California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

Since when is "it certainly is not" a good rebuttal? So, if you are going to say something, explain yourself, instead of JUST telling people what they can and can not compare this to that to. This is the defense of a six year old, and I am not being sarcastic, this is a way a child would rebuttal.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Well that's natural for those animals, the argument is that since animals sometimes eat their young, then if humans wanted to as well, that would be natural. It certainly is not, so you cannot compare animal husbandry to support your argument that its natural.

You're not really following the argument well.

Rudey and I were discussing the ethical basis for laws earlier in the conversation, and his comparison with eating your mate was a callback to that. He conflated two wholly different arguments - as did you - which is a legitimate logical fallacy.

Something can be "natural" and wrong - eating your mate is clearly wrong under any ethical standard, so we don't have to rely on a narrow, Christian standard (as we shouldn't, I feel, for lawmaking - apparently the Court agrees). My argument, in its entirety, is that laws banning gay marriage are generally based on religious views, and thus shouldn't hold up to judicial review.

Arguing against gay marriage because it is "unnatural" is demonstrably false - you can argue it is wrong for a litany of other (primarily religious) reasons, but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Definitely eating the young is quite similar to husbandry.

I've given you a (limited) concession on incest, why keep bringing up stupid strawmen when you could simply fight the battle on, y'know, logical terms?

Again, things that are natural. So is being born deaf. So is being born with 3 eyes instead of 2.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Well, they are misinformed and should talk to some of the gay people and find out.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Don't think that's gonna help. LOL!

HOLY SHIT, WE AGREE. yeah, i'm still not buying the fact that someone was born like that.

Originally Posted by Rudey

Again, things that are natural. So is being born deaf. So is being born with 3 eyes instead of 2.

shut up, read the conversation, then join in.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

Again, things that are natural. So is being born deaf. So is being born with 3 eyes instead of 2.

So:

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You're not really following the argument well.

Rudey and I were discussing the ethical basis for laws earlier in the conversation, and his comparison with eating your mate was a callback to that. He conflated two wholly different arguments - as did you - which is a legitimate logical fallacy.

Something can be "natural" and wrong - eating your mate is clearly wrong under any ethical standard, so we don't have to rely on a narrow, Christian standard (as we shouldn't, I feel, for lawmaking - apparently the Court agrees). My argument, in its entirety, is that laws banning gay marriage are generally based on religious views, and thus shouldn't hold up to judicial review.

Arguing against gay marriage because it is "unnatural" is demonstrably false - you can argue it is wrong for a litany of other (primarily religious) reasons, but "unnatural" simply doesn't work.

[TexasWSP]

Come on now people....what is more natural than sticking your wee-wee in a place where last night's chimichanga is turded into a toilet bowl? Nope, sorry little Timmy......your two daddies can't have any more children for you to play with, save for poop figurines.

Yep...inappropriate. Nope...don't care. Impaired....of course. Being an idiot....probably.

[Senusret I]

^^^ Straight people have anal sex, too.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

^^^ Straight people have anal sex, too.

And some heterosexual men allegedly like stuff in their booty.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

And some heterosexual men allegedly like stuff in their booty.

Not this heterosexual man, there is no way in hell something is going in my exit hole.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Not this heterosexual man, there is no way in hell something is going in my exit hole.

Don't be such a prostate hater. hehe.

[RU OX Alum]

don't joke about prostates, they get swollen from stress

[EE-BO]

I agree. PMs can cause great stress here when one posts in the Politics forum.

[DSTCHAOS]

Rannnnnndommmmmmmmm......

[RaggedyAnn]

Now what about gay divorce?

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262008...tory_99275.htm
February 26, 2008 -- There's no such thing as gay marriage in New York - but a Manhattan judge says that doesn't mean there can't be gay divorce.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...ouple_divorce/
In a split decision, Rhode Island's top court said yesterday that it will not allow a lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts to get a divorce in the Ocean State