What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[Cekoviu]

The same way you determine whether something is a country or not. There's no clear methodology except to go with the the majority opinion, which a standard dictionary usually reflects.

If the majority opinion was that 2+2 = 5 would that become true?
What about the majority opinion being that Cekoviu does not exist on this forum?
Do you see the absurdity of defining something using something as fluid as majority opinion?

Trying to find where I said that the truthfulness of everything is based exclusively on consensus, but I'm coming up empty. Don't strawman my argument if you can't address it, just admit that you're wrong. Or storm in a huff, I don't care.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Because Gnosticism was right and it remains right. Unfortunately, the "Church Fathers" (fake name) decided that only the ideas they liked got to be included.

So you know Gnosticism is right because Gnosticism is right?
Circular argument, I'm afraid.

Gnosticism = knowledge.

Now, you're being annoying.

[Cekoviu]

That's not a circular argument, it's an argument by assertion. And criticisms of logic are pretty rich coming from somebody who's currently arguing that logic doesn't exist.

No, I'm asking how you know that logic is a means by which you can arrive at truth.

Ah. Well in that case, you're secretly transgender and gay, and you have a donkey for a head. No logical reason to think that, but it's true because truth is merely asserted by a divine power (and since I'm a divine power, I can assert that I'm a divine power).

[Munkcestrian Republic]

The same way you determine whether something is a country or not. There's no clear methodology except to go with the the majority opinion, which a standard dictionary usually reflects.

If the majority opinion was that 2+2 = 5 would that become true?
What about the majority opinion being that Cekoviu does not exist on this forum?
Do you see the absurdity of defining something using something as fluid as majority opinion?

Here's a majority opinion: your opinions are wrong and quite frankly terrible.

[Beggnig]

And how do you know that mathematics, physics, and so on are true?

This is killing my own brain cells. Everything in the universe that we've discovered so far have either transformed mathematics and physics to become more accurate or fit within their framework. Basic mathematics and physics are constant despite change in the minutiae, as with any scientific field. The truthfulness of Christianity depends on the violation of mathematical rules used in logic.
Now stop threadjacking.

Not threadjacking. You said that my definition of marriage was not true because Christianity was not reality.
But you're relying on logic and your own reasoning to come to that conclusion.
You have not justified how you can arrive at truth, something you have assumed in order to even have a comprehensible argument against Christianity.

[Heloin]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

[Cekoviu]

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

They're not threadjacking, said it themselves. Clearly their assertion is correct merely because they wrote the words down.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This is killing my own brain cells. Everything in the universe that we've discovered so far have either transformed mathematics and physics to become more accurate or fit within their framework. Basic mathematics and physics are constant despite change in the minutiae, as with any scientific field. The truthfulness of Christianity depends on the violation of mathematical rules used in logic.
Now stop threadjacking.

Not threadjacking. You said that my definition of marriage was not true because Christianity was not reality.
But you're relying on logic and your own reasoning to come to that conclusion.
You have not justified how you can arrive at truth, something you have assumed in order to even have a comprehensible argument against Christianity.

I think it needs to be said that the church or religions in general do not have a monopoly over marriage anymore. The definition of marriage that many religious people use is not necessarily the one many governments use. Especially in places where same sex marriage is allowed. In that sense I understand where Cekoviu is coming from.

Now, your definition of marriage, in regards to your belief system is valid, but it doesn’t make the definition of it used by secular entities any less valid.

[Beggnig]

No, I'm asking how you know that logic is a means by which you can arrive at truth.

Ah. Well in that case, you're secretly transgender and gay, and you have a donkey for a head. No logical reason to think that, but it's true because truth is merely asserted by a divine power (and since I'm a divine power, I can assert that I'm a divine power).

So you've proclaimed yourself to be god like a garbage bin lunatic. Thanks for proving that you literally have to be insane to deny God.
Not only that but proving that you have no means of justifying logic, mathematics, and physics as a means for arriving at truth aside from inventing a false religion on the spot.

[Farnhamia]

Ah. Well in that case, you're secretly transgender and gay, and you have a donkey for a head. No logical reason to think that, but it's true because truth is merely asserted by a divine power (and since I'm a divine power, I can assert that I'm a divine power).

So you've proclaimed yourself to be god like a garbage bin lunatic. Thanks for proving that you literally have to be insane to deny God.
Not only that but proving that you have no means of justifying logic, mathematics, and physics as a means for arriving at truth aside from inventing a false religion on the spot.

Whatever. Stick to your definition of marriage and we'll be happy. Wander off into an argument about truth and Christianity and what-not and the thread gets locked.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

In summary, LGBT+ people should be able to marry.

[San Lumen]

In summary, LGBT+ people should be able to marry.

As comedian Robert Klein once said gay people should have the right to be miserable too

[Cekoviu]

In summary, LGBT+ people should be able to marry.

As comedian Robert Klein once said gay people should have the right to be miserable too

I don't understand the jokes about marriage being horrible. A healthy marriage should not make anyone miserable or even make them joke about it.

[The Rich Port]

As comedian Robert Klein once said gay people should have the right to be miserable too

I don't understand the jokes about marriage being horrible. A healthy marriage should not make anyone miserable or even make them joke about it.

People are shallow.

I swear, I wanna punch people who say "Women, amirite" or "Men, amirite".

Speak for yourself, please, I'm pretty fucking awesome, thank you very much.

Maybe YOU suck.

[Elwher]

Since you think the constitution is not a living document was the Supreme Court decision in Loving V Virginia wrong as well? If your not familiar with the case it struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment. It was used as a basis for the Ogberfell decision

Both Loving and Obergefell were examples of the right result for the wrong reason. In both cases, the right of the separate States to set qualifications for marriage licenses issued by the State should have been upheld; BUT under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution they should have been forced to recognize the legitimacy of marriage licenses issued by other states, and given the same protections and benefits to holders of these as were given to licenses issued by that state.

[Thanatttynia]

Since you think the constitution is not a living document was the Supreme Court decision in Loving V Virginia wrong as well? If your not familiar with the case it struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment. It was used as a basis for the Ogberfell decision

Both Loving and Obergefell were examples of the right result for the wrong reason. In both cases, the right of the separate States to set qualifications for marriage licenses issued by the State should have been upheld; BUT under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution they should have been forced to recognize the legitimacy of marriage licenses issued by other states, and given the same protections and benefits to holders of these as were given to licenses issued by that state.

...which wouldn’t have been the same result, no? What if every state decided to ban interracial marriage? They would all have to get married in D.C.?

[The Rich Port]

Both Loving and Obergefell were examples of the right result for the wrong reason. In both cases, the right of the separate States to set qualifications for marriage licenses issued by the State should have been upheld; BUT under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution they should have been forced to recognize the legitimacy of marriage licenses issued by other states, and given the same protections and benefits to holders of these as were given to licenses issued by that state.

...which wouldn’t have been the same result, no? What if every state decided to ban interracial marriage? They would all have to get married in D.C.?

Ain't euphemistic conservatism grand.

Proposing stupid ideas just to cover up the fact you don't like gay people.

"The federal government should not interfere with the states so that they can practice all of the discrimination, slavery, and religious intolerance they want."

[San Lumen]

Since you think the constitution is not a living document was the Supreme Court decision in Loving V Virginia wrong as well? If your not familiar with the case it struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment. It was used as a basis for the Ogberfell decision

Both Loving and Obergefell were examples of the right result for the wrong reason. In both cases, the right of the separate States to set qualifications for marriage licenses issued by the State should have been upheld; BUT under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution they should have been forced to recognize the legitimacy of marriage licenses issued by other states, and given the same protections and benefits to holders of these as were given to licenses issued by that state.

and then you have the issue Richard Loving faced which was his marriage was not valid in Virginia so why not strike down the ban on interracial marriage and in Ogberfell same sex marriage ban in Michigan?

Its treating people differently under the law and a violation of the 14th amendment or does that amendment not apply to certain people?

[The Grims]

Not threadjacking. You said that my definition of marriage was not true because Christianity was not reality.
But you're relying on logic and your own reasoning to come to that conclusion.
You have not justified how you can arrive at truth, something you have assumed in order to even have a comprehensible argument against Christianity.

I think it needs to be said that the church or religions in general do not have a monopoly over marriage anymore. The definition of marriage that many religious people use is not necessarily the one many governments use. Especially in places where same sex marriage is allowed. In that sense I understand where Cekoviu is coming from.

Now, your definition of marriage, in regards to your belief system is valid, but it doesn’t make the definition of it used by secular entities any less valid.

Secular or from another religion.
Although that latter opens an entire new can of worms, with all the wildly differing definitions out there.

[Mettaton-EX]

As comedian Robert Klein once said gay people should have the right to be miserable too

I don't understand the jokes about marriage being horrible. A healthy marriage should not make anyone miserable or even make them joke about it.

this is exactly why i said straight marriage should be heavily restricted

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I don't understand the jokes about marriage being horrible. A healthy marriage should not make anyone miserable or even make them joke about it.

this is exactly why i said straight marriage should be heavily restricted

State-provided girlfriends when?

[The Blaatschapen]

I don't understand the jokes about marriage being horrible. A healthy marriage should not make anyone miserable or even make them joke about it.

this is exactly why i said straight marriage should be heavily restricted

I agree. Its terms are way too lax in various countries around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

[Purgatio]

Since you think the constitution is not a living document was the Supreme Court decision in Loving V Virginia wrong as well? If your not familiar with the case it struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage as a violation of the 14th amendment. It was used as a basis for the Ogberfell decision

Both Loving and Obergefell were examples of the right result for the wrong reason. In both cases, the right of the separate States to set qualifications for marriage licenses issued by the State should have been upheld; BUT under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution they should have been forced to recognize the legitimacy of marriage licenses issued by other states, and given the same protections and benefits to holders of these as were given to licenses issued by that state.

Which is the opposite result of Obergefell. Dude, federal restrictions on same-sex marriages recognised on the state level were already struck down as unconstitutional in a previous SCOTUS decision (US v. Windsor which struck down DOMA as unconstitutional vis-a-vis the Fourteenth Amendment), whereas Obergefell was specifically about whether individual states could continue refusing to recognise same-sex marriages, within those state territories, or if such a policy contravened the Fourteenth Amendment and was thus unconstitutional.

Also, as has been established by jurisprudential discussions on the US, the concept of 'States rights' adds very little, analytically, to discussions on what is or is not constitutional. States can do whatever they want, provided it does not contravene federal law (within the confines of the Constitution) or the Constitution itself. That's not really in contention. The question is the interpretation of the Constitution. But the notion of 'protecting States rights' really adds nothing to that discussion about how we interpret the Constitution.

[Purgatio]

this is exactly why i said straight marriage should be heavily restricted

I agree. Its terms are way too lax in various countries around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

One of the difficulties in restricting child marriage is that abusive parents force their children to cohabit until the age when they can marry, with all the sexual and domestic abuse of a child marriage simply transferred into a cohabitating situation. These are basically cases where child protective services needs to be far more proactive with preventative measures, otherwise more children are going to keep getting hurt over and over again.

[Nogodia]

this is exactly why i said straight marriage should be heavily restricted

State-provided girlfriends when?

When someone volunteers?