Hawaii has legalized same sex marriage

[Othelos]

So you're basically operating from the premise that it is okay for/doesn't matter if people define/get involved in other people's relationships?

Yes.

Okay. Once you join the 21st century and respect other people's boundaries, let me know.

[Shershah]

Because i am not. Yes, you won't get anything other than a circular logic for that question at this point.

So you recognize your logic is flawed.
You refuse to support your argument.
I accept your concession.

Feel free to look up my posts however. Or if taking what i said for concession brings you peace then don't look them up and be at peace.

[Lost heros]

So you recognize your logic is flawed.
You refuse to support your argument.
I accept your concession.

Feel free to look up my posts however. Or if taking what i said for concession brings you peace then don't look them up and be at peace.

I'd rather not look through 652 posts. If you decided to actually come up with a counter argument, you are welcome to reply. Until then, I accept your concession.

[Grenartia]

Wrong side of the argument, I don't believe traditional marriage is a valid opposition to equal rights.

Equal rights doesn't entitle one to the term marriage nor is it breach of rights to classify things.

And for the "separate but equal is not equal" crowd, the law recognizes men and women as separate, but yet equal.

No. It doesn't. You can't recognize two groups of people as separate, and simultaneously equal. Its like traveling east and west at the same time. You can't do it.

So you are against people wanting to insert 6 inch things in holes made in their lips. Why ? It doesn't hurt anyone else.

Consider it similar to tattooing or piercing.

I don't have a problem with the doing it at all if they want to. I don't, however expect to be forced to do it myself because they think it's "tradition", and I don't expect them to be able to stop someone from doing it to their ear simply because someone else thinks the lip is the traditional one.

Silly Tekania, its TRADITION to force people to fit in. Human rights be damned, we can't stop tradition!

Same-sex (though different-gender) marriages were, if not exactly common, certainly recognized and integral cultural elements of many Native American societies in North America, especially west of the Mississippi.

There's a decent amount of literature on this: Sabine Lang's Men as Women, Women as Men (University of Texas, 1998) and Will Roscoe's Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2000) are good starting points if you're interested.

1. I am afraid that i can go through entire books. And i am looking for names and numbers.

In most places there is no equal to marriage. So until a truly equal solution is found (which I think is just a sad attempt to pander to aggressive homophobes) then the only thing to do is lobby for marriages to be open to all.

2. That is a position i can agree with.

1. You're demanding specific records from a group of cultures that are hundreds, if not thousands of years gone by, and have no detailed recordkeeping systems? That's like demanding specific names and ages of everybody who lived in pre-Roman Britain. Its literally impossible without a time machine.

2. So you agree with us.

Yes... nothing wrong with that. We have an amendable legal system which is dynamic and capable of readily adapting to that for the purpose of codifying civil law and encompassing multiple things within a single paradigm. Our western word marriage is such a one, the word is etymologically descendent from a french nautical term "merrier" which was used to describe the process of interweaving two ropes so as to make a single rope. As such the term came to apply to the legal principals of the same with marriage where two people are combined into a single person in much of a legal sense. Whether these two people are a man and a woman ,two men, two women is ultimately immaterial to the imagery the etymological roots of the word portray.

Language is a very adaptable thing, and is capable of handling this just fine.

And nothing wrong with differentiating things for the sake of classification. We already do so based on sex, gender, race, nationality, age and alot of things.

And what the hell does that have to do with marriage equality?

I don't understand what your issue is with allowing same sex couples to marry.

So far you've argued tradition, relevancy, and "classification". Those things are all moot in the context of reality - that two consenting people who love each other should be allowed to participate in one of society's most fundamental institutions. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you so much?

Are you implying that tradition, relevance and classifications are all somehow unrealistic ?

No, we're wondering why tradition and classification are relevant here, and are trying to illustrate that tradition for tradition's sake, and classification for the sake of classification are unrealistic.

No, that's not what I mean. Why does the sex of the two people matter to you on a personal level? So far I think you've only argued from objective, impersonal standards.

On a personal level ? I consider marriage to be something sacred. I think that is all.

And how, exactly, does two people of the same sex and/or gender ruin its sacredness?

Call the union of same sex couples whatever you want to but not marriage!

Indeed!

Do you two also believe in segregated bathrooms and water fountains for people of different races?

LGBT people aren't second class citizens.

Not saying they are they can be together but it should not be classified as marriage. Marriage is meant for a female and male

Why not? I'll bet you $1 billion USD that you don't have a reason we can't refute.

According to whom?

1. Only a man and a woman can have a child its just the way it is. 2. Hence is why marriage is here for company, love and the raising of children. 3. Theres a reason why two guys or two woman cannot not naturally have a child

1. That doesn't matter. Maybe if we mandated that all married couples have children, or require that couples pass fertility tests before getting married, or automatically annul marriages when the couple doesn't have a kid after X amount of time, or prohibit senior citizens from getting married, then you might have a point, but we do absolutely none of those things.

2. Except there's no reason same-sex couples can't do any of those things.

3. Except, what does the ability to "naturally have a child" have to do with this? Ignoring the blatant appeal to nature fallacy.

So sterile people shouldn't marry?

They can but thats what adoptions for.

So why not treat same-sex couples the same as sterile married couples (i.e., the same as any other married couple, seeing as we have no "you must have kids or adopt them" requirement for marriage)?

The only problem I have is if they do not allow ministers and clergymen to be exempt.

Except you and I both know they'll allow religious leaders to be exempt, if for no other reason (and there are many other reasons) than it'll give people a legitimate reason to oppose marriage equality.

Okay.

Hypothetical scenario:

You and your girlfriend decide that it's time to get married. Oh, wait! People have decided that they have the right to define other people's relationships, so they decided that only same sex couples can get married. Sorry, but no marriage for you and your girlfriend because we said so.

How do you feel?

I would just go for civil union or whatever the term is in that hypothetical scenario.

But that option does not exist, because people really, really hate the love you and your girlfriend have for each other.

So you would just abandon your belief that marriage is sacred between men and women?

We are talking about a parallel world where homosexuals or its supporters are the majority. Chances are religion wouldn't have much of a foot hold. So such a belief existing is abysmally small.

Not inherently at all. For any part of what you said.

Why not?

Because i am not. Yes, you won't get anything other than a circular logic for that question at this point.

So you admit that you're intentionally using shitty debate tactics. Sounds an awful lot like the methods of trolls. Why are you emulating trolls?

[Shershah]

...

So... have anything new that i haven't argued to/with already ?

[Lost heros]

...

So... have anything new that i haven't argued to/with already ?

So... have anything new that hasn't been thoroughly argued against by the rest of us?

[Shershah]

So... have anything new that i haven't argued to/with already ?

So... have anything new that hasn't been thoroughly argued against by the rest of us?

Considering i have yet to see any real rebuttal, not really.

[Liriena]

So... have anything new that hasn't been thoroughly argued against by the rest of us?

Considering i have yet to see any real rebuttal, not really.

I kindly request that you refrain from lying about other people's posts.

[Ardavia]

Looks like it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/us/ha ... .html?_r=0

The State Senate passed a bill on Wednesday legalizing same-sex marriage, sending the measure to uncertain prospects in the State House. The bill passed easily, 20 to 4, with one senator abstaining. The Hawaii Senate is dominated by Democrats, with only one Republican. In the House, Majority Leader Scott Saiki has said it is likely the chamber will amend the bill to change religious exemptions. The Senate bill exempts ministers and other clergy members — but not commercial businesses — from having to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Good for Hawaii. They're quite solidly Democrat, so hopefully this passes the House.

At this rate, all of the US will legalize same-sex marriage before Finland.

[Lost heros]

So... have anything new that hasn't been thoroughly argued against by the rest of us?

Considering i have yet to see any real rebuttal, not really.

Perhaps you should look through the last 7 pages.

[Shershah]

Considering i have yet to see any real rebuttal, not really.

Perhaps you should look through the last 7 pages.

Unless someone edited the last 7 pages while i wasn't looking, no need.

[Liriena]

Perhaps you should look through the last 7 pages.

Unless someone edited the last 7 pages while i wasn't looking, no need.

Notice how you haven't actually responded to Grenartia's post.

[Immoren]

Perhaps you should look through the last 7 pages.

Unless someone edited the last 7 pages while i wasn't looking, no need.

I are amuse.
And little tipsy.

[Lost heros]

Perhaps you should look through the last 7 pages.

Unless someone edited the last 7 pages while i wasn't looking, no need.

Your right, you shouldn't have to look through the last 7 pages, if you already read them. Why don't you actually respond to Gren's post, instead of dismissing it?

[Shershah]

Unless someone edited the last 7 pages while i wasn't looking, no need.

Notice how you haven't actually responded to Grenartia's post.

Notice how i am not obliged to, especially when everything that need be said, had already been.

[Shershah]

Unless someone edited the last 7 pages while i wasn't looking, no need.

Your right, you shouldn't have to look through the last 7 pages, if you already read them. Why don't you actually respond to Gren's post, instead of dismissing it?

Because i am not the kind to humor repetition, especially when it gets old.

[Lost heros]

Your right, you shouldn't have to look through the last 7 pages, if you already read them. Why don't you actually respond to Gren's post, instead of dismissing it?

Because i am not the kind to humor repetition, especially when it gets old.

Oh the irony.

[Liriena]

Notice how you haven't actually responded to Grenartia's post.

Notice how i am not obliged to, especially when everything that need be said, had already been.

Since you seem to lack a single fuck to give as far as ethics go, I suppose you are not obliged.

[Liriena]

Your right, you shouldn't have to look through the last 7 pages, if you already read them. Why don't you actually respond to Gren's post, instead of dismissing it?

Because i am not the kind to humor repetition, especially when it gets old.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Slooshas Crossing]

Because i am not the kind to humor repetition, especially when it gets old.

Really? Considering that your arguments thus far have been nothing but "Well, has the majority of the whole world approved of it?" and "Separate but equal is equal", I'd say repetition is your entire M.O.

[Shershah]

Because i am not the kind to humor repetition, especially when it gets old.

Really? Considering that your arguments thus far have been nothing but "Well, has the majority of the whole world approved of it?" and "Separate but equal is equal", I'd say repetition is your entire M.O.

Let me ask you. Do you need me to repeat those exact same words ? I happen to think otherwise.

[Lost heros]

Really? Considering that your arguments thus far have been nothing but "Well, has the majority of the whole world approved of it?" and "Separate but equal is equal", I'd say repetition is your entire M.O.

Let me ask you. Do you need me to repeat those exact same words ? I happen to think otherwise.

No, we would like you to respond to our responses of those arguments.

[Liriena]

Let me ask you. Do you need me to repeat those exact same words ? I happen to think otherwise.

No, we would like you to respond to our responses of those arguments.

But they aren't proper responses! D:

[Shershah]

Let me ask you. Do you need me to repeat those exact same words ? I happen to think otherwise.

No, we would like you to respond to our responses of those arguments.

My responses are the same as you have yet to respond with something that you haven't responded with earlier to which i haven't responded as i had always responded.

[Lost heros]

No, we would like you to respond to our responses of those arguments.

My responses are the same as you have yet to respond with something that you haven't responded with earlier to which i haven't responded as i had always responded.

Bullshit.