Gay Marriage Debate - Denver, CO

This is a basic right that should be denied to none.

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from interfering with our religion, not from our religious values being imposed on the government. Besides, there are plenty of secular reasons to keep marriage between husband and wife.

For instance, the Colorado Constitution defines marriage as between husband and wife. We're not alone, all these states have the same protection in their State's Constitution: Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, California, Arizona, Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, North Dakota, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Virginia.

Brian_G wrote:

The 1st Amendment prevents the government from interfering with our religion, not from our religious values being imposed on the government. Besides, there are plenty of secular reasons to keep marriage between husband and wife.
For instance, the Colorado Constitution defines marriage as between husband and wife. We're not alone, all these states have the same protection in their State's Constitution: Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, California, Arizona, Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, North Dakota, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Texas, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Virginia.

I would love for you to post ONE valid non-religious reason to not allow gay marriage. Those above are not reasons. They are state constitutions that have stuff struck down from them constantly.

southern alien wrote:

<quoted text>
I would love for you to post ONE valid non-religious reason to not allow gay marriage.

Because two dudes getting married is an abomination...for starters.

What's next? A dude marrying his goldfish I suppose. Or a woman marrying her sex toy.

Anybody else notice how much more this nation takes a nosedive every time another tradition of this country get thrown out the window to make way for more items on the liberal agenda?

southern alien wrote:

I would love for you to post ONE valid non-religious reason to not allow gay marriage. Those above are not reasons. They are state constitutions that have stuff struck down from them constantly.

How about if I post 13 nonreligious reasons instead?

1 Posterity
2 Vive le difference!
3 Survival.
4 Civil discourse.
4 Antidemocratic.
5 Taboo.
6 Entitlment spending
7 Intrusive new regulation
8 Higher taxes
9 Fallacy of Composition
10 Married women suffer less violence
11 Ex post facto law for married gays
12 Honor your mother and father
13 Kant's Catagorical Imperitive, what if everyone did

Sneaky Pete wrote:

<quoted text>
Because two dudes getting married is an abomination...for starters.

I think bigots are an abomination. Doesn't mean my OPINION should be legislated.

Sneaky Pete wrote:

What's next? A dude marrying his goldfish I suppose. Or a woman marrying her sex toy.
Anybody else notice how much more this nation takes a nosedive every time another tradition of this country get thrown out the window to make way for more items on the liberal agenda?

No, we advance as a civilization. If conservatives had their way, we'd still be living like in the 1600s

Marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults, providing them with legal benefits. Denying this institution to gay couples is simply discriminatory.

Morgan Potts wrote:

Denying this institution to gay couples is simply discriminatory.

Wrong. Denying this institution to gay couples simply makes sense. The reason this country is going down the craphole is due to the fact that this nation doesn't have any standards anymore.

Civil unions are legal contracts between consenting adults; marriage is more. It's the fabric of our culture, always between man and woman. Sorry about that.

Wow, I don't understand how you argue law without precedent and sociology without understanding the subject of the taboo.

Sneaky Pete wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong. Denying this institution to gay couples simply makes sense. The reason this country is going down the craphole is due to the fact that this nation doesn't have any standards anymore.

Bigotry in no way equals standards. Do you even understand freedom?

Brian_G wrote:

Civil unions are legal contracts between consenting adults; marriage is more. It's the fabric of our culture, always between man and woman. Sorry about that.

Sorry, but government marriage in the USA is a civil contract. If you want it to be cultural, or religious, you need to get it out of government. I'm all for it.

southern alien wrote:

Sorry, but government marriage in the USA is a civil contract. If you want it to be cultural, or religious, you need to get it out of government. I'm all for it.

Culture and religion are forbidden now? It must be so nice to control the debate like that. That's how the Ninth Circuit decided, not for law but for a mascot group deserving protection.

How about these reasons for keeping marriage between husband and wife?

1 Posterity
2 Vive le difference!
3 Survival.
4 Civil discourse.
4 Antidemocratic.
5 Taboo.
6 Entitlment spending
7 Intrusive new regulation
8 Higher taxes
9 Fallacy of Composition
10 Married women suffer less violence
11 Ex post facto law for married gays
12 Honor your mother and father
13 Kant's Catagorical Imperitive, what if everyone did

I find survival a particularly compelling argument. Did you know that the legal precedent for same sex marriage rests solely on the Theodosian Code? Considering it promoted death to same sex married couples, not a good precedent.

Governments don't marry, the ally. Those alliances are nothing like marriage, no matter the Left's wishful thinking. Contracts are civil agreements, like civil unions and domestic partnership. Many same sex couples won't marry, marriage isn't for everyone.

Consider a gay pickup sued for alienation of affection in a divorce, same sex marriage would increase liability and exposure. Keep marriage between husband and wife, so the tabloids won't have it too easy.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
How about these reasons for keeping marriage between husband and wife?
1 Posterity
2 Vive le difference!
3 Survival.
4 Civil discourse.
4 Antidemocratic.
5 Taboo.
6 Entitlment spending
7 Intrusive new regulation
8 Higher taxes
9 Fallacy of Composition
10 Married women suffer less violence
11 Ex post facto law for married gays
12 Honor your mother and father
13 Kant's Catagorical Imperitive, what if everyone did

1 Posterity
We are overpopulated as it is. Even if 100% of marriages were homosexual, people could still have babies with others for survival of the species.

2 Vive le difference!
Shouldn't this be the other way around? Instead of same ole hetero couples we have diversity?

3 Survival.
*See answer 1*

4 Civil discourse.
Because people will talk bad about it? Like Americans aren't always going to be fussing about something.

4 Antidemocratic.
Our bill of rights guarantees the rights of the minority over the tyranny of the majority.

5 Taboo.
Is in the eye of the beholder. Personal opinion.

6 Entitlment spending
Is no different than allowing benefits for future hetero couples.

7 Intrusive new regulation
How is it intrusive? Its not 'new' regulation anyway. Its getting rid of old unconstitutional regulation.

8 Higher taxes
*See answer 6*

9 Fallacy of Composition
*See answer 5*

10 Married women suffer less violence
Then we should marry ALL women. You want to force all women to marry? This one is just stupid.

11 Ex post facto law for married gays
So?

12 Honor your mother and father
What does this even mean?

13 Kant's Catagorical Imperitive, what if everyone did
So? What if everyone got hetero married. No difference.

S.A., suicidal policy ignoring consequences, if the marriage franchise is expanded, either benefits shrink, taxpayers pay more or debt increases.

In Kant's Categorical Imperative, if everyone got hetero married, there would be less harm than if everyone got homo married. That's how the argument is used. Taboo and logical argument construction are not matters of personal opinion, but of fact.

Same sex marriage is like population decline, cold death on toast.

Brian_G wrote:

S.A., suicidal policy ignoring consequences, if the marriage franchise is expanded, either benefits shrink, taxpayers pay more or debt increases.
In Kant's Categorical Imperative, if everyone got hetero married, there would be less harm than if everyone got homo married. That's how the argument is used. Taboo and logical argument construction are not matters of personal opinion, but of fact.
Same sex marriage is like population decline, cold death on toast.

If taxpayers paying more is your argument, you should also be against any more heterosexuals getting married.

If everyone got hetero married there would be less harm than homo? How do you figure that? There is no difference.

Taboo is opinion, rofl. Its taboo here to eat dog meat, but they do it in other countries. Its taboo for women to go around half naked in iran, but they do it here.

The earth is already overpopulated. We NEED population decline.

southern alien wrote:

If taxpayers paying more is your argument, you should also be against any more heterosexuals getting married.

Almost, the argument is against higher taxes, you forget the benefit to the government provided by marriage - posterity. We're better off with a generation of self supporting, taxpayers than with dependent beneficiaries. This is where we differ.

.

southern alien wrote:

If everyone got hetero married there would be less harm than homo? How do you figure that? There is no difference.

Are you really that foolish? If everyone got same sex marriage there would either be adultery or the end of the human species. That's one of your goals, to reduce population. I've read your posts - if homo marriage was universal either marriage bonds would be broken or human procreation stop. Isn't that a dream world for the left? You call it a win-win, salving a wounded mascot victim while assaulting the family.

.

southern alien wrote:

Taboo is opinion, rofl. Its taboo here to eat dog meat, but they do it in other countries. Its taboo for women to go around half naked in iran, but they do it here.

Yes, a specific taboo is opinion, not the class of taboo. We might disagree on the set of taboo, but we can't disagree on it's existence. It has something to do with culture, reflected in law, science, religion and art.

.

southern alien wrote:

The earth is already overpopulated. We NEED population decline.

This is the only rational argument for same sex marriage, but I disagree the Earth is overpopulated. Nine billion could live on Earth, with room to spare. With 27 billion, we might need to double up on showers. Earth's carrying capacity is opinion, not the fact there might be one.

You see the glass half full, I see it half empty. We can wait 60 years to see what happens to the grandchildren of the first generation of same sex marriage, no rush off lemming cliff.

Brian_G wrote:

Almost, the argument is against higher taxes, you forget the benefit to the government provided by marriage - posterity. We're better off with a generation of self supporting, taxpayers than with dependent beneficiaries. This is where we differ.
.

Half of kids born today are outside of marriage, so I don't see how it applies.

But you can see the results of the Left's policy on marriage? Divorcing sex from procreation, increasing spending on benefits designed to destroy the family? A 50% out of wedlock birth rate is just the start, if we permit this radical redefinition of marriage.
Same sex marriage is designed to harm children, marriage was created to help them by keeping their mom and dad together.