Aji’s got a lot of supposition and hearsay. Those are kinds of arguments…
Amazing really. You claim to be engaged in this discussion and have participated in this thread and the won in the Pit. I mentioned it in both places. More than once. Others have commented on it. Good job with the reading thing, chum!
See Post #242.
So no, “marriage” is the *only *word upon which you’re taking this remarkable position. Got it.
Do you somehow think that helps your cause here?
I think this or somerhing like this is it for some people. They don’t want to deal with what they might feel by seeing or dealing with out in the open gay couples, so it’s best to not have that. Pretty dam selfish. They can’t see thier feelings as cultural programing that is incorrect.
If the anti SSM crowd has other ideas they haven’t presented them. You claim this is mistaken but refuse to demonstrate it is so. No mind reading is nessecary , just deduction and analysis.
The argument he believes in is that a gay couple can’t naturally produce children without outside help, marriage is primarily about creating an institution to raise children, therefore no marriage for them.
(Personally though, he believes in the “God said no” argument but he doesn’t like arguing it because he knows nobody worth their weight in salt would actually use that argument to try and convince others)
It’s absolutely, completely 100% illogical, considering that many straight couples can’t or don’t choose to produce children or if they do, choose not to raise them, and also that gay couples can raise their own children with outside help, or adopt or foster children, but there it is.
I think the statement was no arguments that don’t boil down to those three. I still haven’t seen any.
You complained that people using their powers of observation and deduction were pretending to be mind readers. What is far more disturbing to me and are people who are convinced they know the mind of God. and use that to dig in agasint facts and decent reasoning.
IMO, Christianity at least has some obligation to seek and value the truth and discern the difference between tradition and beliefs grounded in available knowledge and evidence, as part of that truth seeking. Coming to the table of public policy and ignoring the factual details in order to embrace old traditions isn’t impressive. I also find it disturbing that people using the name of Christ can continue to do harm to people who haven’t harmed them and pose no threat at all.
Not only that. People unfit to be parents have children all the time and can readily get married. The whole “what’s best for children” argument just doesn’t hold up to scrutiney when it’s obvious the imagined ideal doesn’t reflect what happens in real life.
When a hetero couple with one sterile partner make the extra effort to have a child everyone applauds. When a hetero couple decides they simply don’t want children nobody cares because “that’s thier business, thier right, their choice”
Nobody tells them thier marriage is not a real marriage {Well her mother does but we all wish she’d just shut up}
A freaking pedophile can marry a woman with children, have his own children, and adopt children with nobody raising an eyebrow (until he is caught). It’s known as “growing your own.”
I’ll repeat the tale of the lesbian I knew who got pregnant via rape and decided to have the baby and raise it with her long time partner. I told her to ask the anti-abortion protestors what they thought she should do. The universal, unanimous, 100% given answer was “Have the baby and give it to a real family”!
Observation and deduction. Thank you, Sherlock. BTW, who plays you better on TV: Miller or Cumberbatch?
I’d support legislation that would limit a pedophile’s marriagebility or ability to adopt.
What’s suprising about the pro-lifers’ response?
How is a committed lesbian couple having a child not a real family??? What are they–polyester?
Two women? Polyestrogen.
Nothing, really, but that response *will *get more and more surprising over the upcoming years.
It’s saddening, though, just as it is every other time someone rationalizes a hatred by calling it their religious belief.
Be sure to indicate such on your Governmental Preference Expression form, tuesdayer.
I find it remarkable that, over a hundred posts after asking OTHER people to define his proposal for him, and after two attempts to define his proposal for him (I and Miller have inexplicably obliged with the strange request), and nearly fifty posts after being asked to define his own proposal, and after several intervening posts of his own in this thread and a companion thread in the Pit, magellan has declined to give us a concrete proposal to look at.
“Remarkable” in the above sentence should be read with its older meaning, “able to be remarked upon,” and not with its modern meaning of “surprising.”
Oh, you want me to write actual law. So, me, not being a lawyer, you can then point and critique. Uhhhhh, no. Not gonna happen. The only important thing is how things are set up. If you have a problem shooting things down from that standpoint, you might want to rethink your position.
Of course that’s not what I’m asking. You put forward half of your proposal in 281, but as I pointed out later, your proposal offers no guidance on who gets which kind of license–either that information is contained in another part of the law, or else it’s contained in the hearts of every county clerk or something. I assume it’s in another part of the state legal code, so I’m asking you to provide us your proposal for that part of the code with the same level of rigor with which you already provided us with half of your proposal. Keep in mind that you asked us to define your proposal for you, and we obliged: we’re only asking you to do for your own proposal what two people have already attempted to do for it.
Right now we don’t have anything to discuss except your claims about your proposal. People clearly don’t believe your claims, but without the proposal itself, it’s hard to tell. Please offer the complete proposal, not in legalese, but with enough specificity that we have something clear to discuss.
Then I’m not understanding what you’re looking for beyond what I provided. And when did I ask you to define my proposal? Not recalling that.
Here’s what you asked for:
Here’s where you’re asking us to tell you what the proposal is; both Miller and I tried to do so. But the problem is, post 281 doesn’t do what you claim your proposal does, as I later explained:
You’ve said:
Here’s the situation: Mary, the County Clerk in Magellan County, is approached by Bob and Steve, who ask for a marriage license. She wants to know whether to issue a marriage license to them, so she looks to the lawbooks.
She finds post 281. But she’s still unclear: can she issue a marriage license to these two men?
I’m asking you to tell me what she’ll find in the lawbook in Magellan County that can guide her decision. Is there anything in the law book that will guide her decision, or must she guess?
Let me put the question in the simplest manner I can think of.
First, to your claim. Your position is the marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples, and that some other arrangement which we all seem to agree would be called “civil unions”, which grants the same legal protections and property rights as marriage does, would be established for non-heterosexual couples. And also that there would be one marriage law for everyone, “like a driver’s license” as you put it.
Is this a fair summary of your position?
So the question is – on what justification could a gay couple be refused a marriage license, unless the law specifically created one or more classifications of people who are not entitled to one. In fact, there at least one such class of people now – people below the age of legal consent. Two 5 year olds can’t marry each other, and I don’t think any of us has a problem with that one.