DOMA & Prop 8 Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 11:14:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 10:23:00 AM (view original):
We should let them. Because marriage is important to them and it doesn't affect us either way.
If somebody wanted to marry their toaster oven, should we allow that?  Maybe marrying their toaster oven is important to that person, and It doesn't affect anybody else.
Can a toaster enter into a legal contract? 
Are we now protecting the rights of toasters?
4/2/2013 11:21 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 11:14:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 10:23:00 AM (view original):
We should let them. Because marriage is important to them and it doesn't affect us either way.
If somebody wanted to marry their toaster oven, should we allow that?  Maybe marrying their toaster oven is important to that person, and It doesn't affect anybody else.
Can a toaster enter into a legal contract? 
Why should that matter?

Why don't you want the person to be happy?  How does that affect you?
4/2/2013 11:21 AM
The Taint
Posts: 12583 (1)
Hall of Famer
994 3
Hall of Famer
dumb, that argument is dumb.

About as dumb as saying in my experience a heterosexual couple can raise a child better, while admitting you have zero experience with a homosexual couple raising a child.
4/2/2013 11:23 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 11:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 11:14:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 10:23:00 AM (view original):
We should let them. Because marriage is important to them and it doesn't affect us either way.
If somebody wanted to marry their toaster oven, should we allow that?  Maybe marrying their toaster oven is important to that person, and It doesn't affect anybody else.
Can a toaster enter into a legal contract? 
Why should that matter?

Why don't you want the person to be happy?  How does that affect you?
Because you can't have a legal contract without at least two people, with the capacity to contract, entering into it. It's the same reason you can't marry your dog or a child.
4/2/2013 11:25 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Can't we change the definition of "legal contract' in order to make more people happy?    Seems that's what we're doing with the definition of "marriage".

4/2/2013 11:42 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Can't we change the definition of "legal contract' in order to make more people happy?    Seems that's what we're doing with the definition of "marriage".

Do you think that's the same thing?
4/2/2013 11:44 AM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Would you prefer I say "terms" for a "legal contract"?    If so, can I say "terms" for a "legal marriage"?

4/2/2013 11:46 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Would you prefer I say "terms" for a "legal contract"?    If so, can I say "terms" for a "legal marriage"?

I'm asking you if you think changing the terms of a legal contract to include people/things without the capacity to contract is the same as allowing gay marriage?
4/2/2013 11:48 AM
tecwrg
Posts: 18995 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 152 32 129
Prospect
Posted by The Taint on 4/2/2013 11:23:00 AM (view original):
dumb, that argument is dumb.

About as dumb as saying in my experience a heterosexual couple can raise a child better, while admitting you have zero experience with a homosexual couple raising a child.
Are you saying that you believe that men (fathers) and women (mothers) are completely interchangable in a parenting scenario?
4/2/2013 11:59 AM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
I was going to step in and own BL yet again, but it looks like (surprisingly) mikeT23 is already doing that.

This hasn't been a good day for  you, BL. First I own you when I point out the logical reasons sexual preference is ultimately a matter of choices people make, then mikeT23 owns you by pointing out how your idea of "it doesn't affect you" also holds no water.

Maybe you should just give up on trying to debate people on these boards.

4/2/2013 11:59 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 11:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 4/2/2013 11:23:00 AM (view original):
dumb, that argument is dumb.

About as dumb as saying in my experience a heterosexual couple can raise a child better, while admitting you have zero experience with a homosexual couple raising a child.
Are you saying that you believe that men (fathers) and women (mothers) are completely interchangable in a parenting scenario?
The American Sociological Association says so.

But it's irrelevant, the argument is gay marriage, not gay parenting.
4/2/2013 12:04 PM
The Taint
Posts: 12583 (1)
Hall of Famer
994 3
Hall of Famer
Posted by tecwrg on 4/2/2013 11:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by The Taint on 4/2/2013 11:23:00 AM (view original):
dumb, that argument is dumb.

About as dumb as saying in my experience a heterosexual couple can raise a child better, while admitting you have zero experience with a homosexual couple raising a child.
Are you saying that you believe that men (fathers) and women (mothers) are completely interchangable in a parenting scenario?
I don't have enough information to make a decision one way or another. I only know two people who were raised by same sex parents. One is a bigwig HR guy at Oracle and the other is a firefighter. Both are straight. Nothing in their upbringing makes me think there is a problem with same sex parenting, but again not enough info for myself to make any statements on the matter.

4/2/2013 12:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I've decided that gay marriage is fine in the interest of equality for all.  However, in the interest of equality for all, I think the bisexuals and polygamists are getting a raw deal.    Can we agree that marriage should be available to them?      Man, man, woman.    Or one man, forty two women.    Or, if there are bisexual polygamists, seventeen men and thirty two women?  

Or, as long as all one hundred thirty seven are consenting adults, seventy men and sixty seven women.

Can anyone provide a good reason to not allow these marriages?
4/2/2013 12:48 PM
bistiza
Posts: 3022 (0)
Hall of Famer
40 50 11 185 15
Prospect
How is it that I am suddenly both amused and impressed by MikeT23's logical decimation of the arguments to support gay marriage?

I mean, the argument I get, but coming from HIM? Wow.

4/2/2013 1:11 PM
swamphawk22
Posts: 13021 (0)
Hall of Famer
9 4 8 3 84 113 36
Prospect
We keep getting off topic.

The SC is not discussing if gay marraige is good or bad.

They are deciding if a state Constitution approved by a majority of the people, that does not allow gay marriage, is such a violation of the Constitution that it must be struck down.

It seems to set the bar for Federal Intervention into states rights pretty low.
4/2/2013 1:17 PM
◂ Prev 1...14|15|16|17|18...358 Next ▸
DOMA & Prop 8 Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.