Posted by jrd_x on 5/17/2012 11:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 5/17/2012 9:53:00 AM (view original):1. Your values are great...for you. Why do you (figuratively) get to decide what someone else gets to do with their life?
Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):OK, I'm getting tired of jerking you around, as fun as it's been.
Posted by tecwrg on 5/16/2012 11:54:00 AM (view original):Since you're obviously so capable of independent thought, I'll try you.
I'm pretty sure that jrd is incapable of independent thought.
Hence his inability to answer questions on why he holds the "opinions" he does.
All he has done for nearly 30 pages in this thread is say "A is legal, B is illegal", or he avoids answering direct questions by deflecting/asking questions of his own.
Mike asks why a couple, who don't know each other and have been sterilized, but happen to be brother and sister, shouldn't be allowed to get married, while two gay guys who aren't related, should.
My answer is that one relationship is illegal while the other isn't. That's an important distinction. In order for incestual marriage to be legal, incest itself would need to be legal. If you or mike want to make that argument, go ahead.
My question to mike (or you) is this:
Couple A is in a legal romantic relationship. They want to get married.
Couple B is not in a legal romantic relationship. They want to get married.
Which couple should be allowed to get married?
I'm a "traditional values" kind of person. Thousands of years of human culture and social norms have defined marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Marriage is the bond that creates and holds the traditional family unit together. Traditional family being a man/husband/father, a woman/wife/mother, and zero to many children. I hold these traditional definitions of marriage and family to be the correct ones. As have many billions of people throughout the course of human history.
Same-sex marriage is a perversion of tradition, and spits in the face of thousands of years of human culture and social norms. The majority of people in this country do not want it, as can be seen by the fact that so many states have chosen to very specifically and emphatically define marriage as "the legal union of one man and one woman".
You can talk about the legality and constitutionality of same-sex marriage all you want. The FACT is that, legally, marriage has been defined at both a federal level and the state level as described above . . . one man and one woman. Yes there have been challenges, and some of these laws have been overruled in the courts, but every one of these overrulings are currently under appeal and have not definitively been upheld. Unless and until that happens, the constitutionality of same-sex marriage has not been established, and the traditional definition of marriage is still the legal law of the land.
2. There have been all kinds of cultural and social norms throughout history that were complete bags of **** that needed to be changed.
3. Same sex marriage is legal in at least seven states right now. There are also thousands of same sex couples that have valid California marriages. Currently, at least in seven states actively marrying same sex couples plus California, the definition of marriage includes same sex couples.
1. I don't get to decide. Lawmakers and judges do. I get to vote on the lawmakers who, hopefully, will take the views of their constituents who they represent into account when they make laws. Federal judges and Supreme Court justices are political appointees. Again, I get to vote for the President who, hopefully, will take the views of the U.S. citizens into account when making their political appointments. Also, my first amendment rights allow me to express my opinions, which include what I feel that people should be allowed to do or not do.
2. Please name one cultural and social norm that is/was as widely accepted throughout human history as traditional marriage that was a "complete bag of ****" that needed to be changed, and explain why you think that is.
3. Again, what you fail to acknowledge is that just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right. As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, slavery was once legal in the United States. If you were around in 1860, would you have been making the same argument in support of the institution of slavery (i.e. "it's legal, so it must be OK") as you are now for same-sex marriage?
What, exactly, is your personal agenda here in this discussion?