Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus The more you clobber the "either or" logic the more you will find that it will clobber you. The law of excluded middle applies to reality. It has nothing to do with old logic, or new logic. Everyone’s truth must conform to reality. 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 10.

It is not about clobbering anything. Two valued logic just doesn’t work in all cases. And in many cases it doesn’t work as well as fuzzy logic. And if you actually believed, “Everyone’s truth must conform to reality” then before going any further you would take the time to learn something about mathematics and logic. Otherwise you are just talking about what you imagine is encompassed by logic and mathematics. You are acting as if your ignorance was actual knowledge.

And in base 2, 1 + 1 = 10. But don’t believe me. Go learn something.

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy That was not my question. Now that is funny. For almost this entire thread you have insisted that your definition of marriage be the only allowed definition even if it had nothing to do with how it was actually practiced. Your posting is beyond dishonesty and has been in the realm of hypocrisy for some time now. Starboy

I don't have a clue what the Inca's creation story consists of and frankly it doesn't matter. To the extent that it matches and explains what happened, it's true and I agree with it, to the extent it doesn't, the Inca should revise it.

For almost most of this thread you have tried to insist the same sex marriage equivalent of a numeral in the decimal system being the same as that numeral in the binary system. And that is why you are dishonest. Just imagine If it were the first amendment being discussed. I could say that the meaning of the amendment had changed or that the ancient Greeks understood it differently so now it meant that the government could lock you up for voicing your opinion--they just couldn't tape your lips shut.

[Starboy]

mr.perfecto if it were you I would withdraw from this discussion before you make is so obvious that you are a lying sack of shit troll that no one on this board will ever take you seriously. But.........If you want to continue with this farce then no problem. Let us see if mr.perfecto is a perfect roboto.

Why do you think that marriage as practiced in this country excludes homosexuals?

Starboy

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Starboy mr.perfecto if it were you I would withdraw from this discussion before you make is so obvious that you are a lying sack of shit troll that no one on this board will ever take you seriously. But.........If you want to continue with this farce then no problem. Let us see if mr.perfecto is a perfect roboto. Why do you think that marriage as practiced in this country excludes homosexuals? Starboy

So, you have acknowledged that same-sex marriages are not legal as the laws currently stand? If you have, the reason is that law does not allow it.

Now, if you want to know why the law does not allow it, refer to my previous posts about the purpose of marriage.

[Starboy]

Come on. Answer the question. You can copy and paste can't you?

Starboy

[Sean]

Stop with the nonsense. Stay on topic and cut out the name-calling BS from both sides.

[mr.perfecto]

"The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children."

That comes from Webster's 1828 dicitionary.

Has the definition and purpose of marriage (as a civil institution) changed over the years? Yes, but those changes happened as a result of a change in the law.

And that is exactly what homosexuals are not doing. Frankly, every American should be outraged at the idea that a judge could legislate from the bench or evern rewrite the Constitution.

[fogus]

And in base 2, 1 + 1 = 10. But don’t believe me. Go learn something.

Why are you making absolute statements? Why are you asking me to learn something? Why do you argue me, but assert that both of us are right?

Can't you see that every time you say something you assume that the opposite of it is false?

When you said that in base 2, 1 + 1 = 10, you assume that 1 + 1 doesn't equal non-10. If you deny this then you assume that your denial is not meaning the opposite of your denial.

[Starboy]

Quote by: fogus Why are you making absolute statements? Why are you asking me to learn something? Why do you argue me, but assert that both of us are right? Can't you see that every time you say something you assume that the opposite of it is false? When you said that in base 2, 1 + 1 = 10, you assume that 1 + 1 doesn't equal non-10. If you deny this then you assume that your denial is not meaning the opposite of your denial.

I never said that I did deny it. What I said is that there are many kinds of mathematics. That in one kind 1 + 1 = 2 and in another 1 + 1 = 10. What I have also said is that mathematics is a human invention. What that means is that 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition of 1, +, =, and 2. It is a man made definition. The only requirement of mathematics is that the rules created must not lead to contradictions withing the particular set of rules. What this means is that within the same set of rules one must not allow 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 10 at the same time. But there can be a set of rules that defines 1 + 1 = 10 as long as within that set of rules 1 + 1 = 10 for every possible manipulation of those rules. And if an enterprising mathematicians should find a case of an operation within a given set of rules that allowed one to show that 1 + 1 = 2 and then show that 1 + 1 = 3 then the mathematicians simply proclaim that such an operation is not allowed. They add a rule that says that such operations are not allowed within that set of rules. This is why division by zero is not allowed in algebra. If you did allow it then you could show that 1 + 1 = 2 and you could also show that 1 + 1 = 69 or any other number that you want. However in calculus it is allowed to take the limit of division by a number as it goes to zero. And infinities are allowed results and there are ways of dealing with them.

Now for some reason you are trying to seize on this as some kind of debating point. We got on this tangent because you seemed to think that mathematics is some sort of absolute, thus there are absolutes in the world and then you attempted to conflate morals with mathematics in that it must also be an absolute. Since this appears to be an important aspect of your argument and thus, for some reason, not having mathematics as being an absolute has rocked your world, then all I have to say is that you don't think so well. It doesn't matter what mathematics is. A conflation is not a very good argument. If you would contend that morals are absolute then you have to demonstrate such a property in morals directly not point to something else that you think is an absolute and then say "hocus pocus" now morals are an absolute.

You see it is a very lame dodge on your part to try to take mathematics out of the man made category as if it will somehow buttress your argument. It will not since what every mathematics is or isn't has nothing to do with morals. And it is not as if god came down from heaven and gave us the tablets of geometry or algebra or calculus. They are as man made as music, unless you want to contend that god gave us the holy instruments and sheet music as well. Maybe along the way he passed us the holy hand grenade?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto "The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children." That comes from Webster's 1828 dicitionary. Has the definition and purpose of marriage (as a civil institution) changed over the years?

Then why is there divorce? And if everyone today agreed with your definition then why have most people alive today who have ever been married been divorced? This definition may have been fine for 1828 but people in 2005 don't appear to be using it any more.

Quote by: mr.perfecto Has the definition and purpose of marriage (as a civil institution) changed over the years? Yes, but those changes happened as a result of a change in the law.

So? Are you arguing that the law should stay static?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Frankly, every American should be outraged at the idea that a judge could legislate from the bench or evern rewrite the Constitution.

What are you talking about? Where does it say anything in the constitution about marriage? If any group is trying to rewrite the constitution it is gay rights opponents by trying to get a constitutional amendment passed to prohibit such things.

Why to you write such obvious lies mr.perfecto?

Starboy

[Chris the Chees]

I have been reading the recent additions to this thread, and have come to the conclusion that a concise summary would look something like this: -

A rather large debate on mathematics, and the conclusion of the puritanical elements of the debate, that being homosexual is immoral, and that old morals do not become out dated.

My puritanical friends you are wrong, utterly, on all counts. Morality is subjective, and relevant only to the individual whom those moral values belong too. Unless of course, the vast majority of people within a society, agree with your moral values. In which case they are the morals of a society, and become the basis of laws.

The vast majority are not in agreement with you, and your morals are based on obsolete old texts, who's only real value are as a substitute for toilet paper.

[Dmkjr]

I could see where some would say it's based upon their morals. But then again, those aren't your morals. I'm sure you picked them up somewhere along your "development" stage. And, even if they were yours, then you wouldn't be marrying the same 'sex' person, so why are you worried about it? Were you raised to hate "different" people? And, if so... let the parents be burned at the stake.

[gizmo_hyperpunk]

I am gay and there are a lot of homophobic people still out there most of them are the older generation and a lot of regions people are also extremely homophobic, there was a big uproar when a gay priest got appointed, and also a lot of uneducated people in gay and lesbian topics that are homophobic too

I think the law should be changed to 2 persons who wish to get married regardless of sex, color, region, beliefs, what they look like. But who has the right to say if 2 people love they can’t get married because there gay, I think its a lot to do with education because in school we weren’t aloud to talk about gay and lesbian topics and also I was given a leaflet on how I was confused and I wasn’t actually gay . But that leaflet made me think why are they giving me this, and it’s because they don’t understand why people are gay, its not because we want to be different or anything, its just we like the same sex than the opposite sex. Im not saying educate people that its wrong or write to be gay or lesbian , but to give people the basic understanding why something is , it’s the same with gay marriage and gay people adopting, its because there scared it might turn the whole would gay

[Starboy]

gizmo, have you ever personally experienced bigotry and discrimination because of your sexuality? Do you keep it under wraps in strait society because of the great likelihood that it could lead to all sorts of discrimination?

What do you think about the argument that gays do not need to get married to have the benefits that married couples enjoy? That they can come up with their own legal documents to allow them to act as a spouse for financial and medical purposes?

Starboy

[gizmo_hyperpunk]

Quote by: Starboy gizmo, have you ever personally experienced bigotry and discrimination because of your sexuality? Do you keep it under wraps in strait society because of the great likelihood that it could lead to all sorts of discrimination? What do you think about the argument that gays do not need to get married to have the benefits that married couples enjoy? That they can come up with their own legal documents to allow them to act as a spouse for financial and medical purposes? Starboy

I left a job because of staff members being discriminative and also I had it all thru school, I couldn't walk down corridors without someone hurting me or passing a comment. Ive had it in clubs, I walked into an Irish bar and I was asked by the bar person to leave because my sort wasn't welcome there and by that I think they were implying that gays are not welcome. I have been openly gay since I was 14, and I am now 18

Marriage is like a uniting of 2 people as one, it’s like a start of a family, even thou 2 gay people can't have children, its still a family. But if 2 people love each other, I think they should, not only for financial and medical purposes, but for religious reasons too. With the laws not allowing gay or lesbian marriage it means that we don’t share the same rights as a heterosexual person would. My b/f got taken into hospital and they couldn’t discuss his problems with me because I wasn’t a relative. But even thou I already knew about his problems.

Also didn’t God say Everyone is equal no matter what there color of there skin, race, beliefs , and if sexuality was an issues then he property would of included that

[gizmo_hyperpunk]

just been going thru the bible to see , it says man thou shall not lie with another man which is also wrong , because it caused homophobic christians who read the bible

[Livemike]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Texans said: I thought states started using licenses after the emancipation proclamation to keep blacks and whites from marrying each other. I say: If you have any type of proof or text that proves that, please share this link as I would love to see it. That may be the case, but as far as I have been able to tell marriage licenses were for the sole purpose of uniform blood testing of couples wanting to marry (and have kids would be the assumption, to protect the kids). Any info on the origination of marriage licenses would be appreiciated though, as I have done extensive looking into this topic.

That's kinda a thin excuse though isn't it? After all the contracting parties could
easily insist on such tests privately. Where does the government get the right to
forbid private contracts in the interests of reducing risks that the private parties don't
think worth testing for?

[mr.perfecto]

What about the rights of those who will bear the cost of such contracts, but who aren't allowed to participate in the process?

If Billy and Bobby want to have a shoot out to settle their disagreements, and they do it in the middle of main street, someone will say, "there ought to be a law..." Laws are the result of past irresponsible behavior. Irresponsible behavior is the result of not considering the rights of those around you.

Laws don't take away your ability to perfrom or not perform an act, but (legitimate) laws punish behavior that violates other people's rights.

[Starboy]

Quote by: mr.perfecto What about the rights of those who will bear the cost of such contracts, but who aren't allowed to participate in the process?

You seem to think that homos in unrecognized marriages do not already pay taxes that support programs for hetero families. And yet they cannot get similar benefits. What is fair about that?

If Billy and Bobby want to have a shoot out to settle their disagreements, and they do it in the middle of main street, someone will say, "there ought to be a law..." Laws are the result of past irresponsible behavior. Irresponsible behavior is the result of not considering the rights of those around you. Laws don't take away your ability to perfrom or not perform an act, but (legitimate) laws punish behavior that violates other people's rights.

What does this have to do with gay marriage? Gays are already married. They already have life long commitments. They already pay taxes. Giving them equal treatment under the law is not going to stop any other group in our society from doing anything that they can't already do.

Starboy