Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

[Stellonia]

There is a difference between equal rights and equal endeavors. Heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different, unlike, say, the right of a black man and the right of a white man to ride at the front of a public bus.

How are they fundamentally different in the eyes of the law?

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.

There is a difference between equal rights and equal endeavors. Heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different, unlike, say, the right of a black man and the right of a white man to ride at the front of a public bus.

The only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage are the genders (sexes? I'm too lazy to nitpick the law) of the participants.

I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

[The Flutterlands]

How are they fundamentally different in the eyes of the law?

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.

The only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage are the genders (sexes? I'm too lazy to nitpick the law) of the participants.

I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

And what makes a hetersexual marriage superior to a homosexual marriage? And if you say baby making, you've lost the argument.

[Highfort]

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.

We're a secular nation. "Because Christianity" is not a good enough reason to pass any law and "traditional values" differ from culture to culture. Go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia if you want a place that uses religion to set legal precedents.

I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

Yes, and when a black man sits on a bus, it's a black man doing it; when a white man sits on a bus, it's a white man doing it. I fail to see how this distinction is any different and less pointless than the one you made between the genders in marriage.

[Geilinor]

I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

That isn't a very relevant distinction.

[Stellonia]

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.


I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

And what makes a hetersexual marriage superior to a homosexual marriage? And if you say baby making, you've lost the argument.

I fail to see how that would lose the argument. Of course, there's also baby-raising, and the traditional definition for marriage.

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.

We're a secular nation. "Because Christianity" is not a good enough reason to pass any law and "traditional values" differ from culture to culture. Go live in Iran or Saudi Arabia if you want a place that uses religion to set legal precedents.

Like it or not, many Western civil codes are dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

[Apollinis]

I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

Is there a fundamental difference between an interracial marriage and a marriage between two people of the same ethnicity?

Think carefully before you answer.

[Geilinor]

Like it or not, many Western civil codes are dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

No, civil codes are based on the will of the populace restricted by the state's constitution.

[Stellonia]

I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

Is there a fundamental difference between an interracial marriage and a marriage between two people of the same ethnicity?

Think carefully before you answer.

There is a difference, but not a fundamental one. After all, Adam was probably black (Genesis 2:7 states, "[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."), and Eve was probably white (Genesis 2:22 states, "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.").

[Neutraligon]

Like it or not, many Western civil codes are dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

No, civil codes are based on the will of the populace restricted by the state's constitution.

And in the case of the US it is based on enlightenment thinking.


Stellonia stop including Judeo in that, Jews do not have the same values as Christians.

[Highfort]

I fail to see how that would lose the argument. Of course, there's also baby-raising, and the traditional definition for marriage.

Like it or not, many Western civil codes are dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

1. If baby-making made heterosexual marriages superior to homosexual ones then sterile individuals would not avail of marriage. As for baby-raising: single individuals, same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, and even communities can raise children. Heterosexual married couples do not get a monopoly on baby-raising.

2. They are not "dependent" on Judeo-Christian values. Not murdering someone or raping them is not dependent on Judeo-Christian values - otherwise individuals such as myself who don't subscribe to such values would be out butchering and raping in the streets. Clearly, values which are not Judeo-Christian can function in civil society and our legal code reflects that we are a nation with many different value systems.

[Stellonia]

Like it or not, many Western civil codes are dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

No, civil codes are based on the will of the populace restricted by the state's constitution.

And the will of the populace is often dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

[Geilinor]

Is there a fundamental difference between an interracial marriage and a marriage between two people of the same ethnicity?

Think carefully before you answer.

There is a difference, but not a fundamental one. After all, Adam was probably black (Genesis 2:7 states, "[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."), and Eve was probably white (Genesis 2:22 states, "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.").

Is "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" your only argument?

[Arcturus Novus]

There is a difference between equal rights and equal endeavors. Heterosexual and homosexual marriage are fundamentally different, unlike, say, the right of a black man and the right of a white man to ride at the front of a public bus.

The only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage are the genders (sexes? I'm too lazy to nitpick the law) of the participants.

From my experience, the former tends to be more fun than the latter.

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.

What is this, Puritan England? And there's no such thing as "Judeo-Christian", really. It's just "Christian values" in this sense, and that's still invalid.

[Geilinor]

No, civil codes are based on the will of the populace restricted by the state's constitution.

And the will of the populace is often dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

If the people adopt your idea of Judeo-Christian values.

[Stellonia]

The only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage are the genders (sexes? I'm too lazy to nitpick the law) of the participants.

From my experience, the former tends to be more fun than the latter.

How is that relevant?

[Highfort]

Is there a fundamental difference between an interracial marriage and a marriage between two people of the same ethnicity?

Think carefully before you answer.

There is a difference, but not a fundamental one. After all, Adam was probably black (Genesis 2:7 states, "[T]hen the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."), and Eve was probably white (Genesis 2:22 states, "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made[h] into a woman and brought her to the man.").

I fail to see how you came to that distinction from those verses. If God is so almighty then he doesn't necessarily need to make Adam black just because he's from dirt (he can bleach the soil if he wants) or make Eve white just because she's from a rib bone (bones are actually not bleach-white until after being removed from the body and cleaned, so she might be Asian).

Aside from that asinine attempt at making the Bible race-friendly, the Bible is not the fucking basis for our legal system. That is why the Constitution does not mention the Bible anywhere nor does the Bill of Rights, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly rejects the notion that the US is founded on Christianity.

[Neutraligon]

No, civil codes are based on the will of the populace restricted by the state's constitution.

And the will of the populace is often dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

Often not. And guess what, the will of the populace in the US in this case was for recognition. Not that it matters since the rights of the minority should not be up for a vote by the will of the majority.

Again stop with the Judeo, it is insulting.

[Stellonia]

And the will of the populace is often dependent upon Judeo-Christian values.

Often not. And guess what, the will of the populace in the US in this case was for recognition.

I believe you mean the will of five people unaccountable to the electorate.

Not that it matters since the rights of the minority should not be up for a vote by the will of the majority.

Of course not. But there is a point when rights end.

Again stop with the Judeo, it is insulting.

Insulting towards whom?

[Arcturus Novus]

From my experience, the former tends to be more fun than the latter.

How is that relevant?

I was naming another difference while also trying to inject humor into an otherwise dismal and frustrating argument.

[The Flutterlands]

I fail to see how that would lose the argument. Of course, there's also baby-raising, and the traditional definition for marriage.

1. If baby-making made heterosexual marriages superior to homosexual ones then sterile individuals would not avail of marriage. As for baby-raising: single individuals, same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, and even communities can raise children. Heterosexual married couples do not get a monopoly on baby-raising.

This is how you've lost the argument, Stell.

---

Quit. And I say this as someone vociferously opposed to gay marriage who really does believe it will bring about the collapse of society.

And do please explain how gay marriage will cause the collapse of society. It's not like any of the other nations who have previously legalized gay marriage are now bloodsoaked in ruin and anarchy.

[Neutraligon]

Often not. And guess what, the will of the populace in the US in this case was for recognition.

1)I believe you mean the will of five people unaccountable to the electorate.

Not that it matters since the rights of the minority should not be up for a vote by the will of the majority.

2)Of course not. But there is a point when rights end.

Again stop with the Judeo, it is insulting.

Insulting towards whom?

1)No, polls said the majority of AMericans supported recognition.

2) And equality before the law for same sex couples is well before that point

3) To Jews. We do not have the same values as you. For one thing, here in the US most of us are very much for separation of church and state since that protects us from the rest of society. The majority of Jews where also pro recognition...

[Stellonia]

1. If baby-making made heterosexual marriages superior to homosexual ones then sterile individuals would not avail of marriage. As for baby-raising: single individuals, same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, and even communities can raise children. Heterosexual married couples do not get a monopoly on baby-raising.

This is how you've lost the argument, Stell.

Not necessarily. Also, I prefer to be called Stelly.[/quote]

[Arcturus Novus]

Often not. And guess what, the will of the populace in the US in this case was for recognition.

I believe you mean the will of five people unaccountable to the electorate.

Not that it matters since the rights of the minority should not be up for a vote by the will of the majority.

Of course not. But there is a point when rights end.

Again stop with the Judeo, it is insulting.

Insulting towards whom?

The Jewish, mostly.

[Dazchan]

How are they fundamentally different in the eyes of the law?

The "eyes of the law" are often dependent upon Judeo-Christian or traditional values.

The only difference between a homosexual and heterosexual marriage are the genders (sexes? I'm too lazy to nitpick the law) of the participants.

I'm pretty sure it's sexes, not genders. Also, there's another key difference: in a homosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of the same sex; in a heterosexual marriage, the two parties involved are of different sexes.

Um.. that's the exact same difference, worded differently. So we're at one difference, and not a very big one at that.

[San Llera]

Of course not. But there is a point when rights end.

Marriage is well before that point.