Your position is crumbling, and I think you realize it. You really had to stretch to try to make some of these points:
Quote
Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:
Which is founded on nothing.
The state has NOT previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, current innitiatives are trying to change this.
It is founded upon the very real premises of limited, constitutionally restrained Federal government. It simply isn't the Fed's job to force new social institutions, such as gay marriage, down the throats of the people. You're flat out wrong when you say this position is "founded on nothing."
Quote
Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:
...
Outstanding! I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands. Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers? I'm overdue for a checkup.
I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.
A) This debate isnt about polygamy last time I checked.
B) Who is a man claiming spousal insurance support any more absurd than a woman claiming the same? Husbands are often covered under their wive's insurance coverage, why is it more absurd for a man to be on his husbands insurance coverage?
C) Not even on point because we are talking about state-authorized gay marriage, not about wether private companies choose to cover "domestic partners" (although many already do).
A) The debate is about redefining marriage. If one side can change it to serve their own personal interests (as in gay marriage), then so can I. Of course, I wouldn't bother, 'cause I'm not into wielding the courts and the law against those from whom I want to extort some benefit. But that certainly doesn't mean that others won't.
B) A man claiming insurance support
because he thinks he's married to another man whose coverage extends to a spouse is absurd. A woman claiming benefits extended to her husband's spouse is not absurd. The obvious distinction is that the man and the woman are actually married, whereas the man and the man are not. Now if two men wish to negotiate for joint health coverage on the basis of rational self interest with the provider (as opposed to forcing the provided to provide because of some activist court ruling on gay marriage) then that would be another matter entirely.
C)Perfectly on point, because many, possibly even most, employers are contractually obligated to provide certain benefits to the spouses of their employees. By creating an entire new class of "spouses" which the employers must now provide for, a class which couldn't have been contemplated at the time the contracts were entered into, you've created a situation in which the Fed is basically rewriting private contracts. That isn't just absurd, that's illegal. Totalitarianism ain't cool, and avoiding totalitarianism is darned relevant to me.
Quote
Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:
Let me just answer by quoting your own words:
Quote
That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.
You haven't articulated any sort of coherent thought here. To say that this is a refutation of my argument is a bit of a stretch.
Let me just reiterate that one common argument in favor of gay marriage is that it isn't the choice of the homosexual to be gay, there fore it should be illegal. Pointing out the absurdity of this notion is perfectly reasonable.
Quote
Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":
Which is also completely off point because this discussion is about same-sex marriages.
Here's where you really start to dig deep looking for a valid point, and come up short.
In this point I discuss the fairness of the existing system with regards to who can and who can't marry. If one of the arguments in favor of a position is that the current system is not fair, and if it is demonstrated that it is in fact fair (i.e that they're wrong) then this is a very relevant point to bring up. It eliminates one supposed impetus for needing to make a change.
I guess I was wrong, I was giving you too much credit. Your stance isnt based on the idea that homosexuality is wrong. It is based on off-point non-arguments and rhetoric. Thats a bid shame because I actually had some respect for the idea that homosexuality is wrong because i happen to agree with it, I just dont think the state has any stake in right or wrong when noone is victized by that imoral act.
Nope, I'm not basing my position and arguments on the notion that homosexuality is wrong. My position is based upon the notion that allowing activists to redefine marriage to include homosexuals is:
A) Illegal
B) Unconstitutional
C) Absurd
D) Unnecessary
E) And yes, "bad for society" - (but per your request, I didn't quote any of those particular arguments)
We'll leave it as an exercise for the readers (if there are still any left) to decide who's been given too much credit and who hasn't.