"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

Bill Clinton regrets signing DOMA and was pressured into doing so .But if  he whole hardly believed in the law then yes at the time he would have been .Luckily i forgive him because he admits it was wrong .

[Ravenshire]

Interracial marriage 'illogical'? That's ridiculous. Here's the obvious proof: you don't have laws against things that are illogical!! You go to another jurisdiction and as soon as you cross the line and it's legal for interracial marriage it magically becomes logical??? That was/is absolutely no one's position. 

Kinda like gay marriage before the Supreme Court or common law marriages currntly.

You're an ass-hat, Stevie.

[polymath257]

BTW, was President Clinton Bigoted when he supported DOMA?

He supported a bigoted law because of political pressure.

It was hardly an example of moral courage.

---

Hmmm...you cross a line today and gay marriage is legal. Seems quite similar to me.

And yes, indeed it *was* the view of *many* people at one time. They even supported their views with quotes from the Bible.

Again, the *relevant definition* of marriage is 'a bond between people that is societally recognized to form a family unit'. There is NOTHING in that definition that requires opposite genders. And this is a *universal* definition that has worked in *all* cultures.

You are confusing formulating a logical argument to support your belief that is it wrong with the question: is interracial marriage logically possible. Of course it is--in every sense of the word.

Do you realize you just keep repeating your new definition of marriage? For 10,000+ years it was COMPLETELY defined as heterosexual. You would be hard-pressed to even find some ancient, remote, limited timeframe, exception, anywhere. You can't win this. The only thing you can do is express your opinion that the definition should be changed.

But I would say this is NOT a new definition. it is the definition that has always been used. it's just that in the past societies, for various reasons, did not accept gay marriages. We have overcome those limitations. Also, some societies did not share that limitation, even in the past. But in *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people recognized by society in order to form a family unit.

[SteveII]

deleted

[polymath257]

He supported a bigoted law because of political pressure.

It was hardly an example of moral courage.

---

But I would say this is NOT a new definition. it is the definition that has always been used. it's just that in the past societies, for various reasons, did not accept gay marriages. We have overcome those limitations. Also, some societies did not share that limitation, even in the past. But in *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people recognized by society in order to form a family unit.

Here's your logic:

1. "in the past societies, for various reasons, did not accept gay marriages"
2. So there were no gay marriages--only heterosexual marriages (from 1)
3. "We have overcome those limitations"
4. Therefore the definition of marriage has always included the concept of gay marriage. 

Good job with that.

Not my argument.

SOME past societies had that limitation. But even in those, the definition I gave was used. SOME others did not have that limitation. Again, the definition I gave was used. There *were* societies where gay marriage was allowed.

In every case, marriage has been a bond recognized by the society for the formation of a family unit. And that is the much more appropriate definition to use.

[SteveII]

BTW, was President Clinton Bigoted when he supported DOMA?

He supported a bigoted law because of political pressure.

It was hardly an example of moral courage.

---

You are confusing formulating a logical argument to support your belief that is it wrong with the question: is interracial marriage logically possible. Of course it is--in every sense of the word.

Do you realize you just keep repeating your new definition of marriage? For 10,000+ years it was COMPLETELY defined as heterosexual. You would be hard-pressed to even find some ancient, remote, limited timeframe, exception, anywhere. You can't win this. The only thing you can do is express your opinion that the definition should be changed.

But I would say this is NOT a new definition. it is the definition that has always been used. it's just that in the past societies, for various reasons, did not accept gay marriages. We have overcome those limitations. Also, some societies did not share that limitation, even in the past. But in *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people recognized by society in order to form a family unit.

This is getting ridiculous. In *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people a man and a women recognized by society in order to form a family unit. This is the complete definition. You cannot find an exception.

If you want to take out man and woman, you have made the definition broader. You have changed the meaning. You have changed the definition.

[polymath257]

He supported a bigoted law because of political pressure.

It was hardly an example of moral courage.

---

But I would say this is NOT a new definition. it is the definition that has always been used. it's just that in the past societies, for various reasons, did not accept gay marriages. We have overcome those limitations. Also, some societies did not share that limitation, even in the past. But in *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people recognized by society in order to form a family unit.

This is getting ridiculous. In *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people a man and a women recognized by society in order to form a family unit. This is the complete definition. You cannot find an exception.

If you want to take out man and woman, you have made the definition broader. You have changed the meaning. You have changed the definition.

It was NOT in *all* cases. There are counter-examples that have been pointed out to you.

And, besides, this is a *secular* marriage. We *do* get to decide how it is to be defined for *our society*. And the best definition to use is the one I gave.

---

Once again, do you object to the re-definition of 'person' to include corporate entities? Is that such a violation of previous definitions that it should not be allowed?

[SteveII]

This is getting ridiculous. In *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people a man and a women recognized by society in order to form a family unit. This is the complete definition. You cannot find an exception.

If you want to take out man and woman, you have made the definition broader. You have changed the meaning. You have changed the definition.

It was NOT in *all* cases. There are counter-examples that have been pointed out to you.

And, besides, this is a *secular* marriage. We *do* get to decide how it is to be defined for *our society*. And the best definition to use is the one I gave.

---

Once again, do you object to the re-definition of 'person' to include corporate entities? Is that such a violation of previous definitions that it should not be allowed?

Do you mean the examples where there were multiple men and/or women? That was in no way support for your position. For example, in the case of one man multiple wives: were the women married to each other? NO. One person got married MULTIPLE times to the opposite sex. See the difference? No one screwed with the definition of marriage.

A corporation is only considered a person in the eyes of the law in certain circumstances. There is no one on the planet that things that a corporation is actually a person. Red Herring.

[Amarok]

You guys realize Steves just going to keep digging himself in deeper

[polymath257]

It was NOT in *all* cases. There are counter-examples that have been pointed out to you.

And, besides, this is a *secular* marriage. We *do* get to decide how it is to be defined for *our society*. And the best definition to use is the one I gave.

---

Once again, do you object to the re-definition of 'person' to include corporate entities? Is that such a violation of previous definitions that it should not be allowed?

Do you mean the examples where there were multiple men and/or women? That was in no way support for your position. For example, in the case of one man multiple wives: were the women married to each other? NO. One person got married MULTIPLE times to the opposite sex. See the difference? No one screwed with the definition of marriage.

A corporation is only considered a person in the eyes of the law in certain circumstances. There is no one on the planet that things that a corporation is actually a person. Red Herring.

I disagree. The marriage between gays is a matter of law. That is all that is relevant. Whether *you* consider it to be a marriage is irrelevant as whether *you* consider a corporation to be a person.

The only question is whether gays should be allowed to enter into exactly the same legal agreements to have their bond legally recognized.

---

You guys realize Steves just going to keep digging himself in deeper

Oh yes. But it can be fun to watch the digging.