Gay Marriage

[Shanpooks]

Every time my wife is nagging, I think to myself,"Why the hell would they want this?"

I say let them have it, why should only straight guys suffer alone.

[R.G.]

In before the move to the podium :P

[ZoeBoe'smom]

:bounce:
:omg:
Hi, RG. :evil:

[R.G.]

:bounce:
:omg:
Hi, RG. :evil:

Hey there sexy mama :blowkiss:

[scarface983]

who cares what they do, they aint hurting me by getting married

[AngryPirate]

I say let them have it, why should only straight guys suffer alone.

:iagree: I think EVERYONE should have the right to be miserable.

[NJeagle]

Hey if they do allow gay marriage, wont Muslim & traditional Mormon people be able to contend that men can marry multiple wives since it's in their bible/koran? :scratch:

[Jex]

Hey if they do allow gay marriage, wont Muslim & traditional Mormon people be able to contend that men can marry multiple wives since it's in their bible/koran? :scratch:

And someone will argue that the earth is flat and that high fructose corn syrup is the best thing for you. But what one has to do with the other I have no idea.

[eanaH]

To make it all fair, there should be a law that anyone can marry whoever and whatever [things] they want.

[R.G.]

Hey if they do allow gay marriage, wont Muslim & traditional Mormon people be able to contend that men can marry multiple wives since it's in their bible/koran? :scratch:

Is there a homosexual religion that you are reffering to? :huh:

[Jex]

To make it all fair, there should be a law that anyone can marry whoever and whatever [things] they want.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_q4CjS1o_VdE/RdjKJF81ySI/AAAAAAAAAF4/UXbQPKDSXgc/s400/chocobolady.jpg
Your right chocobos are damn sexy.

[jason12]

man+woman=marriage

nuff said

[R.G.]

http://bp3.blogger.com/_q4CjS1o_VdE/RdjKJF81ySI/AAAAAAAAAF4/UXbQPKDSXgc/s400/chocobolady.jpg
Your right chocobos are damn sexy.

How can I compete with a chocobo :sadwalk:

[Jex]

man+chocobo+woman=marriage

nuff said

:look:

[NJeagle]

Is there a homosexual religion that you are reffering to? :huh:

:huh: Well I'm just trying to say since gay people may be granted the right to be happy with their loved one, why can't religious people do the same with their multiple partners? :scratchh:

[LiTeSTriKe]

nothing wrong with gays getting married. they're human too. our society needs to progress and advance, and by limiting this, we're only holding ourselves back. people are just ignorant about gays; they fear change as it is unexpected and new, just like integrating blacks and whites together in the south back during segregation. i had a fierce debate with my friend over prop 8. his dumb ass thinks that his future children might turn gay just from being influenced by children of gay parents. anyone have studies that prove that being around gay people won't turn you gay, and that is something you're born as?

[z2g]

I'm so sick of hearing the pathetic argument that allowing gay marriages will lead to ppl wanting to marry inanimate objects or animals. It's so irrational and silly. We are talking about two human beings! If two ppl of the same sex want to get married in order to have the same rights afforded to them as heterosexual couples, why argue against it because of ppl's religious views?

Those ppl then try to argue that the definition of marriage is that between a man and a woman as stated in the bible. But, the definition of marriage in this case is defined in legal terms.

For those who are so against gay marriage, please remember how it was a mere 30-40 years ago when the same bigotry was said about inter-racial marriage! We live in a GREAT country and I LOVE this country. But, it saddens me that so many facets and issues that concerns this country are so influenced by ppl's religious beliefs. Ppl talk about America and the notions that our forefathers brought forth with such esteem reverence. Yet, they can turn around and stubbornly and ignorantly believe this crap.

[BostonGirl]

And someone will argue that the earth is flat and that high fructose corn syrup is the best thing for you. But what one has to do with the other I have no idea.

Its not? :confused:

[Jex]

Its not? :confused:

:secret: It's square....duh. :P

[wakethewicked2]

i say...let them...
love is love..if thats their thing and the way they wanna live... their human..let em be entitled to their life too

[handyguy]

Gays can have straight rights as long as straights can have gay rights.

[metoday]

nothing wrong with gays getting married. they're human too. our society needs to progress and advance, and by limiting this, we're only holding ourselves back. people are just ignorant about gays; they fear change as it is unexpected and new, just like integrating blacks and whites together in the south back during segregation. i had a fierce debate with my friend over prop 8. his dumb ass thinks that his future children might turn gay just from being influenced by children of gay parents. anyone have studies that prove that being around gay people won't turn you gay, and that is something you're born as?

What I don't understand is WHY people are against gay marriage. Just because the bible says? Or... ?

Is there a specific reason other than the bible saying marriage is between a man and a woman?

Note: I'm not trying to get this moved to the podium. I'm truly curious to hear why and am not intending to start a debate.

[ThriftShopperNC]

Here are my views.

Marriage was started as a religious union, between a man and a woman, and still viewed as such by many people, which is why some people don't get married legally. No big deal.

I think "marriage" should be between a man and a woman. However, if a male and female who have lived together for 10 years can be common law married, I think homosexuals deserve the same rights.

So, I think that they should have a union ceremony or something, allowing them the same legal rights as a married couple. Health Insurance, inheritance, and the right of deciding medical treatment in the case of an emergency, are just a few of the rights I think gay couples should be allowed to have.

A friend of mine's brother died recently. he was gay, and he left his belonging to his SO. The family of the dead man fought it, and kept that man from getting what his lover had left him. That's not right, IMO

[slugbug]

>Is there a specific reason other than the bible saying marriage is between a man and a >woman?

Does there really NEED to be another reason? If a person is brought up believing that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, and they read the Bible, then what the Bible teaches about the issue is simple fact to them. Anything in culture that goes against this teaching would seem to be simple propaganda from a corrupt society that legitimizes anything from a "personal freedom" perspective.

Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22 is fairly specific on the issue.

[metoday]

>Is there a specific reason other than the bible saying marriage is between a man and a >woman?

Does there really NEED to be another reason? If a person is brought up believing that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, and they read the Bible, then what the Bible teaches about the issue is simple fact to them. Anything in culture that goes against this teaching would seem to be simple propaganda from a corrupt society that legitimizes anything from a "personal freedom" perspective.

Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22 is fairly specific on the issue.

So you follow every single thing the bible says with absolutely no exceptions?

[Devedander]

Its not? :confused:

It's round AND it's flat.




Think pizza.

[karab]

I can see both sides of this issue, being Christian myself, I hold my beliefs dear and try to live my life by them. It is not up to me, however, to pass judgement or look down upon someone else. I believe 'love thy neighbor' with all my heart, and try to apply that to everyone whether or not they happen believe the same way I do. I do not want to represent my religion as one of hatred or condemnation, b/c I believe it is not. It is not up to me to dictate how others live their lives, I think if people were as concerned about their own lives and not about everyone elses we would live in a better world.

[Devedander]

Here are my views.

Marriage was started as a religious union, between a man and a woman, and still viewed as such by many people, which is why some people don't get married legally. No big deal.


The marriage we all think of today around here definitely was a church founded thing, but somewhere in there the line between church and state got blurred and now it's a legal thing as well as a church thing and the problem is we have no way to disseminate the two things.

As with anything else church and state, the church should make a call and the state should make a call. I can see why the church doesn't want to go against the bible and so no church should be forced to marry same sex couples.

But as far as the state goes, unless there is a legitimate legal reason to prevent same sex marriage, that should be a call made by the state.

So basically, I say if the church wants to say no, that's their call. But they shouldn't be able to stop city hall from performing the marriages.

[AngryPirate]

Breaking News.....the Bible is just a bunch of made-up fables, none of which have been proven :eek:

:hide:




:swordfit:

[mackinkay]

What I don't understand is WHY people are against gay marriage. Just because the bible says? Or... ?

Is there a specific reason other than the bible saying marriage is between a man and a woman?

Note: I'm not trying to get this moved to the podium. I'm truly curious to hear why and am not intending to start a debate.

What the Bible says is enough.

[z2g]

Ppl always state that marriage is defined in the Bible. However, as someone stated, it become a legal definition to deal with taxation, earnings, and other rights afforded to each spouse. If ppl are trying to argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible, then non-Christians can't be "married" either! That's if we go by that argument.

So, those anti-gay marriage ppl should also be against non-Christians getting married too. However, we know this isn't what it's all about....it's about being anti-gay!

[z2g]

Here are my views.

Marriage was started as a religious union, between a man and a woman, and still viewed as such by many people, which is why some people don't get married legally. No big deal.

I think "marriage" should be between a man and a woman. However, if a male and female who have lived together for 10 years can be common law married, I think homosexuals deserve the same rights.

So, I think that they should have a union ceremony or something, allowing them the same legal rights as a married couple. Health Insurance, inheritance, and the right of deciding medical treatment in the case of an emergency, are just a few of the rights I think gay couples should be allowed to have.

A friend of mine's brother died recently. he was gay, and he left his belonging to his SO. The family of the dead man fought it, and kept that man from getting what his lover had left him. That's not right, IMO

This is the EXACT reason why gay ppl want to have the right to be legally married. It's rather simple and follows the lines of the fundamental rights afforded to each citizen as written in the Constitution. However, religious ppl in the country want otherwise.

I just don't why they are so against it. Does it harm anyone? Are the two ppl who want to get married harmed? Is the government harmed? They get to tax the couple as a joint tax filing. Are the anti-gay marriage ppl harmed? No. But, they want to control the lives of ppl who have nothing to do with them.

[Devedander]

This is the EXACT reason why gay ppl want to have the right to be legally married. It's rather simple and follows the lines of the fundamental rights afforded to each citizen as written in the Constitution. However, religious ppl in the country want otherwise.

Actually this is why we need a system where people can define who they want to leave their property to that can't be contested on arbitrary factors, especially weighting spousal relation.

I just don't why they are so against it. Does it harm anyone? Are the two ppl who want to get married harmed? Is the government harmed? They get to tax the couple as a joint tax filing. Are the anti-gay marriage ppl harmed? No. But, they want to control the lives of ppl who have nothing to do with them.

I believe the view is generally that the two are indeed harming themselves. They are violating Gods rules and as such are condeming themselves, good Christians are supposed to save others, not condone their self defiling behavior.

My guess is it's along the lines of you or me viewing a law that would allow incest. I would be very unhappy about that and I think most of us would fight it becuase we believe the act can cause harm to those involved.

The guy raping his daughter probably doesn't believe that it does harm, so there is some disagreement there. You and I feel that he is harming someone regardless of the fact that he himself does not realize he is doing so. And so we argue against a making it legal for him to do so.

I would think the church side argument would be something like "we cannot condone it because despite the fact that so many people are ignorant to the harm it is causing, it is indeed causing harm to condone homosexuality".

That's my take anyway.

Breaking News.....the Bible is just a bunch of made-up fables, none of which have been proven :eek:

:hide:




:swordfit:

I think that depends on where exactly you draw the line of proof...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

[z2g]

Actually this is why we need a system where people can define who they want to leave their property to that can't be contested on arbitrary factors, especially weighting spousal relation.



I believe the view is generally that the two are indeed harming themselves. They are violating Gods rules and as such are condeming themselves, good Christians are supposed to save others, not condone their self defiling behavior.

My guess is it's along the lines of you or me viewing a law that would allow incest. I would be very unhappy about that and I think most of us would fight it becuase we believe the act can cause harm to those involved.

The guy raping his daughter probably doesn't believe that it does harm, so there is some disagreement there. You and I feel that he is harming someone regardless of the fact that he himself does not realize he is doing so. And so we argue against a making it legal for him to do so.

I would think the church side argument would be something like "we cannot condone it because despite the fact that so many people are ignorant to the harm it is causing, it is indeed causing harm to condone homosexuality".

That's my take anyway.



I think that depends on where exactly you draw the line of proof...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

BUT, you are using religious views to deem what is harmful! Being gay doesn't harm anyone. It only goes against Christian views. HOWEVER, there are so many sins perpetrated by Christians everyday. So, it's a bit hypocritical to pinpoint homosexuality.

Once again though, our country was based on religious freedom. Why then should we mandate a law that is strictly a religious matter?

About a father raping a daughter, are you serious?!?!? As I tried to convey, each individual in a gay relationship isn't harmed. With incest or rape, the victim is harmed! And please remember, as I've stated before, the same views and arguments were made when inter-racial marriage was opposed. It's the same here.

[metoday]

What the Bible says is enough.

The bible says not to judge. Which part of the bible are you going to go with on this one?

[Devedander]

BUT, you are using religious views to deem what is harmful! Being gay doesn't harm anyone. It only goes against Christian views. HOWEVER, there are so many sins perpetrated by Christians everyday. So, it's a bit hypocritical to pinpoint homosexuality.

Once again though, our country was based on religious freedom. Why then should we mandate a law that is strictly a religious matter?

And you are using non religious views to tell religious people why what they believe is incorrect.... I don't see that kind of thing working out well very often.

You asked why anyone would be against it when it doens't hurt anyone. I was just explaining how someone could honestly believe it does hurt someone. Even hurt someone in a way you just don't comprehend.

The incest thing is an analogy (I always forget how analogies dont' work on the internet) it's just there to show you how one person can "KNOW" something is damaging, while another person "KNOWS" it's not.

About a father raping a daughter, are you serious?!?!? As I tried to convey, each individual in a gay relationship isn't harmed. With incest or rape, the victim is harmed! And please remember, as I've stated before, the same views and arguments were made when inter-racial marriage was opposed. It's the same here.

Correction: You BELIEVE they (homosexuals) are not harmed. No one has proven to you that they are in any way haremd.

Others may BELIEVE they ARE harmed. Others may consider being told by God enough proof for anything.

Hypocritism is a whole nother issue. I don't think anyone lives their whole life without being a hypocrtie sometimes. So to declare someone elses point of view null for being a hypocrite, while you yourself certainly have been once in a while is.... welll.... hypocritical :)

The bible says not to judge. Which part of the bible are you going to go with on this one?

I think the bible says "You shall not judge" (paraphrased) I am pretty sure God is allowed to judge and according to the bible has already passed judgement on this issue (according to how it is interpereted by some people today anyway).

That would be the loophole... You don't have to judge, God did for you, you are just acting on His word.

I think the big issue here is that those of us who don't necessarily believe in God just can't fathom how the following logic can be a sound statement:

God is right because by definition God is right.

[z2g]

And you are using non religious views to tell religious people why what they believe is incorrect.... I don't see that kind of thing working out well very often.

You asked why anyone would be against it when it doens't hurt anyone. I was just explaining how someone could honestly believe it does hurt someone. Even hurt someone in a way you just don't comprehend.

The incest thing is an analogy (I always forget how analogies dont' work on the internet) it's just there to show you how one person can "KNOW" something is damaging, while another person "KNOWS" it's not.



Correction: You BELIEVE they are not harmed. No one has proven to you that they are in any way haremd.

Others may BELIEVE they ARE harmed. Others may consider being told by God enough proof for anything.

Hypocritism is a whole nother issue. I don't think anyone lives their whole life without being a hypocrtie sometimes. So to declare someone elses point of view null for being a hypocrite, while you yourself certainly have been once in a while is.... welll.... hypocritical :)



I think the bible says "You shall not judge" (paraphrased) I am pretty sure God is allowed to judge and according to the bible has already passed judgement on this issue (according to how it is interpereted by some people today anyway).

That would be the loophole... You don't have to judge, God did for you, you are just acting on His word.

You are seriously making no sense. If you want to argue that homosexuals are harmed, then you NEED to explain how they are harmed. If you cannot, then don't use that argument. It's like responding to an argument/debate by saying..."just because" or "because I say so"!

Besides the religious reasons of going against God's will, homosexuals are not harmed by being in such relationships....at least no more harmed than heterosexuals who both may be in bad relationships!:)

As far as rape and incest being harmful, there is SCIENTIFIC proof that it can cause mental/psychological effects that lasts a lifetime to the victims! YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS TO NOT KNOW THIS!!!!

[wakethewicked2]

just like it says not to hate and thats what it all ends up being...its not the whole marrage issue,its the fact people are homophobic and against same sex couples. hates also a sin and thats what the bottom of it comes down to..hate. And its ridiculous if someone preaches religion because you know for fact not one person is perfect..

[Devedander]

You are seriously making no sense. If you want to argue that homosexuals are harmed, then you NEED to explain how they are harmed. If you cannot, then don't use that argument. It's like responding to an argument/debate by saying..."just because" or "because I say so"!

Besides the religious reasons of going against God's will, homosexuals are not harmed by being in such relations....at least no more harmed than heterosexuals who both may be in bad relationships!:)

As far as rape and incest being harmful, there is SCIENTIFIC proof that it can cause mental/psychological effects that lasts a lifetime to the victims! YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS TO NOT KNOW THIS!!!!

You are missing all the nuance of what's between (and not so between) the lines I wrote.

Laid out simply:

If you want to call hypocritism and close mindedness, you have to remain open minded and accepting.

Science is your God, when sciene "proves" something you believe it and accept it and rule out opposing views.

Religion is the same thing, it's an attempt to explain the workings of the world and some people accept that and reject opposing views.

If you really want to know why others act how they do, open your mind to see how they think and you will understand why they act how they do.

If you just want to ask rhetorically why to show someone else is wrong, well enjoy that rope, but it's tall and you are pissing up it.

Here's what it comes down to, neither you nor I seem to believe that God's word is good enough to be an infallible truth (at the very least) we demand some other form of "proof". But some people just don't believe that and if you want to know why they act how they do, it's because they DO believe what they believe.

Probably when you were a child, you had some misguided belief in something right? Probably believed Santa actally squeeze down the chinmey right?

Now when you looked at your chimney and saw it was 8 inches across and santa was an old fat man, didn't your belief somehow tell you that it was still true? So you believed!

That's all people can do is believe. Sometimes people believe in stuff you don't and that's why they act how they do.

And if you didn't believe in santa, or never had a false belief in your life, then you should be logically minded enough to still see the point in that story :)

BTW I always find that keeping my emotions out of stuff will get you farther than acting on them in haste. If you were a little less inclined to hate on the "wrong" posittion and more to actually look for answers to your own questions, you would have seen already I am not in any way against gay marriage and I would think it's clear I do not support incest.

Here's something to think about:

You and I believe God does not exist because we have found explanations for so much of the universe that does not require God.

What if God really did build the universe? What if God really can do anything He wants? Posit for a moment that you are in control of the universe on a level that you can change anything you want at any time and do it perfectly (ie no evidence it was that changed), couldn't you make a world that looked exactly like you hadn't made it?

Couldn't you, as an all powerful God, make a mountain range in 1 day that carbon dated 7billion years old? Because heck... you made the carbon and you can control how much it seems to have decayed. :)

Think of it like programming a computer game. You create an chair and specify that that a chairi s 10 million years old. By default, the only tools to verify how old it is in the game are going to say "10 million years" because that's how you programmed them. Can you imagine all your little in game peopel running around going "This game is 10 million years old, becuase if it wasn't this chair wouldn't carbon date so far back!".

[z2g]

You are missing all the nuance of what's between (and not so between) the lines I wrote.

Laid out simply:

If you want to call hypocritism and close mindedness, you have to remain open minded and accepting.

Science is your God, when sciene "proves" something you believe it and accept it and rule out opposing views.

Religion is the same thing, it's an attempt to explain the workings of the world and some people accept that and reject opposing views.

If you really want to know why others act how they do, open your mind to see how they think and you will understand why they act how they do.

If you just want to ask rhetorically why to show someone else is wrong, well enjoy that rope, but it's tall and you are pissing up it.

Here's what it comes down to, neither you nor I seem to believe that God's word is good enough to be an infallible truth (at the very least) we demand some other form of "proof". But some people just don't believe that and if you want to know why they act how they do, it's because they DO believe what they believe.

Probably when you were a child, you had some misguided belief in something right? Probably believed Santa actally squeeze down the chinmey right?

Now when you looked at your chimney and saw it was 8 inches across and santa was an old fat man, didn't your belief somehow tell you that it was still true? So you believed!

That's all people can do is believe. Sometimes people believe in stuff you don't and that's why they act how they do.

And if you didn't believe in santa, or never had a false belief in your life, then you should be logically minded enough to still see the point in that story :)

BTW I always find that keeping my emotions out of stuff will get you farther than acting on them in haste. If you were a little less inclined to hate on the "wrong" posittion and more to actually look for answers to your own questions, you would have seen already I am not in any way against gay marriage and I would think it's clear I do not support incest.

This is so funny. I am totally open-minded about other ppl's religious views. I respect their views. I understand why they believe in certain things due to the Bible, Koran, etc. However, I am not going to dictate my religous views on other ppl. That's being close-minded. And, it's actually anti-American....but, ppl camouflage this by stating they are speaking God's will. When in reality, it goes against the fundamentals of this country in regards to religious freedom.

By the way, religion is NOT the same thing as science. Science is based on theory and evidence. Religion is based SOLELY on faith with no evidence to proof anything...hence, it's called faith.

[Devedander]

This is so funny. I am totally open-minded about other ppl's religious views. I respect their views. I understand why they believe in certain things due to the Bible, Koran, etc. However, I am not going to dictate my religous views on other ppl. That's being close-minded. And, it's actually anti-American....but, ppl camouflage this by stating they are speaking God's will. When in reality, it goes against the fundamentals of this country in regards to religious freedom.

By the way, religion is NOT the same thing as science. Science is based on theory and evidence. Religion is based SOLELY on faith with no evidence to proof anything...hence, it's called faith.

So if it's wrong for them to dictate a lifestyle on you based on their beliefs, why is it ok for you to dictate a lifestyle on them based on your beliefs?

Whether science and religion are the same thing is a game of symantecs, they have more in common than they differ... and don't forget... science as we know it today is hardly infallible... it's a system that we believe to be perfect except for the fact that the perfect answers have to be interperated by an imperfect man... sounds familiar somehow...

Want to find out how truly open minded you are? Debate whether incest is "good" or "bad"... and take the "good" side.

You'll always learn more about others by standing in their shoes, than defending your own.

[R1Budha]

This is the EXACT reason why gay ppl want to have the right to be legally married. It's rather simple and follows the lines of the fundamental rights afforded to each citizen as written in the Constitution. However, religious ppl in the country want otherwise.

I just don't why they are so against it. Does it harm anyone? Are the two ppl who want to get married harmed? Is the government harmed? They get to tax the couple as a joint tax filing. Are the anti-gay marriage ppl harmed? No. But, they want to control the lives of ppl who have nothing to do with them.

WRONG!!!!!

Many people are perfectly fine with the concept of a same sex civil union.

They are NOT alright with the idea of a same sex MARRIAGE.

Marriage is a religious institution that has been recognized s legal by legal entities.

The PROBLEM, is the GAY RIGHTS leaders want to corrupt a religious concept because they wish to tear down the fundamentals of religion.

NOT ALL HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!!

many (in fact a large majority) are quite fine with the concept of a civil union for themselves, however, this does not sit well with the vocal ones clamoring only for marriage and nothing else.

so because a small minority are ultra vocal and of course, get all of the media coverage, most people think this is a we dont want gays to have rights issue, when in fact in many cases, it is instead a we don't want to force a religious institution to do something mandated by the state issue.

[Devedander]

so because a small minority are ultra vocal and of course, get all of the media coverage, most people think this is a we dont want gays to have rights issue, when in fact in many cases, it is instead a we don't want to force a religious institution to do something mandated by the state issue.

Yes, churches should not have to put state laws in the scripture and the state should not have to print in God we trust on it's money or put God in the pledge of allegience...


oh wait....


Just messin around :cool:

[ThriftShopperNC]

WRONG!!!!!

Many people are perfectly fine with the concept of a same sex civil union.

They are NOT alright with the idea of a same sex MARRIAGE.

Marriage is a religious institution that has been recognized s legal by legal entities.

The PROBLEM, is the GAY RIGHTS leaders want to corrupt a religious concept because they wish to tear down the fundamentals of religion.

NOT ALL HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!!

many (in fact a large majority) are quite fine with the concept of a civil union for themselves, however, this does not sit well with the vocal ones clamoring only for marriage and nothing else.

so because a small minority are ultra vocal and of course, get all of the media coverage, most people think this is a we dont want gays to have rights issue, when in fact in many cases, it is instead a we don't want to force a religious institution to do something mandated by the state issue.
that's what I meant, a legal union, that protects them and gives them all the same benefits as a "married" couple, without using the term "marriage" since that has religious basis and meaning.

[z2g]

So if it's wrong for them to dictate a lifestyle on you based on their beliefs, why is it ok for you to dictate a lifestyle on them based on your beliefs?

Whether science and religion are the same thing is a game of symantecs, they have more in common than they differ... and don't forget... science as we know it today is hardly infallible... it's a system that we believe to be perfect except for the fact that the perfect answers have to be interperated by an imperfect man... sounds familiar somehow...

Want to find out how truly open minded you are? Debate whether incest is "good" or "bad"... and take the "good" side.

You'll always learn more about others by standing in their shoes, than defending your own.

How am I dictating it onto others? I'm just saying that if gay ppl want to get married, let them because it's not going to affect me or religious ppl. How are anti-gay marriage ppl actually, personally affected by this? It may go against their religious beliefs. But, it doesn't harm them or affect them personally.

About science and religion, science of course is NOT infallible. Hence, it's based on theory and evidence. When better evidence arises, the conclusions are updated. However, in religion, there is no room for debate and no room for change. It's just written as law...or God's law.

[Schooby]

Pffft...let them get married and be as miserable as everyone else.

[LiTeSTriKe]

What the Bible says is enough.

Screw the Bible. Much of it is filled with nonsense like many other religious books. Anyone who places their while entire faith and life in one book is blind. It's like believing that everything originated from Adam and Eve instead of the Big Bang and evolution. There needs to be at least one spontaneous generation in organisms at least once. I was surprised at how many people voted in the Podium that they believed everything came down from Adam and Eve instead of evolution. And these people are the ones to blame for giving Bush the presidency twice.

[z2g]

that's what I meant, a legal union, that protects them and gives them all the same benefits as a "married" couple, without using the term "marriage" since that has religious basis and meaning.

If it walks like a duck, talks like duck.....

Does it really matter if it's deemed a "marriage"? As I've stated, if religious ppl really want to argue that "marriage" is sacred and deemed in the Bible as only a union between a man and a woman, then they should be equally vocal against marriages between non-Christian ppl. This is if the religious definition of "marriage" is so dear to them.

Ppl have to understand that the term "marriage" is both a religious term AND a legal contract term. Hence, the church can forbid a marriage by non-Christians or divorcees as written in the Bible. But, the government can still issue a marriage license to that couple as a means for taxation and joint rights. The terms are the same, but they are actually totally separate. Unfortunately, ppl tend to be unable to differentiate between the two.

[ThriftShopperNC]

If it walks like a duck, talks like duck.....

Does it really matter if it's deemed a "marriage"? As I've stated, if religious ppl really want to argue that "marriage" is sacred and deemed in the Bible as only a union between a man and a woman, then they should be equally vocal against marriages between non-Christian ppl. This is if the religious definition of "marriage" is so dear to them.

Ppl have to understand that the term "marriage" is both a religious term AND a legal contract term. Hence, the church can forbid a marriage by non-Christians or divorcees as written in the Bible. But, the government can still issue a marriage license to that couple as a means for taxation and joint rights. The terms are the same, but they are actually totally separate. Unfortunately, ppl tend to be unable to differentiate between the two.
my meaning is, if a couple that lives together for a long time, can be called a common law marriage, and be extended the same benefits in some states as a "marriage" then the same thing should be done for homosexuals.

Most people would agree that a man and a woman who have lived together for 10 years without signing a piece of paper or having a religious ceremony saying that they are married, are not married. however, in many states, it is considered a "common law" marriage, and the "spouse" gets the same things if they split, such as alimony, and the same things if one person dies, such as inheritance and deciding the burial plans, as a "married" couple would get.

So, that should be extended to gays.

However, it should not be called a marriage.

[z2g]

my meaning is, if a couple that lives together for a long time, can be called a common law marriage, and be extended the same benefits in some states as a "marriage" then the same thing should be done for homosexuals.

Most people would agree that a man and a woman who have lived together for 10 years without signing a piece of paper or having a religious ceremony saying that they are married, are not married. however, in many states, it is considered a "common law" marriage, and the "spouse" gets the same things if they split, such as alimony, and the same things if one person dies, such as inheritance and deciding the burial plans, as a "married" couple would get.

So, that should be extended to gays.

However, it should not be called a marriage.

I agree with you in the common law marriage issue. I think it just comes down to that. As another member mentioned, someone he/she knew was denied his partner's estate because they didn't have the same rights afforded to them as heterosexual couples or common law marriage couples.

As far as the term marriage, does it really matter what we call it? As I've stated, the term "marriage" in the law is used as a legal contractual term. So, are Christians now trying to own the rights to that term? Next thing you know, they're going to want that the term "God" only applies to the Christian god!

Therein lies the problem. Religious ppl want to own the word "marriage" to be used only for their purposes as defined in the Bible. That's fine within their church. However, if it's used elsewhere, they shouldn't have a say in it. Note, the Bible also mandates and defines many things that are now deemed normal. Why aren't those religious ppl fighting against those things--i.e. working on the Sundays which is punishable by death in the Bible?

And I must reiterate this.....Religious ppl's need to impose their beliefs onto other ppl wanting to get married is EXACTLY the same as when bigots were against inter-racial marriages. Like with gay marriages, how does inter-racial marriages affect those against it? It may go against their beliefs, but that's it. And, how silly is that notion now?

[LiTeSTriKe]

I agree with you in the common law marriage issue. I think it just comes down to that. As another member mentioned, someone he/she knew was denied his partner's estate because they didn't have the same rights afforded to them as heterosexual couples or common law marriage couples.

As far as the term marriage, does it really matter what we call it? As I've stated, the term "marriage" in the law is used as a legal contractual term. So, are Christians now trying to own the rights to that term? Next thing you know, they're going to want that the term "God" only applies to the Christian god!

Therein lies the problem. Religious ppl want to own the word "marriage" to be used only for their purposes as defined in the Bible. That's fine within their church. However, if it's used elsewhere, they shouldn't have a say in it. Note, the Bible also mandates and defines many things that are now deemed normal. Why aren't those religious ppl fighting against those things--i.e. working on the Sundays which is punishable by death in the Bible?

And I must reiterate this.....Religious ppl's need to impose their beliefs onto other ppl wanting to get married is EXACTLY the same as when bigots were against inter-racial marriages. Like with gay marriages, how does inter-racial marriages affect those against it? It may go against their beliefs, but that's it. And, how silly is that notion now?
Religious people want to control everything in their own religious views. "Separation from state," yea right. I'm Catholic, my family is Catholic, hell, I have 4 priests in the family. Fortunately, I have been smart enough to not get pulled into all the religious bullshit. Religion just blinds you to one idea. My friend goes to this one church where they are making everyone pass flyers around for against prop 8. dude goes and passes that shit around campus. talk about ghetto.

[z2g]

Religious people want to control everything in their own religious views. "Separation from state," yea right. I'm Catholic, my family is Catholic, hell, I have 4 priests in the family. Fortunately, I have been smart enough to not get pulled into all the religious bullshit. Religion just blinds you to one idea. My friend goes to this one church where they are making everyone pass flyers around for against prop 8. dude goes and passes that shit around campus. talk about ghetto.

I had some children come to my house last night for Halloween. After I gave them their trick-or-treat candy, they shouted out "Vote yes on Prop 8" as they were walking away. These kids were around in 6th grade. It's so sad. But then again, look at the adults who believe in Prop 8 (anti-gay marriage proposition for those outside CA).

[holyschmoley]

.....

[handyguy]

What the Bible says is enough.

Perhaps, but the bible also has a 6th Commandment. So, you going to avoid people who have been in the military too?

[Melmo]

Everyone deserves to be happy. Even the 2 hot lesbos.

[LiTeSTriKe]

I had some children come to my house last night for Halloween. After I gave them their trick-or-treat candy, they shouted out "Vote yes on Prop 8" as they were walking away. These kids were around in 6th grade. It's so sad. But then again, look at the adults who believe in Prop 8 (anti-gay marriage proposition for those outside CA).

should of shouted at their asses to vote no on prop 8. should of gotten a handful of candy and thrown it at their asses.

correction: whoops my friend is passing flyers supporting prop 8

[PaganMaiden]

Using any 'bible says so' argument is irrelevant when citizens have freedom of (and from) religion. And if it were relevant, where do we draw the line...what religion gets the law...and if it's Christianity, who's 'version' (Methodist, Protestant, Catholic, Mormon)? Whatever it is, if you're quoting the bible in legal arguments you'd better be praying to your subscribed deity that it will be your version.


I will never understand why the religious fundamentals feel the need to play hall monitor to folks who aren't even in the hallway.

[PaganMaiden]

Screw the Bible. Much of it is filled with nonsense like many other religious books. Anyone who places their while entire faith and life in one book is blind. It's like believing that everything originated from Adam and Eve instead of the Big Bang and evolution. There needs to be at least one spontaneous generation in organisms at least once. I was surprised at how many people voted in the Podium that they believed everything came down from Adam and Eve instead of evolution. And these people are the ones to blame for giving Bush the presidency twice.

I think this is dismissive. Keep in mind that the majority of folks are religiously moderate. It is unfortunate that the religious folks making the most 'noise' are the fundamentalists who are so extreme that it gives moderates a bad name and instills fear/caution in the areligious who assume the stereotype to all religious people.

Having a religious faith and being intelligent are not mutually exclusive. Many religious people are not blind followers, they were encouraged to pose questions and explore for themselves where the answers lay. Many other appreciate the community of their church and its traditions buy may not necessarily agree with every facet of its dogma or echo anything that comes out of their leaders' mouths.

To say 'screw the bible' is to offend this large (albeit often silent) majority. When you take this approach, you become the equal opposite of what you accuse the religious of in the moderates' eyes. "Screw the bible" is no different than "you're going to hell".

I'm not saying you don't have the right to this opinion, just that if you want to actually get somewhere in debate, you may consider a softer approach. FWIW, I'm a Pagan.

[ThriftShopperNC]

I think this is dismissive. Keep in mind that the majority of folks are religiously moderate. It is unfortunate that the religious folks making the most 'noise' are the fundamentalists who are so extreme that it gives moderates a bad name and instills fear/caution in the areligious who assume the stereotype to all religious people.

Having a religious faith and being intelligent are not mutually exclusive. Many religious people are not blind followers, they were encouraged to pose questions and explore for themselves where the answers lay. Many other appreciate the community of their church and its traditions buy may not necessarily agree with every facet of its dogma or echo anything that comes out of their leaders' mouths.

To say 'screw the bible' is to offend this large (albeit often silent) majority. When you take this approach, you become the equal opposite of what you accuse the religious of in the moderates' eyes. "Screw the bible" is no different than "you're going to hell".

I'm not saying you don't have the right to this opinion, just that if you want to actually get somewhere in debate, you may consider a softer approach. FWIW, I'm a Pagan.
I agree with you, and I really like the way you put it.

I am a Christian, and i support gays having Civil Unions, however, for someone to say "Screw the Bible" is fairly damned insulting, IMO.

I wouldn't think of saying "Screw the Koran" "Screw the Torah", so why is it ok to say "Screw the Bible"?

[OptimumG]

Separation of church and state much?

[bigkee42]

lol.....i not sure whether the gay marriage facing the same problem

[handyguy]

Separation of church and state much?

Yeah, you have to decide if it's a civil matter or religious one.

'Gay Marriage' could be a new oxymoron?

[Devedander]

How am I dictating it onto others? I'm just saying that if gay ppl want to get married, let them because it's not going to affect me or religious ppl. How are anti-gay marriage ppl actually, personally affected by this? It may go against their religious beliefs. But, it doesn't harm them or affect them personally.

Your intolerance of their intolerance is what I am talking about. They have a reason for acting how they do, you don't agree with that reason, so you want them stifled. Unfortunately a democracy is a promise of equal voice, even to those that don't agree with you, or even those who are uneducated. Supposedly the electoral college was going to balance that little flaw out.

The point being that while church should stay out of state, the laws the sate enforces are determined by the will of the mass, and if the mass believes one way, for whatever resaon, it's still the will of the mass.

Gay marriage doesn't effect them in that it will cause their windows to break or their heater not to work in the winter, but it effects them on a level you can't appreciate because you don't have the faith they do. Same as when you said I was using faith based arguments and they were invalid, to a faith based person, non faith arguments are invalid.

About science and religion, science of course is NOT infallible. Hence, it's based on theory and evidence. When better evidence arises, the conclusions are updated. However, in religion, there is no room for debate and no room for change. It's just written as law...or God's law.

So would you say that maybe you are wrong and we just haven't discovered how being gay does damage people? Maybe that will be updated in the future?

And there are some sects that do take the bible litterally, but for most it's believed to be the thoughts/words of a perfect being, being interperated by imperfect man.

And when the interperatations of days gone by as seen to be flawed, they are updated.



Science: We believe their is an absolute answer to everything. How the universe is built and what rules govern it. We explore until we find the answers, but those findings are at the hand of people, who can make mistakes. So we take those findings as gospel until such time as we find better ones.

Religion: We believe there is an absolute answer to everything. How the universe is built and what rules govern it. We have a book that tells you all those things, but unfortunately it suffers the flaw of imperfect mans hand and so we must explore it's meanings and take the answers we find as gospel until we such time as we find better interperatations.



If you attend a few church surmons, you will find that the majority (not saying all) examine passages in the bible to take meaning from them on a regular basis.

The technicality is that it's all absolutely true.., but you might missunderstand what it's saying, so if yuou are wrong, it doesn't mean the bible was.

I'll say it again, if you are really interested in why "they" act like they do, you need to open your mind to how they think. If you want them to justify why they think that way but limit themselves to your rules and way of thinking, you will run into a wall. When you ask why it bothers them, is it a literal question or a rhetorical one?


Back to the topic, maybe the government needs to consider changing the legal bonding term from marriage to something else for everyone.

So you could go to city hall and get "Civilly enjoined" and then head off to the alter to get "Married". Then Gay people could actually get exactly the same thing straight people do and the Church can still completely control marriage. Everyone wins...

[PaganMaiden]

The point being that while church should stay out of state, the laws the sate enforces are determined by the will of the mass, and if the mass believes one way, for whatever resaon, it's still the will of the mass.



Not if that 'will' is unconstitutional. The will of the voters is completely irrelevant if what they are voting on is not constitutional.

As for civil unions, it is all good and well, and I would have preferred the option myself as opposed to a legal document, marriage license, with religious flavoring,. Please understand that civil unions, in the few states that offer them, are no where near the equivalent of marriage. Not only do they not offer the same benefits/coverage as marriage, but they disintegrate across state lines while marriage does not. (16-year old heterosexual marriage recognized in one state is still honored in other states that don't allow marriage at that age. Same-sex civil union recognized in one state is not similarly honored/recongized in states without that option). In a legal argument you need to ensure you are comparing apples to apples. Civil union is not the legal equivalent of marriage.

[Devedander]

Not if that 'will' is unconstitutional. The will of the voters is completely irrelevant if what they are voting on is not constitutional.

As for civil unions, it is all good and well, and I would have preferred the option myself as opposed to a legal document, marriage license, with religious flavoring,. Please understand that civil unions, in the few states that offer them, are no where near the equivalent of marriage. Not only do they not offer the same benefits/coverage as marriage, but they disintegrate across state lines while marriage does not. (16-year old heterosexual marriage recognized in one state is still honored in other states that don't allow marriage at that age. Same-sex civil union recognized in one state is not similarly honored/recongized in states without that option). In a legal argument you need to ensure you are comparing apples to apples. Civil union is not the legal equivalent of marriage.


Good point, I wasn't using civil union as it exists in some states, I was saying the states should agree on a civil union that can be the state form of union and let the church have theirs back.

[PaganMaiden]

Good point, I wasn't using civil union as it exists in some states, I was saying the states should agree on a civil union that can be the state form of union and let the church have theirs back.

Now THAT I can whole-heartedly agree with!

I guess I wouldn't have such a hard time with the whole 'protect marrige' issue if they would have the decency to work toward a solution (like enhancing the legal privileges of 'civil union' to be the legal equivalent of 'marriage' in a legal sense) first to ensure that all people were granted legal equity. I think that's just bad karma (not to mention not particularly 'Christian' in spirit...what would Jesus do? Last I checked he was a pretty strong liberal and defender of the underdog).

[z2g]

Your intolerance of their intolerance is what I am talking about. They have a reason for acting how they do, you don't agree with that reason, so you want them stifled. Unfortunately a democracy is a promise of equal voice, even to those that don't agree with you, or even those who are uneducated. Supposedly the electoral college was going to balance that little flaw out.

The point being that while church should stay out of state, the laws the sate enforces are determined by the will of the mass, and if the mass believes one way, for whatever resaon, it's still the will of the mass.

Gay marriage doesn't effect them in that it will cause their windows to break or their heater not to work in the winter, but it effects them on a level you can't appreciate because you don't have the faith they do. Same as when you said I was using faith based arguments and they were invalid, to a faith based person, non faith arguments are invalid.



So would you say that maybe you are wrong and we just haven't discovered how being gay does damage people? Maybe that will be updated in the future?

And there are some sects that do take the bible litterally, but for most it's believed to be the thoughts/words of a perfect being, being interperated by imperfect man.

And when the interperatations of days gone by as seen to be flawed, they are updated.



Science: We believe their is an absolute answer to everything. How the universe is built and what rules govern it. We explore until we find the answers, but those findings are at the hand of people, who can make mistakes. So we take those findings as gospel until such time as we find better ones.

Religion: We believe there is an absolute answer to everything. How the universe is built and what rules govern it. We have a book that tells you all those things, but unfortunately it suffers the flaw of imperfect mans hand and so we must explore it's meanings and take the answers we find as gospel until we such time as we find better interperatations.



If you attend a few church surmons, you will find that the majority (not saying all) examine passages in the bible to take meaning from them on a regular basis.

The technicality is that it's all absolutely true.., but you might missunderstand what it's saying, so if yuou are wrong, it doesn't mean the bible was.

I'll say it again, if you are really interested in why "they" act like they do, you need to open your mind to how they think. If you want them to justify why they think that way but limit themselves to your rules and way of thinking, you will run into a wall. When you ask why it bothers them, is it a literal question or a rhetorical one?


Back to the topic, maybe the government needs to consider changing the legal bonding term from marriage to something else for everyone.

So you could go to city hall and get "Civilly enjoined" and then head off to the alter to get "Married". Then Gay people could actually get exactly the same thing straight people do and the Church can still completely control marriage. Everyone wins...

Seriously, your arguments are totally irrational. I am tolerant of anti-gay marriage ppl by not caring about how they feel about gay marriage. I respect and understand their views on why they are opposed to gay marriage. I disagree with it though. However, when they want to pass a law that is anti-gay marriage, then it goes beyond just having personal religious beliefs. It's trying to dictate your religious beliefs onto others......in a country where there is supposed to be religious freedom! This would be analogous to me trying to pass a law that forbids any religion to stress anti-gay sentiments. And, I would NEVER want that because, again, it goes against the fundamentals of this country. But, religious fanatics don't care about that, right?

About science, I think you are ignorant of actual principles of science. By definition, scientific theories are theories! No one in science says that the theories are "absolute"! If you believe so, then you do NOT understand science.

However, in religion, you are correct that religious beliefs are absolute. As history has shown, if you don't believe those beliefs, the religion in power will often punish, torture, persecute, and kill you.

But, no amount of discussion will allow you to see the error in your thinking. With me, I can respect your beliefs. With you (and ppl who are for anti-gay marriage legislation), it's not possible to understand, respect, and be tolerant of other ppl's beliefs or lifestyle choices. That's the bottom line.

[Devedander]

Seriously, your arguments are totally irrational. I am tolerant of anti-gay marriage ppl by not caring about how they feel about gay marriage. I respect and understand their views on why they are opposed to gay marriage. I disagree with it though. However, when they want to pass a law that is anti-gay marriage, then it goes beyond just having personal religious beliefs. It's trying to dictate your religious beliefs onto others......in a country where there is supposed to be religious freedom! This would be analogous to me trying to pass a law that forbids any religion to stress anti-gay sentiments. And, I would NEVER want that because, again, it goes against the fundamentals of this country. But, religious fanatics don't care about that, right?

About science, I think you are ignorant of actual principles of science. By definition, scientific theories are theories! No one in science says that the theories are "absolute"! If you believe so, then you do NOT understand science.

However, in religion, you are correct that religious beliefs are absolute. As history has shown, if you don't believe those beliefs, the religion in power will often punish, torture, persecute, and kill you.

But, no amount of discussion will allow you to see the error in your thinking. With me, I can respect your beliefs. With you (and ppl who are for anti-gay marriage legislation), it's not possible to understand, respect, and be tolerant of other ppl's beliefs or lifestyle choices. That's the bottom line.

The irony is so thick...

I respect and am open to everyones way of thinking. I respect it to the point that I am willing to try to understand how they think, not just prove to them that they are wrong.

And if you would read what I write in stead of hearing what you want me to say, you would see that I am not trying to convince you they are right, I am trying to show you the answer to your question which is "Why do they care when it doesn't hurt them?"

Your problem comes from the knowledge that nothing is wrong with gay relationships.

That is not knowledge that other people share.

So I will lay it out one more time plane and simple:

They feel that way becuase they believe different things than you do.

Open your mind to how others think, and you will understand why they do.

I am not saying you will ever agree with it.


And your statements about science and religion. First, if you fault religion and claim scienctific proof as the proof that you need (ie prove to me that gay reliationships are bad) then you also allow for science to be flawed, how is your view more perfect than someone elses? Or is it just different?

Religion: There have been plenty of religions prosecutions for sure, but there have been scientific ones as well. And on the flip side, you don't have to look too far to see the church updating it's views on things just as I said.

Again, if you really want the answer to your question, open your mind to how the others think.

If you want to ridicule them with rhetorical questions without questioning yourself, go ahead, but that's a game best played alone.

[shhaggy]

Every time my wife is nagging, I think to myself,"Why the hell would they want this?"

I say let them have it, why should only straight guys suffer alone.

If anything, that's a ringing endorsement. Maybe the one thing marriage needs is less women.

[shhaggy]

WRONG!!!!!

Many people are perfectly fine with the concept of a same sex civil union.

They are NOT alright with the idea of a same sex MARRIAGE.

Marriage is a religious institution that has been recognized s legal by legal entities.

The PROBLEM, is the GAY RIGHTS leaders want to corrupt a religious concept because they wish to tear down the fundamentals of religion.

NOT ALL HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE BELIEVE THIS!!!!!!!

many (in fact a large majority) are quite fine with the concept of a civil union for themselves, however, this does not sit well with the vocal ones clamoring only for marriage and nothing else.

so because a small minority are ultra vocal and of course, get all of the media coverage, most people think this is a we dont want gays to have rights issue, when in fact in many cases, it is instead a we don't want to force a religious institution to do something mandated by the state issue.

a) marriage is not only a religious concept
b) if it were, then why allow straight atheists to get married? I would think that's far more damaging to the religious institution of marriage than gay marriage.
c) civil union but no marriage is no different than the 'separate but equal' mantra during the civil rights era. You're basically telling gays that they have to sit in the back of the bus, and telling them to be happy that you're even allowing them to get on the bus in the first place.

[shhaggy]

I agree with you, and I really like the way you put it.

I am a Christian, and i support gays having Civil Unions, however, for someone to say "Screw the Bible" is fairly damned insulting, IMO.

I wouldn't think of saying "Screw the Koran" "Screw the Torah", so why is it ok to say "Screw the Bible"?

In this application, screw the Bible/Torah/Quran are all interchangeable. They all pretty much feel the same way about gay marriage and gayness in general. It's saying "screw religion". And from a legal standpoint, I agree. Religion has no place in government matters. You want to say they can't get married in a church or be recognized by the church, that's fine. But by law? Of course they can. The church, no church, owns the instituation of marriage.

[Imerson]

Christians do not have a monopoly on the term "marriage," and it's high time they get off that position.

Gay marriage does not impose on another person's lifestyle. Just like heterosexual marriage does not affect gay relationships, civil unions, or whatever term people have measured out to them now.

I am perfectly accepting of Christianity/Christians. I generally tolerate Christians' beliefs and respect Christians. However, I disagree with many aspects of Christianity. Do you hear me saying they can't call their church a church, because I disagree with the definition of church? No. I don't do that, because I believe in equality. I believe people should be equally treated, aside from how I personally feel about things.
(And I know the tradition of church is not the same as the tradition of marriage, but the argument of one group dictating the laws that apply to another group is the same.)

Even if you disagree with the term marriage, the law should be the same for heterosexual/homosexual marriages, because the law is supposed to give equal protection. Ideally, it would. But religious activists are keeping that from happening.

Gay marriage also should not affect anyone other than the parties involved. The idea that "you're forcing me to accept your definition" is wrong. No one is forced to personally accept the legal definition of marriage. Our country would simply be closer to true equality, because the law itself would reflect that definition. Everyone's personal definition is whatever they want it to be, and would remain that way.

On the other hand, when someone says no gay marriage because marriage is traditionally man/woman, etc., they are forcing others to accept their views. Because their views shape the laws, and those laws actually do restrict homosexual couples.

The hypocrisy is ironic, and very sad.

If you live in California, please vote no on Prop 8.
See http://www.noonprop8.com/

If you live in Florida (like me), vote no on Amendment 2.
The consequences of Amendment 2 would reach even farther than simply banning gay marriage--affecting heterosexual domestic partner benefits.
Regardless of your opinion of gay marriage, we don't need to take away rights from people who aren't even involved in the issue.
It would also ban civil unions for homosexuals, which many against gay marriage are still for.
See http://votenoon2.com/countdown/index.html

[Devedander]

The hypocrisy is ironic, and very sad.

If you live in California, please vote no on Prop 8.
See http://www.noonprop8.com/

If you live in Florida (like me), vote no on Amendment 2.
The consequences of Amendment 2 would reach even farther than simply banning gay marriage--affecting heterosexual domestic partner benefits.
Regardless of your opinion of gay marriage, we don't need to take away rights from people who aren't even involved in the issue.
It would also ban civil unions for homosexuals, which many against gay marriage are still for.
See http://votenoon2.com/countdown/index.html



I will be in Florida on Tues instead of CA, and no I didn't apply for absentee... didn't realize the timing while I had the opprotunity... :( Can I give you my vote to use in Florida? :D

So here's an OT question... if it's wrong that marriage discriminates against gays, is it wrong that "African American" is reserved for a certain sect of people? I am Chinese but I am not legally allowed to put down African American on Gov Documents :(

[Imerson]

I will be in Florida on Tues instead of CA, and no I didn't apply for absentee... didn't realize the timing while I had the opprotunity... :( Can I give you my vote to use in Florida? :D
I wish :(

Thankfully I already early voted NO on 2. :)

So here's an OT question... if it's wrong that marriage discriminates against gays, is it wrong that "African American" is reserved for a certain sect of people? I am Chinese but I am not legally allowed to put down African American on Gov Documents :(
Racial labels are not meant to be completely indiscriminate. There's a specific need to differentiate between races in some cases, whereas in marriages there is not.

[JohnnyCakes]

[QUOTE=Imerson;13976847]Christians do not have a monopoly on the term "marriage," and it's high time they get off that position.

Gay marriage does not impose on another person's lifestyle. Just like heterosexual marriage does not affect gay relationships, civil unions, or whatever term people have measured out to them now.

QUOTE]

pretty much why Wall Street tanked this year was Congress wasting thier time with same-sex marriage,steroids probe of baseball players and global warming instead of fixing the economy. I don`t care about gays getting married,in fact its a lesbian who wants to get married as males like multiple sex partners,don`t worry about global warming the earth will be here while you will be dead and buried in it and I like baseball players on steriods the game was more exciting with all those homeruns. Stop wasting tax payers dollars on the three subjects that aren`t going to help the majority of Americans and start looking at ways to make more money and cure cancers.

[PaganMaiden]

[
pretty much why Wall Street tanked this year was Congress wasting thier time with same-sex marriage,steroids probe of baseball players and global warming instead of fixing the economy. I don`t care about gays getting married,in fact its a lesbian who wants to get married as males like multiple sex partners,don`t worry about global warming the earth will be here while you will be dead and buried in it and I like baseball players on steriods the game was more exciting with all those homeruns. Stop wasting tax payers dollars on the three subjects that aren`t going to help the majority of Americans and start looking at ways to make more money and cure cancers.

What a profound analysis of our current economic crisis. Are you an economist? It's such a relief to get the down-low from someone on the inside who really knows the foundational issues at work in the financial markets. I'm so relieved that you aren't being drawn into simple stereotypes. that enable people to further vilify and sexualize this particular group of people making them nothing more than their sexuality, and distracting from the issue at hand. :annoyed:

If you were one of those being discriminated against (or simply valued the 'equal rights for all' mantra as more than just lip service), I imagine you'd find it most certainly deserves legal attention.

[JohnnyCakes]

What a profound analysis of our current economic crisis. Are you an economist? It's such a relief to get the down-low from someone on the inside who really knows the foundational issues at work in the financial markets. I'm so relieved that you aren't being drawn into simple stereotypes. that enable people to further vilify and sexualize this particular group of people making them nothing more than their sexuality, and distracting from the issue at hand. :annoyed:

If you were one of those being discriminated against (or simply valued the 'equal rights for all' mantra as more than just lip service), I imagine you'd find it most certainly deserves legal attention.

most people only care about the above 3 issues, they are used as a smokescreen to divert the attention of the rich screwing the poor. If I was in congress, I would make same sex marriages legal so its not a issue anymore, so we can focus on more important issues about our great country.

[chazas]

Another thread full of "Your tolerance requires you to tolerate my intolerance." :vomit:

Believe what you want. Live how you wish to live. But if your beliefs are intolerant of me - particularly when use that to deny me equality - the gloves are off.

It's not a statistical sample - but as a middle-aged gay man with lots of gay and lesbian friends - I don't know ANYONE who is opposed to gay marriage. There are some who can't fathom why we would buy into it, or who say it's not for them, or who would settle for civil unions that are the legal equivalent of marriage - but no one thinks that we shouldn't have the right to marry if we wish. No one.

[JohnnyCakes]

Another thread full of "Your tolerance requires you to tolerate my intolerance." :vomit:

Believe what you want. Live how you wish to live. But if your beliefs are intolerant of me - particularly when use that to deny me equality - the gloves are off.

It's not a statistical sample - but as a middle-aged gay man with lots of gay and lesbian friends - I don't know ANYONE who is opposed to gay marriage. There are some who can't fathom why we would buy into it, or who say it's not for them, or who would settle for civil unions that are the legal equivalent of marriage - but no one thinks that we shouldn't have the right to marry if we wish. No one.

I as a hetrosexual 30 year old something who has straight male and straight female friends want same sex marriage to be legal so we don`t have to hear about how special and unique you are. Once you can get married then we won`t have to hear about it no more and we can concentrate on more important matters.Go get married,you have the majority of the American people`s blessing.

[rayzac]

pretty much why Wall Street tanked this year was Congress wasting thier time with same-sex marriage,steroids probe of baseball players and global warming instead of fixing the economy. I don`t care about gays getting married,in fact its a lesbian who wants to get married as males like multiple sex partners,don`t worry about global warming the earth will be here while you will be dead and buried in it and I like baseball players on steriods the game was more exciting with all those homeruns. Stop wasting tax payers dollars on the three subjects that aren`t going to help the majority of Americans and start looking at ways to make more money and cure cancers.


Not to excuse Congress, but it is important to remember that Bush and his administration
continually kept extolling how strong the economy was and chastising those who thought differently. In fact, the economy discussion thread we have here started with an article about how fundamentally strong it was and has pages and pages of members agreeing and posting other articles trying to state the same. It was this mass ignorance that really is to fault for not fixing things soon.

[larrymoencurly]

Legalized gay marriage will be widely accepted in ten years because almost nobody under 25 is prejudiced against gays. So why put up a fight?

[JohnnyCakes]

Legalized gay marriage will be widely accepted in ten years because almost nobody under 25 is prejudiced against gays. So why put up a fight?

Because people don`t like the idea of thier 18 year old son marrying a 50 year old gay man or thier 18 year old daughter marrying Rosie O'Donnell.In ten years when your older(35) and have your own kids. you will understand!

[bonkman]

Because people don`t like the idea of thier 18 year old son marrying a 50 year old gay man or thier 18 year old daughter marrying Rosie O'Donnell.In ten years when your older(35) and have your own kids. you will understand!
People also don't like their 18 year old daughter marrying a 95 year old man, or vice versa.

[buyerandseller]

Legalized gay marriage will be widely accepted in ten years because almost nobody under 25 is prejudiced against gays. So why put up a fight?

Yes because only 75 year olds are against gay marriage.

[skiman]

Because people don`t like the idea of thier 18 year old son marrying a 50 year old gay man or thier 18 year old daughter marrying Rosie O'Donnell.In ten years when your older(35) and have your own kids. you will understand!

:seehear:

Ah. The Ostrich argument.

I'm sure these people gain comfort from the idea that their sons and daughters are sexually cohabiting with the same people- just as long as they can't file jointly:doh:

[Rebound]

Legalized gay marriage will be widely accepted in ten years because almost nobody under 25 is prejudiced against gays. So why put up a fight?You're absolutely right. Acceptance of gay marriage has skyrocked over the past ten years, and it's only a matter of time before it's the law. It's also a matter of time before the military wakes up and figures out that around a third of the women are gay.

[buyerandseller]

You're absolutely right. Acceptance of gay marriage has skyrocked over the past ten years, and it's only a matter of time before it's the law. It's also a matter of time before the military wakes up and figures out that around a third of the women are gay.

link? or just a remark meaning to show that you think there is a lot of females int eh military who are lesbians.

If the latter, then I won't bother you about it because I'm not in the mood to ream someone over a tossaway remark like that.

[xillix]

Hey if they do allow gay marriage, wont Muslim & traditional Mormon people be able to contend that men can marry multiple wives since it's in their bible/koran? :scratch:
Well, the way it should work is that those people should be allowed to marry within their religion and then use existing government laws to create some type of contract to make a legal version of their plan. If they want to do so. If they just want to be all together and say fark the law then they can do that too.

There should be no law that stops people from creating some type of incorporation based on their own desires or wishes. As long as the parties can enter into a contract (no kids or retards in would seem) then what is the harm to anyone?
link? or just a remark meaning to show that you think there is a lot of females int eh military who are lesbians.

If the latter, then I won't bother you about it because I'm not in the mood to ream someone over a tossaway remark like that.
Considering that like 90 per cent of the regular population is lesbians it makes sense.

At least 9 of 10 women will have nothing to do with me when I try to talk to them. They are obviously lesbians.

[buyerandseller]

Considering that like 90 per cent of the regular population is lesbians it makes sense.

At least 9 of 10 women will have nothing to do with me when I try to talk to them. They are obviously lesbians.

:lol: well played

[bonkman]

However monogamy in nature contains periods or episodes of infidelity.

Additionally supporting offspring does not provide any assistance to the parents. It is a burden. Assuming some benefit later does not mean that an organism should decrease likelihood of surviving the now.

Man is it hard to be so wrong. Not all animals have episodes of infidelity. Sure, some "monogamous" animals do -- swans were recently discovered to cheat -- but not all. Some people are studying where these differences come from. See Larry Young @ Emory. Not to mention, it's never been determined that people (or other animals) are unfaithful to spread their seed. The amount of affairs people have vastly outnumbers the amount of kids people have in those affairs, contradicting your belief.

And you're incorrect -- while it's a burden at first to take care of offspring, later in life, the offspring tend to take care of the parents. At least, for humans. Having a kid now has negligible effect on current survival, due to the advancement of humanity.


On another note, you really do hate science, do you not?

Damn, you have me pegged. What gave it away?

[jamegumb]

Since the discussion's now here, the case again resurfaces: should churches that donate large sums of money to political campaigns remain tax-exempt organizations?

[buyerandseller]

Since the discussion's now here, the case again resurfaces: should churches that donate large sums of money to political campaigns remain tax-exempt organizations?

Should government funded tax exempt organizations public endorse a candidate and also run ads against that person's opponent?

[skiman]

Since the discussion's now here, the case again resurfaces: should churches that donate large sums of money to political campaigns remain tax-exempt organizations?

I don't know. IMO, it puts them- at worst- in the same class as any other 527, which I think are tax exempt. I think to end their exemption we'd have to get rid of the other too- which may be okay.

Anything we can do to reinforce the barrier between church and state is positive for both sides.

[jamegumb]

Should government funded tax exempt organizations public endorse a candidate and also run ads against that person's opponent?

I'd say 'no'. Being tax-exempt essentially gives you more money to spend on politics.

But I'm certain I haven't thought through all of the ramifications of this or the church issue,

[chazas]

Picking up from the Prop 8 thread, lobo411 replied to me, saying no one was saying that we couldn't have long-term committed relationships, just that those were called civil unions.

First, can you read? Second, can you think?

I said, whether we can have long-term committed relationships used to be widely disputed. We proved that wrong and now the battleground is that folks think our relationships aren't as good as theirs. You just proved my point. They're only called civil unions (well, in lucky states, my state doesn't even have those, the're precluded by state constitution also) because people don't think our relationships are as good as straight peoples'.

[buyerandseller]

Picking up from the Prop 8 thread, lobo411 replied to me, saying no one was saying that we couldn't have long-term committed relationships, just that those were called civil unions.

First, can you read? Second, can you think?

I said, whether we can have long-term committed relationships used to be widely disputed. We proved that wrong and now the battleground is that folks think our relationships aren't as good as theirs. You just proved my point. They're only called civil unions (well, in lucky states, my state doesn't even have those, the're precluded by state constitution also) because people don't think our relationships are as good as straight peoples'.

Incidentally, exactly what is the number for gay couples who stay together past a certain amount of time? Every show I've watched about gays from The L Word and others makes it seem like the shelf life is like 8 weeks, tops.

[bonkman]

Incidentally, exactly what is the number for gay couples who stay together past a certain amount of time? Every show I've watched about gays from The L Word and others makes it seem like the shelf life is like 8 weeks, tops.
:lol:

That's like judging hetero relationships by watching Desperate Housewives.

[buyerandseller]

:lol:

That's like judging hetero relationships by watching Desperate Housewives.

:D

true that. I think one thing that would help with people's perceptions of gay relationships is if they cancelled the gay pride parades, which just resembles a street orgy sometimes.

[riptide_slick]

Incidentally, exactly what is the number for gay couples who stay together past a certain amount of time? Every show I've watched about gays from The L Word and others makes it seem like the shelf life is like 8 weeks, tops.Why not use MA as an example? Gay marriage is legal there, and they have the lowest divorce rate in the entire country (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html).

[bonkman]

:D

true that. I think one thing that would help with people's perceptions of gay relationships is if they cancelled the gay pride parades, which just resembles a street orgy sometimes.
Would it help Al Qaeda's perception of America if we cancel Mardi Gras?

[buyerandseller]

Why not use MA as an example? Gay marriage is legal there, and they have the lowest divorce rate in the entire country (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html).

yeah but how many of those marriages are gay marriages? I'm not questioning that they have long relationships, I just don't know the numbers.

Would it help Al Qaeda's perception of America if we cancel Mardi Gras?

Is Mardi Gras the same as a July 4th Parade?

I would think that Gay Pride parades would be more equivalent to that.

Mardi Gras would be better compared to the Greeniwch Halloween parade IMO.

[riptide_slick]

yeah but how many of those marriages are gay marriages? I'm not questioning that they have long relationships, I just don't know the numbers.I don't know. I'll see if I can look up any info that MA might have on that, but it's a really tough question to answer because since gay people aren't allowed to get married, there's not really going to be any good (linkable) sources of info on the subject. And other official records of long term relationships aren't likely to exist.

It sure proves to me that gay marriage doesn't do a whole lot to "destroy" marriage as some have claimed though. Might even help it. ;)

[darkfrog]

I don't understand why people are against gay marriage from a logical, secular standpoint. Sure, if you're Xtian, you might think it's wrong for gays to be together but this isn't about religion. Marriage is the union of two individuals that declare their life long commitment to one another. There is no 'change of definition' of marriage. Is the definition of love or sex changed when referring to gays?
Not one person has been able to clarify what harm it will cause to anyone else's marriage if gays were allowed to wed. If someone can show evidence of substantial harm, then I might reconsider, but until then, live and let live.

[riptide_slick]

I don't understand why people are against gay marriage from a logical, secular standpoint. Sure, if you're Xtian, you might think it's wrong for gays to be together but this isn't about religion. Marriage is the union of two individuals that declare their life long commitment to one another. There is no 'change of definition' of marriage. Is the definition of love or sex changed when referring to gays?
Not one person has been able to clarify what harm it will cause to anyone else's marriage if gays were allowed to wed. If someone can show evidence of substantial harm, then I might reconsider, but until then, live and let live.To be fair though, it's hard to provide an argument that doesn't exist. ;)

[buyerandseller]

I don't understand why people are against gay marriage from a logical, secular standpoint. Sure, if you're Xtian, you might think it's wrong for gays to be together but this isn't about religion. Marriage is the union of two individuals that declare their life long commitment to one another. There is no 'change of definition' of marriage. Is the definition of love or sex changed when referring to gays?
Not one person has been able to clarify what harm it will cause to anyone else's marriage if gays were allowed to wed. If someone can show evidence of substantial harm, then I might reconsider, but until then, live and let live.

Not that I believe in this, but assuming you look at homosexuality from a secular, evolutionary point of view, wouldn't it considered deviant behavior since if everything is secular, and not spiritual, our drive for sex comes purely from our desire for species survival and to breed?

again, just to be clear, I don't buy into the secular, evolutionary logic to begin with, I'm just looking at it from that point of view.

[riptide_slick]

Not that I believe in this, but assuming you look at homosexuality from a secular, evolutionary point of view, wouldn't it considered deviant behavior since if everything is secular, and not spiritual, our drive for sex comes purely from our desire for species survival and to breed?

again, just to be clear, I don't buy into the secular, evolutionary logic to begin with, I'm just looking at it from that point of view.Well the most obvious flaw I can see with that reasoning is that then protected sex also becomes "deviant" behavior.

[buyerandseller]

Well the most obvious flaw I can see with that reasoning is that then protected sex also becomes "deviant" behavior.

I'm viewing it as the desire to have sex comes from an internal instinct to pro-create. In that view, love is nothing but a physical function driven by teh desire to pro-create as there is no such thing as spiritualism. I mean that is the argument we hear from secularists and evolutionary folks isn't it?

[skiman]

Not that I believe in this, but assuming you look at homosexuality from a secular, evolutionary point of view, wouldn't it considered deviant behavior since if everything is secular, and not spiritual, our drive for sex comes purely from our desire for species survival and to breed?

again, just to be clear, I don't buy into the secular, evolutionary logic to begin with, I'm just looking at it from that point of view.

No. There are other explanations, but one option is that family groups allow for an effect called "kin selection," which allows individuals with counter-reproductive traits to pass on their genes through their kin.

IIRC one example is ground squirrels. Upon spotting predators they will sound an alarm. This significantly increases the chances that the alarm sounder will fall prey. However, it significantly increases the chance that family members will escape.

Consider that for the bulk of our evolutionary history we have lived in extended family units with high mortality rates, having individuals that do not directly reproduce, yet still contribute labor and safety benefits promotes the survival of kin. It's the same advantage that monogamous pairs get from bonding- additional support for the offspring.

For example, if an individual enables survival of 2 offspring from siblings, that is the equivalent of 1 direct offspring. Now also add in the additional family members- each aunt/uncle is worth 25% reproduction. Each cousin 12.5% - and so on.

It's reasonable to believe that there has been a survival benefit to maintaining the right proportion of people with less reproductive incentive.

Which is also like the genetic sterility, I would assume. The intuitive answer is that sterility can't be passed on genetically. But that's only true for direct reproduction- yet something keeps these traits alive. Kin selection seems like a great explanation. I'm a lay person. Perhaps a legitimate scientist will correct my mistakes or give us more info.

[riptide_slick]

I'm viewing it as the desire to have sex comes from an internal instinct to pro-create. In that view, love is nothing but a physical function driven by teh desire to pro-create as there is no such thing as spiritualism. I mean that is the argument we hear from secularists and evolutionary folks isn't it?But love exists outside of a sexual context as well.

[buyerandseller]

But love exists outside of a sexual context as well.

I do agree with that, but the love between people with feelings for each other would always carry a tone of physical wanting (the internal instinct), would it not? I'm just trying to view this from a secular, evolutionary perspective.

[buyerandseller]

No. There are other explanations, but one option is that family groups allow for an effect called "kin selection," which allows individuals with counter-reproductive traits to pass on their genes through their kin.

IIRC one example is ground squirrels. Upon spotting predators they will sound an alarm. This significantly increases the chances that the alarm sounder will fall prey. However, it significantly increases the chance that family members will escape.

Consider that for the bulk of our evolutionary history we have lived in extended family units with high mortality rates, having individuals that do not directly reproduce, yet still contribute labor and safety benefits promotes the survival of kin. It's the same advantage that monogamous pairs get from bonding- additional support for the offspring.

For example, if an individual enables survival of 2 offspring from siblings, that is the equivalent of 1 direct offspring. Now also add in the additional family members- each aunt/uncle is worth 25% reproduction. Each cousin 12.5% - and so on.

Speaking from the secualr viewpoint, would not that individual who enabled survival still want to have sex, which as scientists tell us, springs forth from the desire to breed?

[skiman]

Speaking from the secualr viewpoint, would not that individual who enabled survival still want to have sex, which as scientists tell us, springs forth from the desire to breed?

Yes and no. Traits and behaviors may be complimentary without being contingent.

Some species have a desire to breed (pheromones, whatever) and not enjoy it a bit. Fish sex, not fun.

Humans have a reproductive strategy that connects sex with pleasure. We feel- and want to feel- pleasure outside of reproduction- a truth to which I'm sure you will attest:lmao: We trade frequency for effectiveness.

So we are physiologically equipped to feel/want pleasure, even if, for a specific individual, nothing will come of it.

[buyerandseller]

Yes and no. Traits and behaviors may be complimentary without being contingent.

Some species have a desire to breed (pheromones, whatever) and not enjoy it a bit. Fish sex, not fun.

Humans have a reproductive strategy that connects sex with pleasure. We feel- and want to feel- pleasure outside of reproduction- a truth to which I'm sure you will attest:lmao: We trade frequency for effectiveness.

So we are physiologically equipped to feel/want pleasure, even if, for a specific individual, nothing will come of it.

From what I've read, sex is made pleasurable because it would encourage us to have mroe sex. I don't know enough about fish sex, but everything I've read about human reproduction uses pleasure as a motivation tool for sex, which leads to reproduction.

Hell, there's even supposed to be pleasure zones in your anus to induce you to take a dump.

[skiman]

From what I've read, sex is made pleasurable because it would encourage us to have mroe sex. I don't know enough about fish sex, but everything I've read about human reproduction uses pleasure as a motivation tool for sex, which leads to reproduction.

Hell, there's even supposed to be pleasure zones in your anus to induce you to take a dump.

Right. Those pleasure points are complimentary to reproduction (or pooping), but not contingent upon that capability.

If we lose one, we do not necessarily lose the other.

[Simply99]

Way to go Cali ! ! ! ! !

It's about time someone said NO to these liberal left people that think the world owes them because they choose something.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!1

[riptide_slick]

Way to go Cali ! ! ! ! !

It's about time someone said NO to these liberal left people that think the world owes them because they choose something.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!1When did you choose to be straight?

[Jeni-CD]

That's the way it goes I guess.

[Simply99]

When did you choose to be straight?

Your a funny person. Ok so I lied your really not.

How does that humble pie taste? :vomit:

[Imerson]

Your a funny person. Ok so I lied your really not.

How does that humble pie taste? :vomit:
Are you going to answer his question? :lol:

[riptide_slick]

Your a funny person. Ok so I lied your really not.

How does that humble pie taste? :vomit:It was a serious question.

[Bound4Glory]

When did you choose to be straight?


I'd say that Simply99 was born straight, just like everyone else.

[Imerson]

I'd say that Simply99 was born straight, just like everyone else.
Link to prove that everyone is born straight?

[riptide_slick]

I'd say that Simply99 was born straight, just like everyone else.So you were born straight then. Great. Since I'm almost positive you won't be addressing Imerson's completely valid question, how about we choose this route instead:

How much money would it take for you to become attracted to a member of your same sex? Not just to have sex with them, but to actually become physically aroused by them. Do you think you could change your native attraction if the money was right?

[Bound4Glory]

Link to prove that everyone is born straight?

www.blueletterbible.org

[Imerson]

www.blueletterbible.org
Do you have a link that specifically proves that everyone is born straight?

The entire Bible doesn't prove anything :lmao:

[darkfrog]

Way to go Cali ! ! ! ! !

It's about time someone said NO to these liberal left people that think the world owes them because they choose something.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!1
I'm not a liberal, and my views can hardly be considered 'left' but I think gays should have the same options available that I have. If I get married, my spouse and I are entitled to many federal benefits, none of which I consider 'owed' to me but why do some couples get these benefits but others are denied just because they aren't a 'traditional' couple? This has nothing to do with religion, it is a simple matter of fairness and equality. If the benefits came from the church, I can see how the discrimination is allowed, but when we are talking about basic things like being able to make medical decisions and other things the state grants, then it is no longer a religious matter and discrimination should not be tolerated.

[darkfrog]

I'm viewing it as the desire to have sex comes from an internal instinct to pro-create. In that view, love is nothing but a physical function driven by teh desire to pro-create as there is no such thing as spiritualism. I mean that is the argument we hear from secularists and evolutionary folks isn't it?No. Do you really think people that acknowledge evolution somehow think that love has been figured out? Sex is not merely a means for reproduction. Some species, such as pygmy chimpanzees (bonobo) use sex for many things including greetings, alliances, submission, play behavior...
Also, please don't think people aren't be spiritual just because they aren't religious. Secular spiritualism is quite common.

[darkfrog]

Link to prove that everyone is born straight?
I was born gay but around age 13 I started to notice girls so I chose to be straight. ;)

[riptide_slick]

I was born gay but around age 13 I started to notice girls so I chose to be straight. ;):lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[skiman]

I was born gay but around age 13 I started to notice girls so I chose to be straight. ;)

No, I am Spartacus!

I was born gay, but day after day of watching my parents model their deviant hetero lifestyle transformed me.

[JoshPowell]

http://blog.tjomlid.com/wp-content/uploads/gay-marriage-cartoon.jpg

[catluver]

No, I am Spartacus!

I was born gay, but day after day of watching my parents model their deviant hetero lifestyle transformed me.

http://blog.tjomlid.com/wp-content/uploads/gay-marriage-cartoon.jpg

My stomach hurts. :lmao:

[skiman]

I think it is fairly presumptuous of you to say that a lack acceptance of homosexuality (not homosexuals) is something which needs to be "fixed". Many good, intelligent, and reasonable people feel that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy, and they are entitled to their opinion, just as others are entitled to believe that a multi-million dollar severance package for a CEO is immoral and wrong. I find both of these viewpoints highly suspect, but so long as no one takes out their unhappiness upon the homosexual or the CEO in a discriminatory way, they are perfectly acceptable viewpoints.

You continually take issue with opponents of gay marriage as infringing upon the rights of homosexuals; this may be true, but as this thread has become about why opponents of gay marriage feel as they do, I feel obliged to point out that these people do not, ideally, see homosexuals as homosexuals They see homosexuals as ordinary people who practice homosexuality. They feel as if homosexuals have every right that heterosexuals do, and they do. Homosexuals can get a job, vote, own property, even marry. They can marry all the same people heterosexuals can, in all the same places. Just because homosexuals cannot marry the partner of their choice does not mean that they are being denied rights or are being treated differently; indeed, the problem is that they are being treated the same.

The truth is, the "separate but equal" argument essentially falls apart when applied to gay marriage. Marriage was created and defined by heterosexuals and it has a clear definition, at least to the opponents of the gay variety. In this way the opposition is nothing less than semantics, but semantics dealing with one of the most sacred institutions of many religions. How can you expect anything less than staunch opposition? To many people, "gay marriage" is akin to "crawling on two legs", or "a gaggle of dogs", except relating to a central tenet of their worldview.

Imagine if an outside antagonist were to execute a bloodless coup upon our country. They say, "we now control your country. We are allowing you to keep your government, all of your possessions, and we require nothing of you except that your country shall now be called 'New Syria'". Certainly many people would be up in arms, although nothing, in fact, had changed. Would you be angry at those people? Semantics can be quite important.

Truth is, if this is going to be an ongoing issue, and I believe it is, then gays either need to resign themselves to "separate but equal" civil unions, marriage needs to be abolished as a governmental institution entirely, or people who predicate significant portions of their religion upon the meaning of a word whose meaning might be changing need to accept that change. Which of these solutions seems to be most likely? Perhaps after 20 years of civil unions, that last group will be prepared to modify the definition of marriage, if it's still important to gay people. Until then, calling them ignorant and prejudiced simply comes out sounding like the viewpoint of an elitist agnostic.

Shrug. I am an elitist agnostic, but I usually try not to be a dick about it. Nevertheless, what I believe WRT god(s) has no bearing on my legal and moral obligation to Liberty and Justice. Nor should it matter what others believe.

If I believed that homosexuals were immoral, mentally deranged lunatics, I would argue just as passionately for their right to live as they choose.

Just as I argue that for the rights of their oppressors to live as they choose without harming others. -Depite the fact that I see their beliefs and practices as unhealthy wrong, and immoral.

Such freedom to live and believe as we choose is the very foundation of this country- the quintessence of all that we claim to believe.

Certainly people are entitled to "feel that homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy." I'm not trying to take away that right- nor any other right.

Your interpretation of the separate but equal protection is decidedly different than the last 50 years of interpretation by the SCOTUS.
The Equal Protection Clause (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html) requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.

Your interpretation of the 14th amendment, as you may know, is the very position from which the anti-miscegenationists argued. "White people can marry white people. And black people can marry black people. All people are permitted to marry someone else of their race It is equal."

Thankfully the court had the wisdom to see through this sham, to recognize that such an argument is both "arbitrary and invidious, " in contradiction to 14th amendment and repugnant to the Liberty we owe one another.

Yet all these years later you are repeating the same argument that the court rightly rejected.

Know this: if your standard for equality is not "arbitrary and invidious" you may as well unwind the nation we've built all the way back to the Dred Scott case.



Beyond equal protection, the constitution protects non-harm liberties. To equally restrict polka-dotted ties would be unconstitutional regardless of equality.

Restricting a heterosexual from marrying another heterosexual of the same sex is also wrong. There is no harm in the partnership, and no cause to prevent it. Nor is there cause for the state to offer incentive to one partnership and not another when to do so clearly contradicts the accepted understanding of equality.


When we forget the above points, we may as well become Syria, for we will surely have failed to fulfill the promise of America.

So I say again, with complete comfort, the "arbitrary and invidious" oppression of gays- or any people- is based solely in prejudice and ignorance. Prejudice against that which they fear, and ignorance of our Liberties and our Justice.

It doesn't mean that they are bad people, or stupid. It does mean that they are wrong. I cannot say it more simply, they may believe and live as they choose, but the actions they take to oppress others are wrong.

[Notquiteclapton]

Shrug. I am an elitist agnostic, but I usually try not to be a dick about it. Nevertheless, what I believe WRT god(s) has no bearing on my legal and moral obligation to Liberty and Justice. Nor should it matter what others believe.

I never said that it did. I merely took issue with the onus you laid upon the proponents of Proposition 8. To accuse another of ignorance and prejudice should be an accusation which is carefully considered and well supported. Your accusation was not either.

Your interpretation of the 14th amendment, as you may know, is the very position from which the anti-miscegenationists argued. "White people can marry white people. And black people can marry black people. All people are permitted to marry someone else of their race. It is equal."

Thankfully the court had the wisdom to see through this sham, to recognize that such an argument is both "arbitrary and invidious, " in contradiction to 14th amendment and repugnant to the Liberty we owe one another.

Actually, IIRC the argument of the State of Virginia was that because the white party to the marriage and black party to the marriage were punished equally under the law, there could be no discrimination. The SCOTUS replied that because the law did not restrict marriage among non-white races, the discriminatory basis of the law was made clear.

And we saw the argument resurface WRT segregation. Blacks have their own school. Whites have their own school. It is equal. And the court saw through that argument also.

Not only did the Brown vs Board refer exclusively to the educational system, but it specifically made mention of the fact that education, by its very nature, cannot possibly be made to be equal if separated. No such distinction exists for marriage; it is a clearly enumerated set of rights, obligations, and privileges.which can be called anything and duplicated any way, but remain the same. The only difference is semantics; not location, not teachers, not tax revenue, not peers or curriculum. Simple semantics.

Yet all these years later you are repeating the same argument that the court rightly rejected.

I would love to hear where I argued this.

Know this: if your standard for equality is not "arbitrary and invidious" you may as well unwind the nation we've built all the way back to the Dred Scott case.

My standard is certainly not. I don't believe the standard presented by the detractors of gay marriage is either. Arbitrary: absolutely not; to use a definition of a word which is thousands of years old without change is as far from arbitrary as it gets. Marriage is, traditionally speaking, the union of a man and woman. This is neither arbitrary nor invidious. To preserve the definition of marriage in such a way is not arbitrary or invidious. It is simply maintaining linguistic integrity. Do I personally have a problem expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexuals? Not at all, and I have stated this before. Do I feel as if we should change the definition of an existing social institution to accommodate a previously excluded group? Sure, but I also feel that enacting change purely for changes sake, again, for semantics sake, is simply divisive and antagonistic, when it has been clearly shown, in CA at least, that a majority opposes such change. When all other things are equal, the status quo should prevail.

Restricting a heterosexual from marrying another heterosexual of the same sex is also wrong. There is no harm in the partnership, and no cause to prevent it. Nor is there cause for the state to offer incentive to one partnership and not another when to do so clearly contradicts the accepted understanding of equality.

I would assume you are also a proponent of legalizing polygamy? I don't say this to be argumentative, but I would assume most of the same conditions apply.

If the state offered no incentive for marriage, but only recognized and codified it as a matter of formality, would you still object to the term "civil union" being used for gay matrimony?

When we forget the above points, we may as well become Syria, for we will surely have failed to fulfill the promise of America.

Or, maybe we have not forgotten the above points, but merely wish to encourage equality in a less divisive and forceful way.

So I say again, with complete comfort, the "arbitrary and invidious" oppression of gays- or any people- is based solely in prejudice and ignorance. Prejudice against that which they fear, and ignorance of our Liberties and our Justice.

Are you running for president? I haven't heard such fluff since, well, yesterday.

How are gays "oppressed" by being made to partake of a union which is identical in all ways to another, but the name? Do Typhoons oppress hurricanes by having a cooler name? "Separate but Equal" notwithstanding, why on earth would you endeavor to change the very definition of a word, against popular mandate, when the obvious solution is to simply alter the term used by the government when describing the concept of "marriage"?

I can't deny that a percentage of those who voted for Prop 8 are probably homophobic, but to unequivocally categorize all said voters is no less a prejudice than that which you claim to despise.

It doesn't mean that they are bad people, or stupid. It does mean that they are wrong. I cannot say it more simply, they may believe and live as they choose, but the actions they take to oppress others are wrong.

I'm glad you give them this small concession. If homosexuals had no other recourse but marriage I would agree completely with you.

Although It may remove the edgy quality from this conversation; I would like to reiterate now that I would have absolutely voted no on Prop 8 were I a Cali resident. I feel that to create two classifications for the same institution is unnecessary and possibly insulting. I do NOT feel that it is a violation of basic rights, however, and therefore I see no reason to countermand popular sentiment to force the public to accept an alternative meaning of a word.

[riptide_slick]

How are gays "oppressed" by being made to partake of a union which is identical in all ways to another, but the name? Do Typhoons oppress hurricanes by having a cooler name? "Separate but Equal" notwithstanding, why on earth would you endeavor to change the very definition of a word, against popular mandate, when the obvious solution is to simply alter the term used by the government when describing the concept of "marriage"?Turn the question around and ask it of those that wished to formalize the definition ala an amendment and I think you'll see that it wasn't simply a matter of semantics that the populace voted on; it was their fears that the effects of such a semantic change would be felt in schools (their kids would be force-taught that homosexual unions were the norm) and in their churches (they would lose their tax exempt status if they refused to accept the legal definition.)

The Yes on 8 campaign did a good job, as they put it, of changing the parameters of the debate from "do you want gay people to have equal rights" (an argument they'd lose) to "do you want your children taught this in schools and your churches to be unfairly taxed" (two completely untrue arguments that they apparently won.)

I can't deny that a percentage of those who voted for Prop 8 are probably homophobic, but to unequivocally categorize all said voters is no less a prejudice than that which you claim to despise. I wouldn't be saying that all were homophobic (and I don't think that skiman is either), and I wouldn't even say all of them were ignorant. A lot were probably swayed by the propaganda, as incorrect as it was. But many were voting out of ignorance - voting so that they could feel like their definition (a religious one) was equivalent to the legal one (which it's not.) That's pure ignorance.

[skiman]

I never said that it did. I merely took issue with the onus you laid upon the proponents of Proposition 8. To accuse another of ignorance and prejudice should be an accusation which is carefully considered and well supported. Your accusation was not either.
It was very carefully considered. How many years of debate on this topic without even the smallest rational reason for prohibition?


Actually, IIRC the argument of the State of Virginia was that because the white party to the marriage and black party to the marriage were punished equally under the law, there could be no discrimination. The SCOTUS replied that because the law did not restrict marriage among non-white races, the discriminatory basis of the law was made clear.
You talk about the punishment.

What about the argument for the prohibition? White could legally marry white. And Black could legally marry black. To mix was prohibited. It was based on the same "biological" nonsense that lobo has been spouting. Bigotry and hatred wearing a veneer of science- Eugenics, in this case.

The "scientific differences" are as absurd now as they were then. To the state, one domestic partnership has the same effect as any other. Therefore to discriminate between them is utterly arbitrary.



Not only did the Brown vs Board refer exclusively to the educational system, but it specifically made mention of the fact that education, by its very nature, cannot possibly be made to be equal if separated. No such distinction exists for marriage; it is a clearly enumerated set of rights, obligations, and privileges.which can be called anything and duplicated any way, but remain the same. The only difference is semantics; not location, not teachers, not tax revenue, not peers or curriculum. Simple semantics.
Brown broke the back of the separate but equal argument.

Marriage has not been clearly defined in our laws prior to these actions. The attempts to legally define marriage as only between a man and a woman are new attempts to re-write the existing statutes.


I would love to hear where I argued this.
You are making the same argument WRT to sex as anti-miscegenists make WRT race.

Black and black is okay. White and white is okay. Both are equally restriced to their own race = equal = compatible with the 14th amendment.

Hetero man and hetero woman is okay. Homo person and hetero person is okay. Both heteros and homos are restricted to the opposite gender = equal = compatible with the 14th amendment.

The court disagrees (http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/glrts/inremarriage31405opn.pdf), citing case law from interracial marriage cases as the exact standard. [S]trict scrutiny (...) is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion — a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.[18]

It's an arbitrary distinction. There is no cause to establish such prohibition.


My standard is certainly not. I don't believe the standard presented by the detractors of gay marriage is either. Arbitrary: absolutely not; to use a definition of a word which is thousands of years old without change is as far from arbitrary as it gets. Marriage is, traditionally speaking, the union of a man and woman. This is neither arbitrary nor invidious. To preserve the definition of marriage in such a way is not arbitrary or invidious. It is simply maintaining linguistic integrity. Do I personally have a problem expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexuals? Not at all, and I have stated this before. Do I feel as if we should change the definition of an existing social institution to accommodate a previously excluded group? Sure, but I also feel that enacting change purely for changes sake, again, for semantics sake, is simply divisive and antagonistic, when it has been clearly shown, in CA at least, that a majority opposes such change. When all other things are equal, the status quo should prevail.
1. You are factually wrong. There have been numerous and shifting definitions of marriage since before recorded history. Two-person heterosexual. Two-person homosexual. Multi-person whatever. Priestess to deity.

-- All have been marriage at some point.

2. All other things are certainly not equal, and the status quo does not prohibit gay marriage. Remember, these bans on gay marriage are active attempts to redefine the status quo.


I would assume you are also a proponent of legalizing polygamy? I don't say this to be argumentative, but I would assume most of the same conditions apply.

If the state offered no incentive for marriage, but only recognized and codified it as a matter of formality, would you still object to the term "civil union" being used for gay matrimony?
Absolutely. There is no reason why consenting adults cannot contract to live together under the definition of marriage- a very old and traditional definition.

Further, it represents a state incursion into religious institutions- see the persecution of the Mormons. How bitter is the irony that a people persecuted for their marriage practices will so readily return the favor.


Or, maybe we have not forgotten the above points, but merely wish to encourage equality in a less divisive and forceful way.
What can I say, I have no more stomach for bigotry against homosexuals than I do for racists. People that preach hate and go out of their way to deprive others of a harmless joy deserve no patience. Is that harsh, perhaps. But to indulge such unreasonable oppression- to treat it softly- extracts a prolonged cost from the victims of oppression.

Letting bigots age and die would be fine, if it weren't for the people living under their unjust policies.


How are gays "oppressed" by being made to partake of a union which is identical in all ways to another, but the name? Do Typhoons oppress hurricanes by having a cooler name? "Separate but Equal" notwithstanding, why on earth would you endeavor to change the very definition of a word, against popular mandate, when the obvious solution is to simply alter the term used by the government when describing the concept of "marriage"?
For one, there is the issue of giving civil unions the universal currency of marriage.

For two, many of these people have the same religious respect for marriage as hetero couples. If religious organizations require state sanction of marriage, then gays are entitled to the same expression within willing churches.


I can't deny that a percentage of those who voted for Prop 8 are probably homophobic, but to unequivocally categorize all said voters is no less a prejudice than that which you claim to despise.
I disagree. I have pre-judged no person. They identify themselves by word and deed. They do not derive their intolerance from reason, but rather from doctrinal dispensation and popular practice.


I'm glad you give them this small concession. If homosexuals had no other recourse but marriage I would agree completely with you.
They currently have no other recourse. A stat civil union receives no federal recognition. There is no option for equality.

And again, if marriage is critical to religion, the gays must be allowed to practice the non-harm elements of religion.

Although It may remove the edgy quality from this conversation; I would like to reiterate now that I would have absolutely voted no on Prop 8 were I a Cali resident. I feel that to create two classifications for the same institution is unnecessary and possibly insulting. I do NOT feel that it is a violation of basic rights, however, and therefore I see no reason to countermand popular sentiment to force the public to accept an alternative meaning of a word.
Awww, don't take the edge off. I was just re-stoking my rile.:lmao:

[Notquiteclapton]

Turn the question around and ask it of those that wished to formalize the definition ala an amendment and I think you'll see that it wasn't simply a matter of semantics that the populace voted on; it was their fears that the effects of such a semantic change would be felt in schools (their kids would be force-taught that homosexual unions were the norm) and in their churches (they would lose their tax exempt status if they refused to accept the legal definition.)

The Yes on 8 campaign did a good job, as they put it, of changing the parameters of the debate from "do you want gay people to have equal rights" (an argument they'd lose) to "do you want your children taught this in schools and your churches to be unfairly taxed" (two completely untrue arguments that they apparently won.)

This may be true, in fact I'm sure it is true in many cases. That doesn't mean that there isn't a logical reason for opposing gay marriage at this point in time, so long as gays can still enjoy all of the benefits of marriage.

Let me put it this way: The demographics for Prop 8 showed that something like 70% of the under-25 population strongly opposed it. Give it another few years, today's young people are completely comfortable with homosexuality. This isn't a Brown Vs Board scenario, where portions of the population are being deprived of their future, and society must be forcibly integrated; this is a situation where, literally, if you ignore it for long enough, it will resolve itself, and the longer you keep it on people's minds, the more resistance there will be. Why run a 3-ring circus of public opinion just to win a battle of definition, when in 20 years, MAX, someone will look at the lawbooks and say, hey, why the hell are gay marriages still called civil unions? That's dumb. Change to the law passes Senate 98-0 without so much as a blip on Fox News.

I wouldn't be saying that all were homophobic (and I don't think that skiman is either), and I wouldn't even say all of them were ignorant. A lot were probably swayed by the propaganda, as incorrect as it was. But many were voting out of ignorance - voting so that they could feel like their definition (a religious one) was equivalent to the legal one (which it's not.) That's pure ignorance.

The definition of marriage has been defined by religion for as long as the US has been around. Until now, the two definitions have been essentially inseparable. There is no reason to believe that the legal definition is other than the religious one. This is a change that needs to happen, of course, but you can't pretend that it has happened already; and until that legal definition is clearly established, which is isn't, you can't claim people are ignorant of it. Simply put, there is nothing to be ignorant of; we're making it up as we go along.

This is not to say that prejudice and ignorance didn't play a significant part in the passage of the amendment. I'm sure they did. But thats part and parcel of American politics.

[riptide_slick]

This may be true, in fact I'm sure it is true in many cases. That doesn't mean that there isn't a logical reason for opposing gay marriage at this point in time, so long as gays can still enjoy all of the benefits of marriage. 1) No, there isn't a logical reason. Only a religious/spiritual one.
2) They can't enjoy all of the benefits of marriage. For one, it's not recognized by other states. Two, the name isn't the same so it's different by definition.

Let me put it this way: The demographics for Prop 8 showed that something like 70% of the under-25 population strongly opposed it. Give it another few years, today's young people are completely comfortable with homosexuality. This isn't a Brown Vs Board scenario, where portions of the population are being deprived of their future, and society must be forcibly integrated; this is a situation where, literally, if you ignore it for long enough, it will resolve itself, and the longer you keep it on people's minds, the more resistance there will be. Nonononononononononononnoo.
We do not deny a certain segment of our population rights and use "just wait it out" as our justification. Not good. If we don't speak up against oppression and discrimination then we are no better than those who oppress and discriminate.

The definition of marriage has been defined by religion for as long as the US has been around. Until now, the two definitions have been essentially inseparable. There is no reason to believe that the legal definition is other than the religious one. You have got to be kidding me. Are you married? The legal part of marriage is absolutely and positively nothing like the religious one. And you can get married legally without a single church being involved. And the state recognizes church weddings legally. Oops, but not homosexual ones (even if a church does recognize it.) That is discrimination and since there is no reasonable reason for it, it is most certainly wrong.

[Notquiteclapton]

1) No, there isn't a logical reason. Only a religious/spiritual one.
2) They can't enjoy all of the benefits of marriage. For one, it's not recognized by other states. Two, the name isn't the same so it's different by definition.

I have expounded at length about the logical reasons for traditional marriage; mostly semantic, and many those expositions are lost forever to off-topic hell. Suffice to say that I am having difficulty maintaining this argument on behalf of the supporters of a position with which I am in disagreement. If gay marriage rights are not respected by other states, this is clearly unfair.

Nonononononononononononnoo.
We do not deny a certain segment of our population rights and use "just wait it out" as our justification. Not good. If we don't speak up against oppression and discrimination then we are no better than those who oppress and discriminate.

This is just unrestrained idealism. We are not denying them rights. We are speaking up, but idealism should be tempered by pragmatism at times. If you believe that a 15 year fight over semantics, which causes great internal conflict and possibly embitters a new generation (or rather, causes the old generation to make an active effort to embitter a new generation) is better than a silent acquiescence that as long as separate actually IS equal, then that's OK for now, and in 15 years the problem will be resolved anyways, then hey, that's your prerogative. In my opinion, however, challenging deep-seated moral beliefs brings about nothing but conflict, and conflict begets conflict. Forcing an issue like this could do more harm than good in the long term. If I had a truly vested interest in gay rights, I would consider either a "separate but equal" policy or a "government stays out of marriage altogether, and heteros get civil unions as well" policy to be the ideal solution in the short term. Actually, the second is the superior long-term solution as well, but in my opinion gay rights groups discard it because they feel that pushing the marriage agenda will expedite their acceptance into society; I feel the reverse is true, but w/e.

Edit: (Of course most of the above is predicated upon gays recieving completely-equal civil unions nationwide)

You have got to be kidding me. Are you married? The legal part of marriage is absolutely and positively nothing like the religious one. And you can get married legally without a single church being involved. And the state recognizes church weddings legally. Oops, but not homosexual ones (even if a church does recognize it.) That is discrimination and since there is no reasonable reason for it, it is most certainly wrong.

How did the legal definition of marriage as of, say, 20 years ago, differ from the mainstream religious one?

Skiman, it has been a pleasure. I still think that your agnostic elitism allows less flexibility than religious zealotry in many ways, but at least I don't get a headache after talking to you for an hour. As I mentioned above, however, I grow tired of arguing a viewpoint with which I agree very little. Therefore take whatever information in the above post which applies to your response, and apply it to your response. Sorry!

I must correct you, however: the state of Virginia's argument against interracial marriage had little to do with science IIRC. It was something like, "If God wanted different colored folk to marry, he wouldn't have put them on different continents."

That's a Jon Stewart moment of truth for ya.

[skiman]

Skiman, it has been a pleasure. I still think that your agnostic elitism allows less flexibility than religious zealotry in many ways, but at least I don't get a headache after talking to you for an hour. As I mentioned above, however, I grow tired of arguing a viewpoint with which I agree very little. Therefore take whatever information in the above post which applies to your response, and apply it to your response. Sorry!

I must correct you, however: the state of Virginia's argument against interracial marriage had little to do with science IIRC. It was something like, "If God wanted different colored folk to marry, he wouldn't have put them on different continents."

That's a Jon Stewart moment of truth for ya.

And you too :nod: Funny that your devil's advocacy was so much more cogent than the believers. And yes, I am inflexible about this. For most policies I am pragmatic, but nothing gets me fired up like civil rights.

You should check out the full scope of the Virginia situation though- it's insane. The law that they they were using to discriminate- the law that was overturned in Loving v. Virginia- was the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924). We're talking forced sterilization of the "deficient"- minorities and non-minorities. Full on eugenics. :eek:

[bonkman]

Link to prove that everyone is born straight?

www.blueletterbible.org

Oh crap. I'm convinced. How could I have been so wrong?

[aclays]

>Is there a specific reason other than the bible saying marriage is between a man and a >woman?

Does there really NEED to be another reason? If a person is brought up believing that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God, and they read the Bible, then what the Bible teaches about the issue is simple fact to them. Anything in culture that goes against this teaching would seem to be simple propaganda from a corrupt society that legitimizes anything from a "personal freedom" perspective.

Leviticus chapter 18, verse 22 is fairly specific on the issue.

Just wanted to share this with you:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

[riptide_slick]

Just wanted to share this with you:I :lmao: every time I see that.

[Phreaker47]

Just wanted to share this with you:

I've read that before and it's awesome (and painfully true in regards to references.)

"Fun fact" about this one:

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Supposedly, when Troy Aikman played for the Cowboys, he wore gloves for that very reason.

[skiman]

I've read that before and it's awesome (and painfully true in regards to references.)

"Fun fact" about this one:



Supposedly, when Troy Aikman played for the Cowboys, he wore gloves for that very reason.

Does god do technicalities? Does that mean that condom use = no sex?

[bonkman]

I've read that before and it's awesome (and painfully true in regards to references.)

"Fun fact" about this one:

Supposedly, when Troy Aikman played for the Cowboys, he wore gloves for that very reason.

Ummm...I don't think Troy Aikman's Jewish. Why would he do that? Not to mention, footballs haven't been made with pigskin for a century. It's leather and a rubber bladder.

[getarealjob]

Just wanted to share this with you:

That's great. It really makes you wonder how some people pick the fairytales they want to believe in (or I guess are TOLD to believe in) and conveniently forget the others. :lol:

[bonkman]

Does god do technicalities? Does that mean that condom use = no sex?
Orthodox Jews have the same rules as Catholics with prophylactics.

[don129]

Why is it that that there's not ONE good looking gay couple getting married and on the news??? They're either scary men-like women (Ellen, Rosie) or bald, gym teacher looking fat guys. Throw in the occasional skinny, girly men, and thats about it.

Seems to me that good looking gays don't want to get married. They're having too much fun!

[lobo411]

Why is the gay supremacist movement targeting the Mormon Church, when the Catholic Church has many times the membership of the Mormon Church and also worked just as hard to defeat the measure?

Is it because gay supremacists know that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic and if they offend our church, they can kiss gay marriage goodbye for God knows how long, since we're going to be the majority in this state?

Or is it because gay supremacists know that they can feed off of religious hatred against Mormons?

:confused:

[bonkman]

Why is the gay supremacist movement targeting the Mormon Church, when the Catholic Church has many times the membership of the Mormon Church and also worked just as hard to defeat the measure?

Is it because gay supremacists know that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic and if they offend our church, they can kiss gay marriage goodbye for God knows how long, since we're going to be the majority in this state?

Or is it because gay supremacists know that they can feed off of religious hatred against Mormons?

:confused:
Or it's because the Catholics didn't donate $20 million dollars to sponsor the bill....

[lobo411]

Or it's because the Catholics didn't donate $20 million dollars to sponsor the bill....

We donated a hell of a lot more votes...

[Simply99]

Are you going to answer his question? :lol:

Yup everything is a choice. God says it is wrong, those who are choose to sin.

I had to laugh they were whining and cryng in the streets.

Too bad so sad! The will of the people was at work instead of some liberal judge.

[Elmer]

Do you have a link that specifically proves that everyone is born straight?

The entire Bible doesn't prove anything :lmao:


I think many gay people weren't born that way, and simply got sucked into it......

[JoshPowell]

Is it because gay supremacists

Did I miss where you demonstrated these "gay supremacists" actually exist?

Strawmen are lazy targets.

[chazas]

How are gays "oppressed" by being made to partake of a union which is identical in all ways to another, but the name? Do Typhoons oppress hurricanes by having a cooler name? "Separate but Equal" notwithstanding, why on earth would you endeavor to change the very definition of a word, against popular mandate, when the obvious solution is to simply alter the term used by the government when describing the concept of "marriage"?

Because that will never happen.

I can't deny that a percentage of those who voted for Prop 8 are probably homophobic, but to unequivocally categorize all said voters is no less a prejudice than that which you claim to despise.

Because all their reasons boil down to prejudice - in one way, shape or form, an argument that we and our unions aren't as worthy as those of straight people. I can see how, if a person believes that, then he or she wouldn't think he or she is prejudiced. But it is what it is.

I think many gay people weren't born that way, and simply got sucked into it......

What you think is irrelevant to reality.

[JoshPowell]

I think many gay people weren't born that way, and simply got sucked into it......

Yeah, being prejudiced against is an easy thing to get sucked into.

[lobo411]

Interesting data coming out. Why are the Gay Supremacists rioting outside of Mormon Churches, when they ought to be rioting outside of Catholic Churches?

The Field Poll, completed one week before the election, had Catholics voting at about their registered voter population size (24% of the electorate) with voting preferences similar to those of the overall electorate, with 44% on the Yes side. However the network exit poll shows that they accounted for 30% of the CA electorate and had 64% of them voting Yes. Regular churchgoers showed a similar movement toward the Yes side. The pre-election Field Poll showed 72% of these voters voting Yes, while the exit poll showed that 84% of them voted Yes.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-and-th-2.html

[Imerson]

Interesting data coming out. Why are the Gay Supremacists rioting outside of Mormon Churches, when they ought to be rioting outside of Catholic Churches?


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-and-th-2.html
Because the Mormon Church spent $20 million to promote Prop 8?

Why, would you rather they rioted outside the Catholic churches? :lol:

[getarealjob]

Interesting data coming out. Why are the Gay Supremacists rioting outside of Mormon Churches, when they ought to be rioting outside of Catholic Churches?


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-and-th-2.html

Why are people who believe in hate and intolerance referring to people as "gay supremacists?"

[EggsnBacon]

Interesting data coming out. Why are the Gay Supremacists rioting outside of Mormon Churches, when they ought to be rioting outside of Catholic Churches?


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-and-th-2.html
I don't know who you talk to, but most Catholics I know support gay marriage, despite the stance of the church.

[lobo411]

Because the Mormon Church spent $20 million to promote Prop 8?

Why, would you rather they rioted outside the Catholic churches? :lol:

34% of Californians are Catholics, and only about 2% are Mormon. So millions of Yes on 8 votes came from Catholics, and only a few hundred thousand (at best) came from Mormons.

Are you saying that Catholics are stupid and had to be fooled into voting Yes on 8?

[Imerson]

34% of Californians are Catholics, and only about 2% are Mormon. So millions of Yes on 8 votes came from Catholics, and only a few hundred thousand (at best) came from Mormons.
But the Catholic Church didn't spend $20M on ads pushing the proposition.

The Mormons put their money where their mouth was.

Are you saying that Catholics are stupid and had to be fooled into voting Yes on 8?

How the get THAT out of my post? :confused: :lmao:

[lobo411]

But the Catholic Church didn't spend $20M on ads pushing the proposition.

The Mormons put their money where their mouth was.

How the get THAT out of my post? :confused: :lmao:

So the implication is that without the $20 million, Catholics wouldn't have voted Yes on 8. Is that your perspective?

[Imerson]

So the implication is that without the $20 million, Catholics wouldn't have voted Yes on 8. Is that your perspective?
No.... :rofl2:

[lobo411]

No.... :rofl2:

So what's the point then? Mormons gave a lot of money but not a lot of votes. Catholics gave a lot of votes (and has anyone shown how much money Catholics gave?).

Arguably, Gay Supremacists should be protesting outside of both Catholic and Mormon places of worship, but instead they're targeting the minority group.

[darkfrog]

So what's the point then? Mormons gave a lot of money but not a lot of votes. Catholics gave a lot of votes (and has anyone shown how much money Catholics gave?).

Arguably, Gay Supremacists should be protesting outside of both Catholic and Mormon places of worship, but instead they're targeting the minority group.
Will you please stop using the term gay supremacist? It isn't accurate and it is annoying. No one thinks you're smart and witty when you say it either.

[Imerson]

So what's the point then? Mormons gave a lot of money but not a lot of votes. Catholics gave a lot of votes (and has anyone shown how much money Catholics gave?).

Arguably, Gay Supremacists should be protesting outside of both Catholic and Mormon places of worship, but instead they're targeting the minority group.

I'm going to need you to back up your "gay supremacist" charge. :rolleyes:

My point is that the Mormons spent the most money, despite being smaller than other religions (as you mentioned). I think it shows how strong their arguable prejudice is.

And did the entire Catholic church campaign against gay marriage, the way the Mormon Church did?

Going by Wikipedia's definition of supremacism:
Supremacism is the belief that a particular race, religion, gender, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not.

Churches that fought against gay marriage are more like supremacists than gay groups.

[Elmer]

What you think is irrelevant to reality.

Ooohh....

You got me on that one.....

Will you please stop using the term gay supremacist? It isn't accurate and it is annoying. No one thinks you're smart and witty when you say it either.

I trust you're going around and challenging the nicknames that are given to those with conservative views as well.......

[lobo411]

And did the entire Catholic church campaign against gay marriage, the way the Mormon Church did?

Yah, they did. Parishes taught that voters were free to make their own decisions but the Church's teachings opposed gay marriage.

And by your definition, the title is accurate. Gays are a tiny minority that believes that their lifestyle is superior. They were unable to cram their lifestyle-choice down our throats at the ballot box, and now they're trying to appeal to religious bigotry in an attempt to re-order the human condition.

Sorry, it just won't work.

Tell me this: If the California electorate is split 50/50 between those who support ending marriage and those who want to continue it, why not have a proposition and try to get it through? Either of these will do:

"Marriage shall be defined as any combination of individuals, in any number, according to the desires of the consenting individuals"

or

"No marriage of any kind shall be recognized within the State of California."

If marriage is only about love, then why should monogamy be privileged? Why not allow polygamy?

[Imerson]

Yah, they did. Parishes taught that voters were free to make their own decisions but the Church's teachings opposed gay marriage.
Ok, they did.

They still didn't spend $20M to try to influence everyone else's views though, did they?

And by your definition, the title is accurate. Gays are a tiny minority that believes that their lifestyle is superior. They were unable to cram their lifestyle-choice down our throats at the ballot box, and now they're trying to appeal to religious bigotry in an attempt to re-order the human condition.
But gays do not dominate or control others' lives. Religious groups that push propositions like this actually do, because they literally take away rights.

In fact the pushing a lifestyle choice down people's throat at the ballot box happened on YOUR side, because Prop 8 came after GM was legal, to take away rights.

Sorry, it just won't work.

Tell me this: If the California electorate is split 50/50 between those who support ending marriage and those who want to continue it, why not have a proposition and try to get it through? Either of these will do:

"Marriage shall be defined as any combination of individuals, in any number, according to the desires of the consenting individuals"

or

"No marriage of any kind shall be recognized within the State of California."

If marriage is only about love, then why should monogamy be privileged? Why not allow polygamy?
Link to support your claim that half of the CA electorate wants to END marriage? :nono:

Polygamy... yes, why not? I am all for legal polygamy.

However, in this situation, gay marriage is a logical extension of "traditional" marriage--between two people. Polygamy is not the same, because it involves more than 2 people.

[Elmer]

However, in this situation, gay marriage is a logical extension of "traditional" marriage--between two people.

By who's logic?

[lobo411]

In fact the pushing a lifestyle choice down people's throat at the ballot box happened on YOUR side, because Prop 8 came after GM was legal, to take away rights.

However, in this situation, gay marriage is a logical extension of "traditional" marriage--between two people. Polygamy is not the same, because it involves more than 2 people.

Nah, 2/3 California voters voted to pass Prop 22, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Fewer men and women than you'd need to have to have a baseball team decided that the votes of millions of Californians were worthless. So 53% of California voters voted to pass Prop 8, rebuking the court. The "right" was never granted, certified or approved by the people.

As to the point about polygamy, unless you accept that marriage is about something more than love (ie it's about families and child-rearing), then there is no logical reason to deny polygamy. Limiting marriage to 2 people is just as arbitrary as limiting it to a man and a woman, unless you accept that there are reproductive impulses behind marriage.

[riptide_slick]

Nah, 2/3 California voters voted to pass Prop 22, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Fewer men and women than you'd need to have to have a baseball team decided that the votes of millions of Californians were worthless. So 53% of California voters voted to pass Prop 8, rebuking the court. The "right" was never granted, certified or approved by the people.:nono:

Rights are not granted by people. Rights are granted by nature and some are affirmed by the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. People take away rights by making laws, which is precisely what happened on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court finds laws illegal, so you're chastising them for doing their job because you don't agree with the decision. That's sort of like chastising the steamroller operator because you don't like where a street is. Just saying. Also, the number of Supreme Court Justices in proportion to the population isn't even a relevant distinction to make either; it's just an appeal emotion. The amount of logical fallacies you're employing to make your argument is is a good tell about the amount of substance that is really behind it.

And while we're talking about substantiation, I'd also like to see some proof to your continued claims that marriage is all about child rearing. You've been spouting that one off since this thread began and you haven't substantiated it yet. Further, you continue to deny the obvious logical question that follows your belief too - that is the question of childless heterosexuals.

[Phreaker47]

What's unfortunate is that Prop 22 ever made it to the ballot. I'll blame the system for allowing that to happen in the first place.

[lobo411]

What's unfortunate is that Prop 22 ever made it to the ballot. I'll blame the system for allowing that to happen in the first place.

How did it get to the ballot? Maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly, but as I recall millions of Californians had to sign petitions to qualify it for the ballot. Then millions more had to vote "Yes." :shake:

[lobo411]

:nono:

Rights are not granted by people. Rights are granted by nature and some are affirmed by the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. People take away rights by making laws, which is precisely what happened on Tuesday.

Everyone has the right to marry. The law denies no one the right to marry. Rights don't exist without regulation, however. You have the right to freely assemble for a protest as long as your protest does not impede public safety.

In the case of marriage, everyone has the right to marry as long as they meet these qualifications:

Marriage is between one man and one woman
No one may be married to more than one person at one time
No one may marry a person below a minimum age

So what you'd like to do is not extend the right of marriage to include gays. They already have the right to marry. You'd like to change the qualifications for marriage, and once that door is opened, there's absolutely no logical reason not to make polygamy legal as well. There's no reason to make child marriage illegal either.

[skiman]

Nah, 2/3 California voters voted to pass Prop 22, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Fewer men and women than you'd need to have to have a baseball team decided that the votes of millions of Californians were worthless. So 53% of California voters voted to pass Prop 8, rebuking the court. The "right" was never granted, certified or approved by the people.

As to the point about polygamy, unless you accept that marriage is about something more than love (ie it's about families and child-rearing), then there is no logical reason to deny polygamy. Limiting marriage to 2 people is just as arbitrary as limiting it to a man and a woman, unless you accept that there are reproductive impulses behind marriage.

1.You are, ostensibly, an educated man. Stop belittling yourself with the idiocy of a "gay supremacy" label for rights seekers.

It's farking stupid.

Really farking stupid.

I think you know the difference between seeking supremacy and seeking equal rights.

In fact, truth be told, you are far more accurately a Catholic supremacist, in that you vote to legally compel other people to live according to your religious views, while the gays have only sought liberty for themselves. You seek to dominate and dictate rights for others, while gays only ask to live as their nature dictates.


2. As an historian, do you believe that the foundation of this country is that rights derive from the will of the majority? Do you believe this WRT to majority sexism, racism, McCarthyism, religious persecution?

If so, you must, before teaching others, review some history. You will, of course discover many wonderful documents that clearly refute this point. If the majority is always right then we have no need for a constitution at all. If the individual needs no protection from mob rule, then we might have saved ourselves some trouble with a pure democracy.

Again, I think that you already recognize this intellectual schism, but in absence of an honest argument, are making a dishonest argument more loudly. You owe yourself and your fellow Podiumites more respect.

[lobo411]

1. while gays only ask to live as their nature dictates.


2. As a historian, do you believe that the foundation of this country is that rights derive from the will of the majority?

1. They are free to do so.

2. Gays are not being denied any right.

Question: You know that I say marriage exists to produce new citizens who grow into new taxpayers, new soldiers, new judges, juries, etc... Why do you think marriage exists?

[Imerson]

1. They are free to do so.
Not to the extent of heterosexuals.
2. Gays are not being denied any right.
Yes, they are. The right to marry, that existed pre-Prop 8. Even you realize this :rolleyes:

[Imerson]

2. As an historian, do you believe that the foundation of this country is that rights derive from the will of the majority? Do you believe this WRT to majority sexism, racism, McCarthyism, religious persecution?

If so, you must, before teaching others, review some history. You will, of course discover many wonderful documents that clearly refute this point. If the majority is always right then we have no need for a constitution at all. If the individual needs no protection from mob rule, then we might have saved ourselves some trouble with a pure democracy.
Exactly.

Those complaining about "activist judges" ruling over the will of the people forget tend to forget that crucial moments in civil rights (such as Brown v BOE, which ruled that segregated schools were unconstitutional) were decided by those judges.

[lobo411]

Not to the extent of heterosexuals.

Is sodomy still a crime anywhere? If so, it should be ruled unconstitutional. Sodomy should not be a crime. Other than that, I don't know of any laws that even remotely limit the right of gays to partake in society on an equal basis with the straight majority.

[Imerson]

Is sodomy still a crime anywhere? If so, it should be ruled unconstitutional. Sodomy should not be a crime. Other than that, I don't know of any laws that even remotely limit the right of gays to partake in society on an equal basis with the straight majority.
I believe it was ruled unconstitutional at the federal level.

Homosexuals cannot get the same rights as heterosexuals, living as their nature dictates.

[lobo411]

I believe it was ruled unconstitutional at the federal level.

Homosexuals cannot get the same rights as heterosexuals, living as their nature dictates.

I thought so. What rights are homosexuals currently denied?

[skiman]

1. They are free to do so.

2. Gays are not being denied any right.

Gay marriages are being denied equal treatment for an arbitrary reason- rather than a substantial reason. Which, not unsurprisingly, is what the same thing the court said when they protected gay marriage rights from the majority- citing precedent WRT interracial marriage.

We have long established and respected that arbitrary discrimination is unconstitutional.



If you want to make a cogent argument against legalized gay marriage you only have two choices.

1. You can argue that arbitrary discrimination is constitutional and Just. (as a minority member, be careful what power you give to the mob)

2. You can argue that the prohibition against gay marriage is not arbitrary (demonstrate a substantial difference in how a formalized homosexual domestic partnership impacts the state as compared to a formalized heterosexual domestic partnership.)



You will not choose #1 and you cannot succeed with #2 unless you have some remarkable new evidence to present.

[JoshPowell]

I thought so. What rights are homosexuals currently denied?

The right to marry someone they're attracted to and in love with.

Your argument is nonsensical.

Say marriage by religious individuals was outlawed, only atheists could be married. Your right to marry would then be gone. I could then say, oh, no it isn't.. you can get married just like anybody else, convert to atheism.

Is that equal rights? No.

[lobo411]

Gay marriages are being denied equal treatment for an arbitrary reason- rather than a substantial reason.

I reject your basic premise:

If marriage is between a man and a woman, then, interracial marriage cannot be a crime. A marriage between a black man and a white woman is still a marriage between a man and a woman.

Similarly, marriage between a gay man and a gay woman is allowed, because it's still a marriage between a man and a woman.

However, a marriage between a straight man and a straight man is not allowed. The law does not care whether the two men are straight or gay. It doesn't care whether they consummate their marriage sexually or not. They are both men and they cannot be married. Being gay has nothing to do with it.

You have to define what marriage is before you can speak imo. The current socially accepted definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. You're advocating changing that. Logically, the burden of proof is on you to establish why that should be changed, not on me to prove why it should remain as it is.

The right to marry someone they're attracted to and in love with.

That's the answer Imerson and Skiman were avoiding, because they saw it for the logical trap that it is. Why does the state care about legitimizing love? If love was all there was to it, then why not allow polygamous marriages among loving, consenting adults? Clearly, the state doesn't care whether you're in love or not. Marriage as a legal construct must be about something more than just love.

If a public ritual validating the love between a man and a man, or a man and a woman, is the goal, that is fine. The state has no role in validating, legitimizing, incentivizing or recognizing anyone's love strictly for love's sake. Have all the rituals you like (religious or not).

[Imerson]

I reject your basic premise:

If marriage is between a man and a woman, then, interracial marriage cannot be a crime. A marriage between a black man and a white woman is still a marriage between a man and a woman.

Similarly, marriage between a gay man and a gay woman is allowed, because it's still a marriage between a man and a woman.

However, a marriage between a straight man and a straight man is not allowed. The law does not care whether the two men are straight or gay. It doesn't care whether they consummate their marriage sexually or not. They are both men and they cannot be married. Being gay has nothing to do with it.
But gays still cannot marry the person who they love, a right that straights have.

Your argument reminds me of an impression of George W. Bush I heard on some comedy show:
"Gay marriage? Gays can get married. As long as a gay man marries a gay woman."

You have to define what marriage is before you can speak imo. The current socially accepted definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. You're advocating changing that. Logically, the burden of proof is on you to establish why that should be changed, not on me to prove why it should remain as it is.
The reasons have been established multiple times in this thread.

In fact, there is no reason not to. The law is supposed to give equal protection and equal rights. It does not. For that reason alone, gay marriage should be allowed.

And, the socially accepted definition of marriage does not equal the legal definition of marriage.

That's the answer Imerson and Skiman were avoiding, because they saw it for the logical trap that it is. Why does the state care about legitimizing love? If love was all there was to it, then why not allow polygamous marriages among loving, consenting adults? Clearly, the state doesn't care whether you're in love or not. Marriage as a legal construct must be about something more than just love.
The state probably doesn't allow polygamous marriages for the same reason they often do not allow gay marriage. Discrimination, tradition, etc. :dontknow:

When you say love is not all there is to it, that the state is incentivizing childbirth, you ignore the valid arguments that skiman and riptide_slick have used to rebut yours multiple times in the thread. Unless I am mistaken, I have not seen you refute any of those points.

If a public ritual validating the love between a man and a man, or a man and a woman, is the goal, that is fine. The state has no role in validating, legitimizing, incentivizing or recognizing anyone's love strictly for love's sake.
This is the perfect argument for the state being out of marriage completely.

[lobo411]

But gays still cannot marry the person who they love, a right that straights have.

This is the perfect argument for the state being out of marriage completely.

Or maybe the fact is that the state doesn't care about love. In fact, historically, marriage has had more to do with economics and child-rearing than about love. Marrying someone because you love them is a relatively new phenomenon. Marriage across history and cultures has had more to do with "marrying well" than with marrying your "soulmate."

I don't think anyone has addressed the issues I raise, which get at the heart of why marriage exists at all. I ask people "why should the state care who marries who, unless marriage exists to serve some goal of the state."

And generally, the reply I get is "Everyone should have equal rights." In other words, they don't deal with the issue of why marriage exists at all; they treat it as a given that marriage should exist without ever exploring the question of why the state cares about who loves who.

Now, if some people think that marriage is only about love and the state should not care about who loves who and they think the state should get out of the business of marriage, that is fine. They should be more honest about advocating gay marriage for these reasons.

[skiman]

I reject your basic premise:

If marriage is between a man and a woman, then, interracial marriage cannot be a crime. A marriage between a black man and a white woman is still a marriage between a man and a woman.

You have to define what marriage is before you can speak imo. The current socially accepted definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. You're advocating changing that. Logically, the burden of proof is on you to establish why that should be changed, not on me to prove why it should remain as it is.


Think about what you are saying: "A marriage between a black man and a white woman is still a marriage between a man and a woman."



But an interracial marriage wasn't always a legal marriage because a bigoted majority made the choice (vote) to legally define marriage to exclude such unions.

The supreme court asked "What is the justification for excluding interracial marriages from the legal concept of marriage?" How will other be harmed by allowing such marriages? When no substantive reasons were available, such exclusions were deemed arbitrary and invidious.




This is exactly the process that we are going through now. A majority made the choice (vote) to legally define marriage to exclude gay unions.

The supreme court asked "What is the justification for excluding gay marriages from the legal concept of marriage?" How will others be harmed by allowing such marriages. When no substantive reasons were available, such exclusions were deemed arbitrary and invidious.


You are repeating, step for stepl, the arguments of our past injustices.

At one point the majority declared that black men were not persons.

The court muffed that one on the first try, but thankfully smarter, better people came along to ask how a black man was different from any other person. The answer, was the color of his skin arbitrary WRT the state. These men should have equal protection under the law.



You can maintain whatever religious understanding of marriage that you choose, but WRT to the state, there is no difference between a heterosexual partnership and a homosexual partnership. Such discrimination is incompatible with our constitution.

[Phreaker47]

How did it get to the ballot? Maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly, but as I recall millions of Californians had to sign petitions to qualify it for the ballot. Then millions more had to vote "Yes." :shake:

All I'm saying is if something is going to be deemed unconstitutional, then it should be caught and thrown out, and never get to the stage of being put up for a vote.

Everyone has the right to marry. The law denies no one the right to marry. Rights don't exist without regulation, however. You have the right to freely assemble for a protest as long as your protest does not impede public safety.

In the case of marriage, everyone has the right to marry as long as they meet these qualifications:

Marriage is between one man and one woman
No one may be married to more than one person at one time
No one may marry a person below a minimum age

So what you'd like to do is not extend the right of marriage to include gays. They already have the right to marry. You'd like to change the qualifications for marriage, and once that door is opened, there's absolutely no logical reason not to make polygamy legal as well. There's no reason to make child marriage illegal either.

Telling gays they have the right to marry if they just marry the opposite sex would be a lot like telling women 100 years ago they could vote if they had a sex change operation.

[lobo411]

The supreme court asked "What is the justification for excluding gay marriages from the legal concept of marriage?" How will others be harmed by allowing such marriages. When no substantive reasons were available, such exclusions were deemed arbitrary and invidious.


If marriage exists to foster the development of healthy, normal children, then there is no scientific justification for denying people of different races the right to marry and breed. That has always been my explanation. If a combination of the races could not produce viable offspring, then there would not be a right for interracial marriage.

Homosexuals are incapable of producing viable and healthy offspring. Therefore, they can only participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage on a basis that will produce viable offspring. That is through the combination of a man and a woman only.

As to the oft-raised "flaw" of infertility, we use the term too loosely. IE we use "infertility" when we mean "underfertility." Additionally, we have to have some practical means of determining combinations that will produce viable offspring. That way is to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It would be impractical to require fertility tests before marriage licenses would be issued, for example.

We are on a logical merry-go-round until you step up to the plate and answer my question:

For what reason is the state interested in legitimizing domestic partnerships through the institution of marriage? Certainly not for love, because as we have established, if love was the only test then polygamy would be legal.

[skiman]

If marriage exists to foster the development of healthy, normal children, then there is no scientific justification for denying people of different races the right to marry and breed. That has always been my explanation. If a combination of the races could not produce viable offspring, then there would not be a right for interracial marriage.

Homosexuals are incapable of producing viable and healthy offspring. Therefore, they can only participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage on a basis that will produce viable offspring. That is through the combination of a man and a woman only.

If the purpose of marriage is "healthy normal children" then you must, by your argument deny marriage to non reproductive pairs - by biology or choice.

No marriage for the sterile. No marriage for post-menoupausal women. No marriage for couples choosing not to reproduce.

Until you are consistent, your discrimination is arbitrary (and quite transparent).


As to the oft-raised "flaw" of infertility, we use the term too loosely. IE we use "infertility" when we mean "underfertility." Additionally, we have to have some practical means of determining combinations that will produce viable offspring. That way is to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It would be impractical to require fertility tests before marriage licenses would be issued, for example.

Utter nonsense. Again, you would have to deny marriage to post menopausal women.

IF you have any interest in achieving consistency under your proclamation, there is one standard, and one standard only that will determine if couples "deserve" additional rights. Attach rights to reproduction if that is your standard.

Get consistent within your argument, or drop the facade of reason,

I have also, on several occasions, pointed out that homosexuals are as reproductively capable heterosexual individuals- if they choose to exercise that choice.

I have also, on several occasions, pointed out that fertility technology already enables same-sex (and otherwise challenged) couples to reproduce. Two women or two men can now have a genetically shared child.



We are on a logical merry-go-round until you step up to the plate and answer my question:

We are on a logical merry-go-round because because you are using circular logic.;)


For what reason is the state interested in legitimizing domestic partnerships through the institution of marriage? Certainly not for love, because as we have established, if love was the only test then polygamy would be legal.
Again, IF, as you say, additional rights are an incentive for reproduction, attach the rights to reproduction.

Get consistent.

[mohater]

The problem is that gay people demanded that a LAW be passed to GIVE them the right to marry. Before, the law was ambiguous on the issue.

Enter tax law and benefit of being married as recognized by the state.

Now gay people want to LAW to reflect their marriage and not be ambiguous on the subject. The more they demand the LAW define them, the more people reject the claim and have propositions passed to DEFINE marriage.

Most of Corporate America accepts the gays, with "partner" benefits. The general public is not so willing to accept the same thing, and a the inability to sue everyone keeps it that way.

[skiman]

The problem is that gay people demanded that a LAW be passed to GIVE them the right to marry. Before, the law was ambiguous on the issue.

Enter tax law and benefit of being married as recognized by the state.

Now gay people want to LAW to reflect their marriage and not be ambiguous on the subject. The more they demand the LAW define them, the more people reject the claim and have propositions passed to DEFINE marriage.

Most of Corporate America accepts the gays, with "partner" benefits. The general public is not so willing to accept the same thing, and a the inability to sue everyone keeps it that way.

This is not true.

The votes around the country are to are attempts by the anti-gays to prohibit gay marriage under the law, not attempts for gays to define gay marriage.

In CA, gay marriage was assumed to be legal under existing law, and was confirmed by the CA supreme court.

Prop 8, DOMA, etc. are attempts to rewrite the definition of marriage to explicitly exclude same-sex couples.

[mohater]

This is not true.

The votes around the country are to are attempts by the anti-gays to prohibit gay marriage under the law, not attempts for gays to define gay marriage.

In CA, gay marriage was assumed to be legal under existing law, and was confirmed by the CA supreme court.

Prop 8, DOMA, etc. are attempts to rewrite the definition of marriage to explicitly exclude same-sex couples.

Chicken and Egg argument.

The proponents of gay marriage took their plea to the courts to force the law to recognize gay marriage. Like I said, the law was ambiguous on the matter. The gay marriage proponents wanted to make it solid in law.

That's where they fell short.

You say the votes for prop-8 are "are attempts by the anti-gays to prohibit gay marriage under the law, not attempts for gays to define gay marriage."

I say the pro gay marriage people basically forcing the Cali courts to rule on the matter took out of voters hands and attempted to pass laws using the courts. Something that many people say undermines our foundation (using the courts to pass new laws).

You say assumed legal, fine - did the state recognize gay marriage before the court ruled? Could a gay couple have a valid marriage certificate by endorsed by their local magistrate? If the supreme court had to rule one way or another, then the assumption doesn't hold. Since the recognition by the state is what they're going for.

[Phreaker47]

Chicken and Egg argument.

The proponents of gay marriage took their plea to the courts to force the law to recognize gay marriage. Like I said, the law was ambiguous on the matter. The gay marriage proponents wanted to make it solid in law.

That's where they fell short.

You say the votes for prop-8 are "are attempts by the anti-gays to prohibit gay marriage under the law, not attempts for gays to define gay marriage."

I say the pro gay marriage people basically forcing the Cali courts to rule on the matter took out of voters hands and attempted to pass laws using the courts. Something that many people say undermines our foundation (using the courts to pass new laws).

You say assumed legal, fine - did the state recognize gay marriage before the court ruled? Could a gay couple have a valid marriage certificate by endorsed by their local magistrate? If the supreme court had to rule one way or another, then the assumption doesn't hold. Since the recognition by the state is what they're going for.

If the law was truly ambiguous to begin with and, in practice, gave heterosexuals and gays the same right to marry, then there wouldn't be an issue. But you can't say it was both ambiguous and still "man and woman only" at the same time. If it's "man and woman only", then it's still, in effect, discriminatory. You're suggesting a neutrality that didn't actually exist.

[skiman]

Chicken and Egg argument.

The proponents of gay marriage took their plea to the courts to force the law to recognize gay marriage. Like I said, the law was ambiguous on the matter. The gay marriage proponents wanted to make it solid in law.

That's where they fell short.

You say the votes for prop-8 are "are attempts by the anti-gays to prohibit gay marriage under the law, not attempts for gays to define gay marriage."

I say the pro gay marriage people basically forcing the Cali courts to rule on the matter took out of voters hands and attempted to pass laws using the courts. Something that many people say undermines our foundation (using the courts to pass new laws).

You say assumed legal, fine - did the state recognize gay marriage before the court ruled? Could a gay couple have a valid marriage certificate by endorsed by their local magistrate? If the supreme court had to rule one way or another, then the assumption doesn't hold. Since the recognition by the state is what they're going for.

What are you talking about? How do you think ambiguous laws are resolved other than the courts?

How is that falling short? What other mechanism do people have to protect their rights other than to appeal to the courts?

Honestly, I have no idea where you're coming from.

Your proposition is that if there is a party feels they have been denied rights, their only option is to do nothing, because going to the courts is too much??:confused:

That would make civil court entirely irrelevant.

[mohater]

What are you talking about? How do you think ambiguous laws are resolved other than the courts?

How is that falling short? What other mechanism do people have to protect their rights other than to appeal to the courts?

Honestly, I have no idea where you're coming from.

Your proposition is that if there is a party feels they have been denied rights, their only option is to do nothing, because going to the courts is too much??:confused:

That would make civil court entirely irrelevant.

If people want everything in life to be determined by a concrete law, then we're in for a big poop fest as things like this, for any conceivable topic, will be escalated to the courts. Elected officials should pass laws, not the courts.

What rights were denied? Could gay couples not say "we're married"? What's the benefit of that piece of paper? Again, most employers offer be benefits to "domestic partners", why does the state have to declare you married, other than for tax benefits? What "right" are they denied? Can they not live together? Open a bank account together? Take a walk in the park? Have a ceremony? Take family pictures? My personal belief or opinion does not change your reality.

The civil court had nothing to do with this. The supreme court intervened, which came in AGAINST the will of the voters, and the voters AGAIN passed the same thing. Civil court is for individuals - we're talking macro here, not micro.

[mohater]

If the law was truly ambiguous to begin with and, in practice, gave heterosexuals and gays the same right to marry, then there wouldn't be an issue. But you can't say it was both ambiguous and still "man and woman only" at the same time. If it's "man and woman only", then it's still, in effect, discriminatory. You're suggesting a neutrality that didn't actually exist.

The pro-gay movement wanting the right to marry as a law is what mobilized the anti-gay people. The definition of one man and one woman came about to deny the gay movement's effort to get the right to marry as a law. Again, chicken and egg argument. Can't blame the reaction because it came about from the action.

Other than tax purposes, what are gay couples being denied?

[skiman]

If people want everything in life to be determined by a concrete law, then we're in for a big poop fest as things like this, for any conceivable topic, will be escalated to the courts. Elected officials should pass laws, not the courts.

What rights were denied? Could gay couples not say "we're married"? What's the benefit of that piece of paper? Again, most employers offer be benefits to "domestic partners", why does the state have to declare you married, other than for tax benefits? What "right" are they denied? Can they not live together? Open a bank account together? Take a walk in the park? Have a ceremony? Take family pictures? My personal belief or opinion does not change your reality.

The civil court had nothing to do with this. The supreme court intervened, which came in AGAINST the will of the voters, and the voters AGAIN passed the same thing. Civil court is for individuals - we're talking macro here, not micro.

Again, what are you talking about WRT "concrete law."

If a party is denied X under administrative interpretation of the law, is there ANY legal recourse other than the courts?

The courts do not pass laws, they only interpret existing laws in the context of the constitution. The CA supreme interpreted that existing law included the rights of same-sex couples to legally marry.

Same-sex couples were denied the legal rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. As you may know, this can include anything from inheritance, to hospital visitation, to credit, to alimony, and on, and on and on.

Do you understand how the courts work? Cases start in the lower courts and are progressively appealed upward. The supreme court does not just hop in to "make a new law."

In the case of CA, the local authority for marriage licenses in San Francisco started issuing licenses to same sex couples. The case that led to the Supreme Court began in San Fancisco Superior Court. Anti-gay people brought suit to stop the city from issuing licenses. Many legal actions followed, eventually making its way to the state Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court holding was that the gays were eligible for the same marriage rights under the law.

[skiman]

The pro-gay movement wanting the right to marry as a law is what mobilized the anti-gay people. The definition of one man and one woman came about to deny the gay movement's effort to get the right to marry as a law. Again, chicken and egg argument. Can't blame the reaction because it came about from the action.

Other than tax purposes, what are gay couples being denied?

Again, this is totally false. The rights existed already. Licenses were being issued already.

This was not sparked by any effort to create a pro-gay marriage law. The anti-gay folks brought a suit to challenge the local authority issuing gay marriage licenses.

How do you feel about Dred Scott? Was it Dred's fault that the court ruled that blacks were property, because he asked to be treated as a person? Is it your opinion that people who feel they are being denied rights, should do nothing?

[Notquiteclapton]

The pro-gay movement wanting the right to marry as a law is what mobilized the anti-gay people. The definition of one man and one woman came about to deny the gay movement's effort to get the right to marry as a law. Again, chicken and egg argument. Can't blame the reaction because it came about from the action.

Other than tax purposes, what are gay couples being denied?
This is pretty much what I said in an earlier post. Aggressively pursuing an agenda based mainly on being able to be "married" instead of simply have the same rights as married couples is, I believe, harmful to the gay rights cause. The average American just isn't ready, for whatever reason, to accept the change to a word and practice they are comfortable with. Forcing the agenda may make sense legally, but as far as allowing gays to become incorporated into the mainstream, it is not wise. It simply mobilizes individuals who do not want to deny gays rights but also do not want to call gay marriage "marriage", and, as shown in California, those individuals are fairly common. In other words, it antagonizes people who might otherwise be perfectly accepting of the gay community.

As I said before, this injustice is better, and more quickly, resolved by patience than activism.

[mohater]

Again, this is totally false. The rights existed already. Licenses were being issued already.

This was not sparked by any effort to create a pro-gay marriage law. The anti-gay folks brought a suit to challenge the local authority issuing gay marriage licenses.

How do you feel about Dred Scott? Was it Dred's fault that the court ruled that blacks were property, because he asked to be treated as a person? Is it your opinion that people who feel they are being denied rights, should do nothing?

Major straw man, but to provide context - was slavery allowed or not?

Judges were issuing licenses, breaking the norm. The norm was marriage was man and women, and the law was silent on the matter. Again, judges were trying to write the laws through actions and decisions. The voters, twice now, have shot the judges down, and elected officials are pretty much silent on the matter.

Laws SHOULD come from elected officials, not the courts.

The fact that it made it to the Supreme Court showed how much disregard the gay movement had with the vote, and wanted to force change on the voters at large. They always have the option of voting with their feet and moving.

Action - Reaction: Supreme Court tried to trump voters, voters trump supreme court.

[catluver]

No comment. I keep typing and erasing.

[Phreaker47]

Major straw man, but to provide context - was slavery allowed or not?

Judges were issuing licenses, breaking the norm. The norm was marriage was man and women, and the law was silent on the matter. Again, judges were trying to write the laws through actions and decisions. The voters, twice now, have shot the judges down, and elected officials are pretty much silent on the matter.

Laws SHOULD come from elected officials, not the courts.

The fact that it made it to the Supreme Court showed how much disregard the gay movement had with the vote, and wanted to force change on the voters at large. They always have the option of voting with their feet and moving.

Action - Reaction: Supreme Court tried to trump voters, voters trump supreme court.

What good is your definition of the law being "silent"? I don't get this false characterization of fairness that you have. Normally when we say "the law is silent on this matter", we would assume it means to neither promote nor inhibit something, ala the "Lemon Test" with regards to religion in government. Prop 8 was definitely about inhibiting one group. Coincidentally, prop 8 also fails the Lemon Test.

[skiman]

Major straw man, but to provide context - was slavery allowed or not?

Judges were issuing licenses, breaking the norm. The norm was marriage was man and women, and the law was silent on the matter. Again, judges were trying to write the laws through actions and decisions. The voters, twice now, have shot the judges down, and elected officials are pretty much silent on the matter.

Laws SHOULD come from elected officials, not the courts.

The fact that it made it to the Supreme Court showed how much disregard the gay movement had with the vote, and wanted to force change on the voters at large. They always have the option of voting with their feet and moving.

Action - Reaction: Supreme Court tried to trump voters, voters trump supreme court.

I don't think that you are familiar with the details of this process.

As I've been explaining, gay marriage licenses were being issued by the city of San Francisco. The courts had nothing to do with it until anti-gay groups decided to sue to stop the city. Gays did not initiate this debate in court or in the legislature.

As a point of fact, legislators and voters do make laws.

Citizens can challenge the legality of those laws in reference to the constitution via civil suit.

The courts then determine whether a new law or action is constitutional - this is their constitutional responsibility and the method by which the judicial branch serves as a check on the other branches.

The courts are not making laws, they are simply saying that the law proposed violated the constitution.



Disregard for the will of the voters? Are you serious? Do you really think people should sit down and shut up because a majority voted to oppress them? That's nonsense, and the very reason we are a constitutional republic rather than a pure democracy.

Following 9/11 do you think that a majority might have voted to outlaw mosques in this country?

If that vote had happened, what would you- or other Muslims- have done? Would you just said okay? Would you simply have left the country? Or would you have said, "that isn't constitutional" and challenged the new law?

I seriously don't understand how you can tell any people not to avail themselves of the constitutional provisions designed to allow them to fight for their rights.

The idea that we should have told Rosa Parks to get back there and sit down and shut up- to show deference to numerical majority- is a pretty warped concept of Justice.

[Phreaker47]

You'll notice that neocons never seem too concerned about a "few activist judges" making decisions, the many times those decisions go the way they want.

[Imerson]

You'll notice that neocons never seem too concerned about a "few activist judges" making decisions, the many times those decisions go the way they want.
Wow, so true. Like the recent Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment :lol:

[mohater]

You guys are going all over the place with these comparisons and it's nonsensical.

The courts had everything to do with it as a couple judges one day decided to being issuing state marriage certificates, something that was not done previously. It BEGAN with the judges interpreting the law in a way, a new way. The people who sued were in RESPONSE to this new method of interpreting the law.

Rosa parks is not even a valid argument. Blacks were oppressed, FORCED as second class citizens. I have posed a number questions on what exactly gays are being denied and you have not responded to any of them. The same with your actual comparison to Muslims after 9/11. There's a large difference between definitional oppression and physical/religious oppression. Comparing the anger after 9/11 to not one, but TWO ballot runs, is not even close. Post catastrophe anger (mob) vs religious fever is not a valid comparison.

Being extreme only begets an extreme response. Judges interpreting the silence of the law in a new way and then escalating a matter to the State Supreme Court is rather extreme. If the legislators would take a stance on this, it would end one way or another, but they're silent because they're more worried about getting re-elected than actually serving their constituents.

[Phreaker47]

I have posed a number questions on what exactly gays are being denied and you have not responded to any of them.

Filing joint tax returns, and other federal level business. Maybe, also, just a feeling that they aren't really second class citizens.

Maybe the better question is, what do you care and what do you or anyone else have to lose by gays getting married? There must be something... or why would you care?

I just want one of you guys to admit what's really at the base of this resistance.

When that story came out about a lot of newly registered black voters coming out to vote for Obama, and that around 70% of those voters also voted Yes on 8, effectively putting it over the top, plenty of them were willing to admit it. I heard things like "it aint in the bible", and so on.

[mohater]

Filing joint tax returns, and other federal level business. Maybe, also, just a feeling that they aren't really second class citizens.

Maybe the better question is, what do you care and what do you or anyone else have to lose by gays getting married? There must be something... or why would you care?

I just want one of you guys to admit what's really at the base of this resistance.

When that story came out about a lot of newly registered black voters coming out to vote for Obama, and that around 70% of those voters also voted Yes on 8, effectively putting it over the top, plenty of them were willing to admit it. I heard things like "it aint in the bible", and so on.

...and my question was ASIDE from the tax benefit.

Plenty of people have posted why they care. Some say the sanctity of marriage, some say tradition, some say gay marriage is an abomination, among many other things.

What you do in your bedroom is your business. No one is demanding they observe you to ensure you conform to all aspect of his/her code. Who is making them feel like second class citizens? Are people going around branding people gay or straight, or do gay people feel the need to tell the world that they're gay?

The pro gay marriage movement wants to be in the spotlight, they DEMAND attention. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[mohater]

What good is your definition of the law being "silent"? I don't get this false characterization of fairness that you have. Normally when we say "the law is silent on this matter", we would assume it means to neither promote nor inhibit something, ala the "Lemon Test" with regards to religion in government. Prop 8 was definitely about inhibiting one group. Coincidentally, prop 8 also fails the Lemon Test.

Do you demand to constantly fail in every single of your rebukes?

Prop 8 was a voter initiative, not a legislative push.

The law WAS silent. Some judges decided to force it to point one way or another, and then the fight started.

[larrymoencurly]

Other than tax purposes, what are gay couples being denied?The right to decide the fate of a critically-ill spouse who's in a coma and can't communicate. I used to think that simply granting a power of attorney or having a living will was enough to handle such situations, but in most states if there's no marriage, then important medical decisions can be made only by the patient's immediate relatives or a judge.

If you don't want to allow gays to marry one another, then you shouldn't allow men and women past their reproductive years to marry one another, either.

[mohater]

The right to decide the fate of a critically-ill spouse who's in a coma and can't communicate. I used to think that simply granting a power of attorney or having a living will was enough to handle such situations, but in most states if there's no marriage, then important medical decisions can be made only by the patient's immediate relatives or a judge.

If you don't want to allow gays to marry one another, then you shouldn't allow men and women past their reproductive years to marry one another, either.


BZZZT, wrong. You forgot about executer of estate. IF family/friends gets a judge to intervene, then even the spouse can be taken out of the picture regardless of living will, being a spouse, will, etc.. A judge can over-ride everything if they choose when people contest a decision.

More inane comparisons that have NOTHING to do with any stated points.

Unless you guys actually show something of a valid argument, this thread is a waste of time.

[chazas]

BZZZT, wrong. You forgot about executer of estate. IF family/friends gets a judge to intervene, then even the spouse can be taken out of the picture regardless of living will, being a spouse, will, etc.. A judge can over-ride everything if they choose when people contest a decision.

I have no earthly idea what this is supposed to say.

[Imerson]

Unless you guys actually show something of a valid argument, this thread is a waste of time.

Here is your valid argument.

Marriage (legally defined as 1man/1woman) discriminates against homosexual couples because it does not give them equal protection.
Civil unions do not grant the same benefits. You keep saying forget about the tax benefits, but that obviously makes up a large difference in benefits.

Since the law is supposed to give equal protection and equal rights, the law should be changed or interpreted as marriage allowing 1man/1man or 1woman/1woman in addition to the traditional definition. Anything else is not equal protection. Which I believe is why the "activist judges" ruled the way they did. They ruled according to the law.

YOU need to come up with a reason why THIS is unconstitutional. Otherwise "this thread is a waste of time."

On your living will point, I don't think executors of estate can make living will decisions. If they can, a link to prove it would be helpful.

Also, why the fark would anyone want to have to go to a judge to make medical decisions? You just made a great case for gay marriage. No one should have to contest decisions like that in court. With married couples it's much easier.

[skiman]

BZZZT, wrong. You forgot about executer of estate. IF family/friends gets a judge to intervene, then even the spouse can be taken out of the picture regardless of living will, being a spouse, will, etc.. A judge can over-ride everything if they choose when people contest a decision.

More inane comparisons that have NOTHING to do with any stated points.

Unless you guys actually show something of a valid argument, this thread is a waste of time.

A valid argument? How many examples do you need? It seems that you simply do not think that equal rights are important.

Perhaps better to ask yourself, "If the legal rights extended to married couples are so unimportant, would heterosexual partners be willing to give them up?"

If the rights are important enough for one group to actively exclude others, then might they also be important enough for the excluded group to pursue.

Your bizarre proposition that the oppressed are best served by mute acceptance is baffling. "Rosa got to ride the bus, who cares if she had to sit in the back?" If you would not allow yourself to be made into a 2nd class citizen, you have no reason to expect it oc others.

[lobo411]

Perhaps better to ask yourself, "If the legal rights extended to married couples are so unimportant, would heterosexual partners be willing to give them up?"


Your argument, at least WRT California, is forfeit. Gay marriage is already legal in California. It's not that the gay supremacists want gay marriage; it's that they want to destroy normal marriage:

"California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005."

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/civilunions_domesticpartnership_statutes.htm

[Imerson]

Your argument, at least WRT California, is forfeit. Gay marriage is already legal in California.
Correction: gay marriage WAS already legal in California.

Then the Christian supremacists (:lol:) stepped in and made it illegal with Prop 8.

It's not that the gay supremacists want gay marriage; it's that they want to destroy normal marriage:
Back up your claim that there are gay supremacists, and that they want to destroy normal marriage.

It has already been mentioned that in this case, religious groups fit under the definition of supremacists much more than gay groups. You haven't proven that gay groups can be called supremacists.

"California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005."

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/civilunions_domesticpartnership_statutes.htm

Domestic partnerships do not provide the federal benefits that marriage provides.

[bonkman]

Your argument, at least WRT California, is forfeit. Gay marriage is already legal in California. It's not that the gay supremacists want gay marriage; it's that they want to destroy normal marriage:

"California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005."

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/civilunions_domesticpartnership_statutes.htm
Bzzt, wrong. Marriage isn't legal in CA. Civil unions are. And they come with different benefits around the nation. So nope, try again.

Mohater: wtf are you trying to say? Because none of it makes any sense and/or is irrelevant. What's with that judges argument? "judges can do whatever they want, so everything else is irrelevant?" Heteros are currently having their cake and eating it too, not gays.

[lobo411]

Bzzt, wrong. Marriage isn't legal in CA. Civil unions are. And they come with different benefits around the nation. So nope, try again.

Apparently my play on words was too subtle for you. By "gay marriage," I mean marriage for gays. It's called civil unions.

What is the substantive difference between civil unions and marriage? You're asking that the law be changed. Tell me why it should be changed. Will gays get more rights? No. They already have the rights married people have. So why change?

[Imerson]

Apparently my play on words was too subtle for you. By "gay marriage," I mean marriage for gays. It's called civil unions.
Civil unions are NOT gay marriage :lmao:

What is the substantive difference between civil unions and marriage? You're asking that the law be changed. Tell me why it should be changed. Will gays get more rights? No. They already have the rights married people have. So why change?
The people asking that the law be changed were the groups who pushed Prop 8. Funny how you forget this :lol:

Gays do not have the rights married people have. There are no federal tax benefits for couples in civil unions.

[lobo411]

The people asking that the law be changed were the groups who pushed Prop 8. Funny how you forget this :lol:

Gays do not have the rights married people have. There are no federal tax benefits for couples in civil unions.

Nope, I think the Yes on 8 people made their case. They said "You voted for this, and your voices were quashed by a handful of judges. Vote Yes and restore the law."

The No on 8 people never made their case. That's why they lost.

Even if prop 8 was defeated 100% to 0%, it wouldn't get gays federal tax benefits.

[darkfrog]

12 Reasons Same Sex-Marriages will ruin Society:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/gaymarriage.pdf

[Imerson]

Nope, I think the Yes on 8 people made their case. They said "You voted for this, and your voices were quashed by a handful of judges. Vote Yes and restore the law."
That, and they told lots of lies about how it would affect school sex ed (allowing them to use lines like "protect children," and who doesn't want to protect children?), force churches to perform gay marriages, and somehow restrict free speech. I think that's how they pulled out the winning 2.3%.

The No on 8 people never made their case. That's why they lost.
They made the case, it just wasn't convincing to people like you... I wonder why... :lol:

Even if prop 8 was defeated 100% to 0%, it wouldn't get gays federal tax benefits.
Because of the DOMA. But if federal laws allow it (as they eventually will), gay marriage will give those benefits, and civil unions will not.

[skiman]

12 Reasons Same Sex-Marriages will ruin Society:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/pdf_docs/gaymarriage.pdf

:rofl2:

[larrymoencurly]

BZZZT, wrong. You forgot about executer of estate. IF family/friends gets a judge to intervene, then even the spouse can be taken out of the picture regardless of living will, being a spouse, will, etc.. A judge can over-ride everything if they choose when people contest a decision.

More inane comparisons that have NOTHING to do with any stated points.

Unless you guys actually show something of a valid argument, this thread is a waste of time.I didn't forget estate matters, and I didn't mention them because they were irrelevant to my point.

Next time, think a little more before you jump the gun with an accusation.

[darkfrog]

Wow, so true. Like the recent Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment :lol:Exactly. Both situations were within the purview of the judiciary. Both were Constitutional questions and in both, the majority of the justices got it right.
:secret: they also got right the Kentucky case where they upheld the removal of religious artwork from a public courthouse.

[lobo411]

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

You'll never win the support of minorities such as myself by belittling our struggle to be treated as human beings:


No-on-8's white bias
The right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights.

By Jasmyne A. Cannick
November 8, 2008
Iam a perfect example of why the fight against Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, failed to win black support.

I am black. I am a political activist who cares deeply about social justice issues. I am a lesbian. This year, I canvassed the streets of South Los Angeles and Compton, knocking on doors, talking politics to passers-by and working as I never had before to ensure a large voter turnout among African Americans. But even I wasn't inspired to encourage black people to vote against the proposition.

Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.

The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Maybe white gays could afford to be singularly focused, raising millions of dollars to fight for the luxury of same-sex marriage. But blacks were walking the streets of the projects and reaching out to small businesses, gang members, convicted felons and the spectrum of an entire community to ensure that we all were able to vote.

Second is the issue of civil rights. White gays often wonder aloud why blacks, of all people, won't support their civil rights. There is a real misunderstanding by the white gay community about the term. Proponents of gay marriage fling it around as if it is a one-size-fits-all catchphrase for issues of fairness.

But the black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.

Then there was the poorly conceived campaign strategy. Opponents of Proposition 8 relied on an outdated civil rights model, engaging the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People to help win black support on the issue of gay marriage. This happened despite the warnings of black lesbians and gays that it wouldn't work. While the NAACP definitely should have been included in the strategy, it shouldn't have been the only group. Putting nearly a quarter of a million dollars into an outdated civil rights group that has very little influence on the black vote -- at least when it comes to gay issues -- will never work.

Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park -- the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification -- to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn't effective outreach either.

There's nothing a white gay person can tell me when it comes to how I as a black lesbian should talk to my community about this issue. If and when I choose to, I know how to say what needs to be said. Many black gays just haven't been convinced that this movement for marriage is about anything more than the white gays who fund it (and who, we often find, are just as racist and clueless when it comes to blacks as they claim blacks are homophobic).

Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1.

Maybe next time around -- because we all know this isn't over -- the gay community can demonstrate the capacity and willingness to change that America demonstrated when it went to the polls on Nov. 4. Black gays are depending on their white counterparts to finally "get it."

Until then, don't expect to make any inroads any time soon in the black community on this issue -- including with this black lesbian.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,5044196.story

[darkfrog]

You'll never win the support of minorities such as myself by belittling our struggle to be treated as human beings:


No-on-8's white bias
The right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights.

By Jasmyne A. Cannick
November 8, 2008
Iam a perfect example of why the fight against Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, failed to win black support.
BLAH
BLAH
BLAH


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,5044196.story
More bullshit pseudo-elitism by someone of color. Belittling your stuggle? Please. There are legitimate comparisons that can be made between the struggle for racial equality and gay rights. Just as I, being Jewish, can claim persecution, I don't go around comparing my people's struggles with others, but legally and ethically there can be similarities. I've heard this argument before and it really boils down to, "I don't think your oppression is as bad as we had it" type of argument. How can you argue against that? This is why it's an empty argument. It is merely an attempt to appeal to emotion and complain about how bad blacks here have had it in order to downplay any issues other groups might have.

[lobo411]

It is merely an attempt to appeal to emotion and complain about how bad blacks here have had it in order to downplay any issues other groups might have.

I can't very well argue against you if you keep on making my point about clueless white people...:P

[darkfrog]

I can't very well argue against you if you keep on making my point about clueless white people...:PDeleted. Point was unnecessary. My post below is more relevant.

[darkfrog]

Oh yeah. Instead of hurling useless insults, why don't you provide evidence to why this isn't an appeal to emotion fallacy?

[skiman]

More bullshit pseudo-elitism by someone of color. Belittling your stuggle? Please. There are legitimate comparisons that can be made between the struggle for racial equality and gay rights. Just as I, being Jewish, can claim persecution, I don't go around comparing my people's struggles with others, but legally and ethically there can be similarities. I've heard this argument before and it really boils down to, "I don't think your oppression is as bad as we had it" type of argument. How can you argue against that? This is why it's an empty argument. It is merely an attempt to appeal to emotion and complain about how bad blacks here have had it in order to downplay any issues other groups might have.

:nod:

That editorial is complete nonsense. Should women have told minorities to stuff it until women had achieved full equality?

Blacks may not make campaigning for gay rights a priority, but that wasn't really the problem. The question was one of going into the voting booth and then checking the box to oppress another minority after hundreds of years of fighting against oppression.

And a monopoly on civil rights, puhleeze. Such an idea is insulting to everyone involved, transforming a pursuit of a Just society into a pursuit of selfish advancement. And that just sucks.

[mohater]

Mohater: wtf are you trying to say? Because none of it makes any sense and/or is irrelevant. What's with that judges argument? "judges can do whatever they want, so everything else is irrelevant?" Heteros are currently having their cake and eating it too, not gays.


Not really. Heteros have tradition on their side - what was the norm. State issued marriage license. Instead of having legislatures (elected officials) representing the people, the judges are forcing decisions one way or another, which is being changed by voter initiative (ballots).

It's not that everything else is irrelevant, it's that judges on the pro gay marriage side are trying to force policy with their power (either approving marriage certificates or using the supreme court to shoot down a voter initiative ballot) and then elected officials are still silent on the matter.

The pro-gay marriage having their cake and eating it too is about involving the courts, and then trying to shut down the voter initiative. Again, if the policy is going to point one way or another, it should come from the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

[bonkman]

Not really. Heteros have tradition on their side - what was the norm. State issued marriage license. Instead of having legislatures (elected officials) representing the people, the judges are forcing decisions one way or another, which is being changed by voter initiative (ballots).

It's not that everything else is irrelevant, it's that judges on the pro gay marriage side are trying to force policy with their power (either approving marriage certificates or using the supreme court to shoot down a voter initiative ballot) and then elected officials are still silent on the matter.

The pro-gay marriage having their cake and eating it too is about involving the courts, and then trying to shut down the voter initiative. Again, if the policy is going to point one way or another, it should come from the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

Appeals to tradition are not a legitimate argument for denying civil rights. Brown vs BOE, Loving v Virginia,....

State judges are usually nominated by the people. Or at least kept in office by them. Or appointed by people voted into office. Either way, they don't represent random values. Not to mention, the purpose of the judicial branch is to make sure the legislative branch doesn't pass laws that are exploitative. Like this. Otherwise we have tyranny of the majority over the minority. That's not the american way. Sorry :dontknow:

[Phreaker47]

Plenty of people have posted why they care. Some say the sanctity of marriage, some say tradition, some say gay marriage is an abomination, among many other things.

And why is it anyone's right to impose what are obviously spiritual beliefs on anyone else? Are people not allowed to have their own traditions if it doesn't harm anyone else? Why do they have to have ours?

What you do in your bedroom is your business. No one is demanding they observe you to ensure you conform to all aspect of his/her code. Who is making them feel like second class citizens? Are people going around branding people gay or straight, or do gay people feel the need to tell the world that they're gay?

The pro gay marriage movement wants to be in the spotlight, they DEMAND attention. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

So if gays were allowed to marry, they'd continue demanding attention? Who ever said they wanted to keep throwing it in your face? Do you feel that the mere existence of such weddings constitutes "throwing it in your face", and this offends you somehow? Are people going to sit outside your house with bullhorns and make sure you know they just got married?

If you really think its none of your business, then why do you want to go out of your way to make sure they can't marry each other?

What I'm getting at is, you aren't convincing me that your reasons aren't selfish in nature, based on a personal distaste, and framed by religious overtones. I'd rather just hear someone come out and say "it aint in the bible" instead of giving everyone the runaround. The runaround being that somehow gays want to be "superior" by doing what everyone else has always been able to do.

[lobo411]

Simple question. One that I have asked many times in this thread without receiving an answer:

Why does marriage exist?

It's a very simple question.

[bonkman]

Simple question. One that I have asked many times in this thread without receiving an answer:

Why does marriage exist?

It's a very simple question.
Many a thesis has been written on this. And books. Read some. Here's a hint: it's not the answer you think, and it's an answer that's changed throughout time.

[Phreaker47]

BZZZT, wrong. You forgot about executer of estate. IF family/friends gets a judge to intervene, then even the spouse can be taken out of the picture regardless of living will, being a spouse, will, etc.. A judge can over-ride everything if they choose when people contest a decision.

More inane comparisons that have NOTHING to do with any stated points.

Unless you guys actually show something of a valid argument, this thread is a waste of time.

One more thing to consider...

Generally, in a free society, the group that wants to deny a privilege to one group and grant it to everyone else is the one that needs to have a good reason for it, not the other way around.

[lobo411]

Many a thesis has been written on this. And books. Read some. Here's a hint: it's not the answer you think, and it's an answer that's changed throughout time.

Don't you have to have a definition of what something is in order to argue that you want it? How could one construct a logical argument for the expansion of an institution unless one has a working idea of what the institution is and why it exists?

So I'll ask again, and anyone may answer: Why does marriage exist?

[bonkman]

Don't you have to have a definition of what something is in order to argue that you want it? How could one construct a logical argument for the expansion of an institution unless one has a working idea of what the institution is and why it exists?

So I'll ask again, and anyone may answer: Why does marriage exist?
fine. today? as a symbol to show that people love each other.

if you want a different answer, designate a time period.

[lobo411]

fine. today? as a symbol to show that people love each other.

if you want a different answer, designate a time period.

If marriage is only about love, then why is the state involved? Why can't people simply declare, in public, that they love each other? Is it illegal for people to love each other without state sanction? If love is the only reason marriage exists, then why limit it to two individuals?

[Phreaker47]

Don't you have to have a definition of what something is in order to argue that you want it? How could one construct a logical argument for the expansion of an institution unless one has a working idea of what the institution is and why it exists?

So I'll ask again, and anyone may answer: Why does marriage exist?

In the eyes of the government and law, a wedding is essentially nothing more than a legal status change. You don't have to make vows, you don't have to answer to any god. All of that is voluntary, personal, and unofficial.

[lobo411]

In the eyes of the government and law, a wedding is essentially nothing more than a legal status change. You don't have to make vows, you don't have to answer to any god. All of that is voluntary, personal, and unofficial.

I don't see a good reason for the state to bother with recognizing people's love though. If love is the only reason, then perhaps marriage should be scrapped entirely and replaced by contractual agreements that carry the force of law.

I personally think that marriage has nothing to do with love, but it has to do with the production of children--future taxpayers, future draftees, future jurors, etc... If I accepted the premise that marriage is only a recognition of love, I would advocate the complete abolition of the institution. But I don't.

[bonkman]

I don't see a good reason for the state to bother with recognizing people's love though. If love is the only reason, then perhaps marriage should be scrapped entirely and replaced by contractual agreements that carry the force of law.

Then at least we'd have equality :) Keep in mind, what the state is currently doing is holdover from times past (though that's not reason to KEEP it that way, before you say that), while what is currently in the world is independent from that. Society changes faster than govt.


I personally think that marriage has nothing to do with love, but it has to do with the production of children--future taxpayers, future draftees, future jurors, etc... If I accepted the premise that marriage is only a recognition of love, I would advocate the complete abolition of the institution. But I don't.

We know you personally think that. You've voiced it many a time. But you're still wrong. The only reason you think that is because it makes your preferred viewpoint work. IOW, you're preventing cognitive dissonance. Of course, if that were the case, there'd be laws against infertile couples marrying, old people marrying, etc etc. You choose to ignore this, however, to keep hope alive.

[darkfrog]

I don't see a good reason for the state to bother with recognizing people's love though. If love is the only reason, then perhaps marriage should be scrapped entirely and replaced by contractual agreements that carry the force of law.

I personally think that marriage has nothing to do with love, but it has to do with the production of children--future taxpayers, future draftees, future jurors, etc... If I accepted the premise that marriage is only a recognition of love, I would advocate the complete abolition of the institution. But I don't.
You might think that's what marriage is about but you would be wrong. There are many socio-political reasons for marriage. Alliances and Kingdoms came about because of marriage. Our entire history has been formed by marriages that today would seem very unorthodox. What it really is is a vow that you want to be with another person for the rest of your life and to formalize that bond by bringing each other into their respective immediate family. It is this part, being someone's immediate family, next of kin, that requires the involvement of the state. And you notice nowhere did I have to specify between a man and a woman because that is an artificial construct that isn't needed for the definition.
perhaps marriage should be scrapped entirely and replaced by contractual agreements that carry the force of law.

I'm not sure gays would have a problem with that, but then you would have a fight on your hands from the traditionalists. Wait, aren't you one of those folks? How do you reconcile that statement with your beliefs about preserving the tradition?

[mohater]

Appeals to tradition are not a legitimate argument for denying civil rights. Brown vs BOE, Loving v Virginia,....

State judges are usually nominated by the people. Or at least kept in office by them. Or appointed by people voted into office. Either way, they don't represent random values. Not to mention, the purpose of the judicial branch is to make sure the legislative branch doesn't pass laws that are exploitative. Like this. Otherwise we have tyranny of the majority over the minority. That's not the american way. Sorry :dontknow:

The gay "rights" movement is no where close to the civil rights movements. Gays don't have separate drinking fountains, schools. It's a TOTAL non-sequitur.

The legislative branch is DOING NOTHING here.

Edit: There's nothing exploitative going on either.

[mohater]

One more thing to consider...

Generally, in a free society, the group that wants to deny a privilege to one group and grant it to everyone else is the one that needs to have a good reason for it, not the other way around.

What's a "free" society? You throw around all these terms and phrases that are totally subjective.

We don't have complete "freedoms" - every society has norms, rules, obligations, laws.