Can you be anti-gay marriage

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My analytical skills and intellectual capacity are fine and dandy, thank you. I got my info from a SCOTUS source, rather than Wikipedia, so I find it interesting that it cited Bowers as currently controlling re gay marriage.

Wikipedia? You have trouble clicking links, too?

This is what I've quoted: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html and contrary to your belief or analysis, this ain't Wikipedia. That said, even Wikipedia produces more accurate results than your research method. Time for a change perhaps?

Edited March 5, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Granted,I don't do due diligence for this board, but I also don't sweat criticism from people who don't know a legal brief from their panties. I'm impressed that Six did more than any of you ever did to raise the bar. He's the only one who can claim bragging rights among you slackers.

Legal rulings are nuanced and often not immediately effective. They are also not conclusive, not even fron SCOTUS. Nuance is definitely in limited supply here.

[Danno 1,228]

i'm waiting for polygamy to be legal so i can be mc's other husband

Polygamy would actually have a better chance of passing the "logic" test than GM.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Polygamy would actually have a better chance of passing the "logic" test than GM.

It is true that past and present human cultures have actually condoned (often even encouraged) polygamy (and less often, polyandry). I don't believe gay marriage existed anywhere till very recently.

[Danno 1,228]

I'm pro gay marriage. If anyone wants to join my bliss (or lack there of) then so be it. Furthermore, communities could make a lot of money off of licensing fees for marriages. It would be an excellent revenue source.

And I am betting, Taxing Child porn would help in this regard as well.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is true that past and present human cultures have actually condoned (often even encouraged) polygamy (and less often, polyandry). I don't believe gay marriage existed anywhere till very recently.

The same can be said about living in caves vs. living in houses. Or lighting a fire for heat and light rather than flipping a switch (or have the switch flip itself). Or riding horses vs. driving cars or hopping on airplanes for the longer distances. I think you get the idea...

Edited March 5, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The same can be said about living in caves vs. living in houses. Or lighting a fire for heat and light rather than flipping a switch (or have the switch flip itself). Or riding horses vs. driving cars or hopping on airplanes for the longer distances. I think you get the idea...

There is a lot more historical precedent for living in a manner that protects one from the elements, than there is for gay marriage.

Part of the opposition to it, IMO, comes from the fact that the idea is so novel. Homosexuality has always existed and from time to time has even been accepted... but to my knowledge gay marriage is an entirely novel concept, unique to the last few decades of humanity.

So of course, it's fair to ask why.

FWIW, I'm supportive of GM because I do not view their relationships as invalid and wish for them to have the same legal benefits and rights straight couples do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There is a lot more historical precedent for living in a manner that protects one from the elements, than there is for gay marriage.

Part of the opposition to it, IMO, comes from the fact that the idea is so novel. Homosexuality has always existed and from time to time has even been accepted... but to my knowledge gay marriage is an entirely novel concept, unique to the last few decades of humanity.

So of course, it's fair to ask why.

FWIW, I'm supportive of GM because I do not view their relationships as invalid and wish for them to have the same legal benefits and rights straight couples do.

Sure but then let us not forget that women were not much more than property for the longest time and have only recently (relatively speaking) obtained the same individual rights as men. The same question - why - could be asked here. Actually, the fact is that in some places of the world, that development is still outstanding or in it's infancy.

Humans with disabilities of any kind were for the longest time cast aside, left to die. We have come to accept - recently - that these humans have no less a right to live than the rest of us and have gone quite a distance to accomodate them to ensure that they can live their lifes in a meaningful manner. Again, the same question - why - could be asked.

People of color used to be property in this country and have for the vast majority of our history - even after slavery was abolished - not been afforded the same rights and status as the caucasians. Only very recently did that change. Same question pops up yet again - why?

The answer is that over time, we have become more civilized as a society. We have come to recognize and acknowledge that people should not be denied any of their rights just because they were born with a certain color, gender or disability.

Given the overwhelming consensus that homosexuals have not chosen their sexual orientation, it only makes sense that equal rights are extended to that group as well.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Sure but then let us not forget that women were not much more than property for the longest time ...

Human cultures have existed in the past where this was not the case.

People of color used to be property in this country and have for the vast majority of our history - even after slavery was abolished - not been afforded the same rights and status as the caucasians.

Human cultures have existed in the past where this was not the case.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Human cultures have existed in the past where this was not the case.

True and others have existed - and still exist - where it is the case.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

True and others have existed - and still exist - where it is the case.

Yes.

My only point is that gay marriage is truly novel and completely without precedent. Your example of disabled people is another one.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My only point is that gay marriage is truly novel and completely without precedent. Your example of disabled people is another one.

I know that it isn't politically correct to say it but at the end of the day the case can be made that homosexuality is somewhat of a disability.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Human cultures have existed in the past where this was not the case.

Major human cultures? Which ones?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Major human cultures? Which ones?

Women were not property in pre-Vedic India. Quite a "major" human civilization if we're going by numbers and geographical reach

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Polygamy would actually have a better chance of passing the "logic" test than GM.

In a present day context, polygamy is anything but logical - considering (as I believe I have told you umpteen times in the past) the precedents for it tend to be based on patriarchal religious ideologies.