Dozens of prominent Republicans sign Supreme Court brief supporting legalized gay marriage

posted at 10:41 am on February 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

We’re stretching the definition of “prominent” a bit for this one, eh? The closest thing here to a current Republican officeholder with a national profile is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. The only person named whom the average Republican voter might be able to pick out of a line-up is Huntsman, a.k.a. the new co-chairman of No Labels.

Still, noteworthy. Not because it’ll matter to the Supreme Court, despite the hyperventilating in the article, but because it’s a way for pro-SSM Republicans to get publicity for their point of view. If you want to signal to young voters and to like-minded righties (especially in Congress) that there’s a constituency for this position in the GOP, this is one way to do it.

Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.

Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress…

But the presence of so many well-known former officials — including Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, and William Weld and Jane Swift, both former governors of Massachusetts — suggests that once Republicans are out of public life they feel freer to speak out against the party’s official platform, which calls for amending the Constitution to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman.”

Christie Todd Whitman plus two ex-governors of Massachusetts. Way to win over the conservative base, guys. As for this, c’mon:

[SCOTUSblog's Tom Goldstein] added: “The person who is going to decide this case, if it’s going to be close, is going to be a conservative justice who respects traditional marriage but nonetheless is sympathetic to the claims that this is just another form of hatred. If you’re trying to persuade someone like that, you can’t persuade them from the perspective of gay rights advocacy.”

Even I give Anthony Kennedy a little (emphasis: a little) more credit as a jurist than to believe he might vote no but for some weak political cover from a few dozen not-so-prominent Republicans in the form of an amicus brief. He’s broken with conservatives twice before to write landmark majority opinions in favor of gay rights. The first of those opinions, in 1996, came when national support for gay marriage was polling south of 30 percent. As the closest thing the Court has to a libertarian, clearly he can be persuaded from the perspective of gay rights advocacy. Why he’d need Jon Huntsman or Ken Mehlman in his corner in order to give the thumbs up on this one, I simply don’t understand.

Exit question: If I’m right that this brief is less about persuading Kennedy than about persuading rank-and-file Republicans who are on the fence about gay marriage, why didn’t the signatories simply start a “Republicans for gay marriage” organization instead? I thought Huntsman, in his op-ed last week, was endorsing a federalist approach to SSM, which has the virtue of building democratic legitimacy for the practice. Evidently not. According to the NYT’s piece today, the amicus brief he signed argues “that gay people have a constitutional right to marry.” If that view prevails, the democratic approach is dead; you’ll have gay marriage coast to coast immediately as a matter of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. If your goal is to persuade socially conservative opponents, running to the Supremes to ask them to override state referenda is an odd way to do it. But maybe that’s the point here — that gay-marriage supporters, at least inside the Beltway, have given up on persuasion.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7

I point out you’ve employed a logical fallacy, I identify the fallacy and your response is to repeat the same fallacy only louder? This is how I know you’re not very smart.

I asked for your evidence that you can make this kind of society wide change without negative consequence and expect an answer. We have had thousands of civilizations throughout history and you are trying to tell me this subject and activity was never contemplated before?

Red Herring, something thrown out to distract from the real issue. It is the real issue moron.

You oppose giving special privilege to the group that actually supports the civilization that you benefit living in, but are for giving the same benefit to people who degrade the civilization. Funny that…

The government discriminates. Everyone does. When I go out shopping for something as simple as socks, I discriminate. I pick the socks which best meet my needs and my means. The government also discriminates. They give special treatment to blacks for instance on almost everything. They chose weapon systems based on performance and cost and sometimes just simple bias. You cannot end discrimination, you cannot even end their marriage discrimination and refuse to even argue your blind spots at all. When you throw away the core and fundamental aspect of marriage away in favor of your unproven and actually well known to be inferior version, how can you argue that the other factors which are not fundamental at all to the institution cannot also be changed and in fact their limits be removed in their entirety since you have already gutted the only reason the institution exists.

It is like having a mental health hospital where you are not allowed to determine if the people being put in are in fact needing mental health care. Or a hospital where patients are given random care arbitrarily based on nothing at all.

Your answer to government social engineering which has failed is to increase government social engineering. Hypocrite much?

Some few tiny minority of an already tiny minority might be having children. Not an argument. It is the hasty generalization fallacy. When looked on at the whole, your argument becomes nothing. I saw a kid fall off a 40 foot building and live, thus falling 40 feet is not dangerous!

Many people end up not wanting to be together. It used to be divorce was rare and nearly impossible to get out. Amazingly, the children ended up turning out better in those days than the children with everything modern society offers them today but in a single mother household. They built the society we enjoy today. Those who have been raised in the current unstable environment do not seem to be performing as well as a society. They voted Obama in as president twice, but you probably support that anyways. So, the unhappily married are still married and still a stable and beneficial place for children to be raised. Much better place than the one you would subject them to, all in the name of equality. The same equality people like Obama offer. Way lower quality of life for most, just so they are all closer to equal!

How can my argument about their cost to society be a red herring in this discussion? Isn’t your argument that it is for freedom? When their actions preclude my freedom and rights, it is not freedom nor a right. For someone who is so strung up about all this, you really seem to be ignorant of the core base of your belief system.

FREEDOM CANNOT EXIST WHERE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOES NOT.

Tear that down idiot!

astonerii on February 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Catholic Schools in the UK are likely to close down soon…

“To many of us in the United States, this is frightening, but realize, we’re not far behind (we’ve been trailing about 10 years behind England)…” – Catholic Blog Battle for the core of the world

Catholic schools will be forced to teach about gay marriage
Read correspondence between bishops and Equalities Minister
20 February 2013, 9:00

This week the bishops’ conference of England and Wales published its correspondence with Maria Miller, Minister for Women and Equalities, on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.

The Government rejected proposed amendments by the Church to its gay marriage Bill, and said the new definition of marriage will have to be taught in Catholic schools.

The Church suggested a number of amendments to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill during a meeting with Culture Minister Maria Miller in January.

In a letter to Archbishop Smith that was released yesterday, Ms Miller said teachers in Catholic schools will need to reflect the fact that ‘marriage is open to both opposite and same sex couples.’ She said, however that ‘the discussion or criticism of same sex marriage [in schools] would not be ‘of itself’ discrimination under the current law,’ and that this would only be the case if this took place ‘in an inappropriate manner or context’ which resulted in discrimination.

You can read a letter to Archbishop Peter Smith from Ms Miller dated 3 February 2013, and Archbishop Peter Smith’s response. This is in the form of a detailed memorandum prepared with expert legal advice from Professor Christopher McCrudden. Also attached is a summary of the memorandum.

Both the Secretary of State’s letter and the memorandum were submitted to the Public Bill Committee, which will be considering amendments to the Bill in the coming weeks.

http://thetablet.co.uk/blogs/486/18

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM

I doubt very much the UK Government will force the Madrassa’s in the UK to do this.

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 10:22 PM

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 10:22 PM

The depraved are empowered to prey on the virtuous. This is almost totally worldwide at this point.

astonerii on February 27, 2013 at 10:29 PM

I asked for your evidence that you can make this kind of society wide change without negative consequence and expect an answer. We have had thousands of civilizations throughout history and you are trying to tell me this subject and activity was never contemplated before?

Red Herring, something thrown out to distract from the real issue. It is the real issue moron.

There’s going to be a brief aside here because it’s clearly necessary. Take your seats, boys and girls, class is now in session.

You’re in the ballpark of what a red herring argument is. It’s something that doesn’t relate to an issue but is being offered as evidence to support an argument about an issue. I don’t think you’re being intentionally misleading because I don’t think you’re smart enough to catch the subtle distinctions in the case you present about the issues you care about and that’s why I’m taking the time with you now.

Your argumentum ad antiquitam fallacy (that you’re still repeating) is that I must cite an example where tolerance for gay marriage has existed in the past before it can be supported now, and implicit in that is if I can’t cite a past example then it can’t ever work. This is fallacious because it assumes everything that existed in the past was good and correct, and conversely things that haven’t existed or been tried yet are not sustainable. There was a time in humanity’s past where it has never been possible to exist doing anything besides hunting and gathering. There was a time when no society had ever existed with men taking flight. Those now exist even though the same argument could have been made against them at the time. Your argument was fallacious.

Now let’s move on to your use of a more classical red herring fallacy. You bring issues of health and disease of gay people into a discussion about gay marriage. Those two issues are completely unrelated so saying because there’s a problem with one we shouldn’t do the other is wrong because, well, they’re unrelated. Sex is going to happen whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual and there are no laws against that (and there can’t be. Thank you, SCOTUS). If anything the disease rates you cite are an argument for gay marriage because people in a monogamous coupled relationship are more likely to stay faithful than people who can enter in to and break off relationships with no legal consequence. It’s not often someone will make an argument for their position that’s actually an argument against it but you pulled it off spectacularly here. Well done.

Class dismissed.

Now onto whatever else you said.

You oppose giving special privilege to the group that actually supports the civilization that you benefit living in, but are for giving the same benefit to people who degrade the civilization. Funny that…

I oppose giving special privileges to anyone but if we’re bound and determined to do it then we ought to be fair about it. Frankly if you’re getting married just for a government goodie bag then you’re making a terrible mistake. And gay couples don’t degrade civilization by being married, or at least if they do you’ve not shown how.

The government discriminates. Everyone does. When I go out shopping for something as simple as socks, I discriminate. I pick the socks which best meet my needs and my means.

Those are either/or propositions. Allowing gay marriage is not.

The government also discriminates. They give special treatment to blacks for instance on almost everything.

I’m just going to tell myself that’s not racist.

They chose weapon systems based on performance and cost and sometimes just simple bias.

Again, which defense contractor gets to build the missile system is an either/or proposition. There is no either/or with gay marriage so it’s not a good comparison.

Are you an extremely clever troll who’s making bad arguments on purpose so I can knock them down without breaking a sweat and expose just who flimsy and rotten the opposition is on this issue? If so then I owe you a drink.

You cannot end discrimination, you cannot even end their marriage discrimination and refuse to even argue your blind spots at all.

But you can stop confusing either/or choices with things that are not.

When you throw away the core and fundamental aspect of marriage away in favor of your unproven and actually well known to be inferior version,

It’s unproven but proven inferior? How does that work?

how can you argue that the other factors which are not fundamental at all to the institution cannot also be changed and in fact their limits be removed in their entirety since you have already gutted the only reason the institution exists.

Marriage is about a lot more than just children, and you have yet to prove any harm that will come to the current understanding of the institution of marriage by letting gay people get in on it.

It is like having a mental health hospital where you are not allowed to determine if the people being put in are in fact needing mental health care. Or a hospital where patients are given random care arbitrarily based on nothing at all.

It’s nothing like that.

Your answer to government social engineering which has failed is to increase government social engineering. Hypocrite much?

My answer is to get the government out of the whole thing altogether, but absent that to not engage in needless discrimination for the sake of discriminating.

Some few tiny minority of an already tiny minority might be having children. Not an argument. It is the hasty generalization fallacy. When looked on at the whole, your argument becomes nothing. I saw a kid fall off a 40 foot building and live, thus falling 40 feet is not dangerous!

I wasn’t generalizing at all, merely pointing out that gay people do something you said they didn’t.

I also note that now you see willing to disregard tiny minorities of tiny minorities but in another thread a couple days ago you were worried about drug-addicted Republican voters who would switch parties to get more free stuff from the government to treat their habits.

Many people end up not wanting to be together. It used to be divorce was rare and nearly impossible to get out. Amazingly, the children ended up turning out better in those days than the children with everything modern society offers them today but in a single mother household.

The youth has been going to hell in the eyes of the adults since the days of Socrates.

They built the society we enjoy today. Those who have been raised in the current unstable environment do not seem to be performing as well as a society.

Ok. Can you clarify and back that up with some statistics?

They voted Obama in as president twice, but you probably support that anyways.

That’s low.

So, the unhappily married are still married and still a stable and beneficial place for children to be raised.

Yeah, because my grandfather disappearing for six months at a time because he couldn’t stand to be around my grandmother just created the happiest times in the lives of my mother and her siblings.

Much better place than the one you would subject them to, all in the name of equality.

Who am I trying to subject to what?

The same equality people like Obama offer.

Guilt by association with someone I’m not associated with.

Way lower quality of life for most, just so they are all closer to equal!

Most? Words mean things. What do I want to do that in your warped way of thinking is going to make things worse for 50% +1 of the population?

How can my argument about their cost to society be a red herring in this discussion?

You’ve made arguments against gay people (because you’re a homophobe) but those aren’t going away. I’m trying to engage you on strictly the subject of marriage but you seem unwilling or unable to stay on that.

Isn’t your argument that it is for freedom?

Indeed.

When their actions preclude my freedom and rights, it is not freedom nor a right.

True enough but nothing is precluding your rights and freedoms so we’re okay.

For someone who is so strung up about all this, you really seem to be ignorant of the core base of your belief system.

Which is why I’m the one who keeps repeating the same logical fallacies over and over again, and keeps raising points about tangential matters instead of sticking to the topic.

FREEDOM CANNOT EXIST WHERE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOES NOT.

Pretty much.

Tear that down idiot!

astonerii on February 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I know you are but what am I?

alchemist19 on February 27, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Don’t worry about Catholic Schools teaching Gay Marriage – they’ll have a special version of it. Rather like they teach sex education. Lots of circumlocution. Those that understand will smirk and those that don’t will look out of the window.

As for the grand conservative signatories: Christie Whitman? William Weld? John Huntsman?

Less surprising to hear that John Huntsman was gay than that he was a conservative.

virgo on February 28, 2013 at 1:41 AM

FREEDOM CANNOT EXIST WHERE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOES NOT.

Pretty much.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2013 at 11:53 PM

And your argument fails right there.

Since we do not have a society where personal responsibility exists, you cannot argue that your push for gay marriage is based on freedom until you first impose personal responsibility.

The rest of your argument is secondary and tertiary.

The question really becomes, how many immoral slave drivers are you willing to add to the burdens of virtuous. It seems to me that you prefer to have empowered evil and subdued good.

I like to think we’re here for reasons beyond perpetuating the existence of the species.

alchemist19 on February 27, 2013 at 8:21 PM

That pretty much sums it up. The Malthusian in you exposed.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 8:14 AM

No, you’d rather invent stupid excuses for discriminating against groups. That makes you a hypocritical bigot. Congratulations.

blink on February 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Well, I am on your side here. I totally think I should be able to use my car as dependent, actually both, and if this works I can see myself adding dozens more, I totally love my car and I pay way more than half of its living costs and resides at my residence. I also love my computer, and it totally resides at my home and I again pay way more than half of its living costs. Not to mention that I could then marry all my inlaws, who do not live with me or even in this country, but I do in fact pay more than half of their living costs. I can probably end up with several dozen significant others right there as tax deductions, errr, I mean, well, you know. By the end of it, I could be looking at a tax bill for having an adjusted gross income of -$280,000, just imagine the legitimate refund I can get from that tax form!

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 10:25 AM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I appreciate your honesty on your position. Even if I do not agree with your actual goal. At least you are using morally good debate to persuade.

But, if the gay marriage thing goes through, you can count on me to be on your side in the end. I am happier to see it all burn than let the degenerates remain dominant.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 11:05 AM

No, you’d rather invent stupid excuses for discriminating against groups. That makes you a hypocritical bigot. Congratulations.

blink on February 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Christians consider the practice of homosexuality a sin. Do you discriminate against us?

A: Methodist Pavilion.

unclesmrgol on February 28, 2013 at 12:29 PM

And your argument fails right there.

Since we do not have a society where personal responsibility exists, you cannot argue that your push for gay marriage is based on freedom until you first impose personal responsibility.

The rest of your argument is secondary and tertiary.

The question really becomes, how many immoral slave drivers are you willing to add to the burdens of virtuous. It seems to me that you prefer to have empowered evil and subdued good.

That pretty much sums it up. The Malthusian in you exposed.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 8:14 AM

It appears you skipped over almost everything I said. I demonstrated how your desire to not be a “slave” is actually an argument for the legalization of gay marriage but you skipped the whole thing to cling to your original premise, even though that premise has been discredited.

Are you just using fiscally conservative rhetoric that you don’t actually believe in as a means to advance your social agenda?

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 10:02 AM

Words mean things; you should be a bit more careful about how you use them. I’m no bigot.

If you’re talking about marriage in the religious sense then as far as I’m concerned a church can marry or refuse to marry whomever or whatever they wish. It’s their business.

For legal definitions marriage is a contract so anyone participating has to be able to be a party to a contract, and consent is a big part of that so you can’t enter into one with your cat. If you care to present a compelling argument for why we should change contract law then I’m all ears; don’t just call someone a bigot, present your arguments. I am amenable to having my mind changed. As I explained to our resident admitted homophobe earlier, I too used to be a strong opponent of gay marriage until I engaged someone on the issue, lost the argument because I was in the wrong and so I changed my position. But it’s going to be a steep climb because contract law is one of the sacred bedrocks of our society so it’s going to take some work to get me ready to rewrite that critical institution.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Christians consider the practice of homosexuality a sin. Do you discriminate against us?

A: Methodist Pavilion.

unclesmrgol on February 28, 2013 at 12:29 PM

The loss of a tax exemption for violation of the state’s anti-discrimination law?

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 2:14 PM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Please use your inside voice. No need to yell.

Capacity has always been a part of contract law. If you’re arguing that should change then make a case for why. Ending discrimination is a very noble cause but if doing so will cause real, tangible harm then we need to take a closer look. In my mind if we rewrite contract law such that non-consensual things can be party to one then that has the potential to lead to some very negative consequences in new future contracts. If you really believe what you say then you should be able to answer this with some sound, thought-out reasoning.

Just on the off chance you yourself really don’t support that kind of thing and what you’re really trying to do is pin people into contradictory positions and I’m too smart to fall for it, the big difference in rewriting contract law to allow contracts between things that don’t consent and gay marriage is non-consensual contracting has the potential to do a lot of harm whereas gay marriage is harmless.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 2:30 PM

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Everything you said was meaningless and thus needed no address.
I will just address the issue at hand.

You are happy to assist the Malthusians, the Marxists, Communists and the Socialist, because you too are partial to the cult of death society.

We are not a free nation. There is no personal responsibility. Thus any argument in pursuit of said freedom is moot. Also since there is no freedom there cannot be equality. Equality requires freedom in which to be enjoyed and freedom requires personal responsibility to be enjoyed.

You have already admitted that gay marriage would be a privilege. Privileges are not rights. They certainly are not freedoms. Privilege is something that is either earned or forced. We all know gays have not earned it. That means that it must be forced.

It is like the ethically poor worker who produces barely more than his salary who goes to his boss and demands a higher salary, equal to the salary of the ethically good workers who produce far more than their salary. He has two ways of getting that pay. Earn it through ethically good labor which produces more than his salary or join a government sanctioned union and force the company to pay.

He was lucky to have a job to begin with, because his production is low, yet to have the gall to demand equal pay for inferior performance?

Our society is already in decline, and history shows that when it is the end, it rarely goes slowly. Enjoy your just rewards, people like me, we will not be looking for people like you, but if you find us, we will not know you.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Makes the ABSOLUTE case against his own argument and it is completely beyond him to see it! LOL.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I need to give up on you. You’re too stupid to understand your own hypocritical bigotry.

blink on February 28, 2013 at 2:45 PM

That is the goal of his. The side most committed to their cause will eventually be the only voice left, and thereby win by default.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 2:57 PM

You really are stupid. Equality IS the case for why it should change, Idiot.

AND STOP PRETENDING THAT FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN CONTRACT LAW NEED TO OCCUR SIMPLY TO ACCOMODATE TRUE MARRIAGE EQUALITY.

It’s really stupid for you to continue clinging to this.

Capacity is a basic element of contract law. What you’re proposing (in jest, I believe) is that we allow parties that do not have capacity like inanimate objects and animals to be party to a marriage contract. You’re asking for a change, and a fairly fundamental one at that. Equality is a very good reason to change things but what are the consequences of that? If there are none (as is the case with gay marriage) then change away. If they are significant and severe (as the case would be if the capacity requirement were stripped away) then that has to be weighed accordingly.

Again, contract law doesn’t need to be rewritten, Idiot.

Yes it would. See above and call your lawyer for confirmation if need be.

Different consent is NOT non-consent, Idiot.

What is “different consent”?

Ha ha. I’ve already done this over and over. Your bigotry is obstructing your reading comprehension.

I need to give up on you. You’re too stupid to understand your own hypocritical bigotry.

blink on February 28, 2013 at 2:45 PM

You’ve been measured and found lacking. Good try though. I give you credit for knowing when you’re beaten and giving up on it. I don’t get all bent out of shape when personal insults get thrown in but when that’s all you have it gets a little tiresome so retreat is probably your best course of action at this point. Let this be a lesson for you on bringing an intellectually-dishonest pocketknife to a gun fight.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Everything you said was meaningless and thus needed no address.
I will just address the issue at hand.

Like the one where you made a fiscally conservative argument against your own position?

You are happy to assist the Malthusians, the Marxists, Communists and the Socialist, because you too are partial to the cult of death society.

Um, no.

We are not a free nation.

Not with Odumbo in the White House.

There is no personal responsibility.

There’s some but not as much as there should be.

Thus any argument in pursuit of said freedom is moot.

No.

Also since there is no freedom there cannot be equality.

Mr. Churchill disagrees.

Equality requires freedom in which to be enjoyed and freedom requires personal responsibility to be enjoyed.

See above.

You have already admitted that gay marriage would be a privilege.

Where?

Privileges are not rights. They certainly are not freedoms. Privilege is something that is either earned or forced.

Ok…

We all know gays have not earned it.

Says you.

That means that it must be forced.

You’re not making any sense.

It is like the ethically poor worker who produces barely more than his salary who goes to his boss and demands a higher salary, equal to the salary of the ethically good workers who produce far more than their salary. He has two ways of getting that pay. Earn it through ethically good labor which produces more than his salary or join a government sanctioned union and force the company to pay.

This has nothing to do with anything.

He was lucky to have a job to begin with, because his production is low, yet to have the gall to demand equal pay for inferior performance?

Is this because your first fiscal argument blew up in your face so now you’re trying to make another one?

Our society is already in decline, and history shows that when it is the end, it rarely goes slowly. Enjoy your just rewards, people like me, we will not be looking for people like you, but if you find us, we will not know you.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM

If our society was so weak that something an innocuous as gay marriage was the end then we had way bigger problems to deal with, and we do.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I am still wondering how contract law would need to be rewritten. people have relationships with companies. An inanimate concept that is not even physical. But contracts can also be placed on objects with out their consent. My house has both a mortgage and insurance as well as a contract on my lawn…

Arguing that his argument is something that is totally ludicrous, is well ludicrous, why? Because other capitalist societies already allow exactly what he is talking about.

Korean man falling in love with, and eventually marrying, a large pillow

A 27-year-old Tokyo man ‘married’ Nene Anegasaki, a computer avatar

The Ride Of Her Life: A Woman Marries A Roller Coaster

He Choo Choo Chooses It: Man Marries Steam Engine Train

May Their Love Never Be Brought Down: A Woman Marries The Berlin Wall

The Architecture Of Her Love: Woman Marries The Eiffel Tower

Talk About A Family Tree: Bollywood Actress Marries A Tree

His Bride Is Such A Doll: A Man Marries A Barbie Doll

A Picture Perfect Marriage: Man Marries A Picture Of Himself

Whole Lotta Love For Technology: Man Marries iBook

She’ll Never Say No: Man Marries Sex Doll

If your degenerate and perverted argument is OK, then so too are these things… Note, the Berlin Wall and Eiffel Tower likely can have many millions of spouses they could SUPPORT at the same time. At the least thousands! The Great wall of China most assuredly millions!

What part of a contract could be arguable here? One side cannot break the contract, contest it or do anything and need do nothing to uphold the contract.

It is about “love” and “equality” to you, it is not about supporting the society and ensuring prosperity.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 3:17 PM

If our society was so weak that something an innocuous as gay marriage was the end then we had way bigger problems to deal with, and we do.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 3:16 PM

AND YET HERE YOU ARE ADVOCATING FOR ADDITIONAL INJURIES TO BE ADDED INSTEAD OF DEALING WITH THEM.
What does that say about you? You do not prioritize.

An unorganized mental midget Malthusian is you.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 3:20 PM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I got to admit, you are much better at roping a dope than I am.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 3:44 PM

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Your mortgage is a contract between you and your bank (which is a corporation, or a group of people) over the sale of a piece of property. It’s not a contract between you and your house.

The examples you cite about the iBook and the rollercoaster and whatnot aren’t legally recognized because a tree can’t agree to be part of a marriage contract because they lack capacity. They might be married in the mind of the person involved that does have the capacity but not legally because the other “party” does not.

I’m not advocating for additional injuries, I’m advocating for the legalization of gay marriage.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 3:54 PM

I got to admit, you are much better at roping a dope than I am.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 3:44 PM

He’s not.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Again, you KEEP bringing this up as if it’s a constraining hurdle to equality. The issue is completely benign. You are making a joke of yourself by continuing to toss it out there – like a boxer on the ropes that refused to admit his bigotry.

I bring it up because it is a hurdle. In your mind should capacity not be a part of contract law?

I change in marriage equality – yes. I’m sorry if the concept of change is too difficult for you.

There is no need for fundamental change in contract law. It’s hilarious that you keep bringing this up.

So capacity isn’t a part of contract law in your mind. The lawyers are going to love this!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. There are ALWAYS consequences of change. It’s hilarious that you claim that there are NONE with gay marriage.

Admit that the threshold of consequences is completely arbitrary – based completely on the feelings regarding the issue. Bigots will always claim that the consequences are too severe – even when the consequences aren’t. That’s EXACTLY what you’re doing now.

However, if the same bigots actually LIKE a group, then there are no consequences too severe to stand in the way of that group getting their rights.

It’s pathetic that you don’t see the fact that you so clearly fit into this mold.

I omitted the word “negative” before I used the word “consequences” because I thought anyone who read it would implicitly understand it in the context of what I was saying. I’ll try not to overestimate the intelligence of people again. Yes, legalizing gay marriage will have consequences, they just won’t be negative.

No, it wouldn’t. I’m happy to explain this to you if you’re at the mercy of a legal brief.

I’ve been asking for this for some time now.

Ha ha ha ha ha. You’re a beaten boxer just tossing out meaningless punches. This is yet another meaningless punch.

Says the person who set a blatant, obvious trap I was smart and logically consistent enough not to fall into and has been throwing a temper tantrum yelling at me that I’m a bigot ever since.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 4:04 PM

No, it wouldn’t. I’m happy to explain this to you if you’re at the mercy of a legal brief.

And please please please please PLEASE tell me you’re really a lawyer! And if so, where you went to school at.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 4:06 PM

He’s not.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Considering the fact that he has you making my argument for me… Yeah, he is.

Capacity is a basic element of contract law. What you’re proposing (in jest, I believe) is that we allow parties that do not have capacity like inanimate objects and animals to be party to a marriage contract. You’re asking for a change, and a fairly fundamental one at that. Equality is a very good reason to change things but what are the consequences of that? If there are none (as is the case with gay marriage) then change away. If they are significant and severe (as the case would be if the capacity requirement were stripped away) then that has to be weighed accordingly.

You just made my argument. The only difference is that you make an argument that gay marriage will cause no harm at all. It will, it has been shown throughout history to be so. You have given no evidence that it will cause no harm this one time.

Capacity has no meaning. So what if a guy enters into a contract with a broom? What could that POSSIBLY CAUSE A PROBLEM WITH? The broom cannot bring suit against him and he cannot bring suit against the broom for obvious reasons. All it does is give him an inanimate object as his love. What is the possible downside, some other guy decides he wants to coat the broom with excrement and argues the broom loves him more and he should therefor get it?

Then again though, the male and female aspect of marriage is an actual fundamental aspect of it. Your baseless argument of the idea that who is in a marriage is irrelevant is fact free.

In fact the only reason you refuse to say that it is OK for people to marry inanimate objects or animals is because you RIGHTLY KNOW that you would be laughed from here to the moon and back a few times over and no one would take a single thing you say seriously again.

You just want to try and sneak a fundamental change in using the ignorance of the American people of their own history and damn the consequences.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 4:12 PM

A little change will not hurt Marriage. Make it easier for a woman (VICTIM!!!) to get out of a bad marriage…
A little change will not hurt Marriage. Make it even easier for a “woman” (VICTIM!) to out of any marriage…
A little change will not hurt Marriage. Make it even easier to get a divorce and make it no fault…
A little change will not hurt Marriage. Make the courts 99% pro-woman and 100% anti-male…
A little change will not hurt Marriage. Tell women that if they get divorced they can collect from both the husband and the state…
A little change will not hurt marriage. Make it open to sterile degenerate couples whose only real wish is to defile the institution…

Funny thing, all these things that would not hurt marriage, they all hurt Marriage. They all hurt the children. They all hurt society as a whole.

But this time, this is the time it really won’t hurt it. Honest, we swear!

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Considering the fact that he has you making my argument for me… Yeah, he is.

If you think I’m making your argument then you either don’t understand your argument or you don’t understand mine.

You just made my argument. The only difference is that you make an argument that gay marriage will cause no harm at all. It will, it has been shown throughout history to be so. You have given no evidence that it will cause no harm this one time.

And I think here is the disconnect. You just made the statement that gay marriage has been shown throughout history to cause harm. Where, when and how has gay marriage been shown to do this? Give me the list. If you can do so I’ll reevaluate my position on the issue.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM

And I think here is the disconnect. You just made the statement that gay marriage has been shown throughout history to cause harm. Where, when and how has gay marriage been shown to do this? Give me the list. If you can do so I’ll reevaluate my position on the issue.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 4:59 PM

You know where. Feigned ignorance. It is a good one…

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 5:52 PM

It’s only a hurdle in the minds of bigots – like yourself.

Capacity isn’t a hurdle to being a party in a contract? Yep, someone’s not a lawyer. Or at least not a good one.

The fundamentals of contract law DON’T need to change to accommodate equal marriage rights.

How many times does this need to be explained to you.

Just so long as there is capacity.

Wow, you really are stupid. I’ve never made that claim at all. I’ll let you figure it out.

You said lack of capacity is a hurdle in the minds of bigots (quoted above) and now you’re saying you never made that claim that capacity is necessary. Does that make you the bigot?

Wow, you really are stupid. It had nothing to do with omitting the word negative. It has everything to do with your bigoted thresholds.

Take the threshold up with the standards of contract law.

Wow, you really are stupid. Of course there will be negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage. You just don’t think that they are negative enough to prevent gay marriage legalization. That’s because you support this group getting their rights.

Your bigotry prevents you from supporting other groups having the same rights, so you pretend that the negative consequences ARE enough to prevent them from having their rights. Your bigotry correlates with social stigmas. How do you not see this?

There will be negative consequences to legalizing gay marriage? Okay, what are they. Your tag team partner appears to have punted on this matter so maybe you can pick up the slack.

My bigotry doesn’t prevent me from doing anything because I’m not a bigot. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Ha ha. You are a classic bigot that denies his bigotry. Too funny.

blink on February 28, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Your lie told often enough is not going to become the truth. I’m not a bigot. You’re a one-trick pony whose one trick fell flat and now you’re just screaming “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!” over and over again until I either you goad me into making a mistake or I just get tired of it. Fortunately for me I have experience babysitting young children so I know how this game is played. Like I said, I’m too smart for you. :-)

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 7:39 PM

You know where. Feigned ignorance. It is a good one…

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 5:52 PM

I do not know where. I told you, if I had good evidence that legalization of gay marriage would cause real, tangible harm (beyond the sensitivities of homophobes just don’t like gay people) then I would oppose it. If it has been shown throughout history that gay marriage causes harm then show me where in history that has been the case.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 7:42 PM

I do not know where. I told you, if I had good evidence that legalization of gay marriage would cause real, tangible harm (beyond the sensitivities of homophobes just don’t like gay people) then I would oppose it. If it has been shown throughout history that gay marriage causes harm then show me where in history that has been the case.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Does creating a ceremony for an action increase, decrease or leave the same the amount of the action in question?
Does granting special privilege for an activity increase, decrease or leave the same the amount of said activity?
Do gay relationships have an equal outcome to, a lower quality outcome or higher quality outcome to those of heterosexual relationships?
Due to our welfare state, does this indicate the cost of gay relationships to society is the same as, lower than or higher than a heterosexual couple?
So, with those things considered…
The ceromonious nature of marriage is intended to increase participation in it, thus more gays. The privilege again, increasing again the practitioners. Due to the nature of their relationship, they do not create children and spread disease massively causing a higher cost to society and an added burden on the next generation. So, in the end, there is no possible way you can argue that extending special privilege and ceremony to gays will not on net cause harm.

No need to look back in history…

But looking at the nature of things. Gayness of Rome certainly led to a large aspect of their fall, though not singularly the cause, like a fever dehydrates the sick til they die, it was a contributing symptom of their demise. The destruction of children as sexual objects to be exploited leaving them damaged and less capable. The weakening of the males involved in general making them worthless for combat. The spread diseases limiting the procreation prospects of the entire society. All adding up to additional burdens on the society and leaving less and less additional ability to thrive. Once the decline set in, the barbarians at the gate had an easy time of taking control of the weakened feminized society of the once great and powerful Roman empire.

Then there were the Greeks, who were even more enamored of sexually abusing children than the Romans! But of course, that absolutely could not have had any deleterious effects on their society. Of course the boning of little boys was mostly just a past time, every Greek was still expected and if needed forced to marry and have children.

But even more. Simple science says it is degenerate. No life creation. No protection from disease transmission. Increasing these two aspects in a body of society weakens that society, it must.

But, that is your goal anyways. To weaken our society. It is the way of Marxist Malthusians like yourself whose real agenda is the reduction of freedom in the name of “rights” and in”equality”.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

Due to the nature of their relationship, they do not create children…

Tell that to the artificially-inseminated lesbians.

…and spread disease massively causing a higher cost to society and an added burden on the next generation.

So find ways to penalize those who willingly spread disease (and most of the time it’s NOT committed monogamous couples) or don’t use condoms. Don’t penalize those who WANT to be in a monogamous commitment.

The destruction of children as sexual objects to be exploited leaving them damaged and less capable. The weakening of the males involved in general making them worthless for combat. The spread diseases limiting the procreation prospects of the entire society. All adding up to additional burdens on the society and leaving less and less additional ability to thrive.

And this was before child abuse awareness, the advent of antibiotics and the infiltration of gays through DADT (resulting in proof that the presence of homosexuals in the armed forces hasn’t led to our military’s deterioration).

Simple science says it is degenerate. No life creation. No protection from disease transmission.

I could feed a herd of cattle with all that straw. Only brain-dead nihilists want everyone to turn gay and get AIDS. And that’s a tiny minority inside of a small but still significant minority.

If this change affects only 2-8 percent of the population, how is that going to destroy our society or our institution? News flash: Men will still want to have sex with women. Men and women will still want children. Ever think that it may be the rotten economy and high cost of living that are discouraging people to start families?

TMOverbeck on February 28, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Tell that to the artificially-inseminated lesbians.

I will, their relationship did not CREATE life. The LABORATORY and the SPERM FROM A MAN did. They might raise it, but as studies have shown, the resultant adults are inferior on average to those raised by heterosexual biological parents.
But then there are the men… do we have laboratory wombs?

So find ways to penalize those who willingly spread disease (and most of the time it’s NOT committed monogamous couples) or don’t use condoms. Don’t penalize those who WANT to be in a monogamous commitment.

Some of that is already in place. Gays are not encouraged to act out their gay lifestyles. But being degenerates that they are, they refuse to.
We have already been over this, you do not need MARRIAGE to have a monogamous relationship, and as gays LOVE TO ARGUE, look at the amount of infidelity in the heterosexual marriages and DIVORCES. Sorry, double edges sword. it does not prove it will increase said few and far between monogamous relationships.

And this was before child abuse awareness, the advent of antibiotics and the infiltration of gays through DADT (resulting in proof that the presence of homosexuals in the armed forces hasn’t led to our military’s deterioration).

You do not think people in the past were not able to tell the results of their actions on children? Seriously? Hint, most pedophiles in the world are gay males a group that makes up around 2% of the population is the majority… I am sure we should entrust gay males to raise children… Antibiotics do not cure all diseases spread, AIDS. A multimillion dollar medical condition that takes the person out of the productive pool… DADT has not been in effect long enough to see the effects. It is also happening at a time of troop strength reductions, so it will not bee seen immediately.

I could feed a herd of cattle with all that straw. Only brain-dead nihilists want everyone to turn gay and get AIDS. And that’s a tiny minority inside of a small but still significant minority.

I present you as said brain-dead nihilist. Of course, that is a straw man you built. Not turn ALL into, just MORE.

If this change affects only 2-8 percent of the population, how is that going to destroy our society or our institution? News flash: Men will still want to have sex with women. Men and women will still want children. Ever think that it may be the rotten economy and high cost of living that are discouraging people to start families?

Like you already said, we have bigger problems to deal with, but instead of dealing with them, you spend hours out of your day dealing with this one.
But I already answered that question a dozen times in this thread alone.

It adds additional burdens to the virtuous.

An already struggling society does not have the additional resources to feild an ever growing degenerate population.

Because of our welfare state, this burden is born by the virtuous who want to have children, but find that the stolen money from their labor is not there to have children or have more children.

This is the purpose though of the welfare state and the promotion of degenerates through subsidization. To destroy the family and the culture at large. nothing says Marxist or useful idiot like promoting gay marriage.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Like you already said, we have bigger problems to deal with, but instead of dealing with them, you spend hours out of your day dealing with this one.
But I already answered that question a dozen times in this thread alone.

It adds additional burdens to the virtuous.

An already struggling society does not have the additional resources to feild an ever growing degenerate population.

Because of our welfare state, this burden is born by the virtuous who want to have children, but find that the stolen money from their labor is not there to have children or have more children.

This is the purpose though of the welfare state and the promotion of degenerates through subsidization. To destroy the family and the culture at large. nothing says Marxist or useful idiot like promoting gay marriage.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Oops, I thought I was answering someone else. disregard the first few words of that part.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Does creating a ceremony for an action increase, decrease or leave the same the amount of the action in question?

That’s a little vague. If we create a ceremony where everyone who changes lanes on the freeway without checking their blind spot and using their turn signal will get punched in the face then we will (hopefully) have less of those actions.

Does granting special privilege for an activity increase, decrease or leave the same the amount of said activity?

Probably increase it if anything.

Do gay relationships have an equal outcome to, a lower quality outcome or higher quality outcome to those of heterosexual relationships?

Probably equal but it’s immaterial to the question of legality. There is a better outcome to me drinking and orange juice than there is me drinking a Coke but Coke is still legal.

Due to our welfare state, does this indicate the cost of gay relationships to society is the same as, lower than or higher than a heterosexual couple?

If anything gay marriage is likely to lower the burden of the welfare state. I’ve already explained this.

So, with those things considered…

Yes…

The ceromonious nature of marriage is intended to increase participation in it, thus more gays.

People get married just to have a wedding, and otherwise heterosexual people are so desperate to have a wedding that they are willing to become homosexuals and marry someone of the same sex just to have one?

The privilege again, increasing again the practitioners.

Which privileges are you talking about that would entice an otherwise heterosexual person to marry a member of the same sex? There’s really nothing the government’s going to be able to offer me that would make me consider that. Maybe I’m just straighter than you so I can’t relate. Enlighten me.

Due to the nature of their relationship, they do not create children and spread disease massively causing a higher cost to society and an added burden on the next generation.

We’ve gone through this before as well. Gay people can and do have children right now, and even if they didn’t the state already sanctions unions that have no chance of producing children (I have an aunt who’s happily married right now despite the fact she’s been sterile since she was 11 years old). As for curtailing the spread of disease, allowing people to enter into marriage contracts is a great way to keep them from sleeping around and spreading STIs. Heterosexuals have already proven it’s not totally effective but I think on that front it’s likely to do more harm than good. You want lower health care costs? Support gay marriage.

So, in the end, there is no possible way you can argue that extending special privilege and ceremony to gays will not on net cause harm.

Funny, I just did.

No need to look back in history…

You’ve had quite a change in outlook since you were trying to slip that argumentum ad antiquitam fallacy by me yesterday. There might be hope yet.

But looking at the nature of things. Gayness of Rome certainly led to a large aspect of their fall, though not singularly the cause, like a fever dehydrates the sick til they die, it was a contributing symptom of their demise.

It wasn’t a large empire stretched too thin with an army made of up of conquered peoples with questionable loyalties under constant threat of invasion across their massive frontier?

The destruction of children as sexual objects to be exploited leaving them damaged and less capable. The weakening of the males involved in general making them worthless for combat. The spread diseases limiting the procreation prospects of the entire society. All adding up to additional burdens on the society and leaving less and less additional ability to thrive.

I see someone else already jumped in on this so there’s no point in me going there as well.

Once the decline set in, the barbarians at the gate had an easy time of taking control of the weakened feminized society of the once great and powerful Roman empire.

This is true in and of itself, you’re just wrong on what made them decline.

Then there were the Greeks, who were even more enamored of sexually abusing children than the Romans! But of course, that absolutely could not have had any deleterious effects on their society. Of course the boning of little boys was mostly just a past time, every Greek was still expected and if needed forced to marry and have children.

Why are you bringing the abuse of children into a discussion about legalizing gay marriage? No one is talking about legalizing child abuse. Red herring. Again.

But even more. Simple science says it is degenerate. No life creation. No protection from disease transmission. Increasing these two aspects in a body of society weakens that society, it must.

What does life creation have to do with a discussion of gay marriage? Life creation happens both in an out of marriage, and not every heterosexual marriage results in life creation. It’s a false standard. Protection from disease transmission makes even less sense. Condoms are a very effective way to prevent the spread of disease, but then again so is marrying someone and not having sex with anyone but them for the rest of your life. So as I said before, let’s all get on the gay marriage bandwagon and help control the spread of disease.

But, that is your goal anyways. To weaken our society.

I don’t want to weaken our society at all. I live here after all.

It is the way of Marxist Malthusians like yourself whose real agenda is the reduction of freedom in the name of “rights” and in”equality”.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 8:27 PM

I’m a libertarian so I’m a big fan of freedom. You’re mischaracterizing me.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 9:38 PM

I’m a libertarian so I’m a big fan of freedom. You’re mischaracterizing me.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 9:38 PM

No you are not. If you were, then you would not be promoting behavior that burdens me. Remember, your freedom to act ends when it interferes with MY RIGHTS. You are a tyrant loving Malthusian (person who hates humanity and considers is a disease on the earth) supporting Marxist goals. My rights and my freedoms are not a part of your world view. I am viewed a host for the parasites that you find yourself allied with or as a member of. no different than any other parasite in this nation, like the drug gangs in inner cities, the welfare queens everywhere, the illegal immigrants abusing our welfare system…

You are not a libertarian any more than I am dolphin.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 10:02 PM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 9:47 PM

So based on this and just about everything else you’ve said so far I’ve gathered that I’m a stupid hilarious bigot yet you seem loathe to say much about what you think. You posed a single question once and from the time I’ve answered it you’ve done nothing but call names. I could pull out and quote random things you’ve said and respond with “Ha ha, that’s funny. You’re stupid!” but that’s not very persuasive. Like I said, you’re a one-trick-pony whose one trick didn’t work so rather than attempt to engage in an intellectual discussion you’ve been reduced to nothing but a series of ad hominem attacks. You have nothing and it shows.

For as much as I disagree with astonerii, he’s at least man enough to stake out a position and attempt to defend it. I can have some small measure of respect for that.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 10:21 PM

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 10:21 PM

I think he has been clear on his position. That limiting marriage to people is bigoted. What harm could possibly come from allowing a man to marry his blow up doll? Any more harm than say allowing a man to marry another man? I am convinced that the doll will never cheat on him, that even if he cheated on the doll it would effect nothing, if the doll popped or he just got tired of it and threw it away, nothing bad would happen from that. Compared to what would happen if these same things happened between a man and a man… Having two actors only makes it worse and more damaging.

That said, I do not support either. I am solidly on the side of Marriage, being an institution of One man and One woman. While I understand there have been different variances in number of women in the past, unless we have a massive die off of either men or women, the highest society benefit is from the one to one relationship. Society benefit being really the reason for the institution to have acquired privilege. Being a privilege, it has nothing at all to do with rights nor freedoms.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 10:31 PM

Seriously, do I really need to spell it out for you?

Yep.

I’ll give you a hint.

OK.

You already favor changing the definition of marriage.

More talk about what I think instead of you taking and defending a position of your own…

I’ve made my feelings on that pretty clear.

You already favor changing many of the constraints placed on allowing participants to marry.

I’ve made that pretty clear as well.

Do you need more help?

blink on February 28, 2013 at 10:31 PM

What I need you to do is take a position and try to defend it intellectually. Nut up or shut up, as it were.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 11:05 PM

I think he has been clear on his position.

Not exactly.

That limiting marriage to people is bigoted.

He’s not really come right out and said that. He’s taken to making statements that would make you infer things without actually saying him. Like when I asked him what law school he went to to get where he got his notions of what’s required for a valid contract. I asked what law school he went to and rather than answer my challenge directly he said I went to one with an inferior ranking. He appears to be attempting to create false impressions while carefully avoiding making false statements. That’s what leads me to the conclusion that he knows he’s outmatched and rather than actually say something he’s trying to bait me into making a mistake. That’s also why I think he knows he’s in over his head.

What harm could possibly come from allowing a man to marry his blow up doll? Any more harm than say allowing a man to marry another man? I am convinced that the doll will never cheat on him, that even if he cheated on the doll it would effect nothing, if the doll popped or he just got tired of it and threw it away, nothing bad would happen from that. Compared to what would happen if these same things happened between a man and a man… Having two actors only makes it worse and more damaging.

If we’re talking about my personal opinion I don’t think a lot of harm would come from allowing someone to marry a blow up doll or an iBook or a roller coaster or whatever other inanimate object but my personal opinion isn’t really what matters. You can’t have a contract with a blow-up doll so that makes it impossible to marry one given the requirements of contract law so it’s really a moot point to talk about the legality of such an arrangement.

That said, I do not support either.

Of course you don’t.

I am solidly on the side of Marriage, being an institution of One man and One woman.

And it’s your right to believe that.

While I understand there have been different variances in number of women in the past, unless we have a massive die off of either men or women, the highest society benefit is from the one to one relationship.

Even if we accept your premise it doesn’t constitute grounds for the restrictions you seek. The highest benefit to society is when I eat broccoli instead of fried cheese but I have a lot more of the latter than I do the former.

Society benefit being really the reason for the institution to have acquired privilege. Being a privilege, it has nothing at all to do with rights nor freedoms.

astonerii on February 28, 2013 at 10:31 PM

And society does benefit from gay marriage. Lower disease rates amongst the gay population that’s going to be there whether gay marriage is legal or not. We’ve talked about this already.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 11:37 PM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 11:44 PM

I’ve made an effort to try to engage you on this but you seem more interested in launching an endless string of ad hominem attacks than you do in actually trying to discuss this like adults (and if you are in fact still a child that would explain a lot and I apologize for trying to hold you to a standard you’re not ready for yet).

Yes, like every decent person I’m in favor of a more inclusive legal definition of marriage. If I wade through your series of attacks and attempt to take what you say at face value it appears my description of marriage as a contract (and thus subject to the normal bounds of contract law) is the root of the disagreement. If in your mind marriage doesn’t even rise to the level of a simple contract then that limitation goes away and then sure, marry the Eiffel Tower if you want to.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:40 AM

blink on February 28, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Do you support True Marriage Equality?

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:44 AM

And society does benefit from gay marriage. Lower disease rates amongst the gay population that’s going to be there whether gay marriage is legal or not. We’ve talked about this already.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 11:20 PM

I am still looking where you proved this to be the case, or anyone for that matter. You say it as if it were some well established fact, but being monogamous does not require marriage and marriage does not require monogamy. Due to the fact that the progressives and idiots like you made divorce same day no questions asked, I tend to think even you would understand that this argument is retarded. Is it really that far above your pay grade to comprehend?

What the the gays and you are asking for are special privilege, because they want to increase the number of participants in the gay culture. That will INCREASE the disease rate in our society and lower the birth rate in our society.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

I do not know where. I told you, if I had good evidence that legalization of gay marriage would cause real, tangible harm (beyond the sensitivities of homophobes just don’t like gay people) then I would oppose it. If it has been shown throughout history that gay marriage causes harm then show me where in history that has been the case.

alchemist19 on February 28, 2013 at 7:42 PM

With pleasure.

This is just appalling. A government official thinks that the proper “consequence” for a business owner’s “statements and beliefs” is the denial of the ability to do business. Because he’s “sure the majority of” his constituents find the owner’s “comments and attitudes repugnant,” it’s just fine for him to use the coercive power of the government to block the business from opening up a store. His “belief in equality is resolute,” and that apparently justifies him discriminating against businesspeople for exercising their First Amendment rights to speak out. They “should really reconsider [their] platform on gay issues,” or else the government of Chicago will exclude them from the alderman’s ward.

Violation of First Amendment rights by government entities, caused solely by gay-sex marriage and support of gay-sex marriage.

More:

Enter City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The future mayoral candidate drew her line of opposition to the chicken sandwich purveyor, stating, “Chick-fil-A is not welcome in New York City as long as the company’s president welcomes continues to uphold and promote his discriminatory views.”

She is referring to President Dan Cathy’s remarks on his defense the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ and how America should stop questioning God – these statements were mentioned in yesterday’s piece as well. For Ms. Quinn, the ‘biblical definition of marriage’ is a far cry from reality, especially since she recently wed her longtime partner, Kim M. Catullo.

And, with that, she has started her campaign to boot this organization from NYC’s restaurant ranks.

Illegal harassment of business and abuse of governmental position and power by gay-sex marriage supporters and gay-sex married individuals.

And:

But the bottom line for Feldblum is: “Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

That is the EEOC, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, stating that gay-sex marriage should in all cases trump the First Amendment and religious liberty and that government should openly discriminate against religious beliefs in favor of forcing gay-sex marriage.

These are real, live examples of how gay-sex marriage has ALREADY damaged society. Gay-sex marriage is ALREADY violating peoples’ rights, ALREADY causing open governmental discrimination, and ALREADY causing social damage.

Those are facts. Your attempt to deny them proves your hatred and bigotry.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Yes, like every decent person I’m in favor of a more inclusive legal definition of marriage.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:40 AM

Actually, as I just pointed out, gay-sex marriage supporters are antireligious bigots who openly abuse governmental power in blatant violation of the First Amendment to suppress, punish, and destroy peoples’ religious liberty, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.

So no, you’re not a decent person. You’re a bigot. More precisely, you’re a homophobic bigot who is attempting to use MY sexual orientation to carry out YOUR hate campaigns against churches, religious beliefs, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and other Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

You have set out to deliberately damage society, and you are blaming it on me and trying to cloak it in the guise of “plantation kindness”, much as your Obama Party ancestors justified slavery on the basis of protecting the noble savages.

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 1:00 PM

blink on March 1, 2013 at 8:33 AM

blink on March 1, 2013 at 8:35 AM

*sigh*

You’ve not convinced me of or won anything. I think what I thought from the beginning; it was your stubborn refusal to say little more than ad hominem attacks instead of trying to actually intellectually engage me on the issue that lead to a day of your yelling “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!” with your fingers in your ears.

But your shtick got old years ago. You wouldn’t argue the position you’re taking because you don’t really believe it yourself. It’s sad and pathetic.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Yet he got you to make my argument. Being a hypocrite though, you just ignore that fact.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM

northdallasthirty on March 1, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Oh boy! Someone new with yet more red herring arguments! Am I the only person on the right who passed Logic 101?

Gay marriage itself is irrelevant to the examples you cited involving the city governments of Boston, Philadelphia and New York. If those three city governments were being critical of Chick-Fil-A because they also support gun ownership or the freedom of speech then by your logic gun ownership and freedom of speech are real problems that cause harm and whose legality should be questioned. Your entire argument is fallacious.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Yet he got you to make my argument. Being a hypocrite though, you just ignore that fact.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 2:53 PM

What argument of yours do you think I’ve made?

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I am still looking where you proved this to be the case, or anyone for that matter. You say it as if it were some well established fact, but being monogamous does not require marriage and marriage does not require monogamy. Due to the fact that the progressives and idiots like you made divorce same day no questions asked, I tend to think even you would understand that this argument is retarded. Is it really that far above your pay grade to comprehend?

Why are you even bringing up divorce? It has nothing to do with gay marriage at all.

What the the gays and you are asking for are special privilege, because they want to increase the number of participants in the gay culture. That will INCREASE the disease rate in our society and lower the birth rate in our society.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

You think legalizing gay marriage will mean there will be more gay people? News flash: sexual orientation isn’t exactly something you choose. Do you remember when you made the choice to be attracted to women and not men? There will still be just as many gay people once it’s legalized as there are now.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

What argument of yours do you think I’ve made?

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:03 PM

If it causes harm you cannot just change it.
It will cause harm. Debate over.

You cannot, it is impossible to do so, prove it does not cause harm. Harm has already been done.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:16 PM

You think legalizing gay marriage will mean there will be more gay people? News flash: sexual orientation isn’t exactly something you choose. Do you remember when you made the choice to be attracted to women and not men? There will still be just as many gay people once it’s legalized as there are now.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Well, there you go. Since people do not choose and it is natural, you are advocating for pedophiles to be granted their rights?

Still waiting to see that gay gene evidence.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:18 PM

If it causes harm you cannot just change it.
It will cause harm. Debate over.

You cannot, it is impossible to do so, prove it does not cause harm. Harm has already been done.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:16 PM

LO f’n L!

I’ve been asking, almost begging, for anyone to show me what harm is going to be done by legalizing gay marriage and so far no one has presented me anything but red herring arguments, and a fallacious argument is not evidence for anything except a person who doesn’t have a good point.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Well, there you go. Since people do not choose and it is natural, you are advocating for pedophiles to be granted their rights?

Still waiting to see that gay gene evidence.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:18 PM

You’re equating homosexuality with pedophilia? Man, you’re just hitting everything, aren’t you?

For the record I will admit to being bigoted to no end against pedophiles.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Why are you even bringing up divorce? It has nothing to do with gay marriage at all.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Divorce does not have anything to do with Marriage? LOL.

Divorce destroys every single one of the arguments you MIGHT HAVE HAD.

Marriage will have nothing to do with LOWERING DISEASE RATES. That is based on limiting the number of sexual partners you have and spending the time verifying that your partner is disease free. Of course, regressives like yourself destroyed that aspect of our culture.

Marriage will not increase monogamy either. If you love someone, you will be monogamous with them. If not, you won’t. Marriage is no restriction on this.

But, celebrating things incentivize people to be a part of that activity. Giving special privilege also does so. That is the whole point of the celebration and the privilege. They are there to make others want to be a part of it. In fact, that is the ENTIRE REASON FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES. So, that means your goal is to increase the number of practicing gays.

More disease fewer babies. That is your GOAL. You can deny all you want, but it is just a simple fact that is true.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:32 PM

For the record I will admit to being bigoted to no end against pedophiles.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Why would it be bigotry?

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Divorce does not have anything to do with Marriage? LOL.

Divorce destroys every single one of the arguments you MIGHT HAVE HAD.

Divorce does nothing to my arguments because divorce is a separate issue from gay marriage.

Marriage will have nothing to do with LOWERING DISEASE RATES. That is based on limiting the number of sexual partners you have and spending the time verifying that your partner is disease free. Of course, regressives like yourself destroyed that aspect of our culture.

Even if I accept what you say here as true then if that’s been destroyed then it’s been destroyed and there’s no more harm that can be done.

Marriage will not increase monogamy either. If you love someone, you will be monogamous with them. If not, you won’t. Marriage is no restriction on this.

But since we’re talking about incentives and since you believe the prospect of getting gay married will be incentive enough for otherwise heterosexual people to change their orientation then the prospect of losing the fruits of their labor is incentive against infidelity.

But, celebrating things incentivize people to be a part of that activity. Giving special privilege also does so. That is the whole point of the celebration and the privilege. They are there to make others want to be a part of it. In fact, that is the ENTIRE REASON FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES.

Your commitment to your sexual orientation must be far weaker than mine if the prospect of having a wedding and paying the marriage penalty is enough to get you to consider going on over to the other side.

So, that means your goal is to increase the number of practicing gays.

I couldn’t do this even if I wanted to.

More disease fewer babies. That is your GOAL. You can deny all you want, but it is just a simple fact that is true.

astonerii on March 1, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Something isn’t true just because you say it is.

alchemist19 on March 1, 2013 at 4:12 PM

blink on March 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM

blink on March 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM

blink on March 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM

I only popped back in here to reference someone in another thread to something I’d said here and I’ve got to say showing up over 48 hours after a thread has ceased to be commented on when it’s off the main page just to launch a couple more ad hominem spitballs in defense of your tired old one trick is the mark of a brave person who’s sure they won an argument. I have a funny feeling you’ll be back again so if you want the last word you can probably have it.

alchemist19 on March 8, 2013 at 2:58 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7