In response to:

To Save Traditional Marriage, End State Involvement in Marriage

GatoLuchador Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 2:02 PM
In this debate, no one ever asks the questions: What harm do gay people experience from being excluded from marriage? On the other hand, what harm would Congress inflict by treading all over marriage? For example, if I'm a pig farmer, I may be offended that Jews and Muslims say my product is unclean. I may want to sue them for loss of potential profits. I could even argue they have no scientific basis. So, should I therefore have Congress redefine "kosher" and "halal" to include pork? Could I prove that "kosher" and "halal" have caused harm to me or to society at large? Regardless, I can't sell pork to people who don't want it. Am I not attacking their religions and setting a dangerous precedent?
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:05 PM
"What harm do gay people experience from being excluded from marriage? "

Because they lose the right to have their contracts adjudicated by the courts, a clear violation of "equal protection under the law."
GatoLuchador Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:30 PM
A gay man is free to enter into a marriage contract with a gay woman and have that contract adjudicated by the courts. So, they are not actually excluded from marriage. So, allow my to rephrase my question, "How are gay people harmed from their inability to use the word 'marriage' as a label for their same sex relationships?"
GatoLuchador Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:31 PM
A gay man is free to enter into a marriage contract with a gay woman and have that contract adjudicated by the courts. So, they are not actually excluded from marriage. So, allow my to rephrase my question, "How are gay people harmed from their inability to use the word 'marriage' as a label for their same sex relationships?" I know gay people with bigger salaries, nicer cars, and better houses than me. So, I don't see the harm.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:54 PM
Because there are thousands of laws that refer to that word.

Do you advocate updating all those laws to include "or civil unions" or do you have a working brain and can recognize that only the bigots should fold on the semantic issue?
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:54 PM
Oh, please; did you really just argue that because of the condition of *some* people you can make valid judgments about *all* of them?
MikefromDE Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 2:09 PM
Gato: It’s not a matter of harm. What if you were restricted to drinking only water while the rest of the nation could have all the other beverages? Certainly no harm has come. Ask yourself, what are the benefits of being married and more important, why would anyone want to be married? Your answers will probably match many of theirs.
Birdman III Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 2:31 PM
What harm could be done if you drinking tainted water force me to drink it claiming is ti good water?
Anominus Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 2:58 PM
"What harm could be done if you drinking tainted water force me to drink it claiming is ti good water?"

I think the better analogy would be "What harm could be done if you, drinking tainted water, offered that water to children in public schools with the mandated approval of the government, telling them it was good and healthy, against the wishes of their parents?"
MikefromDE Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:02 PM
Bird: That would depend on the nature of the contamination. But that doesn’t apply to this analogy as no one is being forced to do something and we were referring to if any harm was created through denial of something.
MikefromDE Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:05 PM
Anom: That doesn’t apply either; but in your scenario, I would suggest trying to be the greater influence in your child’s life and put your faith in God. As nothing is guaranteed with children, perhaps you can hedge your bets and home school.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:06 PM
False analogies STILL merely prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

You can stop now; there is nobody left to convince.
GatoLuchador Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:06 PM
I'll have to disagree with your analogy because marriage is a contract. So, it doesn't increase your rights -- it actually decreases them. You are beholden to another person in sickness or in health until you die; and that person has a claim on your body and your treasure. And, gay men are free to marry gay women -- so it's not a question of exclusion. A better analogy would be: Coca-Cola gets Congress to redefine "water" to include sugary soft drinks.
Birdman III Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:06 PM
See Anominus. He better captures the flavor of the water.
Anominus Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:13 PM
"Anom: That doesn’t apply either; but in your scenario, I would suggest trying to be the greater influence in your child’s life and put your faith in God. As nothing is guaranteed with children, perhaps you can hedge your bets and home school."

It absolutely applies - just check out some of the "educational" rhetoric being dumped into the classrooms in California and most other lefty states - they have classes and holidays dedicated to a homosexual child molester! They have required children to attend homosexual "rights" parades and forced them to support the cause by holding "days of silence" and telling children to wear certain colors at school on those days against the express will of their parents.
Anominus Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:18 PM
Nothing is guaranteed in life, let alone with children - does that mean we aren't supposed to protect them from harm? Do you leave rat poison around your house, or do you keep it locked up and out of reach of your kids?

Homeschooling is my choice, but that doesn't preclude me from attempting to keep homosexuals and other paraphiliacs out of the public schools.
TommyMaq Wrote: Mar 20, 2013 3:52 PM
Birdman sez;

"False tommy"

I'm afraid that your unsupported conclusion isn't persuasive.

Within the next few months, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely rule that same-sex marriage is mandated by the Constitution of the United States. The ruling will offend both common sense and Constitutional law. But it will nonetheless become the law of the land. With it, states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages; same-sex marriage will enter the public school lexicon; religious institutions will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages or lose their tax-exempt status. Religious Americans will be forced into violating their beliefs or facing legal consequences by the government. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty will largely become...