Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 4:46 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 7, 11:47 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 7, 1:10 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> Mike wrote: >> >> >> > On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Rep. Jordan Ulery: "The issue was brought forth against the will of >> >> >> >> the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse the >> >> >> >> issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue,".
>> >> >> >> New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law inCrosshairsafter Maine's Law >> >> >> >> Crumbles
>> >> >> >> By Peter J. Smith
>> >> >> >> CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - >> >> >> >> Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family advocates >> >> >> >> have now turned their attention to rolling back same-sex "marriage" >> >> >> >> in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the state legislature in >> >> >> >> June is set to take effect in January 2010.
>> >> >> >> Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have >> >> >> >> seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a >> >> >> >> referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House come >> >> >> >> January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex "marriage" >> >> >> >> legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The second proposal >> >> >> >> would be a state constitutional amendment that would allow voters to >> >> >> >> have the final say on whether "the state shall only recognize the >> >> >> >> union of one man and one woman as marriage."
>> >> >> >> Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the New >> >> >> >> Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was approved by >> >> >> >> the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill had gone through >> >> >> >> seven emendations over several months, including the insertion of >> >> >> >> key guarantees on religious freedom, before Gov. Lynch would sign >> >> >> >> the bill into law.
>> >> >> >> "The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of >> >> >> >> people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying it >> >> >> >> was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told the >> >> >> >> Democrat.
>> >> >> > From what I understand that it has been derailed in New Jersey as a >> >> >> > result of the Maine outcome, too. The legislator there was going to >> >> >> > impose a redefined marriage on the residents of that state, but it is >> >> >> > going to have to act fast, before January, because the new governor >> >> >> > will veto it. Besides, the legislators there might want to stop and >> >> >> > think twice now that the writing is on the wall. If New York >> >> >> > seriously contemplated this move, they might want to back off from it, >> >> >> > too.
>> >> >> > I've been reading lots of blogs and follow-up comments to articles.and >> >> >> > they are having a really hard time dealing with this defeat. Had >> >> >> > their side won in Maine, of course, they would have been touting it as >> >> >> > a popular consensus validation of "equality marriage." Since they >> >> >> > lost, they are saying their phony civil rights movement is too >> >> >> > important for the mob to vote on, anyway. So they want to go to the >> >> >> > courts. They are going to hit a brick wall there, too.
>> >> >> > Just because a few activist judges broke their way, they think they >> >> >> > have a chance to overturn DOMA or get the Supreme Court to redefine >> >> >> > what marriage has meant since the beginning of recorded history. >> >> >> > That's how severely detached from reality these people are.
>> >> >> You must mean people who think marriage has had one definition since the >> >> >> beginning of recorded history, since that is obviously false.
>> >> >Marriage has always been a man-woman thing. Maybe there has been man- >> >> >women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the >> >> >sexes.
Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 2:24 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >> Marriage is not needed for propagation. It never has been.
>That much is obvious.
> The human >> sex drive takes care of that without respect to the civil contract of >> marriage.
>Marriage may not be necessary for a sperm to fertilize an egg cell, >but it seems to be a vital part of getting the next generation up and >running.
It's amazing that the human race didn't die out before there was marriage.
Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >> >> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >> >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >> >> > is what they want to do?
>> >> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
>> >I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding >> >marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only >> >marriage to be an injustice.
>> I wonder why the bigoted idiot thinks that only his version of >> marriage should be allowed.
>> >> Current fallacy: slippery slope.
>> >Some slopes are slippery.
>> Can't allow marriage of ANY kind or you'll have people being forced >> into unwanted marriages by horses.
>I never mentioned animals, so why bring it up?
I didn't see anyone mention siblings either until you brought it up.
Mike wrote: > On Nov 7, 2:24 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 7:27 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: >>>>>> Rep. Jordan Ulery: "The issue was brought forth against the will >>>>>> of the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse >>>>>> the issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue,".
>>>>>> New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law inCrosshairsafter Maine's >>>>>> Law Crumbles
>>>>>> By Peter J. Smith
>>>>>> CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - >>>>>> Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family >>>>>> advocates have now turned their attention to rolling back >>>>>> same-sex "marriage" in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the >>>>>> state legislature in June is set to take effect in January 2010.
>>>>>> Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have >>>>>> seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a >>>>>> referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House >>>>>> come January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex >>>>>> "marriage" legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The >>>>>> second proposal would be a state constitutional amendment that >>>>>> would allow voters to have the final say on whether "the state >>>>>> shall only recognize the union of one man and one woman as >>>>>> marriage."
>>>>>> Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the >>>>>> New Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was >>>>>> approved by the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill >>>>>> had gone through seven emendations over several months, >>>>>> including the insertion of key guarantees on religious freedom, >>>>>> before Gov. Lynch would sign the bill into law.
>>>>>> "The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of >>>>>> people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying >>>>>> it was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told >>>>>> the Democrat.
>>>>> From what I understand that it has been derailed in New Jersey as >>>>> a result of the Maine outcome, too. The legislator there was >>>>> going to impose a redefined marriage on the residents of that >>>>> state, but it is going to have to act fast, before January, >>>>> because the new governor will veto it. Besides, the legislators >>>>> there might want to stop and think twice now that the writing is >>>>> on the wall. If New York seriously contemplated this move, they >>>>> might want to back off from it, too.
>>>>> I've been reading lots of blogs and follow-up comments to >>>>> articles.and they are having a really hard time dealing with this >>>>> defeat. Had their side won in Maine, of course, they would have >>>>> been touting it as a popular consensus validation of "equality >>>>> marriage." Since they lost, they are saying their phony civil >>>>> rights movement is too important for the mob to vote on, anyway. >>>>> So they want to go to the courts. They are going to hit a brick >>>>> wall there, too.
>>>>> Just because a few activist judges broke their way, they think >>>>> they have a chance to overturn DOMA or get the Supreme Court to >>>>> redefine what marriage has meant since the beginning of recorded >>>>> history. That's how severely detached from reality these people >>>>> are.
>>>> You must mean people who think marriage has had one definition >>>> since the beginning of recorded history, since that is obviously >>>> false.
>>> Marriage has always been a man-woman thing.
>> Sometimes, it has been a man-young girl thing. But anyway, that has >> changed, and so has the man-woman thing.
>>> Maybe there has been man- >>> women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the >>> sexes. There's been some nonsense posted from time to time that >>> Greeks had homosexual marriage. No, they did not. Greek men may have >>> had boyfriends, but they always married women. The gay rights >>> movement confuses the fact while there may have always been >>> homosexual activity, there has not always been homosexual marriage. >>> In fact, homosexual marriage has been all but non-existent. Past >>> societies knew what they needed to do for the sake of their >>> propagation and continuance
>> Marriage is not needed for propagation. It never has been.
> That much is obvious.
> The human >> sex drive takes care of that without respect to the civil contract of >> marriage.
> Marriage may not be necessary for a sperm to fertilize an egg cell, > but it seems to be a vital part of getting the next generation up and > running. Children need parents, society needs families so children > can be raised with some mores and social conventions to that they can > become fully functioning adults.
Which really has nothing to do with civil marriage, since having children, the ability to have children or the intention to have children is not required. It is not mentioned at all, therefore it amounts to a red herring.
On 2009-11-07 14:37:14 -0500, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> said:
> In Maine. Rural, Catholic Maine. Only an additional 3% needed. It's > just a matter of time.
Maine! One of the most liberal of the North Eastern states told you homosexuals you could go fuck yourself and that you could do it without getting married. <SNIGGER>
> > On Nov 7, 4:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 5:16 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 7, 11:47 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>>> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Mike wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Rep. Jordan Ulery: "The issue was brought forth against the will of > >>>>>>>> the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse the > >>>>>>>> issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue,". > >>>>>>>>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110611.html > >>>>>>>> New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law inCrosshairsafter Maine's Law > >>>>>>>> Crumbles > >>>>>>>> By Peter J. Smith > >>>>>>>> CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - > >>>>>>>> Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family advocates > >>>>>>>> have now turned their attention to rolling back same-sex "marriage" > >>>>>>>> in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the state legislature in > >>>>>>>> June is set to take effect in January 2010. > >>>>>>>> Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have > >>>>>>>> seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a > >>>>>>>> referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House come > >>>>>>>> January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex "marriage" > >>>>>>>> legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The second proposal > >>>>>>>> would be a state constitutional amendment that would allow voters to > >>>>>>>> have the final say on whether "the state shall only recognize the > >>>>>>>> union of one man and one woman as marriage." > >>>>>>>> Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the New > >>>>>>>> Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was approved by > >>>>>>>> the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill had gone through > >>>>>>>> seven emendations over several months, including the insertion of > >>>>>>>> key guarantees on religious freedom, before Gov. Lynch would sign > >>>>>>>> the bill into law. > >>>>>>>> "The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of > >>>>>>>> people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying it > >>>>>>>> was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told the > >>>>>>>> Democrat. > >>>>>>>>http://www.lifesitenews.com > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> J Young > >>>>>>>> Jvisi...@live.com > >>>>>>> From what I understand that it has been derailed in New Jersey as a > >>>>>>> result of the Maine outcome, too. The legislator there was going to > >>>>>>> impose a redefined marriage on the residents of that state, but it is > >>>>>>> going to have to act fast, before January, because the new governor > >>>>>>> will veto it. Besides, the legislators there might want to stop and > >>>>>>> think twice now that the writing is on the wall. If New York > >>>>>>> seriously contemplated this move, they might want to back off from it, > >>>>>>> too. > >>>>>>> I've been reading lots of blogs and follow-up comments to articles.and > >>>>>>> they are having a really hard time dealing with this defeat. Had > >>>>>>> their side won in Maine, of course, they would have been touting it as > >>>>>>> a popular consensus validation of "equality marriage." Since they > >>>>>>> lost, they are saying their phony civil rights movement is too > >>>>>>> important for the mob to vote on, anyway. So they want to go to the > >>>>>>> courts. They are going to hit a brick wall there, too. > >>>>>>> Just because a few activist judges broke their way, they think they > >>>>>>> have a chance to overturn DOMA or get the Supreme Court to redefine > >>>>>>> what marriage has meant since the beginning of recorded history. > >>>>>>> That's how severely detached from reality these people are. > >>>>>> You must mean people who think marriage has had one definition since the > >>>>>> beginning of recorded history, since that is obviously false. > >>>>> Marriage has always been a man-woman thing. Maybe there has been man- > >>>>> women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the > >>>>> sexes. > >>>> That's simply wrong.http://www.enotalone.com/article/4358.html > >>> Which supports what I said. There is alo: > >>>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1693353 > >>> Note the thorough debunking of Boswell's claim that the "Making of > >>> Brothers" ceremony was not a marriage, > >> Ah, your red herring worked. Or, at least, you're still trying to > >> work it. It's utterly unimportant to the discussion, though.
> >> Your point -- your PREMISE, actually -- is that if it hasn't been > >> done, it shouldn't be done.
> > No, that is not my point at all. The propaganda being pumped in here > > is that homosexual marriage has been on the scene for a long time.
> > This is ridiculous on its face; we'd > >> still be living in caves if everyone thought as you do, because at one > >> time, nobody had ever lived in a house, and since it hadn't been done, > >> it shouldn't be done. We can talk here about moon landings, the > >> development of vaccines, the establishment of schools, the internet... > >> the list goes on and on. Your premise is disproved, making your > >> conclusion logically invalid.
> > Change does not always necessarily mean progress.
> >> More important is what is happening TODAY: Same-sex marriage is legal > >> in a number of countries. So, it HAS been done, and you don't even > >> have that premise to work with any more. So give it up.
> > Yes, it has been in a few countries since 2001. That is a mere > > nanosecond against recorded history, not worth mentioning at this > > point.
> >>> but a ceremony to reconcile the > >>> heads of warring clans. Homosexual marriage was not a practice in > >>> Athens nor in Rome, save for a satirical wedding once taking place > >>> between an Emperor and a slave. > >>> Therefore, homosexual marriage in human history has been virtually non- > >>> existent. > >> It does currently exist in a number of countries. Internet use was > >> virtually non-existent 40 years ago. Today... See how ridiculous your > >> "logic" is?
> > It has been in a few countries since 2001. It has been told that > > homosexual marriage was extant in ancient Greek and Roman society. It > > wasn't.
> D'you know, there is a very long history of > same-sex marriage and unions through history.
No, there is not. Homosexual marriage was so rare and infrequent as to be practically unheard of. It was not accepted in ancient Greece and Rome, and was not part of medieval Europe. Again, against the backdrop of the whole sweep and scope of human history, homosexual marriage is all but non-existent in ancient, medieval, and modern times. Only in our post-modern time does it appear, beginning in the 70s, when a few gay couples sought marriage licenses and were turned down.
> >>> Homosexual activity does not equate to homosexual marriage. > >> Nobody said that it did.
> > Thank you for admitting that homosexual marriage did not exist until > > just now, because many are trying to say that it did.
> That, of course, isn't what he "admitted". I > suppose you have to proclaim your "victories" > where you might hope to have glimpsed them.
> In any case, you've failed to show how the > existence or otherwise of historical SS > relationships has anything to do with the fact > that marriage is a civil right, and it's equally > true that opponents of SSM have yet to give a good > reason to deny that right.
Proponents of SSM have yet to prove that "civil right" means the right to take the meaning and form of marriage and alter it, even after having been extended benefits of domestic partnerships, the intent being to use the government to force acceptance of an alternate sexuality.
> -- > "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there > is no God. I equally cannot > prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god > may exist; so may the gods of > Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But > no one of these hypotheses is > more probable than any other: they lie outside the > region of even probable > knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to > consider any of them." > Bertrand Russell
> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it > >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that > >> > is what they want to do?
> >> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
> >I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding > >marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only > >marriage to be an injustice.
> I wonder why the bigoted idiot thinks that only his version of > marriage should be allowed.
Excuse me, when did I make a bigoted remark? When did I use a slur? When did I advocate gay-bashing or some other intimidating act? Please go back over my posts and show me where I attacked gays on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Or may I conclude that for you there are only 2 kinds of people who exist in this world:
1. Same-sex marriage advocates who enthusiastically support it 100%, or 2. Evil, hate-filled homophobic bigots
Since I do not fall in # 1, therefore, I fall in #2.
> >> Current fallacy: slippery slope.
> >Some slopes are slippery.
> Can't allow marriage of ANY kind or you'll have people being forced > into unwanted marriages by horses.
I said no such thing. I'm only talking about consenting adults.
> On Nov 8, 10:22 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote: >> On 11/8/09 10:55 PM, * Mike wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 4:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 7, 5:16 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 7, 11:47 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>>>> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Mike wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Rep. Jordan Ulery: "The issue was brought forth against the will of >>>>>>>>>> the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse the >>>>>>>>>> issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue,". >>>>>>>>>> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110611.html >>>>>>>>>> New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law inCrosshairsafter Maine's Law >>>>>>>>>> Crumbles >>>>>>>>>> By Peter J. Smith >>>>>>>>>> CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - >>>>>>>>>> Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family advocates >>>>>>>>>> have now turned their attention to rolling back same-sex "marriage" >>>>>>>>>> in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the state legislature in >>>>>>>>>> June is set to take effect in January 2010. >>>>>>>>>> Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have >>>>>>>>>> seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a >>>>>>>>>> referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House come >>>>>>>>>> January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex "marriage" >>>>>>>>>> legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The second proposal >>>>>>>>>> would be a state constitutional amendment that would allow voters to >>>>>>>>>> have the final say on whether "the state shall only recognize the >>>>>>>>>> union of one man and one woman as marriage." >>>>>>>>>> Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the New >>>>>>>>>> Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was approved by >>>>>>>>>> the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill had gone through >>>>>>>>>> seven emendations over several months, including the insertion of >>>>>>>>>> key guarantees on religious freedom, before Gov. Lynch would sign >>>>>>>>>> the bill into law. >>>>>>>>>> "The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of >>>>>>>>>> people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying it >>>>>>>>>> was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told the >>>>>>>>>> Democrat. >>>>>>>>>> http://www.lifesitenews.com >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> J Young >>>>>>>>>> Jvisi...@live.com >>>>>>>>> From what I understand that it has been derailed in New Jersey as a >>>>>>>>> result of the Maine outcome, too. The legislator there was going to >>>>>>>>> impose a redefined marriage on the residents of that state, but it is >>>>>>>>> going to have to act fast, before January, because the new governor >>>>>>>>> will veto it. Besides, the legislators there might want to stop and >>>>>>>>> think twice now that the writing is on the wall. If New York >>>>>>>>> seriously contemplated this move, they might want to back off from it, >>>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>>> I've been reading lots of blogs and follow-up comments to articles.and >>>>>>>>> they are having a really hard time dealing with this defeat. Had >>>>>>>>> their side won in Maine, of course, they would have been touting it as >>>>>>>>> a popular consensus validation of "equality marriage." Since they >>>>>>>>> lost, they are saying their phony civil rights movement is too >>>>>>>>> important for the mob to vote on, anyway. So they want to go to the >>>>>>>>> courts. They are going to hit a brick wall there, too. >>>>>>>>> Just because a few activist judges broke their way, they think they >>>>>>>>> have a chance to overturn DOMA or get the Supreme Court to redefine >>>>>>>>> what marriage has meant since the beginning of recorded history. >>>>>>>>> That's how severely detached from reality these people are. >>>>>>>> You must mean people who think marriage has had one definition since the >>>>>>>> beginning of recorded history, since that is obviously false. >>>>>>> Marriage has always been a man-woman thing. Maybe there has been man- >>>>>>> women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the >>>>>>> sexes. >>>>>> That's simply wrong.http://www.enotalone.com/article/4358.html >>>>> Which supports what I said. There is alo: >>>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1693353 >>>>> Note the thorough debunking of Boswell's claim that the "Making of >>>>> Brothers" ceremony was not a marriage, >>>> Ah, your red herring worked. Or, at least, you're still trying to >>>> work it. It's utterly unimportant to the discussion, though. >>>> Your point -- your PREMISE, actually -- is that if it hasn't been >>>> done, it shouldn't be done. >>> No, that is not my point at all. The propaganda being pumped in here >>> is that homosexual marriage has been on the scene for a long time. >>> This is ridiculous on its face; we'd >>>> still be living in caves if everyone thought as you do, because at one >>>> time, nobody had ever lived in a house, and since it hadn't been done, >>>> it shouldn't be done. We can talk here about moon landings, the >>>> development of vaccines, the establishment of schools, the internet... >>>> the list goes on and on. Your premise is disproved, making your >>>> conclusion logically invalid. >>> Change does not always necessarily mean progress. >>>> More important is what is happening TODAY: Same-sex marriage is legal >>>> in a number of countries. So, it HAS been done, and you don't even >>>> have that premise to work with any more. So give it up. >>> Yes, it has been in a few countries since 2001. That is a mere >>> nanosecond against recorded history, not worth mentioning at this >>> point. >>>>> but a ceremony to reconcile the >>>>> heads of warring clans. Homosexual marriage was not a practice in >>>>> Athens nor in Rome, save for a satirical wedding once taking place >>>>> between an Emperor and a slave. >>>>> Therefore, homosexual marriage in human history has been virtually non- >>>>> existent. >>>> It does currently exist in a number of countries. Internet use was >>>> virtually non-existent 40 years ago. Today... See how ridiculous your >>>> "logic" is? >>> It has been in a few countries since 2001. It has been told that >>> homosexual marriage was extant in ancient Greek and Roman society. It >>> wasn't. >> D'you know, there is a very long history of >> same-sex marriage and unions through history.
> No, there is not. Homosexual marriage was so rare and infrequent as > to be practically unheard of. It was not accepted in ancient Greece > and Rome, and was not part of medieval Europe. Again, against the > backdrop of the whole sweep and scope of human history, homosexual > marriage is all but non-existent in ancient, medieval, and modern > times. Only in our post-modern time does it appear, beginning in the > 70s, when a few gay couples sought marriage licenses and were turned > down.
Balls, pure and simple. You should really actually look up what you're asserting.
>>>>> Homosexual activity does not equate to homosexual marriage. >>>> Nobody said that it did. >>> Thank you for admitting that homosexual marriage did not exist until >>> just now, because many are trying to say that it did. >> That, of course, isn't what he "admitted". I >> suppose you have to proclaim your "victories" >> where you might hope to have glimpsed them.
>> In any case, you've failed to show how the >> existence or otherwise of historical SS >> relationships has anything to do with the fact >> that marriage is a civil right, and it's equally >> true that opponents of SSM have yet to give a good >> reason to deny that right.
> Proponents of SSM have yet to prove that "civil right" means the right > to take the meaning and form of marriage and alter it, even after > having been extended benefits of domestic partnerships, the intent > being to use the government to force acceptance of an alternate > sexuality.
No, it's actually up to those wishing to deny a fundamental right to demonstrate that there is a narrowly tailored and compelling interest in doing so. That is a thing that has yet to be done.
Marriage has already been declared a fundamental right. That part of the job is done.
-- "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there is no God. I equally cannot prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god may exist; so may the gods of Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But no one of these hypotheses is more probable than any other: they lie outside the region of even probable knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to consider any of them." Bertrand Russell
Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >> >> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >> >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >> >> > is what they want to do?
>> >> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
>> >I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding >> >marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only >> >marriage to be an injustice.
>> I wonder why the bigoted idiot thinks that only his version of >> marriage should be allowed.
>Excuse me, when did I make a bigoted remark?
When you insist that gays do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
>> >> Current fallacy: slippery slope.
>> >Some slopes are slippery.
>> Can't allow marriage of ANY kind or you'll have people being forced >> into unwanted marriages by horses.
>I said no such thing.
It's the very same logic.
> I'm only talking about consenting adults.
You're making up your own rules and insisting that everybody be forced to obey them.
>Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >>> >> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >>> >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >>> >> > is what they want to do?
>>> >> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
>>> >I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding >>> >marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only >>> >marriage to be an injustice.
>>> I wonder why the bigoted idiot thinks that only his version of >>> marriage should be allowed.
>>Excuse me, when did I make a bigoted remark?
>When you insist that gays do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
He never said that or implied it. He's clearly stated numerous times that they have the same rights straight people enjoy; they can marry anytime they want. They can't marry their own sex, but then straight people can't marry their own sex either, so stop lying about what Mike has said. Try to win the argument without lying about what he wrote, for a change.
> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 4:46 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 7, 11:47 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Nov 7, 1:10 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Mike wrote: > >> >> >> > On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Rep. Jordan Ulery: "The issue was brought forth against the will of > >> >> >> >> the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse the > >> >> >> >> issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue,".
> >> >> >> >> New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law inCrosshairsafter Maine's Law > >> >> >> >> Crumbles
> >> >> >> >> By Peter J. Smith
> >> >> >> >> CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - > >> >> >> >> Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family advocates > >> >> >> >> have now turned their attention to rolling back same-sex "marriage" > >> >> >> >> in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the state legislature in > >> >> >> >> June is set to take effect in January 2010.
> >> >> >> >> Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have > >> >> >> >> seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a > >> >> >> >> referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House come > >> >> >> >> January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex "marriage" > >> >> >> >> legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The second proposal > >> >> >> >> would be a state constitutional amendment that would allow voters to > >> >> >> >> have the final say on whether "the state shall only recognize the > >> >> >> >> union of one man and one woman as marriage."
> >> >> >> >> Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the New > >> >> >> >> Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was approved by > >> >> >> >> the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill had gone through > >> >> >> >> seven emendations over several months, including the insertion of > >> >> >> >> key guarantees on religious freedom, before Gov. Lynch would sign > >> >> >> >> the bill into law.
> >> >> >> >> "The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of > >> >> >> >> people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying it > >> >> >> >> was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told the > >> >> >> >> Democrat.
> >> >> >> > From what I understand that it has been derailed in New Jersey as a > >> >> >> > result of the Maine outcome, too. The legislator there was going to > >> >> >> > impose a redefined marriage on the residents of that state, but it is > >> >> >> > going to have to act fast, before January, because the new governor > >> >> >> > will veto it. Besides, the legislators there might want to stop and > >> >> >> > think twice now that the writing is on the wall. If New York > >> >> >> > seriously contemplated this move, they might want to back off from it, > >> >> >> > too.
> >> >> >> > I've been reading lots of blogs and follow-up comments to articles.and > >> >> >> > they are having a really hard time dealing with this defeat. Had > >> >> >> > their side won in Maine, of course, they would have been touting it as > >> >> >> > a popular consensus validation of "equality marriage." Since they > >> >> >> > lost, they are saying their phony civil rights movement is too > >> >> >> > important for the mob to vote on, anyway. So they want to go to the > >> >> >> > courts. They are going to hit a brick wall there, too.
> >> >> >> > Just because a few activist judges broke their way, they think they > >> >> >> > have a chance to overturn DOMA or get the Supreme Court to redefine > >> >> >> > what marriage has meant since the beginning of recorded history. > >> >> >> > That's how severely detached from reality these people are.
> >> >> >> You must mean people who think marriage has had one definition since the > >> >> >> beginning of recorded history, since that is obviously false.
> >> >> >Marriage has always been a man-woman thing. Maybe there has been man- > >> >> >women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the > >> >> >sexes.
> >> Now you're lying. The article quite clearly describes marriages that > >> are not just between men and women.
> >The ceremonies cited by Boswell were not marriages.
> According to you.
According to historians. The source is NPR, who conducted the interview that was broadcast Feb. 23, 2004:
Mr. DANIEL MENDELSOHN ( Princeton University ): I thought that Boswell's book was extremely problematic.
ADLER: Daniel Mendelsohn is a writer who also teaches classics at Princeton University . He says the ceremony that Boswell describes, called the Adelphopoiesis, the making of brothers, was never meant as a marriage.
Mr. MENDELSOHN: People have always known about this ceremony, which he presented as this spectacular, new, earth-shaking find. It had always been satisfactorily explained as a sort of official blood-brother ceremony used to reconcile, say, the heads of warring clans.
ADLER: Mendelsohn says Boswell and others have also attempted to find gay marriage in the classical world. Ancient Greece and Rome are often seen as models of societies that accepted homosexuality. Mendelsohn says although there was one satirical ceremony in Rome where an emperor married a slave during a banquet, and in classical Athens there were clearly homosexual bonds...
Mr. MENDELSOHN: There was nothing like a marriage between men, which would have been looked on really with horror by most Athenians. You know, you had at some point this sort of boyfriend, but you were always supposed to be married to a woman, to procreate, to make babies who would grow up to be good Athenians.
> On Nov 7, 4:27 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 1:10 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Mike wrote: > > > > On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > > > >> Rep. Jordan Ulery: "The issue was brought forth against the will of > > > >> the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse the > > > >> issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue,".
> > > >> New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law in Crosshairs after Maine's Law > > > >> Crumbles
> > > >> By Peter J. Smith
> > > >> CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - > > > >> Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family advocates > > > >> have now turned their attention to rolling back same-sex "marriage" > > > >> in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the state legislature in > > > >> June is set to take effect in January 2010.
> > > >> Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have > > > >> seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a > > > >> referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House come > > > >> January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex "marriage" > > > >> legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The second proposal > > > >> would be a state constitutional amendment that would allow voters to > > > >> have the final say on whether "the state shall only recognize the > > > >> union of one man and one woman as marriage."
> > > >> Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the New > > > >> Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was approved by > > > >> the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill had gone through > > > >> seven emendations over several months, including the insertion of > > > >> key guarantees on religious freedom, before Gov. Lynch would sign > > > >> the bill into law.
> > > >> "The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of > > > >> people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying it > > > >> was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told the > > > >> Democrat.
> > > > From what I understand that it has been derailed in New Jersey as a > > > > result of the Maine outcome, too. The legislator there was going to > > > > impose a redefined marriage on the residents of that state, but it is > > > > going to have to act fast, before January, because the new governor > > > > will veto it. Besides, the legislators there might want to stop and > > > > think twice now that the writing is on the wall. If New York > > > > seriously contemplated this move, they might want to back off from it, > > > > too.
> > > > I've been reading lots of blogs and follow-up comments to articles.and > > > > they are having a really hard time dealing with this defeat. Had > > > > their side won in Maine, of course, they would have been touting it as > > > > a popular consensus validation of "equality marriage." Since they > > > > lost, they are saying their phony civil rights movement is too > > > > important for the mob to vote on, anyway. So they want to go to the > > > > courts. They are going to hit a brick wall there, too.
> > > > Just because a few activist judges broke their way, they think they > > > > have a chance to overturn DOMA or get the Supreme Court to redefine > > > > what marriage has meant since the beginning of recorded history. > > > > That's how severely detached from reality these people are.
> > > You must mean people who think marriage has had one definition since the > > > beginning of recorded history, since that is obviously false.
> > Marriage has always been a man-woman thing. Maybe there has been man- > > women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the > > sexes.
> Well now you have gone and contradicted yourself. Now let us be > clear. Marriage customs have continuously evolved and changed over > the centuries. Roman and Greek marriages were not about love nor > mutual attraction. They were about power and status in society. One > married to cement political and economic alliances between families.
That's fine as far as royalty goes, but for every emperor or senate member there were thousands, tens of thousand of commoners. Day laborers, small shop keepers, subsistence farmers eking out there existence, living in their humble abodes with their wives, raising their children. Did they marry for only for power and money? They didn't have any!
> Greek men shut their wives away in a form of purdah and women had no > rights at all.
Then where did Aristotle get this:
A good wife should be the mistress of her home, having under her care all that is within it, according to the rules we have laid down. She should allow none to enter without her husband's knowledge, dreading above all things the gossip of gadding women, which tends to poison the soul. She alone should have knowledge of what happens within. She must exercise control of the money spent on such festivities as her husband has approved---keeping, moreover, within the limit set by law upon expenditure, dress, and ornament---and remembering that beauty depends not on costliness of raiment. Nor does abundance of gold so conduce to the praise of a woman as self-control in all that she does. This, then, is the province over which a woman should be minded to bear an orderly rule; for it seems not fitting that a man should know all that passes within the house. But in all other matters, let it be her aim to obey her husband; giving no heed to public affairs, nor having any part in arranging the marriages of her children.
. . .
Now a virtuous wife is best honored when she sees that her husband is faithful to her, and has no preference for another woman; but before all others loves and trusts her and holds her as his own. And so much the more will the woman seek to be what he accounts her. If she perceives that her husband's affection for her is faithful and righteous, she too will be faithful and righteous towards him. Therefore it befits not a man of sound mind to bestow his person promiscuously, or have random intercourse with women; for otherwise the base-born will share in the rights of his lawful children, and his wife will be robbed of her honor due, and shame be attached to his sons.
> Romans had five forms of marriage depending on your > social status [one form was exclusively for slaves and freedmen] and > how the families wished to cement their relationship. Women were > chattel and had the same status as a child in Victorian England and > many parts of the United States. The Roman Catholic Church recognized > two forms pof marriage until the 1500's and the Protestants such as > Luther denounced the institution of the "sacrament" of marriage saying > it was a secular matter pertaining to the state.
But how about gay marriage?
> One very amusing factor about this ancient institution of marriage > argument is that it makes one wonder if what we have is a bunch of > people who would really want to go back to "traditional" Christian > marriage customs; namely no divorce permitted at all and adultery > punished by death. That is what the standard was for Christianity > until quite recently.
You really don't need to lecture me on everything that was wrong about marriage from the beginning of time, since I understand that trashing heterosexual marriage is just part of the strategy.
> > There's been some nonsense posted from time to time that > > Greeks had homosexual marriage. No, they did not. Greek men may have > > had boyfriends, but they always married women. The gay rights > > movement confuses the fact while there may have always been homosexual > > activity, there has not always been homosexual marriage. In fact, > > homosexual marriage has been all but non-existent. Past societies > > knew what they needed to do for the sake of their propagation and > > continuance
> Here you go again. You acknowledge that some societies had forms of > socially recognized legally binding relationships between men but then > merely dismiss them.
As I said before, I know that there has been homosexual activity in past cultures, but homosexual marriage is practically unheard of. One man having a tryst with another does not form a "socially recognized legally binding relationship between men."
>This is not just about the Greeks. Not to > mention I seriously doubt your wife would be willing to accept the > terms and conditions of a traditional ancient Greek form of marriage.
I seriously doubt that any woman today would, but they don't have to. What does that have to do with the fact that there was no such thing as Greek marriage between men?
> > > marriage is exactly what the law says it is, and equal rights in the US are > > > not subject to simple majority votes. If you want to do away with your own > > > civil rights, you will have to change the Constitution.
> > As far as our common culture of the last few hundred years is > > concerned, marriage has a straightforward, obvious, and universally > > understood meaning. Civil marriage or religious marriage, there are > > certain prerequisites and restrictions involved. Instituting gay > > marriage and having it covered by the same law that covers > > heterosexual marriage is extreme and radical, and has absolutely > > nothing to do with civil rights.
> Well that is your opinion. You admit that in some societies there was > a form of same sex marriage and that marriage customs have always > evolved with the times. By the way, our present marriage customs are > not nearly
> Mike wrote: > > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it > > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that > > is what they want to do?
> The offspring of Adam and Eve appear to have beaten you to it.
> But then folks started noting things like birth defects, genetic diseases, the costs > associated with them and soforth. Don't you care about the children?
> > Loving v Virginia involved a man and a woman, a perfectly natural > > union from Mother Nature's eyes. How is that the least bit relevant?
> One was white, the other black. It upset some delicate sensibilities. Pretend that you're > not aware that one person being male, and the other person being male doesn't upset some > delicate sensibilities...
You obviously take me wrong. I do not give a good God damn what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 9, 12:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 7, 4:46 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >> >Marriage has always been a man-woman thing. Maybe there has been man- >> >> >> >women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the >> >> >> >sexes.
>> >> Now you're lying. The article quite clearly describes marriages that >> >> are not just between men and women.
>> >The ceremonies cited by Boswell were not marriages.
>> According to you.
>According to historians.
You're a liar.
> The source is NPR, who conducted the >interview that was broadcast Feb. 23, 2004:
>Mr. DANIEL MENDELSOHN ( Princeton University ): I thought that >Boswell's book was extremely problematic.
>ADLER: Daniel Mendelsohn is a writer who also teaches classics at >Princeton University . He says the ceremony that Boswell describes, >called the Adelphopoiesis, the making of brothers, was never meant as >a marriage.
Apepal to authority fallacy.
Or, in other words, claiming that historians agree with you when all you have is a 3rd-hand account of one person's views is stupid dishonesty.
Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 12:54 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >> Mike wrote: >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >> > is what they want to do?
>> The offspring of Adam and Eve appear to have beaten you to it.
>> But then folks started noting things like birth defects, genetic diseases, the costs >> associated with them and soforth. Don't you care about the children?
>> > Loving v Virginia involved a man and a woman, a perfectly natural >> > union from Mother Nature's eyes. How is that the least bit relevant?
>> One was white, the other black. It upset some delicate sensibilities. Pretend that you're >> not aware that one person being male, and the other person being male doesn't upset some >> delicate sensibilities...
>You obviously take me wrong. I do not give a good God damn what >consenting adults do behind closed doors.
Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote: >On 09 Nov 2009 18:37:43 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >>>> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >>>> >> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >>>> >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >>>> >> > is what they want to do?
>>>> >> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
>>>> >I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding >>>> >marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only >>>> >marriage to be an injustice.
>>>> I wonder why the bigoted idiot thinks that only his version of >>>> marriage should be allowed.
>>>Excuse me, when did I make a bigoted remark?
>>When you insist that gays do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
>He never said that or implied it.
Of course he did.
> He's clearly stated numerous >times that they have the same rights straight people enjoy;
Which is the sort of lie we expect from stupid bigots.
Mark <m...@privacy.net> wrote: >He never said that or implied it. He's clearly stated numerous >times that they have the same rights straight people enjoy; they >can marry anytime they want. They can't marry their own sex,
And in the same way, slaves had the same rights as their white masters: They both had an equal right to do as the master demanded.
> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>On Nov 7, 12:54 pm, Dionisio <moc.rr.thgi...@5ellimd.com> wrote: >>> Mike wrote: >>> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >>> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >>> > is what they want to do?
>>> The offspring of Adam and Eve appear to have beaten you to it.
---------------
I have often wondered who the children of Adam and Eve married, if Adam and Eve were the first and only people on the planet. Oh maybe they were incestuous ..............
Come to think of it they were not legitimate children because there was no on to marry Adam and Eve.
> On Nov 7, 4:37 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >>>> means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >>>> is what they want to do?
>>> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
>> I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding >> marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only >> marriage to be an injustice.
> Ah, so it's a red herring then. Why can't you stick to the topic of > same-sex marriage? Let's try that.
>>> Current fallacy: slippery slope.
>> Some slopes are slippery.
> Indeed they are. Your slope leads logically to "If you allow two > women to marry, soon, men will be able to marry > chickens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" But the argument is still fallacious. > Again, stick to the issue at hand. Same-sex marriage. Not incestuous > marriage, not marriage between men and salamanders.
And certainly not the favorite red herring of the homosexuals; mixed race marriage. You hypocritical piece of dog shit!
> On 2009-11-07 17:08:34 -0500, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> said:
>> On Nov 7, 4:37 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >>>>> means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >>>>> is what they want to do?
>>>> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
>>> I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding >>> marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only >>> marriage to be an injustice.
>> Ah, so it's a red herring then. Why can't you stick to the topic of >> same-sex marriage? Let's try that.
>>>> Current fallacy: slippery slope.
>>> Some slopes are slippery.
>> Indeed they are. Your slope leads logically to "If you allow two >> women to marry, soon, men will be able to marry >> chickens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" But the argument is still fallacious. >> Again, stick to the issue at hand. Same-sex marriage. Not incestuous >> marriage, not marriage between men and salamanders.
> And certainly not the favorite red herring of the homosexuals; mixed race > marriage. You hypocritical piece of dog shit!
Mixed race marriage is relevant to the issue. It is a type of marriage that actually exists and that is legal, and the arguments against it in court are very similar to the ones now being used against same-sex marriage - the same arguments that were rejected by the Supreme Court. The other types of "marriages" have no logical connection to either mixed-race or same-sex marriage.
> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it > >> >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that > >> >> > is what they want to do?
> >> >> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
> >> >I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding > >> >marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only > >> >marriage to be an injustice.
> >> I wonder why the bigoted idiot thinks that only his version of > >> marriage should be allowed.
> >Excuse me, when did I make a bigoted remark?
> When you insist that gays do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
> >> >> Current fallacy: slippery slope.
> >> >Some slopes are slippery.
> >> Can't allow marriage of ANY kind or you'll have people being forced > >> into unwanted marriages by horses.
> >I said no such thing.
> It's the very same logic.
> > I'm only talking about consenting adults.
> You're making up your own rules and insisting that everybody be forced > to obey them.
> > On Nov 8, 10:22 pm, IAAH <n...@email.exist> wrote: > >> On 11/8/09 10:55 PM, * Mike wrote:
> >>> On Nov 7, 4:30 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 7, 5:16 pm, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 7, 11:47 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >>>>>> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Nov 7, 1:10 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Mike wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:47 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Rep. Jordan Ulery: "The issue was brought forth against the will of > >>>>>>>>>> the majority of people, by a minority of people who confuse the > >>>>>>>>>> issue by saying it was an equal-rights issue,". > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09110611.html > >>>>>>>>>> New Hampshire Same-Sex "Marriage" Law inCrosshairsafter Maine's Law > >>>>>>>>>> Crumbles > >>>>>>>>>> By Peter J. Smith > >>>>>>>>>> CONCORD, New Hampshire, November 6, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - > >>>>>>>>>> Invigorated by their recent victory in Maine, pro-family advocates > >>>>>>>>>> have now turned their attention to rolling back same-sex "marriage" > >>>>>>>>>> in New Hampshire, where a law passed by the state legislature in > >>>>>>>>>> June is set to take effect in January 2010. > >>>>>>>>>> Foster's Daily Democrat reports that social conservatives have > >>>>>>>>>> seized the momentum of victory in Maine, and two options for a > >>>>>>>>>> referendum will be put forward in the New Hampshire State House come > >>>>>>>>>> January. The first proposal would repeal the same-sex "marriage" > >>>>>>>>>> legislation signed by Gov. John Lynch in June. The second proposal > >>>>>>>>>> would be a state constitutional amendment that would allow voters to > >>>>>>>>>> have the final say on whether "the state shall only recognize the > >>>>>>>>>> union of one man and one woman as marriage." > >>>>>>>>>> Same-sex "marriage" legislation in its final form passed in the New > >>>>>>>>>> Hampshire House on June 3 by a vote of 198-176 and was approved by > >>>>>>>>>> the Senate the same day in a 14-10 vote. The bill had gone through > >>>>>>>>>> seven emendations over several months, including the insertion of > >>>>>>>>>> key guarantees on religious freedom, before Gov. Lynch would sign > >>>>>>>>>> the bill into law. > >>>>>>>>>> "The issue was brought forth against the will of the majority of > >>>>>>>>>> people, by a minority of people who confuse the issue by saying it > >>>>>>>>>> was an equal-rights issue," Rep. Jordan Ulery (R-Hudson) told the > >>>>>>>>>> Democrat. > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.lifesitenews.com > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> J Young > >>>>>>>>>> Jvisi...@live.com > >>>>>>>>> From what I understand that it has been derailed in New Jersey as a > >>>>>>>>> result of the Maine outcome, too. The legislator there was going to > >>>>>>>>> impose a redefined marriage on the residents of that state, but it is > >>>>>>>>> going to have to act fast, before January, because the new governor > >>>>>>>>> will veto it. Besides, the legislators there might want to stop and > >>>>>>>>> think twice now that the writing is on the wall. If New York > >>>>>>>>> seriously contemplated this move, they might want to back off from it, > >>>>>>>>> too. > >>>>>>>>> I've been reading lots of blogs and follow-up comments to articles.and > >>>>>>>>> they are having a really hard time dealing with this defeat. Had > >>>>>>>>> their side won in Maine, of course, they would have been touting it as > >>>>>>>>> a popular consensus validation of "equality marriage." Since they > >>>>>>>>> lost, they are saying their phony civil rights movement is too > >>>>>>>>> important for the mob to vote on, anyway. So they want to go to the > >>>>>>>>> courts. They are going to hit a brick wall there, too. > >>>>>>>>> Just because a few activist judges broke their way, they think they > >>>>>>>>> have a chance to overturn DOMA or get the Supreme Court to redefine > >>>>>>>>> what marriage has meant since the beginning of recorded history. > >>>>>>>>> That's how severely detached from reality these people are. > >>>>>>>> You must mean people who think marriage has had one definition since the > >>>>>>>> beginning of recorded history, since that is obviously false. > >>>>>>> Marriage has always been a man-woman thing. Maybe there has been man- > >>>>>>> women or woman-men from time to time, but it's always between the > >>>>>>> sexes. > >>>>>> That's simply wrong.http://www.enotalone.com/article/4358.html > >>>>> Which supports what I said. There is alo: > >>>>>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1693353 > >>>>> Note the thorough debunking of Boswell's claim that the "Making of > >>>>> Brothers" ceremony was not a marriage, > >>>> Ah, your red herring worked. Or, at least, you're still trying to > >>>> work it. It's utterly unimportant to the discussion, though. > >>>> Your point -- your PREMISE, actually -- is that if it hasn't been > >>>> done, it shouldn't be done. > >>> No, that is not my point at all. The propaganda being pumped in here > >>> is that homosexual marriage has been on the scene for a long time. > >>> This is ridiculous on its face; we'd > >>>> still be living in caves if everyone thought as you do, because at one > >>>> time, nobody had ever lived in a house, and since it hadn't been done, > >>>> it shouldn't be done. We can talk here about moon landings, the > >>>> development of vaccines, the establishment of schools, the internet... > >>>> the list goes on and on. Your premise is disproved, making your > >>>> conclusion logically invalid. > >>> Change does not always necessarily mean progress. > >>>> More important is what is happening TODAY: Same-sex marriage is legal > >>>> in a number of countries. So, it HAS been done, and you don't even > >>>> have that premise to work with any more. So give it up. > >>> Yes, it has been in a few countries since 2001. That is a mere > >>> nanosecond against recorded history, not worth mentioning at this > >>> point. > >>>>> but a ceremony to reconcile the > >>>>> heads of warring clans. Homosexual marriage was not a practice in > >>>>> Athens nor in Rome, save for a satirical wedding once taking place > >>>>> between an Emperor and a slave. > >>>>> Therefore, homosexual marriage in human history has been virtually non- > >>>>> existent. > >>>> It does currently exist in a number of countries. Internet use was > >>>> virtually non-existent 40 years ago. Today... See how ridiculous your > >>>> "logic" is? > >>> It has been in a few countries since 2001. It has been told that > >>> homosexual marriage was extant in ancient Greek and Roman society. It > >>> wasn't. > >> D'you know, there is a very long history of > >> same-sex marriage and unions through history.
> > No, there is not. Homosexual marriage was so rare and infrequent as > > to be practically unheard of. It was not accepted in ancient Greece > > and Rome, and was not part of medieval Europe. Again, against the > > backdrop of the whole sweep and scope of human history, homosexual > > marriage is all but non-existent in ancient, medieval, and modern > > times. Only in our post-modern time does it appear, beginning in the > > 70s, when a few gay couples sought marriage licenses and were turned > > down.
> Balls, pure and simple. > You should really actually look up what you're > asserting.
> > All > >> your whinging doesn't make it otherwise.
> > No "whinging" here.
> >>>>> Homosexual activity does not equate to homosexual marriage. > >>>> Nobody said that it did. > >>> Thank you for admitting that homosexual marriage did not exist until > >>> just now, because many are trying to say that it did. > >> That, of course, isn't what he "admitted". I > >> suppose you have to proclaim your "victories" > >> where you might hope to have glimpsed them.
> >> In any case, you've failed to show how the > >> existence or otherwise of historical SS > >> relationships has anything to do with the fact > >> that marriage is a civil right, and it's equally > >> true that opponents of SSM have yet to give a good > >> reason to deny that right.
> > Proponents of SSM have yet to prove that "civil right" means the right > > to take the meaning and form of marriage and alter it, even after > > having been extended benefits of domestic partnerships, the intent > > being to use the government to force acceptance of an alternate > > sexuality.
> No, it's actually up to those wishing to deny a > fundamental right to demonstrate that there is a > narrowly tailored and compelling interest in doing > so. That is a thing that has yet to be done.
> Marriage has already been declared a fundamental > right. That part of the job is done.
Homosexual marriage has not been declared a fundamental right. When did our courts rule on that?
> -- > "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there > is no God. I equally cannot > prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god > may exist; so may the gods of > Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But > no one of these hypotheses is > more probable than any other: they lie outside the > region of even probable > knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to > consider any of them." > Bertrand Russell
Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 9, 12:37 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 7, 4:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 7, 2:31 pm, Enos Penvy <enospe...@null.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Nov 7, 8:00 am, Mike <mgcul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Since we're going to play around with marriage and change what it >> >> >> > means on a momentary whim, why exclude siblings from marrying if that >> >> >> > is what they want to do?
>> >> >> Previously detected fallacy: appeal to tradition
>> >> >I wondered why the poster considers the societal rule forbidding >> >> >marriage between siblings as being valid but considers man-woman only >> >> >marriage to be an injustice.
>> >> I wonder why the bigoted idiot thinks that only his version of >> >> marriage should be allowed.
>> >Excuse me, when did I make a bigoted remark?
>> When you insist that gays do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.
>> >> >> Current fallacy: slippery slope.
>> >> >Some slopes are slippery.
>> >> Can't allow marriage of ANY kind or you'll have people being forced >> >> into unwanted marriages by horses.
>> >I said no such thing.
>> It's the very same logic.
>> > I'm only talking about consenting adults.
>> You're making up your own rules and insisting that everybody be forced >> to obey them.
>Marriage as it exists now is a "made up rule?"
Yep. It is marriage as YOU BELIEVE it exists now. It's also a crap argument. Are you also going to argue that slavery should be legal now because it was once legal?
|
