More From Louis CK On Gay Marriage

Submitted by: RyanHake 5 years ago Funny

You"re eating breakfast and put your spoon into your cereal bowl and then 2 guys put their...
There are 107 comments:
Male 562
0
Reply
Male 562
They haven`t found a loop hole in the law or common law, yet? They should take notes from Susanne B. Anthony, she was a dike, I think.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]If the government stopped giving benefits for marriage, or stopped recognizing marriage completely, I guarantee people would still get married within their religion.[/quote]

And others would still get married without a religion.

That happened before governments gave public money to people who were married, even before there really was such a thing as a government.

The idea that Christians needed to have the Christian church controlling their weddings was a pure power grab by the church. It`s the same reason (and the same timeframe) for it suppressing translations of the Bible into languages that most people could understand - the church wanted the people to be forced to go through the church, giving it money and power. Christians have no real theological need for church involvement - they have faith that their god will know when they make their vows (i.e. get married), regardless of circumstances.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
That part of my argument was very specifically in response to people talking about what the word `marriage` means.

I`ll say it again, since it appears that it isn`t getting through:

The vow is the marriage. Anything and everything else added onto it is not the marriage. The marriage is the vow. That is what a marriage is. It is not an item of clothing. It is not a party. It is not a form from the government. It is not money given by the government from public money. It is not a blessing by a cleric. It is the vows. It doesn`t matter what words are in the vows - it is the act of vowing that is a marriage. That`s why the act of becoming married is called `wedding` in English - `wedding` means `to vow`.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Angilion, your argument, as far as I can tell, is that because the "lawful" marriage is not the same as the religious ceremony, that the lawful marriage is the only part that is important.[/quote]

No.

I`ll say it again.

A marriage is a vow of commitment.

That is what a marriage is. It is not anything else.

Government recognition of the marriage is not the marriage.

State benefits given to promote marriage are not the marriage.

Religious blessing of the marriage is not the marriage.

By law, by definition, by etymology and by custom, THE VOW IS THE MARRIAGE. In every way, THE VOW IS THE MARRIAGE.

I`ve said that before, several times. Are you now clear on what my argument is?

Various things added to a marriage are important to various people, but they are not the marriage.
0
Reply
Male 215
@Angilion


I have wanted to say that to half of IABers since I came to this site. Although, please do carry on. IAB debates are fun to read.
0
Reply
Male 437
By the way, gay marriage should be legal, as should polygamy, because one person`s definition of marriage should not be applied to everyone else. If it is a matter of personal belief, then you should not worry about how others practice it.
0
Reply
Male 437
"I don`t think people get married because of religious reasons. I think it`s because they love each other."

It is because they love each other, and they want to be bonded before God. Without God, and without lawful benefits, what is the point? Two gay men can make their own vows to each other, why do they need a magistrate to tell them it is valid?
0
Reply
Male 437
"You tell me a defensible reason why gay people should not be allowed the same rights as heterosexual people, and I`ll be first in line to stamp the bill."

Gay people DO have the same rights. They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

"Here`s a top tip though: "It shouldn`t be allowed because my religion tells me it`s kinda icky" doesn`t count as logic."

You are misconstruing the argument. It is not because homosexuality is "icky," it is because it fundamentally changes the institution of marriage, as religious people see it. I`ve said it probably 30 times by now, and obviously you don`t agree that it is a valid reason to keep men from marrying other men.

"but if the courts declare said legislation unconstitutional"

As of yet, it has not been struck down as unconstitutional... so... what is your point?
0
Reply
Male 812
I don`t think people get married because of religious reasons. I think it`s because they love each other. And if they don`t love each other, then they`re probably not doing it for religious reasons.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]"Look, once I hear a valid logical reason for denying gay marriage"

There will never be a valid, logical reason in your view, because you do not understand where the people who are against it are coming from.[/quote]
Bullsh*t. Logic is logic. You tell me a defensible reason why gay people should not be allowed the same rights as heterosexual people, and I`ll be first in line to stamp the bill.

Here`s a top tip though: "It shouldn`t be allowed because my religion tells me it`s kinda icky" doesn`t count as logic.

Must try harder.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@RETARDEDBEAR- I must of accidentally reposted my comment by refreshing the page- sorry. In any case, you`re wrong- the will of the majority DOES NOT supersede the Constitution, nor does the majority have the power to interpret the Constitution however it wants. The people have the legal right to attempt to promote or oppose legislation that they favor, but if the courts declare said legislation unconstitutional, it gets struck down no matter how many people wanted it passed. The Bill of Rights and courts play an important role in preventing a Tyranny of the Majority.

Besides, recent polls show that the number of Americans who favor gay marriage recently exceeded the number of Americans in opposition to it, rendering your already flawed point moot.
0
Reply
Male 437
"I would be within my rights to ban Christian marriage."

You already said that, and I already responded to it. If over half of the country agreed with you, then yes, it would be totally acceptable to ban Christian marriage. We live in a republic, where the majority rules. Please read all of my posts before reposting your own.

Angilion, your argument, as far as I can tell, is that because the "lawful" marriage is not the same as the religious ceremony, that the lawful marriage is the only part that is important. As far as the government is concerned, that is true, but when it comes to the citizens being married, most of them are doing it for religious reasons. If the government stopped giving benefits for marriage, or stopped recognizing marriage completely, I guarantee people would still get married within their religion.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@RETARDEDBEAR- I`m a taxpayer, and I don`t like it when Christian couples marry and make more Christians. By your logic, I would be within my rights to ban Christian marriage. Man, you`ve really been living up to your screen name in this thread.
0
Reply
Male 12,365

[quote]Religion is being taken out of marriage,[/quote]

Good. It was added in later and doesn`t belong there.

[quote]and you`re trying to tell me that Christians are trying to put it IN marriage.[/quote]

No, I`m telling you that they tried in the past with a degree of success and they`re continuing to try.

[quote]Give me a break.[/quote]

Why? You`re wrong.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Where do you get that from?[/quote]

Didn`t I cover that already? I`ll do it again:

The word `marriage` comes from pre-Christian Rome. Where religion was not required for a marriage.

In English-speaking countries (since we`re talking about an English word) religion was not required for a marriage until quite recently and then not for long.

[quote]For all of American history and a great deal of European history, marriage has been a religious ceremony.[/quote]

No, it hasn`t and it isn`t. It was common for a while for a religious ceremony to be added to a marriage, but that`s not the marriage. In England, religion was required in marriage for less than 100 years and then only because of conflict between Christian sects.
0
Reply
Male 437
Gerry, for the 4th time, I am not against gay marriage. I am making the argument for the sake of debate. The argument for gay marriage is a ridiculously easy one to make, but that does not mean that the argument against it is invalid.
0
Reply
Male 37,909

Maybe RetardedBear is right. Maybe we should not discard traditional marriatal standards.

Traditions like 1 man 4 wives.
Trading and/or purchasing of brides.
Arranged marriages for financial gain.
Shotgun Weddings!

Yeah, straight people have done soooo much for marriage,
we dont` want gays messing that up.

0
Reply
Male 437
"Look, once I hear a valid logical reason for denying gay marriage"

There will never be a valid, logical reason in your view, because you do not understand where the people who are against it are coming from. They are offended by the institution of marriage being degraded by change. You are not offended, so you will never get it. I, by the way, am not offended either, but I understand the argument, because I know how much marriage means to a lot of people.

"As I said before, the long-established definition of marriage is this:"

Where do you get that from? For all of American history and a great deal of European history, marriage has been a religious ceremony. Religion is being taken out of marriage, and you`re trying to tell me that Christians are trying to put it IN marriage. Give me a break.
0
Reply
Female 298
you know.. if I consider all the thousands of years of horror, crime, injustice, abuse and violence that has been caused by (respectively) homosexual people and religious people - I think we should ban the second group. One thing I can say for all the gay people I`ve ever met - they did not actually give a toss that I was not gay. They did not try to convert me to their beliefs and practices and they were happy to let me live my life peacefully according to my own will. The world would be better off if more people thought that way.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You can sit there and cite the entire history of marriage and its relationship to religion, but that doesn`t change what religious people here, today believe.[/quote]

It`s very relevant to the issue I was refering to, though - the meaning of the word *throughout history.*

History.

The past. What happened in it.

Not the same thing as "what religious people here, today believe."

This is what I was replying to, which was why I made that clear by quoting it in my reply:

[quote]You don`t have to "establish" the definition of marriage, that has been done for a long time now.[/quote]

As I said before, the long-established definition of marriage is this:

[quote]The actual marriage is a vow of commitment of some kind. That`s what `wedding` means - to vow. Everything else, absolutely *everything* else, is an optional extra.[/quote]

Religion is an add-on to marriage and Christianity was ad
0
Reply
Male 54
You know what really `trivializes` marriage? The current state of marriage in and of itself. Marriage should be between person A and person B, full stop. Yet, we bring in government and laws and priests and religion. And now, people are worrying that the same sex marriage between person C and D will somehow affect the heterosexual marriage of A and B.

Is your blessed union really so weak? If so, you might wanna look into divorce.
0
Reply
Male 1,010
davymid. I couldn`t agree more.

And i`m not going to make any jokes on that last "hard to swallow" comment eiter.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Heck, I’m offended every time I meet a preacher with a microphone or megaphone on the street telling me how I’m going to burn in hell for all eternity unless I repent. Should that guy have his right to free speech taken away? Absolutely not.

Look, once I hear a valid logical reason for denying gay marriage, I’ll get right behind it. Marriage is not a religious institution, people get married in Papua New Guinea, they get married in central Africa, they get married in the mountains of Tibet, they get married all over the world and have done for millenia. And even if marriage *WERE* a religious institution, then which religion are we talking about? Christianity by default?

I for one find that hard to swallow.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]...but that doesn`t change what religious people here, today believe. As long as they pay taxes and are in the majority, they should be able to decide who should be recognized as married under the law. Marriage is not an inherent right that anyone can have under any definition.[/quote]
Funny, the exact same argument was used against black people and women being allowed to vote over a century ago. The majority of tax-payers in those days (mostly white males), didn’t want it. That doesn’t make it just, and thankfully people in those days knew blind unfounded bigotry when they saw it.
And like black people and women being denied voting rights many moons ago, I would pose the same question as to why you would deny gay people having equal rights. Saying “because some people would find it offensive” is not a valid reason for denying a minority group the same basic human rights as the rest of the population.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Not really. Certainly not as much as adding religion to marriage"

You are not "adding" religion to marriage. You keep making the false assumption that because it is a social institution, that precludes it from being a religious institution. Yes, you can be married without religion, under the law. That doesn`t make it secular. Most people in America view marriage in a religious light, as something they are doing before God, not man.

You can sit there and cite the entire history of marriage and its relationship to religion, but that doesn`t change what religious people here, today believe. As long as they pay taxes and are in the majority, they should be able to decide who should be recognized as married under the law. Marriage is not an inherent right that anyone can have under any definition.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Oh man, wouldn`t it be soooo cool if just once, during a flame war someone said `You know what? You`re right! I feel so silly now!`"

I would be so disappointed.
0
Reply
Male 1,647
You know what? Yur right, cutie pie! I feel tho thilly now!
0
Reply
Male 328
@AngryYouth

He`s actually pretty hilarious if you`ve ever seen his other material. This was definitely not his best.
0
Reply
Male 625
Oh man, wouldn`t it be soooo cool if just once, during a flame war someone said "You know what? You`re right! I feel so silly now!"

But I guess if that happened the whole universe would disappear and an even crazier universe would take it`s place.
0
Reply
Male 734
He`s not very funny.
0
Reply
Male 437
Baalthazaq, you are trying way too hard to justify your claim that my logic is flawed. You are jumping through hoops, and quite honestly, your XYZ logic doesn`t make much sense at all and is irrelevant to my argument.

Heureux, I don`t have time to respond to all of your posts, but I will point out again that I am not against gay marriage.
0
Reply
Male 437
"@RETARDEDBEAR- I`m a taxpayer, and I don`t like it when Christian couples marry and make more Christians. By your logic, I would be within my rights to ban Christian marriage. Man, you`ve really been living up to your screen name in this thread."

Yes, you would be within your rights, except nobody would agree with you. That is the key in a republic. The majority rules.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
Regarding the "religious" perspective - while the idea `homosexuality is sin` is a constitutionally protected religious belief, so is the idea `homosexuality is not a sin`. All laws that enforce `homosexuality is sin` in any way, intrinsically violate the freedom of religious practice for people who believe `homosexuality is not a sin`

and set a practice for a wealthy religious majority to enforce its religious beliefs about other matters on religious minorities.

DOMA is a precedent for laws that target Jews, non-Christians, Muslims, or simply Christians who hold non-traditional beliefs. It could be used as a precedent to ban divorce, if Catholics held enough political power, or to legalize polygamy if Mormons held enough political power, or to criminalize any minority religion.

Meanwhile, the religious liberty of GLBTQ Christians, and liberal/progressive Christians, has been raped in deference to the religious beliefs of bigots.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
If you were truly interested in preventing the legalization of polygamy, you`d seek to ban heterosexuals from marrying. But you are not. You were simply trying to transfer the bias and distaste people have for polygamy onto same-sex couples, because you lack any rational reason to prohibit same-sex couples from entering into a civil contract to protect their jointly held resources.

The real reason people oppose same-sex marriage is ego. They need to feel superior to someone, and GLBTQ people are the sacrificial lambs. Homophobes realize that is same-sex couples are granted full civil equality, than homophobes will not be legally superior to anyone else anymore, now that the slaves have been freed and women have the right to vote.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"What about the rights of those consenting adult humans who decided they wanted to be part of a polygamist family?"

Since you are so concerned about polygamy, retardedbear, then you must support banning heterosexual marriage.

Polygamy is a heterosexual practice that favors men by providing them with multiple women to bear children for them. So allowing a man to marry one woman sets a precedent for allowing him to marry two, or three, or seven, or a thousand.

Same-sex couples gain nothing from polygamy, but heterosexual males do - the chance to legally reproduce with multiple women.

Heterosexual marriage not only could lead to polygamy, polygamy has long been an accepted and traditional form of heterosexual marriage.
0
Reply
Male 1,054
"Yes, they do, because they are taxpayers. Gay couples would get their money, even though they do not agree that they should be considered married. Therefore, they have a right to say no to gay marriage. "

GLBTQ people pay taxes as well, retardedbear. By your insanity, we then have a right to say no to heterosexual marriage, or, just homophobe marriage.

But, that is not how the U.S. Constitution is set up. And frankly, that is not what Christianity teaches either, so you must be an anti-Christian, anti-America God and Country hater.

"My argument is that the legalization of gay marriage must lead directly to the legalization of polygamy."

Historically, polygamy has been a heterosexual form of marriage, and its benefits serve heterosexist, patriarchal agendas. So allowing heterosexuals to marry at all is more likely to lead to polygamy.

To ban polygamy, ban heterosexual marriage. Let a man marry one woman, and he`ll wan
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@RETARDEDBEAR- I`m a taxpayer, and I don`t like it when Christian couples marry and make more Christians. By your logic, I would be within my rights to ban Christian marriage. Man, you`ve really been living up to your screen name in this thread.
0
Reply
Male 319
Oh my god, I can`t breath!!
0
Reply
Male 4,547
In other words it is not at all a self sustaining argument. You cannot make the case that changing the definition is a problem under any circumstances that don`t presume the correctness of your position.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
You know what, lets summarize for your return:

Definitions needed:
Trivialize. Less significant.

Answers needed:
Should Mississippi ban interracial marriage?
Should the courts uphold it?

How does your argument differ from:
X changes the definition of Y which is Z.

If multiple definitions of Z exist, only one is valid for the above argument, ergo the argument does not exist for the alternate definition.

It`s circular logic. A long circle but a circle non the less.

"X changes Y to Z which is bad"
"Y already = Z is one solution".
"You can`t have that solution"
"Why?"
"Z is bad"
"Why?"
"We want it to be"
"Why"
"Because X is bad"
"Why"
"Because X changes Y to Z which is bad".
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You don`t have to "establish" the definition of marriage, that has been done for a long time now.[/quote]

It has indeed...and that definition doesn`t include religion. There have long been *optional* religious ceremonies formally granting religious approval to a marriage, but they are not actually a marriage. At least, not in the times and places with links to ancient Rome, which is where the word `marriage` comes from. So that`s most the Europe and all of the USA.

Maybe you skip some history and consider marraige in the the USA to be based on English common law...well, that didn`t require religion in marriage either.

The actual marriage is a vow of commitment of some kind. That`s what `wedding` means - to vow. Everything else, absolutely *everything* else, is an optional extra.

[quote]Allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes that definition.[/quote]

Not really. Certainly not as much as adding religion to marriage
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Wait, so are you then arguing that Mississippi should ban interracial marriage too?
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Retardedbear:
I defend Christians on these forums endlessly. Save the prattle.

Quite frankly when 2 Republican posters who have gotten 165 links approved, I`m gonna just go ahead and ignore your claims of being some heroic defender where none would otherwise stand.

Now, back to something more substantive: Define less significant. By not allowing you to marry, I limit the pool of marriage, thus making it more significant for those who marry?
0
Reply
Male 437
Baal, this has been truly engaging, but I must inform you that I won`t be able to respond again for a while.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Then churches that don`t like gay marriage shouldn`t perform gay marriages- but they have no right to impose their definition of marriage on secular society."

Yes, they do, because they are taxpayers. Gay couples would get their money, even though they do not agree that they should be considered married. Therefore, they have a right to say no to gay marriage.

0
Reply
Male 2,868
"To religious people, marriage is extremely important."

Then churches that don`t like gay marriage shouldn`t perform gay marriages- but they have no right to impose their definition of marriage on secular society.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
"when you look into polygamy though, there are concerns of forced and coerced women being taken as wives against their will."

That is a separate issue from polygamy- forced monogamous marriages happen, too. There happens to be a problem with it specifically within the Fundamentalist LDS church- but that`s about the practices of the church itself, and has nothing in particular to do with polygamy.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Well I want to marry 5 consenting females, how come I can`t? We are all adults here people we should just loosen up all the laws.[/quote]

I don`t know if you`re seriously making that argument or using it as a rhetorical device to make a point, but it`s true. The argument against polygamy is essentially the same as the argument against homosexual marriages - it`s wrong because it`s wrong it`s wrong because my interpretation of some old books says it`s wrong.
0
Reply
Male 437
"There`s one definition, just not an acceptable one to you. Note: There is no reason to accept your definition over this one. (Dictionary.com)"

First off, it is totally acceptable by me, as I said before. You are painting me as something I am not because of the argument I am making.

As far as religious people go, they have their own, traditional definition of marriage, and it is between a man and a woman. They want to uphold that definition, and they have a right to.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Incidentally, some definitions are between a man and a woman. Some are not. If it was universally accepted, many states would not be busy "clarifying" that point.

Laws are being put in place to make the definition to be between a man and a woman.

[quote]The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.[/quote]

There`s one definition, just not an acceptable one to you. Note: There is no reason to accept your definition over this one. (Dictionary.com)
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]the bible says "man should not lay with man." i dosen`t say anythig about taking it up the ass.[/quote]

A bad translation says that, but many people using Christianity as a "reason" for irrational prejudice against homosexuality use that translation so your point stands. Which, according to those verses, is all homosexual men need to do.

Of course, we should have theological discussion within the church to determine what angles and positions count as "lying". How about bent at the waist? If your torso is horizontal but your legs are vertical, are you lying? What about on a reclining chair? How about if one end of the bed is a couple of inches higher than the other end, so you`re not quite horizontal - can that be squeezed by the verse as not *really* being lying down?

I await the pope`s reply to these serious questions :)
0
Reply
Male 437
"I tell you what. I think you marrying "trivializes" marriage. Please define "trivialize" in a way that defends both yourself in this argument, and the use of the word trivialize in yours."

My marriage doesn`t change the definition of marriage. To trivialize is to make something less significant than it was before. Marriage, as it exists, is extremely important to religious people. Every time it is changed, you are breaking down the original institution.

"My definition is not sufficient to be brought into law."

Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman who are found capable of raising children. Telling me I could not marry for that reason would not trivialize the institution of marriage.
0
Reply
Male 437
By the way, it may surprise you, but I, personally, don`t care at all if gay people are allowed to marry. I am presenting these arguments because I know nobody else will; instead, the liberal audience of I-A-B will bash those evil, bigoted, gay bashing Christians without retort.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
The arguments of the 1900s are not simply about Steve vs Eve.

They run the range of religious definitions of what an acceptable marriage definition is. (Between a Man and Woman, between a white and non white).

They revolve around protecting vague attributions of concepts (Marriage, Race). "We must protect race".

I tell you what. I think you marrying "trivializes" marriage. Please define "trivialize" in a way that defends both yourself in this argument, and the use of the word trivialize in yours.

I justify it thusly: I don`t think you live up to my expectations as someone who should be raising children. The main purpose of a marriage.

My definition is not sufficient to be brought into law. I can`t wait to see how yours differs.
0
Reply
Male 437
"There is no-one arguing that B would exist without A. You are arguing that because C is a result of B, B should be banned.

I am arguing therefore, that a logical conclusion therefore, from your applications of logic, not mine, that you should be in favor of banning A."

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. There is marriage. That already exists, and the definition is between a man and a woman.

To change that definition is to trivialize marriage. Taking the step to change that definition such that any two consenting adults should be married leads to both gay marriage and polygamy.

To say that marriage should be banned because it leads to gay marriage is like saying sex should be banned because it leads to prostitution.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Address, the motherdrating, argument.

A (Marriage) leads to B (Gay marriage) leads to C (Polygamy).

There is no-one arguing that B would exist without A. You are arguing that because C is a result of B, B should be banned.

I am arguing therefore, that a logical conclusion therefore, from your applications of logic, not mine, that you should be in favor of banning A.

Marriage.

If not, you are not applying the logic above except when supporting your bigotry.

A -> B if I like B, is rarely a cohesive argument.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Incidentally, as sure as you are about how the arguments differ:

"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"
"God created the races [and] he placed them on separate continents" Loving vs Virginia."

That is another straw man. I didn`t make the first argument. You said my arguments do not differ from those in the 1900s. My argument is that it trivializes marriage as an institution, not that God didn`t create Adam and Steve.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Incidentally, as sure as you are about how the arguments differ:

"God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"
"God created the races [and] he placed them on separate continents" Loving vs Virginia.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Congress is supposed to uphold the constitution which says clearly states they shall not pass laws favoring one faith over another. My faith allows gay marriage."

By that logic, if my faith allows breaking any law, the law should be changed to allow it: since not allowing it would clearly favor other religions above mine.

"Second, If congress waited for the sheeple to approve things we`d still have slavery."

That is inaccurate. Congress is elected by the people. If the people were all pro-slavery, they would elect pro-slavery representatives. Don`t act like the government swooped in and saved the blacks from all those racist citizens, against their will.
0
Reply
Male 437
"I`m fairly sure sarcasm doesn`t constitute a strawman."

You misrepresented my argument completely. Whether or not you are being sarcastic about it, it is still a straw man.

"You cannot claim a strawman by going "I don`t do the first thing". I never said you did the first thing. I was suggesting the second."

The "second" thing was incorrect, because I am not guilty of the logical fallacy you accused me of.

The slippery slope fallacy is when you claim that a small event, A, will lead to a much larger event, Z, after events B-Y have taken place as a result of A.

My argument is that the legalization of gay marriage must lead directly to the legalization of polygamy. The entire argument for gay marriage is that any person should be able to marry any other person.

0
Reply
Male 37,909

RetardBear - [quote]"Congress is supposed to follow the will of the people. If people do not want the government to give gay people legal married status, then government should not change the definition. If the people want gay marriage legalized, then it will certainly happen." [/quote]

Congress is supposed to uphold the constitution which says clearly states they shall not pass laws favoring one faith over another. My faith allows gay marriage.

Second, If congress waited for the sheeple to approve things we`d still have slavery.

0
Reply
Male 437
"Banning gay marriage is a greater threat to marriage than allowing it. Banning it establishes marriage as a religious definition rather than secular"

You don`t have to "establish" the definition of marriage, that has been done for a long time now. Allowing gay marriage fundamentally changes that definition.

Yes, it is a religious argument, and it is very important to religious people. Since a huge portion of our country IS religious, their beliefs impact legislation. Being religious doesn`t make their beliefs invalid.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
I`m fairly sure sarcasm doesn`t constitute a strawman.

However, your statement only reinforces my mockery of your argument.

You are arguing against the similarities of gay marriage to polygamy warrant an automatic carry over.

The similarities of marriage to gay marriage are stronger.

Ergo, if I say you are making a claim or an alternative:
1) The claim that marriage should be banned (based on your logical applications) of similar things demanding similar treatment.
2) The alternative that you do not apply your fallacies evenly.

You cannot claim a strawman by going "I don`t do the first thing". I never said you did the first thing. I was suggesting the second.

I`m happy to back up that claim with a Z-Schema demonstration. Feel free to do the same to prove my fallacy.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
He makes a good point. Lets actually take this one step further.

Banning gay marriage is a greater threat to marriage than allowing it. Banning it establishes marriage as a religious definition rather than secular, and thus makes the entire practice bannable.

This should have been made obvious when Texas failed to ban only gay marriage and ended up banning all marriage in their attempts to stop gay marriage.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Conclusion: Either Congress needs to drop the religious definition of marriage, or congress needs to remove the marriage benefits that have put into law while protecting the "sanctity" of it."

Congress is supposed to follow the will of the people. If people do not want the government to give gay people legal married status, then government should not change the definition. If the people want gay marriage legalized, then it will certainly happen.

You cannot say Congress "must" accommodate gay marriage simply because the arguments against it are religious in nature. That is not what separation of church and state is intended for.
0
Reply
Male 437
"Retardedbear thinks we should ban marriage all together, because it leads to Gay Marriage.

Either that or he applies his fallacies unevenly."

Speaking of fallacies...

The argument was that it trivializes marriage. It has been happening prior to gay marriage, and it will happen after gay marriage.

It is not a slippery slope argument because it sets a precedent which must almost certainly lead to the legalization of polygamy. The arguments for gay marriage are almost exactly the same.

"It wasn`t valid separating who is marriageable by race, and your arguments in no way differ from those of the early 1900s."

Yes, they do, a great deal in fact. I`m pretty sure they weren`t arguing that interracial marriage trivializes marriage, and changes its definition.
0
Reply
Male 83
@RetardedBear - Follow this logic...

Point One: The primary argument against gay marriage is that marriage is sacred - ie, there is a religious reason as to why the term and act of marriage must be protected.

Point Two: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Point Three: The Congress makes the tax laws, which contains the category "Married Filing Joint" and "Married Filing Separately" which contains favorable tax status for those defined as `married`

Argument: Congress has just made a law that favors religion by stating marriage should follow the religious standards for the term.

Conclusion: Either Congress needs to drop the religious definition of marriage, or congress needs to remove the marriage benefits that have put into law while protecting the "sanctity" of it.

Note I did not go into other religions that do not define marriage as between a man and a woman
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Retardedbear thinks we should ban marriage all together, because it leads to Gay Marriage.

Either that or he applies his fallacies unevenly.

The fact of the matter is, you`re not really smart enough to come up with an anti-polygamy argument, you you`ve latched it on to the back of homosexuality as a scare tactic.

"What about this OTHER thing I have no argument against?!"

I don`t give a poo. Start with a valid argument against the first thing, and then we`ll see if it applies to the second.

It wasn`t valid separating who is marriageable by race, and your arguments in no way differ from those of the early 1900s.
0
Reply
Male 83
@KPres - The key difference between someone of the same gender of legal age and an animal is the ability to consent. Animals can`t enter legal contracts either...

@Coolhandluke - Sure, why not... I mean, if you are in a situation where you have something like two consenting adult males and three consenting adult females, why can they not form a legally binding family unit where they share financial burdens and have the ability to make critical decisions for one another. Nothing shameful in that. Basically, as long as all parties are informed (ie, you don`t have a wife and family in 5 different states and none of the women know about one another), then I see no problem with letting consenting adults do what they want.
0
Reply
Male 875
well look who saw the picture from a couple days ago and youtubed `Louis CK on gay marriage`
0
Reply
Male 437
"It`s only logical that the government would want to limit these benefits to just two people."

Says you, right now. What happens when the polygamist makes the argument that he is raising three families with his three wives, and each wife deserves the benefits as each wife IS married, and is raising children? Sounds like an even better argument than for gay marriage.

"With gay marriage these problems aren`t there because it involves TWO, CONSENTING, ADULT, HUMANS."

What about the rights of those consenting adult humans who decided they wanted to be part of a polygamist family?
0
Reply
Male 437
"ive never heard a sound argument or any argument other than "marriage is between a man and a woman"."

The argument is that it trivializes marriage. To religious people, marriage is extremely important. Without gay marriage, marriage itself is already under assault as an institution. Allowing a man to marry a man or a woman another woman broadens the traditional definition of marriage and opens the way for further deterioration.

I think most people would say that allowing gays to get all of the rights of a married couple, but under a different name, would be just fine. That is because it is not the gay people they are worried about; it isn`t homophobia. It is the breakdown of marriage as an institution.

Those who disagree with gay marriage have the right to try to keep it illegal, since it involves taxpayer dollars.
0
Reply
Female 19
The whole thing about polygamy that doesn`t work legally is the fact that, if it were legal, a man could marry dozens of women and they would all get the same tax/legal benefits. It`s only logical that the government would want to limit these benefits to just two people. As far as beastiality, the problem is that an animal obviously can`t consent to marriage because it`s an animal... the same goes with children (they cannot consent) With gay marriage these problems aren`t there because it involves TWO, CONSENTING, ADULT, HUMANS. Any other arguments that can be made would be petty, personal, religious-based ones that have no place in the courts.
0
Reply
Male 598
luke - ur right. the govt has no right to make a law restricting any adults from marrying any other consenting adults. they should get right of the incentives and stop regulating marriage. when you look into polygamy though, there are concerns of forced and coerced women being taken as wives against their will. but its still not the govts job to dictate what a marriage means, since its different to everyone. they only need to identify who the parents of children are to hold them accountable, otherwise stay away from my marriage!
0
Reply
Male 349
Hey CoolHandLuke, what did a gay person do to you to make you hate them? Did you wake up at a party to your "best friend" touching you inappropriately? Or did your trusted family doctor get too adventurous one visit when you were young? If that`s the case, I`m terribly sorry, but that sh*t has nothing to do with giving people just like you and me the right to get married and be miserable.
0
Reply
Male 95
Well I want to marry 5 consenting females, how come I can`t? We are all adults here people we should just loosen up all the laws.
0
Reply
Male 349
"People should also be able to marry animals. What`s the argument against it, right? You`re not some kind of beastiaphobe are you?"

Seriously? This is one of the most ignorant arguments I`ve ever heard. We`re talking about two consenting adults, not a human and an animal incapable of complex thought. The only thing that can be considered immoral in this entire argument is the people who are protesting homosexual marriage rights.
0
Reply
Male 309
"Ok RetardedBear, what is the argument?

The only one I have ever heard is that it destroys the sanctity of marriage.... As defined by religion."

People should also be able to marry animals. What`s the argument against it, right? You`re not some kind of beastiaphobe are you?
0
Reply
Male 156
In m y country, it`s been legal for a little while now, and most of the arguments against gay marriage has been in the way of: It invalidates all the heterosexual marriages. I keep asking: Why and how... but noone seems to answer that. Makes me confused. Then again, most things based in religous faith makes me confused when I contfront it whith why and how questions.
0
Reply
Male 2,868
@RETARDEDBEAR- The point Louis CK is making is totally valid. Yes, gay marriage opponents use all kinds of rationalizations to justify their argument- but when it comes down to it, their whole motivation for opposing gay marriage has to do with personal discomfort with homosexuality- which is the point Louis CK is trying to make. Of course he`s not saying that lawyers for gay marriage opponents actually go into court and say "that`s fcukin gay," but that is the mentality underlying the argument.
0
Reply
Male 226
Ok RetardedBear, what is the argument?

The only one I have ever heard is that it destroys the sanctity of marriage.... As defined by religion.
0
Reply
Male 7,585
retardedbear, then you tell me, what exactly is there to be against gay marriage other than being against gay relationships in general? ive never heard a sound argument or any argument other than "marriage is between a man and a woman". which when you think about it isnt really an argument at all, just kind of an opinion.
0
Reply
Female 728
(cont.)

It`s ridiculous to outlaw marriage based on the protest of those who aren`t actually involved in your relationship and will not be affected by it, so it is ridiculous to bar gay couples from the same privileges.
0
Reply
Female 728
@Retardedbear: I think it`s safe to say that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage comes from people who think that it is unnatural or sinful for gay people to have sex. That generally translates to some sort of revulsion towards gays, who are likely to engage in that "unnatural" gay sex.

"Their relationship doesn`t have anything to do with the taxpayer or the government until marriage is involved."

The same can be said for straight couples. Are you saying that government involvement means that it shouldn`t happen, because that means that straight people shouldn`t marry, either. If you`re saying that the opposition that some people have to gay marriage in conjunction with the government involvement means that gay marriage shouldn`t be legal, again, straight marriage shouldn`t be legal. There are some people who don`t like the institution of marriage, but that doesn`t mean that the rest of us can`t marry.
0
Reply
Male 5,608
"the bible says "man should not lay with man." i dosen`t say anythig about taking it up the ass."

Actually, it does but, right near there,
what`s it say you have the right to do to your
wife if she isn`t a virgin when you get married?
0
Reply
Male 148
comic genius
0
Reply
Female 95
Technically speaking gay couples have the same rights that straight couples do in the way that a straight male/female would also be unable to marry another male/female and a gay male/female would be able to marry a female/male. Of course, that doesn`t mean that I agree that gay marriage shouldn`t exist. I was only pointing it out. What I would really like to know is WHY people are so against gay marriage. This all seems very silly to me. You don`t like that a person is gay? Ignore them. It`s not really your business anyway.
0
Reply
Male 437
"this particular joke is funny because its true."

It isn`t really funny, and it isn`t really true. The argument made against gay marriage is not "cause it`s f`in gay!!!!" You don`t have to hate gay people to disagree with gay marriage.

After that, he makes a big point that two men having sex doesn`t affect you. That is true, but nobody is saying that gay people shouldn`t be allowed to have sex. They are saying that they should not be allowed to marry. Their relationship doesn`t have anything to do with the taxpayer or the government until marriage is involved.

A rare miss for Louis CK in my opinion.
0
Reply
Male 37,909
0
Reply
Male 7,585
crakr, nobody quotes him as an expert on anything except comedy. you are right though, just because something is funny doesnt make it true. the thing is, that this particular joke is funny because its true.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
not that funny
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"And I`m not just singling out this topic"

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you`re not.
0
Reply
Male 3,578
the bible says "man should not lay with man." i dosen`t say anythig about taking it up the ass.
0
Reply
Male 55
Comedian`s generally make people laugh by observing and highlighting a current affair that most people notice but rarely discuss with such clarity - "Observational Comedy".
0
Reply
Male 373
hey cracker jack... no one said hes an expert, people just like to point out he makes a good point, and is funny as hell doing it
0
Reply
Male 437
"that`s odd. he`s usually funny."

My thoughts exactly.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
So what makes this comedian or any so called `Star` an expert on anything ? Just because you can get some laughs about something doesn`t make it right and it certainly does not make them an expert on any topic.

And I`m not just singling out this topic, The topic could be drugs, gangs, culture, or hundreds of others. Funny does not equal Right, Nor does it make that comedian worthy of being quoted as an expert.
0
Reply
Female 99
I love Louis CK, he`s so funny.
0
Reply
Male 7,585
i think i like louis ck because he says stuff that me and my buddies would talk about all of the time.
0
Reply
Male 518
@Mickets, if he is he is not out. He is divorced and has two kids.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
this should have stopped at the picture...
0
Reply
Male 246
Is he gay?
0
Reply
Male 210
I actually rather enjoyed this. Wewt.
0
Reply
Male 5,608
1:56!!!
I`m going to be seeing that all day!
0
Reply
Male 37,909

that`s odd. he`s usually funny.
0
Reply
Male 2,690
Link: More From Louis CK On Gay Marriage [Rate Link] - You`re eating breakfast and put your spoon into your cereal bowl and then 2 guys put their...
0
Reply