There is no marriage ceremony in the Bible either! Some people think that means when you have sex,YOU ARE MARRIED! So from that theory if gays have sex,they are married,lol.

I think, by definition, they cannot have sex.* And by definition, they cannot marry.* Only when you expand the definition of these two terms can they do either. Therein lies the rub, and that is why I believe that marriage "equality" is a false narrative. If gays want to cohabitate and be recognized as partners or husband+husband or wife+wife, ok, fine, I'll go with that, I'm all for civil rights. But to call it marriage, which in the United States has always been between man and woman, is a false argument.

Some simplified legal background for anybody who's interested: According to SCOTUS, the Constitution protects the "fundamental rights" of Americans from government infringement. The question is, what is a "fundamental right?" Well, in Roe v. Wade, IIRC from law school many moon ago, abortion was deemed a "fundamental right" because it had always been done in America since before the country's founding, and it has always been done since the founding. Using that logic, since marriage between a man and woman, both before and after 1776, has always been done, then marriage between a man and woman should be a fundamental right. And since it has never been between man+man or woman+woman, it cannot, therefore, using Roe v. Wade logic, be a fundamental right. Perhaps under other protections found in the Constitution, SCOTUS will find a way to expand the definition of marriage and deem it protected, but it will not be marriage as we know it.

*I have not looked up these words, and I do not care to. These are the commonly accepted usages of the terms, and anybody who says otherwise is dreaming. I'm sure somebody will google the definitions and find some website or print dictionary that includes gay sex and gay marriage. Good for you. I think if you're honest that you want to expand the definition of marriage rather than claim that it's some inviolable right that you're somehow being cheated out of, you'll find more support. The truth will set you free.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

And since it has never been between man+man or woman+woman, it cannot, therefore, using Roe v. Wade logic, be a fundamental right.

Correction...marriage has been expanded to include man+man and woman+woman over the last few years in some states. I wanted to correct that before this went off on a 20-post tangent as to how I was incorrect about using the word "never."

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

Sounds familiar...

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Yes, well, he was right lol. A cigar is not a penis.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

And a mouth is not a vagina.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

well.....

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

No. We don't call people "intolerant" because they vociferously insist that 2 + 2 isn't 5.


2 + 2 isn't 5 regardless of whether the number of adherents to that belief is zero, or a dozen, or the entire world population.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I'll never forget this one girl in school. She was a sweatheart and we got along very well. I only wish I stole her from her boyfriend.

She was the stereotypical long island girl. Jewish. Lived on the beach. Came from $. Uber liberal, but not a militant. When she had to live in a "diverse" neighborhood for school, she told me "I don't like diversity anymore" Apparently, a bunch of people living in a neighborhood who speak different languages, dress differently, practice different religions, have ddifferent morals, don't speak to each other and don't get along. Who would have thunk it?

Diversity, like many catchy words and phrases, is bs. As you said, the ones who preach it are among the least intolerable of different viewpoints. Diversity, in their minds, is everybody doing whatever they want free from criticism.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

Funny! I loled at work!

"No. We don't call people "intolerant" because they vociferously insist that 2 + 2 isn't 5."

Unfortunately for all those who are so positive they are righteous, subjects like same sex marriage aren't quite as clear cut as 2+2.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The fact that everyone may not agree that an issue is clear-cut doesn't mean that you shouldn't stand up for your beliefs.

EDITED: To remove double negative.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

"The fact that everyone may not agree that an issue is clear-cut doesn't mean that you shouldn't stand up for your beliefs. "

Of course not. However, there's a difference between tolerating diversity in opinion about the sum of 2+2, and tolerating diversity in opinion about subjects like same sex marriage.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

And without God's Laws, morality becomes whim, majority opinion, breakable social contract, or outright brute force. This court case is a perfect of example of what happens when society abandons God's Laws and goes with moral relativism according to man. The victory goes to whoever shouts the loudest or coerces the courts and politicians toward their view. And politicians always cave to the most vocal! Calling believers stupid, backward-thinking, intolerant, and uneducated is just part of the rock throwing. Standing up for beliefs becomes opinion and there is no tie-breaker in the conundrum of, "I'm right and you are wrong" without God's help.

>I think, by definition, they cannot have sex.* And by definition, they cannot marry.* Only when you expand the definition of these two terms can they do either. Therein lies the rub, and that is why I believe that marriage "equality" is a false narrative.

Even if I accepted your conveniently narrow definitions, which I don't.....

No heterosexual couple has ever been denied marriage despite a biological inability to have children. And, believe it or not, some married people never have sex. So by your definition lots of people were never "married." And neither any state government for the Feds have ever stated these things as a precondition for marriage, or verified them after the fact. And governments are supposed to treat citizens uniformly.

I don't think your cleverly fabricated logic is nearly as clever as you think it is.

Your god's laws are not relevant to the laws of the country. The courts are deciding a case that impacts our nation's laws. You may believe in a religion that justifies the discrimination, but I don't see how that's a consideration in what the courts are deciding. Adding the arbitrary rules of a god not everyone believes in would undermine the entire process.

I'm all for people standing up for their beliefs even when I disagree with them. Individuals or groups should not be forced to perform or condone same sex marriages. But to deny other people the same rights that you have is a direct parralel to gender or racial discrimination and downright malicious.

Back on topic, I'm proud of the Starbucks CEO for being vocal on a topical issue such as this. His coffee is still pretty bad, but I might be more willing to buy some than I was before. Similarly, I like that the Chick Fila (sp?) guy had some courage to make the statements he did. I just won't every buy any of his product again.

---

-Andrew

Tell it to the "men of the cloth" that fuck little boys.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Correct. One of the two topics is so simple that even most conservatives can figure it out.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm sure you feel much better now that Guru is agreeing with you. ;)

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

AFAIR Slowguy is a Christian so it should come as no real surprise that he and Guru agree on this.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

What happens is more people can get married. Are you for sodomy laws? Want to trot out some Leviticus to explain why homosexuals are abominations?

True, but Guru's post to him was weak even by his own standards, and I'm sure Slowguy is bright enough to recognize that.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I think you misunderstood my post. Marriage is a union of man and woman. I domt know where the inability to have children comes into the equation. Nor do I know where sex between the man and woman comes into play as far as being a prerequisite to marriage. I didnt say or imply that. I think you might have seen me use the two terms and assumed that i believe that one is a prerequisite for the other. Seeing as how i didnt put out a definititon, i can see how you got confused. I thoght i was clear that marriage is the union of man and womam and therefore a man and a man cannot be married.

Yes, governments are supposed to treat people uniformly, in theory, although that was not the intent behind the equal protectiom clause. The intent was to preclude segragationalist laws from harming freed slaves. But I'm not sure how that plays into my argument. Im talkimg about Roev Wade and fundamental righta. They are two separate and distinct areas of Constitutional law and one cannot conflate them. As I said, the Court migt use other parts of the Constitution to expand marriage. One part might be the equal protectiom clause. But, marriage is no longer marriage then because the participants are no longer the same. If you're familiar with the two areas of law and want to discuss each one, I'd be happy to.

I'm not sure where we disagree. I think if you re-read my post, youll see where the misunderatamding is.

And yes, it is a clever argument. But I can't take credit for it. It's based on decades of case law and cannons of interpretation.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speed Concept 9 (race)
Madone 5 (training)
Trek 1000 (rain/snow/sleet/monsoon)

>I domt know where the inability to have children comes into the equation.

Weren't you just narrowly defining sex to be something that only happens between heterosexual couples, and using that definition as a necessary condition for marriage?

Edit: OK, maybe I just assumed you were re-packing the sexual procreation argument, but maybe you weren't.

"AFAIR Slowguy is a Christian so it should come as no real surprise that he and Guru agree on this. "

I'm not sure what you think Guru and I agree about. I posted about how diversity of opinion relates to math vs social policy, and Guru posted a non-sequitor about man's laws vs God's laws. I may be the single most critical person of guru on this forum, precisely because he poorly represents (in my opinion) Christian teaching and logic.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

>i can see how you got confused. I thoght i was clear that marriage is the union of man and womam and therefore a man and a man cannot be married.

Yeah, but is there a rational basis for it? I don't think there is. The possible rational bases are things like:

1) Marriage is for procreation, and gays can't procreate.
2) It's better for the children. Children are more likely to be happy successful people with they have heterosexual parents.
3) It damages the institution of marriage in some way.

1) is true, but has never been used by a government as a precondition for hetero marriage.

2) is inconclusive at best.

3) is hogwash.

Are there any other rational bases?

Just because "it's always been that way" doesn't cut it as legal argument, as far as I know.