Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I'm guessing two dudes being married does involve the sodomy... lol

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'll never understand why this is such a big deal. If two consenting adults want to get married, fine. If someone feels marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I can understand that and I'm ok with that debate. But comparing gay marriage to beastiality, sodomy, and incest? Sorry but you lost me with that line of caveman thinking.

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.

Here here

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.

I'm with your premise, however the gov't (state, not Fed) does have to be involved to a point with adoption/welfare of children, dispostion of property in the event of divorce or death with no will, etc.

I don't agree with gay marriage, but if that's what someone wants to do, have at it. To me the Fed should get out of the "defining marriage" business one way or the other. This is a state level issue IMO. If there comes a time where there's a dispute between states concerning gay marriage that needs to be settled, let the SCOTUS do it's job and decide the specific dispute, not try to legislate gay marriage laws on a national level.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm with your premise, however the gov't (state, not Fed) does have to be involved to a point with adoption/welfare of children, dispostion of property in the event of divorce or death with no will, etc.

I don't agree with gay marriage, but if that's what someone wants to do, have at it. To me the Fed should get out of the "defining marriage" business one way or the other. This is a state level issue IMO. If there comes a time where there's a dispute between states concerning gay marriage that needs to be settled, let the SCOTUS do it's job and decide the specific dispute, not try to legislate gay marriage laws on a national level.

I agree

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I'm with your premise, however the gov't (state, not Fed) does have to be involved to a point with adoption/welfare of children, dispostion of property in the event of divorce or death with no will, etc.

I don't agree with gay marriage, but if that's what someone wants to do, have at it. To me the Fed should get out of the "defining marriage" business one way or the other. This is a state level issue IMO. If there comes a time where there's a dispute between states concerning gay marriage that needs to be settled, let the SCOTUS do it's job and decide the specific dispute, not try to legislate gay marriage laws on a national level.

This whole thing is about one state not recognizing marriage performed in another state as much as gay marriage itself. I believe there are cases pending regarding whether states that banned gay should recognize marriage licenses of a gay couple from another state.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

But your definition of marriage as two people is necessarily as limiting as defining what gender those two people are. The comparison between gay marriage, straight marriage, polygamy and so forth is legit. The problem as I see it isn't whether the gov't should legally recognize gay marriage but why the gov't recognizes marriage at all. It is social contract that really shouldn't be ordained by the gov't because then it forces the gov't to then decree what is "right" and what is "wrong". The gov't ought to get out of the marriage business. That fixes the whole argument. We have bigger issues to deal with really. Issues that actually affect all of us.

I've got no issues with that. I didn't mean to limit anything by saying two people. But how does beastiality or incest enter the conversation?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

But how does beastiality or incest enter the conversation?

It doesn't. I hadn't really paid any heed to that stuff. I am just talking about marriage and it's ability to be ever-so-impossible to define in a way that everyone would be happy with. I guess to me the issue is "marriage of non-related people". I might be persuaded to actually take the non-related out of that though. I imagine some reasonable person somewhere wants to marry his cousin and cohabitate in a non-gross way. Anyways this is my point... I don't want to be the person deciding whether they can so I certainly don't want some faceless governmental device doing it.

What a truly worthless conversation this discussion strikes me as the more we engage in it.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

It doesn't. I hadn't really paid any heed to that stuff. I am just talking about marriage and it's ability to be ever-so-impossible to define in a way that everyone would be happy with. I guess to me the issue is "marriage of non-related people". I might be persuaded to actually take the non-related out of that though. I imagine some reasonable person somewhere wants to marry his cousin and cohabitate in a non-gross way. Anyways this is my point... I don't want to be the person deciding whether they can so I certainly don't want some faceless governmental device doing it.

What a truly worthless conversation this discussion strikes me as the more we engage in it.

With all due respect, it might worthless to some here on a football forum, but it's definitely a worthy discussion and a lifelong battle for millions of gays and lesbians that want to enter marriage and be awarded the same basic rights as heterosexual couples; to live their lives free of discrimination, hate, and be treated equally.

I'm not on some liberal high horse, but the conversation is in keeping with the thread.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'll never understand why this is such a big deal. If two consenting adults want to get married, fine. If someone feels marriage should only be between a man and a woman, I can understand that and I'm ok with that debate. But comparing gay marriage to beastiality, sodomy, and incest? Sorry but you lost me with that line of caveman thinking.

You didn't answer my question.

So then, if I have three 16 year old cousins, then I should be able to marry them and have children with them?

Let's just say they're all 18 but they're my first cousins. Are you cool with that? If they consent it should be all good right? If I was a Mormon or a Muslim then it would be part of my religion.

[MTK]

So if we allow gay marriage, that opens the flood gates to people marrying their cousins or their dog?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

So if we allow gay marriage, that opens the flood gates to people marrying their cousins or their dog?

Why wouldn't it? Can you tell me why it wouldn't? I'm already told I have accept transexuals or people who have had sex changes. If a Federal judge can tell the voters that their social norms and values are un-Constitutional, tell me how polygammy wouldn't come up? There are tons of them in Utah and it's accepted all over the world, especially in the Islamic world and Africa. If a Federal judge can say it's alright for a woman to stick a close hanger in between her legs, then why can't I stick a needle in my arm? It's my body right?

I would be fine with this being a state's rights issue. The states have no rights now because they get in the way of the progressive agenda.

Perversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MTK]

Right now we're talking about gay marriage. Let's cross one bridge at a time.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Right now we're talking about gay marriage. Let's cross one bridge at a time.

I'm looking at the storm, not the hail. We're talking about the sexual norms of a society. Californians have defined it for themselves but a judge said eff you, your votes don't count.

[saden1]

Polygamy should be legal if it is between consenting adults. Pedophilia should not be legal...you can wait a few years to bang your cousin TTL. We're not preventing you from satisfying your lust for your cousin, we just want to make sure she has reached the age of mental maturity.

Oh and if you ever decide goat-loving is your thing don't expect that to be legalized until goats can vocalize their will. The law against animal cruelty is permanent.