It’s unclear to me how gay marriage will affect straight marriage when straight marriage will continue unabated even after gay marriage is legalized.
Or at least I don’t know of straight marriage ceasing to exist in any venue that has gay marriage.
Also the definition for “IS” if you have it. :rolleyes:
Good luck getting him to answer that question.
You’ve made 109 posts since joining yesterday. Four of them did not involve gays, 102 of them are in this very thread. How exactly does SSM affect your job as owner of a small used bookstore? Are seriously going to argue that as the owner of a for profit business you should have the right to treat your employees differently because their sexual orientation? Or that as a musician offering services to the general public in exchange for money you should have the right to refuse service to a couple because they have matching genitalia?
I have been thinking about where I picked up that tidbit and I think it was one of the domestic law professors who lectured me. Give me some time here…and I could have said that better, “made” isn’t actually the clearest word–“affirmed” is better. I confess to writing and thinking too fast sometimes. I do mean to say that in some states you could be prosecuted for raping your wife very early on in the united states. I recall him mentioning that John Adams wife was demanding something be done because of some place in the United States, but it was a long time ago, and if I can’t find references I will concede my memory is a little fuzzy on some of that. I also recall the last holdouts were in the south in the seventies.
But this whole issue is really just an exercise in another’s strawman because I never argued in favor of spousal rape.
I’ll be back some time with the information or a concession.
Seriously. Even I can answer this one.
All you have to do is look at the destruction that legalizing same sex marriage has wrought in other states - even other countries. I mean, the divorce rate has sky-rocketed in those places, hasn’t it? I’m pretty sure Canada is going to make hetero marriage illegal any day now, I just know it.
This is a thread about gays. I’m posting about gays. Whatever is the problem? You don’t seriously propose that we debate gay marriage without mentioning gays do you?
Sharing some information does not mean I share all information. You can assume owning a small used bookstore is the only thing I do and that I fire gay employees, but I didn’t say that. Nor do I feel any compulsion to explain any and every detail of my life on demand. But in this case, I believe if my state legalized gay marriage I couldn’t refuse to perform at a wedding because I disbelieve in it. I’d play a party where some gays were and have a lot, but not a gay party where one can assume most if not all guests are gay. But at the end of a gay wedding with gobs of gay guests, I am pretty sure someone drunk beyond belief would make me uncomfortable. I should be free to avoid that without fear of being sued for discrimination for refusing to play at gay weddings but accepting straight marriage. Also, if I practice law, I don’t want to have to sit in court thinking about gay marriage all the freaking time.
Yes, to do my job a forced shift in my concept of marriage is necessary, and don’t pretend law doesn;t equate to force, please.
Is is a word ummm…that means ummm…:smack:
Prophecy much lately?
We recognize gradual harm in a great many circumstances and act before the utter ruin occurs. You could establish precedent that utter ruin must occur before action is taken to stop it. Myself I have argued of gradual increasing harm over a substantial period of time and think we need to act. It’s not like anybody claims straight marraige will instantly disappear.
So you would agree that a black musician should be free to refuse to play at a white couple’s wedding or a party were most of the guests were white because they were pretty sure someone drunk beyond belief would make them uncomfortable and not have worry about being sued? You aren’t even a lawyer, but you don’t want to have to worry about sitting in court “thinking about gay marriage all the freaking time”? :dubious: This reasoning is downright bizarre. How exactly would legalizing SSM make all lawyers have to sit in court thinking about it? The only ones who’d have anything to do with it on a regular basis would be family law practicioners (& possibly tax attorneys) and even then gays & lesbians would be a tiny percentage of their clientel unless they actively marketed themselves to the LGBT community. By you’re logic divorce should be illegal because otherwise all Catholic lawyers will have to sit in court thinking about it all the freaking time. Or interfaith marriages illegal because Orthodox Jewish lawyers should be free to practice law without having to worry about having to think about all those Jewish/gentile marriages.
You’ve yet to come up with any reason why any harm at all will occur. Despite people asking repeatedly.
Uh-huh… so what early warning signs should I, as a heterosexual Canadian, be on the lookout for? In a few weeks will be the sixth anniversary of same-sex marriage in my country. Surely some gradual harm must be visible by now.
Or is six years not a sufficiently substantial length of time? What did you have in mind as substantial? Ten years? Twenty? Forty?
Moose.
Especially one that looks like this.
OK I did not argue from personal authority, which is a logical fallacy, but argued about my employment. And I did not ever say “I am currently a lawyer” I said IF and that means it is a possibility, and maybe, damn it, soon, cause the store doesn’t do so well in the economy any more. But your reaction “You’re not a lawyer,” would make better sense if you’d have said “You will never practice law,” which would better reflect what I said. Now, as to either question, how exactly do you know?
Your constant strawmen are unbelievable. Next up, you say I claimed all lawyers will sit in court thinking about gay marriage. That’s a little bit like, if you’re against it its cause youre secretly gay, which is utter crud for an argument. I never said all lawyers will be forced to think about gay marriage all the time. I said I do not want to do it. And I said that in response to someone who enquired as to how it might affect my job. Me personally. Not everybody in the blessed world. Not hunchbaked Ugandan newspaper vendors. Not any specific one and definitely not all of Santa’s Elves, the Pope, Elvis Presley or John Lennon. Not a grinder’s monkey or an army of them. Me. Not in appeal to self authority, but as an explanation of how it could conceivably affect my job. I know domestic law best, and IF i DID practice law that’s the most reasonable place for me. It wasn’t an argument about all gay marriages and all lawyers, I simply shared a little of my personal life when someone asked.
How about you share all about yourself now? I don’t really care, I’m not too interested in you as a person because your arguments are too weak to really be anything but boring. You’re not interesting enough for me to click on your name.
But go ahead if anyone is interested in any of your personal experiences. How would denying gay marriage harm you personally?
I’ve never heard of a Canadian who complained that his or her marriage (or anything else) was harmed by gay marriage, and in six years you’d think there’d be at least one.
It unnecessarily harms homosexuals, therefore it is wrong regardless of if it doesn’t happen to personally hurt alphaboi867. Who for all I know is homosexual and unable to marry, for that matter.
You can go back through the thread and find me talking about the last seventy years. Marriage is on the decline. Living together is up. Single parenting is up. Lots of signs most people think its somewhat a joke. Married couples are no longer a majority. Stuff like that. We can’t really know how well children fare in gay households until large numbers participate in many studies probably over a generation or two. Claims of well balanced children are way premature in any meaningful way. Instead of conceding the true meanings of the scientific studies, the gay rights activists misrepresent studies that prove something related but not quite what they say it proves. They do this to count on sympathy from an electorate too lazy to check into it themselves.
But at any rate, good science in social issues regrettably requires long periods of study to be very accurate. When the studies repeatedly show trends after a dozen to two dozen years, we will better know and can better figure it out. And of course a populace with a short attention span might not even care then.
I’m sufficiently alarmed about travelling to canada.:eek:
You’d think some people would think about my explanations rather than repeating themselves endlessly, over and over and over.
IS insanity continually repeating your behavior expecting a different result next time?