Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage? Pt. 2

Well you better knock it off because some people might consider that impolite.[/sarcasm]

 

You are obviously laboring under the mistaken notion that I have an obligation to agree with your point of view. I don't have such an obligation, and I don't agree with your point of view. What's more, I don't have any obligation to 'get lost' just because you don't like what I have to say.

Dismissing my argument outright, followed by a repetition of what has already been debunked tells me that we're probably done here anyway.

 

I did not post it as a indication of a tradition, tradition is irrelevant. My point being that homosexual relations are quite old.

As for those who practice the tradition, homosexual marriage does not prevent heterosexuals from entering into marriage. It does not impact them or their relationship in anyway. The argument is irrelevant.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4RZTNtuZvQ"]Lost In America. the deal.avi - YouTube[/ame]

 

The engaging in lifetime committed personal partnerships (i.e. marriage) has existed for both opposite-sex, same-sex, and even polygamous relationships throughout recorded history. The statement that it has been a "heterosexual" tradition is false because accurately it would have stated it is predominately a "religious" tradition. Some religions have even embraced same-sex marriage so it isn't even accurate to state that it applies to all religions.

There is a pragmatic problem related to this. There have been roughly 1400 different violations of equal protection identified for same-sex couples under the law. All of these laws hinge on the word "marriage" and they are represented in literally tens of thousands of laws throughout the different states and the federal government. Simply identifying every state and federal law that infringes upon the rights of same-sex couples is pragmatically impossible but simply including same-sex couples under the legal definition of marriage resolves all of the legal problems with one simple act.

Better still I have long supported the abolition of the legal institution of marriage completely. All personal partnerships, which is what marriage really is, should be a matter of contract law which is non-discriminatory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

It appears that some want to limit marriage to the WASP definition but culturally we know that same-sex marriage has existed in different societies thoughout history as a normal relationship between consenting adults.

Of course the law is not concerned with "traditional definitions" when such definitions violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution. The issue of same-sex marriage does not hinge upon what some White Anglo-Saxon Protestant believes marriage should be. It hinges upon the Constitutional Rights of the People. Discrimination under the law is prohibited. This does not relate to affording same-sex couples special Rights but instead it relates to ensureing that same-sex couples enjoy equal Rights under the Constitution.

Of note we've seen the religious Republican presidential candidates calling for a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine discrimination under the Constitution because they know that without such an amendment the prohibitions against same-sex marriage are going to be declared unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. They basically acknowledge that the Rights of same-sex couples to equal protection under the law are being violated so they want to change the Constitution to authorize this violation of a fundamental Right of all People.

 

The topic is same sex "marriages", not same sex unions. Had you gone to the wikipedia page on same sex marriages, you would have seen that

 

They are the same thing. "Marriage" is a legal benefit. It is not a Christian tradition. It is not a religious tradition. It is a legal benefit.

 

Anything to deny rights to the undesirables.

 

???? Noooo, when African men loan their young sons to other men for anal sex, its not marriage. When the boys get older they marry a woman. Pederasty isnt marriage. Its grown men diddling little boys in the butt. And what I cited was BC Roman law having nothing to do with religion.

 

No one else is talking about raping young boys other than you.

 

Ive said nothing about raping boys. Why do you now bring it up? It was Shiva who brought up African tribes as examples of same sex marriages. Except, they are not marriages. Its pederasty between a man and a boy, who later marries a woman to have children with.

 

It appears that a certain Site Moderator is petty and small-minded enough to erase posts that are critical of his abhorently weak powers of reason and pathetic ability for self-deception (and then has the nerve to describe it as "flamebait").

Just so you know, the tradition of marriage precedes WASP culture by about 10,000 years. Please refrain from ever again saying something as utterly ridiculous as you have in the above paragraph, unless you actually enjoy making a complete ass of yourself.

(I suppose you will now ban me for expressing such blatantly impudent remarks in the face of your AWESOME "Site Moderator" powers of authority. I have a feeling that you're just small enough of a person to do such a thing. Perhaps ironically, it always seems as though gays and liberals have the least amount of tolerance for other points of view, and the least amount of respect for Freedom of Speech.)

Culturally, "we know" that lesbians and homosexuals have about as much of a claim to the tradition of marriage as do Jews to the tradition of Christmas. Of course, there are many Jews who join in the celebration of Christmas, especially in North America. However, one would be hard pressed to find any sane and rational Jew who would seriously claim that Christmas is just as much a Jewish tradition as it is a Christian tradition.

Of course, I am not concerned with the "legal definitions" should such definitions callously ignore long established, time-honored cultural traditions that have been endemic to 98% the world's population since the dawn of human civilization. Had you bothered to familiarize yourself with my posts on this thread, even a little bit, you would have understood that much.

There you go again. What is your problem? Do you have some sort of neurotic (and some might say racist) antipathy towards WASPs, or are you simply a dork of ginormous proportions?

Why do I now get the feeling that you're one of these screwed up sorority chicks (of a bloodline so WASPY that you're actually a direct descendant of the Mayflower pilgrims) still trying to get back at Daddy for not buying you that pretty pink pony for your sweet sixteenth?

 

So... what's the argument against gay marriage? I haven't seen one yet.

 

All made over in the original thread, so it was closed.

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...ents-against-gay-marriage-49.html#post4394433

 

You and Rahl keep making that argument again and again and again. I guees we really cant blame you because the Wikipedia link tells you-

But they are pretty thin on evidence. They list same sex "relationships", "unions", "contracts", "arrangements" and "partnerships" in ancient China, bot no where do they mention Chinese, same sex "marriages". Not even once. Chinese marriage (Chinese: 婚姻; pinyin: hūn yīn)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_marriage
is a union, only between a man and a woman.

And then the wikipedia page provides its first actual examples of same sex marriage, Nero and Elagabalus. You will always have those two as your moral foundation for gay relationships. Nero took his deballed boyfriend, dressed him up to look like his ex wife he had killed, and married him. Elagagalus whored himself out to other men in the palace, as emperor, no one could tell him who he could or could not marry. And as the wikipedia page points out-

I do notice theyve added to the page since Rahl first quoted the wiki page.

Looks like all the material on the two Spainiards is in Spanish, so I cant really comment.

Shiva claims "same-sex marriage has existed in different societies thoughout history as a normal relationship between consenting adults", and yet his own source mentions exactly ONE same sex marriage in Spain, between the times of ancient Chinese society and 2001 in the Netherlands. I dont think one isolated reference, out of 1000s of years of history, to one single same sex marriage in Spain, evidences same sex marriages "throughout history"

 

The biology argument was already refuted ages ago and has no legal basis. Second, the constitution, should principally have nothing to do with marriage, and merely recognize civil unions.

 

Those were almost all court cases that I quoted. Legal precedent that all directly supports the procreation argument. Your peoples silly little proclamations, that the biology argument was already refuted couldnt be more meaningless

 

I did not see one that said the need to procreate or the intention to procreate were required for marriage rights.

 

And you evidently didnt see the TWO court precedents exactly on that point that render your argument irrelevant on a "legal basis". Silly, uninformed, uneducated opinions of individuals dont refute court precedent.

 

Ha-Ha! Your silly, unprofessional and uneducated 'interpretations' of law, don't lead to solid arguments (as most have seen here).

On most things concerning homosexuality/marriage, you're just out of your lane.

 

Where did it say that?

 

I provided no interpretation and instead quoted the decisions

Again, they were QUOTES from the courts decision

 

Yeah, those mini-clown-cars you keep parading through here, are very helpful to your argument (not).

Of course. But what YOU think it means, is as subject to professional scrutiny as any other ruling. And you are apparently no authority on the matter of human rights. It is interesting that virtually every example you've posted, is either challenged or shot-down in most recent cases, including Prop 8.

 

Actually, one of the most often repeated criticisms of the Walker decision is that he didnt as much as even mention the decision in Baker v Nelson. The only supreme court precedent on the matter and he wrote his lengthy decision without even a mention. Revealing that you interpret his decision as having challenged and shot them down. Blinded by your own ideology.