slave states generally did not recognize "marriage" by slaves who were not baptized Christians)

and I ask again, why do gay ppl want marriage? I am wondering. I answered ur silly smartass retort. so why do u not answer my honest original question?

It wasn't a "silly smartass retort" You just didn't like the answer. Why assume that gays motivation for getting married is fundamentally different from that of heterosexuals?

[mrmitchell]

bumping this so it can be right above the "burn in hell" titled thread

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Marriage existed without state recognition for centuries. I'm not assuming anything. If the state wants to limit who can marry (as slave states generally did not recognize "marriage" by slaves who were not baptized Christians)




It wasn't a "silly smartass retort" You just didn't like the answer. Why assume that gays motivation for getting married is fundamentally different from that of heterosexuals?

the state in no way limits who can marry w/o state recognition. I'm sure there's a church that'll do it.

and it wasn't an answer at all, it was a question. learn the difference.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


In this instance there are discernable differences that do effect the outcome. Men and women are not inchangeable parts, for which to replace one with the other affords no loss of efficiency.

The state has no interest in the outcome. A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. The state certainly shows no interest if a couple of Jerry Springer rejects do a Vegas marriage then get divorced and do it again ten times over. If there's no qualitative interest in who gets married, then why the hangup over queers?

Everyone has access to marriage. I fail to see how the current decision denies rights to some that are available to others.

We have the benefit (well, I'm speaking for myself, the way you carry on with MrFun, I'm not so sure about you ) of being heterosexual adults. That means we can marry who we choose, assuming the respective lucky women will put up with us. MrFun, if he wants to get married to his partner, can not do so. Why? And what is it that gives the state a compelling interest in this?

Hardly. If you don't want to get married to a woman, then don't get married! The state does not force anyone to marry.

It's not a question of being forced. It is a question of being denied the right to marry the partner of your choice, for no good reason.

So I love my parents. Should I marry my mom? Marriage is about more than just love.

Although one would wonder about you and your mom's psychological health, as long as both of you were mentally competent to give consent, and chose to do so freely, the only compelling reason I can see for prohibiting the marriage is concern for the wellbeing of any children of the marriage due to increased probability of hereditary diseases and genetic defects. That is the only compelling reason to prohibit the marriage, IMO. Society may not like it, but it wasn't long ago that we didn't want niggers, spics and others polluting our Great White Race. Your argument could just as easily be used to bring back miscegenation statutes, and you haven't demonstrated any difference in the reasoning for prohibiting one type of partner selection as opposed to another.

If a prohibition of gay marriage doesn't discriminate, because a gay man can still marry any competent adult woman, whether he wants to or not, then a miscegenation statute doesn't discriminate, because any white can marry any other competent adult white of the opposite gender, and any non-white can marry someone of his or her race. It's the same argument, unless you can give me any compelling reason for making the distinction?

I've yet to hear one advanced by anybody, other than something that essentially boils down to "we don't like them fudgepackers."

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Everyone has access to marriage. I fail to see how the current decision denies rights to some that are available to others.

This is the third time I've seen you post this rubbish. Last time (thread: "Canada shelves gay marriage legislation"), I called you on it. I twice asked you the following, but you never answered. I'm going to try again:

Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man? Do you think that you could, as you put it, "control your sexual urges" towards women, and instead take a man's hand at the altar? And enjoy that honeymoon? And set up a life-long love nest with him? Could you really do that? I'm not kidding here, I want to know.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, if those I debate with are not at all interested in reevaluating their opinions, I don't see why I should bother to waste my energy.

I've changed my mind before. Just ask Berz.

Secondly, I'm not Catholic, so clearly I have an open mind to relgious opinions that are not my own.

If you really want to get me to change my opinion, start by answering yavoon's first question. Why do gay people want to get married?

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If you really want to get me to change my opinion, start by answering yavoon's first question. Why do gay people want to get married?

Because they love each other?

[Ben Kenobi]

mindseye:

Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man?

No.

Do you think that you could, as you put it, "control your sexual urges" towards women, and instead take a man's hand at the altar?

False dilemma. I could opt not to marry a man, and choose to live as a celibate. Yes I do believe I could control my sexual urges. I would find this vastly preferable than taking the hand of the man.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Why do gay people want to get married?

As a gay person, let me clear this up for you. MtG already answered it perfectly: we want to get married for the same reasons straight people do.

Why do you think gay people are so different from straights? Except for the matter of the gender of the people we fall in love with, we're just the same. Love is love.

edit: formattting

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by yavoon
the state in no way limits who can marry w/o state recognition. I'm sure there's a church that'll do it.

If a church does it (actually, you can self-ordain in this looney country and create your own church), it can only do it in accordance with state law. The states assert that they have a compelling public interest in regulating marriage, at least since 1896, when Congress informally interjected itself in the Utah statehood petition and made a doctrinal renunciation of polygamy by the Mormon church an off the books condition of granting statehood to the Utah Territory.

and it wasn't an answer at all, it was a question.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "rhetoric?"

learn the difference.

Eat me.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.

That's right children. It's ok to hate as long as the state says it is!

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye Would you be satisfied if the gov't said you could marry anyone you wanted as long as he was a man?

No.

But you expect gays to be satisfied?

False dilemma. I could opt not to marry a man, and choose to live as a celibate. Yes I do believe I could control my sexual urges. I would find this vastly preferable than taking the hand of the man.

So then gays really don't have equal access to marriage then, do they? You are asking them to marry some one of their non-preferred gender, something you just admitted you could not do. As you just pointed out, the only other choice they have is to "opt out" of marriage.

You call that "equal access"?

[Combat Ingrid]

Interesting fact about the Swedish welfare system:
I have shared my apartment with several roommates over the years. When we were of opposite gender, the government would happily subsidise the apartment because since we lived under the same roof we were a couple (unless we stated differently). On the other hand, when we were of the same gender, we would not be subsidised unless we first registered homosexual partnership.

[Drake Tungsten]

Eat me.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


If a church does it (actually, you can self-ordain in this looney country and create your own church), it can only do it in accordance with state law. The states assert that they have a compelling public interest in regulating marriage, at least since 1896, when Congress informally interjected itself in the Utah statehood petition and made a doctrinal renunciation of polygamy by the Mormon church an off the books condition of granting statehood to the Utah Territory.





Have you ever heard of the concept of "rhetoric?"





Eat me.

if its so rhetoric to u why do we spend 5 posts going back and forth. giving two smartass question replies, when a simple answer would have sufficed. I really don't understand.

I want to know why gay ppl want the state recognition of marriage. but u dont answer me. is this how u treat all ppl who ask honest questions? w/ venom and uninspiring attempts at wit?

[Ben Kenobi]

MtG:

(sorry mindseye)

The state has no interest in the outcome.

Not the first time I've addressed this question either. What qualitative benefits does society retain from traditional marriage? The first is that a stable marriage is the best environment for raising children. Why, if the state has no interest in the preservation of marriage, do they work to decrease the divorce rate?

That means we can marry who we choose, assuming the respective lucky women will put up with us.

But we cannot marry a man, nor can we marry 6 women who happen to strike our fancy should we desire them. So does Mr. Fun. He can marry a nice woman if she also desires to marry him. Same rights, same equality.

If he does not desire a woman, that is not discrimination, but his own decision not to marry.

denied the right to marry the partner of your choice, for no good reason.

No good reason? Care to address my point about the interchangeability of genders? Society does not have a requirement to provide all benefits equally, otherwise, you would have to give unmarried bachelors the same provisions as a married couple.

Your argument could just as easily be used to bring back miscegenation statutes, and you haven't demonstrated any difference in the reasoning for prohibiting one type of partner selection as opposed to another.

Reason with me here. What tangible differences will marrying a black woman have for the marriage, as marrying a white woman? Will the children in one be more likely to be deformed, as in the other? Would the black woman be less able to care for a child than the white woman? No. However, we can say that the two will create a tangible difference in both incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Yavoon: how many times do you want the same answer?

The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do

[Pekka]

I'll call this one on simple logic: Two people marry each other because they love each other, bottom line.
If the two people happens to be both men or women, why should it not be possible, after all they love each other, right? Who cares if two lovers wants to make it official? I don't care if two gay people marry each other, it's none of my business. Let them. Why not, it doesn't affect my life, so I don't want to object it either. So this wonders me how anyone else thinks it will affect their lives, and why would they object it, because it' s not about them, but the two people. It's their thing.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Yavoon: how many times do you want the same answer?

The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do
The same reasons straight people do

state them.

state why gay ppl want the state to recognize their marriage

if u keep this up much longer I will suspect its a smoke screen for an actual lack of an answer

also realize this was not some super anti gay marriage trap I'm leading u all down. it was an honest question that so far no1 has had the courtesy or ability to answer.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

But we cannot marry a man, nor can we marry 6 women who happen to strike our fancy should we desire them. So does Mr. Fun. He can marry a nice woman if she also desires to marry him. Same rights, same equality.

If he does not desire a woman, that is not discrimination, but his own decision not to marry.

That is, by far, the most bullshit statement ever. Not only does it ignore the fact that homosexuality is a orientation, it also indicates you APPROVE of people taking advantage of the marraige laws in order to take benifits from the state without perhaps the most IMPORTANT quality for a marraige: love.

I don't understand that...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by yavoon

state them.

state why gay ppl want the state to recognize their marriage

MtG Question to you: so just to check why do ppl want to marry again?
Your response: if u ask me why I want to marry its to show love and commitment to the same person and raise a family.

And you are straight, right? So you actually answered your own question

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


MtG Question to you: so just to check why do ppl want to marry again?
Your response: if u ask me why I want to marry its to show love and commitment to the same person and raise a family.

And you are straight, right? So you actually answered your own question

obviously u lack the ability to quote the entire post.

did u purposefully leave out the part where I said "neither requires the gov't." or was that mere naivete. somehow I doubt the latter.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Holy ****ing ****. You seriously want me to answer every word for you, you can't just take meaning from me answering most?

Neither do require the government. But say the government suddenly said that only women could vote. Women have the same reasons as men why they want to vote, they just can't. Why should the government be able to deny them the benefits of voting even though their needs are the same as men?

I honestly can't believe that you can't associate the two. How old are you, 12?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Holy ****ing ****. You seriously want me to answer every word for you, you can't just take meaning from me answering most?

Neither do require the government. But say the government suddenly said that only women could vote. Women have the same reasons as men why they want to vote, they just can't. Why should the government be able to deny them the benefits of voting even though their needs are the same as men?

I honestly can't believe that you can't associate the two. How old are you, 12?

another post w/o answering the question. tho in place of smartass question replies. u've stuck condescention and flaming. obviously we are working our way up the ladder here.

and the right to vote IMO holds discernable and substantial differences from who the gov't decides to recognize as married. thus it is a poor(tho obviously advantageous to u) analogy.