22-01-2004 11:31									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Marriage affects everyone, therefore the people should have a say as to what marriage means.

Why should the people of Ohio have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to? Why don't you leave them alone?

quote: Yep, that describes your efforts to defend your bigotry to a "t." Not long and you'll round out the "r" and "y" too.

My point is that just because other people do bad things, it does not mean you need to help them out.

Please continue to call me a bigot. It really strengthens your argument.

	22-01-2004 11:33									#32
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Marriage affects everyone, therefore the people should have a say as to what marriage means.

How does my marrying my BF affect you?

quote: Why don't you leave them alone?

Good question -- why don't you leave them alone when try to marry?

	22-01-2004 11:39									#33
	Got spare money?

So homosexuals are not considered as part of "the people of Ohio?" Are they likewise not considered as part of the people of Canada? Of the United States?

Are homosexuals not considered part of the Human species and therefore not worthy of equal status and equal access to rights and privledges afforded to "the people of Ohio?"



"Why don't you just leave them alone?"
Jeez, the irony in that statement...

	22-01-2004 11:40									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: How does my marrying my BF affect you?

You change what marriage means for everyone who gets married. Ohio likes to keep marriage as it is, as between one man and one woman. Why should they change to accomodate you?

quote: why don't you leave them alone when try to marry?

It's not I, who is the limiter, but the Ohio legislature. They believe that affirming marriage as one man and one woman is in the interests of the state.

	22-01-2004 11:42									#35
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Marriage affects everyone, therefore the people should have a say as to what marriage means. Why should the people of Ohio have to marry homosexuals if they don't want to? Why don't you leave them alone?

Why should the people of Ohio have to marry heterosexuals? Nobody has to marry anybody - it should be a choice available to everyone, and government shouldn't meddle in it by setting laws that forbid certain types of marriage.

	22-01-2004 11:42									#36
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi You change what marriage means for everyone who gets married. Ohio likes to keep marriage as it is, as between one man and one woman. Why should they change to accomodate you?

Oh, nonsense. The couples who married before haven't changed their reasons, their love is not changed, and they are not affected.

It is an entirely bogus and unsubstantiated argument that allowing two people of the same gender to marry somehow invalidates a straight couple's marriage.

The only time this would occur is if they married because they knew gays couldn't marry -- which would be what the people of "Xodus" surely do, since they're gays-under-the-guise-of-straights...

quote: It's not I, who is the limiter, but the Ohio legislature. They believe that affirming marriage as one man and one woman is in the interests of the state.

This is also your opinion, what is the point of this useless paragraph you've contributed?

	22-01-2004 11:51									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Nobody has to marry anybody - it should be a choice available to everyone, and government shouldn't meddle in it by setting laws that forbid certain types of marriage.

So you would agree with polygamy, with incest? How about child marriages?

	22-01-2004 11:54									#38
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So you would agree with polygamy, with incest? How about child marriages?

I have no problem with polygamy being legalized, as long as it's all consentual.

Incest has biological implications for the offspring, and is a health issue -- not a religious or moral issue.

Children do not have a sufficiently developed mind to be capable of deciding who they want to marry.

1-0, Asher.

	22-01-2004 11:57									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Children do not have a sufficiently developed mind to be capable of deciding who they want to marry.

But this requires state intervention, Asher.

quote: Incest has biological implications for the offspring, and is a health issue -- not a religious or moral issue.

As does this. If you require incest to be banned because of health reasons, you are not permitting all kinds of marriage.

Secondly, the question was not directed to you. Let Napoleon answer for himself, or would you rather answer for Napoleon?

	22-01-2004 11:59									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi But this requires state intervention, Asher.

It does. Of course. State intervention is required in cases such as this.

quote: Secondly, the question was not directed to you. Let Napoleon answer for himself, or would you rather answer for Napoleon?

I realize it wasn't directed at me, and I'm not answering for Napoleon, but I merely thought it was required for somebody to address the "polygamy" argument that Christians always throw into these debates as part of the slippery-slope nonsense.

	22-01-2004 12:00									#41
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: The couples who married before haven't changed their reasons, their love is not changed,

Asher:

So marriage is all about love? If I love my grandmother, I ought to be allowed to marry her?

quote: This is also your opinion,

Ask them. I do not presume to speak for the Ohio legislature.

	22-01-2004 12:01									#42
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Asher: So marriage is all about love? If I love my grandmother, I ought to be allowed to marry her?

Strawman: Where did I ever say marriages are all about love?

The point is, the very notion that people's marriages are invalidated the second homosexual couples marry is laughable, unless those people married on the basis that homosexuals cannot marry.

Argue that, please.

	22-01-2004 12:03									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: address the "polygamy" argument that Christians always throw into these debates as part of the slippery-slope nonsense.

I suggest you refrain from answering other's questions in the future. It's a sign of respect for the other poster.

	22-01-2004 12:04									#44
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi So you would agree with polygamy, with incest? How about child marriages?

Polygamy - as long as it includes polyandry as well as polygyny and as long as there is no exploitation or coersion going on (tough set of conditions - no known society comes even close).

Incest has nothing to do with marriage - that's a sexual act.

Child marriages - whenever those children become reasoning adults and can make informed decisions.

	22-01-2004 12:04									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I suggest you refrain from answering other's questions in the future. It's a sign of respect for the other poster.

Thanks for the advice, Ace. It means a lot coming from you.

I wasn't answering the question for him. If you meant for him and only him to address it, why don't you PM it to him.

Must I define "public forum" for you?

	22-01-2004 12:07									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The point is, the very notion that people's marriages are invalidated the second homosexual couples marry is laughable, unless those people married on the basis that homosexuals cannot marry.

Strawman. I do not say that marriage becomes invalidated, but rather the definition changes.

quote: Where did I ever say marriages are all about love?

You assume, in your earlier post,

quote: The couples who married before haven't changed their reasons, their love is not changed,

Marriage is about love, but not just love. There are other purposes, such as procreation, that this redefinition drastically affects. Decoupling marriage from procreation, will radically change the substance of the relationship.

	22-01-2004 12:08									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Asher Thanks for the advice, Ace. It means a lot coming from you. I wasn't answering the question for him. If you meant for him and only him to address it, why don't you PM it to him. Must I define "public forum" for you?

Ben is probably concerned that I will be terribly offended by your answering the question and will lose my emotional balance as well as the capacity to enjoy life

	22-01-2004 12:10									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Incest has nothing to do with marriage - that's a sexual act.

Napoleon:

Good point. I have sloppy terminology. What I should have specified is marriage between close relations, or consanginuity. Should that be permitted by the state?

quote: Child marriages - whenever those children become reasoning adults and can make informed decisions.

Again, this requires state intervention. You do believe that the state has a role in marriage.

	22-01-2004 12:12									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Ben is probably concerned that I will be terribly offended by your answering the question and will lose my emotional balance as well as the capacity to enjoy life

Napoleon:

Nah. Just a sign of respect, that's all.

	22-01-2004 12:15									#50
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Strawman. I do not say that marriage becomes invalidated, but rather the definition changes.

Okay, sorry. So the definition changes.

How does the definition change for a heterosexual couple that is married?

quote: You assume, in your earlier post, Marriage is about love, but not just love. There are other purposes, such as procreation, that this redefinition drastically affects. Decoupling marriage from procreation, will radically change the substance of the relationship.

Has nobody ever taught you about "lists" in the English Language? Do you not notice a comma-delimited sequence of characters there where "love" is but one of them?

	22-01-2004 12:15									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Napoleon: Good point. I have sloppy terminology. What I should have specified is marriage between close relations, or consanginuity. Should that be permitted by the state? Again, this requires state intervention. You do believe that the state has a role in marriage.

Consanginuity - How close are the relatives? Are you talking parent-child or third cousins? If the former than there is a convincing medical argument against it, but I personally would opt for some leeway even on that.

State intervention in marriage - what's your point? State intervenes in everything concerning children: they can't drive, can't drink, etc. As long as the state is reasonable (i.e. 21 years old to drink is clearly a stupid move), the state has a right to protect children. And yes that includes marriage along with everything else.

	22-01-2004 12:21									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Napoleon:

Your words, from earlier in the thread.

quote: government shouldn't meddle in it by setting laws that forbid certain types of marriage.

And now..

quote: State intervention in marriage - what's your point? State intervenes in everything concerning children:

You have a conflict. Clearly the state does have a right to intervene in marriage. You need a different premise to argue against the Ohio legislature.

	22-01-2004 12:26									#53
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Do you not notice a comma-delimited sequence of characters there where "love" is but one of them?

Yes, but I argue that it is not enough to just love someone, for that word can mean so many different things.

	22-01-2004 12:27									#54
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Napoleon: You have a conflict. Clearly the state does have a right to intervene in marriage. You need a different premise to argue against the Ohio legislature.

Is that really the best you can do?

Of course, my earlier statement referred to marriage between consenting adults. Or should I really say after every single phrase "As long as there is no coersion taking place, as long as the subject is a mentally capable adult, as long as they haven't broken out of jail to do it... yadda, yadda, yadda".

Can you from now on assume I say these things after every statement?

	22-01-2004 12:29									#55
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You missed the only important part of that post:

quote: Okay, sorry. So the definition changes. How does the definition change for a heterosexual couple that is married?

	22-01-2004 12:31									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Sure. But now you have to admit that the state does play a role in marriage.

quote: Why should the people of Ohio have to marry heterosexuals?

No one's forcing them to marry heterosexuals. They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

	22-01-2004 12:33									#57
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: How does the definition change for a heterosexual couple that is married?

Already answered. Read my earlier post on procreation.

	22-01-2004 12:34									#58
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Sure. But now you have to admit that the state does play a role in marriage.

State has a role in everything concerning children. That has nothing to do with the issue.

quote: No one's forcing them to marry heterosexuals. They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

No one's forcing them to marry homosexuals. They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

	22-01-2004 12:37									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Already answered. Read my earlier post on procreation.

This post?

quote: Marriage is about love, but not just love. There are other purposes, such as procreation, that this redefinition drastically affects. Decoupling marriage from procreation, will radically change the substance of the relationship.

So, remember you're trying to show how my marrying my BF affects everyone, including married straight couples.

So are you saying because gays can marry these married straight couples cannot procreate?

Further, what about married couples who do not have children? There are many of them.

What about gay parents with children of their own? Or bisexuals with children from a previous marriage? What about people who adopt children?

There are countless holes in this argument.

I suggest you try again.

	22-01-2004 13:18									#60
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Going to bed. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow