Clint Eastwood said...............

PostmodernProphet said:
????....that simply isn't true.....
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. There are churches in every state that will perform the ceremony for them. It is stupid to pretend that it is "illegal" for them to do this, it happens in every single state. Nobody goes to prison for doing it, because it isn't illegal.

Gays get married in every state, in the religious and moral sense, it is simply secular recognition that is absent.

So, now we have seen that you are ignorant of something simple like the fact that gays do get married in your state, and that you continue to argue in your ignorance that the marriage itself is "illegal" and you don't actually read posts in the thread....

Anyway.

I'd go through it all again, but read my first post in this thread. It will explain to you the three aspects of "marriage", and that gays already get married in your state even if your state refuses to "recognize" the union.
 
Damocles said:
It absolutely is. There are churches in every state that will perform the ceremony for them. It is stupid to pretend that it is "illegal" for them to do this, it happens in every single state. Nobody goes to prison for doing it, because it isn't illegal.

Gays get married in every state, in the religious and moral sense, it is simply secular recognition that is absent.

So, now we have seen that you are ignorant of something simple like the fact that gays do get married in your state, and that you continue to argue in your ignorance that the marriage itself is "illegal" and you don't actually read posts in the thread....

Anyway.

I'd go through it all again, but read my first post in this thread. It will explain to you the three aspects of "marriage", and that gays already get married in your state even if your state refuses to "recognize" the union.
Click to expand...

obviously it isn't true......you acknowledge that one of the three aspects of marriage is recognition, which does not happen in any except a handful of states....why then pretend that what happens in the rest of the states is actually marriage?.....

shucks, I've been on record before as saying if all gays want is to say they're married and the rest of us can just ignore it, no problem......we both know that's not the goal....
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
As long as they were the same colour!! I wouldn't be at all surprised if somebody used a variation of your argument to justify the status quo.
Click to expand...

no....they still fit the definition of marriage....they were refused a marriage license under an unconstitutional law.....the fact that some men and some women could marry and some could not was a violation of equal protection......

no men can marry men, whether they be hetero or homosexuals.......equal protection does not come into play......thus a redefinition of marriage is necessary to make it happen.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously it isn't true......you acknowledge that one of the three aspects of marriage is recognition, which does not happen in any except a handful of states....why then pretend that what happens in the rest of the states is actually marriage?.....
Click to expand...
Of course it is, as much as all those marriages back in the day before there were marriage "licenses". Or is it your assertion that nobody was ever married before we started issuing these "licenses"?

shucks, I've been on record before as saying if all gays want is to say they're married and the rest of us can just ignore it, no problem......we both know that's not the goal....
Click to expand...
Right, the goal is recognition, to allow the same ability of family inheritance and to let them, if necessary, share benefits with their loved ones. Can you give a logical reason, other than religious because that one is already blown to crap and the "sanctity" of your marriage has long been equal to the "sanctity" of homosexuals who have religious marriages in your very own state that you won't "recognize"...
 
Damocles said:
Can you give a logical reason, other than religious because that one is already blown to crap and the "sanctity" of your marriage has long been equal to the "sanctity" of homosexuals who have religious marriages in your very own state that you won't "recognize"...
Click to expand...

obviously....the logical reason is that marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman, and has been for over a thousand years......your argument that "well maybe it isn't a marriage, but it's still a marriage" is the one that doesn't fly.....give me a logical reason why the government should recognize something that isn't a marriage to be a marriage?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously....the logical reason is that marriage is the relationship between one man and one woman, and has been for over a thousand years......your argument that "well maybe it isn't a marriage, but it's still a marriage" is the one that doesn't fly.....give me a logical reason why the government should recognize something that isn't a marriage to be a marriage?......
Click to expand...

For the same reason that they recognized those marriages that were marriages but weren't between races, the "for thousands of years" is not a logical reason. We've already gone through the changing definitions of words and "traditions". Repeating it doesn't make the argument logical, it just makes it repetitive.

Reality:
Traditional marriage had nothing to do with secular governmental "recognition" until the advent of marriage licenses, which happened long after the founding of this nation and largely came about when racially integrated marriages first began. "Traditionally" government had nothing to do with religion, and if the only reason you got is this "tradition" then you really haven't got any reason. That stuff is held in ether, it isn't logical it is just, "Well, we didn't do that before so we never should now," if that kind of reasoning were logical we'd never fly in a plane, cars would be illegal, even trains would just be "bad"...

Tradition is not a valid reason to make laws.

A nation of freedom defined by which groups we will deny freedom to because of "tradition" is not a nation of freedom.
 
Damocles said:
For the same reason that they recognized those marriages that were marriages but weren't between races, the "for thousands of years" is not a logical reason. We've already gone through the changing definitions of words and "traditions". Repeating it doesn't make the argument logical, it just makes it repetitive.

Reality:
Traditional marriage had nothing to do with secular governmental "recognition" until the advent of marriage licenses, which happened long after the founding of this nation and largely came about when racially integrated marriages first began. "Traditionally" government had nothing to do with religion, and if the only reason you got is this "tradition" then you really haven't got any reason. That stuff is held in ether, it isn't logical it is just, "Well, we didn't do that before so we never should now," if that kind of reasoning were logical we'd never fly in a plane, cars would be illegal, even trains would just be "bad"...

Tradition is not a valid reason to make laws.

A nation of freedom defined by which groups we will deny freedom to because of "tradition" is not a nation of freedom.
Click to expand...

Being a scholar of scriptures he knows the tradition of marriage has changed!
 
Damocles said:
We've already gone through the changing definitions of words and "traditions".
Click to expand...

yes, but you didn't win it the first time, either....

Traditional marriage had nothing to do with secular governmental "recognition" until the advent of marriage licenses, which happened long after the founding of this nation
Click to expand...
actually, Napolean started it....be that as it may, long before he did, marriage was known to be the union of one man and one woman....

Tradition is not a valid reason to make laws.
Click to expand...
and the desire of the few is not a valid reason to change them......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, but you didn't win it the first time, either....
Click to expand...

One doesn't have to "win" when simply pointing out fact. 2+2=4 even if you insist I didn't "win".

The capacity to reject fact is only helpful if you believe that repetition means you can overcome reality.

actually, Napolean started it....be that as it may, long before he did, marriage was known to be the union of one man and one woman....
Click to expand...
Actually, Napoleon had no ability to create licenses in the US. The reality is such licensing started in the US at or near the time when people were no longer considered property and some people married inter-racially. You have to be the only conservative that would argue that laws in other nations should apply here, what about those in Islam nations that allow one man, many women? That's just a stupid argument in every way. Remember when conservatives were upset when the liberal SCOTUS justices used other nation's laws in one of their decisions recently?

and the desire of the few is not a valid reason to change them......
Click to expand...

The charge is to tell me why the laws should be made at all, I've asked you several times for a logical explanation which you have failed entirely to even attempt to provide.
 
Damocles said:
The charge is to tell me why the laws should be made at all, I've asked you several times for a logical explanation which you have failed entirely to even attempt to provide.
Click to expand...
no....

the charge was
Can you give a logical reason, other than religious because that one is already blown to crap and the "sanctity" of your marriage has long been equal to the "sanctity" of homosexuals who have religious marriages in your very own state that you won't "recognize"...
Click to expand...

and I did....because two men are not one man and one woman, which has been the definition of marriage for over a thousand years, regardless of your denial.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....

the charge was


and I did....because two men are not one man and one woman, which has been the definition of marriage for over a thousand years, regardless of your denial.....
Click to expand...

And again, "definition" is a silly basis, at one time it was defined to exclude even something as simple as inter-racial marriage, as we've already gone over, especially when using other nation's laws as a feature in your argument. In other nations it is legal to marry more than one woman... The definition seems to change with the society. In this one, we allow gays to marry but pretend that it doesn't happen.

Your argument is illogical and based in "It's always been this way and nothing should ever 'change'!

The "legal" aspect of marriage, the recognition, is the least necessary. It largely wasn't necessary to obtain that in the US until the mid-1800s and that was largely due to people trying to keep those horrible inter-racial marriages from happening.

Along with "blood tests"...

Gays already marry. I just think they should have an easy right of inheritance and have as much problem getting divorced as everybody else in the same institution and we see you can offer no logic to support the current secular legal definition. Your whole argument is, "But it's "always" been this way!".

It hasn't.
 
Damocles said:
And again, "definition" is a silly basis, at one time it was defined to exclude even something as simple as inter-racial marriage, as we've already gone over
Click to expand...

no, it wasn't.....it was defined the same way then as it is now......that's why they needed a law to prohibit the issuing of marriage licenses to mixed race couples.....that isn't the case now.....there isn't a law prohibiting the issuance of a license to same sex couples.....that's why they are seeking a law changing the definition of marriage, without it they don't have what has always been required for a marriage license.......
 
Damocles said:
The definition seems to change with the society.
Click to expand...
????....in this instance, you seek change despite society......

In this one, we allow gays to marry but pretend that it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
no, in this one we allow gays to pretend to marry, but ignore it....

The "legal" aspect of marriage, the recognition, is the least necessary.
Click to expand...
apparently not....it's the aspect gays do not have, yet they demand society change so they can have it.....

Your whole argument is, "But it's "always" been this way!".

It hasn't.
Click to expand...
except it has, and it still is.....
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So what exactly is it that bothers you so much? Do you have any gay members of your family?
Click to expand...

you have asked me this question and I have answered it at least twice before, once on this thread....go to post #34.......if you aren't going to bother to remember it, I'm not going to waste my time typing it out again......
 
Was the purpose of this thread to test the theory that PMP is obstinate in his views & doesn't listen?

If so, I think we're all set now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top