SCOTUS: Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

[TobiasFunke]

This is rich. I am far and away the most heterosexual man on this forum. The closest I've ever come to a gay thought was when I almost bought a Rav 4. I ended up buying a Chevy, the most masculine car brand on the planet.

A beefcake who can rock when called upon. You're my kind of man Juan (not like that though...or if you want it to be like that it's ok with me)

[Stradling]

I already answered this. Just a couple of pages back. I asked a similar question and it went unanswered.

Let's follow your logic, such as it is:

Marriage should be expanded to whatever an individual thinks it should be, until a particular type of marriage impacts somebody not in that marriage. Is that your argument?

I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks marriage should be between two (or more) consenting adults. You happen to be the only ridiculous enough to imply the next step would be to marry a non human object.

[juansavage1]

Alright guys. Marriage that doesn't have as its end family formation is glorified boyfriends. It's absurd which is why it took people who normally don't give a crap about marriage to propose it. It's so absurd that the vast majority of homosexual people won't try it. Those gays that do give it a whirl for kicks, like taking one of those old-timey photos at Knott's Berry Farm, realize the absurdity later and divorce in much greater numbers after experiencing greater relationship abuse than heterosexual couples and much less fidelity- very few homosexual men, "married" or not, are monogamous. 

 

All this while completely changing marriage laws so that kids can have two mommies (Elton John's wife, a man, was called the mother on the child they acquired's birth certificate. Something, again, absurd. 

 

Hey, but who cares? Love wins and you can't argue against that. 

[juansavage1]

I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks marriage should be between two (or more) consenting adults. You happen to be the only ridiculous enough to imply the next step would be to marry a non human object.

Many people used to think freeing slaves or two guys marrying was ridiculous. I'm sure you would have thought it ridiculous to eat at the same lunch counters with blacks. Keep living in the past. 

[Stradling]

Alright guys. Marriage that doesn't have as its end family formation is glorified boyfriends. It's absurd which is why it took people who normally don't give a crap about marriage to propose it. It's so absurd that the vast majority of homosexual people won't try it. Those gays that do give it a whirl for kicks, like taking one of those old-timey photos at Knott's Berry Farm, realize the absurdity later and divorce in much greater numbers after experiencing greater relationship abuse than heterosexual couples and much less fidelity- very few homosexual men, "married" or not, are monogamous.

All this while completely changing marriage laws so that kids can have two mommies (Elton John's wife, a man, was called the mother on the child they acquired's birth certificate. Something, again, absurd.

Hey, but who cares? Love wins and you can't argue against that.

Thanks for changing your stance.

Ok everybody that's a wrap, shut down this thread. We have accomplished our "agenda".

[juansavage1]

I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks marriage should be between two (or more) consenting adults. You happen to be the only ridiculous enough to imply the next step would be to marry a non human object.

 

The people below exist in real life. They're your neighbors, sons, and daughters (well, not mine). Many  are wonderful people with good jobs and contribute to society. I want you to go up to one and tell him that his feelings don't count or that they're sick, because of some old belief in verbal or written consent. 

 

 

Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is a sexual focus on a nonliving object or nongenital body part.^[1] The object of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object is a fetishist.^[2] A sexual fetish may be regarded as a non-pathological aid to sexual excitement, or as a mental disorder if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life.^[1][3]Sexual arousal from a particular body part can be further classified as partialism.^[4]

 

 

[Stradling]

Many people used to think freeing slaves or two guys marrying was ridiculous. I'm sure you would have thought it ridiculous to eat at the same lunch counters with blacks. Keep living in the past.

WTF does this even mean? I support gay marriage but somehow now I am suppose to keep living in the past. Also using your logic I'm assuming you're a racist too and prefer segregation, you know, since that's how it used to be.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Stradling

[Stradling]

The people below exist in real life. They're your neighbors, sons, and daughters (well, not mine). Many are wonderful people with good jobs and contribute to society. I want you to go up to one and tell him that his feelings don't count or that they're sick, because of some old belief in verbal or written consent.

Ok and who here has argued that the next logical step is marrying a non human object. I'll patiently wait for your quote of someone on this board besides yourself that suggested it is the next logical step.

[juansavage1]

WTF does this even mean? I support gay marriage but somehow now I am suppose to keep living in the past. Also using your logic I'm assuming you're a racist too and prefer segregation, you know, since that's how it used to be.

I'm pointing out that you're closing yourself to further innovations in marriage and how what was once considered "ridiculous" is now normal. I'm also pointing out that you're effectively denying the experience of many people, calling their love inferior. 

[Stradling]

So basically I'm ignorant like you?

[juansavage1]

Ok and who here has argued that the next logical step is marrying a non human object. I'll patiently wait for your quote of someone on this board besides yourself that suggested it is the next logical step.

In order to limit something logically, you need a limiting principle. For example, I think marriage should be between a man and a woman because every person on earth has exactly one mother and one father. marriage exists to start families and ensure the proper raising of children. Your limiting principle, if I understand it, is love. Love is an emotion, a mere physical reaction, if you're an atheist. People can react with "love" to anything. 

 

Some people mention consent is necessary, but consent isn't the purpose of marriage. It's a legal protection preventing people from taking advantage of other people. it's not necessary in objects, of course. Animal consent isn't necessary (otherwise, all of your pets are slaves), and even if it were, it could be acquired through observation. 

 

Another person I discussed this with said that two people are a limiting principle because everybody needs a soul mate (I'm paraphrasing). Well, I think that's untrue because most of us have felt "love" for more than one person, often at the same time. 

 

You replied that nobody is asking for that. Well, what if they're afraid of being ridiculed? What if only one person asks? Is he any less important because he's in a minority. 

 

Besides, nobody here has been able to articulate a way that any of these innovations hurt you personally. 

Edited September 12, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Kevin]

There isn't a marine layer on this planet, is there? I don't want the Uranus Angels to have to deal with that shit.

[Angelsjunky]

Because the homos can't make babies to repopulate the human race.

 

Oh, OK. We should be legislating based upon the possible need for a survival ark to another planet. Cool.

 

I already answered this. Just a couple of pages back. I asked a similar question and it went unanswered. 

 

Let's follow your logic, such as it is: 

 

Marriage should be expanded to whatever an individual thinks it should be, until a particular type of marriage impacts somebody not in that marriage. Is that your argument? 

 

No, that isn't. But yes, marriage should be expanded to include non-traditional forms. Marriage includes certain rights and privileges that I don't see a reason that shouldn't be extended to gays. Reasons against gay marriage almost always come down to religion, which shouldn't be dictating law.

[Angelsjunky]

Thanks for changing your stance.

Ok everybody that's a wrap, shut down this thread. We have accomplished our "agenda".

 

I won't settle until Juan Savage becomes gay. That's The Agenda.

[red321]

At this point it's pretty clear Juan is a troll/sock puppet

[juansavage1]

At this point it's pretty clear Juan is a troll/sock puppet

=

 

I have no answer for him. 

[juansavage1]

Oh, OK. We should be legislating based upon the possible need for a survival ark to another planet. Cool.

 

 

No, that isn't. But yes, marriage should be expanded to include non-traditional forms. Marriage includes certain rights and privileges that I don't see a reason that shouldn't be extended to gays. Reasons against gay marriage almost always come down to religion, which shouldn't be dictating law.

Couldn't the "I don't see any reason (I feel like it)" argument be applied to anything? It's not really an argument. 

 

"I don't see any reason why ... can't have some recognition by the state. "

 

Oh, well, if you don't see a reason, let's do it!

Edited September 12, 2015 by Juan Savage

[halobob]

Alright guys. Marriage that doesn't have as its end family formation is glorified boyfriends. It's absurd which is why it took people who normally don't give a crap about marriage to propose it. It's so absurd that the vast majority of homosexual people won't try it. Those gays that do give it a whirl for kicks, like taking one of those old-timey photos at Knott's Berry Farm, realize the absurdity later and divorce in much greater numbers after experiencing greater relationship abuse than heterosexual couples and much less fidelity- very few homosexual men, "married" or not, are monogamous. 

 

All this while completely changing marriage laws so that kids can have two mommies (Elton John's wife, a man, was called the mother on the child they acquired's birth certificate. Something, again, absurd. 

 

Hey, but who cares? Love wins and you can't argue against that. 

Gay marriage can have its end at family formation.  It's called adoption Juan.  Straight marriage can have an end not involving family formation, it's called living the DINK life (dual income no kids).  

[juansavage1]

Oh, OK. We should be legislating based upon the possible need for a survival ark to another planet. Cool.

I explained (like that would do any good) that sometimes our vast wealth and the fact that we do have a reservoir of tradition from which we can depend on for the time being softens the blow of really stupid things. 

 

If you were to start a society, you'd start off with the chaos of people grouping themselves based purely on emotion? How would the children fare with multiple, constantly changing parents who may or may not be related to them? Would that be an improvement? Would men and women mix more (not a guaranteed thing) or less in your system? Who'd have responsibility for whom? 

[juansavage1]

Gay marriage can have its end at family formation.  It's called adoption Juan.  Straight marriage can have an end not involving family formation, it's called living the DINK life (dual income no kids).  

Anything can have family formation as an end, in your scheme. Four of my buddies can pay a woman to have a baby and we can share the baby one week at a time. Are you saying we're not a family or the wrong kind of family? Why two people? 

 

A person, his dog and the adopted puppies are a family. If you tell him it isn't, are you a hater?

 

We know that some people are sterile, etc., but normally, the marital act- that which separates marriage from a roommate, leads to children. That's what's unique about marriage, sex. We know this because people who support gay marriage say that people can't marry those they're not sexually attracted to. 

 

The end of normal sex is children, unless people intentionally frustrate that purpose or they have some physical malady (we have legs to walk, not to wear socks, but some legs don't work). 

Edited September 12, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Gay marriage can have its end at family formation.  It's called adoption Juan.  Straight marriage can have an end not involving family formation, it's called living the DINK life (dual income no kids).  

 

Not to mention unions in which one partner is infertile. Should they be prevented from marrying also? It sounds like it, under Juan's argument that the union is for procreation. I suppose that women past the age of menopause or who have had hysterectomies should be prevented from marrying also.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Vegas Halo Fan

[juansavage1]

So basically I'm ignorant like you?

What is it I don't know?You make a charge of my ignorance. I believe if you charge people with that you should list the things they don't know. So, please, what is it about marriage or philosophy that I don't know. 

[juansavage1]

Not to mention unions in which one partner is infertile. Should they be prevented from marrying also? It sounds like it, under Juan's argument that the union is for procreation. I suppose that women past the age of menopause or who have had hysterectomies should be prevented from marrying also.

If everybody was infertile or everybody was old, marriage wouldn't be necessary. We'd all be friends. We would have insurance or whatever. We'd have roommates, sex partners. 

 

The NORMAL assumption is that people who marry will have sex (marriage isn't consummated until it is)and that that union will normally produce children. We know that that isn't always the case, but it's not normal. It's also possible for people to change their mind or physical maladies to be corrected. The form is still the same. 

 

Old people. Well, it's kind of cute. It's not necessary to society. It is necessary for people who want to have sex licitly, according to their religion. 

 

It's impossible for people of the same sex to produce children. They can get children through adoption or by contracting with a third party, as anybody can including single people, but not through their love. This isn't a defect, it's a design. 

[Rico]

This is rich. I am far and away the most heterosexual man on this forum. The closest I've ever come to a gay thought was when I almost bought a Rav 4. I ended up buying a Chevy, the most masculine car brand on the planet. 

Sounds like someone is trying to compensate for something.  Juan Savage sounds like one of those anti-gay Republicans that turned out to be really gay.

[halobob]

Anything can have family formation as an end, in your scheme. Four of my buddies can pay a woman to have a baby and we can share the baby one week at a time. Are you saying we're not a family or the wrong kind of family? Why two people? 

 

A person, his dog and the adopted puppies are a family. If you tell him it isn't, are you a hater?

 

We know that some people are sterile, etc., but normally, the marital act- that which separates marriage from a roommate, leads to children. That's what's unique about marriage, sex. We know this because people who support gay marriage say that people can't marry those they're not sexually attracted to. 

 

The end of normal sex is children, unless people intentionally frustrate that purpose or they have some physical malady (we have legs to walk, not to wear socks, but some legs don't work). 

The end of normal sex is the sperm being blown into a condom or all over a chick a majority of the time.

 

Edit- Sex is definitely not unique to marriage in this day and age.

Edited September 12, 2015 by halobob