toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Silent Hunter]

I really like that one

a man and woman producing a child
or
two guys living together

which one has an overwhelming/compelling societal interest?

. . . I can explain it to you chrys . . .

. . . but . . .

. . . I need to know . . .

. . . how old you are . . .

. . . your education level . . .

. . . if you are married . . .

. . . and . . .

. . . if you have children.

. . . do you want to understand . . .

. . . or . . .

. . . do you want to continue to post half-baked objections ?

 

[Town Heretic]

I really like that one

You have to understand a thing to favor it. You're about to illustrate that isn't the case for you.

a man and woman producing a child or two guys living together

which one has an overwhelming/compelling societal interest?

Still not getting it then, though I wasn't vague: the obligation is to advance an argument for that right's abrogation and that argument must establish a compelling state interest served or threatened that would justify the abrogation of right and an inherent inequality before the law.

You haven't done that. You've advanced emotion and dogma.

 

[chrysostom]

Still not getting it then, though I wasn't vague: the obligation is to advance an argument for that right's abrogation and that argument must establish a compelling state interest served or threatened that would justify the abrogation of right and an inherent inequality before the law.

I will have to get with my lawyer
and
then get back to you

 

[Town Heretic]

I will have to get with my lawyer and then get back to you

Like I said: no argument, just dogma. And while it does bite it won't hunt. :nono:

 

[Silent Hunter]

I will have to get with my lawyer
and
then get back to you

. . . I can explain it to you chrys . . .

. . . but . . .

. . . I need to know . . .

. . . how old you are . . .

. . . your education level . . .

. . . if you are married . . .

. . . and . . .

. . . if you have children.

. . . do you want to understand . . .

. . . or . . .

. . . do you want to continue to post half-baked objections ?

. . . or . . .

. . . do you really want to find where you've erred in your . . . er . . . "logic" ?

 

[chrysostom]

Like I said: no argument, just dogma. And while it does bite it won't hunt. :nono:

just got through talking with my lawyer and he said
that
a man and woman producing a child
does
have an overwhelming/compelling societal interest
and
two guys living together
does not

he did admit that you had a way with words

 

[Town Heretic]

just got through talking with my lawyer and he said that a man and woman producing a child does have an overwhelming/compelling societal interest and two guys living together does not he did admit that you had a way with words

Chrys, I only just set out that's not the standard. The standard should be applied to justify the abrogation of the right to contract. You're asserting a peculiar variation of guilty until proven innocent with your willful misreading.

Again: if you want to deny my equal right to contract you have to establish a case of societal interest that would overwhelm that right, be I a black man wanting to live in your neighborhood or a gay man wanting to enter into contract with another.

Now try to do that while I make a cup of coffee to spit all over the screen with your next post.

 

[Silent Hunter]

just got through talking with my lawyer and he said
that
a man and woman producing a child
does
have an overwhelming/compelling societal interest
and
two guys living together
does not

. . . you're STILL trying to make this about children . . .

. . . and . . .

. . . children are NOT the defining factor of marriage.

. . . there is no "societal interest" involved in the contract . . .

. . . only . . .

. . . the interest of the couple wishing to be married . . .

. . . which . . .

. . . as much as you would like it to be . . .

. . . has nothing to do with children.

he did admit that you had a way with words

. . . doesn't he though . . . :chuckle:.

 

[chrysostom]

Chrys, I only just set out that's not the standard. The standard should be applied to justify the abrogation of the right to contract. You're asserting a peculiar variation of guilty until proven innocent with your willful misreading.

Again: if you want to deny my equal right to contract you have to establish a case of societal interest that would overwhelm that right, be I a black man wanting to live in your neighborhood or a gay man wanting to enter into contract with another.

Now try to do that while I make a cup of coffee to spit all over the screen with your next post.

again with the contract assertion that does not compute
it is a commitment and/or vow recognized by a third party that has a vested interest
but
I prefer overwhelming/compelling societal interest, which will forever be a part of my defense of marriage thanks to you

you hang your hat on contract and equality where neither one exists

two guys living together will never equal a man and woman joined together to raise a family

 

[Arthur Brain]

Someone put this thread out of my misery.....

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

again with the contract assertion that does not compute

Willful ignorance of the law is no excuse.

it is a commitment and/or vow recognized by a third party that has a vested interest
but
I prefer overwhelming/compelling societal interest, which will forever be a part of my defense of marriage thanks to you

Only if you insist on misapplying the standard, which seems fitting for your part here.

you hang your hat on contract and equality where neither one exists

A self serving declaration that runs afoul of the Constitution, which establishes equality before the law as a foundational right. The rest of our brief history as a nation has been the struggle to live up to and apply that principle. It's frequently difficult and requires a great deal of struggle, but there you go.

two guys living together will never equal a man and woman joined together to raise a family

Well, that's your subjective judgment, but that's not the measure applied here. The measure is whether every man or woman has the same right, is equal in right absent that standard you've chosen to misapprehend.

Ignore or distort that as you will. :e4e:

 

[Rusha]

two guys living together will never equal a man and woman joined together to raise a family

You are being dishonest about your reason for opposing same sex marriage.

Being that you are making this about only allowing individuals who can biologically reproduce with one another to be married, you should also be demanding proof that both partners are capable of producing children.

Would you also deny two 70 year old individuals the right to marry as well as a 20 year old Catholic woman who has undergone a total hysterectomy for medical reasons? Oh wait ... make that a 20 year old Catholic, Republican woman ..........................................

 

[Silent Hunter]

again with the contract assertion that does not compute

. . . it's NOT an assertion chrys . . . it's an established fact that people enter into contracts . . . marriage is a contract.

it is a commitment and/or vow recognized by a third party that has a vested interest

. . . the contract may . . . or . . . may NOT be . . . recognized by a third party . . . which . . . in the case of the state (government) . . . has no "vested" interest in the marriage.

but
I prefer overwhelming/compelling societal interest . . .

. . . what is the interest that society has concerning love between two adults ?

. . . , which will forever be a part of my defense of marriage thanks to you

. . . and how is YOUR confusion everyone else's fault ? . . . :liberals: . . . :idunno:.

you hang your hat on contract and equality where neither one exists

. . . :doh: . . .

. . . Earth to Captain Clueless . . .

. . . how many times has TH explained this to you ?

two guys living together will never equal a man and woman joined together to raise a family

. . . perhaps not . . . but . . . "raising a family" isn't the singular purpose of marriage no matter how much you want YOUR theological dogma to apply.

. . . nor is "raising a family" limited to a male - female marriage.

 

[Persephone66]

So chrys, hypothetical for ya.

Let's say 2 men wanted to marry. Let's say the same 2 men wanted to adopt. But wait there's more - they met a young woman that was planning on having an abortion. They talked her out of it and it is her child that they are going to adopt. Should these 2 men be allowed to get married? They are starting a family and protecting a child after all.

 

[chrysostom]

So chrys, hypothetical for ya.

Let's say 2 men wanted to marry. Let's say the same 2 men wanted to adopt. But wait there's more - they met a young woman that was planning on having an abortion. They talked her out of it and it is her child that they are going to adopt. Should these 2 men be allowed to get married? They are starting a family and protecting a child after all.

that is an interesting hypothetical situation
but
this one is real

an adoption agency was force to close because the state required them to work with homosexual couples

 

[chrysostom]

A self serving declaration that runs afoul of the Constitution, :

the same constitution that allows you to kill your baby?
or
is it just the interpretation of some liberal judge

 

[chrysostom]

You are being dishonest about your reason for opposing same sex marriage.

Being that you are making this about only allowing individuals who can biologically reproduce with one another to be married, you should also be demanding proof that both partners are capable of producing children.

Would you also deny two 70 year old individuals the right to marry as well as a 20 year old Catholic woman who has undergone a total hysterectomy for medical reasons? Oh wait ... make that a 20 year old Catholic, Republican woman ..........................................

thank you for another opportunity to point out that it is just not practical to determine whether or not someone can't or will not have children

 

[Silent Hunter]

that is an interesting hypothetical situation
but
this one is real

an adoption agency was force to close because the state required them to work with homosexual couples

. . . actually your choice of words is deceptive chrys . . .

. . . the agency wasn't forced to close . . . it CHOSE to close rather than follow the law . . . which is irrespective of religion.

. . . I'm sorry if that inconveniences you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

the same constitution that allows you to kill your baby?
or
is it just the interpretation of some liberal judge

. . . when all else fails . . . change the subject . . . right chrys ?

. . . the US government is irrespective of religion.

. . . I'm sorry if that inconveniences you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

thank you for another opportunity to point out that it is just not practical to determine whether or not someone can't or will not have children

. . . exactly . . . so why are you making the ability of a couple who want to be married such a big deal ? . . . :idunno:.