Sly_Wizard

It's a response to someone's response? Okay. We can play this game. The number of people who claim to have heard God's voice throughout the ages far, far, far, far, far outnumber those who don't. So we can either come to one of three conclusions: 1.) God does indeed exist and talk to everyone, yet there are people who listen or 2.) God doesn't exist and a large number of the human population, both past and present, are crazy. I'll go with option 1, especially considering 100% of the human population has never agreed on anything. (Granted, it's a bit of a false dilemma, but you get the point.) Once again, good luck backing that statement up.

Good luck backing that statement up, seeing as how sound is not matter. *See above* *See above the see above* Follow the directions of the above statements.

Because you happen to disagree with what very nearly each religion has to say on the nature of God is of no importance to me. Simply know that you don't get to redefine what each one says because you don't like it. And, no, it's not "convenient" by any sense of the word. You seem to not understand what immaterial means. It simply means without form or not made of matter. Being able to hear the voice of God does not mean he's material. Oh, please do enlighten me.

That doesn't prove he is material.

The biggest flaw in this argument: Failing to recognize that almost every religion differentiates between the natural and the spiritual. God does not fall into the former category, but the latter. No one created God as God is not material. That is, he's non-corporeal.

...What? Apparently you totally FAIL to recognize that it's your "side" of the argument that consistently mentions mentions marriage as a "right" and/or as a "basic civil right to man". And, since you still haven't grasped what's being said to you, I guess I'll try just one more time. Marriage is a social institution. It's not a right nor is it an act of God. It's something invented by society and therefore defined by society. Marriage is a term, or definition, or state, or whatever term you want to use for the institution, which is conferred by some ceremony recognized as legitimate in the society. And since society defines what marriage is, then you must accept the definition of that society, otherwise marriage is no longer a social construct. No one was equating the two? No matter how hard you look, you can't find what isn't there. Hooray for not understanding what a straw man is! I thought my last post was pretty self-explanatory but, alas, I guess I'll try again one more time. You cannot cry "discrimination" because all laws are "discriminatory" (Key point!!!), and are enacted as well as enforced by that society based on a consensus of what best benefits that society. Gays are "discriminated" against the same way anyone who does not agree with a law is "discriminated" against, whether it be someone wanting to drive 70 mph in a 40 mph zone (Isn't it their right to go as fast as they want where and when they want?) or a person wanting to be a murderer (Isn't it their right to do what they want, how they want, to whomever they want?). Let's see if you ignore it this time. Apparently I am. You seem to live in some world where everyone has "equal rights". If there were such a world, what would be the need for laws?

Ooo... So now I only have an argument because I hide behind precedents and technicalities, huh? I'm bored, so let's see how much "logical sense" his argument makes. He starts off by stating that marriage is a "basic civil right" and proceeds to copy and paste a quote by SCOTUS stating as much. Now, take away the quote by SCOTUS (Since it's both a legal precedent and a technicality) and try to tell me why marriage is a "basic civil right"? Can't do it, can you? Oh, you can try, but you'll have no legitimate basis upon which to make that claim except "You think" which, last I checked, holds about the same weight as the phrase "I think". Buuut... That's not really all that important or anything. Nope. Your argument happens to be based upon actuality. Oh, and for what it's worth, I think that running people over with my car is a "basic civil right", too, but that doesn't make it as such. Here's the problem: You don't have a rationale, much less one to ignore. I made this point before, but I'll do it again. 1.) Marriage is not a right and 2.) Gays are not being discriminated against anymore than the other groups who are not permitted to get a marriage license anymore than those people who are not granted driver's license. But you'll most certainly claim otherwise without actually proving as much. And I also know that a lot of you don't happen to live in the real world (That's got a double meaning for those good enough to figure it out).

It was only a matter of time until someone decided to quote Loving versus Virginia. Oh well... Since you want to reference Supreme Court decisions, enter Baker versus Nelson in which the courts specifically rejected the notion that "the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons" and therefore, rejected the case all together. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson ...That's a complete stretch if I ever did hear one, specifically given the fact you can't find a law in the U.S. which bans gay marriage on account of religion. This isn't the way it works. Since you want to legalize something, you have to provide the rationale upon which to do so. As I said, I don't care, but I get tired of people whining as if they're being denied a fundamental right when, in fact, they aren't. 1.) Marriage is not a right *See above* and 2.) It's not a slippery slope to point out that gays are not specifically discriminated against since the government does not issue marriage licenses to everyone.

I didn't bring it up. Someone else did. I commented, and people keep talking about it as if I initially brought it up. I don't play the "Everything is relative/subjective game". You should know that by now. Ummm... No. States only have to make legislation which are in their best interest. And lol @ the pejorative. Ah well... At least you didn't use the word "bigot".

Okay. Let's see: A.) I know perfectly well that traditional means. I know perfectly well what historical means. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand. So I can simplify this even further for you. Traditionally, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Historically, marriage has been used as a means of trade. You've never seen a proponent of traditional marriage running around claiming that marriage should be used to control women, have you? Nope. The ONLY people who claim as much are those who try to misrepresent the stance the proponent of traditional marriages is actually taking. B.) You have no point, except to claim that proponents of traditional marriage want to exercise what you want them to exercise (i.e., the things they really don't want to exercise but you want to claim they do in order to make their position look worse than what it actually is). Uno momento. :wall: *See above* Traditional marriages involve one man and one woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Now are you gonna' try to redefine what a traditional marriage is by what actions are taken once two people are married? 'Cuz, if you are, I'll just ignore you as that's not what the term traditional marriage is referring to. Just who is married, not what roles they take once they are married. Get it? Irony <_<

Let's see here... A refutation "I disagree" does not make. A refutation requires you to refute the notion that marriage has, keyword coming up here, traditionally been between one man and one woman-- ESPECIALLY in Western society. Secondly, I didn't ignore anything, henceforth the whole "I'm not into appeals to novelty. Even though I don't really care, you're going to have to provide an adequate reason to legalize gay marriage" portion of my post (Which I'm guessing you're not going to answer). Third of all, you REALLY don't want to get into a whole debate on logic, 'cuz you'll lose. And bad. Oh and, you know, just because I want to ---> "...it's important to note that the government also discriminates based on age, disabilities, consanguinity, religion, sex, species and quantity".

Haha! Overanalyzation ftw! You seemed to miss the point, so I'll explain. States are not required to issue drivers licenses to any specific person, as it's not a Federally mandated right. That is, each state is left to regulate its driving laws as it sees fit. The same thing goes for gay marriage. Because it is not Federally mandated, each state is free to legislate it as they deem fit. Therefore, the 14th Amendment has no bearing. It's simple, really. You asked a question, I answered, and then you ask me to address the issue? Mmmkay lol. Personally, I'm not into appeals to novelty. Even though I don't really care, you're going to have to provide an adequate reason to legalize gay marriage. I don't want to hear anything about it being discriminatory because not only is it not, but playing around with the "It's discriminatory line!", it's important to note that the government also discriminates based on age, disabilities, consanguinity, religion, sex, species and quantity. *He didn't bring it up. Someone else did* *See previous response. Not the one directly above. The one two responses up*

No, I didn't debunk my own argument. Go back and read, more specifically the driver's license analogy (And whatever it was I said about SCOTUS and vested interests). Yes, that's precisely what I believe. :lol:

*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink*The 14th Amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law.*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink* Of course they'll be shot down. The courts can't overturn an amendment to the constitution, since the constitution is what binds the courts. *Doesn't know what this has to do with anything he's typed out thus far but, meh, whatever* I'll bite. Even though I really don't care, lemme' hear why it needs changing. You can argue that traditional marriage =/= historical marriage all you like, it doesn't mean you're right in saying so. While the Church accepts tens of thousands for a luxurious wedding in a picturesque venue in the middle of Cornwall I simple cannot take the "traditional" argument seriously. Even if I did, I still have no idea what relevance it has to the issue of homosexuality. Oh, now we get to have a lovely dictionary battle. Hooray! Well, actually, we won't because that's a waste of time. I know what traditional means. I also know what historical means. You, obviously, can't seem to distinguish the two so I'll help you out. Traditional relates to what is/has been for a relatively long period of time (In this case, man and woman). Historical relates to what those marriages have entailed. You seem unable to tell the difference between wanting marriage to stay between a man and a woman and wanting marriage to stay between a man and a woman so you can control her. One of those, opponents of gay marriage want. The other, only you claim they want. Oh, and you should know that marriages have traditionally been lavish events regardless of the culture.

That'll fail. There's nothing in the U.S. constitution which guarantees the right to marriage. If you think there is, then find it. If you're gonna' quote the 14th Amendment I'm gonna' laugh at you, because under that marriage would be classified in the vein as states issuing driver's licenses to a select group of people. But go ahead and show me how you figure :P You're not being serious, are you? If you live in the U.S., then you should know what's meant by the term "traditional marriage" since it's almost always accompanied by the phrase "One man and one woman". I wonder why I bother writing stuff out 'cuz I, apparently, only do it for my benefit. There was this post-- On the last page, mind you-- Where I said something along the lines of "Traditional marriage =/= Historical marriage". You, though, obviously missed it. :wall:

If you can ask whether or not you exist, then you exist. Unless you can prove you live in a subjective reality, then you exist.

I thought my my last post on the last page was pretty clear. I also like how you've tried to shift the focus from "marriage" to just "heterosexual marriage", which is a distinction proponents of traditional marriages don't make. Pretty sly of you ;) Ummm... They don't stay out of it because state governments issue marriage licenses? For that reason alone they have a vested interest in who gets married and who doesn't (So sayeth SCOTUS, which is why each state is allowed to regulate same-sex marriages as it sees fit). You must have missed the fact that opponents of Amendment 8 are trying to challenge it IN COURT even though it's already passed and the courts can't override a constitutional amendment nor can they write a new one, as that's not what courts do. I'm just gonna' copy and paste the most pertinent part of my response in what you quoted: "Following the definition of a traditional marriage given on the last page, yes."

And homosexual marriage does? Following the definition of a traditional marriage given on the last page, yes.

: "A formal union of a man and a woman by which they become husband and wife." Traditional does not mean historical. The sooner people realize the difference between the two, the better. Nope. So long as it's between one man and one woman, yes. Nope. Why would you try to ban divorce? That doesn't make marriage less sacred. I'd like to see how they're going to do that, unless California's Supreme Court wants to set a prcendent and rule a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Edit: I don't think it would be a precedent, but it would cause a major uproar. What would that do? SCOTUS has already ruled that gay-marriage is not a Constitutional (Nation) issue and is an issue left up to the states as each state has a vested interest in who they give marriage licenses to.

It'd be interesting to know then Sly.. which part of the political spectrum would you say you occupy? I would have thought, due to the religious side of things you would be centre-right or far right but now I'm not so sure.. Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.85

I'm fine with universal health care and a redistribution of taxes towards the higher income brackets. I don't see why anyone should have anything against that.

Most of that stuff didn't do anything to damage Bush's reputation. It's almost entirely all due to the war on Terrorism and the current state of the economy.

That act will never get passed. I'd bet everything I own on it.

I apologize for the useless post in advance, but I just had to post this picture (If it hasn't been posted already). [hide=][/hide]

You fool, we're in worse shape as is. :twss: [/sarcasm] for those that think I'm serious No, we're not. I dunno' why you seem to think that.