So nothing should ever change? What harm does it do to allow it? It's already happening in seven states and several other countries? Is the world coming to an end?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 2:42:00 PM (view original):
So nothing should ever change? What harm does it do to allow it? It's already happening in seven states and several other countries? Is the world coming to an end?

Change is fine if it's driven by a big enough practical reason.  I don't see how SSM meets that standard.

And the world is scheduled to come to an end on December 21, 2012.  It's been all over the internet.  Try to keep up with current events.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing that they are the same. Mike seems unable to comprehend that a right can be long recognized while at the same time exclude a group that should be included.

Why "should" said group be "included"?

Because you say so?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Why not placate them? If they want to be married, what harm does it do to allow it?

What good does it do to allow it?

It harms me just as much as it benefits me.

How does it harm you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing that they are the same. Mike seems unable to comprehend that a right can be long recognized while at the same time exclude a group that should be included.

Why "should" said group be "included"?

Because you say so?

It's a population of 10 million people that want to do something in their own private lives and half the country agrees that they should be allowed to do it. Why prevent them from doing it if it doesn't affect anyone else?

I said it harms me as much as it benefits me.  Which is "none".    However, someone killing one of your relatives would have the same harm/benefit affect on me.  Even though you're annoying, I wouldn't support legalizing that.

I thought we weren't allowed to vote on the rights of others.   Why did you just tell me half the country thinks it should be allowed?  FWIW, I doubt "half" the country thinks it should be allowed.   Maybe half doesn't care one way or the other.   

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing that they are the same. Mike seems unable to comprehend that a right can be long recognized while at the same time exclude a group that should be included.

Why "should" said group be "included"?

Because you say so?

It's a population of 10 million people that want to do something in their own private lives and half the country agrees that they should be allowed to do it. Why prevent them from doing it if it doesn't affect anyone else?

If half the country thinks it should be allowed, then why do voters seem to consistently vote to define marriage as "one man, one woman" when given the opportunity?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2012 3:19:00 PM (view original):
I said it harms me as much as it benefits me.  Which is "none".    However, someone killing one of your relatives would have the same harm/benefit affect on me.  Even though you're annoying, I wouldn't support legalizing that.

I thought we weren't allowed to vote on the rights of others.   Why did you just tell me half the country thinks it should be allowed?  FWIW, I doubt "half" the country thinks it should be allowed.   Maybe half doesn't care one way or the other.   

It doesn't matter if the murder doesn't harm you, it harms the person being murdered. Who does same sex marriage harm?

The dude on the receiving end when the marriage is consumated?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing that they are the same. Mike seems unable to comprehend that a right can be long recognized while at the same time exclude a group that should be included.

Why "should" said group be "included"?

Because you say so?

It's a population of 10 million people that want to do something in their own private lives and half the country agrees that they should be allowed to do it. Why prevent them from doing it if it doesn't affect anyone else?

You keep jumping over what I think is the defining issue.

When is the view of most of the people so bad that a handful of people at the top should get to overrule them.

I can see reasons why the courts need to overturn laws. I dont think this should be a passing fad. I think that just because some people dont like a law that if the people passed it we should try to maintain it.

Marrige is between man and wife(woman).  I married my woman she is my wife.  She marries a man her husband.  Who does a gay man marry, his husband, or a lesbian marries her wife?  Men and woman are different and I am sure that a lesbian would not want to be called the husband or a *** called the wife.  A woman cannot be the husband and visa versa.  Will I no longer be the husband but simply a spouse?  Are we to change what everyone is called just because a tiny minority feels put upon.  This lgbt thing is just a way to erode our collective morality and open the door for more lude things such as marrying your horse or adopting your snake so you can get free bennies.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2012 4:04:00 PM (view original):
The dude on the receiving end when the marriage is consumated?

Assuming he's consenting to that, who is same sex marriage harming?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/1/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 3:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2012 3:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/1/2012 2:27:00 PM (view original):
I'm not arguing that they are the same. Mike seems unable to comprehend that a right can be long recognized while at the same time exclude a group that should be included.

Why "should" said group be "included"?

Because you say so?

It's a population of 10 million people that want to do something in their own private lives and half the country agrees that they should be allowed to do it. Why prevent them from doing it if it doesn't affect anyone else?

You keep jumping over what I think is the defining issue.

When is the view of most of the people so bad that a handful of people at the top should get to overrule them.

I can see reasons why the courts need to overturn laws. I dont think this should be a passing fad. I think that just because some people dont like a law that if the people passed it we should try to maintain it.

Two different arguments.  The legal question is can a majority vote away the rights of a minority and, if they do, are the courts set up to protect the minority.  I think we moved on from this argument since we were really just going in circles.

The second argument isn't should gay marriage be allowed for legal reasons, but should it be allowed because it's something someone wants to do in their private life that doesn't harm anyone else.  Is that something the government should be involved in.

I don't think so.  Allowing same sex marriage doesn't harm anyone.  It's already legal in seven states and several other countries.  The institution of marriage didn't come crashing down.

Dude, you've been arguing since the beginning about "compelling legal reasons" with respect to SSM.  Now, you're saying it's not about legal reasons, it's about "should it be allowed because it's something someone wants to do in their private life that doesn't harm anyone else".

Pick an argument and stick with it.  If you can't do that, then stop participating in this discussion.