That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

No precedent for that.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

No precedent for that.

No, the definition has always been two adults. Throughout US history there have been different restrictions on marriage (race and gender for example) but the definition has remained the same.

Wow, almost 200 pages and BL is still fighting the "good" fight for the homosexual agenda.

If you would never make a choice then it isn't really a choice.

If saying "it wasn't really a choice because I could never choose that" worked, there would be all manner of criminals who would be set free on the defense they "didn't have a choice because they felt compelled" to do whatever it was. The real zinger there is many of them would be telling the truth - they really couldn't help themselves. Nevertheless, what they did was a crime, and they don't get a free pass because "it wasn't a choice".

Any other choice works the same way. You don't get to claim it's "not a choice" because you feel a compelling urge to choose any particular option. In fact, you'd have to create a convoluted circumstance in order to find a place where you literally can't choose, and those are few and far between and not relevant to our discussion, such as someone forcing you with threat of violence and the like.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

No precedent for that.

No, the definition has always been two adults. Throughout US history there have been different restrictions on marriage (race and gender for example) but the definition has remained the same.

The traditional and universally common accepted definition has always been one man, one woman.  All throughout the history of human culture and civilization, that is what it has been.  It has never been just any two adults.

Stop making **** up to fit your failed argument.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 10:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 4:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

No precedent for that.

No, the definition has always been two adults. Throughout US history there have been different restrictions on marriage (race and gender for example) but the definition has remained the same.

The traditional and universally common accepted definition has always been one man, one woman.  All throughout the history of human culture and civilization, that is what it has been.  It has never been just any two adults.

Stop making **** up to fit your failed argument.

It is now. I think it's eleven states that allow gay marriage. The world hasn't ended.

So . . . 

It was not OK for states to redefine marriage away from the traditional and commonly accepted definition in 1967, but it is OK for states to do so in 2013?

Seems like there's a precedent for SCOTUS to step in and tell states "No, you cannot redefine marriage", since they already did so in '67.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 11:33:00 PM (view original):
So . . . 

It was not OK for states to redefine marriage away from the traditional and commonly accepted definition in 1967, but it is OK for states to do so in 2013?

Seems like there's a precedent for SCOTUS to step in and tell states "No, you cannot redefine marriage", since they already did so in '67.

States have always defined marriage. Which is why DOMA will get tossed. States didnt redefine marriage in 1967, SCOTUS did by ruling certain state laws illegal.

How is the argument that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman remotely relevant?  It's popular.  I get that.  But why does that matter at all?  Sexuality has always been defined by who one wants to sleep with, but bistiza thinks we should change that definition.  Why shouldn't we simultaneously change our definition of marriage?

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 12:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 11:33:00 PM (view original):
So . . . 

It was not OK for states to redefine marriage away from the traditional and commonly accepted definition in 1967, but it is OK for states to do so in 2013?

Seems like there's a precedent for SCOTUS to step in and tell states "No, you cannot redefine marriage", since they already did so in '67.

States have always defined marriage. Which is why DOMA will get tossed. States didnt redefine marriage in 1967, SCOTUS did by ruling certain state laws illegal.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

States "defined marriage" prior to 1967.  SCOTUS tossed their "definitions" then.  Now, you're saying that SCOTUS should NOT be tossing the states "definitions" in 2013.

So pick one side or the other . . . can states decide how marriage should be defined or not?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/15/2013 12:26:00 AM (view original):
How is the argument that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman remotely relevant?  It's popular.  I get that.  But why does that matter at all?  Sexuality has always been defined by who one wants to sleep with, but bistiza thinks we should change that definition.  Why shouldn't we simultaneously change our definition of marriage?

It's relevant because it has been the most fundamental aspect of marriage since the beginning of human culture and civilization.

So what?  Lots of the freedoms and choices we now take for granted as Americans would have seemed ridiculous to the vast majority of people a few hundred years ago.  Seems stupid to halt the expansion of freedoms now just because we're tired of altering tradition.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/15/2013 6:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/15/2013 12:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 11:33:00 PM (view original):
So . . . 

It was not OK for states to redefine marriage away from the traditional and commonly accepted definition in 1967, but it is OK for states to do so in 2013?

Seems like there's a precedent for SCOTUS to step in and tell states "No, you cannot redefine marriage", since they already did so in '67.

States have always defined marriage. Which is why DOMA will get tossed. States didnt redefine marriage in 1967, SCOTUS did by ruling certain state laws illegal.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

States "defined marriage" prior to 1967.  SCOTUS tossed their "definitions" then.  Now, you're saying that SCOTUS should NOT be tossing the states "definitions" in 2013.

So pick one side or the other . . . can states decide how marriage should be defined or not?

SCOTUS isn't deciding whether or not it's legal for states to allow gay marriage, that's legal and no one is challenging those laws.

SCOTUS is ruling on whether or not it's ok for the Feds to define marriage (probably not legal).

Why should it not be legal for the Feds to define marriage?