Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
So I can't play your "Your marriage is invalid" game?

Is it because I don't care if the Feds declare my marriage illegal?

I'm asking tec, specifically, because I know being married (calling it marriage) is important to him.  

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Fine, tec.  But at the end of the day, they want to be equals to you or me.  This scenario I presented sounds ridiculous to you.  If Connecticut DID have this history, you'd probably be upset with it.  People from Connecticut are no different from New York.  What's the difference?  

This is what many people who are for SSM feel.

You also really haven't addressed my stance on standing for things on "this is how it's always been done." Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Acknowledged, in general terms.

Can you acknowledge that just because something is currently "popular", that existing laws do not necessarily need to be changed to accomodate it?

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
So I can't play your "Your marriage is invalid" game?

Is it because I don't care if the Feds declare my marriage illegal?

I'm asking tec, specifically, because I know being married (calling it marriage) is important to him.  

It's a silly hypothetical.  Let's stick to reality and the issue at hand.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
So I can't play your "Your marriage is invalid" game?

Is it because I don't care if the Feds declare my marriage illegal?

I'm asking tec, specifically, because I know being married (calling it marriage) is important to him.  

It's a silly hypothetical.  Let's stick to reality and the issue at hand.

I'd argue not being able to be married because you're attracted to someone of the same sex (not your choice, just the way you're wired) is equally as silly.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Fine, tec.  But at the end of the day, they want to be equals to you or me.  This scenario I presented sounds ridiculous to you.  If Connecticut DID have this history, you'd probably be upset with it.  People from Connecticut are no different from New York.  What's the difference?  

This is what many people who are for SSM feel.

You also really haven't addressed my stance on standing for things on "this is how it's always been done." Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Acknowledged, in general terms.

Can you acknowledge that just because something is currently "popular", that existing laws do not necessarily need to be changed to accomodate it?

Sure.  Asking for equality is a popular thing to do now, I suppose.

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 3:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 3:03:00 PM (view original):
So I can't play your "Your marriage is invalid" game?

Is it because I don't care if the Feds declare my marriage illegal?

I'm asking tec, specifically, because I know being married (calling it marriage) is important to him.  

It's a silly hypothetical.  Let's stick to reality and the issue at hand.

I'd argue not being able to be married because you're attracted to someone of the same sex (not your choice, just the way you're wired) is equally as silly.

What if the person you were attracted to (not your choice, just the way you're wired) and not allowed to marry was a pre-adolescent child?  Is that equally as silly?

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Fine, tec.  But at the end of the day, they want to be equals to you or me.  This scenario I presented sounds ridiculous to you.  If Connecticut DID have this history, you'd probably be upset with it.  People from Connecticut are no different from New York.  What's the difference?  

This is what many people who are for SSM feel.

You also really haven't addressed my stance on standing for things on "this is how it's always been done." Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Acknowledged, in general terms.

Can you acknowledge that just because something is currently "popular", that existing laws do not necessarily need to be changed to accomodate it?

Sure.  Asking for equality is a popular thing to do now, I suppose.

Equality via a civil union.  I'm all for it.

This is very silly.

No one is saying "Stop being gay!!"
No one is saying "Your relationship cannot be legally recognized!!!"
A few are saying "Why are you DEMANDING your legally recognized relationship be called marriage?"

No.  Do you see a difference between being attracted to an adult of the same sex and being attracted to children?  Do you understand why a 10 year old can't get married?

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Fine, tec.  But at the end of the day, they want to be equals to you or me.  This scenario I presented sounds ridiculous to you.  If Connecticut DID have this history, you'd probably be upset with it.  People from Connecticut are no different from New York.  What's the difference?  

This is what many people who are for SSM feel.

You also really haven't addressed my stance on standing for things on "this is how it's always been done." Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Acknowledged, in general terms.

Can you acknowledge that just because something is currently "popular", that existing laws do not necessarily need to be changed to accomodate it?

Sure.  Asking for equality is a popular thing to do now, I suppose.

Equality via a civil union.  I'm all for it.

Great.  People from Connecticut are also as equal as everyone else, through civil unions.  

You're angry again, right?  Why?  Could it be that you want to be married, and a civil union isn't good enough?

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 3:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/8/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/8/2013 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Fine, tec.  But at the end of the day, they want to be equals to you or me.  This scenario I presented sounds ridiculous to you.  If Connecticut DID have this history, you'd probably be upset with it.  People from Connecticut are no different from New York.  What's the difference?  

This is what many people who are for SSM feel.

You also really haven't addressed my stance on standing for things on "this is how it's always been done." Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Can you acknowledge that just because something happens routinely doesn't mean that it's right?

Acknowledged, in general terms.

Can you acknowledge that just because something is currently "popular", that existing laws do not necessarily need to be changed to accomodate it?

Sure.  Asking for equality is a popular thing to do now, I suppose.

Equality via a civil union.  I'm all for it.

What's the difference between civil union and marriage?

A civil union is the state recognizing you are a couple.
Marriage is the church recognizing you are a couple.

Neither should interfere in the other. If the Catholic church says "we won't marry you", to anyone, that's their business. But the Catholic church should not then say "it's illegal for the state to recognize that union".

Which makes it kind of weird that this has become a gov't interference thing, when it's more of a gov't stepping away thing.

Are Justice of the Peace or ship captains religion based?

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/8/2013 4:52:00 PM (view original):
Are Justice of the Peace or ship captains religion based?

Justice of the Peace are employed by the state, so no. Marry the labia rubbers already.

Ship's captain, no. So, I suppose, it's up to him or her whether or not he or she marries them, much like if he or she was a religion.

I know that if I were in charge of a ship, and I wanted return customers, I'd marry them.