Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[TroutBum]

Where in the constitution does it say that one has a fundamental right to marry the same sex? If homosexuals were prohibited from marrying people of opposite sex, then I would buy your argument. But they are not, and they can--and many do--enter into traditional marriages. And many even have kids with their opposite sex partner. So in short, homosexuals have just as much right to a traditional marriage as anyone.

Edit: at least, that's my opinion until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, which they may or may not do. But as yet they have NEVER proclaimed there to be a fundamental right to marry people of the same sex.

This can't seriously be your argument... If I'm reading it right, you're telling me that every gay person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that if they don't, then it's their own fault for not doing it. Please tell me that I totally misunderstood what you are saying. Pretty please.

 

[Bronco70]

Where in the constitution does it say that one has a fundamental right to marry the same sex? If homosexuals were prohibited from marrying people of opposite sex, then I would buy your argument. But they are not, and they can--and many do--enter into traditional marriages. And many even have kids with their opposite sex partner. So in short, homosexuals have just as much right to a traditional marriage as anyone.

Edit: at least, that's my opinion until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, which they may or may not do. But as yet they have NEVER proclaimed there to be a fundamental right to marry people of the same sex.

This is sketchy logic, Colton.

Where in the constitution does is specify the fundamental right of blondes to marry other blondes?

C'mon now...


Sent from the JazzFanz app

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Where in the constitution does it say that one has a fundamental right to marry the same sex? If homosexuals were prohibited from marrying people of opposite sex, then I would buy your argument. But they are not, and they can--and many do--enter into traditional marriages. And many even have kids with their opposite sex partner. So in short, homosexuals have just as much right to a traditional marriage as anyone.

Edit: at least, that's my opinion until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, which they may or may not do. But as yet they have NEVER proclaimed there to be a fundamental right to marry people of the same sex.

I'm going to restrict you, Colton, from being a Jazz fan. You are no longer a Jazz fan. You do have the fundamental right to be a basketball fan, and I'm not taking that away from you, but you can't be a Jazz fan.

And it's even funny that you are arguing that, too, since you're suggesting marriage is nothing more than farce. "You don't have the right to marry your romantic partner, but you can marry someone you don't love." For someone who triumphs marriage as something sacred, you're kind of blowing your nose on it, suggested people should be marrying out of convenience, or anything outside of love.

And that's the hypocrisy with the whole argument. Marriage is this great thing, but you can't have it, but you can, but it wouldn't be that great thing, so it's not really marriage.

 

[colton]

This can't seriously be your argument... If I'm reading it right, you're telling me that every gay person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that if they don't, then it's their own fault for not doing it. Please tell me that I totally misunderstood what you are saying. Pretty please.

As far as a legal argument goes, in my opinion that's what would have to be denied gays for them to be able to truly claim this is a civil rights issue. It isn't denied them.

In short, marriage is about uniting two people of opposite sexes, period. If two people of the same sex want to unite, then it's not a marriage. And enacting legislation to account for civil unions is a much better solution than trying to call it something it isn't.

 

[colton]

And it's even funny that you are arguing that, too, since you're suggesting marriage is nothing more than farce. "You don't have the right to marry your romantic partner, but you can marry someone you don't love." For someone who triumphs marriage as something sacred, you're kind of blowing your nose on it, suggested people should be marrying out of convenience, or anything outside of love.

The straw man used by most people in the pro gay marriage camp is the idea that marriage solely exists for two people to proclaim their love. That is not the sole purpose of marriage.

And I didn't say that homosexuals should necessarily marry people of the opposite sex, only that they could do so.* That option is not denied them.


*And some do, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.

 

[TroutBum]

As far as a legal argument goes, in my opinion that's what would have to be denied gays for them to be able to truly claim this is a civil rights issue. It isn't denied them.

In short, marriage is about uniting two people of opposite sexes, period. If two people of the same sex want to unite, then it's not a marriage. And enacting legislation to account for civil unions is a much better solution than trying to call it something it isn't.

This is silly beyond even my normal scope of things. I'm just going to give you an E-hug and wish you well, Doc. You're a good guy.

 

[8]

Bout ready for the next revolution tbh

 

[8]

Having a government tell people they can't do what makes them happy even though it doesn't infringe on the rights of others is not cool. Although, it is commonplace these days

 

[Darkwing Duck]

The straw man used by most people in the pro gay marriage camp is the idea that marriage solely exists for two people to proclaim their love. That is not the sole purpose of marriage.

And I didn't say that homosexuals should necessarily marry people of the opposite sex, only that they could do so.* That option is not denied them.


*And some do, sometimes successfully and sometimes not.

And religion isn't the sole purpose of marriage either. Marrying someone of the OPPOSITE sex isn't the sole purpose of marriage, either.

Marriage has existed LONG before Christianity existed, and has minor correlation to raising children on the macro level.

Marriage exists to do several things.

1. Exclusive sexual rights.
2. Determines paternity
3. Creates familial alliance
4. Interpersonal alliance (pooling of individual resources)

Child REARING, and the basis for the state of Utah's argument, is completely irrelevant in the concept of marriage. And not all conditions of the reasons for marriage have to be met for a marriage to occur. "Traditional" marriage, which is an extreme misnomer, tries to restrict marriage when marriage has much broader the world and time over.

 

[Beantown]

I'm not against black people. I think negro's should be seen as socially equal but they are obviously not biologically equal.

You don't even make sense. Black people and white people are obviously biologically equal.

Does it really offend you to say that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not biologically equal? Because that is 100% true.

How am I stupid for dumb for saying something that is true?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You don't even make sense. Black people and white people are obviously biologically equal.

Does it really offend you to say that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are not biologically equal? Because that is 100% true.

How am I stupid for dumb for saying something that is true?

What?

Could you go more in depth, because what is seemingly obvious to you is confusing to 6 other billion people.

 

[Beantown]

Did I say you did? Did you not say that marriage is about creating families? You did, in case you forgot. So, naturally, I assumed it was germane to your point.

Silly me.


Sent from the JazzFanz app

Gay families will always have to rely on heterosexuals to create families. Their relationships are not equal. I have no issue with them being treated equal in a social aspect but don't lie to my face and say they are the same.