patrick.net

curious2 says

marriage equality

The "marriage equality" slogan could be used to justify almost *any* arrangement.

Do you "discriminate" against polygamist marriage? Does "marriage equality" apply to polygamists?

I'm not against "equality" just because I want to keep the 1 man + 1 woman definition of marriage. Any more than you are against "equality" when you put limitations (of any kind) on the definition of marriage.

Do you put *any* kind of limitation on the definition of marriage? If so, you are against "equality" (by your definition).

curious2 says

t's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves. "Divide and misrule."

Or as Bill Maher puts it, "the bubble that nothing gets through".

http://www.youtube.com/embed/wEElA5b4AkM

I really wished that the republicans on this site would disprove that they live in a bubble by comprehending what other people say. It's one thing to have a different opinion. It's another to not even understand the other person's opinion.

I understand the opposition's opinion. They think that marriage is a religious institution and their fictitious god hates homosexuality. However, marriage in our country is also a separate legal institution. The marriage equality movement isn't trying to get priests to marry gays; it's trying to get the state to change its un-Constitutional laws.

The legal marriage entity is completely independent of the religious marriage entity. The marriage equality movement is only addressing the legal entity.

curious2 says

Try reading the unanimous ruling written by the Iowa Supreme Court

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then? Why are they ok with "discrimination" against polygamists? Is it just because Polygamy hasn't become a potent political force yet?

freak80 says

Do you "discriminate" against polygamist marriage? Does "marriage equality" apply to polygamists?... Do you put *any* kind of limitation on the definition of marriage? If so, you are against "equality" (by your definition).

freak80 says

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then? Why are they ok with "discrimination" against polygamists? Is it just because Polygamy hasn't become a potent political force yet?

Instead of taking the time to read the court ruling, you've returned to the already-refuted-above argument about polygamy. Must I copy and paste the whole text for you? Can't you just click on a link?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20090403iowa-text.pdf

For your convenience, I have added the URL as a signature, so you can find it more easily.

freak80 says

Really? Surely you jest. There's nothing that makes a sexual relationship between a male and female fundamentally different than all other relationships?

In the eyes of the law: hell no! There may be things that make an interracial marriage fundamentally different from other marriages, but not in the eyes of the law. There certainly are things that make a marriage between an old man and a young woman way the hell different between two similar aged people, but not in the eyes of the law.

Why should the law treat one group inferior to another?

Well this thread should put to death the "social issues are just a distraction ginned up by Fox News" meme, at least on PatNet.

curious2 says

You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples.

Hey curious2, have you stopped beating your wife?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

You're clearly not engaging my arguments. You just keep arguing under the same faulty premise.

It's the very thing you accused Quigley of doing. If you can't make the distinction between an institution and "equal protection under the law" then there's no point on further discussion.

freak80 says

Why didn't they allow polygamous marriage then?

The question of polygamous marriage is independent of the question of gay marriage. Back in the 1960s, those who were against interracial marriage made two arguments. The first was that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, you might as well allow polygamy. The second was that if you allowed blacks to marry whites, it would be a slippery slope to bestiality.

Applying these two arguments against gay marriage is just as offensive and irrelevant. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal agreement and status and nothing more. The question of polygamy is one that deals with how many parties may enter the contract, not who may enter on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, or any other statuses protected because history has wronged minorities. As for bestiality, can you enter into a legal agreement with a giraffe? No, so it is a nonsensical argument.

But since you brought up polygamy, why the hell should that be illegal anyway? Again, my proposal that marriage shouldn’t even be a legal institution makes sense, but why shouldn’t multiple parties be able to enter a contract that two parties can? Preventing polygamy does not prevent orgies. Just ask open-marriage Newt Gingrich. Nor does the state have the right to prevent consensual orgies.

There is no legal justification for preventing polygamy. But again, this issue is independent of gay marriage.

curious2 says

For your convenience, I have added the URL as a signature, so you can find it more easily.

I did read the court ruling. Why the personal attack?

freak80 says

curious2 says

You've said repeatedly that you oppose the equal protection of the marriage laws for gay couples.

Hey curious2, have you stopped beating your wife?

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question

Well, that's easy to fix.

freak80, do you object to the 14th Amendment? If so, why?

freak80, do you object to the Supreme Court ruling in Loving vs Virginia that the 14th Amendment protects the right of interracial marriage? If so, what are your objections?

freak80, do you have any legal arguments as to why the 14th Amendment does not apply to gay marriages in the exact same way the Supreme Court ruled it applies to interracial marriages? If so, what are those arguments?

There, just answer the above questions honestly and sincerely and we can avoid any Straw Man arguments and make some progress in this discussion. These are exactly the questions that opponents of gay marriage must answer to justify not extending all marriage laws to include same sex marriages.

Curious2,

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

And if you are married and you don't yield spawn in 15 years, the Government should force you get a divorce or move to France.

And furthermore Gay people should be made to watch Porky's on a loop, not that it would solve anything, but it would give them a taste of their own over bearing pompous medicine. That way, we make it through an original HBO program with out a gratuitous frivolous gay scene, if nothing else.

curious2 says

It's a shibboleth fabricated by preachers and PACs to fool parishioners into voting against equal rights, thereby stoking division and animosity, which the preachers and pols can profit from in terms of $ and power for themselves.

Is it?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

Speak for yourself....some of us have access to steroids...
Dan8267 says

There certainly are things that make a marriage between an old man and a young woman way the hell different between two similar aged people,

freak80 says

I did read the court ruling. Why the personal attack?

I don't understand how you can call providing a link to a unanimous court ruling, which affirmed a district court ruling, a "personal attack." But, you are actually starting to sound paranoid:

freak80 says

If they had their way, I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail.

Paranoia is a serious medical condition, and can be devastating. I'm usually the least likely to say someone needs medical attention, but it is something you might want to consider. Meanwhile, I will remove the URL from my signature so as not to enable further your misimpression of an "attack."

freak80 says

Is it?

Yes, your claim about "crime" is a shibboleth, or paranoia. I read your NPR link and nobody accused anyone of a crime or threatened to put anyone in jail. Businesses that make money encounter various regulations about how they will make money, for example the Methodist-owned business lost a tax exemption that it shouldn't have had anyway. Newspapers have to pay their taxes, and they are protected by the first amendment equally with religion.

freak80 says

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

Since you don't know the definition of marriage in your own State of New York, here are links:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM010_10.html

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM010-A_10-A.html

I hope you won't think I'm attacking you by providing links to the laws of the state where you live.

curious2 says

I don't understand how you can call providing a link to a unanimous court ruling, which affirmed a district court ruling, a "personal attack."

I was talking about this:

curious2 says

Must I copy and paste the whole text for you? Can't you just click on a link?

No, pointing out your ad hominem attack isn't paranoia. Sorry, you fail.

BTW, using the charge of mental illness as a personal attack says more about you than it does about me. And its on display for everyone to see.

@Patrick

Links to postings that are part of a thread with multiple page breaks are still not working. Example: http://patrick.net/?p=1214837#comment-851760

freak80 says

Curious2,

What is the definion of marriage then? If it's not 1 man + 1 woman, what is it?

It does not matter what the religious or social definition of marriage is. All that matters is what the legal definition is, and that, my dear, is what this debate is all about. According to 1 USC § 7

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The whole debate revolves around 1USC § 7 violating the 14th Amendment. If that code had stated that the legal union required the two parties to be of the same race, it would be un-Constitutional as the Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs. Virginia. Well, it's just as un-Constitutional for requiring the two parties to be of opposite sex.

The requirement of two parties to be of opposite sex is further made ridiculous by the existence of hermaphrodites or intersexuals, persons with both male and female genitalia. How the hell does the one man and one woman thing apply when one or both parties are intersexuals?

And don't even get me started on robots and sentient extraterrestrial species with only one or more than two sexes. Like the law even attempts to handle that.

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

As I stated to Bap33 in this thread,

Also, by your argument, a heterosexual couple in which one or both were infertile would not be legally allowed to marry. Are you really going to try to make that argument? What about the old widow and widower who meet over a game of bingo at the local church and then decide to get marry and spend their golden years together? They aren't marrying to have children and can't reproduce. Should their marriage be illegal? What about straight married couples who choose not to have children? Should they be forced by the state to get a divorce? I know many straight, married, childless by choice couples.

The state does not and has never required that married couple can or do produce children. To do so would violate even the most basic of human rights.

As for the point… The point of gay marriage is to have equal legal status including
1. Equal taxation. Why should a gay couple have to pay higher income taxes than a straight couple?
2. Equal health and life insurance benefits.
3. Hospital visitation rights.
4. Rights of attorney.
5. Spousal benefits when a member of the military dies in combat.

And hundreds of other little legal rights that straight couples take for granted but make legal arrangements difficult or impossible for gay couples. And that's a pretty damn important point.

The bottom line is that it is obvious that gay marriage should and will become legally accepted at the federal level, just as it was obvious in the 1960s that eventually interracial marriage should and would become legally accepted at the federal level.

Personally, I hope all gay couples sue the fuck out of the IRS and US Treasury for overpaid taxes and for penalties and interest for the past 100 years!

Curious,

I'm aware of the recent decision about the issue in New York State. What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? Just because I may not agree with a law doesn't mean I'm not aware of it.

As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law, I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

freak80 says

What makes you think I'm not aware of the decision? ... As for the implication that I must be stupid for (supposedly) not knowing about the law,

You requested the definition, I provided links. I didn't call you stupid, you said that.

freak80 says

No, pointing our [sic] your ad hominem attack isn't paranoia.

freak80 says

I'd be prosecuted under "hate crimes" laws and put in jail... enslaved.... For me, a vote for either party is a vote to slit my own throat.

Asking if I need to paste full text instead of a link is not an "attack," but you apparently believe it to be, and in the same thread you write that one major party wants you "put in jail," the other wants you "enslaved," and then you fall into violent imagery about slitting your own throat. Your reaction to marriage equality has revealed a side of your personality that I had never seen before, and which does worry me, because it sounds like the kind of thing two now-lost friends used to say before being hospitalized for clinical paranoia. Your reference to hate crimes, which you put in quotes, also worries me for a different reason:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-07/business/sns-rt-us-usa-wisconsin-shootingbre8740fp-20120805_1_white-power-music-end-apathy-sikh-temple

If you aren't paranoid, and are in fact planning something that would land you in jail for a hate crime, please stop and seek help immediately.

freak80 says

I'll let other Patnet users decide whether or not that's an "ad hominem" argument.

I don't hold not knowing all the laws against you. However, you're failure to address any of the very precise arguments I've made against all objections to marriage equality implies that you have no counter-arguments to make.

This in turn would lead anyone reading this thread to conclude that there is no legitimate reason to object to same sex marriages being recognized by the federal government and through federal law by all state governments.

But just in case you've manage to think up a counter-argument, feel free to post it now. Of course, you're free to not do so, but as the old saying goes, he who remains silent is understood to consent.

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

Thanks for the link to the NPR article. This news article from a balanced non partisan source is pretty damning of the gay movement. When someone tells them "no" based on religious grounds, they hire lawyers and proceed to punish them with litigation fees. The first ammendment says "government shall make no law respecting religion or preventing the practice thereof. If your interpretation of the 14th ammendment would require a religious leader to set aside his/her beliefs in support of the gay agenda, guess which ammendment trumps?
This is all beside the point. The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"
We already give them equal rights, and perhaps marriage as defined by the state is just a contract, as Dan has pointed out. If gays just get the contract, they will be dissatisfied. They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant. It's our rights at stake. That is worth fighting for!

CL says

CaptainShuddup says

Marriage should be about producing kids. If you can't produce kids, then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. What's the point.

So, to be clear, infertile people should be denied marriage rights?

To be fair, the Captain said they should be sent to France after 15 years. France is a nice place. The Captain seemed to be be joking, too, unlike Quigley and freak80. The latter two seem to illustrate Bill Maher's observation about the bubble (see video above).

curious2 says

The Captain seemed to be be joking, too

Seemed like as good a place as any to interject with that salient point though. Marriage is for procreation breaks down as an argument when heteros can't procreate either, but are allowed to marry.

Logically, to ask if they can or intend to would be considered intrusive on the part of the Government. Why aren't gays afforded the same freedom?

Hey freak, consider this article while you're making your faggot jokes and trying to pretend religion is the base for all moral and intellectual activity in the US:

"GOP Insider: How Religion Destroyed My Party"

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/gop-insider-how-religion-destroyed-my-party

"In the new book, "The Party Is Over," veteran Republican Mike Lofgren writes about the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism and how the GOP devolved into anti-intellectual nuts."

Its a good read, from someone on the inside. And then maybe, you know, try to reconsider the questions you've pretended to be asking here. Good luck with your struggle.

...but honestly in your case I think the real struggle will come in about ten years or so when you start thinking "oh damn, I guess I should have… ..."

Quigley says

This is all beside the point. The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"

What freedom are you talking about? Freedom is a minimal set of laws, including minimal favoritism by the government. Not sure what cost of freedom there is in this discussion. If you want freedom then you should advocate government to get out of the marriage business altogether and other unfree favoritisms.

I am not voting. I have voted republican many times.

Wait, I changed my mind. I will vote democrat for the first time if it looks like Romney might win. I don't trust people with offshore bank accounts. That means you have no faith in this country and are trying to dodge taxes.

Quigley says

If your interpretation of the 14th ammendment would require a religious leader to set aside his/her beliefs in support of the gay agenda, guess which ammendment trumps?

I would argue that the 14th Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment grants rights, but the 14th Amendment says that everyone has the same rights, which is a more fundamental proposition. Equality of rights is even more than any individual right.

Nevertheless, the intention of the First Amendment is to prevent government from suppressing a religious minority and to prevent religion from controlling government. Both of these intentions are important. In regards to preventing religion from controlling the government, all objections to marriage equality are religious ones. Thus the prohibition on gay marriage is a violation of the First Amendment.

However, as Quigley states, the government is not suppose to suppress religions. Yet, it does. Remember Branch Davidian in Wacco, TX circa 1993? The government burned those people alive. Our government frequently prevent religious organization from

1. Arming themselves.
2. Having sexual relations with minors.
3. Performing human sacrifices.
4. Using illegal narcotics including marijuana.
5. Hiding faces behind a burka in many places such as airport security.
6. 90% of what's in the Bible is illegal. Ex: stoning your daughter if she has sex before marriage.

If we accept that the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering in any way with any religion and that trumps all laws, then I have the right to open the Nudist Church of Weed, Firearms, and Peer-to-Peer File Sharing. Our first sacrament will be to tap the phones of every politician. And there's nothing the government could do about it. Yet, that's just not reality.

The First Amendment also states "Congress shall make no law bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". Yet, there are at restrictions on freedom of speech. You can't legally

1. Report a false emergency. Ex: Yelling fire in a crowed theater when there is none.
2. Make a threat of violence including death threats. Ex: Phoning in a bomb threat.
3. Make a knowingly false statement that damages a person. I.e., libel and slander.

Personally, I say these should be the only restrictions on free speech, but the government frequently includes others such as

1. Speaking your mind in court results in a contempt of court arrest.
2. Using profanity in certain places like aboard an airplane results in arrest.
3. Copyright, patent, and trademark laws.
4. Nondisclosure contracts which are written solely for the interest of one party and forced onto the other.
5. Court order silence including court orders regarding evidence.

And that's just to name a few.

And the right to peacefully assemble is not even considered a right anymore, but rather a privilege. You have to get a permit to protest. Think about what that means. You have to get the permission of government to protest government, and the government can say no and it can restrict when and were you protest. Remember Occupy Wall Street being kicked out of the parks?

The fact is there are many restrictions on the First Amendment that shouldn't be there according to the Constitution. It would be far better to explicitly list what those restrictions are so that we can limit them to just those explicit restrictions rather than letting the government constantly increase the restrictions.

In the NPR article, the only thing that happened to the ministry organization is that they lost tax exemption for the use of the pavilion. But religious organizations should not get any tax exemptions according to the First Amendment because a tax exemption is preferential treatment and thus an endorsement of that religion. And if you think that's not so because all religions get tax exemptions, name one Satanic Cult that gets tax exemption. Could a church of Satan get a tax exemption in our country? Hell no. What about my Nudist Church of Weed, Firearms, and Peer-to-Peer File Sharing?

Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not churches can refuse to perform gay marriages or refuse the use of their buildings for gay marriages is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the federal government should recognize gay marriages. Marriage equality can be achieved within our government and the legal system whether or not churches are required to not discriminate.

However, I'll address this issue now.

The question of whether or not churches can discriminate against homosexuals is exactly the same as the question of whether or not churches can discriminate against race. Can a church refuse to marry a black couple or an interracial couple? This is not an academic question. It happens all the time.

Church Votes Against Interracial Couples Becoming Members

White Baptist church in Mississippi bans black wedding

The bottom line is that yes, churches can refuse to perform marriage ceremonies on gays, blacks, and interracial couples. The churches can refuse to let women, Hispanics, Asians, cripples, or any other minority attend their masses. This is because churches are not like restaurants. They aren't commercial entities serving the community.

However, the state is then wrong to provide tax-free status to churches, and it is wrong to zone any land for churches. Religious ceremonies should be held in private residences, not zoned landed. After all, churches do not have to and do not serve the community at large like restaurants, night clubs, and bars do. Therefore, they should not get access to limited land, and certainly should not get tax exemptions. Let the faithful open their own homes to their flocks. Isn't that what Jesus would want anyway?

Remember, religious marriage is not civil marriage. The fact that you got married in a church does not grant you married status in the law. For that, you need a marriage license. Conversely, you can get married in law without getting married in any church. Civil marriage and religious marriage are completely independent of one another. Just ask any bigamist. His religious marriages aren't recognized by the state.

Quigley says

The real issue here is "should gays be permitted, encouraged, and aided in their fight for societal and cultural legitimacy, even at the cost of freedom of the other 90%?"

No, that's not the real issue. Of course gays and heterosexuals like me who support marriage equality should be permitted to advocate (or fight as you call it) for social justice, legal equality, and even social and cultural acceptance. That is our First Amendment right.

No one is proposing a law to encourage or aid in this quest. We are proposing to change the law to end discrimination and the violation of the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, whether or not you personally consider gay marriage to be culturally acceptable is irrelevant to whether or not the laws of our nation are written such that all people have the same rights. There are many people who don't find country music to be culturally acceptable, but they aren't proposing it be banned.

Finally, the legalization of same sex marriage does not cost any freedom of the other 90%. The only argument remotely stating that is the one presented in the NPR article about churches being required to perform gay or interracial or black marriages. And as I have pointed out, they don't and won't even when gay marriage is recognized under federal law.

Quigley says

We already give them equal rights, and perhaps marriage as defined by the state is just a contract, as Dan has pointed out. If gays just get the contract, they will be dissatisfied. They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant. It's our rights at stake. That is worth fighting for!

Translation: If gays can married, it will be a slippery slope into an Orwellian nightmare where Americans are arrested for thought crime.

This is the exact same argument made against interracial marriage. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. The novel 1984 was about the removal of freedom and diversity, not the expansion of it.

curious2 says

The latter two seem to illustrate Bill Maher's observation about the bubble (see video above).

I've been saying that about the social conservatives on this site for months. So true.

curious2 says

The Captain seemed to be be joking

I think that often of social conservatives, and then I find out they are serious. I mean, how else do you explain George W. Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and Herman Cain?

G'Day,
You shouldn't vote if you don't like the candidates. With less than a 50% turn out, it will let 'them' know that it means...NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Regards,
Woomera

kentm says

Hey freak, consider this article while you're making your faggot jokes

Please give an example of where I did that.

kentm says

trying to pretend religion is the base for all moral and intellectual activity in the US:

Where did I invoke religion at all?

Quigley says

They want the people who frown on their lifestyle to be smacked into "right thinking" by the government. Even the incident with Dan Cathy's excoriation smacks of "thought crime." George Orwell would recognize this in an instant.

That's what it looks like, yes. I can't help but admire the sheer Machiavellian art of it all, though:

1) Re-define marriage as a "right" instead of an institution
2) Keep saying that people who support "traditional" marriage are against "gay rights" (as if anyone asks what you do at night before you can vote).
3) Use gay marriage (in states that have it) as a legal precedent to financially attack religious groups you don't like.

I give concrete examples of (3) and I'm subjected to personal attacks (like that I supposedly called someone a 'faggot').

This is what I mean when I say the far-left is just as authoritarian and unhinged as the far right.

So Kentm and Curious2, you've made my point about not voting for Democrats. If Democrats actually went after the top 0.1% (like they're supposed to do) I might support them. But what has Obama done? He hasn't done anything to reign in the power of Big Finance that owns the government. See the Matt Taibbi articles. Rather, Obama has just given the homosexual special interest groups what they want (repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Apparently privacy and tolerance is *not* what they want, but rather a government "stamp of approval" which they use to go after (with the force of the state) people they don't like.

So no, Patnet readers. "Social issues" are *not* just phoney issues created out of thin air by Fox News and AM radio.

omerde says

You shouldn't vote if you don't like the candidates. With less than a 50% turn out, it will let 'them' know that it means...NONE OF THE ABOVE!

This would work if only by voting none of the above, no one got to hold the office. We could fire someone without replacing him with someone else. All votes from the empty chair are automatically set to no.

freak80 says

Where did I invoke religion at all?

I've concluded that your opposition to gay marriage and all opposition from the right is based solely on religious bigotry because you cannot answer any of the simple, honest, and straightforward questions I've asked regarding your position. No social conservative can because the only way to honestly answer the questions is with

I have no legal reasons to deny gays the right to marry. I just don't want them to because my fictitious god hates fags. Of course, this belief that a sky daddy hates fags is nothing more than a reflection of my own personal neurosis. But I am unwilling to admit that in public. This is why I cannot have an honest, rational discussion of gay marriage. I must always employee baseless fears and emotional manipulation, and I must stay away from reality as much as possible. Reality has a liberal bias.

Of course, if I am wrong about the above, then please, pretty please with sugar on top of it, will some conservative provide rational and honest answers to the questions I directed at freak80 including why the 14th Amendment either should be repealed, or does not apply to gay marriage like it does to interracial marriage, or why the Supreme Court was wrong in Loving vs. Virginia. These are the only three logical possibilities.

Dan8267 says

Patrick

Links to postings that are part of a thread with multiple page breaks are still not working. Example: http://patrick.net/?p=1214837#comment-851760

The link has to include the "c" parameter so I can calculate which page of comments to show. Then the hashtag jumps to the right part of that page. So for the example you gave, this should work:

http://patrick.net/?p=1214837&c=851760#comment-851760

The link has to include the "c" parameter so I can calculate which page of comments to show.

Is it possible to include the "c" parameter when you quote a post? Also, is the "c" parameter always the same as the "comment" parameter? If so, why would it be necessary?

freak80 says

1) Re-define marriage as a "right" instead of an institution
2) Keep saying that people who support "traditional" marriage

You keep reverting to the same thing even when I provide you links to the actual statutory definition of legal marriage, and you never answered my question. If the Republicans decree that only Baptist marriages will be recognized, or that Catholics will be restricted to marrying other Catholics (which is also the Vatican position), will you still say that marriage is a religious "institution" and the laws must simply administer your preferred religious restrictions? And what do you say to the religions and countries that do recognize same-sex marriage? Have those religions chosen the wrong God, because you know (or are) the only true one, and have those countries increased their risk of hurricanes? How do you get to own marriage as an "institution" with your definition being the only true one, no matter what the Constitution and the laws say? Why is your favored "tradition" the only one that matters, while others have their own traditions?

curious2 says

will you still say that marriage is a religious "institution" and the laws must simply administer your preferred religious restrictions?

Marriage is an inherently religious idea, I believe. That's why I say we just invoke "separation of church and state" and get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Let individual religious groups decide who they will marry according to their own beliefs.

curious2 says

Have those religions chosen the wrong God, because you know (or are) the only true one, and have those countries increased their risk of hurricanes?

That's going off in a whole new direction. Who said anything about hurricanes?

curious2 says

Why is your favored "tradition" the only one that matters

What is my favored tradition? I don't understand.

freak80 says

Marriage is an inherently religious idea, I believe... What is my favored tradition? I don't understand.

You keep reverting back to your favored definition of "traditional marriage," no matter how many links I provide showing the legal definition of marriage. What I find especially strange is your unfounded and clearly false belief that marriage is inherently religious, even though I've already pointed out that marriage (including same-sex marriage) goes back further than any of the currently popular religions. Should there be a religious test to marriage, i.e. if you don't pray often enough your marriage gets taken away?

You also seem to ignore the importance of voters' opinions in deciding party platforms. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was repealed because (a) 70% of voters wanted it repealed, and (b) federal courts had declared it unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing it (and the Pentagon did stop, worldwide, then started again when the Obama administration filed an "emergency appeal"). You ignore all that and say it was catering to a special interest, when in fact it was merely following the law and the will of 70% of voters.

freak80 says

Who said anything about hurricanes?

Pat Robertson. He shares your belief that everything is religious and the law must follow the will of [his particular] omnipotent God, whom he exclusively speaks for and nobody else can hear except through him. He has warned specifically that hurricanes are divine wrath for not listening to The Word According to Pat.

curious2 says

no matter how many links I provide showing the legal definition of marriage.

You provided the link to a court decision of a state. I don't agree with the ruling. They argue under the same false premises that you do. The "conclusion" is already "built in" from the very beginning.

We shouldn't be surprised at that. Judges are politicians. It's what they do.

Again, I ask you: have you stopped beating your wife?

freak80 says

You provided the link to a court decision of a state.

...and links to the laws of your own state, and examples of whole countries (Canada, Hungary).

You never answer my questions, and instead you revert to your joke question about whether you've stopped beating your wife. Have you?

curious2 says

Should there be a religious test to marriage, i.e. if you don't pray often enough your marriage gets taken away?

My position is very clear to anyone reading this discussion: the government shouldn't be granting or taking away anyone's marriage. They shouldn't be in the business at all.

If we want "civil domestic contracts" simply in the interest of forming "households" then fine. I have no problem with that.

I'm not a fan of people suing churches just because they won't recognize certain "marriages."

How can I put it anymore straightforward than that?

Go ahead and have the "last word."