The U.S. Supreme Court rules all states must allow same sex-marriages

Lol. Ok lets test your "stupid theory". It is stupid to constitute consent as an act of verbalizing or speaking authorization when consent is simply defined as permission. Furthermore, according to your childish logic, animals cannot give permission or notification for anything from hunger to having to piss as they are not able to communicate in the same manner as humans. Who gave ANYONE consent to document them as property? Neuter them? Oh let me guess.....Thats different? SMH. My fucking god why would I have to break this down to an adult? If you knew who you were talking to you would know that I never speak from a knee jerk position. That said, it is NOT uncommon for a pet or an animal to build sexual feelings for their owners.

And did you know that other species even have a method for resisting ANY sexual or unwanted acts that are not mutual? OMG that must be appalling isn't it? (Sarcasm)
Look miss smart ass, I am not conservative or libertarian. And most certainly not a Fox news student. You would have to be a nieve beta to buy into the whole party game because a person who "thinks for themselves" would disagree with priorities from both spectrums.

I am way too versed to base a view upon one angle. How about the inability to marry family? Your possessions? Underaged people who are fully matured? SMH. People are so stuck in celebrating this little trinket they have obtained until they are too occupied to see the potential harm or malicious intent of the gift that was given. Originally Posted by Mgm84

You are skating on several patches of very thin ice in this post, site guidelines-wise. Be careful and don't break through.

Oh let him make his points ... It's fun to watch them add up.

The real winners are the divorce attorneys. The first gay couple in VT to be wed lasted less than two years.

I'll try to use small words for you.

No can marry family. Cause bad health issues in offspring. Society say no want. (Interestingly, in most states this only applies to immediate family. In somewhere over 30 states you can marry your first cousin.)

No can marry animal. Animal no can give consent. Animal no can sign legal contract.

I've already addressed polygamy. Good job spelling hard word.

No can marry possession. Possession cannot sign legal contract.

No care about evolution in marriage. Marriage not about evolution. If so, why old people can marry? Why infertile people can marry?

Hope easier for you.



Considering it was also once illegal, what are your thoughts on interracial marriage? Because the very same arguments were made when interracial marriage was made legal and neener neener, I can still marry a black guy. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

^^ The sad part is that you actually feel in your heart of hearts your replacement of a rebuttal to the points at hand are valid substitutions for ignorance.

You continue to hide behind "animals not giving consent" but ignoring the fact that I pointed out that humans are not obligated to provide consent for subjugating animals therefore it would make your argument weak and or void by default. It's called cherry picking and self serving. For example you made a point about stipulations on marriage being between HUMANS yet you condemn the ideology of old that ALSO put stipulations on marriage being exclusively between man and woman. So you do actually understand that marriage should have biological delineations too. What makes you any different to those who seek to have relations and marry their pets, sisters, and possessions? So to those who feel that they are oppressed by being denied to marry whatever they want to marry you are the apart of the "phobia" group who are afraid of their group or cause. Lmao. You are not equipped.

I used evolution in hopes that you were interested in clarity or ingenuous dialogue and maybe we could come to a conclusion based on something objective and neutral. But silly me ha?

"Old people" have procreated. Medically diagnosed "infertile" people have also succeeded in defying the doubt. Now please present the two people of the same sex procreating with each other? ROTFL. Here is a little strategic tip, your little disingenuous smoke screens are ineffective here.

Btw I read the chimp insult also. Are you a progressive with racial hate too? WOW

I'll try to use small words for you.

No can marry family. Cause bad health issues in offspring. Society say no want. (Interestingly, in most states this only applies to immediate family. In somewhere over 30 states you can marry your first cousin.)

No can marry animal. Animal no can give consent. Animal no can sign legal contract.

I've already addressed polygamy. Good job spelling hard word.

No can marry possession. Possession cannot sign legal contract.

No care about evolution in marriage. Marriage not about evolution. If so, why old people can marry? Why infertile people can marry?

Hope easier for you.



Considering it was also once illegal, what are your thoughts on interracial marriage? Because the very same arguments were made when interracial marriage was made legal and neener neener, I can still marry a black guy. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

Correct I have made punctuation and grammatical mistakes when posting on a forum. I will never deny that. But if we are going to be petty when in a intellectual battle of views, let's know and understand that neither of us are using the kings english. Neither are we properly using the language in academic settings. I understand that it's only natural to become the grammar police when in debate with someone who maybe more astute, but you have to stay on topic and fight through your insecurities.

Oh let him make his points ... It's fun to watch them add up.

The real winners are the divorce attorneys. The first gay couple in VT to be wed lasted less than two years. Originally Posted by pyramider

True. Cashing in.

Non-hobby related, moved to Sandbox Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Why wasn't it moved to the Political forum, instead?

http://www.eccie.net/forumdisplay.php?f=1701

Due to popular request, all political/religious discussion are now moving to The Political Forum" effective immediately.

The Sandbox will now revert back to a fully moderated forum, with all the standard forum guidelines and rules back in effect. For those that need a refresher on those, please see http://www.eccie.net/announcement.php?f=5

Any new political/religious thread started here will be moved to "The Political Forum" and be subject to the lack of civility and rules there.

Enjoy your restored Sandbox. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Same reason you can't marry a person who is unconscious or dead. Consent cannot be given. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

She gave written consent before death, I swear.....

...I am way too versed to base a view upon one angle. How about the inability to marry family? Your possessions? Underaged people who are fully matured? SMH. People are so stuck in celebrating this little trinket they have obtained until they are too occupied to see the potential harm or malicious intent of the gift that was given. Originally Posted by Mgm84

*Sigh*

I'm confused and unsettled that commentary of this nature is okay...

It is rather unfortunate that this is where your line of thinking is going just because same gender loving CONSENTING ADULTS are now legally able to have their unions recognized by the state.

Also conflating all the baiting concerns you bring up specifically and solely with homosexual marriage (as opposed to the institution of marriage in general) is rooted in bigoted fears and paranoia about non-heterosexual people and the way they live their lives.

I have criticisms of the institution of marriage as a whole and don't have a strong desire to get married myself, but any criticisms of homosexual marriage that implies that society will be any worse off moving forward than the previous millennia that heterosexual marriage has been broadly accepted unfairly scapegoats homosexual people. Absolutely no harm is caused to society inherently because homosexual couples are ALSO allowed to get married just like heterosexual couples.

No lady, its more of a broken window/ slippery slope argument. If the same sex can marry in the name of love, then why not family? Why no inter-species relationship? Why not polygamy? Possession?

Side note:Whether anyone likes it or not, from an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality would me a NEGATIVE trait CORRECTION: tendency as it brings absolutely no benefits to the gene pool or bettermen of the human species. Originally Posted by Mgm84

Asserting that homosexuality is "NEGATIVE" is logic rooted in homophobia. Also, procreation is not the only reason people get married. And, gay and lesbian couples are actually very much capable of cultivating families.

People can and do have children outside of wedlock... so being married is not necessary, evolutionarily speaking. Marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate. Sex does. Marriage and sex are not the same thing. Stop trying to act like they are.

And since when does ownership have anything to do with a marriage contract? You have never been able to marry something you own in this country, and that includes people. When black people were considered property, a white person could not marry one. A thing or animal does not need to give consent in order to be owned. Consent is not a stipulation of ownership. Consent IS a stipulation of marriage. I'm seriously at a loss for why this is difficult for you.

Tell you what. The day people start marrying their cats and staplers, I will expect a well-deserved "told ya so." But it isn't going to happen. Because people are reasonable and can wrap their minds around things you seem to have difficulty fathoming. Which is why I called you a chimp. If you want to make it racial, that's your prerogative, but I don't think anyone except you and your warped perspective thought it was anything but a statement about your level of intelligence. Feel free to insert any animal of lesser intelligence that doesn't offend your faux-racial defenses. I was doing you a favor by at least picking a fairly clever animal.

And you never answered my question. How do you feel about interracial marriage, considering the exact same arguments and outrage was expressed when it was legalized. People were sure we were all going to start marrying animals. Still hasn't happened. You know what has happened? The public has shifted their ideals. Almost no one in my generation even bats an eye at an interracial couple. 40-50 years ago, it was downright dangerous for them to be seen together. Now, nobody cares. Same thing will happen with same-sex marriage. Old, outdated ideas will die off with old, outdated people, and the new generations will adjust their ideals and continue the progression of new ideas and standards. That's how it has always been, and that's how it will always be.

Hate it for ya.

People can and do have children outside of wedlock... so being married is not necessary, evolutionarily speaking. Marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate. Sex does. Marriage and sex are not the same thing. Stop trying to act like they are.

And since when does ownership have anything to do with a marriage contract? You have never been able to marry something you own in this country, and that includes people. When black people were considered property, a white person could not marry one. A thing or animal does not need to give consent in order to be owned. Consent is not a stipulation of ownership. Consent IS a stipulation of marriage. I'm seriously at a loss for why this is difficult for you.

Tell you what. The day people start marrying their cats and staplers, I will expect a well-deserved "told ya so." But it isn't going to happen. Because people are reasonable and can wrap their minds around things you seem to have difficulty fathoming. Which is why I called you a chimp. If you want to make it racial, that's your prerogative, but I don't think anyone except you and your warped perspective thought it was anything but a statement about your level of intelligence. Feel free to insert any animal of lesser intelligence that doesn't offend your faux-racial defenses. I was doing you a favor by at least picking a fairly clever animal.

And you never answered my question. How do you feel about interracial marriage, considering the exact same arguments and outrage was expressed when it was legalized. People were sure we were all going to start marrying animals. Still hasn't happened. You know what has happened? The public has shifted their ideals. Almost no one in my generation even bats an eye at an interracial couple. 40-50 years ago, it was downright dangerous for them to be seen together. Now, nobody cares. Same thing will happen with same-sex marriage. Old, outdated ideas will die off with old, outdated people, and the new generations will adjust their ideals and continue the progression of new ideas and standards. That's how it has always been, and that's how it will always be.

Hate it for ya. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

Caroline, well stated! I can tell you are not only very beautiful but also very intelligent.

I am loving your comments to him, nice and classy!!!

Grizz

That is why people are not really for marriage equality, only their limited version
of it. They are no different than those that claim marriage should be only between
a man and a woman. They just include one more group and call it marriage equality,
when their idea of equality beyond that is just as limited.

Given enough time their ideas will be considered antiquated as well.

Much the same reason in certain hospitals you will find on one floor
24 week old babies being aborted, and on another, expensive state of
the art medical equipment being utilized to keep 24 week old babies alive.

Welcome to your secular nightmare, enjoy your stay.

And your secular point is what. Some choose to have some choose to not. What claim do you have over any of these women? Oh an old book of stories and fables. It is not and I repeat not a history book.
History has facts fables are well fables. Great and I believe in Santa Claus too.

Why wasn't it moved to the Political forum, instead? Originally Posted by chicagoboy

Good question.

Homosexuality was a part of Roman culture long before it fell. However, Rome converted to Christianity a scant century before it fell. Just food for thought. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Homosexuality did exist in ancient Rome, but a Roman patrician worth his salt as a leader would never allow that he was a "bottom boy"; hence, such relationships were more common between master and slave.

Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded a citizen even if they were technically free. (wiki)

BTW, the Romans are also reputed for their pedophilia and incestuousness.

Furthermore, Constantine was the emperor who prescribed Christianity as one of Rome's accepted religions in 330 AD, and he moved the center of government from Rome to Constantinople, circa 324-330 AD, to better rule the empire. Constantinople remained Christian until it was sacked by the Ottomans -- Mohammedans -- in 1453. Now Rome was sacked by Odoacer in 476 AD, but Odoacer was also Christian.

The real object lesson to be garnered from Rome's Odoacer experience is that a country should secure its own boarders and not depend on or trust foreigners not to exploit obvious weakness. Just food for thought.

People can and do have children outside of wedlock... so being married is not necessary, evolutionarily speaking. Marriage has nothing to do with the ability to procreate. Sex does. Marriage and sex are not the same thing. Stop trying to act like they are.

And since when does ownership have anything to do with a marriage contract? You have never been able to marry something you own in this country, and that includes people. When black people were considered property, a white person could not marry one. A thing or animal does not need to give consent in order to be owned. Consent is not a stipulation of ownership. Consent IS a stipulation of marriage. I'm seriously at a loss for why this is difficult for you.

Tell you what. The day people start marrying their cats and staplers, I will expect a well-deserved "told ya so." But it isn't going to happen. Because people are reasonable and can wrap their minds around things you seem to have difficulty fathoming. Which is why I called you a chimp. If you want to make it racial, that's your prerogative, but I don't think anyone except you and your warped perspective thought it was anything but a statement about your level of intelligence. Feel free to insert any animal of lesser intelligence that doesn't offend your faux-racial defenses. I was doing you a favor by at least picking a fairly clever animal.

And you never answered my question. How do you feel about interracial marriage, considering the exact same arguments and outrage was expressed when it was legalized. People were sure we were all going to start marrying animals. Still hasn't happened. You know what has happened? The public has shifted their ideals. Almost no one in my generation even bats an eye at an interracial couple. 40-50 years ago, it was downright dangerous for them to be seen together. Now, nobody cares. Same thing will happen with same-sex marriage. Old, outdated ideas will die off with old, outdated people, and the new generations will adjust their ideals and continue the progression of new ideas and standards. That's how it has always been, and that's how it will always be.

Hate it for ya. Originally Posted by CarolineDavenport

Great Caroline!! Something of substance and less insults. I'll start with your first paragraph.

The point of my statement on procreating was based upon your response that old people, and infertile people not being able to marry based on procreation. I was only pointing out the fact that they have been able to procreate which is natures way of ordaining or approving their marriage. This is the difference between your examples and the homosexual plight. Old and infertile people are limited by age and malfunctions of the necessary tools when it comes to procreation, homosexuals are restricted by not having the proper equipment to procreate. It's the same logic that says it is irrational to place a toaster inside of an oven to cool and a ice chest in the refrigerator for heat.


The point about consent.......Let's begin with your slave and consent statement. If we put that in the proper perspective we would understand that slaves could not marry whites because of the belief among white society that blacks were 3/5 of a man and that it would be unethical. Unfortunately for your argument ethics and not being human is not your stance. Your outlook was based on consent. My argument with your consent idea is that it's been reserved as a liberty for human beings in turn being a sign of respect for a persons humanity but only until it is needed to save face in disagreement about same sex marriage, is it extended to animals?

So let's see, we can eat, kill, subjugate, bring into extinction, take their natural habitat, cross breed, sell, and experiment on animals without consent, but it's logical that a person cannot marry one without the animals consent? Remember, homosexuals have always been able to give CONSENT yet they still were denied the ability to get married. You know what this does to your argument? It either proves that it is a disingenuous attempt to defend a view point, or it proves it to be a bs smokescreen.


And last but not least, you call a black man a chimp, but somehow you really meant to insult my intelligence? White supremacist tactic #265. Btw how are you able to communicate in depth with a chimp unless you are a chimp?

Your interracial marriage question is goofy at best. Interracial couples were always able to procreate, had evolutionary attributes to offer the gene pool, blacks were always humans, they were not products of endocrine malfunctions, and last but not least they were ALWAYS able to once again..........Give consent. But still no freedom to marry interracially. You cannot get around that.