I am truly baffled by your response. On the assumption that I have explained myself badly, let me clarify.
I think SSM ought to be legal. I think people who object to it should be free to avoid it, not attend them, not invite them into their homes or churches. they should not be able to forbid it because they can’t sleep knowing that somewhere on the other side of town SSM couples exist.
Please explain to me what you see as the flaw in this, and please take your time, as the statement you’ve made to me so far don’t make any sense to me.
“that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying.”[1]
On May 15, 2008, the court ruled in a 4–3 decision that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage
What hasn’t been shown is that same-sex marriage is sufficiently different from opposite-sex marriage that is needs to be considered a different classification under the law.
Your answer is my cite. Animals don’t have human emotion so "romantic " as in “human-romantic” does not apply. Dogs may be romantic to other dogs in a canine way.
Are you asking me for a cite regarding what I tried to say? I used a word in a sense, correctly or not, and then explained waht I meant. It is foolish to ask for a cite where it is my expression.
The ones the others gave, they talk obout touching, mouinting and other stuff.
As for a society that accepted/expected homosexual intercourse, the Greeks are always mentioned and, guess what?, zero marriage; plenty buttfucking. I know enough same-sex couples to not need your irony-instead-of-brains phrases. SSM did not exist in Western societies, even as a concept 200 years ago (if you need a cite for that, go back to school).
It DOES exist, I’m not saying it doesn’t (I said it didn’t). GLBT should use all legal avenues to pursue their goals and I’m sure they’ll get them, but still it’d be inventing a right where none exists.
Nava: The fact the the impulse is natural, doesn’t mean it is always good to pursue it. I’ve kept religion out of the discussion and I’ll continue but not to escape the question: we all have “weaknesses”/“sinful desires” (mine, I’m sure, are worse in God’s eyes than buttfucking) but controlling is what makes us humans.
Most examples are male-male, thus the penetration emphasis. I know much, much more about lesbian sex than you imagine (no, it’s not because I watch porn), don’t tell me what I know (I maybe don’t know as much as anyone here, but it is still a lot)
Ro0sh: I’m sure that hormones play a role.
Sampiro: And I with them; furthermore since I’m not an US citizen or resident their decisions are simply opinions.
Man, you’re making ass-jokes? So quickly and out of ammo? And what if I’d been fucked in the ass? What difference would it make?
(Not a virgin, you mum wanted to eat my shit so badly that she stuck her finger up my ass while I was bukkakeing her, the sick bitch)
Outliern: I lose no sleep because of same-sex couples (unless they’re too loud), I don’t care what they do.
I think SSM ought not to be legal. I understand your phrase.
You seem to be accepting the I can tell them not to come to my church or home…will that include my club? Bar?
So, you’re OK with bars/club/restaurants/cinemas that don’t have non-smoking areas? You won’t be forced to eat at them.
Miller: If you hear hooves, you don’t think “okapi”, you think ”horse”. Marriage had a clear meaning for at least 1000 years. Maybe it was wrong or incomplete, but that was the meaning understood by all
I think your argument (and the basis of much of Olberman’s) is that since it doesn’t directly affect me, that I shouldn’t have a say in it. I don’t think that is right at all. We all have a right, and a vested interest, in carving out a society that we think is best. I am not a woman and will never need an abortion, yet I believe (strongly) that a pro-choice position is best for society. Or should all males be barred from the debate? I am not an eight-year-old who might murder his father (as recently happened), yet I feel obligated to add my voice to the debate that he be tried as a child. We each have the responsibility (or at least, a right) to add our hammer strokes the the chisel that defines our society. However small the impact.
Ají de Gallina, for the love of all that is holy, moist and oblong, please use the quote function. Those reading along may not always have immediate recall of what exactly you’re responding to.
In order to do what you just did in Post #169 but with direct references, there is a multi-quote function (the second, “close quote” icon), and then all of those will be included by clicking the “Quote” icon on the last post you wish to quote.
Neither does it refer to interracial marriage as a basic civil right, or marriage of convicts as a basic civil right. It refers to MARRIAGE as a basic civil right.
Prior to Loving v. Virginia, interracial marriage was illegal in many states; had Barack Obama been born in Virgina or about half the other states of the union rather than in Hawaii he would have been legally illegitimate. What Loving v. Virginia did (and it was not the first case to do so) was state that marriage itself is a fundamental right, and that interracial marriage- though
1- forbidden in many states
2-only practiced by a minority of people
3-unarguably a choice as a “lifestyle option”
4- though offensive to millions due to their religious or personal beliefs
5- though not the norm in any culture
6- regardless of whether or not the marriage is for love/procreation/whatever
is nevertheless a valid form of marriage and deserving of all legal rights that pertain to marriage. And marriage is a fundamental right.
So, how much farther is it to say “a bond between two consensual members of the same gender wishing to legitimize their union in the eyes of the law is a valid form of marriage” and thus deserving of legality?
Uh, you may want to be careful with that argument. Yes, God made homosexuals and heterosexuals, not to mention blond hair, brown skin, and green eyes. But God also made necrophiliacs, pedophiles, and all manner of sexual “flavors”, including the guy who feels he must sit in a parked car wearing swim fins and a propeller hat and masturbate to women coming out of the gym. These things, too, are “natural”. So while homosexuality is “natural”, it is outside the norm. The degree to which it should be tolerated is definitely up to society. The fact hat the preference, or even, act, does no harm is significant, arguing that the degree of tolerance should be great. But to hold the position that it MUST be absolute is simply a leap.
Take ephebophilia, the sexual interest in those in mid to late adolescence. It is undoubtedly “natural”. Some might even argue normal (the norm) to be attracted to the opposite sex as it is just coming into maturity. Just look at the modeling world; many high-fashion models epitomize this stage. (Remember Brooke Shields in those jeans ads?) Not long ago, women would be married at that stage. Yet, society looks at this and makes a judgment as to what it thinks is most beneficial to society. Not just for today, but for tomorrow, too.
What I said was that it is a good default position to begin with until some case can be made for the impact on 3rd parties that is strong enough to curtail someones rights.
I have yet to see an arguement against SSM that, if valid, wouldn’t justify broadly suppressing homosexual behaviour, and I have yet to see an arguement I consider valid that SSM will harm 3rd parties badly enough to justify limiting the rights of gays.
Put another way, I don’t believe in, attend or belong to any organized religion, should I be able to define their doctine, however small my impact?
Sure I should, ifthey force 16 y/o to marry, or want to acrifice virgins
No. Because you are not part of that group you have no right to steer their doctrine. But we are all part of society. Should I, a male, be denied a voice in the abortion debate?
I fucking despise this argument. Marriage has not had a clear meaning that has ever been maintained through the test of time. The definition of marriage has constantly been adjusted to the current society.
But there is one part of it that has NOT changed: that it involve a man and a woman, If you like to broaden it to encompass polygamy, even: at least one man and one woman. And it is not accidental that these to parties are those needed for procreation. As I’ve argued, and I think Ají de Gallina has, this reflects the natural state of the union couples have formed and has been recognized as n=beneficial to society prior to the formulation of laws.
Further than the Constitution takes you. Marriage != same sex marriage.
We have gone thru this several times in GD. [ul][li]SSM does not exist as a basic civil right in the United States. []Under the US Constitution, the federal government possesses only those powers expressly granted it by the Constitution.[]The power to recognize or grant new rights is not expressly assigned to it by the Constitution.[]Ergo, the federal government may not recognize or grant new rights.[/ul]QED.[/li]
Further - [ul][li]The Ninth Amendment recognizes that there may exist other rights besides those enumerated by the Bill of Rights.[]The Tenth Amendment says explicitly where all powers not assigned to the federal government go - 'to the states, or the people".[*]Ergo, the power to grant or recognize new rights is the provenance “of the states, or the people”.[/ul]Therefore, if you are citing Supreme Court decisions in an effort to establish a new right, you are barking up the wrong tree. You need to establish in some way that “the states or the people” have acted to express their will that a new right to SSM should be established.[/li][quote=boytyperanma]
Marriage has not had a clear meaning that has ever been maintained through the test of time. The definition of marriage has constantly been adjusted to the current society.
[/quote]
OK, could you please cite a few of the societies who included same-sex marriage as an institution recognized by the state in their definition of “marriage”?