If a man has the right to marry a man...

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Generations? Your argument was to a 6,000 year history. It seems your version of tradition is getting smaller and smaller until it fits within the context of one man/one woman. It isn't even a tradition in your own church for lots of generations.

If marriage is a right, then the burden of proof is on those who would argue it shouldn't be extended to a class, not vice-versa. And my retort of "slavery" is (I would think obviously) designed to show the flaws of an argument based on "tradition." Give up, Tex. Your arguments already have, now just your will needs to follow.

A gay man or a gay woman have always been able to get married.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Tex

A gay man or a gay woman have always been able to get married.

Marrying outside ones sexual orientation is a bad decision all the way around and hurts all parties involved. So you are saying gays have the right to destroy families instead of build them. Sounds like a fantastic plan.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Marrying outside ones sexual orientation is a bad decision all the way around and hurts all parties involved. So you are saying gays have the right to destroy families instead of build them. Sounds like a fantastic plan.

No, just because they have the option freely available to marry doesn't mean that they should actually exercise that option.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, just because they have the option freely available to marry doesn't mean that they should actually exercise that option.

So it is a false option? Wow- yet another great argument to build on.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So it is a false option? Wow- yet another great argument to build on.

Are we talking about freedoms or not? Gays are free to marry a partner of the opposite sex. That freedom is not contingent upon their sexual preference. Is that the best choice for them? Maybe not.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Marrying outside ones sexual orientation is a bad decision all the way around and hurts all parties involved. So you are saying gays have the right to destroy families instead of build them. Sounds like a fantastic plan.

The point is, no "class" (Cali's term) of human being is denied the privilege of marriage.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So it is a false option? Wow- yet another great argument to build on.

What does "false option" mean? Whether or not someone is cut out for marriage is entirely up to them. That doesn't mean the choice isn't available.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Are we talking about freedoms or not? Gays are free to marry a partner of the opposite sex. That freedom is not contingent upon their sexual preference. Is that the best choice for them? Maybe not.

We are talking about real freedom. A right can be a right in theory only, as you have aptly acknowledged here by saying that homosexuals shouldn't really take advantage of the "right" available to them now.

[MikeWaters]

Is marriage a "right"? I don't think so.

Is sexual congress between consenting adults a right? This was only decided a few years ago by the Supreme Court.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The point is, no "class" (Cali's term) of human being is denied the privilege of marriage.



What does "false option" mean? Whether or not someone is cut out for marriage is entirely up to them. That doesn't mean the choice isn't available.

If you are homosexual, and find physical attraction to the opposite sex to be repugnant, you may have the legal "right" to get married, but that right is a right in theory only. Thus, the "choice" to get married is a false choice. The "class" being denied the right is the class of homosexuals who desire to marry a person of the same gender.

And the premise, once again, is not that someone prove they should be entitled to marry someone of their choice, but for the government to demonstrate why someone shouldn't be entitled to marry someone of their choice (or multiple people of their choice). You are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you are homosexual, and find physical attraction to the opposite sex to be repugnant, you may have the legal "right" to get married, but that right is a right in theory only. Thus, the "choice" to get married is a false choice. The "class" being denied the right is the class of homosexuals who desire to marry a person of the same gender.

And the premise, once again, is not that someone prove they should be entitled to marry someone of their choice, but for the government to demonstrate why someone shouldn't be entitled to marry someone of their choice (or multiple people of their choice). You are trying to shift the burden inappropriately.

Doesn't the burden of proof rest on those that are seeking to change the status quo?