Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?

So you're on record as "not OK with sibling marriage."

Are you OK with gay marriage?

Read the thread. 

You force me to start ignoring you when you ask me to repeat myself.

I just want you to be clear.

Based on the thread, I'll infer that you are not OK with gay marriage.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?

I don't know.  Probably, but I don't know for sure.  I don't know many polygamists and I haven't heard much about them.  If there was a thread here on "Should polygamy be legal" you wouldn't see me posting on it.

Why do you have no opinion on gay marriage but you're against sibling marriage?  Didn't we say they're the same thing? 

Well, I'll explain briefly.

I believe it's possible to love a sibling like no other.   I believe it's possible to love the same sex like no other.  I believe it's possible to love two people equally regardless of sex.   So, if one believes these things to be true, one really should have some logical objection to the union of said people or they should just STFU.  And here you go:

Sibling:  They've known one another their entire lives.   No one but them knows their exact history.   It's troubling to me, even in sterile situations, because there is the possiblity that one holds some sort of sway over the other.    "Hey, sis, get me my Legos", "Hey, sis, get me a soda", "Hey, sis, suck my dick", "Hey, sis, we're getting married."     I'd rather deny a million "legit" sibling marriages than have one that began forming when both were still poopin' their pants.

Same sex:  No real objection to man/man or woman/woman marriage.   But the overwhelming reason for it is "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy."   None of which is a problem but it isn't applicable to just this particular marriage.    So I believe it cracks a door to the next one.

Polygamy:   The marriage of multiple people.  As I mentioned above, I think it's possible for consenting adults to love more than one person.  To love them so much they want to marry them.  So, if we apply "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy", we have polygamy.  Much like everything in our lives, we want more.   So it would quickly evolve from one man/two women or two men/one woman.   We'd have multiple people.   And, if you buy into "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy", you can't restrict the number.   Now you've got hundreds of people legally married to one another.   I see that as problematic.   And, because of this, I need more than "They're in love.  They want to be married.  Let them be happy" to get behind gay marriage.   Having no opinion seems to be the appropriate position for me.   I'm not going to object to it but I'm not marching on DC in support either.

Slippery slope.

Allowing gay marriage doesn't force us to allow polygamy. Just like allowing interracial marriage didn't force us to allow polygamy.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 1:36:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I'm not OK with sibling marriage.   I won't be.  Under any circumstance.   I was just arguing against your point of "They have other options!"

Let's assume all wives/husbands would have to consent to bringing another party into their marriage.     OK by you?

So you're on record as "not OK with sibling marriage."

Are you OK with gay marriage?

Read the thread. 

You force me to start ignoring you when you ask me to repeat myself.

I just want you to be clear.

Based on the thread, I'll infer that you are not OK with gay marriage.

You've got 20+ pages of me being clear. 

Read the thread again if you don't think I've been clear enough.    The problem isn't me being clear, it's you understanding.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/3/2013 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 4/3/2013 1:41:00 PM (view original):

For those who say it isn't "natural"...what does that matter?  Birth control isn't natural.  Ban it?

Maybe those people would say "yes" when you say birth control should be banned. Maybe they don't want people to do anything that isn't natural.

Or maybe they just don't want marriage to be unnatural and don't care about other topics such as birth control.

As for hiring people, keep in mind  my personal opinion is you should be able to hire the best candidate for the job regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, beliefs, etc. That means if all the best candidates are men, or Asian, or muslim,  then that is what your work force would consist of.

I think it's ridiculous anyone an employer thinks is the best candidate should not be hired for a job, and it's even more ridiculous that anyone who is NOT the best candidate should be hired because of a personal trait that has nothing to do with the job itself.

This is another topic perhaps best discussed elsewhere, but I wanted to clarify that since it was brought up.

Cars aren't natural.  Nor computers.  Ban them.

Just marriage has to be "natural?" Why?

And I think it's ridiculous if a person thinks they found someone who is the best candidate to marry, that laws will tell them that they're wrong.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 12:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 11:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 5:57:00 AM (view original):
I did not give "inability to raise children as well" as a reason not to allow gay marriage.  Somebody else mentioned gays adopting children and I responded, as a tangental discussion.

So we agree that children have nothing to do with the gay marriage argument.

Sure.

Cool.

And your argument is that allowing gays to marry is a change to marriage?

Yes.

OK. I guess my response to that is, so what? Marriage has changed many times before.

It used to be a property arrangement. It was also a way for families to consolidate power. Marriages used to be arranged (and still are in some parts of the world). Wives used to be considered the property of their husbands. Adultery used to be a crime. Divorces not allowed (and then only allowed in certain circumstances). Marriages in the US used to be restricted to people of the same race and interracial marriage wasn't completely legal until 1967. And in many states gays are marrying now. The sky hasn't fallen. Marriage hasn't been ruined for anyone else.

Marriage has always been between males and females.  That's been a constant aspect of marriage, and universal in all cultures since the beginning of human civilization.

Do you deny that?

Nope. I'm saying that marriage has changed before. Marriage now includes gays. The sky isn't falling. Marriage is fine. What's the problem?

The other "changes" to marriage have all been ancillary changes.  The most fundamental aspect of marriage is that it is between a man and a woman, and always has been since the begining of human civilization, across all cultures.

The "problem" is changing the fundamental definition of marriage to be something other than what it has always been since the beginning of time, just to be trendy and make people feel good about themselves ("Hooray!  Look at me!  I support gays!").  It's a knee-jerk reaction of the political correctness movement that started around 25 years or so ago that has gone to extremes to the point of absurdity.

Political correctness is not a reason to **** all over tens of thousands of years of human culture and tradition.

Can I say that any more clearly?

I understand what you're saying. My question is, what's the harm in changing marriage to allows gays to marry? We've already done it. Marriage hasn't collapsed. What's the problem?

I think the problem is that you either cannot or refuse to understand the difference between funamental and ancillary.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/3/2013 2:25:00 PM (view original):
I believe the liberal way is to get the door cracked open and then bumrush it with all the other things that want to be let inside.

I believe the conservative way is to close the door, lock it, bolt it and push some furniture in front of it.

I don't like either way.   I'm simply asking "OK, if I let you in, why won't I be forced to let those hundred other people in too?"

R. D. McIlwaine III, then Virginia's assistant attorney general, in Loving v. the State of Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned miscegenation laws:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Responding to Tec:
But the change has already happened. There are gay married couples all over the country. What's the damage?

Posted by dahsdebater on 4/3/2013 2:29:00 PM (view original):
The only person opposed to gay marriage laws in this thread who has sounded remotely reasonable was swamp.  Where did that come from?

FWIW, I'm actually with bistiza in terms of preferring not to use the term marriage with regards to homosexual couples, or for that matter anyone else "married" by the state, but I do think homosexual couples deserve the rights associated with marriage.  And frankly, I'm not going to get so caught up in the rhetoric that I'd get all up in arms over legalization of gay marriage, I'd rather see that than the continued repression of the rights of gay couples who in some cases are far more committed than many married heterosexual couples.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/3/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/3/2013 2:26:00 PM (view original):
Responding to Tec:
But the change has already happened. There are gay married couples all over the country. What's the damage?

Those should never have happened.