lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Gay Marriage
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 04-04-2009, 04:57 AM   #81
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
I'll celebrate if this lasts the year.

Until then, it is just a court act that can easily be voted off.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2009, 08:15 AM   #82
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
While I agree with the instinct to be cautious, I still think this is encouraging. I think this is a clear sign that the zeitgeist is changing. It might take another generation to get where it needs to be, but it at least seems as though we're headed in the right direction.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2009, 01:14 PM   #83
Char Ell
Force Enlightened
 
Char Ell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,368
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Folder extraordinaire Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
I'll celebrate if this lasts the year.

Until then, it is just a court act that can easily be voted off.
That's not the impression I got. This was a unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court. The only thing that can overcome that is an amendment to the Iowa state constitution and from what I've read that doesn't seem likely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
While I agree with the instinct to be cautious, I still think this is encouraging. I think this is a clear sign that the zeitgeist is changing. It might take another generation to get where it needs to be, but it at least seems as though we're headed in the right direction.
Encouraging for those who support gay marriage yes, discouraging for those of us that don't. I tend to agree that the pro-gay marriage movement does seem to be gaining more momentum in the United States and with a victory like this in the American heartland, as opposed to the northeast U.S. or California, the victory seems even more significant. As this issue is currently being sidestepped by the U.S. federal government and left to individual states to address I'm wondering if this issue will be big enough to cause people to move to states that espouse their particular stance on gay marriage.


Want to battle against cancer and other chronic diseases? Join Team LFN!


Char Ell is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2009, 02:07 PM   #84
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Char Ell View Post
I'm wondering if this issue will be big enough to cause people to move to states that espouse their particular stance on gay marriage.
That's an interesting question. More so if one considers the possibility that someday same-sex marriages might be recognized in all 50 states. I wonder if we could look to inter-racial marriage as some sort of benchmark.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2009, 02:25 PM   #85
RoxStar
Moderator
 
RoxStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,411
Current Game: Everything Zelda
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post

I'm for marriage being between one man and one woman.

Call it something else for same-sex couples.
Perhaps all "marriages" should be civil unions with minimal government intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Time Magazine
There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse and no federal tax benefit attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred. Only marriage gets that treatment, and it's a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage. The authors — one of whom voted for and one against Proposition 8, which ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether. "
I honestly believe that could solve a lot of these problems. If the government just recognizes civil unions between two consenting adults, there would be no religious uproar and couples could still Marry traditionally in a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, under sea cave, etc. and be married in the eyes of their religion but have a civil union for tax reasons.

Everyone wins, right?

source:http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...885190,00.html

RoxStar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-04-2009, 07:21 PM   #86
True_Avery
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
While I agree with the instinct to be cautious, I still think this is encouraging. I think this is a clear sign that the zeitgeist is changing. It might take another generation to get where it needs to be, but it at least seems as though we're headed in the right direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Char Ell
That's not the impression I got. This was a unanimous decision by the Iowa Supreme Court. The only thing that can overcome that is an amendment to the Iowa state constitution and from what I've read that doesn't seem likely.
California supreme court voted the ban off and 6 months later the population voted the ban to be part of the California constitution. I went from proud and honored to be in California to outright disgusted to be apart of this country within 6 months.

I wont celebrate until I'm sure it will stick. Until then, it is just an opportunity for the general populous to screw us over again.

And yeah, I know its cynical. Its a great step in the right direction, but we've been taking steps and having to jump back for awhile now over this issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxStar View Post
Perhaps all "marriages" should be civil unions with minimal government intervention.
Agreed. If the word Marriage has that much of a meaning, the government should drop the word entirely from legal documents to even the playing field.
True_Avery is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-05-2009, 12:28 AM   #87
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
I wont celebrate until I'm sure it will stick.
Of course. I just glad to see that some people are continuing to chip away at the issue. Progress is progress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Agreed. If the word Marriage has that much of a meaning, the government should drop the word entirely from legal documents to even the playing field.
RoxStar knocked this one out of the ball park.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2009, 02:30 PM   #88
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
So Vermont was a little late. But they still got it done!





have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-07-2009, 06:35 PM   #89
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Wow, a flurry of activity. Good to see.

Hopefully more to follow?

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-18-2009, 08:22 PM   #90
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Anti-Gay Rights Group Calls its Marriage Campaign '2M4M'



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-19-2009, 12:32 AM   #91
kipperthefrog
Veteran
 
kipperthefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Blue Hawaii
Posts: 846
I remember, when I was in Arizona, when my mother forced me to go to church (like she does every sunday) and they played a video of a bishop arguing aginst the new law leagalizing gay marrage. He was urging as many catholics to sighn a petition to block gay marrage. He ironicly argued that the court ruled aginst "the will of the people" and "forced the gay's beliefs on the rest of society" so to speak. I wish i could remember what he said better.

Whoever believes the gays are "forcing their beliefs on the rest of society" got it completely backwards, if you know what i mean.


kipperthefrog is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-19-2009, 12:24 PM   #92
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
I consider this a step (In Iowa) towards of better, freer society.

For the mean time, states surrounding Iowa have to follow the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

My home state, Nebraska, currently has anti-discrimination laws in place, so I think that the ban will be uplifted here sometime in the next few years.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-20-2009, 12:16 AM   #93
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
What? A Republican who supports gay marriage?! Looks like some members of the GOP have the right idea when it comes to this issue. He's a minority in the party, but overall it's very encouraging and a step in the right direction.

And it's about damn time, New York. I will never be prouder of my home state if this passes and I will never be more disgusted with my home state if it doesn't.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-20-2009, 07:25 PM   #94
EnderWiggin
Sine Amore Nihil Est Vita
 
EnderWiggin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,395
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Good luck, NY.

_EW_



Hello, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black. ~ Prime

Yes, I hate you.

J7 - thanks for accepting me as part of the 'family.'
EnderWiggin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-20-2009, 08:38 PM   #95
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
What? A Republican who supports gay marriage?! Looks like some members of the GOP have the right idea when it comes to this issue. He's a minority in the party, but overall it's very encouraging and a step in the right direction.

And it's about damn time, New York. I will never be prouder of my home state if this passes and I will never be more disgusted with my home state if it doesn't.
McCain is republican doesn't equal McCain is conservative. This is hardly surprising. All the more so given his daughters public support of the idea.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-20-2009, 10:03 PM   #96
kipperthefrog
Veteran
 
kipperthefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Blue Hawaii
Posts: 846
you know, what you believe is a "step in the right direction," the fundies would believe is a step in the wrong direction!


kipperthefrog is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-20-2009, 10:39 PM   #97
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Argument cuts both ways, kip. Do you believe that everyone who opposes it are only "fundies"?


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-20-2009, 10:52 PM   #98
RoxStar
Moderator
 
RoxStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,411
Current Game: Everything Zelda
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with just making all "marriages" into Civil Unions, cuts out religion altogether.

RoxStar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-20-2009, 10:53 PM   #99
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
marriage is the building block of americas foundation



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 03:56 AM   #100
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
cuts out religion altogether.
Answered your own question
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 09:46 AM   #101
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoxStar View Post
I don't see why anyone would have a problem with just making all "marriages" into Civil Unions, cuts out religion altogether.
Marriage is a lot like bingo.

There are people who win some and lose some. Some are better than it than others. Winners generally play their cards right. The priestly class makes a lot of money off of it. But neither marriage or bingo actually belong to religion. They're both secular activities exploited by religious cults.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 11:58 AM   #102
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
Argument cuts both ways, kip. Do you believe that everyone who opposes it are only "fundies"?
Everyone who opposes it is wrong, I know that much.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 12:31 PM   #103
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
Everyone who opposes it is wrong, I believe that much.
fixed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skin
Marriage is a lot like bingo.

There are people who win some and lose some. Some are better than it than others.
There is undeniable truth in that much.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 12:47 PM   #104
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
fixed.
When you believe that someone should be denied a fundamental right based on their sexual orientation, then I don't care what rationale you have, you are dead wrong.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 12:55 PM   #105
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Again, all your opinion. Gays can "marry", just not another of their gender. Maybe what you're looking for is "civil unions". If you want to argue that I'd likely not disagree. Call it semantics, if you like. That's all laws are anyways. Word games w/consequences.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 12:57 PM   #106
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
When you believe that someone should be denied a fundamental right based on their sexual orientation, then I don't care what rationale you have, you are dead wrong.
So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?

Seriously there are some things that shouldn't be allowed.
(Btw, I don't think it's what you meant Rogue Nine, just showing where it can lead)

I have no problem with homosexuals being able to have civil unions, just don't call it marriage.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 01:08 PM   #107
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?
Nope, because that would be denying children their fundamental rights.

Quote:
I have no problem with homosexuals being able to have civil unions, just don't call it marriage.
Then how about this: all marriages are now to known as civil unions in the eyes of the goverment. People can call it what they like, marriage, mutual ursury, tax benefit unions, whatever. This will apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, thus if you don't want to refer to a homo (or hetero) couple as married, simply use civil union instead.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 01:13 PM   #108
GarfieldJL
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,856
Quote:
Originally Posted by mur'phon View Post
Nope, because that would be denying children their fundamental rights.
Then you can't say that there aren't incidents that a person can be denied something based on their sexual orientation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mur'phon
Then how about this: all marriages are now to known as civil unions in the eyes of the goverment. People can call it what they like, marriage, mutual ursury, tax benefit unions, whatever. This will apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, thus if you don't want to refer to a homo (or hetero) couple as married, simply use civil union instead.
How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.
GarfieldJL is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 01:16 PM   #109
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
Again, all your opinion. Gays can "marry", just not another of their gender. Maybe what you're looking for is "civil unions". If you want to argue that I'd likely not disagree. Call it semantics, if you like. That's all laws are anyways. Word games w/consequences.
Yes and the consequences of certain laws deny fundamental rights to certain people based on unfair criteria.

It would help if 'marriage' was definitively equal to 'civil union' across the board. But it isn't, meaning that gay couples have to go after marriage rights because the ones afforded to them under civil unions are not equal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
So you're now saying that pedophiles should be allowed to do what they want because it's their sexual orientation and they're being denied their fundamental rights?
Are you ****ing kidding me? Pedophiles prey on children and take away their rights and by doing so commit crimes. Gay couples in love do not violate anyone's rights by being homosexual. This is a terrible and inaccurate analogy. I expected something low out of you, Garfy, but not this low. Good job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL
Seriously there are some things that shouldn't be allowed.
(Btw, I don't think it's what you meant Rogue Nine, just showing where it can lead)
As I told you a page ago, gay marriage does not lead into polygamy or pedophilia and no lawyer worth their degree would argue that in court. So just shut the hell up with your horribly bigoted thinking.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 01:19 PM   #110
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
There simply is no rational argument for disallowing marriage to someone of the same gender. Superstitious reasons exist, but these aren't rational reasons and, thus, are not valid. Marriage is a secular process and social construct that has been perverted and exploited by religious cults in order to ensure the survival of the individual cult. This much is clear in both the archaeological and historical records and (only the truly ignorant maintain that marriage is solely a religious construct).

The argument that allowing same sex partners to marry is akin to pedophilia is ignorant and irrational fallacy meant only to malign and argue ad hominem with a straw man rather than to demonstrate a rational reason for disallowing same-sex marriage. One does not permit or allow the other and only the ignorant or the disingenuous would maintain such a position.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 01:35 PM   #111
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
It would help if 'marriage' was definitively equal to 'civil union' across the board. But it isn't, meaning that gay couples have to go after marriage rights because the ones afforded to them under civil unions are not equal.
Specifically which ones? And if you can get a judiciary to sanction "gay marriage", how is it that they can't make the two equal by judicial fiat (or at least in states where the judges have decided it's ok)? They've proven in CA that they are pretty adept at overriding the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. It's also not unheard of for "activist" judges to override legislatures when they think they've gone too far for that judges taste. So, if civil unions are made equal under the law to marriages in terms of legal rights, what harm (legally)? What you're really battling for is not just acceptance but societal norming of certain behavior. That will take longer than the acts of a few judges or even legislators. You need to change an entire culture(or significant majority of it) for that to take place. I'm sure the polygamists and others are watching this with baited breath. Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 01:43 PM   #112
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
You need to change an entire culture(or significant majority of it) for that to take place.
Appeal to Tradition. Fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
I'm sure the polygamists and others are watching this with baited breath. Afterall, if two gay adults can "marry" than why stop there.
I expect this kind of faulty reasoning out of Garfield, but I gave you much more credit than that, Totenkopf. Perhaps I was mistaken to do so.

In any case, slippery slope fallacy. Fail.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 02:03 PM   #113
mur'phon
Whale eating vegetarian
 
mur'phon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southier than thou
Posts: 1,537
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.
Wonderfull, then let's go for my favored solution. Mariage/civil unions are no longer providing any benefits, legal or otherwise as far as the govt/judicary is concerned. People are free to call their relationship with another person whatever they like, while other people are free to call said relationship whatever they like. No government involved.
mur'phon is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 02:10 PM   #114
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarfieldJL View Post
How about no, because I don't want government involved even more in my life, assuming that Government is even competitent enough to manage something to begin.
Yet, you WANT the government involved in and complicating other people’s lives. I applaud you; it takes a lot to make such a selfish and self-centered statement on a public forum.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 02:14 PM   #115
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
Appeal to Tradition. Fail.
I expect this kind of faulty reasoning out of Garfield, but I gave you much more credit than that, Totenkopf. Perhaps I was mistaken to do so.
In any case, slippery slope fallacy. Fail.
Well, I didn't make the same mistake with you. Your's is agenda driven, not as rational as you claim. Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again? You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.

Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth. Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 03:15 PM   #116
Darth Avlectus
If Sunday you're free...
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Why don't you come with me...
Posts: 4,275
Current Game: Poisoning pigeons in the park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue Nine View Post
Appeal to Tradition. Fail.
MMM, not exactly. Good try, though.
=========================
Facts:
1) We all saw how things were voted upon and voted against last November.

This would imply the "culture" is largely still against it, no matter how 'secularized' and "diversified".

2) In reaction, the gays are so outraged they are on the tirade now taking it to higher judicial authorities claiming/arguing this is not an issue to be voted upon.

Interestingly in contradiction their hopeful stance of earlier that it would be voted in I might also add.
=========================

Sorry, but you're going to have to do a little better than that.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 03:58 PM   #117
Rogue Nine
*static*
 
Rogue Nine's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 14,654
Current Game: Bravely Default
10 year veteran! Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
Well, I didn't make the same mistake with you. Your's is agenda driven, not as rational as you claim. Now, since I wasn't talking about pedophiles (I cited polygamists), would you like to try again? You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.
Garfield made this exact same argument on the first page of this thread. SkinWalker debunked it for what it is, fallacious reasoning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Your gibe about appeal to tradition is also misplaced. I merely stated the truth. Anytime you wish to truly move society from one type of behavior to another, you HAVE to convince a large enough portion of it that your way is better. So far, you haven't.
Given the context of your statement and your political leanings in general, you were stating his as a reason to keep gay marriage outlawed, which is still an appeal to tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that you say I have to convince enough people that my way is 'better'. It's not a matter of what is 'better', it's a matter of what is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
MMM, not exactly. Good try, though.
=========================
Facts:
1) We all saw how things were voted upon and voted against last November.

This would imply the "culture" is largely still against it, no matter how 'secularized' and "diversified".
All it shows is that California still has a way to go. And I'd hardly consider that the culture is 'largely' against it given the 52/48 split on the issue. Hopefully by the time it comes up again, the balance will have shifted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
2) In reaction, the gays are so outraged they are on the tirade now taking it to higher judicial authorities claiming/arguing this is not an issue to be voted upon.

Interestingly in contradiction their hopeful stance of earlier that it would be voted in I might also add.
Yeah, how dare the gays be outraged that their rights have been taken away from them based on the vote of the majority. How dare they be angry that they are not able to receive the same benefits under the law that heterosexual couples enjoy. Honestly, how dare they.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Sorry, but you're going to have to do a little better than that.
Right back 'atcha.




have a suggestion for the lf poll? pm me
Rogue Nine is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 04:52 PM   #118
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,787
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Garfield made this exact same argument on the first page of this thread. SkinWalker debunked it for what it is, fallacious reasoning.
Wrong (again ). Skin didn't debunk anything. All he managed to do was gainsay Garf's point in an attempt to slap it aside. Even falls prey to your "appeal to the masses logical fallacy". I daresay that given that both subjects--gay marriage and polygamy--seem taboo to most of society, it'd have similiar responses to both. It's not rational for a society to say it's ok now for gays to marry, but not polygamists. It reflects nothing more than another arguable unjustifiable bias vs consenting adults who, as Skin pointed out, aren't involved in the relationship anyway. Try to be less messy with your "logic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skin
That's a fallacious -very fallacious argument. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say its uninformed. In no way does it follow that polygamy or child-marriage would be acceptable if consenting adults of the same sex were allowed to marry.
Quote:
Given the context of your statement and your political leanings in general, you were stating his as a reason to keep gay marriage outlawed, which is still an appeal to tradition. This is evidenced by the fact that you say I have to convince enough people that my way is 'better'. It's not a matter of what is 'better', it's a matter of what is right.
Take your own advice and read more carefully. What I said was that the agenda is driven not toward merely forcing/getting society to accept gay marriage but to see it as a societal norm. In order to achieve that, society has to come to the conclusion that the position is acceptable. It's not a question of logic at that point, but human nature. If you weren't blinded by your own political position on the subject you might have understood that. The person engaging in fallacious thinking here is you, not me.


Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 05:11 PM   #119
kipperthefrog
Veteran
 
kipperthefrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Blue Hawaii
Posts: 846
Totenkopf has a point. The same arguments used to defend gays can be used to defend Polygamists. Lets substitue polygamists as an expirement:

-Polygamists are consenting adults as well as gays.
-Polygamists are someone else's buisness and don't effect others.
-If you don't like polygamy, dont take more than one spouse
-etc


kipperthefrog is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-21-2009, 05:15 PM   #120
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,055
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf View Post
You can't RATIONALLY deny the polygamist the right to marry multiple partners if you remove the gender barrier as well if all the consenting adults in that relationship are willing.
Under that rational let’s outlaw marriage altogether, because there is no rational reason to deny polygamy now. If you can have a law that only a man and a woman can marry, why can’t you have a law where only two individuals can marry? Then you are not suppressing individual rights. Individual rights are something I believe this country was founded on. To me it is not about a popularity contest, it is not about giving people extra rights, it is about everyone having the same rights.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Gay Marriage

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.