6/13/2013 6:04 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Why do you care SO MUCH about this law?
It strikes a chord with me. We prohibit a group of people from doing something that everyone else can. And we prohibit it primarily because we don't like them. 
Yet, SSM aside, not everybody can marry whoever they want.

If Joe is married to Sally, and he wants to also be married to Karen, he can't.

Why aren't you also fighting for Joe's rights?
I think he should be allowed to also marry Karen if he wants. I don't have a problem with polygamy.
6/13/2013 6:06 PM
Posted by bistiza on 6/13/2013 5:24:00 PM (view original):
We've already agreed that attraction to one gender or the other isn't a choice. You're arguing semantics.

We've already agreed that who you are with in sexual and/or romantic relationships is your choice.

We also agreed you don't always choose (or even have the option of choosing) to be with someone whose features match everything you find most attractive - meaning people choose to be with someone who isn't their ideal pick more often than not.

Put more simply: Attraction to one gender over another is no different than being attracted to any other feature i. e. If you're attracted to blondes and not brunettes, you may choose not to be with a brunette. That doesn't somehow mean you couldn't have made the choice to be with a brunette if you wanted to do so. Or you may choose to be with a brunette because you discover one whose other features you find attractive. Or maybe there are no blondes you like who also like you back, so you opt for a brunette since they do want you.

The point is there are plenty of reasons why people can - and do - choose to be with someone who isn't their ideal preference for any number of features, including hair color and, yes,  even gender. They can do this because IT'S A CHOICE.
In my opinion, your sexuality is determined by what gender you are attracted to. And, since we don't choose what gender we are attracted to, sexuality isn't a choice.

There's no point in arguing this, we aren't going to agree.
6/13/2013 6:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 6:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 5:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Why do you care SO MUCH about this law?
It strikes a chord with me. We prohibit a group of people from doing something that everyone else can. And we prohibit it primarily because we don't like them. 
Yet, SSM aside, not everybody can marry whoever they want.

If Joe is married to Sally, and he wants to also be married to Karen, he can't.

Why aren't you also fighting for Joe's rights?
I think he should be allowed to also marry Karen if he wants. I don't have a problem with polygamy.
So we've already established that you would have no problem with Joe marrying Chuck.

How about if Joe also wanted to marry Larry?

And then he also wanted to marry Bruce?

And then he also wanted to marry James?

And then he also wanted to marry Armando?

And then he also wanted to marry Frank?

And then he also wanted to marry David?

And then he also wanted to marry Greg?

And then he also wanted to marry Philip?

And then he also wanted to marry William?

And then he also wanted to marry Edward?

Is this scenario also OK with you?
6/13/2013 6:43 PM
Personally, no. Logistically, I think it's problematic. I don't have a problem drawing the line at polygamy either. I think arguing that if we allow gay marriage then we have to allow polygamy is ridiculous and a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy.

If you want to argue against polygamy, that's fine. But not wanting polygamy for whatever reason isn't an argument against gay marriage, it's an argument against polygamy.
6/13/2013 7:01 PM
No, it's an example about how there are social norms that defines limits or restrictions on various things, such as marriage.

Logistics aside, you would have no problem if somebody wanted to have one hundred spouses?  Two hundred spouses?  Five hundred spouses?  Three thousand spouses?

Is there any point where you might say "hey, wait a minute . . . this is getting ridiculous and making a joke out of marriage"?

Because, for many people, that point is reached when you go beyond "one man, one woman".
6/13/2013 7:17 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

6/14/2013 1:01 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?
6/14/2013 1:03 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 7:01:00 PM (view original):
No, it's an example about how there are social norms that defines limits or restrictions on various things, such as marriage.

Logistics aside, you would have no problem if somebody wanted to have one hundred spouses?  Two hundred spouses?  Five hundred spouses?  Three thousand spouses?

Is there any point where you might say "hey, wait a minute . . . this is getting ridiculous and making a joke out of marriage"?

Because, for many people, that point is reached when you go beyond "one man, one woman".
How likely is it that someone would have three thousand spouses? Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same thing. Allowing gay marriage doesn't obligate us to allow polygamy.
6/14/2013 5:16 AM
RUPERT MURDOCH GETTING DIVORCED AGAIN!

RUPERT, NEWT, AND RUSH LIMBURGER HAVE DESTROYED MORE MARRIAGES THAN ANY HOMOS EVER WILL!

MUST BE 10-12 DIVORCES BETWIXT THEM
6/14/2013 6:19 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 7:01:00 PM (view original):
No, it's an example about how there are social norms that defines limits or restrictions on various things, such as marriage.

Logistics aside, you would have no problem if somebody wanted to have one hundred spouses?  Two hundred spouses?  Five hundred spouses?  Three thousand spouses?

Is there any point where you might say "hey, wait a minute . . . this is getting ridiculous and making a joke out of marriage"?

Because, for many people, that point is reached when you go beyond "one man, one woman".
How likely is it that someone would have three thousand spouses? Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same thing. Allowing gay marriage doesn't obligate us to allow polygamy.
Based on this response, it sounds like there is a point for you where you're saying "hey, this is ridiculous" with respect to an alternate definition or variation of marriage.  We just have to figure out where that line is drawn for you.

For many people, that line is drawn when one goes beyond "one man, one woman".
6/14/2013 8:21 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense?    Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.  

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit.   Keep your lies straight. 

6/14/2013 8:52 AM
In my opinion, your sexuality is determined by what gender you are attracted to.

We've already been over the flaws in that opinion, SPECIFICALLY  the major flaw being how you want to define sexuality differently than virtually every other term or status assigned to an individual or group of people. While those terms or status are all assigned based upon actions, you want sexuality to completely ignore action in favor of stated attraction, and this makes no logical sense whatsoever.

You can have an illogical and flawed opinion if you'd like. But you can't try to argue something else based on that illogical and flawed opinion, as it will only lead to more illogical and flawed conclusions.

 
There's no point in arguing this, we aren't going to agree.

 
You are determined to be of an opinion that forwards the homosexual agenda, no matter what. Making logical sense is of no consequence to you, so long as your opinion gets heard and your agenda is forwarded. THAT is why we aren't going to agree.

6/14/2013 9:11 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 8:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:01:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 7:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 

Is there a reason this was ignored?

Is it because you think gay unions must be called "marriages" for the fight to be won?

It was ignored because it's nonsense. And when have I ever claimed to be a lawyer?

Nonsense because it makes perfect sense?    Gays get the same rights as everyone else and the traditionalists get to keep their definition of marriage.  

I guess your claim to be a lawyer was just bullshit.   Keep your lies straight. 

I've never claimed to be a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer. I didn't go to law school. I sell management liability insurance.
6/14/2013 9:14 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 6:19:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 1:03:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 7:01:00 PM (view original):
No, it's an example about how there are social norms that defines limits or restrictions on various things, such as marriage.

Logistics aside, you would have no problem if somebody wanted to have one hundred spouses?  Two hundred spouses?  Five hundred spouses?  Three thousand spouses?

Is there any point where you might say "hey, wait a minute . . . this is getting ridiculous and making a joke out of marriage"?

Because, for many people, that point is reached when you go beyond "one man, one woman".
How likely is it that someone would have three thousand spouses? Polygamy and gay marriage are not the same thing. Allowing gay marriage doesn't obligate us to allow polygamy.
Based on this response, it sounds like there is a point for you where you're saying "hey, this is ridiculous" with respect to an alternate definition or variation of marriage.  We just have to figure out where that line is drawn for you.

For many people, that line is drawn when one goes beyond "one man, one woman".
But there isn't. I really don't care if you have 3000 spouses. I also think that scenario is so unlikely that it shouldn't be worried about. And again, slippery slope.
6/14/2013 9:16 AM
Posted by bistiza on 6/14/2013 8:52:00 AM (view original):
In my opinion, your sexuality is determined by what gender you are attracted to.

We've already been over the flaws in that opinion, SPECIFICALLY  the major flaw being how you want to define sexuality differently than virtually every other term or status assigned to an individual or group of people. While those terms or status are all assigned based upon actions, you want sexuality to completely ignore action in favor of stated attraction, and this makes no logical sense whatsoever.

You can have an illogical and flawed opinion if you'd like. But you can't try to argue something else based on that illogical and flawed opinion, as it will only lead to more illogical and flawed conclusions.

 
There's no point in arguing this, we aren't going to agree.

 
You are determined to be of an opinion that forwards the homosexual agenda, no matter what. Making logical sense is of no consequence to you, so long as your opinion gets heard and your agenda is forwarded. THAT is why we aren't going to agree.

The definition of sexuality is who you are attracted to.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.