Polygamy vs. Homosexual Marriage

[beowulf 1]

Quote

It's called an analogy.

The point of the analogy is to show that equal treatment is not the same as fair. If I were required to sing Ave Maria at perfect pitch in order to vote, I would never get to vote. I would consider that unfair. An opera singer (you, analogously) would argue that since you have to pass the exact same test, we are both being treated equally. That argument is just as valid as your equal treatment argument about restrictive marriage benefits.

Your analogy doesn't really work since not everyone can sing. So it discriminates against those who can't sing. Allowing everyone to marry someone of the opposite sex is not necessarily discriminating against homosexuals since they do have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex even though they don't have any interest in the opposite sex.

Homosexuals are pushing to redefine marriage. That is fine with me, but since marriage has been intertwined with religion it cause many people to feel like their religion is being attacked.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

It's called an analogy.

The point of the analogy is to show that equal treatment is not the same as fair. If I were required to sing Ave Maria at perfect pitch in order to vote, I would never get to vote. I would consider that unfair. An opera singer (you, analogously) would argue that since you have to pass the exact same test, we are both being treated equally. That argument is just as valid as your equal treatment argument about restrictive marriage benefits.

Your analogy doesn't really work since not everyone can sing. So it discriminates against those who can't sing. Allowing everyone to marry someone of the opposite sex is not necessarily discriminating against homosexuals since they do have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex even though they don't have any interest in the opposite sex.

Agree.

Quote

Homosexuals are pushing to redefine marriage. That is fine with me, but since marriage has been intertwined with religion it cause many people to feel like their religion is being attacked.

I would also agree in part, but to finer tune this, I'd wager those with religious oriented objections also feel in large, that they would be approving of the marriage and saying "It's okay," which their religious beliefs clearly clash with. In essence, it might not be so much as an attack on their religion, but an active betrayal of what they confess if they "went along."

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's called an analogy.

The point of the analogy is to show that equal treatment is not the same as fair. If I were required to sing Ave Maria at perfect pitch in order to vote, I would never get to vote. I would consider that unfair. An opera singer (you, analogously) would argue that since you have to pass the exact same test, we are both being treated equally. That argument is just as valid as your equal treatment argument about restrictive marriage benefits.

Your analogy doesn't really work since not everyone can sing. So it discriminates against those who can't sing. Allowing everyone to marry someone of the opposite sex is not necessarily discriminating against homosexuals since they do have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex even though they don't have any interest in the opposite sex.

Agree.

Quote

Homosexuals are pushing to redefine marriage. That is fine with me, but since marriage has been intertwined with religion it cause many people to feel like their religion is being attacked.

I would also agree in part, but to finer tune this, I'd wager those with religious oriented objections also feel in large, that they would be approving of the marriage and saying "It's okay," which their religious beliefs clearly clash with. In essence, it might not be so much as an attack on their religion, but an active betrayal of what they confess if they "went along."

So you get to pick and choose which of gods laws you wish to uphold.. and which ones you do not... as part of your BELIEFS??

Sounds very hypocritical to me... one of the reasons I will not set foot in one of "gods houses". Too many preachers.. following the Ron L Hubbard school of religion.

I am pretty sure he was the one who stated that religion was the best scam going. but it sure seems to work out for the scammers who get rich off of the gullible.

[DanG 1]

I think singing has as much do to with voting as the shape of your partner's genitals has to do with the tax code.

- Dan G

[beowulf 1]

I think you would probably be on a very short list of people that think that way. Marriage in the US has been commonly known to mean marriage between two people of the opposite sex. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be an argument.

[doughboyshred 0]

Quote

God defined marriage in the beginning as an intimate relationship between one man and one woman .

Bullllll Shhhhhit.

So funny how people can believe this.

[devildog 0]

Quote

So you get to pick and choose which of gods laws you wish to uphold.. and which ones you do not... as part of your BELIEFS??

I have no idea where you get this from any of that. Course, I'm not surprised at such bomb throwing. It seems to be your MO when the facts don't support your claims. I'm sure in a couple more posts I'll be labeled as a misogynist that gets off beating down women.

Quote

Sounds very hypocritical to me... one of the reasons I will not set foot in one of "gods houses". Too many preachers.. following the Ron L Hubbard school of religion.

Do we have any scientologists here?

Quote

I am pretty sure he was the one who stated that religion was the best scam going. but it sure seems to work out for the scammers who get rich off of the gullible.

People profit off all sorts of things. And to an extent, I agree. I always said if I didn't have morals I'd either run a casino or be a televangelist.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I think you would probably be on a very short list of people that think that way.

If you read a lot of the responses here, you'll find the list is a lot longer than you think. A person's gender should not be a factor in how they are treated under the law. I think the vast majority of people would agree with that statement.

Quote

Marriage in the US has been commonly known to mean marriage between two people of the opposite sex. If it wasn't then there wouldn't be an argument.

That's a rather obvious statement. Just because we've had laws on the books in the past, doesn't make those laws fair or just. The law is constantly evolving.

- Dan G

[devildog 0]

Quote

That's a rather obvious statement. Just because we've had laws on the books in the past, doesn't make those laws fair or just. The law is constantly evolving.

By the same token, just because a proposal to an old law comes up, doesn't make it right or warranted either.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[billvon 2,400]

>When the courts began to rule that way, they never said, "You have the right to marry
>anyone and everyone, therefore interracial marriage is okay."

Right, because that's not how the Supreme Court work. They do not pass laws. They just say that specific laws are invalid. In that case, they said that the law that prohibits interracial marriage was invalid.

Which is definitely progress. I am certain we will see that progress continue.

[champu 1]

Quote

Your analogy doesn't really work since not everyone can sing. So it discriminates against those who can't sing. Allowing everyone to marry someone of the opposite sex is not necessarily discriminating against homosexuals since they do have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex even though they don't have any interest in the opposite sex.

There's a falacy in this argument because you're embedding a conditional check in the term "opposite sex." This conditional check is where the discrimination comes in.

The debate is not about the right to marry "someone." Who the hell wants that? No one would ever bother to fight for the right to marry "someone." Marriage is a personal thing and thus people fight for the right to marry a person. Suppose you have a woman of legal age named Jill. Suppose Jack is of legal age and wants to marry Jill. That's legal if they both want to. Suppose you have someone of legal age named Pat who wants to marry Jill. You can't tell me if it's legal or not unless I tell you whether Pat is a man or a woman. It's illegal to simultaneously be a woman and to marry Jill. In this instance, a law against homosexual marriage is discriminating against women.

We used to have a law that said you can't simultaneously be a woman and vote. That law was applied equally to everyone. Men didn't have the right to be a woman and vote either, so I don't see what the problem was.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

If you read a lot of the responses here, you'll find the list is a lot longer than you think. A person's gender should not be a factor in how they are treated under the law. I think the vast majority of people would agree with that statement.

I would agree with that but would add that I don't think whether I have a partner or not should affect how I am treated under the law either. People should be taxed the same regardless of whether they are gay, straight, married, or single.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[beowulf 1]

I didn't add the conditional check. It was already there. It's been a part of society in the US. I was just pointing it out. The whole point of this is that homosexuals are challenging that conditional check. Just like the example you brought up of women not being allowed to vote.

My argument was that the earlier analogy was incorrect because not everyone can sing. I was neither arguing for nor against same sex marriages.

[DanG 1]

Agree 100%, but since it is highly unlikely the government will get out of the marriage business entirely, the next best thing is to let anyone marry anyone else (consenting adults only).

- Dan G

[champu 1]

Quote

I didn't add the conditional check. It was already there. It's been a part of society in the US. I was just pointing it out. The whole point of this is that homosexuals are challenging that conditional check. Just like the example you brought up of women not being allowed to vote.

My argument was that the earlier analogy was incorrect because not everyone can sing. I was neither arguing for nor against same sex marriages.

I follow you. Sorry, I didn't mean the "you're embedding" in a personal sense.

[beowulf 1]

No problem, just clarifying what I wrote.

[jumpwally 0]

Thats the best answer ever,,,its so simple that most of the country would freak.....personaly, i feel if you want to marry a turtle go for it

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[charlie5 0]

The floodgates have already been opened.

It's all or nothing at this point.

Might as well let people marry who they want.

I may not agree with it, but I don't think the government should be able tell you how/who to love/marry.

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[labrys 0]

Quote

Because the genetic material remains the same. Same benefits, same defects. Defects aren't magically introduced just because a sibling pair has kids.

Do you know what extraneous means?

Owned by Remi #?

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Because the genetic material remains the same. Same benefits, same defects. Defects aren't magically introduced just because a sibling pair has kids.

Do you know what extraneous means?

I'm thinking you read my reply wrong.

Because the genetic material remains the same [if you don't use outside genes].

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.