One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Homosexuality does occur in nature.

So? That's not my point at all.

Even in nature, homosexuality is different that heterosexuality ... please, please don't make me explain how the parts work.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Aramike

So? That's not my point at all.

Even in nature, homosexuality is different that heterosexuality ... please, please don't make me explain how the parts work.

And there's that 'parts' comment again; clearly an insinuation that homosexuality is apart from nature. So, really, if that wasn't your point, why say it? Please don't make me explain how basic logical argument proceeds.

[Aramike]

Wrong. You mis-represented it. Rights are inherent. Laws are not made to create or allow rights, they are made to restrict them. Usually this is done for protection. You want to do it for moral reasons, and this is wrong.

Wrong. You're responding to a point you clearly didn't get.

Then why the hostility, and the insistence? It looks like you care about it a great deal.

Hostile? WHAT?

I'm sorry, I'm being pointed - not hostile. I'll try to include the proper amount of emoticons and smilies if it will soothe your conscious.

Again, I really don't give a damn, and I have presented what I believe would be a proper compromise (a term the minority never seems to understand).

How was he out of line? A case was brought before his bench and he ruled on it, and created a very detailed explanation of why he ruled what he did.

Did you read the explanation?

You now need to explain why, if you don't care about the issue, you feel the need to attempt to dismiss it with an intentional insult to everybody who disagrees with you.

It wasn't meant as an insult to everybody who disagrees with me, as you say. It was meant as an observation of EVERYONE IN GENERAL.

People tend to find a way to spin things into meaning what they want them to mean, rather than taking them at face value. Your response was an excellent case-in-point. I suspect you wanted to find every line I wrote to be wrong, and therefore you argued as though I said something I didn't.

Thanks for proving my point.

Tradition is not always right either.

Nor, in this case, is it wrong.

Is there a possibility that you are so upset over this because you find homosexuality offensive and hate to see any concession in that direction.

Nope.

Well guess what? I find the act itself not only offensive but revolting, and I hate seeing men holding hands (and fondling each other) in public. But I also realize that my morality and sensibilities might just be skewed by what I've been taught over the years.

That sounds like something you should work on.

While I don't particularly want to see two men making out, I don't find it any more offensive than seeing a straight couple doing the same.

What I find offensive is when the minority insists upon infringing upon the established traditions of the majority when THEY CAN REAP THE SAME BENEFITS WITHOUT DOING SO!

It has gone from a question of doing what is right to a question of one side being able to stick it to the other.

But considering that you've so convieniently lumped me into the anti-gay crowd, you've gone far to make my point that compromise, and as such, the middle ground is beyond the grasp of your side's capability.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wrong. You're responding to a point you clearly didn't get.

Then please explain further.

Hostile? WHAT?

I'm sorry, I'm being pointed - not hostile. I'll try to include the proper amount of emoticons and smilies if it will soothe your conscious.

Then I apologise. It looked hostile to me, but perhaps I was getting excited myself.

Again, I really don't give a damn, and I have presented what I believe would be a proper compromise (a term the minority never seems to understand).Did you read the explanation?It wasn't meant as an insult to everybody who disagrees with me, as you say. It was meant as an observation of EVERYONE IN GENERAL.

Then you include yourself in that statement? Again I apologise. It seemed dismissive to me.

People tend to find a way to spin things into meaning what they want them to mean, rather than taking them at face value. Your response was an excellent case-in-point. I suspect you wanted to find every line I wrote to be wrong, and therefore you argued as though I said something I didn't.

Perhaps. I don't know myself well enough to judge that.

Thanks for proving my point.

If you mean the one about misinterpreting or over-reacting, then you're welcome. If you meant something within the "Gay Marriage" argument itself, you'll need to explain.

Nor, in this case, is it wrong.

That's your opinion, nothing more. It might very well be wrong.

Nope...

And yet you are so adamant about it. You claim to have no dog in this hunt, yet you argue as if it's your very life's passion. Me, I don't care about it either, but I do care very much about people's rights.

That sounds like something you should work on.

I've already worked on it. That's why I admit that my reactions may be wrong, and support the rights of those I disagree with.

What I find offensive is when the minority insists upon infringing upon the established traditions of the majority when THEY CAN REAP THE SAME BENEFITS WITHOUT DOING SO!

So why deny them the right to just do so?

But considering that you've so convieniently lumped me into the anti-gay crowd, you've gone far to make my point that compromise, and as such, the middle ground is beyond the grasp of your side's capability.

But you don't advocate a middle ground. You advocate the restriction of a percieved benefit from a portion of the population, and your basis for doing so seems to be solely morality. What you advocate is not compromise at all.

And "your side"? What exactly is "my side". I've said I find homosexuality distasteful, so it can't be that. The side of advocating equal rights for all?

[Aramike]

But you don't advocate a middle ground. You advocate the restriction of a percieved benefit from a portion of the population, and your basis for doing so seems to be solely morality. What you advocate is not compromise at all.

So why deny them the right to just do so?

*Sigh*

What benefit am I restricting? I am in favor of 100% equal rights.

If the term marriage itself is a benefit, than I'm no more restricting a "perceived benefit" than you would be. Heterosexuals perhaps "perceive" that term to mean a man and woman's union as a benefit...

So, either you're saying that the heterosexual's "percieved" benefit isn't actually a benefit and therefore it shouldn't matter to them, or you're saying that it IS a benefit but one that only matters to gays as you are in favor of removing that "benefit" from straights...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aramike

*Sigh*

What benefit am I restricting? I am in favor of 100% equal rights.

But the "right" to marriage is only for people who believe the 'Correct' way?

If the term marriage itself is a benefit, than I'm no more restricting a "perceived benefit" than you would be. Heterosexuals perhaps "perceive" that term to mean a man and woman's union as a benefit...

You say they can marry someone else, but not whom they love. How is that not deying the same benefit.

So, either you're saying that the heterosexual's "percieved" benefit isn't actually a benefit and therefore it shouldn't matter to them, or you're saying that it IS a benefit but one that only matters to gays as you are in favor of removing that "benefit" from straights...

I used the word "benefit" because in our society marriage is portrayed as a benefit to those who partake in it. If it's not then why deny it to someone based on their orientation?

But the real question here is the law as voted on and the judge's action. Is marriage an innate right? Insomuch as the freedom to do what we want is an innate right, then yes.

If it's not an innate right, then what is it? A social contract? Then to what end?

Is it an official acknowledgement of a love relationship?

What is the purpose of stating that it is only between a man and a woman, except the express reason of saying to homosexuals "See, you aren't allowed to do this"?

To that end the law is a nose-thumb to a segment of society, base solely on morality. In that it's wrong.

[Platapus]

The Frau was telling me how they handle marriage in Germany, and I think their system would work well here in the US.

Everyone gets married in a non-religious civil ceremony before a government official. This establishes the legal state of marriage. Then, the couple can go to their church for the religious ceremony of marriage. This establishes the religious/spiritual state of marriage.

Churches are free to establish their own rules and exclude anyone they wish. Also, no one is forced to have a religious ceremony.

The problem we have in the US is that for too long there has been an intermixing the process of legal state of marriage and the religious/spiritual state of marriage.

Let's separate them. Hey separation of church and state. I like how that sounds.

The government gets to make the rules concerning the legal state of marriage and the churches get to make the rules concerning the religious/spiritual state of marriage. A win-win situation.

If a church disagrees with the legal state of marriage, they don't have recognize it in their religious state of marriage.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Platapus

The Frau was telling me how they handle marriage in Germany, and I think their system would work well here in the US.

Everyone gets married in a non-religious civil ceremony before a government official. This establishes the legal state of marriage. Then, the couple can go to their church for the religious ceremony of marriage. This establishes the religious/spiritual state of marriage.

Churches are free to establish their own rules and exclude anyone they wish. Also, no one is forced to have a religious ceremony.

The problem we have in the US is that for too long there has been an intermixing the process of legal state of marriage and the religious/spiritual state of marriage.

Let's separate them. Hey separation of church and state. I like how that sounds.

The government gets to make the rules concerning the legal state of marriage and the churches get to make the rules concerning the religious/spiritual state of marriage. A win-win situation.

If a church disagrees with the legal state of marriage, they don't have recognize it in their religious state of marriage.

Dude, we have marriage licenses. Than you can pretty much do it however you want. I'm good with that.

...and do union licenses for gays and let them get hitched how they choose.