Gay Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

I see the same trend as Craig in the age demographics of the polls. I am interested to see how it actually translates over time; is it a trend, or is it a sign of how peoples attitudes change with age?

This concern is answered directly by the fact that the trend toward acceptance has increased through the decades across every age category. It's obvious that this is not about "peoples attitudes changing with age" since the acceptance percentages have gone up across age groups across generational time scales.

 

 

The simple fact is that, as a percentage, the elderly groups have increased in acceptance through the years... Decades ago, fewer elderly people accepted homosexuality than the number of elderly who accept it today.

 

The fact that this trend toward acceptance spans all age groups confirms that this is about more than "people having changing attitudes as they age," and this is more about the fact that those who find it objectionable are dying and being replaced by people who are more enlightened than those who came before.

 

If Bill's objection/concern were valid, we would see a relatively stable level of acceptance across age groups through time. This is NOT what the data shows, so the concern can be safely dismissed.

[TheBigDog]

This is me with my moderator hat on, not me with my participant hat on.

I see the same trend as Craig in the age demographics of the polls. I am interested to see how it actually translates over time; is it a trend, or is it a sign of how peoples attitudes change with age?

This concern is answered directly by the fact that the trend toward acceptance has increased through the decades across every age category. It's obvious that this is not about "peoples attitudes changing with age" since the acceptance percentages have gone up across age groups across generational time scales.

 

 

The simple fact is that, as a percentage, the elderly groups have increased in acceptance through the years... Decades ago, fewer elderly people accepted homosexuality than the number of elderly who accept it today.

 

The fact that this trend toward acceptance spans all age groups confirms that this is about more than "people having changing attitudes as they age," and this is more about the fact that those who find it objectionable are dying and being replaced by people who are more enlightened than those who came before.

 

If Bill's objection/concern were valid, we would see a relatively stable level of acceptance across age groups through time. This is NOT what the data shows, so the concern can be safely dismissed.

You have a tendency to cry foul that you have been "strawmanned" when a summary or portion of your argument is stated in preparation for refutation. I understand that using a strawman is a logical fallacy, but it is an impossibility to each and every time state fully what your oppositions complete argument is. There is in fact a reliance on the "strawman" for the simple purpose of communication.

 

Even as you cry foul at this you have a style of "micro slicing" the words of your opposition rather than taking on the whole of the argument. You repeatedly disected the first half of my original post without ever addressing the main argument which was in the last portion. This was why I kept asking if you had read the post, because you never gave any indication that you had read the second half which was where my argument was in fact placed. Weak or strong, you simply chose to ignore it and drive up the level of conflict and frustration. The post that I quoted above is a concise example of the method of argument that you employ. The whole of my last paragraph is...

I see the same trend as Craig in the age demographics of the polls. I am interested to see how it actually translates over time; is it a trend, or is it a sign of how peoples attitudes change with age? My opinion is that it is a combination of both, and only time will tell which is the greater influence on the metric.

I do not state explicitly or imply which is the greater cause. The last sentence is a critical part of this whole thought. It leaves the question unanswered rather than implying that I have made a decision. By omitting the last sentence you took my post and created conflict that should not exist. This simply perpetuates disagreement (no it doesn't; yes it does; no it doesn't) and does not constitute good faith debate.

 

I hope that you can see my point on this. I am not trying to offend, I am offering constructive criticism. Your debate skills are strong enough that you should not have to use these types of tactics.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

You have a tendency to cry foul that you have been "strawmanned" when a summary or portion of your argument is stated in preparation for refutation.

 

<...>

 

Even as you cry foul at this you have a style of "micro slicing" the words of your opposition rather than taking on the whole of the argument.

I will ask you, YET AGAIN, to stop making things personal with me. I will ask you, YET AGAIN, to focus on the argument, and not me as a person.

 

This is NOT too much to ask.

 

 

My point was simple. Your concern (despite the softening you used in your final sentence) is already addressed by the data itself.

 

 

If this were something which merely had to do with aging, and that "as people get older their attitudes change," then we would see stability through time in each age group. You would see a progression from "more acceptance" to "less acceptance" at relatively consistent levels. However, this is NOT what we see. The data shows a trend toward greater acceptance across age groups across time. This shows that the acceptance/non-acceptance of homosexuality is not a function of aging.

 

I know you said, "It's a little bit of both," but that's mistaken, too. The downward trend in non-acceptance is a function of time, not a function of age, and this is true regardless of how personal you make your response about me, my character, or my abilities.

[jackson33]

dannieyankee;

 

"I have several arguments in regards to gay marriage, pinpointing specific ideas that I have heard opposing such an arrangement. "

 

Now that I have an idea where your coming from; It's not proper to quote you from another forum, and the above comment can be drawn from this thread. However the answers are relevant to your thread.

 

A1- In the US all people have equal rights, assume the same in the UK. The right to OBTAIN a marriage license is available to all people including Gay or Lesbians, and all restrictions apply to everyone. Meaning of equal rights. In the same vain, all people have the right to cohabitate with anyone or anything they want, regardless of sexual orientation or if no sex is involved. Not all people want a license to begin with, for a variety of reasons.

 

A2- I personally believe G/L adoption is harmful, am very happy I had a mom and dad around when I went through that questioning/puberty age. However, in the US each State already allows Gay or Lesbian Adoption of Children or to be foster parents of children, to some degree. I don't know UK laws on this subject.

 

A3- Just what IS natural? What excites or stimulate your hormones today may not be the same next week or month. If you marry anyone, gay straight or whatever...that person and you will change in looks, character, desires, possibly even sexual preference. Many would agree love comes in well after marriage and as people accept these changes.

 

A4- As written to you, IMO marriage or some synonym word has been used by mankind since day one. Maybe just a ceremonial commitment or maybe a showing of faith (as in baptism) but the act or acts have always been linked to religion and most all people were religious. BUT, lets keep this other word traditional in mind; A5- In China, where births are limited to one per couple, preferably none, SSM is not allowed. I'll add a large number of G/L Couple, where allowed use their own egg/sperm to generate kids or adopt others. Isn't this then disingenuous to say a purpose in marriage is not for reproduction.

 

Recognition of same-sex unions in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The People's Republic of China allows neither same-sex marriage nor civil unions. A poll conducted in 2009 showed that over 30% of the Beijing population supports same-sex marriage, while the rest was unsure or opposed.[1] A poll conducted in 2007 found that 30% of the Shanghai population supports same-sex marriage.

 

A6- This is a reasonably new idea, at least to my beliefs, probably in the past few months. Solutions to G/L that may be offended by social acceptance, the mental stress created and so on. But if Government, from the Federal down simply changed the word 'Marriage' to some generic wording, meaning nothing less to Government (religious free in US), allowing the parties, States or Church in use any word they wish, INCLUDING MARRIAGE, what would the harm be.

 

This kind of brings up a question for you. Doesn't the UK still sponsor the 'Church of England' and if so, do you have additional problems??? What does unofficial blessing mean?

 

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Same-sex marriage

In the Church of England, many Anglican clergy already bless same-sex couples on an unofficial basis but there is no authorized ceremony in England.

 

Your current post;

 

Bestiality is not made in consent with the animal, and for that reason is considered abusive.

Homosexuality is 100% consented.

 

Under British Common Law and most US State Laws, Implied consent is a valid argument. Very old myself, have known a good many folks who truly loved their pets. While sex with animals (bestiality) is totally legal in many places (no forbidding laws), many folks today actually contract their pets into their wills, giving care in the event of their death. My parents had their 17 yo Puddle, cremated on his death and is now sets side by side with their ashes. Since your suggesting 'LOVE' as a main reason for allowing same sex marriage (contract), implying sex is not always a reason, the door is left open. I no longer use the 'slippery slope' argument with regards to rights, but I could guarantee you their are today other segments of society waiting in the wings for acceptance of SSM. Consensual sex between adults is not always legal. A retarded person for instance can't give consent under law in many cases, the very elderly or as you say by those with authority over another.

 

A son marrying his father will feel like he is required to obey his father and marry him, thus being manipulated, so the relationships is considered abusive.

Homosexuality is 100% optional.

 

Covered above, but it can work both ways. While legal aged persons can consent to any otherwise legal sex act, silence of the act is not protected by liable law. The junior status partner then can request a job, pay raise, write a book or any number of things short of 'blackmail' and in these type cases blackmail is hard to prove.

 

A man marrying multiple wives is often placing competition in the wives, and does not satisfy the marriage requirements (two people devoted completely to each other), even though on rare occasions there are successful threesomes.

Homosexuality is 100% committed.

 

You trying to place 'homosexuality' above heterosexual, by bringing other issues into the argument. Fair enough; There are probably more bi-sexual than gay or lesbians. In other words either sex can turns on an individual. Aside from that many folks today live in little communes, not always one man multiple women, but one woman multiple guys. Fundamental Latter Day Saint's, still exist or groups like them, some estimates in the hundreds of thousands. There are large societies around the world, as in many Islamic States that allow multiple wifes, even add the right of the father to pre arrange marriages for their children. What's right/correct, your word 'committed' is purely a personal belief. Those folks, a good many in the UK and the US and all the above examples are IMO more committed to their lifestyle than any two individuals, SS or not. Think separation rates in G/L Unions is equal to that of traditional marriages, nearly 50%, when 2nd, 3rd, 4th times are counted.

 

The three situations I have listed above have a high chance of including abuse or sadness, competition, and the lack of the ability to know your spouse loves you completely. Homosexuality has no known 'abuse' or 'misfortune'. Why should it be lumped with these taboo acts?

 

I really don't like going here: Having already addressed the equal distributions of ALL relationships, abuse, misfortune or the loyalty...Gay Men have had serious problems coming from their life style. Well, I'm not going there and you already know.

 

"This feeling is not based on hate, it is based upon established cultural norms."

And why should the government encourage cultural norms that discriminate?

 

Let me reverse your question; What in your opinion, gives government the right distinguish between laws, if not from cultural/traditional norms.

 

Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, comprising also possible characters or conditions such as cultural identity, social solidarity, or eusociality.

 

dannie; On a personal note, when discussing this issue it's difficult to argue, knowing the opposing person may have some vested interest in the issue. Whether yourself, a friend, family member or just interested in the social consequences, in your case also an apparent young lady from England. I haven't seen one comment of this thread in anyway attacking G/L relationships, frankly rarely have on any forum and the many times on each it comes up. There are G/L forum sites, that go over many of the same issues/conversations seen here and personally my first girl friend (a lesbian in the 1950's on) was a life long advocate FOR the rights your promoting, long passed on, naturally for the record. I have one daughter and one niece that I know are Lesbians. I also raised or helped raise 12 others that are not and somehow are all religious people (I am not). What concerns me is rapid changes in my Society or the laws that govern my US society and that traditions are maintained. You will understand this many years from now, as you see what your grand kids are headed for, probably no less than mine did from their perspective.

[Moontanman]

F**k this, this thread has gotten so silly it's not even an argument anymore, all that is going on is seeing how finely obfuscated the same BS can be ground. I respectfully request it be closed perminantly.....

[TheBigDog]

F**k this, this thread has gotten so silly it's not even an argument anymore, all that is going on is seeing how finely obfuscated the same BS can be ground. I respectfully request it be closed perminantly.....

Yes, it isn't!

[dannieyankee]

A1- In the US all people have equal rights, assume the same in the UK. The right to OBTAIN a marriage license is available to all people including Gay or Lesbians, and all restrictions apply to everyone. Meaning of equal rights. In the same vain, all people have the right to cohabitate with anyone or anything they want, regardless of sexual orientation or if no sex is involved. Not all people want a license to begin with, for a variety of reasons.

 

A2- I personally believe G/L adoption is harmful, am very happy I had a mom and dad around when I went through that questioning/puberty age. However, in the US each State already allows Gay or Lesbian Adoption of Children or to be foster parents of children, to some degree. I don't know UK laws on this subject.

 

A3- Just what IS natural? What excites or stimulate your hormones today may not be the same next week or month. If you marry anyone, gay straight or whatever...that person and you will change in looks, character, desires, possibly even sexual preference. Many would agree love comes in well after marriage and as people accept these changes.

 

A4- As written to you, IMO marriage or some synonym word has been used by mankind since day one. Maybe just a ceremonial commitment or maybe a showing of faith (as in baptism) but the act or acts have always been linked to religion and most all people were religious. BUT, lets keep this other word traditional in mind; A5- In China, where births are limited to one per couple, preferably none, SSM is not allowed. I'll add a large number of G/L Couple, where allowed use their own egg/sperm to generate kids or adopt others. Isn't this then disingenuous to say a purpose in marriage is not for reproduction.

 

Recognition of same-sex unions in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

A6- This is a reasonably new idea, at least to my beliefs, probably in the past few months. Solutions to G/L that may be offended by social acceptance, the mental stress created and so on. But if Government, from the Federal down simply changed the word 'Marriage' to some generic wording, meaning nothing less to Government (religious free in US), allowing the parties, States or Church in use any word they wish, INCLUDING MARRIAGE, what would the harm be.

 

This kind of brings up a question for you. Doesn't the UK still sponsor the 'Church of England' and if so, do you have additional problems??? What does unofficial blessing mean?

 

BBC - Religion & Ethics - Same-sex marriage

 

 

Your current post;

 

 

 

Under British Common Law and most US State Laws, Implied consent is a valid argument. Very old myself, have known a good many folks who truly loved their pets. While sex with animals (bestiality) is totally legal in many places (no forbidding laws), many folks today actually contract their pets into their wills, giving care in the event of their death. My parents had their 17 yo Puddle, cremated on his death and is now sets side by side with their ashes. Since your suggesting 'LOVE' as a main reason for allowing same sex marriage (contract), implying sex is not always a reason, the door is left open. I no longer use the 'slippery slope' argument with regards to rights, but I could guarantee you their are today other segments of society waiting in the wings for acceptance of SSM. Consensual sex between adults is not always legal. A retarded person for instance can't give consent under law in many cases, the very elderly or as you say by those with authority over another.

 

 

 

Covered above, but it can work both ways. While legal aged persons can consent to any otherwise legal sex act, silence of the act is not protected by liable law. The junior status partner then can request a job, pay raise, write a book or any number of things short of 'blackmail' and in these type cases blackmail is hard to prove.

 

 

 

You trying to place 'homosexuality' above heterosexual, by bringing other issues into the argument. Fair enough; There are probably more bi-sexual than gay or lesbians. In other words either sex can turns on an individual. Aside from that many folks today live in little communes, not always one man multiple women, but one woman multiple guys. Fundamental Latter Day Saint's, still exist or groups like them, some estimates in the hundreds of thousands. There are large societies around the world, as in many Islamic States that allow multiple wifes, even add the right of the father to pre arrange marriages for their children. What's right/correct, your word 'committed' is purely a personal belief. Those folks, a good many in the UK and the US and all the above examples are IMO more committed to their lifestyle than any two individuals, SS or not. Think separation rates in G/L Unions is equal to that of traditional marriages, nearly 50%, when 2nd, 3rd, 4th times are counted.

 

 

 

I really don't like going here: Having already addressed the equal distributions of ALL relationships, abuse, misfortune or the loyalty...Gay Men have had serious problems coming from their life style. Well, I'm not going there and you already know.

 

 

 

Let me reverse your question; What in your opinion, gives government the right distinguish between laws, if not from cultural/traditional norms.

 

Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

dannie; On a personal note, when discussing this issue it's difficult to argue, knowing the opposing person may have some vested interest in the issue. Whether yourself, a friend, family member or just interested in the social consequences, in your case also an apparent young lady from England. I haven't seen one comment of this thread in anyway attacking G/L relationships, frankly rarely have on any forum and the many times on each it comes up. There are G/L forum sites, that go over many of the same issues/conversations seen here and personally my first girl friend (a lesbian in the 1950's on) was a life long advocate FOR the rights your promoting, long passed on, naturally for the record. I have one daughter and one niece that I know are Lesbians. I also raised or helped raise 12 others that are not and somehow are all religious people (I am not). What concerns me is rapid changes in my Society or the laws that govern my US society and that traditions are maintained. You will understand this many years from now, as you see what your grand kids are headed for, probably no less than mine did from their perspective.

 

A1 Reply : However, homosexuals cannot marry people of the gender of their choice. They are being deprived of their perfectly normal preference.

 

A2 Reply: Your personal beliefs are actually incorrect. LGBT parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A3 Reply: By natural, I mean, not my choice. I did not have a choice in being into women. It is not just the sexuality of it, it is the mindset and general difference between men and women that make me want women. I didn't choose one day 'I'll like women.' Neither did the millions of other gays.

 

A4 Reply: THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS NOT RECREATION. We have stated this. The reason they have that rule in China is because they are overpopulated, and could manipulate the rule to have a child in and out of the marriage.

 

There are not more bisexuals than homosexuals. There are far people who identify as bisexual as homosexual. Most bisexual teenagers are either in a phase or looking for attention/sexual attraction. Bisexuality is quite uncommon. Homosexuality is not above heterosexuality; there is no common harm in homosexual OR heterosexual cases, except for ... exceptions.

 

I do not think I will be able to convince you. You have had this view your entire life. You will not change. Society is not wrong, you are inflexible. By no means do I mean to insult you, as you seem perfectly respectable, but you must realise that your inflexibility from age has something to do with your steadfast opinion. I realise that society changes quickly, and what was considered inappropriate when you were growing up is now considered normal, and it might indeed be painful to watch everything you know slipping away. However, you must realise that this is no longer your world, that you are simply living in it. My generation is today's generation, the generation that changes things set up by the previous generation, and they changed things set up by their parents, and it goes on. Tradition changes over time, and the more time that passes, the faster these changes occur. I bet that in ten, twenty years, there will be no tradition, because things will change as quick as fashion does. I completely see your point, but you must recognise that there is little we can do to prevent our generation from implementing what we think is right - this is the generation all about equality. The next generation may be for incest, who knows. But your traditions are probably washing away. Sorry for the depression comments :/

[Moontanman]

Lets discuss running a camel through the eye of a needle, bound to be more stimulating that trying to change the minds of religious people who are sure they know the mind of god. I have no problem if you indeed have a problem with homosexuality due to your religion as long as you are honest enough to say so and don't try tio hide it under every tiny little BS reason you can come up with. I don't require my friends to agree with me but honesty is a plus. to say that homosexuality is immoral is to say it's immoral based on religion, for the most part the current Christian, Jewish Islamic brands of religion but religion none the less. Humans in their "wild" state seldom have problem with homosexuality. Most cultures before the big three of religions had either no problem or adjusted to the idea of homosexuality in some way less than advocating the death of homosexuals. If we are going to discuss this we need to be honest and either admit up front your objection is based in religion and or morals gotten from religion. You can argue all you want from his stand point but please be honest. Even religion has it's place in our society. If your objections are based on something other than morality then please state your reason. the constant obfuscating and grinding the arguments finer and finer to try and hide the reasons is really not the way I would like to see other wise intelligent people discuss something. lets not condemn each other due to our ideas even if they are based on something we cannot come to grips with, lets be honest and see where the chips fall.

 

let me be the first to say my ideas around gay marriage or marriage of any sort are based on my idea that religion is basically nothing but a way for one class to control another, for better or worse it's my stand. i think any one or any couple or group of people should be allowed to marry as long as they are of legal age (I can dispute that age for sure) and as long as they are mentally competent. that's my stand. lets hear a your refutation of that and what it's based on.

 

Now where did I leave that camel grinder.....

[TheBigDog]

Now where did I leave that camel grinder.....

My name is Violet, the organ grinder

And I grind all the live long day

I live for the organ, that I am grinding

I'll die, but I won't go away

 

I don't know what that has to do with anything other than the "camel grinder" reminded me of it. You have no idea the nature of the God that guides my thinking. Please don't presume to be mightier that He.

 

Other than that I appreciate your efforts at getting this thread on track, I assure you that we have it well in hand.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

It's really nice to see everyone being so consistently mature and treating this subject seriously like it deserves. This exemplifies why I keep returning to Hypography. It's for the quality of the discussions.

 

[/Disappointed Sarcasm]

[freeztar]

It's really nice to see everyone being so consistently mature and treating this subject seriously like it deserves. This exemplifies why I keep returning to Hypography. It's for the quality of the discussions.

 

[/Disappointed Sarcasm]

 

Discussions on Hypography, or anywhere else for that matter, are only as good as the participants.

 

That said...

 

I applaud everyone's contributions as I've found it an enjoyable read and quite informative. I must say that coming into this thread, I was 100% in favor of Gay marriage. But since there have been so many convincing arguments against it, it's probably more like 80% now.

 

I can certainly understand the objections related to Tradition. I found it quite humorous that lawcat had to go to such lengths to explain this. I found TheBigDogs arguments in this regard convincing as well. But really, jackson33 said it best here:

 

What concerns me is rapid changes in my Society or the laws that govern my US society and that traditions are maintained.

 

As we humans are subject to the generational evolution we have inherited and continue to experience, it is not surprising that tradition is held in such high regard. I personally do not hold tradition in such high regard, but I can certainly understand why other people do.

 

Speaking from a Biological viewpoint, organisms are resistant to rapid change. Rapid change does occur, but it is much more common to see a slow and gradual evolution. In other words, things change, but not all at once. And so I think it is with tradition...

 

Thus, I would agree with others that have stated that it is just a matter of time. Most likely, imho, the legality of Gay marriage will be the distant predecessor of overwhelming societal acceptance.

 

We'll see. :circle:

[InfiniteNow]

Tradition used to be that blacks could not marry whites.

Tradition is the poorest form of argument when attempts are being made to delay or prevent equality.

 

Frankly, I'm appalled that so many of you fairly well educated individuals find that argument so compelling.

[lawcat]

Tradition used to be that blacks could not marry whites.

.

 

What is appalling is your laziness to read and research, unwillingness to distinguish crucial language and facts, inability to reason, and propensity to pile up unrelated matters. Jim Crow laws have no relevance here, and if you took time to understand you would find out why:

 

The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (a woman of African descent) and Richard Perry Loving (a white man) were . . . married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom. That, instead of defending them, became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge since it showed they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia...

...

[The Supreme Court held]: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[InfiniteNow]

What is appalling is your laziness to read and research, unwillingness to distinguish crucial language and facts, inability to reason, and propensity to pile up unrelated matters.

And yet my point remains. It was tradition to prevent blacks and whites from marrying, and tradition is perhaps one of the weakest possible arguments to make when opposing equality, or attempting to delay its implementation... Regardless of how many otherwise intelligent members here are swayed by it.

[Larv]

What is appalling is your laziness to read and research, unwillingness to distinguish crucial language and facts, inability to reason, and propensity to pile up unrelated matters. Jim Crow laws have no relevance here, and if you took time to understand you would find out why

lawcat, he will not understand this, even though you are spot on. InfiniteNow would have us believe that “gay marriage” is entirely constitutional, even after a supreme court rules otherwise. And you’re right about Jim Crow laws: they were as irrelevant to “gay marriage” as Prohibition laws were to gay sex.

[lawcat]

It was tradition to prevent blacks and whites from marrying,

 

No shytt? Next thing you are going to say is that slavery was a tradition? What a revelation!

 

and tradition is perhaps one of the weakest possible arguments to make when opposing equality or attempting to delay its implementation

 

No it is not. Actually, quite the opposite: Tradition is often THE strongest argument, second only to express constitutional provisions. Even an imperfect tradition nullifies the equality. Almost nothing is as strong as tradition, precisely becauser tradition endures the test of time and culture.

 

It is customary, or traditional that prior to being licensed as an engineer, one must obtain 4 years of postbaccalaureate work. A 26 year old engineer will have 4 years of education and 4 years of post-degree work experience. This is customary in almost all 50 states.

If I work for 10 years under the consulting engineer, then go to school and work part time for 6 years, I will have 16 years of experience and a 4 year degree, and I will not be able to obtain engineering license. There is no equality, and tradition prevails.

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow would have us believe that “gay marriage” is entirely constitutional

 

Yes. That's correct, because gay marriage is ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL. Despite the fact that you've been asked (now four times) to support your assertion that it is not, you have failed.

 

You want readers to think that gay marriage is unconstitutional? Then make your argument for why. Simply repeating an invalid assertion does not suddenly make it correct.

 

Show us where and why gay marriage is unconstitutional. If you cannot, then your argument is baseless and should be disregarded.

 

 

 

even after a supreme court rules otherwise.

The SCOTUS has NOT deemed it unconstitutional. What they have done is dismissed a case in 1972 (Baker v Nelson) for "want of a significant federal question." If they hear a case in the future about same sex marriage, they will VERY LIKELY rule in favor of equality.

 

If you feel otherwise, then explain why. Explain your reasoning, and offer which provisions or statements or amendments in our constitution incline you to feel that gay marriage could EVER be deemed unconstitutional. Seriously... just name ONE.

 

 

You've got an uphill battle here, Larv, as the California Supreme Court already previously ruled that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional... the BANS are unconstitutional, not the marriages. The same has occurred in Iowa. There is precedent for my stance, and the federal courts will likely rule the same as did these states.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No shytt? Next thing you are going to say is that slavery was a tradition? What a revelation!

 

tradition is perhaps one of the weakest possible arguments to make when opposing equality or attempting to delay its implementation

No it is not. Actually, quite the opposite: Tradition is often THE strongest argument, second only to express constitutional provisions.

Yep. And I've been citing express constitutional provisions, so by your own admission, my argument is much stronger. Thanks for the kind words. It's nice to know that even those in opposition see the strength of my points. :lol: