same sex marriage

[jkgrandchamp]

So the California Courts ruled infavor of prop 8 . So now all the people who did not support it are gonna be out all over the streets protesting.

[ShadeTree#55]

Equal rights for everyone, even carpet munchers and fudge packers. Seems pretty simple to me.

[xxedge72x]

Marriage = religious institution issue.

Civil unions = government issue.

[Harpua]

Marriage = religious institution issue.

Civil unions = government issue.


To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Marrige is as much a social and legal event as a religious one anymore. Straight couples can get "Married" by a judge with no religious meaning to it. This has not been a religious only life event for a long time and the people who are defending it as such are plain old bigots.

[BadgerOnLSD]

No religion has any authority over the idea of marriage.

[Harpua]

Equal rights for everyone, even carpet munchers and fudge packers. Seems pretty simple to me.


I'm trying to figure out how "Life, Liberty, and the prusuit of happiness" is only for non-gay people myself. Spperate but equal has never actually held true in any society.

[cassie96]

Oh good...our 9,876,453,329th TGG thread on gay marriage.

[BadgerOnLSD]

Oh good...our 9,876,453,329th TGG thread on gay marriage.
Careful, jkgrandchamp might crush your larrox with his size 13 boot.

[Learn To Swim]

LOCKER ROOM ASS should stay in the locker room.

[typeOnegative13NY]

I'm neither for nor against

[Yisman]

Other: put a stop to the gay marriage threads


Good post, LTS.

[The Dark Knight]

Lets say the gay marriage is between 2 men. Does one pick a best man and the other pick bridesmaids? I mean, how does that work? haha.

[Learn To Swim]

Lets say the gay marriage is between 2 men. Does one pick a best man and the other pick bridesmaids? I mean, how does that work? haha.[obligatory Murrell joke; patting of self on back]

[The Dark Knight]

[obligatory Murrell joke; patting of self on back]

I would not pat myself on the back for having a gay marriage, but do what you want.

Also, I don't get what you are saying.

[Learn To Swim]

I would not pat myself on the back for having a gay marriage, but do what you want.

Also, I don't get what you are saying.To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[The Dark Knight]

What? I don't get your Murrell joke.

[vinsjets]

I would not pat myself on the back for having a gay marriage, but do what you want.

Also, I don't get what you are saying.

You've been here long enough to know exactly what that meant.

[The Dark Knight]

Whatever. It is a funny question I asked. I do wonder how that works really. And if the gay guy who has the bridesmaids chooses, are some girls and some guys? Its a logical question to ask. That is a messed up image in my mind, to some that might seem normal.

[cassie96]

:beer:To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

:rofl::beer::rofl: Gotta love it!

[cassie96]

Whatever. It is a funny question I asked. I do wonder how that works really. And if the gay guy who has the bridesmaids chooses, are some girls and some guys? Its a logical question to ask. That is a messed up image in my mind, to some that might seem normal.


That is the LEAST of their priorities. I highly doubt that they care who is in the wedding party, at that point.

[The Dark Knight]

I was just trying to point out how odd that would look.

[jkgrandchamp]

Careful, jkgrandchamp might crush your larrox with his size 13 boot.

its a size 10 actually.

[SydneyDon]

Whatever. It is a funny question I asked. I do wonder how that works really. And if the gay guy who has the bridesmaids chooses, are some girls and some guys? Its a logical question to ask. That is a messed up image in my mind, to some that might seem normal.

I suppose they just do what they want, have the ceremony in any way that they want, like any couple does. Their choice. There is no legal requirement to have a female bridesmaid. I hardly think a bridesmaid has a place at a wedding where there is no bride anyway. If that is messed up in your mind I highly doubt you will invited to such a wedding anyway.

[brothermoose]

Nevermind...

[Scikotic]

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

LMFAO!!!!:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[TommyGreen]

Give them civil unions, but don't redefine the word.

[coorslightcans]

a penis marries a vagina there is no other way.

[GBA]

I think ideally marriages should be issued by churches and 'civil unions' would be issued by the government. Obviously that won't happen, and I still think there should be some distinction should be made between gay and straight partnerships, but regardless of that and of what people think of gays, giving them equal rights is only fair.

[SydneyDon]

I think ideally marriages should be issued by churches and 'civil unions' would be issued by the government. Obviously that won't happen, and I still think there should be some distinction should be made between gay and straight partnerships, but regardless of that and of what people think of gays, giving them equal rights is only fair.

Bollocks! I am married to my wife, we had a wedding and now we have a marriage. The fact that there was no religious content at our wedding doesn't cancel our right to call it a marriage.

Religions don't own the word marriage. Look up any dictionary for a defintion

[Cman55]

Bollocks! I am married to my wife, we had a wedding and now we have a marriage. The fact that there was no religious content at our wedding doesn't cancel our right to call it a marriage.

Religions don't own the word marriage. Look up any dictionary for a defintion

God doesn't only reside in churches nor does he favor marriage locations but instead, IMV, he blesses those that are truly in love and want to live a good life together.

I find that only Conservatives feel the need to label anything and try to control everything. Perhaps for once, they might want to try "live and let live". This goes double for the "Righteous" that take every word in the bible as the literal Word of God although it was written by imperfect humans centuries ago...

[GBA]

God doesn't only reside in churches nor does he favor marriage locations but instead, IMV, he blesses those that are truly in love and want to live a good life together.

I find that only Conservatives feel the need to label anything and try to control everything. Perhaps for once, they might want to try "live and let live". This goes double for the "Righteous" that take every word in the bible as the literal Word of God although it was written by imperfect humans centuries ago...

Probably because every civilization needs rules and tradition to exist and progress. True conservativism isn't about big government and giving them the power to regulate social customs. That's liberalism.

[SydneyDon]

God doesn't only reside in churches nor does he favor marriage locations but instead, IMV, he blesses those that are truly in love and want to live a good life together.

I find that only Conservatives feel the need to label anything and try to control everything. Perhaps for once, they might want to try "live and let live". This goes double for the "Righteous" that take every word in the bible as the literal Word of God although it was written by imperfect humans centuries ago...

Cman, I respect everyones right to believe what ever they like.
What I am opposing is the idea that only a religious based wedding ceremony can be called a marriage and that I, not having a religious ceremony, must refer to my marriage as a 'civil union'.

[The Dark Knight]

Someone filled me in on what happened with Murrell, would it have been so hard to fill me in on it instead of being an asshole?

[Cman55]

Probably because every civilization needs rules and tradition to exist and progress. True conservativism isn't about big government and giving them the power to regulate social customs. That's liberalism.

I disagree. Every Civilization needs to evolve and grow and change as their enviorment changes around them. Rules? Of course but those rules need to be revisited as well as times change. Tradition is good, but its up to each new generation to create its own traditions.

By refusing to change, adapt and be flexible, a society risks becoming stale and obsolete. Red China isn't nearly as red as it used to be. The old Soviet Union has been replaced by and large by a more modern society. Both countries had to accept social change in their "traditions" or both would have collasped from decay within.

As far as the bolded part, too bad the GOP has done exactly the opposite isn't it.

[Cman55]

Cman, I respect everyones right to believe what ever they like.
What I am opposing is the idea that only a religious based wedding ceremony can be called a marriage and that I, not having a religious ceremony, must refer to my marriage as a 'civil union'.

Don, I'm right there with ya. Whether you get married in a church or city hall, you're still married. I would resent anyone that say that unless you have a respresentative of a particular religious bent conducting the ceremony, you're not married. Civil Union is a cop out and a pacifier to those self-appointed defenders of God (Like God needs defending...)

[GBA]

I disagree. Every Civilization needs to evolve and grow and change as their enviorment changes around them. Rules? Of course but those rules need to be revisited as well as times change. Tradition is good, but its up to each new generation to create its own traditions.

By refusing to change, adapt and be flexible, a society risks becoming stale and obsolete. Red China isn't nearly as red as it used to be. The old Soviet Union has been replaced by and large by a more modern society. Both countries had to accept social change in their "traditions" or both would have collasped from decay within.

As far as the bolded part, too bad the GOP has done exactly the opposite isn't it.

That example doesn't exactly help your case against conservatism considering Russia was a socialist country and is now a republic.

[Cman55]

That example doesn't exactly help your case against conservatism considering Russia was a socialist country and is now a republic.

Perhaps not, but you do get my drift..

[Scikotic]

Someone filled me in on what happened with Murrell, would it have been so hard to fill me in on it instead of being an asshole?

Yes. It's much more fun to be an asshole about it.

[........]

Give them civil unions, but don't redefine the word.

We already had this discussion. According to the authority on the English language, the OED, marriage has never been exclusively between a man and a woman. In fact, the current "edition" includes same sex marriages in the definition.

[........]

That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world

I really don't have a problem with the SC's decision. Their hands were tied. I have a problem with a system that allows the majority of the public, many of whom are less than well informed, to rewrite the Constitution.

[GreenMachine]

a penis marries a vagina there is no other way.

You lost your chance for anal with your wife now.

[........]

Approximately 20,000 people just marched by. I am unclear on the details, but apparently they were upset about something. I can tell you they were not in opposition to the extensive and varied use of color.

[BadgerOnLSD]

a penis marries a vagina there is no other way.
So a man who lost his penis in a horrible smelting accident isn't allowed to get married?

[JetBlue]

I really don't have a problem with the SC's decision. Their hands were tied. I have a problem with a system that allows the majority of the public, many of whom are less than well informed, to rewrite the Constitution.
is it really any worse to have the majority of a population define what they deem to be acceptable for their society than a few judges force the position of the minority (and proponents for gay marriage are still a minority) on them and rewrite the constitution themselves in opposition to the public's preference? what's allowed and not allowed in society has always been determined either by the powerful or the majority. in this case, the majority won. that's pretty normal.

societies always discriminate based on what they deem acceptable behavior. in today's California, the majority still believe gay marriage is unacceptable.

[........]

is it really any worse to have the majority of a population define what they deem to be acceptable for their society than a few judges force the position of the minority (and proponents for gay marriage are still a minority) on them and rewrite the constitution themselves in opposition to the public's preference? what's allowed and not allowed in society has always been determined either by the powerful or the majority. in this case, the majority won. that's pretty normal.

societies always discriminate based on what they deem acceptable behavior. in today's California, the majority still believe gay marriage is unacceptable.

Uh, yes. Yes it is. I still don't understand how allowing gays to marry "forces" the issue on anyone. I wasn't aware that attendance at a gay marriage was necessary.

There's a reason why we engage in representative democracy and not full scale democracy. That reason involves protecting minorities from an uninformed and dangerous majority who would institute laws based on their will rather than based on the protection of rights. I have a problem with the entire progression of events in our state.

A referendum was initially placed on the ballot which allowed the majority to define civil code in 2000. In 2005, the democratically elected California state legislature voted to enact a gay marriage bill. They're not elected to office to render the will of the people, they're elected to office to act on the public's behalf and define the rights of the people under the state Constitution. They did so. Our governor vetoed it. Why did he do so? Because he felt it was an inappropriate measure? No. He vetoed it because he was afraid to take action like an elected official should, and instead turned the matter over to the courts to interpret the constitution. Again, this is their job.

Interpreting the state Constitution, the court ruled that gay marriage fell within the rights granted by the state of California. Again, they did exactly what they were appointed to do. Again, the will of state legislators elected as the informed representatives of the people and the Supreme Court, appointed to uphold the rights granted by the state Constitution, both ruled in favor of gay marriage.

So what happens? We overturn everything that representative democracy stands for and allow the majority to rule against the minority, not according to beliefs in accord with some understanding of the constitution, but by muddying the distinction between church and state and by legislating according to religious belief. It's baffling.

Again it goes to the Supreme Court, and again the Supreme Court does what it is appointed to do. It upholds the right of the people to amend the Constitution of the state of California. Again, this is the part I have a problem with. I can't understand why in the world it would be considered okay for the majority to amend the Constitution to discriminate against the minority, and I challenge you to argue in favor of this on the grounds of original intent. There's a reason why we've never seen the US Constitution put up to a public vote. It's just a shame that some of our states didn't seem to learn that lesson.

[BadgerOnLSD]

is it really any worse to have the majority of a population define what they deem to be acceptable for their society than a few judges force the position of the minority (and proponents for gay marriage are still a minority) on them and rewrite the constitution themselves in opposition to the public's preference? what's allowed and not allowed in society has always been determined either by the powerful or the majority. in this case, the majority won. that's pretty normal.

societies always discriminate based on what they deem acceptable behavior. in today's California, the majority still believe gay marriage is unacceptable.
So our society deems discrimination to be acceptable behavior?

Edit: I've thought it over and I'm completely in favor of discriminating against one group: stupid people. Not from marriage but from procreation.

[........]

So our society deems discrimination to be acceptable behavior?

Of course it does. Didn't you see the KKK float in the Rose Parade? The KKK was just a populist movement protesting a national legislature that acted against the majority will of the southern population. It was a perfectly legitimate complaint, even if the group occasionally engaged in rather extreme hijinks.

[Rextasy]

I believe homos should have as much right to be miserable in marriage as us straight folks.

[cassie96]

Someone filled me in on what happened with Murrell, would it have been so hard to fill me in on it instead of being an asshole?


We were not being assholes. We were being protective & respectful of our mods. The mods give up a good amount of their lives, in order to keep TGG the best mb in the NFL.

Their preference for same sex clandestine lovers, is their business, not ours.

The mods are generous with giving us their time, and there is no reason to intrude into their private lives.

[Hemi]

Wow another thread?

[JetBlue]

So our society deems discrimination to be acceptable behavior?

Edit: I've thought it over and I'm completely in favor of discriminating against one group: stupid people. Not from marriage but from procreation.
societies discriminate all the time. are you seriously that unaware of the practice or should we not allow you to procreate?

convicted felons can't vote while serving a sentence. that's a form of discrimination, except a felon isn't a protected class so it is allowed. if you don't understand that, you don't understand the concept of discrimination.

and if your retort is they lose the right to vote because of their crime, that is just justifying the discrimination, and either one can justify any discrimination or there is no justification for any type of discrimination. either everyone is provided the same rights that can never be taken away or rights can be selectively taken away depending on behavior and actions. sexual attraction may be an instinct, but acting on it is a behavior and act, so if behaviors and acts can lead to the barring of rights, homosexuality falls within the criteria. which side of he fence do you really stand on?

the argument comes down to whether sexual orientation is a protected class, unlike criminals. ironically, in California it is, and that is where any legitimate argument would have to start. except you didn't, you simply went to the dumbfounding assertion that society doesn't discriminate as your defense, which is because you simply want to ignore all acts of discrimination that dispute your position, which is illogical, or you're just ignorant.

[Dierking]

except you didn't, you simply went to the dumbfounding assertion that society doesn't discriminate as your defense, which is because you simply want to ignore all acts of discrimination that dispute your position, which is illogical, or you're just ignorant.
He may be all that, but he does know how to use the shift key, apparently.

[Revis Flytrap]

I'm trying to figure out how "Life, Liberty, and the prusuit of happiness" is only for non-gay people myself. Spperate but equal has never actually held true in any society.


And pedophiles too! Damn pedophilaphobs! They should be banned from TGG!

[jkgrandchamp]

They are making so much more than what it is out here . I dont know if they can appeal but they will . The news said they are already trying to get it back on the ballot in 2010. So we will see. It has been taken to a different level out here I mean they be protesting basically together on opposite sides of the street and then boom a fight breaks out . man 1 more year out here and im gone

[brothermoose]

And pedophiles too! Damn pedophilaphobs! They should be banned from TGG!

An adult fucking a child is illegal.

A grown man fucking a grown man is not.

Piss poor implication.

[Revis Flytrap]

^legal by who's law? And its only a poor implication if you view the legal statutes as your standard.

But things are legal and then illegal and then legal again. Was alcohol consumption ok, and then bad, and now ok again? Is it not true that it's "correctness" is inherent in the act regardless if one country santicifies it and another does not?

Homsexuality was considered a mental illness but now it's not. If tomorrow it is again considered a mental illness by the psychological community, would you thenl consider it a sexual deviation? What if the US government outlawed it? Would you then change your mind regarding it? Of course not. Hence, legal definitions cannot be the standard of rightness.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

^legal by who's law? And its only a poor implication if you view the legal statutes as your standard.

But things are legal and then illegal and then legal again. Was alcohol consumption ok, and then bad, and now ok again? Is it not true that it's "correctness" is inherent in the act regardless if one country santicifies it and another does not?

Homsexuality was considered a mental illness but now it's not. If tomorrow it is again considered a mental illness by the psychological community, would you thenl consider it a sexual deviation? What if the US government outlawed it? Would you then change your mind regarding it? Of course not. Hence, legal definitions cannot be the standard of rightness.

You obviously see the enormous difference between an adult abusing a child sexually and two adults engaging in entirely consensual relationships don't you? That comparison is one of the stupidest things ever written by anybody in the history of the world.

[BadgerOnLSD]

societies discriminate all the time. are you seriously that unaware of the practice or should we not allow you to procreate?

convicted felons can't vote while serving a sentence. that's a form of discrimination, except a felon isn't a protected class so it is allowed. if you don't understand that, you don't understand the concept of discrimination.

and if your retort is they lose the right to vote because of their crime, that is just justifying the discrimination, and either one can justify any discrimination or there is no justification for any type of discrimination. either everyone is provided the same rights that can never be taken away or rights can be selectively taken away depending on behavior and actions. sexual attraction may be an instinct, but acting on it is a behavior and act, so if behaviors and acts can lead to the barring of rights, homosexuality falls within the criteria. which side of he fence do you really stand on?

the argument comes down to whether sexual orientation is a protected class, unlike criminals. ironically, in California it is, and that is where any legitimate argument would have to start. except you didn't, you simply went to the dumbfounding assertion that society doesn't discriminate as your defense, which is because you simply want to ignore all acts of discrimination that dispute your position, which is illogical, or you're just ignorant.
It takes so many words to just avoid saying that you're a homophobe. It's sad that the best argument against gay marriage is that it's alright to discriminate if you can justify it.

I also can't believe you responded to my procreation comment seriously.

[brothermoose]

^legal by who's law?

It's the law where I live in Florida, and I'm guessing out in NM also.


And its only a poor implication if you view the legal statutes as your standard. But things are legal and then illegal and then legal again. Was alcohol consumption ok, and then bad, and now ok again? Is it not true that it's "correctness" is inherent in the act regardless if one country santicifies it and another does not?

Homsexuality was considered a mental illness but now it's not. If tomorrow it is again considered a mental illness by the psychological community, would you thenl consider it a sexual deviation? What if the US government outlawed it? Would you then change your mind regarding it? Of course not. Hence, legal definitions cannot be the standard of rightness.

Pedophilia has a victim.

Consensual adult homosex does not.

That is the standard by which I judge.

In this case, the current laws support what is right. That is not always the case, but thankfully I don't ever see baby butt sex becoming acceptable to society.

[Tony]

It's a states rights issue, even though I voted to give them their rights. They should be given equal protection under the law nationally, but each state should have the right to define marriage within their own boundries.

Personally, I think all marriages should be called civil unions in the eye of the law, and then let the churches call it whatever the hell they want. Someone else posted that a while ago too.

[BadgerOnLSD]

Personally, I think all marriages should be called civil unions in the eye of the law, and then let the churches call it whatever the hell they want. Someone else posted that a while ago too.
Apparently religion invented marriage as well as morality, so I guess that's not an option.

[JetBlue]

He may be all that, but he does know how to use the shift key, apparently.

I suppose if I was a secretary I would be offended by your insult of my typing. using a shift key isn't indicative of cognitive ability, as you have so appreciatively volunteered to demonstrate.

[JetBlue]

It takes so many words to just avoid saying that you're a homophobe. It's sad that the best argument against gay marriage is that it's alright to discriminate if you can justify it.

that's not the argument at all. and if it is easier for you to reduce your opponent in the debate to a homophobe so our exchange is simpler for you, feel free to do so. if you want to address this as the complex debate it actually is, I'll be more than happy to continue that as well.

all discrimination is justified. it is whether the justification is logical. is it your position that you are opposed to all forms of discrimination? so you have no problem with children drinking alcohol or driving cars? those are forms of legal discrimination we accept as a society and justify as a benefit towards soceity.

[GreenMachine]

Strange sex laws:

-- In Bakersfield, California, anyone having intercourse with Satan
must use a condom.

-- In Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse
with a live fish.

-- In Romboch, Virginia, it is illegal to engage in sexual activity
with the lights on.

-- It is illegal for any member of the Nevada Legislature to conduct
official business wearing a penis costume while the legislature is in
session.

[SydneyDon]

Strange sex laws:

-- In Bakersfield, California, anyone having intercourse with Satan
must use a condom.

-- In Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse
with a live fish.

-- In Romboch, Virginia, it is illegal to engage in sexual activity
with the lights on.

-- It is illegal for any member of the Nevada Legislature to conduct
official business wearing a penis costume while the legislature is in
session.

I've broken half of those laws, although in different locations

[GreenMachine]

I've broken half of those laws, although in different locations

Fish and Satan?

[SydneyDon]

Fish and Satan?

Bride of Satan (ex Pizza) and Lights on

[Jtuds]

Here's an article from the NY Times today:

May 28, 2009
Group Begins Ad Blitz Against Same-Sex Marriage
By JEREMY W. PETERS

The National Organization for Marriage, a conservative Christian group that has fought efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in California and in the Northeast, has set its sights on New York with its latest media campaign.

Beginning Thursday in the New York City and Albany markets, the organization will run a 30-second television commercial that warns of unanticipated social consequences if the state allows gay couples to marry.

Echoing a theme that was used in turning public opinion against same-sex marriage in California in a vote last fall, the commercial suggests that children will be taught about homosexuality in schools.

“And it’s not just kids who face consequences,” the narrator says over foreboding music. “The rights of people who believe marriage means a man and a woman will no longer matter. We’ll have to accept gay marriage whether we like it or not.”

The commercial closes with a shot of the Capitol as the number for the State Senate switchboard flashes on the screen. The Senate must act in the next four weeks if it is to pass a same-sex marriage bill before the Legislature adjourns. The Assembly passed the bill this month, and Gov. David A. Paterson has pledged to sign it.

The National Organization for Marriage said its initial ad spending, which includes the television commercial and a radio spot, was just over $100,000. That campaign will run through Sunday.

The group said it hopes the commercial, which is intended to raise doubts about an argument made by advocates for same-sex marriage — that allowing gay couples to marry is simply a matter of fairness and equality — will give opponents a louder voice in a debate that has been dominated by the other side.

“We need to combat the relative vacuum on our side,” Maggie Gallagher, the founder of the National Organization for Marriage, said in an interview on Wednesday. “This message is that gay marriage will have consequences. And if you oppose gay marriage, pick up the phone, write a letter, drop an e-mail, send us some money.”

Ms. Gallagher added: “Their most powerful argument is, ‘This won’t matter to you, so you can drop your opposition.’ ”

The campaign, which is part of a broader effort that includes automated phone calls in more than two dozen Senate districts and a billboard in Times Square, comes two days after the California Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage.

Advocates for same-sex marriage in New York, who have been laying groundwork for the bill for several years through grass-roots activity — like recruiting supporters who are now reaching out to senators — have spent at least $200,000 on television ads in the last few weeks. A commercial running in the Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse markets features a husband and wife who say it is unfair that their lesbian daughter cannot get married while their straight one can.

Already, the National Organization for Marriage commercial has stirred controversy. WPIX-TV in New York has refused to run the ad, the group said. Officials at the station and the Tribune Company, which owns WPIX, did not respond to requests for comment.

Is it just me, or is the bolded quote a ridiculous contradiction of American values?

Here's what I am getting at:
The people running that ads are Christians. Christians (not just them, but alot of them) are among the most adamant supporters of war in order to protect freedom and democracy (they even support the current one, which appears to be about neither of those.

Isn't one of the things we have to deal with in democratic societies that fact that we sometimes have to live with what society wants even though we disapprove?

I feel like this woman's ideal political regime would be a Christian democracy, where the only variation in our social norms would be limited to what the religion says is OK. Those who are not Christian would have to live the Christian way if they wanted any say in anything. And if this were the case, freedom, in it's purest sense, would be out the window.

[OhioJetsFan]

So is it majority rules or not? Or is it the voice of the minority taking precedent over the majority?

Sorry, gotta go with item one. Have no problem with that. If the voters speak, they speak, and if the voters aren't allowed to speak, then this country has truly gone to hell in a handbasket.

[JetBlue]

Here's an article from the NY Times today:



Is it just me, or is the bolded quote a ridiculous contradiction of American values?

Here's what I am getting at:
The people running that ads are Christians. Christians (not just them, but alot of them) are among the most adamant supporters of war in order to protect freedom and democracy (they even support the current one, which appears to be about neither of those.

Isn't one of the things we have to deal with in democratic societies that fact that we sometimes have to live with what society wants even though we disapprove?

I feel like this woman's ideal political regime would be a Christian democracy, where the only variation in our social norms would be limited to what the religion says is OK. Those who are not Christian would have to live the Christian way if they wanted any say in anything. And if this were the case, freedom, in it's purest sense, would be out the window.
it doesn't seem like a contradiction at all. she says exactly what you did, that she would have to live in a society that approves of behavior that she disapproves of. what exactly is your contention when your position says the exact same thing?

American society allows her to voice her disapproval of others behaviors and hope to curb it from becoming the norm. that process and right is as American as your assertion that being American means being forced to live in a society that sometimes opposes your personal views, as she would have to do if gay marriage becomes the norm. any criticism of her execution of that same freedom is the actual contradiction of American values you accuse her of.

[Jtuds]

it doesn't seem like a contradiction at all. she says exactly what you did, that she would have to live in a society that approves of behavior that she disapproves of. what exactly is your contention when your position says the exact same thing?

American society allows her to voice her disapproval of others behaviors and hope to curb it from becoming the norm. that process and right is as American as your assertion that being American means being forced to live in a society that sometimes opposes your personal views, as she would have to do if gay marriage becomes the norm. any criticism of her execution of that same freedom is the actual contradiction of American values you accuse her of.

I am not saying the woman should speak her mind or that anyone should refrain from taking (legal) action to ensure they approve of the society they live in.

However, my interpretation of her comments is that she believes that her rights and those of people like her won't matter, which is incorrect. She will not lose the right to oppose gay marriage, but if it is allowed, of course she'll have to live with it, that is democracy. If you believe in democracy, you should be willing to accept the decisions and changes that arise from it. My interpretation is that this woman would be unwilling to accept this decision, despite the process through which it was made.

[Murrell2878]

We were not being assholes. We were being protective & respectful of our mods. The mods give up a good amount of their lives, in order to keep TGG the best mb in the NFL.

Their preference for same sex clandestine lovers, is their business, not ours.

The mods are generous with giving us their time, and there is no reason to intrude into their private lives.

Wait....What?!?! :ohmy:

[cassie96]

Wait....What?!?! :ohmy:


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[RevisOfNazareth]

Let the states decide.

In my state, good luck. Gay marriage is one of the few issues a majority of every voting block in this state (except gays) tend to agree on. No is No. It's been in our constitution since the early part of this decade thanks to a referendum. I think.

In your states, maybe.

and if congress dare call "commerce clause" on gay marriage, i know of four southern states that would probably at least talk about seceding..since they already are bitching over taxes and other stupid shit.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

and if congress dare call "commerce clause" on gay marriage, i know of four southern states that would probably at least talk about seceding..since they already are bitching over taxes and other stupid shit.

Putting aside how retarded the south would be for doing that, any federal level law on equal marriage wouldn't have anything to do with the commerce clause. It would almost certainly fall under the 14th amendment.

[DeathByJets]

It boggles my mind that anyone gives a crap what any two other consenting adults want to do together.

I was recently in a month long training session that had a large component on The Constitution. I got in a sidebar discussion with the instructor (a renowned Constitutional scholar) on the subject of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He said it is not outside the realm of possibility that one could be enacted, but it is unlikely to be successful. Only once before has the Constitution been amended to limit rights (prohibition) and it was a major failure. His belief is that any similar ban will also be a failure. He also said that he thinks this is a short term issue as the youth of America strongly supports gay rights. He sees this trend continuing into the future and expects opposition to gay marriage to gradually fade away.

[RevisOfNazareth]

Marriage is a religious institution. It's been said before that the secular equivalent is the civil union.

Civil Unions. Take it or leave it..go to Canada.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Marriage is a religious institution. It's been said before that the secular equivalent is the civil union.

Civil Unions. Take it or leave it..go to Canada.

I sort of agree, but it should be civil unions for EVERYONE. Get religion the fuck out of government where it doesn't belong.

[Miamipuck]

Well I am out of work, have no medical insurance, my kids can't pass a basic science and or math test, our kids are usually 20th out of the top 20 developed nations in math or science, my town lost its biggest employer to china, my mother has herpes my dad an enlarged prostate, gas is going back to $3 bucks and oil to $75, my house is less than 1/2 its value, I can't pay my mortgage, we have how many soldiers in Iraq fighting for what exactly?, our borders aren't secure, one probable key to scientific advances is being held back by religious douchebags and our top scientists in this area head for other countries like Singapore for example, our "leaders" are creating debt at unheard of levels and we owe pretty much every other country our "firstborn", the deficit is staggering and figured to get even bigger, we import significantly more the we export, .................

none of that stuff really bothers me, my main concern right now is keeping those fags from marrying, I mean what the fuck?

[SydneyDon]

If it's good enough for penguins......

Gay penguins story (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)

[wildthing2022000]

New Hampshire just voted for it.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[Tyler Durden]

New York next?

[Yisman]

Strange sex laws:

-- In Bakersfield, California, anyone having intercourse with Satan
must use a condom.

-- In Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse
with a live fish.

-- In Romboch, Virginia, it is illegal to engage in sexual activity
with the lights on.

-- It is illegal for any member of the Nevada Legislature to conduct
official business wearing a penis costume while the legislature is in
session.

# Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

# An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin.

# In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment.

# In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor.

# In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is against the law to have sex with a truck driver in a tollbooth. (There's every woman's fantasy gone down the drain).

# In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom.

# In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk too dirty in his wife's ear during sex.

# In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car.

# In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).

# In Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer.

# In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face.

# Animals are not exempt from the law either and here are three of the most ridiculous:

# In Kingsville, Texas there is a law against two pigs having sex on Kingsville airport property.

# In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal for mooses to have sex on the city sidewalks.

# Lastly, even liberated California proves to be not quite so liberal for the animals...In Ventura County cats and dogs may not have sex without a permit.

[JetBlue]

If it's good enough for penguins......

Gay penguins story (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)

the gay penguin movie should be the next penguin movie. let's see how many open-minded parents take their children to see that.

[ToonWalker]

the gay penguin movie should be the next penguin movie. let's see how many open-minded parents take their children to see that.
You could also give a new twist to a classic joke.

Mechanic:"It looks like you blew a seal."
Penguin: "Oh no, no...it was Jeff."

[Sundayjack]

Sooooo, the Federal Court in Boston just ruled that DOMA was Unconstitutional.

Probably something that NEITHER party wanted in the news right now, but perhaps this issue will kick up again. Interesting, anyway.

Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)
July 8, 2010 06:55 PM
By Michael Levenson, Globe Staff

A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”

“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”

He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”

The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We're reviewing the decision.”

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[Talisman]

That sound you just heard was teaparty heads exploding.

Gay Marriage? States rights? Consider my popcorn ready

[Sundayjack]

That sound you just heard was teaparty heads exploding.

Gay Marriage? States rights? Consider my popcorn ready

That's the reeeally interesting part about this.

[Cman55]

# Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

# An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin.

# In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment.

# In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor.

# In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is against the law to have sex with a truck driver in a tollbooth. (There's every woman's fantasy gone down the drain).

# In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom.

# In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk too dirty in his wife's ear during sex.

# In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car.

# In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).

# In Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer.

# In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face.

# Animals are not exempt from the law either and here are three of the most ridiculous:

# In Kingsville, Texas there is a law against two pigs having sex on Kingsville airport property.

# In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal for mooses to have sex on the city sidewalks.

# Lastly, even liberated California proves to be not quite so liberal for the animals...In Ventura County cats and dogs may not have sex without a permit.

Yis, ya gotta tell me where you found these facts pardner. This is some funny shit!! :rofl:

[The Great American]

Yis, ya gotta tell me where you found these facts pardner. This is some funny shit!! :rofl:

Not really! I could be serving time in my state! :smile:

[Hobbes3259]

That sound you just heard was teaparty heads exploding.



No. it was democrat heads exploding.

With a president that sux like an electrolux, a recession, and unemployment, this was the LAST thing they wanted to be talking about heading into November.

This also puts Obama in Jeopardy in 2012, because the Justice Dept. is a party to this suit.

Can pin this one on Rove......

Martha Coakley bless her little heart.

[IATA]

Let the gays suffer with us.

[fozzi58]

Let the gays suffer with us.

I agree. Homo's have just as much a right to be miserable as hetero's....


"If you are caught sodomizing someone in Georgia, you get arrested and they put you in a cell with someone who is going to sodomize you."

[Gunther]

Same Sex marriage is stupid and no matter how they want to make it a part of civilized culture, it can never be. Why? Because same sex partners have sex not for reproduction, but for their own selfish desires. Having sex because it feels good is not enough. You can do that with anyone if they touch you right.

[IATA]

And they chose to do it with other dudes/chicks.


The religious front is now pulling into the station...NO SEX FOR PLEASURE!! NO ENJOYMENT!! GOTO CHURCH!!! GET SODOMIZED BY A PRIEST!! QUIT KISSING THAT BOY!!

[brothermoose]

Same Sex marriage is stupid and no matter how they want to make it a part of civilized culture, it can never be. Why? Because same sex partners have sex not for reproduction, but for their own selfish desires. Having sex because it feels good is not enough. You can do that with anyone if they touch you right.

So you only have sex when making babies?

And you feel that a gay man can turn you on with the right touch?

Interesting.

[IATA]

So you only have sex when making babies?

And you feel that a gay man can turn you on with the right touch?

Interesting.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

My gaydar is picking up a bogey.

[Talisman]

No. it was democrat heads exploding.

With a president that sux like an electrolux, a recession, and unemployment, this was the LAST thing they wanted to be talking about heading into November.

This also puts Obama in Jeopardy in 2012, because the Justice Dept. is a party to this suit .

Can pin this one on Rove......

Martha Coakley bless her little heart.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Justice Department HAVE to represent the government anytime ANY federal law is challenged?

[Johnny English]

Not really! I could be serving time in my state! :smile:

You should probably just head over the border to Ohio or New York next time you fancy screwing a truck driver.

[Hemi]

Same Sex marriage is stupid and no matter how they want to make it a part of civilized culture, it can never be. Why? Because same sex partners have sex not for reproduction, but for their own selfish desires. Having sex because it feels good is not enough. You can do that with anyone if they touch you right.

So regular girl-guy sex is only for reproduction?

Come on man, this isn't the stone ages anymore.

[Hobbes3259]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Justice Department HAVE to represent the government anytime ANY federal law is challenged?

No. They have to Choose to be a party to a suit.

For instance they walked away from the Black panthers voter intimidation case...rather than see it through

[Hobbes3259]

So you only have sex when making babies?

And you feel that a gay man can turn you on with the right touch?

Interesting.

Look...let's be very clear what this is about.

This is not about the right of two people to live together, commingle funds, file taxes and leave property and have hospital visitation.

Wherever Civil Unions enforcing the same rights are broached, it's rejected by the parties that claim to value those rights.


This is about an extreme left position, that seeks to take a very specific term, with
deep spiritual connotations to a large majority of this countries citizens, and in their eyes pervert it.

Period.

And it's wrong and deeply offensive to any right thinking person.

I am as conservative as you get. You know that.

I fully support the rights of any two people to live together in misery as they see fit, and enjoy the same privleges and heartaches that commitment entails.


But this is not that, this is a nasty, almost evil argument over SEMANTICS.

The enlightened left refers to it as 'the right to self define'.

As long as it's pursued in this context it will always fail, and the ones that will suffer are the people who just want to be together and be left alone.

More victims of the intellectual lefts intransigence.

[biggundewayne63]

shouldnt this be in the kerry rhodes thread?

[Talisman]

No. They have to Choose to be a party to a suit.

For instance they walked away from the Black panthers voter intimidation case...rather than see it through

Putting aside your feelings for that case, that wasn't a challenge to voter intimidation laws being unconstitutional. The JD just chose not to enforce the law as it stands. That's different than a court case challenging a federal law as unconstitutional, which I still think the JD has to defend, with few exceptions:

In the late 1990s a bank robbery suspect named Charles Dickerson made an incriminating statement while in FBI custody. Claiming that he had not received Miranda warnings, Dickerson moved to suppress the statement at his trial. The Fourth Circuit, while finding that no warnings were given, held that the statement was nonetheless admissible under 18 U.S.C. § 3501. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the validity of section 3501.
Before the case was argued, a dispute arose between Congress and the Clinton Justice Department (at that time under the leadership of Attorney General Reno, Deputy Attorney General Holder, and Solicitor General Waxman). By letter of November 1, 1999, the Attorney General informed Speaker Hastert that the Justice Department would not defend the constitutionality of section 3501. (By law the Attorney General is required to inform Congress whenever the Department declines to defend the constitutionality of a federal statute.).
In a responsive letter dated February 16, 2000 (which I drafted on his behalf), Speaker Hastert strongly objected to the Justice Department’s refusal to defend the statute. Hastert noted the Department’s longstanding position that it “appropriately refuses to defend an act of Congress only in the rare case when the statute either infringes on the constitutional power of the Executive or when prior precedent overwhelmingly indicates that the statute is invalid.” Solicitor General Waxman, in his 1997 confirmation hearings, expressly affirmed that the Department “is bound to defend the constitutionality of all acts of Congress unless no reasonable arguments can be made in support.”

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Last I checked the supreme court has largely stayed out of the Gay Marriage debate, so there was no real prior precedence against DOMA that would force the Justice Department to recuse itself.

[Talisman]

Look...let's be very clear what this is about.

This is not about the right of two people to live together, commingle funds, file taxes and leave property and have hospital visitation.

Wherever Civil Unions enforcing the same rights are broached, it's rejected by the parties that claim to value those rights.


This is about an extreme left position, that seeks to take a very specific term, with
deep spiritual connotations to a large majority of this countries citizens, and in their eyes pervert it.

Period.

And it's wrong and deeply offensive to any right thinking person.

I am as conservative as you get. You know that.

I fully support the rights of any two people to live together in misery as they see fit, and enjoy the same privleges and heartaches that commitment entails.


But this is not that, this is a nasty, almost evil argument over SEMANTICS.

The enlightened left refers to it as 'the right to self define'.

As long as it's pursued in this context it will always fail, and the ones that will suffer are the people who just want to be together and be left alone.

More victims of the intellectual lefts intransigence.


Yep. Nothing but a case of "semantics". This wouldn't even be a problem if it were just called civil unions (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)...

[Johnny English]

This is about an extreme left position, that seeks to take a very specific term, with
deep spiritual connotations to a large majority of this countries citizens, and in their eyes pervert it.

Period.

And it's wrong and deeply offensive to any right thinking person.

I'm sorry, why is that specific term and its deep spiritual connotations off limits to a section of society?

And you got the terminology wrong in the last sentence, by "right thinking person" you actually meant "person who thinks like me".

[Hobbes3259]

I'm sorry, why is that specific term and its deep spiritual connotations off limits to a section of society?

And you got the terminology wrong in the last sentence, by "right thinking person" you actually meant "person who thinks like me".

Because it is a very specific term and is to many, a religious sacrament.

Defiling in that manner (especially given the context of the argument) is a particularly grievous insult.

Seeking to defile a a religious sacrament is offensive period.

Are their view less valid, because you don't agree with their beliefs?

No. Specifically going out of your way to insult people, especially when it's not necessary, but as a matter of practicing ideology should be wrong to anyone.

[Johnny English]

No.

Specifically going out of your way to insult people, especially when it's not necessary, but as a matter of practicing ideology should be wrong to anyone.

I agree, I think it's deeply offensive that you and your kind continue to insult gay people by telling them that they're not worthy of marriage, when as you say it's completely unnecessary. Unless, that is, you define your marriage, your partnership, your communion by that of others, which you must agree would be an utterly perverse thing to do?

One of the best things about holding a liberal viewpoint on most things is listening to the anguished cries of the thwarted bigots.

[Sundayjack]

I agree, I think it's deeply offensive that you and your kind continue to insult gay people by telling them that they're not worthy of marriage, when as you say it's completely unnecessary. Unless, that is, you define your marriage, your partnership, your communion by that of others, which you must agree would be an utterly perverse thing to do?

One of the best things about holding a liberal viewpoint on most things is listening to the anguished cries of the thwarted bigots.

I think California had a really cool, but ultimately failing, argument, when it tried to sell gay marriage to the people as an income generator. Pretty inventive. Massachusetts did it the wrong way - through the courts. But there was at least a modest legal argument to be made. Then it screwed it up further, when a couple hundred thousand signed a petition to put it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment, and the governor and legislature pocketed the petition and refused to let it go forward. People were rightly furious. But that's water under the bridge, and if Massachusetts keeps electing the same bunch of anti-democratic creeps, then THAT's democracy in action as well.

If this change to allow gay people to have something called "marriage" is important to one or more of the states, then it should become law. In those states. As long as someone doesn't decide to invent a federal right to gay marriage, I'm perfectly fine with the way the issue is growing - or not growing, depending on the state. This decision, while seemingly pro-gay marriage, is actually a really good result for the anti-gay marriage people, because it says exactly what I'm saying here: states determine what "marriage" is, and the federal gub'mint has no business injecting itself into the relationship between the states and their citizens. Pretty cool result, actually. I mean, if it sticks. Seems to me, that opinion won't get much traction from either the pro or anti side.

[jgangstahippie7:18]

shouldnt this be in the kerry rhodes thread?

:rofl::breakdance::rofl:

[Hobbes3259]

Yep. Nothing but a case of "semantics". This wouldn't even be a problem if it were just called civil unions (To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.)...

Hey, I can't answer for Gov.Lingle, I can only say she's wrong.

The bill was passed with decent support, and she took the cowards way out by saying the people should decide, because she knows a referendum would never pass.

Too much of the argument in this particular state, also has to do with counting dollars coming in vs. dollars not coming in.

I noticed however you ignored the multitude of states that actually do have Civil Union laws.

Much of the arguments are presented here, along with the states you decided to ignore.
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[Hobbes3259]

I agree, I think it's deeply offensive that you and your kind continue to insult gay people by telling them that they're not worthy of marriage, when as you say it's completely unnecessary. Unless, that is, you define your marriage, your partnership, your communion by that of others, which you must agree would be an utterly perverse thing to do?

One of the best things about holding a liberal viewpoint on most things is listening to the anguished cries of the thwarted bigots.

To begin with your initial supposition is nonsensical.

Me and My kind? I'm fairly libertarian on the issue. Except when it comes time to defile someone's religion. That's wrong.

gay people aren't unworthy of marriage. many Gay people do marry. Take Tom Cruise for instance.

Same sex couples don't fit the definition which predates Western civilization. Can't change that.

All of civilization is defined by fairly if not precisely established norms. That's what makes it civilization.

Apparently having a liberal viewpoint includes two things, the right to selective bigotry (your religious animus shows..me and my kind? I'm no thumper...) and a less than precise use of the language. (which coming from someone across the pond is especially disheartening.)

[Sundayjack]

To begin with your initial supposition is nonsensical.

Me and My kind? I'm fairly libertarian on the issue. Except when it comes time to defile someone's religion. That's wrong.

gay people aren't unworthy of marriage. many Gay people do marry. Take Tom Cruise for instance.

Same sex couples don't fit the definition which predates Western civilization. Can't change that.

All of civilization is defined by fairly if not precisely established norms. That's what makes it civilization.

Apparently having a liberal viewpoint includes two things, the right to selective bigotry (your religious animus shows..me and my kind? I'm no thumper...) and a less than precise use of the language. (which coming from someone across the pond is especially disheartening.)

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

[ShadeTree#55]

I am 100% for Gay marriage. I am not a fucking Liberal.

[Hemi]

It's funny watching people clamor over a word they think they own.

By the way, where is the religous outrage on this board about people using the term "Revis Christ"?

[Talisman]

It's funny watching people clamor over a word they think they own.

By the way, where is the religous outrage on this board about people using the term "Revis Christ"?

Oh there was definitely a healthy thread dedicated to that topic, although I can't seem to find it at the moment, worth a read if you've got a couple of hours

[Hemi]

Oh there was definitely a healthy thread dedicated to that topic, although I can't seem to find it at the moment, worth a read if you've got a couple of hours

Missed that one.

It's just words people, your interpretation may be different than others, but in the end...just a word.

What if gay people start calling dinner "communion". Can you imagine the outrage?

[Sundayjack]

Oh there was definitely a healthy thread dedicated to that topic, although I can't seem to find it at the moment, worth a read if you've got a couple of hours
I looked for it too. Couldn't find it for the life of me. If you do find it, I'll merge.

[Hemi]

I think I found it....

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Is this the one?

[kbgreen]

I'm sorry, why is that specific term and its deep spiritual connotations off limits to a section of society?

And you got the terminology wrong in the last sentence, by "right thinking person" you actually meant "person who thinks like me".

umm it's not! they choose not to be defined by it. If they like they can marry (a member of the oppisite sex) but they choose another path and thus chose not to be defined by the term. They are now seeking to change the definition for their own.

[Sundayjack]

I'm mistaken. I thought you were talking about a different gay marriage thread.

Carry on.

[kbgreen]

I agree, I think it's deeply offensive that you and your kind continue to insult gay people by telling them that they're not worthy of marriage, when as you say it's completely unnecessary. Unless, that is, you define your marriage, your partnership, your communion by that of others, which you must agree would be an utterly perverse thing to do?

One of the best things about holding a liberal viewpoint on most things is listening to the anguished cries of the thwarted bigots.

I never felt they they are not worthy of everything that marriage is - except the word marriage itself. If they want the word then have them get married in the definition of the word and not seek to delude it for their own purposes.

it's only about changing the definition of the word not about rights or treating someone as less than someone else. They should have every right that goes along with a traditional marraige in the eyes of the law but the word for marriage is only for those who fit it's definition.

[Talisman]

I think I found it....

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Is this the one?

oh yeah, that's her alright

[brothermoose]

Look...let's be very clear what this is about.

This is not about the right of two people to live together, commingle funds, file taxes and leave property and have hospital visitation.

Wherever Civil Unions enforcing the same rights are broached, it's rejected by the parties that claim to value those rights.


This is about an extreme left position, that seeks to take a very specific term, with
deep spiritual connotations to a large majority of this countries citizens, and in their eyes pervert it.

Period.

And it's wrong and deeply offensive to any right thinking person.

I am as conservative as you get. You know that.

I fully support the rights of any two people to live together in misery as they see fit, and enjoy the same privleges and heartaches that commitment entails.


But this is not that, this is a nasty, almost evil argument over SEMANTICS.

The enlightened left refers to it as 'the right to self define'.

As long as it's pursued in this context it will always fail, and the ones that will suffer are the people who just want to be together and be left alone.

More victims of the intellectual lefts intransigence.

Semantics has nothing to do with this one Hobbes.

It has everything to do with equal rights. It may be preferable to some to amend thousands of laws just for peace of mind, but legally speaking, it would be much easier to just allow them to call it marriage.

Federal Marriage Benefits Denied to Same-Sex Couples
Whether married or not, gay and lesbian same-sex couples are denied many federal benefits that are available to heterosexual married couples.
Gay and lesbian same-sex couples, whether married or not, are denied a whole host of benefits that the federal government provides to heterosexual married couples. There are over one thousand federal laws in which marriage status is a factor. These laws confer rights, protections, and benefits to married couples. Partners in same-sex couples cannot receive these important benefits -- from Social Security survivor benefits to federal tax benefits to federal employee health and retirement benefits.

Although a few states now allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, the majority of states still don't recognize marriages between partners of the same sex. Some, like California, allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners. For purposes of most federal laws, these distinctions make no difference. Gay or lesbian same-sex couples, whether unmarried, married, or registered as domestic partners, are not permitted to enjoy the federal marriage benefits provided to heterosexual married couples.

THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)

According to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government only respects marriages between a man and a woman. This means that even if a same-sex couple's marriage is recognized by their home state, it is not recognized for the purposes of accessing marriage benefits in federal law. So, for example, a gay married couple in Massachusetts can take advantage of state laws conferring the benefits of marriage, but not any of the benefits provided by federal law.

Here are some of the federal benefits that same-sex couples cannot receive.

Social Security Benefits
Married heterosexual couples get a big financial boost from certain Social Security benefit programs that do not apply to same-sex couples. For some gay and lesbian partners, the denial of these benefits can mean spending later years in poverty.

Spousal survivor benefit. A surviving spouse of a worker entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits may be entitled to receive retirement benefits based on the deceased spouse's earning record.

Spousal retirement benefit. For retired married couples, a person whose calculated Social Security benefit is lower than that of his spouse may take half of his spouse's higher benefit, rather than receive the amount calculated from his own earnings.

Lump-sum death benefit. A surviving spouse gets $255 from the federal government to help pay for funeral arrangements.

To learn more about Social Security benefits, see Nolo's article Social Security Benefits: Retirement, Disability, Dependents, and Survivors.

Tax Benefits
Same-sex gay and lesbian couples cannot take advantage of federal tax benefits conferred upon married heterosexual couples.

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS. Filing a joint return offers advantages over separate returns. Many same-sex couples lose thousands of dollars per year because they have to file separate tax returns with the IRS.

Creating a "family partnership." This federal tax law allows couples to divide business income among family members, again resulting in big tax savings.

Estate Tax and Estate Planning Benefits
Same-sex married couples cannot take advantage of a myriad of estate planning benefits available to married couples of the same sex.

Estate and gift tax exemption. Federal law exempts a certain amount of money from federal estate taxes and federal gift taxes for all property left to a surviving spouse (currently the exemption is $3.5 million). The surviving spouse does not pay taxes on any amount she receives from her deceased spouse that's under the exemption limit.

Marital deduction trust. Married couples can create a trust (called a marital deduction trust or AB trust) so that all property left to a U.S. citizen surviving spouse is exempted from federal estate tax. That can mean that surviving spouses of heterosexual couples that create such a trust don't pay a dime of estate tax. Gay or lesbian surviving spouses pay the full amount.

Other life estate trusts. Heterosexual married couples can create other life estate trusts, including QTIP trusts and QDOT trusts, which provide distinct tax advantages upon the death of one spouse. For example, the QTIP trust allows surviving spouses to use trust property tax-free in certain circumstances. The QDOT trust allows a non-U.S. citizen surviving spouses to postpone paying any estate taxes above the exemption amount.

Veteran and Military Benefits
The heterosexual spouses of deceased veterans are entitled to a myriad of benefits, including health care, death pensions, educational assistance, home loan guarantees, vocational training, and bereavement counseling.

Spouses of living military personnel may be eligible for health care, family separation pay, and relocation assistance, among many other benefits. For more information, see the Veteran Benefit Administration website. Same-sex spouses are not entitled to these services and benefits.

Federal Employment Benefits
More than 22 million Americans are employed by the federal government. Many of the employment benefits that the federal government provides to its employees and their families are tied to marriage status. These benefits, which are part of the employee's compensation package, are denied to gay and lesbian employees. Examples of a few of these benefits include:

health insurance for spouses, and
wages, worker's compensation, health insurance, and retirement plan benefits for the surviving spouse of a deceased federal worker.
In June, 2009, President Obama signed the Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination. The memorandum extends several employment benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees, including:

the right to use sick time to care for a same-sex spouse or partner, or a non-biological, non-adopted child
the right to add a partner to a long-term care insurance program, and
for partners of Foreign Service employees, the right to use medical facilities at posts abroad, be evacuated for medical reasons from posts abroad, and be included in family size for housing allocations.
Immigration Benefits
Many immigration benefits are tied to marital status. For example, a non-U.S. citizen may obtain legal residency, and later citizenship status, when married to a U.S. citizen. Non-U.S. citizens who are in same-sex marriages or partnerships are not entitled to this benefit. This is true even if the couple has a valid marriage certificate from a country that allows same-sex marriages.

For information on protecting your same-sex relationship under the law, including how to leave property to one another, make health care decisions for each other, and take care of finances, get Nolo's A Legal Guide for Lesbian & Gay Couples, by Denis Clifford, Frederick Hertz, and Emily Doskow.
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[Hobbes3259]

Semantics has nothing to do with this one Hobbes.

It has everything to do with equal rights. It may be preferable to some to amend thousands of laws just for peace of mind, but legally speaking, it would be much easier to just allow them to call it marriage.


To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

So..Easy, makes it right?

P.S. That entire quote, is much of nothing, surely a Democrat Congress, with a Democrat President that can work up a 1200 page healthcare bill,
can certainly amend current federal rules, and laws in the traditional manner (striking the word marriage, and inserting 'marriage, or other legally recognized union'),
as for rules, pertaining to executive branch employment, the President can fix that all by his little lonesome.

[Gunther]

So regular girl-guy sex is only for reproduction?

Come on man, this isn't the stone ages anymore.

At the end of the end the day, that is it's purpose. I can't speak for others in here, but how many people lives are greater because they have slept with multiple partners? It's not a religious thing. Just asking if the quality of one's life better because of it.

[brothermoose]

So..Easy, makes it right?

P.S. That entire quote, is much of nothing, surely a Democrat Congress, with a Democrat President that can work up a 1200 page healthcare bill,
can certainly amend current federal rules, and laws in the traditional manner (striking the word marriage, and inserting 'marriage, or other legally recognized union'),
as for rules, pertaining to executive branch employment, the President can fix that all by his little lonesome.

That's not the point.

The point is that it is not just semantics. Your assertion that it is, is just nonsense. Continuing to defend a word rather than its consequences is what is semantics.

Probably easier to just go to the link for a better understanding as the copy/paste did more harm than good.

[brothermoose]

At the end of the end the day, that is it's purpose. I can't speak for others in here, but how many people lives are greater because they have slept with multiple partners? It's not a religious thing. Just asking if the quality of one's life better because of it.

In case anyone is wondering, this guy is the same one that used to have Obama with the Spock ears for an avatar. He's an obvious troll, and one that deserves very little attention.

[Sundayjack]

I'm single and unlovable. I want my muthafucking tax benefits.

[brothermoose]

I'm single and unlovable. I want my muthafucking tax benefits.

Different issue.

Different thread.

[Gunther]

In case anyone is wondering, this guy is the same one that used to have Obama with the Spock ears for an avatar. He's an obvious troll, and one that deserves very little attention.

Your funny.... What are you then?

[Sundayjack]

Different issue.

Different thread.

But I'm also white. Cut a honky a break?

[Hemi]

At the end of the end the day, that is it's purpose. I can't speak for others in here, but how many people lives are greater because they have slept with multiple partners? It's not a religious thing. Just asking if the quality of one's life better because of it.

So you are saying sex sucks.

Yikes.

Do you have a sheet with a hole in it?

[fozzi58]

I don't see a problem with letting same sex couples get married, or joined, or civil union-ed or whatever. It doesn't really matter whats its called. However the laws need to change to provide the same benefits that are provided to hetero married people. That's a civil rights issues. And unfortunately its not so easy to get a bunch of federal laws changed by using some White-out on the fed law books...

I partook in the "sacrament" of marriage and it won't bother me if Ted and John or Lilly and Debbie partake in the "sacrament" either. Marriage is a union - what's the difference if its same sex or not. If a brother and sister want to marry that's not illegal and they get all the benefits of a hetero marriage - it is much more disgusting than a same sex marriage - but its legal with all the same benefits. (although that also depends on what your sister looks like).

If the word marriage is so holy, why can the justice of the peace perform a marriage? Isn't it a sacrament reserved for church-goers and holier-than-thous? If a couple gets married in international waters on a cruise ship by a Mexican captain, does that count? The judge, the priest, and the captain all claim they can marry you because of the "powers invested in me" What happened to the sacred sacrament part? Why can I go apply for a marriage license at the post office or municipal building? That counts. I can't get married in a church until I have a legal marriage license. Kinda strange how the government overrules God yet marriage is considered holy. What happened to separation of church and state?

And what if you get the marriage license and skip the church part all together. Does God not recognize you as a married couple? You are not married in the "eyes of the church" (but the alter boys are free game). What if 2 people get married through a church and the husband beats his wife. Another couple marry with a standard license, and don't get it done in church. However, the non-church married couple both believe in God and love and care for each other as a model married couple. Does God make them go their separate ways when they die? Does someone go to hell for failing to get the church ceremony done?

I'm confused. Who has the power to marry people - God or the government? I always thought it was a decision between 2 people and a license to show you are legally together. So whats the difference if those 2 people are a man and a woman, or 2 women, or 2 men?

I'm just looking for a little consistency in the argument. Both sides of the argument have holes and I don't like the double standards each "party" slings at the other. This is like the double standard of the abortion argument - If pro-life is right, and we protect the life of an unborn fetus because the fetus cannot choose, then when the fetus grows up - it has the right to choose - hence making suicide legal.

You can't have it both ways...

[brothermoose]

Your funny.... What are you then?

The guy calling your ass out.

*see my last sentence for the proper use of the word "your".

[brothermoose]

But I'm also white. Cut a honky a break?

Ahhh yes, the persecuted white majority. Wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so much guilt involved...

[fozzi58]

At the end of the end the day, that is it's purpose. I can't speak for others in here, but how many people lives are greater because they have slept with multiple partners? It's not a religious thing. Just asking if the quality of one's life better because of it.

My life is greater. I practiced having and learning about sex on 68 different women, and copulating many MANY times with 50% of them, prior to meeting my wife. Now I am able to perform sexually explicit acts better than Peter North for her, and in turn making her a happy lover and wife and wanting to stay with me, thus further reducing the divorce rate.

There you have it folks - premarital sex justified.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.....

[Gunther]

The guy calling your ass out.

*see my last sentence for the proper use of the word "your".

Sounds like you're scared of me. Why are you concerned if others choose to interact? Hold your ground and make your arguments. Stop acting like a mental midget who is afraid to think.

[MBGreen]

I guess Gunther doesn't communicate via the Haiku anymore.....


sex is for making babies
please daddy, don't touch me
spock ears

[Sundayjack]

Ahhh yes, the persecuted white majority. Wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so much guilt involved...

Man, you're telling ME! Straight, white, non-elderly, male - it's friggin' torture. I try to cry at least once a week. You know, just to let my oppressors know that I'm reachable.

[Hobbes3259]

Ahhh yes, the persecuted white majority. Wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so much guilt involved...

I agree.


Especially since it was liberal white guilt that elected the empty suit driving the country to socialist ruin :wink:

[BadgerOnLSD]

No. it was democrat heads exploding.

With a president that sux like an electrolux, a recession, and unemployment, this was the LAST thing they wanted to be talking about heading into November.

This also puts Obama in Jeopardy in 2012, because the Justice Dept. is a party to this suit.
Making sure tax-paying Americans have equal rights > reelecting the golden boy

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Because it is a very specific term and is to many, a religious sacrament... Seeking to defile a a religious sacrament is offensive period.

The government has no religious sacraments. This part if the issue is 100% irrelevant to the argument of whether or not gays should be allowed to be married. To the government, marriage is a contract, nothing more. Now, if you want to say that forcing a particular church to perform a wedding between two people of the same sex is wrong, I would agree. But there is no reason why a same sex couple shouldn't be able to go to the local city hall and have a justice of the peace issue them the same marriage license that anyone else gets. When it comes to making laws, offending a religious group is 100% irrelevant.

They should have every right that goes along with a traditional marraige in the eyes of the law but the word for marriage is only for those who fit it's definition.

In your church maybe. This argument is one of the biggest loads of shit ever. It's a cover for trying to appear as though you support equal rights while in reality denying them. It's the exact same thing as separate but equal. The argument contradicts itself as well. The argument is that if the rights are the same the word doesn't matter... unless the word is marriage. Then, for some reason, it matters a lot.

My question for all the people against allowing gays to be married on these grounds never gets answered... how does it possibly affect you in any way? What difference does it make to you whether or not somebody else uses a word to describe themselves?

[brothermoose]

^The funny thing is that Hobbes tried to invoke the semantics argument, when it is in fact, the bigots getting hung up on the semantics.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

^The funny thing is that Hobbes tried to invoke the semantics argument, when it is in fact, the bigots getting hung up on the semantics.

Exactly. They make the claim that "it's only a word, everything else is the same". Well, if it really is only a word, why do they care?

[Sundayjack]

This is only a controversial debate because people are impatient to the Constitutional process. But it's working exactly as it should, and at the proper pace. It just seems so much more clear cut that people want to make it.

If states want to define marriage as a union between a man and Volkswagen or a woman and a baloney sandwich, then they're perfectly capable and empowered to do that. If the Federal government wants to encourage certain conduct under the tax code or other Federal law, and discourage other conduct, then it's perfectly capable and empowered to do that. If States don't like having the Federal government inject itself into State government issues, then they're perfectly capable and empowered to reject the Federal government - and should. Just did, in fact, in Massachusetts.

Seems to me this issue us playing out exactly as it should, and if everyone is patient, everything will find its proper place.

[brothermoose]

This is only a controversial debate because people are impatient to the Constitutional process. But it's working exactly as it should, and at the proper pace. It just seems so much more clear cut that people want to make it.

If states want to define marriage as a union between a man and Volkswagen or a woman and a baloney sandwich, then they're perfectly capable and empowered to do that. If the Federal government wants to encourage certain conduct under the tax code or other Federal law, and discourage other conduct, then it's perfectly capable and empowered to do that. If States don't like having the Federal government inject itself into State government issues, then they're perfectly capable and empowered to reject the Federal government - and should. Just did, in fact, in Massachusetts.

Seems to me this issue us playing out exactly as it should, and if everyone is patient, everything will find its proper place.

Fair enough, but this begs the real question.

Why were all the benefits of marriage set up in the first place? In other words, why should the rest of us chip in money to encourage these unions? If the answer is something as simple as taking care of a significant other, then it makes total sense. Where the argument falls short, however, is if the institution of marriage was set up to encourage US population growth, much as the "no spilled seed" rule was invoked to make the church grow. Therein is the only counter-argument that makes any sense to me.

[Sundayjack]

Fair enough, but this begs the real question.

Why were all the benefits of marriage set up in the first place? In other words, why should the rest of us chip in money to encourage these unions? If the answer is something as simple as taking care of a significant other, then it makes total sense. Where the argument falls short, however, is if the institution of marriage was set up to encourage US population growth, much as the "no spilled seed" rule was invoked to make the church grow. Therein is the only counter-argument that makes any sense to me.

Civilly? Yeah, taking care of a significant other would be my choice for the point of origin. Homestead laws and certain vehicles of ownership were much the same. Seems to me that man marrying man and woman marrying baloney sandwich was such a foreign concept that you can't even say it was an oversight or conscious choice. It just never entered the equation.

But, Constitutionally, restricting marriage to a man-woman relationship in order to encourage population growth sufficient to sustain our economy should be more than sufficient to support discrimination. And, after all, laws do discriminate.

The best part of this whole debate is how it has furthered the discussion of states fighting back on a Constitutional level and asserting themselves and their policy choices. That's almost exactly what happened with slavery in the mid-1800's which, eventually, led to the biggest Constitutional corrections since drafting. It's a really cool and growing fight. We saw it most recently here in the Massachusetts case, but it also took center stage in the Chicago gun case.

Unless you're gay and you need to get your taxes done immediately, it will be interesting to sit back and see how all this stuff develops. You have to think it's going to get a kick in the ass within the next week or two, when the California gay marriage case is finally decided. Then, it will go up to the Ninth Circuit; the Ninth Circuit will rule in favor of a Federal gay marriage right (because that's what the Ninth Circuit does); and then it will either be argued at the Supreme Court in 2012, or the entire western portion of the country will have a Constitutional right to gay marriage. That's when the fun REALLY starts.

[kinghenry89]

This is only a controversial debate because people are impatient to the Constitutional process. But it's working exactly as it should, and at the proper pace. It just seems so much more clear cut that people want to make it.

If states want to define marriage as a union between a man and Volkswagen or a woman and a baloney sandwich, then they're perfectly capable and empowered to do that. If the Federal government wants to encourage certain conduct under the tax code or other Federal law, and discourage other conduct, then it's perfectly capable and empowered to do that. If States don't like having the Federal government inject itself into State government issues, then they're perfectly capable and empowered to reject the Federal government - and should. Just did, in fact, in Massachusetts.

Seems to me this issue us playing out exactly as it should, and if everyone is patient, everything will find its proper place.
I pretty much agree with you, with one caveat: it's easy for me, a 21 year old straight man, to say that everything's going at it's natural pace. I can understand why an older gay, who is legitimately at risk of losing his/her partner and having to live with the legal ramifications of never having married them, would want to speed things up a little bit.

[Sundayjack]

I pretty much agree with you, with one caveat: it's easy for me, a 21 year old straight man, to say that everything's going at it's natural pace. I can understand why an older gay, who is legitimately at risk of losing his/her partner and having to live with the legal ramifications of never having married them, would want to speed things up a little bit.

Sure, but being a government of laws, and not men, it would be best for our country if that old gay guy dies alone and single.

[Big Blocker]

In your church maybe. This argument is one of the biggest loads of shit ever. It's a cover for trying to appear as though you support equal rights while in reality denying them. It's the exact same thing as separate but equal. The argument contradicts itself as well. The argument is that if the rights are the same the word doesn't matter... unless the word is marriage. Then, for some reason, it matters a lot.

My question for all the people against allowing gays to be married on these grounds never gets answered... how does it possibly affect you in any way? What difference does it make to you whether or not somebody else uses a word to describe themselves?

Ah, the usual misleading liberal crap.

Race discrimination is based on a set characteristic of the victim. Refusing to extend the term marriage to a union of two homosexuals concerns behavior, not a set characteristic that cannot be changed. As I have said before, sexual preference discrimination is unlike all other forms of discrimination that involve protected classes under law, except the practice of religion, which is an instructive comparision. The practice of religion also primarily concerns behavior, but this comes with the recognition that society retains the right to regulate the practice of religion. In short, trying to use terms like separate but equal is misleading and intended to cloud the analysis.

An other consideration is there is no rational basis behind race discrimination. But there is a rational basis in determining that unions that from the basic social building block and within which children are optimally born and raised should be headed by a man and a woman. It is a social judgment that takes into account that a family headed by a man and a woman allows children to experience both sexes as role models, in turn preparing them best for dealing with both sexes in the larger world. There is also a valid social judgment that the natural parents of a child should be encouraged to jointly raise that child.

Now of course one may dismiss these values, and disagree that they have value, but to say that sort of judgment is without rational basis is nonsense.

That rational basis in turn becomes the grounds for using the term marriage and what society then bestows on those who enter into it as a form of approval, of imprimatur, which of course is exactly why gay groups and those who support the gay agenda are not satisfied with civil unions, even if the benefits are the same. They WANT that imprimatur, that social approval. Tolerance is not enough for them.

How does this affect me personally? Just as any larger social policy's adoption does. A society based on a family consisting of a marriage between a man and a woman is a better performing one and one that better introduces children raised within it to then enter into society with knowledge of how both sexes act. As a member of society I benefit when society is improved. Put it this way - how do you benefit from society helping the disabled and the poor? By being part of a better society, a more humane society, that's how you benefit.

And beyond that the extension of benefits to homosexuals in civil unions either requires an increase in social expenditures to fund those benefits, or diminishes the benefits available to straight marriages if the expenditures are merely maintained at the same level. As a taxpayer these judgments also have an effect on me.

Finally it affects me in terms of my being a member of society who is in effect forced to approve and venerate a form of behavior that I choose to merely tolerate. I am for toleration of homosexuals, but I do not venerate their behavior, and do not feel that the social collective should be forced to venerate it.

Now of course if I find myself in the minority and the majority on its own chooses to extend the term marriage to homosexual unions, that would change the calculus somewhat, to be sure. Perhaps that day will come. It's nto here yet, imo.

[kbgreen]

The government has no religious sacraments. This part if the issue is 100% irrelevant to the argument of whether or not gays should be allowed to be married. To the government, marriage is a contract, nothing more. Now, if you want to say that forcing a particular church to perform a wedding between two people of the same sex is wrong, I would agree. But there is no reason why a same sex couple shouldn't be able to go to the local city hall and have a justice of the peace issue them the same marriage license that anyone else gets. When it comes to making laws, offending a religious group is 100% irrelevant.



In your church maybe. This argument is one of the biggest loads of shit ever. It's a cover for trying to appear as though you support equal rights while in reality denying them. It's the exact same thing as separate but equal. The argument contradicts itself as well. The argument is that if the rights are the same the word doesn't matter... unless the word is marriage. Then, for some reason, it matters a lot.

My question for all the people against allowing gays to be married on these grounds never gets answered... how does it possibly affect you in any way? What difference does it make to you whether or not somebody else uses a word to describe themselves?

It's not a load of shit. Why does their union have to be called marriage when it is not the definition of a marriage? You are acting like because I believe that the sacrament of marriage is sacred it is an affront to gays. Why? it is not about them it is about a union between a man and a women. Just like it is traditionally defind.

Ok, lets ask you, if they have the exact same rights as married couples and it is called something else then why do they do you need it to be called a marriage?

[Gunther]

Put gays on an island and let them do whatever they want. 100 years from now everyone on that island will be dead and we can go back to being normal. Don't argue with them. Give them whatever they want except adoption and the problem will be solved within a few generations

[Big Blocker]

It's not a load of shit. Why does their union have to be called marriage when it is not the definition of a marriage? You are acting like because I believe that the sacrament of marriage is sacred it is an affront to gays. Why? it is not about them it is about a union between a man and a women. Just like it is traditionally defind.

Ok, lets ask you, if they have the exact same rights as married couples and it is called something else then why do they do you need it to be called a marriage?

I already answered that. They want society's stamp of approval. They want more than tolerance. They want veneration. It's not really about rights to benefits and that sort of thing. Calling it marriage insetad of civil unions means that society thinks gay marriages and as deserving of approval and honor as straight marriages.

This is why it's the central objective of the gay agenda.

[fenwyr]

Wow, some of you really need to wake up.

My wife and I were married by an Elvis. There was and is nothing religious about it, yet it is still a marriage. If two people love each other and want to be married, they should be able to. There really shouldn't even be a debate about it. Anything less is discrimination, however you want to dress it up.

[Hobbes3259]

I already answered that. They want society's stamp of approval. They want more than tolerance. They want veneration. It's not really about rights to benefits and that sort of thing. Calling it marriage insetad of civil unions means that society thinks gay marriages and as deserving of approval and honor as straight marriages.

This is why it's the central objective of the gay agenda.

Amazing.

Another example that the Mayans are probably right, that 2012 is TEOTWAWKI.

You and I at least agree, on the underlying premise of what the argument actually is.

I can see your description as fairly as mine, but we do agree that it revolves around the insistence on the exact verbiage...(no matter if you call it the right to self define or any of the other high minded sounding lefty euphemisms...)

[Sundayjack]

I already answered that. They want society's stamp of approval. They want more than tolerance. They want veneration. It's not really about rights to benefits and that sort of thing. Calling it marriage insetad of civil unions means that society thinks gay marriages and as deserving of approval and honor as straight marriages.

This is why it's the central objective of the gay agenda.

I have a militant gay sister - married once and now engaged - and in her fairer minded moments, I have to think she would agree with that statement. I'd probably take out the word "veneration," but the rest of it seems pretty good. I'll ask her someday when she has a few drinks in her. Truth serum, and such.

[kbgreen]

I already answered that. They want society's stamp of approval. They want more than tolerance. They want veneration. It's not really about rights to benefits and that sort of thing. Calling it marriage insetad of civil unions means that society thinks gay marriages and as deserving of approval and honor as straight marriages.

This is why it's the central objective of the gay agenda.

I figured it had everything to do with rubbing the word "marriage" in everyones faces. They keep saying it's about equal rights and I have no problem with that part of it. So I really have not seen their side of it. I have always felt give them every right but not the name becasue it is sacred to me.

See I don't care what they do in their own homes but I think changing the meaning of "marriage" because they feel like they don't get the "emotional approval" from society that they think they need is horribly petty and vendictive. They need to be happy with their place in life with or without societies "approval" of their choices in life just like I need to be happy with my place in life without theirs or anyone elses.

[Johnny English]

I'll repeat the question I asked earlier in the thread - how does a gay couple's use of the word "marriage" change what it means to you? The only way in which I can see it has any impact is if you define your union by that of others, which is frankly a weird thing to do.

What I refer to as football is not what you refer to as football. That doesn't make either of us wrong, nor does it denigrate or cheapen either sport to either of us. It's simply a word. You're deliberately picking a reason to have a pointless and unnecessary fight with a section of society you don't understand; I'd advocate turning your righteous anger towards something considerably more important than this.

[fenwyr]

I'll repeat the question I asked earlier in the thread - how does a gay couple's use of the word "marriage" change what it means to you? The only way in which I can see it has any impact is if you define your union by that of others, which is frankly a weird thing to do.

What I refer to as football is not what you refer to as football. That doesn't make either of us wrong, nor does it denigrate or cheapen either sport to either of us. It's simply a word. You're deliberately picking a reason to have a pointless and unnecessary fight with a section of society you don't understand; I'd advocate turning your righteous anger towards something considerably more important than this.

You are spot on. Well said.

[Big Blocker]

I have a militant gay sister - married once and now engaged - and in her fairer minded moments, I have to think she would agree with that statement. I'd probably take out the word "veneration," but the rest of it seems pretty good. I'll ask her someday when she has a few drinks in her. Truth serum, and such.

I use the term veneration very much aware that it can amount to an overstatement if one takes it to mean a level of approval that is extremely high, of the sort that one would view something not merely with approval but with reverence, virtually a religious belief or view. But the meaning of veneration does I think fit with what most societies at least claim to view the institution of marriage. I was just at a wedding over the weekend, and the way it is described as a sacrament, the essential connection between love and the way that love leads not only to procreation but later the raising of children, who are the future of society, I don't think veneration is too strong a term.

Those who support the gay agenda of course do not say what they want is veneration, but if they say they want to be viewed as approvingly as straight marriage, it amounts to the same thing. Demanding veneration in explicit terms would come across as arrogant. But that is in fact what they want.

Make no mistake about it, that is why civil unions with full benefits is not enough for them. the word marriage implies more than merely approval, it implies a very high level of approval approaching veneration.

Hobbes,

I doubt we come to this point of rare agreement for the same reasons, but I understand your reasoning. Mine is more that I draw a huge distinction between static characteristic bases of discrimintion, which have no rational basis, and "discrimination" involving behaviors in areas where, I think, society has a collective right to speak to and regulate. The rhetoric of the right is currently opposed to the notion of governmental regulation, but that both goes in cycles (it was not too long ago the right was all about upholding law and order) and papers over what is really going on.

But in a democracy does the majority have a right to regulate behaviors it wants to encourage and discourage and not be overturned by the rulings of unelected judges? Absent some clear consitutional basis for doing so, I believe in majority rule.

[Big Blocker]

I figured it had everything to do with rubbing the word "marriage" in everyones faces. They keep saying it's about equal rights and I have no problem with that part of it. So I really have not seen their side of it. I have always felt give them every right but not the name becasue it is sacred to me.

See I don't care what they do in their own homes but I think changing the meaning of "marriage" because they feel like they don't get the "emotional approval" from society that they think they need is horribly petty and vendictive. They need to be happy with their place in life with or without societies "approval" of their choices in life just like I need to be happy with my place in life without theirs or anyone elses.

I agree, but it also makes you wonder why they think they need society's approval so much. Perhaps because they do not really believe they are equal themselves?

For the most part I don't give a flying F what "society" thinks about me or what I do as long as they leave me alone. The reason the gay groups want more than tolerance means they want more than to be left alone. They look at it differently, quite obviously.

[fenwyr]

You're not answering the primary question BB, or are just merely avoiding it. Marriage may have started as a religious institution, but it no longer solely is, and hasn't been for a long time.

Is my marriage less of a marriage because I wasn't married in a church?

[Johnny English]

I'm also not aware of anything in the traditional Christian wedding vows that isn't directly applicable to a same sex couple; love, hold, honour, cherish, obey, richer or poorer, sickness and health? All seem fairly gender neutral to me.

Indeed, if we want to go a little further, I'd say that one of the most commonly used marriage blessings seems to have been written with a same sex couple in mind:

Ecclesiastes 4:9-12
"Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow; but woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up. Again, if two lie together, they are warm; but how can one be warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him."

[Sundayjack]

I'll repeat the question I asked earlier in the thread - how does a gay couple's use of the word "marriage" change what it means to you? The only way in which I can see it has any impact is if you define your union by that of others, which is frankly a weird thing to do.

What I refer to as football is not what you refer to as football. That doesn't make either of us wrong, nor does it denigrate or cheapen either sport to either of us. It's simply a word. You're deliberately picking a reason to have a pointless and unnecessary fight with a section of society you don't understand; I'd advocate turning your righteous anger towards something considerably more important than this.

Here's the thing - Why should people need any reason at all? As long as the law is changed through a democratic process, then the reason doesn't matter. People can choose to stand against gay marriage just because they don't approve of the gay lifestyle. Nobody needs a reason except the government; and even then, it doesn't even need to be a very good reason.

I think there has only been one state to put the issue of gay marriage on the ballot, and it lost. In a very liberal state. That's very telling. Those people who voted - they didn't need a reason. They didn't want gays to marry. 'Nuff said. End of issue. Until the next court challenge, of course.

Two other states have passed gay marriage through the legislature. A couple others had it imposed on them by their courts - but even in those cases, the decisions were based on their own state constitutions, which were more liberal than the US Constitution. But 40-plus states have decided, either by action or inaction, that they don't want gay marriage. And that's enough.

[Hobbes3259]

Hobbes,

I doubt we come to this point of rare agreement for the same reasons, but I understand your reasoning. Mine is more that I draw a huge distinction between static characteristic bases of discrimintion, which have no rational basis, and "discrimination" involving behaviors in areas where, I think, society has a collective right to speak to and regulate. The rhetoric of the right is currently opposed to the notion of governmental regulation, but that both goes in cycles (it was not too long ago the right was all about upholding law and order) and papers over what is really going on.

But in a democracy does the majority have a right to regulate behaviors it wants to encourage and discourage and not be overturned by the rulings of unelected judges? Absent some clear consitutional basis for doing so, I believe in majority rule.


BB, What I was referring to was the fact that 75% of the respondents believe that there will always be a difference, between CU's and Marriage, which is of course incorrect. Legislation can be made to accommodate any set of circumstances let alone terminology.


I was lead to the underlying argument ( the right to 'self define...etc...) by a lib friend of mine (yes...I do have them :wink:)
She's a Poly Sci prof. And back when N J was working on CU's we were debating over this issue of Marriage vs. C.U.

I agree with KB that given the nature of the word, it's traditional definitions and so on, makes that word in and of itself a protected commodity....But...I believe that any two people that choose to build something together should be able to do so, and should not e discriminated against (especially from a governmental standpoint)

I think the arguments that go beyond being given the same 'rights' and extending to bowdlerizing a word with a specific meaning (and whose metaphysical nature extends to religious sacrament for a large swath of the aforementioned) is a bridge too far.

[kbgreen]

You're not answering the primary question BB, or are just merely avoiding it. Marriage may have started as a religious institution, but it no longer solely is, and hasn't been for a long time.

Is my marriage less of a marriage because I wasn't married in a church?

Do you think it is? The answer to that question seems to be the point of this whole argument. If you are happy with your marriage and do not think it is any less than anybody else's then it is not. It seems gay people think that if their union is not called a "marriage" than it is less of a union than anybody else's when it is what they make it. Just like mine is!

The answer to jonny english's question is simple: It's because gays want to use the term "Marriage" to be vendictive to those in society who do feel the word is sacred and defined as "a union between a man and a women".

[Johnny English]

That's a legal position though. I'm not arguing the law with you, especially as I think you're probably a lawyer - I'm arguing a position of morality. I'm fairly sure that if they'd held a referendum in 1830 in England then the vote would have been in support of slavery - sometimes it's the responsibility of the state to exercise its power to impose a change in the law that is right, irrespective of how the general public feels. The general public is often too ill-informed, too ignorant, too self-centred or all three to make the right decision, that's why we give elected officials and the judiciary the power to make decisions for us.

[Johnny English]

Do you think it is? The answer to that question seems to be the point of this whole argument. If you are happy with your marriage and do not think it is any less than anybody else's then it is not. It seems gay people think that if their union is not called a "marriage" than it is less of a union than anybody else's when it is what they make it. Just like mine is!

The answer to jonny english's question is simple: It's because gays want to use the term "Marriage" to be vendictive to those in society who do feel the word is sacred and defined as "a union between a man and a women".

Americans want to use the term "football" to refer to a sport that isn't football, isn't played with the foot, doesn't have anything like the popularity of football, and is considerably younger than football. I could get upset about your appropriation and misuse of the term, or I could accept that both uses have equal merit in their appropriate context, neither harms the other, and I can get on with enjoying both. (Not that I'm considering marrying another bloke, you understand, there my analogy falls down!)

It's a daft argument, but it's no more daft than yours.

[kbgreen]

Americans want to use the term "football" to refer to a sport that isn't football, isn't played with the foot, doesn't have anything like the popularity of football, and is considerably younger than football. I could get upset about your appropriation and misuse of the term, or I could accept that both uses have equal merit in their appropriate context, neither harms the other, and I can get on with enjoying both. (Not that I'm considering marrying another bloke, you understand, there my analogy falls down!)

It's a daft argument, but it's no more daft than yours.

Is there a proper name for Football over there? I always thought it was really called soccer and the slang is football? Hell if I'm right then why not legally call it civil union and they can slang the word marriage for their self esteem.

I know you are basically telling me to get over it but why? What does it hurt gays if their union is called a "civil union" and not marriage (with they have the same legal rights)?

[Sundayjack]

That's a legal position though. I'm not arguing the law with you, especially as I think you're probably a lawyer - I'm arguing a position of morality. I'm fairly sure that if they'd held a referendum in 1830 in England then the vote would have been in support of slavery - sometimes it's the responsibility of the state to exercise its power to impose a change in the law that is right, irrespective of how the general public feels. The general public is often too ill-informed, too ignorant, too self-centred or all three to make the right decision, that's why we give elected officials and the judiciary the power to make decisions for us.
It's not a legal point as much as it is a point on the democratic process. I don't care where the morality in this issue resides. If gay guys want to marry gay guys and lesbian chicks want to marry lesbian chicks - then fine. As long as their wants and needs don't trample on the wants and needs of others who, with their own preferences, would absolutely have to abide by a fair process. It probably isn't fair that fat chicks get bought fewer drinks, and I feel sorry about that; but I'm not all that keen on a law being passed to level that playing field. Not everything is fair.

In 1830's America, there were a handful of states that outright ignored the Constitution, and refused to return escaped slaves to their slave-state owners. If a voting plurality of their citizens thought that was a bad idea, they could have ordered their elected officials to change that policy. At least in principle. But they didn't, and eventually, their attitude on that issues gained traction and more states joined. Reached a point where, eventually, war started. Then, after war, the law was changed. Aside from the 600,000 dead soldiers, the process worked pretty well on that one.


This is another discussion for another day, but that red part is my big problem with progressivism - this notion that there are some people who need to be saved from themselves. The seedy underbelly of that concept is also the implication that some citizens are innately better than others. If each individual gets to choose good/bad for themselves, I'd trust that a thousand times moreso than if the government gets to choose. Recognizing, of course, that the government makes choices like that every single day.

[Big Blocker]

You're not answering the primary question BB, or are just merely avoiding it. Marriage may have started as a religious institution, but it no longer solely is, and hasn't been for a long time.

Is my marriage less of a marriage because I wasn't married in a church?

i think you are confusing me with someone else. I don't recall having spoken about the religious aspect of this issue, at least not recently.

Having said that I disagree with your implicit assumption that the subject need either be religious or, being civil in nature, is not religious.

Think of the concept of murder. that violates both religious law and the penal code. the concept found in religion in fact informs the understanding of the penal code.

As to whether a marriage outside of church is "less" than one in, it's certainly different, and in the eyse of the state no less valid. But for a religous person it would always be "less" to be married outside of church.

[Hobbes3259]

The general public is often too ill-informed, too ignorant, too self-centred or all three to make the right decision, that's why we give elected officials and the judiciary the power to make decisions for us.

So, they're too ill-informed, too ignorant, too self-centerd to make the right decision, but the elected officials they are manipulated into putting into power aren't ?


Interesting...Two Questions?

Have you seen the President...?

Are you sure you're English? I've long admired the verbal acuity evinced by our friends across the pond...you're seriously making me rethink that....

[Hobbes3259]

This is another discussion for another day, but that red part is my big problem with progressivism - this notion that there are some people who need to be saved from themselves. The seedy underbelly of that concept is also the implication that some citizens are innately better than others. If each individual gets to choose good/bad for themselves, I'd trust that a thousand times moreso than if the government gets to choose. Recognizing, of course, that the government makes choices like that every single day.

The general public is often too ill-informed, too ignorant, too self-centred or all three to make the right decision, that's why we give elected officials ...to make decisions for us.



I can't believe you were ...'charitable' enough to walk past that contradiction....

[Johnny English]

This is another discussion for another day, but that red part is my big problem with progressivism - this notion that there are some people who need to be saved from themselves. The seedy underbelly of that concept is also the implication that some citizens are innately better than others. If each individual gets to choose good/bad for themselves, I'd trust that a thousand times moreso than if the government gets to choose. Recognizing, of course, that the government makes choices like that every single day.

Hey, I know it's not perfect. It's just that we have to put our faith in someone, right? Unless we're going to hold a public referendum on every single decision made on our behalf, then all we're arguing is the demarcation point of where the power of elected officials ends and the will of the people should start. I'd see the decision to allow same sex couples to marry to be comfortably within the remit of the former.

[Johnny English]

So, they're too ill-informed, too ignorant, too self-centerd to make the right decision, but the elected officials they are manipulated into putting into power aren't ?


Interesting...Two Questions?

Have you seen the President...?

Are you sure you're English? I've long admired the verbal acuity evinced by our friends across the pond...you're seriously making me rethink that....

Yes, I've seen the President. I'm not sure where you're going with that one..... I'm guessing you don't like him. It's a rare thing to find a leader that everyone likes, though. I'm not sufficiently clued up on US politics to hold a sensible and rationally argued position as to why he's good, bad or indifferent. The only two things I'm sure of are that you did a better job with this one than you did picking the last, and that the alternative to this one was considerably less palatable from my perspective as someone who isn't a US citizen.

As for my Englishness, I'm sorry that you've allowed yourself to labour under such a false impression of my country. I think you're missing my point somewhat, though - of course there's a contradiction if you're going to take what I say from a literal point of view. I'm too ignorant and ill-informed to fix my own furnace, but I'm still going to choose who I ask to do it. Is that contradictory?

[Sundayjack]

I can't believe you were ...'charitable' enough to walk past that contradiction....

Hey, I know it's not perfect. It's just that we have to put our faith in someone, right? Unless we're going to hold a public referendum on every single decision made on our behalf, then all we're arguing is the demarcation point of where the power of elected officials ends and the will of the people should start. I'd see the decision to allow same sex couples to marry to be comfortably within the remit of the former.
I was figuring that came out worse than it was intended.

True, though. We do need to put our faith in elected officials and we HOPE that they do good in our name. And this is why I said this is a discussion for a different day and a different thread. In the context of gay marriage, the movement has impatiently decided that it can't be bothered with enacting change the way everyone else would have to do it.

I want to illustrate what I'm talking about with a real-live example.

As we speak, there is pending a handpicked federal case, with handpicked plaintiffs, in a handpicked Federal Court (San Francisco), in a handpicked Federal Circuit (9th Circuit). If that same case were filed in the Federal Court in Utah and in the 10th Circuit, would it get the same hearing? One would hope so, but one also hopes that Cracker Jax would go back to the cool prizes we used to get. Just ain't gonna happen.

Is it fair that the preferences of one community (San Francisco, CA) are exploited so that the preferences of another community (Salt Lake City, Utah) get diminished? Of course it isn't. So, the only fair thing would be to allow both sub-communities to make their own fair set of rules through some process with a popular election behind it. But that's not good enough for the gay marriage proponents. But it should be, because it is the fairest for all parties. And it doesn't matter one whit why Utah doesn't like gay marriage. Maybe they like polygamy better, and maybe Californians aren't too keen on that. We don't even need to get to the question of 'why'. Doesn't matter. They're San Franciscans or they're Utes (or Utahnian or whatever). That's what they do and who they are.

[Johnny English]

I was figuring that came out worse than it was intended.

True, though. We do need to put our faith in elected officials and we HOPE that they do good in our name. And this is why I said this is a discussion for a different day and a different thread. In the context of gay marriage, the movement has impatiently decided that it can't be bothered with enacting change the way everyone else would have to do it.

I want to illustrate what I'm talking about with a real-live example.

As we speak, there is pending a handpicked federal case, with handpicked plaintiffs, in a handpicked Federal Court (San Francisco), in a handpicked Federal Circuit (9th Circuit). If that same case were filed in the Federal Court in Utah and in the 10th Circuit, would it get the same hearing? One would hope so, but one also hopes that Cracker Jax would go back to the cool prizes we used to get. Just ain't gonna happen.

Is it fair that the preferences of one community (San Francisco, CA) are exploited so that the preferences of another community (Salt Lake City, Utah) get diminished? Of course it isn't. So, the only fair thing would be to allow both sub-communities to make their own fair set of rules through some process with a popular election behind it. But that's not good enough for the gay marriage proponents. But it should be, because it is the fairest for all parties. And it doesn't matter one whit why Utah doesn't like gay marriage. Maybe they like polygamy better, and maybe Californians aren't too keen on that. We don't even need to get to the question of 'why'. Doesn't matter. They're San Franciscans or they're Utes (or Utahnian or whatever). That's what they do and who they are.

OK, I'm probably going to demonstrate my lack of knowledge of the US legal system here so I'll apologise in advance, but is the sensible argument not that the Constitution should be amended, and that the right of marriage for all irrespective of gender should be enshrined within Federal law? My view is that a right whose exercise does no actual harm to others, and can easily be shown to potentially do much good, surely has no reason not to be protected?

[Sundayjack]

OK, I'm probably going to demonstrate my lack of knowledge of the US legal system here so I'll apologise in advance, but is the sensible argument not that the Constitution should be amended, and that the right of marriage for all irrespective of gender should be enshrined within Federal law? My view is that a right whose exercise does no actual harm to others, and can easily be shown to potentially do much good, surely has no reason not to be protected?

If that were done, it would be through a democratic process. And, yes, that would be perfectly fine. But that's lengthy and involved, and the gay marriage movement lacks the patience.

Polls right now suggest that gay marriage is opposed by people middle-age upward, but is either dead-even or even favored among young people. So, it could very well be that gay marriage will be very popular in less than a decade. And all of those people will (or should) be voters. So the likelihood of change, if you have patience, is pretty good.


ETA: I spoke of polling. There's tons of them, but here's one:
Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday say marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, with 44 percent suggesting they should be considered legal.

But among those 18 to 34 years old, 58 percent said same-sex marriages should be legal. That number drops to 42 percent among respondents aged 35 to 49, and to 41 percent for those aged 50 to 64. Only 24 percent of Americans 65 and older support recognizing same-sex marriages, according to the poll.

[Johnny English]

If that were done, it would be through a democratic process. And, yes, that would be perfectly fine. But that's a lengthy and involved, and the gay marriage lobby movement lacks the patience.

Polls right now suggest that gay marriage is opposed by people middle-age upward, but is either dead-even or even favored among young people. So, it could very well be that gay marriage will be very popular in less than a decade. And all of those people will (or should) be voters. So the likelihood of change, if you have patience, is pretty good.

That seems reasonable; these things are rarely achieved overnight. Is it fair to say, though, that the way in which change is achieved is not historically with one monumental push, but rather with a series of cases, events and movements that each get a little closer to the tipping point before one day the desired result is reached? In which case, the argument that the gay marriage lobby is attempting to circumvent due process by trying test cases in some locations but not other is probably at least in part a recognition that the momentum is building towards the inevitable collapse of the status quo. After all, in order to continue progress towards the desired end one must continue to make the issue relevant to those who will make the decision; people won't be motivated to change that which they don't care about. Those test cases in sympathetic courts and states create awareness of the issue, they demystify and explain the arguments, and they create knowledge on which people can build their own view.

In my experience, there's none so noisy as a thwarted bigot - except possibly the single issue zealot. Bringing the two together into public awareness allows for enlightened decision making.

[Big Blocker]

That seems reasonable; these things are rarely achieved overnight. Is it fair to say, though, that the way in which change is achieved is not historically with one monumental push, but rather with a series of cases, events and movements that each get a little closer to the tipping point before one day the desired result is reached? In which case, the argument that the gay marriage lobby is attempting to circumvent due process by trying test cases in some locations but not other is probably at least in part a recognition that the momentum is building towards the inevitable collapse of the status quo. After all, in order to continue progress towards the desired end one must continue to make the issue relevant to those who will make the decision; people won't be motivated to change that which they don't care about. Those test cases in sympathetic courts and states create awareness of the issue, they demystify and explain the arguments, and they create knowledge on which people can build their own view.

In my experience, there's none so noisy as a thwarted bigot - except possibly the single issue zealot. Bringing the two together into public awareness allows for enlightened decision making.

That is of course accurate, but only up to a point. Yes, court decisions can be occasions to hold up competing arguments to the light, and amount to contests of competing ideals, where the best one in effect prevails.

But that idealistic view does not take into account the more cynical reality, which is that courts often (usually?) operate in a less rational, result oriented way. And more to the point there is the concomitant notion that these court cases are being used to thwart majority rule.

As someone who generally considers myself a progressive, I understand how court cases expanded civil rights and liberties over the fifties and into the seventies, and generally consider those cases to be a good thing. But I am also aware how the Supreme Court in the thirties took a conservative and activist posture in thwarting New Deal programs, and more recently the Roberts Court has all the appearance of reliving the days of conservative judicial activism, striking down laws adopted by the legislatures in the service of the interests of plutocrats.

There are imo too many on the left who remain in thrall to the use of the courts to achieve "progress" by short cuts. This has been accompanied by a literal laziness in doing the heavy lifting of resorting to the legislative process instead - education, building support for positions, grass roots politicking, that sort of thing. And in fact there was substantial disagreement whether to resort primarily to court challenges.

Imo and not because I support them and have any concerns in that regard, but jus sayin, the gay movement creates a backlash when it is justifiably seen as relying on liligation as a short cut to doing what would otherwise be required to prevail in the legislatures. It has a cost.

[Johnny English]

I don't disagree with the principles of what you're saying, but you can hardly argue that the gay movement hasn't put in the hard miles - for the last forty years they have been campaigning, politicking etc. The poll numbers that Sundayjack quoted show that there is a clear progression towards acceptance of their position, and that it's mainly the older end of the population who remain entrenched in a staunchly negative position. I don't think it's unfair that they would now look to the legislature and the courts to reflect their work and society's increasingly progressive attitude in the law, and clearly their starting point for doing so is going to be in those areas where they have most sympathy. I agree with your principles, I think, but I'm not sure that you're being entirely fair to the social realities in this scenario.

[Sundayjack]

That is of course accurate, but only up to a point. Yes, court decisions can be occasions to hold up competing arguments to the light, and amount to contests of competing ideals, where the best one in effect prevails.

But that idealistic view does not take into account the more cynical reality, which is that courts often (usually?) operate in a less rational, result oriented way. And more to the point there is the concomitant notion that these court cases are being used to thwart majority rule.

As someone who generally considers myself a progressive, I understand how court cases expanded civil rights and liberties over the fifties and into the seventies, and generally consider those cases to be a good thing. But I am also aware how the Supreme Court in the thirties took a conservative and activist posture in thwarting New Deal programs, and more recently the Roberts Court has all the appearance of reliving the days of conservative judicial activism, striking down laws adopted by the legislatures in the service of the interests of plutocrats.

There are imo too many on the left who remain in thrall to the use of the courts to achieve "progress" by short cuts. This has been accompanied by a literal laziness in doing the heavy lifting of resorting to the legislative process instead - education, building support for positions, grass roots politicking, that sort of thing. And in fact there was substantial disagreement whether to resort primarily to court challenges.

Imo and not because I support them and have any concerns in that regard, but jus sayin, the gay movement creates a backlash when it is justifiably seen as relying on liligation as a short cut to doing what would otherwise be required to prevail in the legislatures. It has a cost.
And in some other thread, I'd argue that they did nothing of the sort.

[Sundayjack]

I don't disagree with the principles of what you're saying, but you can hardly argue that the gay movement hasn't put in the hard miles - for the last forty years they have been campaigning, politicking etc. The poll numbers that Sundayjack quoted show that there is a clear progression towards acceptance of their position, and that it's mainly the older end of the population who remain entrenched in a staunchly negative position. I don't think it's unfair that they would now look to the legislature and the courts to reflect their work and society's increasingly progressive attitude in the law, and clearly their starting point for doing so is going to be in those areas where they have most sympathy. I agree with your principles, I think, but I'm not sure that you're being entirely fair to the social realities in this scenario.

Especially those guys on the bottom. My god, they're true believers to the cause.

[Big Blocker]

And in some other thread, I'd argue that they did nothing of the sort.

Mapp v. Ohio?

"NOTHING of the sort!"

Nice overstatement.

JE,

I give the gay rights movement credit for convincing gullible young people that supporting them is this generation's chance to be "just" as progressive as those supporting the civil rights movement were in the fifties and sixties, but of course it is interesting that black people by and large do not see the analogy, or so polls would tend to show. As this group ages, though, I would not count on their support remaining at the high levels it presently seems to be at. Just a hunch, but I think there may well be an increasing appreciation in this group of the con arguments to the gay agenda.

[CatoTheElder]

Anyone else seeing lucrative opportunities as a divorce lawyer right now?

[GreenMachine]

Mapp v. Ohio?

"NOTHING of the sort!"

Nice overstatement.

JE,

I give the gay rights movement credit for convincing gullible young people that supporting them is this generation's chance to be "just" as progressive as those supporting the civil rights movement were in the fifties and sixties, but of course it is interesting that black people by and large do not see the analogy, or so polls would tend to show. As this group ages, though, I would not count on their support remaining at the high levels it presently seems to be at. Just a hunch, but I think there may well be an increasing appreciation in this group of the con arguments to the gay agenda.

The gay agenda? You mean being able to visit loved ones in the hospital on their death beds? Or affordable health insurance for partners? Or being able to adopt children nobody wants?

Damn gay agenda...soon they will ruin the sanctity of marriage with infidelity, divorce and spousal abuse. and everyone knows their ultimate goal is bestiality and Robo-Sexual marriage.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[Sundayjack]

Mapp v. Ohio?

"NOTHING of the sort!"

Nice overstatement.



Meh. I don't have any problem with most of the crimpro cases. But, if the Warren years are marked for anything, it's ends-justify-means jurisprudence. The sort of stuff that generally makes us LESS free, not more. In small bites, not big ones.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

Refusing to extend the term marriage to a union of two homosexuals concerns behavior, not a set characteristic that cannot be changed.

Prove it. Actually, don't waste your time, because you can't. There are plenty of people out there that dispute your claim.

In short, trying to use terms like separate but equal is misleading and intended to cloud the analysis.

No it isn't, it's the exact definition. People who support civil unions with the exact same rights, but not marriage are, by the very definition of the words, advocating something that is separate but equal. There is no disputing this, unless you don't know the definitions of the words "separate" and "equal".

But there is a rational basis in determining that unions that from the basic social building block and within which children are optimally born and raised should be headed by a man and a woman. It is a social judgment that takes into account that a family headed by a man and a woman allows children to experience both sexes as role models, in turn preparing them best for dealing with both sexes in the larger world. There is also a valid social judgment that the natural parents of a child should be encouraged to jointly raise that child.

This is one of your weakest arguments. It defeats itself. You claim that children need a man and woman present (which is debatable, but not the point here), and so that is a reason for denying same sex marriage. However, since a same sex couple cannot possibly have children, this argument is 100% irrelevant. If you wanted to apply it to allowing gay couples to adopt, while it would still be at best debatable, it would at least be relevant. Raising children is simply not relevant to same sex marriage because, again, by definition, same sex couples are not capable of producing children.

That rational basis in turn becomes the grounds for using the term marriage and what society then bestows on those who enter into it as a form of approval, of imprimatur, which of course is exactly why gay groups and those who support the gay agenda are not satisfied with civil unions, even if the benefits are the same. They WANT that imprimatur, that social approval. Tolerance is not enough for them.

Being told that you aren't good enough to enter the same legal contract that any other adult is is not tolerance.

A society based on a family consisting of a marriage between a man and a woman is a better performing one

This is purely your opinion.

and one that better introduces children raised within it to then enter into society with knowledge of how both sexes act.

Irrelevant to the discussion, as introducing children is not an issue for same sex couples.

And beyond that the extension of benefits to homosexuals in civil unions either requires an increase in social expenditures to fund those benefits, or diminishes the benefits available to straight marriages if the expenditures are merely maintained at the same level. As a taxpayer these judgments also have an effect on me.

Finally it affects me in terms of my being a member of society who is in effect forced to approve and venerate a form of behavior that I choose to merely tolerate. I am for toleration of homosexuals, but I do not venerate their behavior, and do not feel that the social collective should be forced to venerate it.

So to be clear, you oppose civil unions as well then?

It's not a load of shit. Why does their union have to be called marriage when it is not the definition of a marriage? You are acting like because I believe that the sacrament of marriage is sacred it is an affront to gays. Why? it is not about them it is about a union between a man and a women.

Like I said, the government has no sacraments. Churches do. If a church wants to refuse to marry same sex couples I have no problem with that. But to the government, marriage is nothing more than a contract. Honestly I think the government should refer to all marriages as civil unions and have the word marriage completely out of the equation as far as the government is concerned.


Just like it is traditionally defind.

Leaving aside the fact that tradition is a shitty reason to keep doing something that is wrong, this is debatable.

Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.

Some 2,500 years ago the definition seemed pretty gender neutral.


Ok, lets ask you, if they have the exact same rights as married couples and it is called something else then why do they do you need it to be called a marriage?

If it doesn't matter what it's called, why can't you call it a marriage?

[Sundayjack]

Prove it. Actually, don't waste your time, because you can't. There are plenty of people out there that dispute your claim.



No it isn't, it's the exact definition. People who support civil unions with the exact same rights, but not marriage are, by the very definition of the words, advocating something that is separate but equal. There is no disputing this, unless you don't know the definitions of the words "separate" and "equal".



This is one of your weakest arguments. It defeats itself. You claim that children need a man and woman present (which is debatable, but not the point here), and so that is a reason for denying same sex marriage. However, since a same sex couple cannot possibly have children, this argument is 100% irrelevant. If you wanted to apply it to allowing gay couples to adopt, while it would still be at best debatable, it would at least be relevant. Raising children is simply not relevant to same sex marriage because, again, by definition, same sex couples are not capable of producing children.



Being told that you aren't good enough to enter the same legal contract that any other adult is is not tolerance.



This is purely your opinion.



Irrelevant to the discussion, as introducing children is not an issue for same sex couples.



So to be clear, you oppose civil unions as well then?



Like I said, the government has no sacraments. Churches do. If a church wants to refuse to marry same sex couples I have no problem with that. But to the government, marriage is nothing more than a contract. Honestly I think the government should refer to all marriages as civil unions and have the word marriage completely out of the equation as far as the government is concerned.




Leaving aside the fact that tradition is a shitty reason to keep doing something that is wrong, this is debatable.



Some 2,500 years ago the definition seemed pretty gender neutral.




If it doesn't matter what it's called, why can't you call it a marriage?

In truth, it's one of his strongest. The standard is pretty low, and it's that sort of rationally based argument that carries the argument. Not the one that I'D choose, but it's certainly enough to uphold a ban on gay marriage.

[devilonthetownhallroof]

In truth, it's one of his strongest. The standard is pretty low, and it's that sort of rationally based argument that carries the argument. Not the one that I'D choose, but it's certainly enough to uphold a ban on gay marriage.

It's not rationally based though. Using raising children as a reason to oppose something that by definition will never be able to have children is completely irrational.

[Satire?]

I think gays should be given a chance to prove that they won't have as many divorces as straight people nationwide.

[brothermoose]

Civilly? Yeah, taking care of a significant other would be my choice for the point of origin. Homestead laws and certain vehicles of ownership were much the same. Seems to me that man marrying man and woman marrying baloney sandwich was such a foreign concept that you can't even say it was an oversight or conscious choice. It just never entered the equation.

But, Constitutionally, restricting marriage to a man-woman relationship in order to encourage population growth sufficient to sustain our economy should be more than sufficient to support discrimination. And, after all, laws do discriminate.

The best part of this whole debate is how it has furthered the discussion of states fighting back on a Constitutional level and asserting themselves and their policy choices. That's almost exactly what happened with slavery in the mid-1800's which, eventually, led to the biggest Constitutional corrections since drafting. It's a really cool and growing fight. We saw it most recently here in the Massachusetts case, but it also took center stage in the Chicago gun case.

Unless you're gay and you need to get your taxes done immediately, it will be interesting to sit back and see how all this stuff develops. You have to think it's going to get a kick in the ass within the next week or two, when the California gay marriage case is finally decided. Then, it will go up to the Ninth Circuit; the Ninth Circuit will rule in favor of a Federal gay marriage right (because that's what the Ninth Circuit does); and then it will either be argued at the Supreme Court in 2012, or the entire western portion of the country will have a Constitutional right to gay marriage. That's when the fun REALLY starts.

I'm a little confused by what you mean with Civil vs. Constitutional.

Civil law meaning federal statutes? vs. Constitutional Intepretation?

It seems clear to me that if the intent of all the laws giving benefits to married couples was to encourage US growth, then the whole pro argument takes a big hit.

Bringing up the argument again in this case is valid, sure, but the equal rights reasoning goes out the window. Rather, it would have to be treated as a separate case of rights altogether. Either way, you have clarified the crux of the situation very well...thank you for that...it will be interesting to watch it unfold.

[Sundayjack]

It's not rationally based though. Using raising children as a reason to oppose something that by definition will never be able to have children is completely irrational.

You don't have to agree with it. Doesn't even need to be empirically correct. But a government judgment that it prefers the social relationship of man-woman-child, over man-man-child or woman-woman-child, because of tradition, social science, or even some vague notion of what "better" may be, IS rational enough to pass muster.

[Sundayjack]

I'm a little confused by what you mean with Civil vs. Constitutional.

Civil law meaning federal statutes? vs. Constitutional Intepretation?

It seems clear to me that if the intent of all the laws giving benefits to married couples was to encourage US growth, then the whole pro argument takes a big hit.

Bringing up the argument again in this case is valid, sure, but the equal rights reasoning goes out the window. Rather, it would have to be treated as a separate case of rights altogether. Either way, you have clarified the crux of the situation very well...thank you for that...it will be interesting to watch it unfold.

In that context, I used the word "civil" because, if I remember right, the posts all around mine were talking about "religious" marriage. It's an imperfect way of making the point, but I was trying to strip all of that away and focus solely on a government sanctioned JP marriage.

[BadgerOnLSD]

A society based on a family consisting of a marriage between a man and a woman is a better performing one
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily. dscape.jpg

[NDmick]

I didn't read the thread, but did anyone make the joke

"Same sex marriage? Yes, marriage is the same sex everytime you have it."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[BadgerOnLSD]

I didn't read the thread, but did anyone make the joke

"Same sex marriage? Yes, marriage is the same sex everytime you have it."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[kbgreen]

If it doesn't matter what it's called, why can't you call it a marriage?

Because marriage is already traditionally defined as a union between a man and women. People seem to act like it is wrong to think the word is important and that it is somehow biased to want the word preserved.

I think separate but equal is how this should be worked out. The problem is that gay people will not accept it because they will feel like they will not get the same social recognition as married couples do. Which says more about their self esteem then about what separate but equal means.

As has been stated here polls show that the younger generation do not have a problem with the pervertion of the word. So given time this will just happen and I am waisting my time fighting for this. Personally, I think some of those young people will change their minds when they get married and it means something to them.

[BadgerOnLSD]

As has been stated here polls show that the younger generation do not have a problem with the pervertion of the word. So given time this will just happen and I am wasting my time fighting for this.
Pretty much.
Personally, I think some of those young people will change their minds when they get married and it means something to them.
Doubt it.

[Gunther]

Their lifestyle is a perversion. It doesn't build families. It destroys them. So two people are fighting to destroy their blood lines. Go ahead. It's sexual perversion for the sheer purpose of getting one's rocks off.
Now I understand the purpose of removing the clitoris and circumcision. It is to try to keep people from spending too much of their life and time playing with their genitals.

[Big Blocker]

It's not rationally based though. Using raising children as a reason to oppose something that by definition will never be able to have children is completely irrational.

Putting aside the fact that there are some number of gay unions that also are families that include children, you miss the point completely.

In effect you are seeing an overlap of types of marriage, or more accurately specific conditions or situations of married couples, as not an overlao, but instead a situation where the differnces amont to a distinction that in turn requires a changed definition of the term. that is not the correct way to understand what is going on. Let me explain...

Marriage is usually a state that precedes the birth of children, and then the raising of those children. Of course this means that some marry and never have children. And even those who do eventually have children will usually not have children at first. But society imo has the right to say the government will FIRST recognize the social condition or state into which children are most optimally born and then raised, with the practical recognition that many who do so will then have children. Society identifies this state as marriage.

It should be clear that the fact that some percentage of married people do not have children is largely irrelevant to this analysis. Marriage is instead the preferred social arrangement into which children should be born.

In fact one could easily say were this not the case (for whatever social or biological reason) that marriage as a preferred form of social arrangement would not exist.

It should also be clear that society does not force people to have children. What it instead does, really has pretty much done for countless centuries, is say if you want to have children you will be encouraged through a number of incentives to be married when you do so. These incentives are not enough, obviously, to encourage all who have children to be married when they do, but that is another discussion. The goal, the objective, is rather straightforward, actually. And it should be clear this is a rational social objective.

The related notion that marriage should be between a man and a woman is in fact supported by the notion that children will benefit in the long run by being around people of both sexes. This seems rather common sensical to me, and in fact there are social studies that compare rates of various pathologies among children of single mothers versus the standard nuclear marriage, indicating the latter is the better arrangement. Of course it is.

Those who for polemical reasons argue the contrary should have the burden of proof, since they are the ones seeking to change human history.

[Big Blocker]

The gay agenda? You mean being able to visit loved ones in the hospital on their death beds? Or affordable health insurance for partners? Or being able to adopt children nobody wants?

Damn gay agenda...soon they will ruin the sanctity of marriage with infidelity, divorce and spousal abuse. and everyone knows their ultimate goal is bestiality and Robo-Sexual marriage.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

You are out of your element. The civil union thing is not the issue.

That's the whole point. The gay agenda is NOT primarily about those things. It is about forcing society to say gay marriage is worthy of veneration on the level of straight marriage.

[Barry the Baptist]

Their It's sexual perversion for the sheer purpose of getting one's rocks off.


So would you say the same about masturbation? I'm a married guy and all I wanna do is get my rocks off 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

[fozzi58]

Their lifestyle is a perversion. It doesn't build families. It destroys them. So two people are fighting to destroy their blood lines. Go ahead. It's sexual perversion for the sheer purpose of getting one's rocks off.
Now I understand the purpose of removing the clitoris and circumcision. It is to try to keep people from spending too much of their life and time playing with their genitals.

Gunther - obviously you are pretty passionate about your position, but your approach to the argument is terrible and its somewhat disrespectful if any poster here is homosexual. Although I somewhat disagree with BB and Hobbes, they make respectful and thoughtful arguments and I am certainly open my minded enough and avoid being ignorant about their positions and thinking my opinion and argument is the right way and only way.

Calling that lifestyle a perversion falls back to a previous point of view. If you like to collect classic cars is that a perversion because you can be doing something better with your money like adopting a crack baby or helping a senior citizens building? No - its a choice. Or maybe its something that you have in your genes that drive you to do something. Some people are driven to own their own business, some people are driven to climb the corporate ladder, some people are driven to be serial killers. Others are driven to be attracted by the same sex.

Am I a perversion because I no longer exercise and like to eat snacks in front of the TV as opposed to Alio who is the next Joe Weider or JoahnnyD who is training for the Olympics? Its a lifestyle choice - its not a perversion.

I'm not sure what middle eastern or African country you hail from, but we don't recommend removing the clitoris in America. However, if your religion calls for that, I certainly have sympathy for the females in your society. As for the circumcision, I already jack off way too much as it is - no circumcision stops a hard on. That practice is usually reserved for one of two reasons or both: religion tradition/practice, and hygiene. Unless you are getting circumcised by a friend in the garage with a dremel or tin snips, I highly doubt that practice - usually done at birth - will change the frequency rate of a hard on.

Lastly - the destroying families part is way over the top. Please don't even bring that argument to the table when the divorce rate is over 50% in America. When the divorce rate drops back below 10%, then you have a very valid argument. There are more kids growing up in broken homes that do WAY MORE damage than same sex homes. The younger children - age 10 through 16 - are way more impressionable by their single parents living a care free lifestyle than a same sex home. Its certainly better to have 2 same sex stable adults in the home than one parent who is still more concerned about their personal life. My wife sees this all the time in middle to upper class suburban neighborhood students who come from broken homes - many of which are well to do.

And if a divorcee has a lifestyle change and gets with a same sex partner long after thier children are born, whose to stay that 2nd adult in the home is worse than no 2nd adult.

[fozzi58]

So would you say the same about masturbation? I'm a married guy and all I wanna do is get my rocks off 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

I second the motion...

3 Hotties just walked by my cube - what I could do to them in the datacenter with some cat5 cable and an empty server rack. *tent pitched*

[devilonthetownhallroof]

In fact one could easily say were this not the case (for whatever social or biological reason) that marriage as a preferred form of social arrangement would not exist.

False. Marriage was created as a business deal between two families. It had little to nothing to do with children other than to establish heirs.

[brothermoose]

False. Marriage was created as a business deal between two families. It had little to nothing to do with children other than to establish heirs.

You got a link for that?

Besides that you are speaking of historical marriages, the incentives provided by the US government could very well have been in the vein of new citizens, thereby destroying any equality argument one may present.

[wildthing2022000]

You got a link for that?

Besides that you are speaking of historical marriages, the incentives provided by the US government could very well have been in the vein of new citizens, thereby destroying any equality argument one may present.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Antiquity-Renaissance

What's love got to do with it? In early history, politics and money trumped emotions.

* Ancient Greece: Love is a many-splendored (manly) thing. Love is honored—especially between men. In marriage, inheritance is more important than feelings: A woman whose father dies without male heirs can be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she has to divorce her husband first.
* Rome: Wife-swapping as a career move—Statesman Marcus Porcius Cato divorces his wife and marries her off to his ally Hortensius in order to strengthen family bonds; after Hortensius dies, Cato remarries her.
* 6th-century Europe: Political polygamy—The Germanic warlord Clothar, despite being a baptized Christian, eventually acquires four wives for strategic reasons, including his dead brother's wife, her sister and the daughter of a captured foreign king.
* 12th-century Europe: Marriage is good for loving...someone else—Upper-class marriages are often arranged before the couple has met. Aristocrats believe love is incompatible with marriage and can flourish only in adultery.
* 14th-century Europe: It takes a village—Ordinary people can't choose whom to marry either. The lord of one Black Forest manor decrees in 1344 that all his unmarried tenants—including widows and widowers—marry spouses of his choosing. Elsewhere, peasants wishing to pick a partner must pay a fee.

[Hobbes3259]

That's the whole point. The gay agenda is NOT primarily about those things. It is about forcing society to say gay marriage is worthy of veneration on the level of straight marriage.

100% correct.

(Are you drinking or under a doctors care? :wink:)

[Hobbes3259]

False. Marriage was created as a business deal between two families.

Hardly.

You'll need to go back about 5000 years, to get around that.

Judaism
Main article: Jewish views of marriage


In Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved.[Deut. 24:1] Though procreation is not the sole purpose, a Jewish marriage is also expected to fulfill the commandment to have children.[Gen. 1:28] The main focus centers around the relationship between the husband and wife. Kabbalistically, marriage is understood to mean that the husband and wife are merging together into a single soul. This is why a man is considered "incomplete" if he is not married, as his soul is only one part of a larger whole that remains to be unified.[83]


The Jewish people go back 5000 plus years, regardless of what some Social Sciences Prof told you.

[Johnny English]

So what you're saying is that in different cultures, under different principles, some of which may be religious, marriage means different things?

[JetBlue]

Some 2,500 years ago the definition seemed pretty gender neutral.

that's dishonest, because you can simply look at how it was practiced to see it wasn't gender neutral at all. it didn't need to be defined specifically to grasp what it meant by simply examining how it was executed.

[fenwyr]

So what you're saying is that in different cultures, under different principles, some of which may be religious, marriage means different things?

I wish they were listening to you. This is becoming worse than a discussion in the political thread.

In this day and age, marriage is a legal contract recognized by the state. Thankfully, we have seperation of church and state in this country. As soon as marriage became a state recognized legal term (i.e. married filing jointly), religion and tradition need to go out the window.

It is a LEGAL term now. Religious whackjobs can fight over taking the word back. I honestly could care less what we call it. From the states point of view, everyone joined in a legal union should be called the same thing. Argue about the legality of same sex unions, but you cannot have it both ways. If you are for same sex unions, with the same rights as non same sex unions, they should be called the same thing under the law.

[Gunther]

Gunther - obviously you are pretty passionate about your position, but your approach to the argument is terrible and its somewhat disrespectful if any poster here is homosexual. Although I somewhat disagree with BB and Hobbes, they make respectful and thoughtful arguments and I am certainly open my minded enough and avoid being ignorant about their positions and thinking my opinion and argument is the right way and only way.

Calling that lifestyle a perversion falls back to a previous point of view. If you like to collect classic cars is that a perversion because you can be doing something better with your money like adopting a crack baby or helping a senior citizens building? No - its a choice. Or maybe its something that you have in your genes that drive you to do something. Some people are driven to own their own business, some people are driven to climb the corporate ladder, some people are driven to be serial killers. Others are driven to be attracted by the same sex.

Am I a perversion because I no longer exercise and like to eat snacks in front of the TV as opposed to Alio who is the next Joe Weider or JoahnnyD who is training for the Olympics? Its a lifestyle choice - its not a perversion.

I'm not sure what middle eastern or African country you hail from, but we don't recommend removing the clitoris in America. However, if your religion calls for that, I certainly have sympathy for the females in your society. As for the circumcision, I already jack off way too much as it is - no circumcision stops a hard on. That practice is usually reserved for one of two reasons or both: religion tradition/practice, and hygiene. Unless you are getting circumcised by a friend in the garage with a dremel or tin snips, I highly doubt that practice - usually done at birth - will change the frequency rate of a hard on.

Lastly - the destroying families part is way over the top. Please don't even bring that argument to the table when the divorce rate is over 50% in America. When the divorce rate drops back below 10%, then you have a very valid argument. There are more kids growing up in broken homes that do WAY MORE damage than same sex homes. The younger children - age 10 through 16 - are way more impressionable by their single parents living a care free lifestyle than a same sex home. Its certainly better to have 2 same sex stable adults in the home than one parent who is still more concerned about their personal life. My wife sees this all the time in middle to upper class suburban neighborhood students who come from broken homes - many of which are well to do.

And if a divorcee has a lifestyle change and gets with a same sex partner long after thier children are born, whose to stay that 2nd adult in the home is worse than no 2nd adult.

I'm guilty of many sins, so I'm pointing no fingers, but I guess over time with reading and years, I see some things a little bit differently. I do see same sex relationships as perversions. The word perversion simply means to alter from it's original course; to distort what was first intended. That is a fact. Same sex marriage is a distortion from it's original course.
As far as heterosexual couples doing far more damage, this is true, but only because they have had a longer time at it. I would give the gay couples some more time, but I don't think their lifestyle would create an ongoing continuum.

I'm from the good OL USA, but I do think a lot. Unless you have been to those countries, you don't know the purpose or the reasoning behind it. To you it sounds sick and gross to have the female genitalia cut off. I know a little something about it to know that it has nothing to do with anything gross. The story is too long to get into, but it deals with the power of sex. Something that I'm beginning to believe we have taken far too lightly.

Marriage in this country is bad, but same sex marriage will not be the savior. Only when we are able to ask ourselves, What The Fuck is Going On Around Here?
And Can I Get Off This Train? will we be able to start at least looking at how we got to this point.

[Gunther]

I masturbate plenty my damn self, but I'm starting to think that all this constant attention we spend playing with our genitals is not good. The problem is we spend so much of our time trying to get off that we don't really have much of a need to really connect with our partners. We have become so use to getting our own selves off that it becomes more difficult for somebody else to do it.

[fenwyr]

I'm guilty of many sins, so I'm pointing no fingers, but I guess over time with reading and years, I see some things a little bit differently. I do see same sex relationships as perversions. The word perversion simply means to alter from it's original course; to distort what was first intended. That is a fact. Same sex marriage is a distortion from it's original course.
As far as heterosexual couples doing far more damage, this is true, but only because they have had a longer time at it. I would give the gay couples some more time, but I don't think their lifestyle would create an ongoing continuum.

I'm from the good OL USA, but I do think a lot. Unless you have been to those countries, you don't know the purpose or the reasoning behind it. To you it sounds sick and gross to have the female genitalia cut off. I know a little something about it to know that it has nothing to do with anything gross. The story is too long to get into, but it deals with the power of sex. Something that I'm beginning to believe we have taken far too lightly.

Marriage in this country is bad, but same sex marriage will not be the savior. Only when we are able to ask ourselves, What The Fuck is Going On Around Here?
And Can I Get Off This Train? will we be able to start at least looking at how we got to this point.

I can tell you're a few bong hits into this thought process, but once our brains developed cognitive thought, we were no longer a species of eat, mate, shit, sleep, repeat. Every other species on the planet pretty much boils down to that. And not for nothing, homosexuality appears in most species on earth.

We have self awareness. We have a concious choice (or even a genetic predisposition) of which sex we prefer. I am a man that is attracted to women. Who am I (or anybody for that matter) to judge another person for what they find attractive. Some guys like fat girls, foreign girls, different color girls. There is something in our brain that stimulates us. For some dudes, it's other dudes. Whatever.

I find it laughable that the same nutjobs who oppose guy rights follow a religion that has sanctioned homosexuality and rape for centuries, behind closed doors of course, but have called it perversion from behind the pulpit.

[brothermoose]

I masturbate plenty my damn self, but I'm starting to think that all this constant attention we spend playing with our genitals is not good. The problem is we spend so much of our time trying to get off that we don't really have much of a need to really connect with our partners.

If it feels the same, then you're doing it wrong.

We have become so use to getting our own selves off that it becomes more difficult for somebody else to do it.

Take a few days off and you'll be right back to zero...:up:

[Gunther]

I can tell you're a few bong hits into this thought process, but once our brains developed cognitive thought, we were no longer a species of eat, mate, shit, sleep, repeat. Every other species on the planet pretty much boils down to that. And not for nothing, homosexuality appears in most species on earth.

We have self awareness. We have a concious choice (or even a genetic predisposition) of which sex we prefer. I am a man that is attracted to women. Who am I (or anybody for that matter) to judge another person for what they find attractive. Some guys like fat girls, foreign girls, different color girls. There is something in our brain that stimulates us. For some dudes, it's other dudes. Whatever.

I find it laughable that the same nutjobs who oppose guy rights follow a religion that has sanctioned homosexuality and rape for centuries, behind closed doors of course, but have called it perversion from behind the pulpit.

I would find it laughable too if not for their power and influence that they have over the people. But at some point we have to take some accountability for what we fall for.

[brothermoose]

I wish they were listening to you. This is becoming worse than a discussion in the political thread.

In this day and age, marriage is a legal contract recognized by the state. Thankfully, we have seperation of church and state in this country. As soon as marriage became a state recognized legal term (i.e. married filing jointly), religion and tradition need to go out the window.

It is a LEGAL term now. Religious whackjobs can fight over taking the word back. I honestly could care less what we call it. From the states point of view, everyone joined in a legal union should be called the same thing. Argue about the legality of same sex unions, but you cannot have it both ways. If you are for same sex unions, with the same rights as non same sex unions, they should be called the same thing under the law.

Fuck religion. I think the real argument is whether or not the benefits provided to married couples by the government are meant to grow the population or not.

Given that married couples without children reap the benefits, I would have to say in practice, that they are not.

Additional benefits are given for children, but that is an whole other debate.

Homo couples with kids should be eligible for equal assistance AFA child-rearing though.

[JetBlue]

Marriage in this country is bad, but same sex marriage will not be the savior. Only when we are able to ask ourselves, What The Fuck is Going On Around Here?
And Can I Get Off This Train? will we be able to start at least looking at how we got to this point.
nobody wants to look around and question the state of affairs, that would require maybe thinking negatively about something or someone, and that just isn't nice. it is ironic that progressives actually champion a regression of maturity in that they simply practice the attitude of three year old's -- we should all be able to do as we please. there is no right or wrong, just what makes me feel good.

and anyone who disagrees is a religious whackjob.

[Gunther]

If it feels the same, then you're doing it wrong.



Take a few days off and you'll be right back to zero...:up:

Lol.... It works, and when you explode, ha, watch the fuck out, but still as the years gone by, haven't you started to use vaseline or Keri lotion? I'm just saying, we begin to put more energy into this than maybe we should.

[brothermoose]

nobody wants to look around and question the state of affairs, that would require maybe thinking negatively about something or someone, and that just isn't nice. it is ironic that progressives actually champion a regression of maturity in that they simply practice the attitude of three year old's -- we should all be able to do as we please. there is no right or wrong, just what makes me feel good.

and anyone who disagrees is a religious whackjob.

Yer stretching that argument further than a Thai DP.

The benefits of marriage exist for a purpose. Since child-rearing is not the intended purpose given that childless couples enjoy the same financial benefits as Cletus and Brandine, it must be the familial unit in general that is encouraged. Being that there is no evidence to show that a childless homo couple is any less valuable to society than a childless hetero one, there really is no good reason not to encourage the behavior.

[Hobbes3259]

Yer stretching that argument further than a Thai DP.

The benefits of marriage exist for a purpose. Since child-rearing is not the intended purpose given that childless couples enjoy the same financial benefits as Cletus and Brandine, it must be the familial unit in general that is encouraged. Being that there is no evidence to show that a childless homo couple is any less valuable to society than a childless hetero one, there really is no good reason not to encourage the behavior.

Yes, there is.

No new taxpayers.

[fenwyr]

Fuck religion. I think the real argument is whether or not the benefits provided to married couples by the government are meant to grow the population or not.

Given that married couples without children reap the benefits, I would have to say in practice, that they are not.

Additional benefits are given for children, but that is an whole other debate.

Homo couples with kids should be eligible for equal assistance AFA child-rearing though.

We're married without children. My company pays for my wife's healthcare, not the government. Our standard deduction is a little bit higher than filing seperately, but not so much as to make a difference.

Am I missing out on some benefits I should be aware of? I need to know what we should be reaping, we could use it.

Also, the concept of marriage as a tool to grow the population doesn't make sense in traditional, religious, or modern terms.

In traditional and religious terms it was always "You better be married if you're pregnant," not "You better get married so you can get pregnant."

In modern terms, well, we would get a tax credit if we had a kid regardless if we were married. Again, we must be missing out on the free romantic trips and fertility perks...

[fenwyr]

Yes, there is.

No new taxpayers.

What does that have to do with marriage? Do you think if gays cannot marry each other they are going to couple up with the opposite sex, push out some new taxpayers, and live happily ever after?

I knew I shouldn't have installed that hot tub time machine. The 80's suck.

[JetBlue]

Yer stretching that argument further than a Thai DP.

The benefits of marriage exist for a purpose. Since child-rearing is not the intended purpose given that childless couples enjoy the same financial benefits as Cletus and Brandine, it must be the familial unit in general that is encouraged. Being that there is no evidence to show that a childless homo couple is any less valuable to society than a childless hetero one, there really is no good reason not to encourage the behavior.
you can attempt to claim that is the argument and thus the logical conclusion, but the value of homosexuals to society has nothing to do with a belief that there is a right and wrong and a desire to create a society that reflects that. and if that belief runs contrary to acceptance of homosexuality, there is reason to not encourage it. I know, that makes us big meanies.

but more to your point, men and women are different. you say there is no evidence that homosexual couples provide less value to society than straight couples, but the mere accusation of such defies common sense. are you to tell me that either a supernatural being or simply natural evolution created two distinct sexes, of which have behaved historically different throughout human history, and yet those differences do not provide a more complete experience when combined than a pair of the same sex? men and women provide something unique and different to our species, and thus inherently the combination is more valuable.

[brothermoose]

Yes, there is.

No new taxpayers.

If that were true in the eyes of the government, then child-less couples would not receive the same benefits as their counterparts with offspring.

[brothermoose]

We're married without children. My company pays for my wife's healthcare, not the government. Our standard deduction is a little bit higher than filing seperately, but not so much as to make a difference.

Am I missing out on some benefits I should be aware of? I need to know what we should be reaping, we could use it.

Also, the concept of marriage as a tool to grow the population doesn't make sense in traditional, religious, or modern terms.

In traditional and religious terms it was always "You better be married if you're pregnant," not "You better get married so you can get pregnant."

In modern terms, well, we would get a tax credit if we had a kid regardless if we were married. Again, we must be missing out on the free romantic trips and fertility perks...

Sorry to hear you haven't taken advantage. I posted a link earlier in this thread that gives some good examples of the federal benefits. A lot of them have to do with sickness, hospital rights, and next of kin stuff, so thankfully, you haven't had to realize those as of yet.

And historically, getting pregnant was one of the main points of marriage. Even in this country, inability to produce offspring is grounds for divorce, so there's that.

[brothermoose]

you can attempt to claim that is the argument and thus the logical conclusion, but the value of homosexuals to society has nothing to do with a belief that there is a right and wrong and a desire to create a society that reflects that. and if that belief runs contrary to acceptance of homosexuality, there is reason to not encourage it. I know, that makes us big meanies.

I prefer the term "ignorant bigot", but since semantics is at the heart of your argument, I won't split hairs.

The value to society is in the commitment to a familial unit. There are studies showing that having a monogamous significant other increases positive choices in life, and thus more positive outcomes. Therein is the benefit to our society. It really is in our best interest to encourage all types of relationships in which the partners are forced to think beyond just themselves regardless of individual makeup.

but more to your point, men and women are different. you say there is no evidence that homosexual couples provide less value to society than straight couples, but the mere accusation of such defies common sense. are you to tell me that either a supernatural being or simply natural evolution created two distinct sexes, of which have behaved historically different throughout human history, and yet those differences do not provide a more complete experience when combined than a pair of the same sex? men and women provide something unique and different to our species, and thus inherently the combination is more valuable.


I am not advocating a single-sex race, which is what this argument appears to imply. I am merely pointing out the benefits of having two independent human beings take vows to act as one and all the positive decisions that that state of mind creates. To deny that is to ignore basic human psychology.

[fenwyr]

Sorry to hear you haven't taken advantage. I posted a link earlier in this thread that gives some good examples of the federal benefits. A lot of them have to do with sickness, hospital rights, and next of kin stuff, so thankfully, you haven't had to realize those as of yet.

And historically, getting pregnant was one of the main points of marriage. Even in this country, inability to produce offspring is grounds for divorce, so there's that.

OK, I thought we were missing out on something. "reaping the benefits" is sort of a little over the top if your are only referring to tragic sorts of stuff.

And I have to disagree to some extent. Historically, having sex without being shunned by society was the main point of marriage. Children were just the natural byproduct.

[Hobbes3259]

What does that have to do with marriage?

Nothing, though it has an awful lot to do with the reason government subsidizes it.

[fenwyr]

I prefer the term "ignorant bigot", but since semantics is at the heart of your argument, I won't split hairs.

The value to society is in the commitment to a familial unit. There are studies showing that having a monogamous significant other increases positive choices in life, and thus more positive outcomes. Therein is the benefit to our society. It really is in our best interest to encourage all types of relationships in which the partners are forced to think beyond just themselves regardless of individual makeup.




I am not advocating a single-sex race, which is what this argument appears to imply. I am merely pointing out the benefits of having two independent human beings take vows to act as one and all the positive decisions that that state of mind creates. To deny that is to ignore basic human psychology.

This was a really good post. I agree entirely.

[Hobbes3259]

If that were true in the eyes of the government, then child-less couples would not receive the same benefits as their counterparts with offspring.

They don't.

There's more goodies in the grab bag once kiddies come along.

[fenwyr]

Nothing, though it has an awful lot to do with the reason government subsidizes it.

How is marriage subsidized?

[Hobbes3259]

Historically, having sex without being shunned by society was the main point of marriage. Children were just the natural byproduct.

hardly.

The Tribe goes back 5000 years.

Judaism
Main article: Jewish views of marriage
A Jewish wedding, painting by Jozef Israëls, 1903.

In Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved.[Deut. 24:1] Though procreation is not the sole purpose, a Jewish marriage is also expected to fulfill the commandment to have children.[Gen. 1:28] The main focus centers around the relationship between the husband and wife. Kabbalistically, marriage is understood to mean that the husband and wife are merging together into a single soul. This is why a man is considered "incomplete" if he is not married, as his soul is only one part of a larger whole that remains to be unified.[83]

[fenwyr]

They don't.

There's more goodies in the grab bag once kiddies come along.

Please explain. What do married couple receive that a unmarried couple does not in terms of government tax credits, or anything else for that matter?

[brothermoose]

OK, I thought we were missing out on something. "reaping the benefits" is sort of a little over the top if your are only referring to tragic sorts of stuff.

And I have to disagree to some extent. Historically, having sex without being shunned by society was the main point of marriage. Children were just the natural byproduct.

Damn, making me do some work. Here's the link:

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Again, just because you haven't been a party to them yet doesn't mean they won't come into play whether because of tragedy or just growing old. Kind of like having car insurance and never getting into an accident.

[fenwyr]

hardly.

The Tribe goes back 5000 years.

I dont care about religion, I thought I was clear on that. Anything that religion touches generally turns to shit. We are talking about marriage as a LEGAL term.

[fenwyr]

Damn, making me do some work. Here's the link:

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

Again, just because you haven't been a party to them yet doesn't mean they won't come into play whether because of tragedy or just growing old. Kind of like having car insurance and never getting into an accident.

Wow. That is messed up. I only got a page in but I will give that a read.

[brothermoose]

They don't.

There's more goodies in the grab bag once kiddies come along.

Those goodies come regardless of marital status.

The marital benefits are extended regardless of child-bearing.

I know you're too smart to not see this, which leads me to believe you're flailing here...and badly.


Even implying that when two atheists get married in this country, it harkens back to what some puny self-important tribe in the desert was espousing 5000 years ago really shows the lack of any good counter argument you have to present.

[Johnny English]

hardly.

The Tribe goes back 5000 years.

My wife and I have been married for six years. We don't have children, nor do we wish or intend to. Given you have shown evidence that marriage is "expected to fulfill the commandment to have children", does that mean that we are now also banned from using the word "marriage" and should henceforth only refer to our lifelong commitment to each other as a "civil union" or other state-determined terminology?

[GBA]

My wife and I have been married for six years. We don't have children, nor do we wish or intend to. Given you have shown evidence that marriage is "expected to fulfill the commandment to have children", does that mean that we are now also banned from using the word "marriage" and should henceforth only refer to our lifelong commitment to each other as a "civil union" or other state-determined terminology?

Well, regardless of what happens here, you live in the UK (edit: I assume...), so as far as we're concerned, you can call it whatever the fuck you want. :up:

[Johnny English]

Well, regardless of what happens here, you live in the UK, so as far as we're concerned, you can call it whatever the fuck you want. :up:

No I don't.

[GBA]

No I don't.

HAha, oh, sorry. I ninja-edited my post but clearly wasn't fast enough.

[GBA]

Anyway, I don't think you have anything to worry about, but I haven't quite followed Hobbes' point here.

Personally, I have no issue with homosexual couples or extending certain rights to them, but the impression I get is that what they, or those most outspoken in the movement, want is more than that. I have a hard time accepting the notion that there should be no line of distinction drawn between a homosexual union and a conventional one. A homosexual relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual one and no amount of discussion will change the biological/hormonal differences. And it's difficult to respect the cavalier attitudes of many who seem to think it will. Can they call it marriage, though? Sure. It is, by definition, a marriage, that's fair enough.

[BadgerOnLSD]

What does that have to do with marriage? Do you think if gays cannot marry each other they are going to couple up with the opposite sex, push out some new taxpayers, and live happily ever after?
I'm just going to suggest that Hobbes probably does think this way.
Anyway, I don't think you have anything to worry about, but I haven't quite followed Hobbes' point here.
It's less of a point and more like blurry scattershot.

[JetBlue]

I prefer the term "ignorant bigot", but since semantics is at the heart of your argument, I won't split hairs.
of course you prefer it, because you can only counter your opposition by turning your opposition into an easily defeatable caricature rather than deal with the reality of them. it would be one thing if you called me simply a bigot, but logic isn't at the heart of your criticism and it isn't sensational enough, and doesn't evoke the emotion you are being driven by. so, you had to throw in ignorant, despite the fact that my position doesn't reflect any sort of lack of knowledge at all, unless you are going to claim that believing in a right and wrong of human sexuality equates to ignorant. I'd like t o hear your argument in that regards if that is where you are going with it.

The value to society is in the commitment to a familial unit. There are studies showing that having a monogamous significant other increases positive choices in life, and thus more positive outcomes. Therein is the benefit to our society. It really is in our best interest to encourage all types of relationships in which the partners are forced to think beyond just themselves regardless of individual makeup.




I am not advocating a single-sex race, which is what this argument appears to imply. I am merely pointing out the benefits of having two independent human beings take vows to act as one and all the positive decisions that that state of mind creates. To deny that is to ignore basic human psychology.
no, you are actually ignoring human psychology. you talk familial units, but ignore the fact that boys and girls growing up need the parent of their same sex for guidance in experiences that the opposite sex does not have, thus cannot provide. no man, gay or straight, can relate to the experience of a teenage girl, and likewise for a woman and a teenage boy. you're going to tell me a father can relate to his daughter during her period and menstrual cramps? sorry, doesn't work that way. and that is just the most simple example.

at many points in our lives, boys need the guidance only a father can provide, and vice versa for a girl, and a same sex couple cannot provide that. you talk about familial units and psychology, but how can you do so and ignore something so basic to each. hence why a straight, monogamous relationship provides more value than a homosexual one. I know, I just said something very mean, that someone's relationship has more value than another couple's relationship. what an ignorant bigot I am because not all things are equal, and just because someone does something it doesn't mean that something must be right. does the whole world need orange slices and Capri Sun?

[brothermoose]

of course you prefer it, because you can only counter your opposition by turning your opposition into an easily defeatable caricature rather than deal with the reality of them. it would be one thing if you called me simply a bigot, but logic isn't at the heart of your criticism and it isn't sensational enough, and doesn't evoke the emotion you are being driven by. so, you had to throw in ignorant, despite the fact that my position doesn't reflect any sort of lack of knowledge at all, unless you are going to claim that believing in a right and wrong of human sexuality equates to ignorant. I'd like t o hear your argument in that regards if that is where you are going with it.

no, you are actually ignoring human psychology. you talk familial units, but ignore the fact that boys and girls growing up need the parent of their same sex for guidance in experiences that the opposite sex does not have, thus cannot provide. no man, gay or straight, can relate to the experience of a teenage girl, and likewise for a woman and a teenage boy. you're going to tell me a father can relate to his daughter during her period and menstrual cramps? sorry, doesn't work that way. and that is just the most simple example.

at many points in our lives, boys need the guidance only a father can provide, and vice versa for a girl, and a same sex couple cannot provide that. you talk about familial units and psychology, but how can you do so and ignore something so basic to each. hence why a straight, monogamous relationship provides more value than a homosexual one. I know, I just said something very mean, that someone's relationship has more value than another couple's relationship. what an ignorant bigot I am because not all things are equal, and just because someone does something it doesn't mean that something must be right. does the whole world need orange slices and Capri Sun?

There is actual ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance. I chose to use the term as it applies to the latter. Play with semantics all you want, but not being able to understand that a cohesive couple makes better decisions as they pertain to their own well-being, and as a result, society at large, is willful ignorance at its best.

Regardless of the child issue, which is another debate entirely, we have been speaking of the legal union between two consenting adults and its perceived benefits and detriments. Your stance that "you are right and they are wrong" is just about one of the most base arguments one can make. Why not actually address the issue and tell me exactly what detriment it is to the greater functioning of society if that union is between two people of the same sex?

There is no need for you to creatively interpret my argument as I have stated it pretty plainly...and nowhere in there did I say anything about raising children, so throw that stack of straw away and try again. Allowing same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexual couples has no societal drawbacks, save for ignorant bigoted whining, and all the advantages as I have previously stated. It is psychological fact that people in a committed relationship make less selfish decisions and are more apt to consider the full weight of the consequences of their actions. This in turn fosters a better society in which to live.

It's unfortunate that your delicate sensibilities don't allow you to see that, but as we move forward in time and the world collective starts to look outside of its boxes, you will see that ancient superstitions and the need to feel better about yourself by putting down those around who are different are what is truly detrimental to the evolution of our species.

[Johnny English]

no, you are actually ignoring human psychology. you talk familial units, but ignore the fact that boys and girls growing up need the parent of their same sex for guidance in experiences that the opposite sex does not have, thus cannot provide. no man, gay or straight, can relate to the experience of a teenage girl, and likewise for a woman and a teenage boy. you're going to tell me a father can relate to his daughter during her period and menstrual cramps? sorry, doesn't work that way. and that is just the most simple example.

at many points in our lives, boys need the guidance only a father can provide, and vice versa for a girl, and a same sex couple cannot provide that. you talk about familial units and psychology, but how can you do so and ignore something so basic to each. hence why a straight, monogamous relationship provides more value than a homosexual one. I know, I just said something very mean, that someone's relationship has more value than another couple's relationship. what an ignorant bigot I am because not all things are equal, and just because someone does something it doesn't mean that something must be right. does the whole world need orange slices and Capri Sun?

By this logic, you should also ban single parent families. People who have children must be forced to live together until the child turns 18, and those who are widowed must be made to re-marry as a matter of priority for the good of the child.

There is no more reason why a child growing up in a same-sex home should grow up imbalanced or incomplete than a child growing up in a single parent home.