no same sex marriage in Maine - Page 14 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Captain Trips · #**196** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Other arguments against it that could be taken (or left) based on their merits are arguments demonstrating that allowing the institution of gay marriage to exist would cause more harm than it would provide benefit. If such a thing could be demonstrated, it would be a serious and cogent argument on the matter (of course, it would also careen off into the subjective with CT in here screaming about hell in a handbasket and the moral fabric of society while others talked about the detriment of denying rights and privileges selectively - both impossible to quantify and evaluate).

EeeeeEEEAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!

Hell in a handbasket EeeeeEEEAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!

How about the fact that different human relationships are called different things because it makes sense to do so ?

There is no logical argument for calling such different things the same thing. Unless of course what this is really about is the age old war against God and believers in God

EeeeeEEEAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!

Hell in a handbasket EeeeeEEEAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!

There, I think I made your case for you

I'm sure you think I did at least

Captain Trips · #**197** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

This thread is like abortion threads: there is no meeting of minds and no possibility of agreement because there are two entirely separate views of the world presented here, and two completely different vocabularies involved.

If we change the meanings of words, we can change the meanings of anything.

Redefining a word, doesn't magically make two obviously different things, the same thing, no matter how much we wish it did.

Worldviews based on wishful thinking and fantasy never have succeeded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

The words used have different meanings because the view of reality is fundamentally different.

It's a bit depressing but there is no way around it.

Right you are.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**198** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

If we change the meanings of words, we can change the meanings of anything.

Ah, rather like you do with the word 'hateful'.

Quote:

Redefining a word, doesn't magically make two obviously different things, the same thing, no matter how much we wish it did.

Ah, surprisingly like what you do with the words 'evidence' and 'hateful'.

Quote:

Worldviews based on wishful thinking and fantasy never have succeeded.

Oh, you have no idea how right you are. I find that irony rather delicious.

Quote:

Right you are.

It's not depressing in the least.

daddio · #**199** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

You've already admitted your own argument here has no rational basis Which side has no rational basis in the abortion debate?

hardly and pro-life

the other side in both is based on rationalization, not being rational.

daddio · #**200** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Don't you need some sort of permission from the state, before you can start handing our marriage licences? Not even getting to the issue of recognition yet, but wouldn't there be pleanty of legal implications folks just went around handing out marriages at a whim?

preachers cannot hand out marriage licences. they are allowed to vouch for the taking of oaths and presense of witnesses and have to return the application to the courthouse.

if they pretend to do otherwise they will lose that privilege and can be prosecuted. ("by the power vested in me by the state of_____")

daddio · #**201** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Aren't we getting completely ahead of ourselves here, btw?

Even in accepting gay clergymen, the anglican churches definately don't marry gays, so even if the government did get out of it altogether, there still isn't a church that i can see that would marry gays to one another (of the same gender).

Things could be worse for gays; if the government stopped issuing civil marriage licences and only recognized religious marriages, then gays would even more fucked.

Politically not really viable though, that sort of Christian hardline attitude could only pass in a few states probably. Would do a good job of rounding up those athiests and flinging them into church every Sunday morning though.

the episcopal church can and has.

bg85 · #**202** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

If we change the meanings of words, we can change the meanings of anything.

there was a south park episode on earlier tonight you might have enjoyed.

Jefe · #**203** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

But basically the state puts all sorts of restrictions on marriage, what is recognized and what isn't, what constitutes it, what the laws are, legal parameters and on and on and on.

This is no different. But one thing is for sure, whether it is discriminatory or not, the state still reserves the right to refuse a marriage license under whatever grounds it deems fit, and or whether it is unconstitutional or not, the license being rejected is final.

You can then apply for it again, but that's about it.

Actually, the state can't just deny a marriage license for whatever grounds it sees fit. They have to follow the constitution.

timj219 · #**204** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

Never mind.....

I'm not kidding. Not one opponemt of gay marriage has presented a rational basis here for fighting it. That's not true on most issues.

timj219 · #**205** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

hardly and pro-life

the other side in both is based on rationalization, not being rational.

Hardly? Then were is your rational basis? I haven't seen one from anybody. Both sides of the abortion debate have a rational basis for a law supporting their view. There simply is none for denying gay marriage.

daddio · #**206** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by timj219

Hardly? Then were is your rational basis? I haven't seen one from anybody. Both sides of the abortion debate have a rational basis for a law supporting their view. There simply is none for denying gay marriage.

I have not heard a rational case for same sex marriage or abortion.

I've heard rationalizations attempting to make a case but they boil down to 'because I WANT it'.

Jefe · #**207** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

I have not heard a rational case for same sex marriage or abortion.

I've heard rationalizations attempting to make a case but they boil down to 'because I WANT it'.

Maybe you've got selective hearing. We all do to an extent, it's just more prominent in some. As for abortion, I hear rational arguments from both sides. Same sex marriage, not so much. In the argument against same sex marriage, it boils down to 'because I don't LIKE it'.

daddio · #**208** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefe

Maybe you've got selective hearing. We all do to an extent, it's just more prominent in some. As for abortion, I hear rational arguments from both sides. Same sex marriage, not so much. In the argument against same sex marriage, it boils down to 'because I don't LIKE it'.

I hear fine.

Thousands of years of civilization speak to the soundness of te definition of marriage. Ten to twenty years of history of any alternative is just noise.

Tanngrisnir3 · #**209** (**permalink**) 2 Weeks Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by daddio

I hear fine.

Thousands of years of civilization speak to the soundness of te definition of marriage. Ten to twenty years of history of any alternative is just noise.

Ah, thousands of years of civilization included public burnings, slavery, etc....

Sorry, you'll need a better naked rationalization than that.