Another State Legalizes gay Marriage [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

Pages : 1 [2]

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 05:21

*
The answer is a sales tax. That's a fair tax method. And we can avoid the red herring which is the tax code.

The Federal government doesn't do sales tax. The entire legal system of taxation would have to change. On top of that, after the Federal government increased already high State sales taxes for everyone, the poor would pay more money for everything that they consumed or purchased - thereby becoming poorer.

This is unrelated to the thread, but whatever.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 05:21

Then don't think of them as celebrating people. Think of it as celebrating the union of a human penis and testes and a human vagina and ovaries. Everyone (execpt for people with a legitimate legal qualm) has one of the two of these and the union is clearly unique. It serves to bring people together more often that it forces them apart. It serves to bring new life into this world through a process that is the most magnificent and complicated that we have a handle on.

It is special - everyone should realize this and it should offend no one. If they don't want to recognize it as special anymore for whatever reason they don't have to. The fact remains that the laws are still on the books and the laws should be changed by democratic brainstorming.

I just remember that arguements always sound better when other people chime in an pretend like it is the only real way to think. I think my point of view is radical and shows a more complex understanding of human sexuality than people are giving me credit for here. But that is ok

Being able to spit out a kid means nothing. I'd rather see the human race die than have people think they were special just because they were shot out of a vagina and frankly Tuff what you're into doesn't matter. Simply because you sometimes have homosexual thoughts does not make a water tight case for homosexuality being a choice neither does your per chant for asian women. I stand by the fact people of other races are naturally attracted to each other due to the variance that the new genes would cause but now we're splitting hairs.

At the end of the day simply being able to produce a child impresses me no more than the ability to hang drapes and be fabulous.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 05:27

Being able to spit out a kid means nothing. I'd rather see the human race die than have people think they were special just because they were shot out of a vagina and frankly Tuff what you're into doesn't matter. Simply because you sometimes have homosexual thoughts does not make a water tight case for homosexuality being a choice neither does your per chant for asian women. I stand by the fact people of other races are naturally attracted to each other due to the variance that the new genes would cause but now we're splitting hairs.

At the end of the day simply being able to produce a child impresses me no more than the ability to hang drapes and be fabulous.

Very much agreed, Jerry Springer should serve as sufficient reason to disillusion anyone of the myth that simply being able to produce a baby by throwing a male and female together is nothing to be intrinsically celebrated without qualification.

And Tuff... you are attracted to certain races or even features (small or large hips etc.) because of a complex confluence of evolutionary markers and successful genes that I'm sure will not be fully catalogued and explained for a century or more. Everything from pheromones to psychology to identity to reproductive success to how nurturing or how strong or durable or how clever a provider a potential mate is. Yes some of it is tied in with reproduction, but some of it is tied in just with simple survival as well. The same complex confluence of factors which naturally incline you towards Asian or "exotic" (in your words) women naturally inclines others towards other things... big blond women, or tall men, or chubby black girls. So to claim some kind of special status or privilege just seems arbitrary... luck of the draw.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 05:28

The Federal government doesn't do sales tax. The entire legal system of taxation would have to change. On top of that, after the Federal government increased already high State sales taxes for everyone, the poor would pay more money for everything that they consumed or purchased - thereby becoming poorer.

This is unrelated to the thread, but whatever.

I know the Fed doesn't do sales tax. However, it's the only fair system.

The entire system of taxation needs to change to plug all the loopholes in the system that people use to avoid taxes, especially the rich.

The poor end up paying most of their income in rent and food and many other things which are sales tax exempt. The rich spend their income on sports cars, yachts, jewelry, jet planes, and gold-plated dental floss. They would end up paying their fair share of the burden.

Without an income tax, I might actually be able to afford health insurance, and THEN MAYBE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULDNT HAVE TO PROVIDE ME WITH A HEALTHCARE PLAN! With an income tax, I see my social security disappear/go bankrupt, skip over me when handing out student aid because I'm not a minority, I see tax dollars go to foreign nations and wars and bailouts.

I want my money back, so I can purchase my own healthcare and not go around bleeding the system when I get sick.

We don't have to agree on taxes, and it is a separate issue. And I wish we could truly separate it from marriage, because marriage has nothing to do with taxes, or it shouldn't.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 05:29

Being able to spit out a kid means nothing. I'd rather see the human race die than have people think they were special just because they were shot out of a vagina and frankly Tuff what you're into doesn't matter. Simply because you sometimes have homosexual thoughts does not make a water tight case for homosexuality being a choice neither does your per chant for asian women. I stand by the fact people of other races are naturally attracted to each other due to the variance that the new genes would cause but now we're splitting hairs.

At the end of the day simply being able to produce a child impresses me no more than the ability to hang drapes and be fabulous.

Hahaha. There you go putting an evolutionary slant to things. What about a gay white guy being attracted to black guys. Is that an evolutionary method of spreading the seed too? Genetics is just a new and modern fatalism - I believe in free will tempered by conscious and un-conscious decision making. Genetics are tertiary and point, in no way, to inherent homosexuality. People try to use the "benevolent uncle" evolutionary theory but that has to be the lamest one.

You're right. It isn't impressive that the most amazing thing that human beings do is something that they didn't even figure out themselves.

The creation of human life is so impressive because we can't create it any other way than some variation of the natural method. We can't create it from scratch; Not 3 male gametes a transgender gamete and one and a half female gametes. We require 1 male and 1 female gamete.

You are calling me inasane, but you guys don't recognize this as special and unique between one man and one woman - even when done in a petri dish.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 05:30

I think procreation and marriage are entirely distinct concepts.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 05:33

Hahaha. There you go putting an evolutionary slant to things. What about a gay white guy being attracted to black guys. Is that an evolutionary method of spreading the seed too?

You're right. It isn't impressive that the most amazing thing that human beings do is something that they didn't even figure out themselves.

The creation of human life is so impressive because we can't create it any other way than some variation of the natural method. We can't create it from scratch; Not 3 male gametes a transgender gamete and one and a half female gametes. We require 1 male and 1 female gamete.

You are calling me inasane, but you guys don't recognize this as special and unique between one man and one woman - even when done in a petri dish.

I never called you insane, maybe thats what the gay guy likes I don't care but if can honestly sit here and tell me that the reason I'm attracted to women with big hips and big breasts isnt biological then IDK what to tell you. I dont think its special or unique either all mammals do it. Reproduction gets put on such a pedestal.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 05:34

I think procreation and marriage are entirely distinct concepts.

That statement serves the purpose of my withdrawral of support for the civil institution of marriage. It is so intrinsically FOR procreation that we should take it away from a state that can no longer defend it.

Give it to the various Churches. They have a much better understanding and track record . In fact, I don't view people married outside of the some mainline church as married at all anymore. It's funny because I don't have to. People married without God are just dating ;-)

Anyway, I've carried one side of this arguement for 4 pages largely on my own initiative. I'm off to bed.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 05:40

That statement serves the purpose of my withdrawral of support for the civil institution of marriage. It is so intrinsically FOR procreation that we should take it away from a state that can no longer defend it.

Give it to THe various Churches. They have a much better understanding of it and track record with it. In fact, I don't view people married outside of the Catholic church as married at all anymore. It's funny because I don't have to.

I think your religion is clouding the whole issue. Why do you care so much if gay couples have the same distiniction as married copules? People will still have kids its not like "Well the gays can marry so I no longer find the human experince worth passing on" I bet that wont happen

You know whats funny is that 50 years not many people viewed the catholic church as a church. More like a bunch occultists following a leader in a funny hat but we dont anymore because were not right 50 years ago. It is ok for things to change and be different the world will not end.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 05:41

Give it to the various Churches. They have a much better understanding and track record . In fact, I don't view people married outside of the some mainline church as married at all anymore. It's funny because I don't have to. People married without God are just dating ;-)

People "married with God" are in some sort of bizarre three-way. But then again, according to the Catholics, God himself is three people, so it's more like a five-way.

The church's understanding and track record discriminates against people of differing races getting married, by the way, and some churches have a history of allowing polygamy and underage unions, and all kinds of garbage.

But, this is all beside the point. I would rather not engage in attacking each other, even with humor. We disagree, I understand your viewpoint, you understand mine, we aren't going to convince each other. Let's just respectfully vote our separate ways and move on, eh?

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 05:44

I think your religion is clouding the whole issue. Why do you care so much if gay couples have the same distiniction as married copules? People will still have kids its not like "Well the gays can marry so I no longer find the human experince worth passing on" I bet that wont happen

You know whats funny is that 50 years not many people viewed the catholic church as a church. More like a bunch occultists following a leader in a funny hat but we dont anymore because were not right 50 years ago. It is ok for things to change and be different the world will not end.

I know it won't literally end. I like to fight bad ideas just because they are bad. If they don't conform with my worldview then I am against them for fun. Why shouldn't I be? I think it is funny that some Koga told me that my God will be dissapointed in me for denying my vote or voice in the pursuit of gay civil marriage. Remember that? That was hilarious.

People could mandate that we eat sterilized crap for breakfast and the world wouldn't end. It doesn't mean it would be any better just because it is a change. You wouldn't get my support for that either.

ATPG - we don't understand one anothers view points. If I understood yours I would agree. No sense in dolling up the obvious - again the mind invents logic for the whims of the will. We will never understand one another because we all have different minds and experiences, but one day most of us will give up arguing and just deal with it. We'll probably come up with some BS explanation that doesn't hurt our self image.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 05:45

I know it won't literally end. I like to fight bad ideas just because they are bad. If they don't conform with my worldview then I am against them for fun. Why shouldn't I be? I think it is funny that some Koga told me that my God will be dissapointed in me for denying my vote or voice in the pursuit of gay civil marriage. Remember that? That was hilarious.

People could mandate that we eat sterilized crap for breakfast and the world wouldn't end. It doesn't mean it would be any better just because it is a change. You wouldn't get my support for that either.

But its not a bad idea.....I think this has run its course

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 05:47

I suppose the point was to explain why it is bad.

So far, I don't think the case has been made as to why it should affect straight people.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 05:49

You are calling me inasane, but you guys don't recognize this as special and unique between one man and one woman - even when done in a petri dish.

We have said repeatedly that this has no bearing on the personal and emotional relationships humans form when choosing lifelong committed partners. Many of those couples cannot, or choose to never, procreate. So what difference does it make if one's male and female, or another is male male, or another is male and superfemale? (There's more than x and y you know.) For the purposes of recognizing the importance of the family unit, both families with and without procreative capability, in terms of shared rights as a family unit, it should have no bearing.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 05:50

I suppose the point was to explain why it is bad.

So far, I don't think the case has been made as to why it should affect straight people.

My main point was that Courts shouldn't be deciding these things and that people should have respect for constitutional processes which have been proven to work over time with respect to other deep seated convictions.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 05:51

Tuff if you are not hurting anyone or destroying property why should human whims not be indulged?

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 05:56

We have said repeatedly that this has no bearing on the personal and emotional relationships humans form when choosing lifelong committed partners.

"We have said". What does that matter? Personal and emotional relationships arn't the main point of marriage. Your answer begs the question. You're opinion is that because 2 people have sex with one another they should be entitled to marriage. Love isn't the qualifier because parents and friends who arn't sexually attracted to one another shouldn't be included.

I don't really get what marriage is to you. I don't get why it is even important. more than half of marriages end in divorce and most people are serial monogomists before marriage. You don't believe that marriage imparts any moral value because we are all evolved and genetically hardwired for polyamory. What is the point? What are you fighting for?

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 05:56

My main point was that Courts shouldn't be deciding these things and that people should have respect for constitutional processes which have been proven to work over time with respect to other deep seated convictions.

The courts aren't adding a law. The courts are saying that exclusions built into a law extending rights only to a certain kind of people are unconstitutional. That is the role of the courts. I don't get this whole idea from the right that courts are supposed to just sit there and do nothing except on Roe v. Wade. They do have a role and when they rule that marriage and civil unions are not the same thing and are discriminatory, they are doing that job perfectly.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 05:56

My main point was that Courts shouldn't be deciding these things and that people should have respect for constitutional processes which have been proven to work over time with respect to other deep seated convictions.

So your argument is not that gays marrying is bad, but that courts have the ability to rule things unconstitutional?

What power, if any, do you believe they have?

With respect, you are not defending your viewpoint, you are changing the argument, repeatedly. It's not about taxes, it's not about votes, it's not about courts, and it's not about churches or biological processes.

The debate should be about why gay marriage is such an awful thing. I have not heard a response other than it's what some people believe.

I don't want to offend or annoy you, so please don't take my line of questioning personally, and feel free to go to bed. I need to, myself.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 05:56

"We have said". What does that matter? Personal and emotional relationships arn't the main point of marriage. Your answer begs the question. You're opinion is that because 2 people have sex with one another they should be entitled to marriage. Love isn't the qualifier because parents and friends who arn't sexually attracted to one another shouldn't be included.

I don't really get what marriage is to you. I don't get why it is even important. more than half of marriages end in divorce and most people are serial monogomists before marriage. You don't believe that marriage imparts any moral value because we are all evolved and genetically hardwired for polyamory. What is the point? What are you fighting for?

I don't get what marriage is to YOU. According to the arguments you keep laying out, people shouldn't be allowed to have marriage rights until they pop out a kid.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 05:59

If its not important why are you defending it. You should want his

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 05:59

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 06:01

I don't believe a 3 versus 1 debate is fair. Tuff is not being allowed enough time to respond to all our points, because there are so many drowning him out.

Tuff, let's say for the moment you were correct. The dogpile prevents you from explaining your point properly, I think.

No it is fine - I don't feel righteous unless I'm being attacked on all fronts. I'm off to bed. It is always easier to thrust a blade than to defend yourself from one effectively.

Artorius Maximus

10-14-2008, 06:03

Am I the only one here who is against this? Seriously, the government is taking this matter too seriously. Marriage should be defined as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I'm tolerant of civil unions, but don't go calling it "marriage," that butchers the original meaning of it.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 06:04

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 06:05

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 06:06

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 06:08

I like Tuff. Honestly I do. It's not personal. He was just wrong on this issue. He was arguing personal preference rather than objective reasons that a distinction of separate and not equal rights should be enshrined into law. Tuff, you can not like the idea, or feel that straight marriage and childbearing is special, but I'm of the opinion that your civic duty in a democracy is not to only support extension of equal rights to people you approve of, or whose decisions you will always like. Maybe that's the distinction Don tried to make before bumbling out, not sure.

Why not, it came out of nowhere - maybe it will go back there when people get a real issue to cry about?

This is, Tuff, what i feel about people who strongly oppose gay marriage. They are spending so much time and energy opposing something that will never adversely affect them in any way. I truly don't understand it. I'm not asking you to say you "celebrate" gay marriage or homosexual people or their lifestyles. But to respect their right to equal rights in whatever form of family they choose to create, even if it's one you would never want to touch. This is, in my mind, no different from the antimiscegenation laws of the past. You marrying your present girlfriend would have been illegal and without legal recognition or rights 100 years ago. 75 years ago even. And people argued the same kind of thing, that the white race and the white family and white values in America should have special recognition.

You're not a bad guy, you're just misled on this one. It is the same thing as laws we all agree were bad in the past.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 06:09

I've taken that into account. You believe what you're saying, and I respect that. I wish we had infinite time so that we could understand each other better.

That being said, in order to truly win this debate, (in my eyes... not that my opinion matters) you do need to explain why we should prevent gays from marrying, and focus on just that point. Taxes and biology are indeed separate matters.

Good luck, and good night.

I need sleep too.

Well simply because they don't satisfy the legal, reasonable or moral requirements that civil marriage necessitates without opening it up to all other relationships, thereby making the institution untenable. I thought I had made the case? It may nopt be suitable for you, but I think it is suitable for most.

No explanation will be suitable for all.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 06:12

I like Tuff. Honestly I do. It's not personal. He was just wrong on this issue. He was arguing personal preference rather than objective reasons that a distinction of separate and not equal rights should be enshrined into law. Tuff, you can not like the idea, or feel that straight marriage and childbearing is special, but I'm of the opinion that your civic duty in a democracy is not to only support extension of equal rights to people you approve of, or whose decisions you will always like. Maybe that's the distinction Don tried to make before bumbling out, not sure.

This is, Tuff, what i feel about people who strongly oppose gay marriage. They are spending so much time and energy opposing something that will never adversely affect them in any way. I truly don't understand it. I'm not asking you to say you "celebrate" gay marriage or homosexual people or their lifestyles. But to respect their right to equal rights in whatever form of family they choose to create, even if it's one you would never want to touch. This is, in my mind, no different from the antimiscegenation laws of the past. You marrying your present girlfriend would have been illegal and without legal recognition or rights 100 years ago. 75 years ago even. And people argued the same kind of thing, that the white race and the white family and white values in America should have special recognition.

You're not a bad guy, you're just misled on this one. It is the same thing as laws we all agree were bad in the past.

If I were with my ex girlfriend I'd be glad for anti-miscegenation laws. My current GF is an Irish/German Catholic. Thank the good lord.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 06:12

Well simply because they don't satisfy the legal, reasonable or moral requirements that civil marriage necessitates without opening it up to all other relationships, [/B]thereby making the institution untenable. I thought I had made the case? It may nopt be suitable for you, but I think it is suitable for most.

No explanation will be suitable for all.

The slippery slope argument has been used against every progressive movement since the beginning of time and the blacks are not raping the whites, asians are not the majority and we are not speaking spainish or German .

anti-miscegnation? Really? Dear me

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 06:13

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 06:14

The slippery slope argument has been used against every progressive movement since the beginning of time and the blacks are not raping the whites, asians are not the majority and we are not speaking spainish or German .

Actually, I'd wager that black rape of white women is higher now than it was during slavery. That would be a cynical bet to win, eh? At least in NYC the rate is higher than it was. Where is that KKK smilie?

Seriosuly though, I liked dons point that normally the slippery slope is a logical fallacy EXCEPT that in the States both sides tend to jump down the slide head first as soon as they see it.

The US political system has literally burst wide open the "fallacy" of the slippery slope. You are usinf miscegenation as a pretext for gay marriage. If you had told people 70 years ago that a repeal of miscigenation laws would be used as a foundation for gay marriage they never would have changed the amendment. You laugh at the slipperey slope until you use it directly and it is hilarious.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 06:15

I dont think anyone has attacked anyone elses character. I hold no animosity towards anyone here and If I met anyone in RL I would feed you and then drink you under the table swear to God!

Actually, I'd wager that black rape of white women is higher now than it was during slavery. That would be a cynical bet to win, eh? At least in NYC the rate is higher. Where is that KKK smilie?

There where almost no blacks in NYC during slavery. Ever heard of the great migration?

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 06:18

Well simply because they don't satisfy the legal, reasonable or moral requirements that civil marriage necessitates without opening it up to all other relationships, thereby making the institution untenable. I thought I had made the case? It may nopt be suitable for you, but I think it is suitable for most.

No explanation will be suitable for all.

This is much the same argument as was used when denying the right of people from different races from marrying. That being said, I still have to treat it as a legitimate argument.

It doesn't satisfy the legal requirement... it's illegal because it's illegal? That argument makes no sense.

It doesn't meet the reasonable requirement. There's no authority here on what's reasonable, and you haven't stated why it's unreasonable. There is room here for an argument but it hasnt been made yet.

Why is it unreasonable?

Moral requirements... people once contended that allowing gays to even live together was immoral, to have sex or kiss or even have gay thoughts was immoral. Since we've conceded that the church's standard of morality is not the basis of law, we have to dismiss this religious-based argument.

Available to all other relationships, making the institution untenable. Are you referring to polygamy, underage unions, or bestiality? If so, then make your case. But I would suggest that it's unreasonable to compare these to unions between two adult consenting partners.

The floor is open to discussion on that point, but I still fail to see the case be made for why gays should not be allowed to marry, which is the point.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 06:18

Actually, I'd wager that black rape of white women is higher now than it was during slavery. That would be a cynical bet to win, eh? At least in NYC the rate is higher. Where is that KKK smilie?

I woudln't be surprised to read that rape, period, is up. It is very strongly correlated with men being down & out, poor, laid off, unemployed, or generally feeling powerless. And an increase in black rape rates in NYC is probably just because more blacks live there now, rather than being black men are raping white women more often than before.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 06:20

I woudln't be surprised to read that rape, period, is up. It is very strongly correlated with men being down & out, poor, laid off, unemployed, or generally feeling powerless. And an increase in black rape rates in NYC is probably just because more blacks live there now, rather than being black men are raping white women more often than before.

Irrespective of the reason for its increase is the reality that it has increased. People warned of it and would be eerily satisfied by their correct prediction, especially if they were into that thing, deep down in their naughty parts.

Of course I've heard of the migration. I'm sure that the people of New York wouldn't have been so pro-abolition if they knew about it or that the violent crime rate would go up by such insane numbers because of it.

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 06:23

Irrespective of the reason for its increase is the reality that it has increased. People warned of it and would be eerily satisfied by their correct prediction, especially if they were into that thing, deep down in their naughty parts.

Your point is moot you ignored all my other examples. If you have an objection because of your religion thats fine but do not go down this road.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 06:25

Your point is moot you ignored all my other examples. If you have an objection because of your religion thats fine but do not go down this road.

Hehehe. I won't. Every conversation can be veered off into the non-issue.

Im just making historical judgement calls. People were insane racists - even the ones who hated racism. It is almost humorous, even when I think of all the people who called my people white apes.

My objection isn't merely religious. People always try to take any logical legitimacy away from the opposition by claiming that any opposing arguement is founded in illogical thought patterns. Let me tell you - Equality is an illogical, anti-evolutionary and faith-based concept as well. We all start from one of those and anyone who doesn't I wouldn't trust to wash my shoes.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 06:25

Irrespective of the reason for its increase is the reality that it has increased. People warned of it and would be eerily satisfied by their correct prediction, especially if they were into that thing, deep down in their naughty parts.

Well we've already had the homophobia gallery speak up, let's not get into white flight, it's very OT. :) Poverty = crime and in the U.S. sadly race still largely = poverty or wealth. So it will remain easy for some time for racists to find easy sanctuary in justifying their attitudes by pointing at crime. Regardless of the fact that it was the Irish committing those violent petty crimes on the streets in the 1800's when they were similarly the near bottom rung of society.

Equality is an illogical, anti-evolutionary and faith-based concept as well. We all start from one of those and anyone who doesn't I wouldn't trust to wash my shoes.

There's nothing faith-based about it. Not all men are born equal at everything and that's not what the Constitution meant. It meant that our ideal is to strive towards a world where every man can be treated as equal and go forward and pursue things in life as equally as the next man as possible. The fact that we might say it's anti-evolutionary or even illogical doesn't change the fact that it's the one and only thing that makes democracy in our country at all worth the trouble and worth fighting for, and should not be selectively applied or removed based on the base prejudices of the masses.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 06:26

Of course I've heard of the migration. I'm sure that the people of New York wouldn't have been so pro-abolition if they knew about it or that the violent crime rate would go up by such insane numbers because of it.

I contend that slavery meets the requirements of a violent crime. Therefore, since the abolition of slavery, violent crime has gone down by a measurable percentage.

This is also off topic, so lets stay focused.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 06:31

Well we've already had the homophobia gallery speak up, let's not get into white flight, it's very OT. :) Poverty = crime and in the U.S. sadly race still largely = poverty or wealth. So it will remain easy for some time for racists to find easy sanctuary in justifying their attitudes by pointing at crime. Regardless of the fact that it was the Irish committing those violent petty crimes on the streets in the 1800's when they were similarly the near bottom rung of society.

you're right. off topic

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 06:32

you're right. off topic

I want stats to back that up

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 06:33

I want stats to back that up

Your stats are biased. They came from Anheuser-Busch. :)

Strike For The South

10-14-2008, 06:35

Your stats are biased. They came from Anheuser-Busch. :)

way to pricey. Boxed wine and Keystone light.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 06:36

Off topic, off topic, off topic~

:whip:

Back in line, soldiers! :laugh2:

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 06:41

Off topic, off topic, off topic~

:whip:

Back in line, soldiers! :laugh2:

Hell no, we won't go!

FRAGICIDE MODE ENGAGED!

:furious3:

Just kidding.

*Gets back in line*

Back on topic, taken straight from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality)

Homosexual behavior has been observed among 1,500 species, and in 500 of those it is well documented. This discovery constitutes a major argument against those calling into question the biological legitimacy or naturalness of homosexuality, or those regarding it as a meditated social decision. For example, male penguin couples have been documented to mate for life, build nests together, and to use a stone as a surrogate egg in nesting and brooding. In a well-publicized story from 2004, the Central Park Zoo in the United States replaced one male couple's stone with a fertile egg, which the couple then raised as their own offspring.

The genetic basis of animal homosexuality has been studied in the fly Drosophila melanogaster. Here, multiple genes have been identified that can cause homosexual courtship and mating. These genes are thought to control behavior through pheromones as well as altering the structure of the animal's brains. These studies have also investigated the influence of environment on the likelihood of flies displaying homosexual behavior.

Georgetown University professor Janet Mann has specifically theorized that homosexual behavior, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes intraspecies aggression, especially among males. Studies indicating prenatal homosexuality in certain animal species have had social and political implications surrounding the gay rights debate.

Yes, people really study this stuff, and no, it's not all just up in the air and anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 06:56

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 07:00

To argue in place of our opponent, one might suggest that we should be more civilized than the animals, and that not everything that is natural is healthy or good.

How would you respond to that observation?

(I like the debate, so I'd rather see a vigorous defense of the opposing side.)

I wanted to add this too from the Psychology Wiki, though it's not strictly in response to your question, more in response to the general idea that homosexuality is an obsession, fettish, or mental disorder:

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) after intense debate. They stated that homosexuality "does not necessarily constitute a psychiatric disorder." Effectively, this saw its official acceptance as a viable sexual orientation and saw the increase in gay liberation throughout the Western world.

Many other associations across the world followed suit soon after. The American Psychoanalytic Association made similar steps and began accepting openly homosexual men and women. However, it wasn't until 1992 that the World Health Organisation ceased to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, followed by the UK Government in 1994, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association in 2001.

Basically no major, non-religious psychological or world mental health organization considers it to be an obsession or fettish or sexual dysfunction, which would almost certainly be qualified as a mental disorder.

In more specific regard to your question: I agree, we should be more civilized than animals. I have not read anything, anywhere, about an animal flipping out and pecking or beating another animal to death for being homosexual. So we should at least hold ourselves unquestionably to that standard, at a bare minimum.

As far as not everything that is natural is good, I suppose to a degree I would have to agree. Which includes heterosexual couplings and marriages. Not all are good. Most end in divorce, in fact. So where gay marriage would fit into ruining or tarnishing or degrading an elevated practice among mainstream human populations continues to elude the argument.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 07:04

Now, you're thinking.

Good response, Koga. Very on-point and decisive.

Fragony

10-14-2008, 07:19

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 07:22

Now, you're thinking.

Good response, Koga. Very on-point and decisive.

:egypt: Pharaoh thanks you.

This is purely for my curiosity.... does anyone here have any gay friends or relatives they are on good terms with? I noticed a couple times in this discussion people said "wow, am I the only person against this?" or something similar. It left me wondering, wow... are there so few people who have gay friends or relatives?

I'm just curious.

Personally, of course I Knew a lot of gay people. I wasn't friends with the couple I (suspected) were gay in high school, but that was really just luck of the draw more than avoidance. The three or so that I heavily suspected were gay (or just by common knowledge were, even though they never said so out loud to me personally) in my class hung out with the popular girls and of course the popular girls looked at me like I was a deformed ladybug on their sandwich.

In college, I knew lots. I did Student-to-Student Peer Counseling (called SSPC on our campus) for two years and not only had a lot of training seminars which touched on sexuality and relationships, STD's and safe sex, but also of course talked to a lot of struggling students who came in during office hours to talk to someone. Though frequently I saw these people only once and we weren't friends or classmates, it was a big campus.

I had a lot of female friends who had had sexual encounters with other women, but of course, I think anyone who knows a good deal of women knows that sexuality is a harder to pin down thing for them in many cases. They are freer and more liberated about everything from hugs and kisses to flirting to sex when it comes to gender crossing than men are allowed to be in our society, without necessarily being gay. My sister's best friend for a couple years of college was a lesbian, and through her my sister (heterosexual) got really involved in the UC-Irvine gay clubs on campus. I didn't really know many of them firsthand other than meeting a couple when I was visiting my sister and hanging out in the campus coffeehouse where she worked and a lot of her friends would come in. Since most were female it got me over the stereotype that lesbians were bulldikes or all masculine and butchy. Many you would have no way of knowing were lesbians.

I had a friend, whom I did not know was gay right off the bat, live with me for about a year after a big fight where his family had cut him off over something unrelated to sexuality. (Fight over his paychecks, which they had cashed and spent and threw him out when he was pissed about it.) I found out he was gay later, but that didn't bother me-- he had a lot of issues though. I suppose the fact that we were very good friends for years and he didn't tell me till very late despite my ... what the forum would call... "Berkeley liberalism", is proof that he had a lot of hangups about it. He was very "straight"/closeted and had multiple girlfriends over the course of time I knew him.

I had a lot of college classmates who were gay, ranging from normal to rainbow hair. I had a couple of friends that hung out in my "circle" who were, and it was no big thing to anyone. I was surprised (pleasantly) that rather than the "omg... omg, DID YOU HEAR?" reaction that people in my high school had to the topic, people in college treated it like absolutely no big deal.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 07:23

Doesn't matter what it is, two reasons against gay marriage, enforcing it is a breach of the seperation of church and state that works both ways, and it is a small group they shouldn't claim what belongs to many, they can live the life they want without taking that.

The first argument doesn't make sense and the second argument doesn't work in a secular democracy. Have an argument that applies to the U.S.?

Fragony

10-14-2008, 07:38

The first argument doesn't make sense and the second argument doesn't work in a secular democracy. Have an argument that applies to the U.S.?

Oh, ok, doesn't make sense. Church can't interfere in state business and visa versa that is how it should be, state can merely set up a civil contract the rest is outside their realm of influence. Well that is how it should be but it always wants more.

PanzerJaeger

10-14-2008, 10:19

This is purely for my curiosity.... does anyone here have any gay friends or relatives they are on good terms with? I noticed a couple times in this discussion people said "wow, am I the only person against this?" or something similar. It left me wondering, wow... are there so few people who have gay friends or relatives?

I'm just curious.

My best friend is, and I know a lot of gay people through him. Some of them I would call pretty good friends.

Redleg

10-14-2008, 12:31

Actually observations and comments about homosexual behavior are irrevelant to the topic. Since the topic is about the legalization of gay marriage.

The Federal government enacted legislation to provide equal rights to all regardless of age, race, religion, and sex. The Federal government has yet to enact a constitutional amendment that define's marriage as a union between man and woman only.

States also have enacted legislation to provide equal rights to all in line with the Federal Government.

If the state does not enact a constitutional amendment to define marriage they have opened the door for constitutional challenges of legislative law, given most states have defined marriage as a partnership between two people. Some states are indeed attempting or do have constitutional amendments in place.

So while people will argue about the slipperly slope theory, I just don't see it anylonger given the state has defined it as a partnership between two people both historically and in many cases in the law itself. I thought that arguement was valid at first, but when I look into the history of marriage, and the actual legislative law for the states I have lived in, I dont see the slipperly slope theory being valid where the state has defined marriage as a union between two people.

So until the constitution at the state is amended, and the constitution at the federal level is also amended to define marriage, courts have no consitutional recourse but to declare any law denying human couples the ability to have a state sanctioned marriage as unconstitutional.

So this is not the courts legislativing law from the bench, its a failure of the individual states to address the actual definition of marriage that the people wish for the state to have, and place it into their constitution.

KukriKhan

10-14-2008, 14:08

A very close family member living in Arizona is lesbian. Her partner of two years and she were in a car wreck in May, hit by a drunk driver. Both were examined and released from hospital. Two weeks later, her partner dropped dead one morning while sitting in their garden drinking coffee. No warning, just *plop*, face down, no breathing, no heartbeat, dead.

Gina (the dead partner) grew up in New Hampshire, but had been alienated from her family for over 30 years. A year ago, convinced that they loved each other and wanted to share life, the couple flew to NH to reconcile with family, and announce their intentions, giving each other "promise rings" in front of Gina's family, who seemed to take it all pretty well.

Now Gina is deceased. Sarah (my relative) cannot dispose of any of Gina's property, Gina's family blames Sarah for Gina's death and refuses to travel to Arizona to assist, and responds to phone calls and emails in vile, abusive, homophobic language, and Sarah cannot even get a copy of Gina's Death Certificate, because she is not the legal next-of-kin.

We hafta fix this. If Redleg and I decide to go into business together to sell widgets over the internet, and file the appropriate paperwork - even though we've never physically met, and he's in Kansas, me in California, if I drop dead tomorrow, HE has more rights to dispose of my assets that my Sarah does her Gina's. And that ain't right.

Ser Clegane

10-14-2008, 14:35

Thanks for sharing this, Kukri - I can only imagine how terrible it must be for your relative to face these bureaucratic barriers while trying to cope with these tragic personal loss.

My sincere sympathies go to her.

This shows that there are actually real people with tangible problems behind this discussion, not just some vile people with an agenda to corrup society and to pave the way for marriages between people and livestock/appliances.

The sad thing is that a civil union that covers the rights (or at least a good chunk of them) that married heterosexual couples have, seems to be something that would get the consent of a rather broad majority - and that it is the fringe groups on both sides wanting the full enchilada (i.e. gay activists that would not stop before even the church would be forced by law to marry gay couples on one side, some opponents of gay marriage who would see any form of legally condoning gay relationships as a step towards the destruction of soviety) or nothing are often the ones that are blocking a pragmatic approach.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 17:41

Oh, ok, doesn't make sense. Church can't interfere in state business and visa versa that is how it should be, state can merely set up a civil contract the rest is outside their realm of influence. Well that is how it should be but it always wants more.

Well maybe you are not aware, but in the U.S., that social contract is called marriage. Yes, marriage is claimed as having religious overtures. But it is still a legal contract separate from any church or religion's jurisdiction, in the U.S. Marriage existing as any sort of exclusive right only for certain groups of the population is unconstitutional under our laws, regardless of whether or not religious people feel the word itself means that marriage contract under the government must only recognize man + woman.

Maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying, you make short vague comments so I can't be sure.

Regarding everyone "agreeing" to just revoke marriage and replace it with a generic civil contract or civil union legal status, that sounds good-- but it is not what is being proposed. And I suspect you'd find just as much stiff resistance, if not more, to removing it. The whole legal defense of keeping it and not extending it to gay couples is 'tradition' and 'sanctity of marriage' and 'traditional definition of marriage.' So it's hard to picture these same people suddenly agreeing to disband the legal entity of marriage altogether. What's being proposed over and over in the U.S., are state ballot measures and Federal amendments to the Constitution to ban gay marriage. The discussion should reflect that, because theoretical discussions of deconstructing marriage and replacing it with something else is not what is going on, or even being proposed, by lawmakers or interest groups.

So until the constitution at the state is amended, and the constitution at the federal level is also amended to define marriage, courts have no consitutional recourse but to declare any law denying human couples the ability to have a state sanctioned marriage as unconstitutional.

In not so many words that is precisely what I have been saying. It is off-base for people to argue that this is "activist judges" or "legislating from the bench." If a law comes up excluding equal rights for certain groups it is the duty, not the "partisan judgment call" of a judge to overturn it. As stated before, if you do not believe this to be the case, I would wonder what exactly people think the judiciary's role IS supposed to be. Unfortunately I think too many people have come to view it as "rendering popular opinion rulings on issues in a way I agree with", and anything else as "activist judging."

Now Gina is deceased. Sarah (my relative) cannot dispose of any of Gina's property, Gina's family blames Sarah for Gina's death and refuses to travel to Arizona to assist, and responds to phone calls and emails in vile, abusive, homophobic language, and Sarah cannot even get a copy of Gina's Death Certificate, because she is not the legal next-of-kin.

Thanks for sharing Kukri. This is not "in a vaccuum." This is not "maybe what-if's." This happens to people every single day. This is exactly the kind of scenario I mentioned more than once and it's not rare or some remote theoretical. It does happen to people, and it's a complete injustice. I don't see how anyone can support this nebulous legal status as a good thing.

gay activists that would not stop before even the church would be forced by law to marry gay couples on one side, some opponents of gay marriage who would see any form of legally condoning gay relationships as a step towards the destruction of soviety) or nothing are often the ones that are blocking a pragmatic approach.

I am sure you can find some tiny fringes who want to "force it into churches", just like you can find fringes who advocate mass deportation for gay people or preach that natural disasters are God's punishment of tolerating gays. However I think we are frankly giving the public in general too much credit assuming that taking these fringes realistically is the reason they are lukewarm-resistant to the idea of recognizing gay marriage. First off, many churches already will either formally, or on the side, conduct gay marriage ceremonies. It really comes down to the individual clergymen in question and their personal beliefs. And some churches openly accept gay couples. So the idea that gay couples will "have to" next try to force some kind of totally unconstitutional law to force churches to conduct their weddings is just a scare tactic. Nor do I know of any such proposal, aside from one person mentioning an activist group protesting a church. But on any large scale, I do not believe this is something anyone is serious about messing with, and nothing that would pass the legislatures OR the courts anyhow, and thus not something people should be making their decision about.

That is, incidentally, something I am extremely annoyed with the Knights of Columbus about at the moment. Here in California the radio, even PROGRESSIVE radio is FLOODED with support ads to overturn the gay marriage ruling, saying that it's going to "force" people who object on moral grounds to accept it including churches. And they throw in this odd statement, too.... "kids in public schools make a joke out of it, just like they did when gay marriage was legalized in Massachussetts." My eyes almost bulged out... HUH? We are supposed to vote on a state ballot based on not wanting kids in school to make fun of something? And it ends with "Paid for by the Knights of Columbus."

The level of fearful, uninformed kneejerk reactionism this ad was trying to play towards doesn't speak well about the "reasonableness" of the so called middle.

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 17:44

No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.

I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.

Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.

Gah!

Why do you do this, you are a Christian?!

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

Also, why on earth would you watch specifically homosexual porn? I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

Lemur

10-14-2008, 17:52

I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.
Dude, that's some sick, kinky stuff you're talking about. Most people have some dark fantasies, but self-mutilation and self-blinding? That is some sick kink you got going there.

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 17:55

Well I was just making a point. The point was, I do not like sodomy, and I do not like losing my limbs. But I'd nonetheless choose the latter.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 17:57

Rhyfelwyr-

Lemur beat me to it. Don't forget the spankings.

quite honestly christian hypocrisy is not that surprising. Much of the Bible contradicts itself, for one. Secondly, pastors, cardinals, preachers, and popes alike are guilty sinners, who often do not live up to their own standards. The people who go to church are not pure, and that is probably why they go.

I won't bash TuffStuff for being honest about his thoughts and feelings on the subject. I won't bash TuffStuff personally or use ad hominems. I will point out the inconsistencies of his argument and ask him to correct them, before I consider his argument valid.

If I cannot beat a validly presented argument from the other side, I haven't won the debate, and at best it's an "agree to disagree" situation. But the other side hasn't presented a valid argument yet, by most reasonable standards.

PS- keeping this PG-rated, I'd much rather be explored from behind than lose a limb or an eye. Temporary discomfort is worse than permanent amputation/blindness.

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 17:59

Gah!

Why do you do this, you are a Christian?!

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

Also, why on earth would you watch specifically homosexual porn? I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

I'd kill a man, too if he was a jerk and I could get away with it.

Sodomy means BJ's too.

I view people as inherently amoral - probably because I am inherently amoral. I'm also a reformed vicious psychopath. I'm a Christian because I am so fundamentally flawed. I look to reduce my reliance on things that don't matter or are harmful physically, emotionally or spiritually. Or I could just embrace them and tear the world apart.

The only borders that we have are self imposed; consciously or not. Unless there is a clear biological function to something physiological that can be scientifically quantified - I will err on the side of caution. I firmly believe that our minds and "free-wills "determine much more than we think they do.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 18:02

I think that using a q-tip on your ear, or having a colonoscopy could qualify as sodomy as well. It's just an archaic and senseless term for something which should be legal between consenting adults, because it's no one else's business.

Lemur

10-14-2008, 18:06

For some reason this thread is reminding me of this girl Ana's license plate ...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/anaslex.jpg

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 18:10

I'd kill a man, too if he was a jerk and I could get away with it.

Sodomy means BJ's too.

Where the hell were you when I was in Catholic high school, Tuff? You wouldn't believe the bent over backwards metal slinky arguments they can come up with to try to deny that sodomy is anything other than anal sex between two men. Even right after the teacher in religion class made explicit what it constituted.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 18:14

You are a sick, sick man Lemur.

Don't ever change! :laugh2:

ICantSpellDawg

10-14-2008, 18:15

Where the hell were you when I was in Catholic high school, Tuff? You wouldn't believe the bent over backwards metal slinky arguments they can come up with to try to deny that sodomy is anything other than anal sex between two men. Even right after the teacher in religion class made explicit what it constituted.

I was the kid in class using every biblical argument about why the book was garbage. I was the one investigating the dead sea scrolls and earlier christian sects that pre-dated the Nicene creed. I flunked Theology in my Senior year because I refused to pass even thought the teacher told me he would pass me - i did summer school.

I literally received a detention for heresy, thinly veiled in class disruption. I was a terror.

I now see why I was wrong

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 18:30

I'm sorry your life has been so tough, Tuff.

Thanks for sharing with us. I still disagree with you on stuff, of course. :smash:

Personally, I find any moral message spread by Biblical teachings either predated by secular morality, superceded by secular morality, or rendered obsolete because of how archaic it is. Stoning heretics, prostitutes, and cutting the hands of thieves is barbaric, cruel, and inhumane. I find the idea of burning in hellfire forever, cast out of eternal bliss by a supposedly loving God figure, merely because you have kissed a man or drank a few beers in your life to be repugnant.

I also note that most of the old testament laws are ignored because they make no sense, or because people consider them antiquated. I personally find that sodomy is just as sinful as eating the "wrong" kinds of meat, and few follow the dietary rules either. The varying accounts of Jesus are often in conflict with one another, and he isn't here to clear his name or refute what is said about him.

I also find that faith/religion are on the same level of thinking as fortune cookies, horoscopes, tarot cards, palm readings, astrology, lucky charms, voodoo, luck, fate, karma, aura, destiny, possession, angels, demons, leprechauns, dragons, gnomes, and zombies. It's interesting fiction, but nothing worth spending your life worshipping.

That's my opinion, having heard the opposing view so many times in my life. However, none of that discussion matters here. The point is, why should we discriminate against two gay men or two lesbians who want to live together and call it marriage? It affects nothing that straight people do, and they already are getting the legal rights associated with marriage as civil unions, etc.

All we are arguing over at this point are unrelated issues, and whether the word "marriage" itself should be used. Quite frankly you could call it "spinach noodle" and it would be the same *expletive* thing. All this uproar over a word, it's astonishing. Especially when one side has argued that marriages end in divorce, so why does it matter anymore anyway?

If that's the case, stop arguing and let gays have equality. :smash:

No offense intended to anyone for their differing, personal views. I am merely allowed to express mine.

Fragony

10-14-2008, 18:32

Maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying, you make short vague comments so I can't be sure.

Nope, was just wrong, different situation then here I guess. My other point still stands though, that gays should want to be husband and husband out of respect for the feelings of others about the status of marriage. America being a religious country and the holy order of the bruised star being what it is they will probably demand a marriage with backing of the church, seen it before.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 18:34

Fragony

10-14-2008, 18:42

The United States is not a religious country, and it's not a secular country. It's both.

And even if it were the majority, the rights of minorities must be respected, and the state is officially secular.

Nothing should be respected there should just be equal rights. It that is there people ought to stop complaining, as far as I am concerned a civil contract is the best solution. Anyone's freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins. It's the perfection of balance and it should not be messed with, what that balance is depends on the society.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 18:58

Nothing should be respected there should just be equal rights. It that is there people ought to stop complaining, as far as I am concerned a civil contract is the best solution. Anyone's freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins. It's the perfection of balance and it should not be messed with, what that balance is depends on the society.

I somewhat addressed this already but again this is great "in theory" but this is not what is being proposed in the U.S. nor, as I would argue, even realistic. Straight people are not any happier about the idea of removing marriage from the law than gay people are about being excluded from it. The solution is inclusion into one set of rights, be it called marriage or something else. But I have a very hard time imagining that people who spent all this time at the "traditional definition of marriage" argument will suddenly consent in large numbers to dismantle legal marriage and replace it with a civil union that they will share with gay people.

I'm sure you'll see as much, if not more, refusal to accomodate that proposal.

I understand what you are saying Fragony, but if it won't work in the U.S., it's just kinda vaccuum talk.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 19:08

Nothing should be respected there should just be equal rights.*

It that is there people ought to stop complaining, **

as far as I am concerned a civil contract is the best solution.***

Anyone's freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins. ****

It's the perfection of balance and it should not be messed with, what that balance is depends on the society. *****

* I agree, we should have equal rights for gays and straights, and everyone in between.

Therefore, we then agree by default that gays should be allowed to marry, because straight people can.

** When people's rights and freedoms are trampled on, be it by the state, the majority, or a minority, they have a right to complain and petition the government for change.

Free speech and all.

*** Why is it the best solution? I hear opinions, but I don't hear reasons.

**** Wrong, people's freedom ends where other people's protected rights begin. There is a difference between a freedom and a protected right. Your freedoms and your protected rights are not infringed when gays marry, and their freedoms and constitutionally guaranteed rights are being infringed upon when you prevent them from marrying.

By using this argument, you box yourself into a corner and either ignore the realities, or are forced to concede that you are wrong.

***** I don't buy the cultural argument. Just because a culture thinks gay marriage is inappropriate, that does not mean it should be that way. Just because a culture forces girls to marry at a young age, that does not mean it is right. Just because people used to eat other people, accepted by a culture, that does not mean it is right.

Just because your beliefs system or your culture condemns an activity, that does not mean your opinions should be the basis of law. Law should be founded upon the natural rights and protected freedoms of all, using rational, provable arguments to conclude when something is unjust.

The opposition has not used a rational provable argument to conclude that gay marriage is unjust, and they continue to refer to things which do not form the basis of law to reach that conclusion; such as opinion, religion, or votes. We do vote on laws, but the system is designed to reject unjust ones even if the majority thinks a certain way. That's how minorities are protected.

I would prefer a clear, straightforward argument; why gays should not be allowed to marry, using reason. Tell me, and we will have that discussion. Until then, the opposition concedes the argument by default because they are avoiding it.

Fragony

10-14-2008, 19:18

I somewhat addressed this already but again this is great "in theory" but this is not what is being proposed in the U.S. nor, as I would argue, even realistic. Straight people are not any happier about the idea of removing marriage from the law than gay people are about being excluded from it. The solution is inclusion into one set of rights, be it called marriage or something else. But I have a very hard time imagining that people who spent all this time at the "traditional definition of marriage" argument will suddenly consent in large numbers to dismantle legal marriage and replace it with a civil union that they will share with gay people.

I'm sure you'll see as much, if not more, refusal to accomodate that proposal.

I understand what you are saying Fragony, but if it won't work in the U.S., it's just kinda vaccuum talk.

Let me put it this way. Here in the Netherlands we have the party Sinterklaas, your santa claus comes from it. It's always under attack, it's a white clerigal figure with a band of blacks 'the piets', unclear if they are really blacks, or as the folklore says they are black because they like chimney's. He was really from Turkey, but in our folklore he comes from Spain. It doesn't matter anyway because it is perfectly harmless, but there is always the lunatic who wants multicolored 'piets' because just the existance of anything just doesn't go well with the idea of chronological progress. But kids love Sinterklaas, it's a fun warm and cosy party. Those people asking for the 'piets' to be multicolored, aren't they asking a bit much? Why does it need to be changed.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 19:21

Fragony

10-14-2008, 19:31

That's a different situation, and a different argument altogether. It has no basis in this discussion.

I'm afraid I must charge you again with avoiding the discussion itself. I don't want metaphors or comparisons, I would like to talk about this real, specific issue.

:bow:

If people consider it to be the best day of their life, there must be something about it. Why neglect that, it's a ceremony all that fun, traditions, not everybody wants to jump from a plane. I have fond memory's of Sinterklaas, there would be a knock and presents. We can keep adressing the legal (I would rather call it nihilistic, doesn't anyone want a bit of color in their lives anymore) aspects but that would do other considerations a disservice.

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 19:39

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 19:42

Lemur

10-14-2008, 19:49

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself.
Rhyf, would you consider yourself a Biblical literalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalist)? Or if you prefer, a believer in Biblical inerrancy?

Fragony

10-14-2008, 19:51

Specific would be a start really, on which star scale specifically?

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 20:10

I have to leave, but I will be back. And when I do, I am afraid I am going to have to prove the Bible is contradictory, and not in the manner you claim.

The Skeptics' annotated Bible is a publicly available, proven and verifiable case against the inconsistencies of the Bible. Since I own a Bible, I can readily look up the contradictions myself.

The Bible directly contradicts itself in thousands of instances, and the list I give you will be MORE than incomplete. But it will entirely prove my assertion, I'm afraid.

See you guys soon!

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 20:12

KukriKhan

10-14-2008, 20:12

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 20:13

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself. The OT is the story of God teaching the Jews to obey his laws one step at a time. This is done through several covenants, which the people break each time. So while at first in the OT we see people being stoned for their sins, this is just the beginning, as they recognise the basic sins. Then, by the time we reach the NT we should have reached the point where we can forgive these sins and avoid them ourselves. The NT is what applies to Christians today. On a seperate note, if you think the punishments God told them to inflict on people were harsh, you should consider their alternative of Baal. Children were sacrificed by fire regularly to him, as well as other abominations eg male prostitution. The former of course being infinately worse before anyone here goes nuts.

On topic, as a Christian I see it as my duty to prevent sinful acts being comitted. You can try to create a utopia by giving everyone total freedom in their private spheres and a philosphy of everyone minding their own business. But in the end relativism and human reasoning just don't get you that far, indeed you will get only a dystopia, be it an anarchic world where everyone may do as they please, or the opposite of a totally controlled world where people have no freedom at all. If you compromise as most people who employ reasoning do, well then that is what you get - a compromise. You can't make it perfect, no human can.

I used to think like that, but God opened my eyes. Yes people may think it is crazy, but God is sovereign and infinitely good, human reasoning brings only relativism which will not give you the answers you look for. The thing is, its seems pretty pointless trying to explain God's existance through my human abilities, its one of these things that you "know when you know". Then you can pursue goodness as best as you can, and realise that evil is not just blatant harm to other people. By its nature it is much more corrupting than that, if you give it a foothold in this fallen world then it will grow and consume it.

First off, we're talking about the U.S. That means separation of church and state, so while it's very illuminating to learn about your religious views, even if you were in America, they SHOULD have no bearing on what legislation you support in terms of respecting the rights of others. Of course, religion can and does get used for people to support disciminatory laws or the restricting of freedoms, but this is a willful rejection of our ideals as a nation.

Second, the law is not, has not be, and will never be, a pure reflection of encouraging holy behavior and punishing sinful behavior. Divorce is legal. Having affairs are legal. Saying cruel things is legal. Being greedy is legal. Overeating is legal. Charging interest is legal. Eating on the Sabbath or holy days is legal. This is not a theocracy nor should it ever be. So arguing that it is your personal duty to fight sin, does NOT explain why just on one or two issues, you feel that the way to do that is through shaping the laws of a secular democracy.

I am dead serious, what are you about next? Banning divorce? Laws against gluttony? Because I do not understand why Christians pick just these two topics, abortion and homosexuality, and think the way to express your faith is to try to pass legislation for everyone which restricts rights.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 20:15

But in another, more related thread please. This one is about an American State Legalizing gay Marriage.

Not a problem, sir! I will post a link only, and then get back on topic. Is this acceptible?

I won't contaminate this thread, but I will respond to the assertion that the bible doesn't contradict.

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 20:24

First off, we're talking about the U.S. That means separation of church and state, so while it's very illuminating to learn about your religious views, even if you were in America, they SHOULD have no bearing on what legislation you support in terms of respecting the rights of others. Of course, religion can and does get used for people to support disciminatory laws or the restricting of freedoms, but this is a willful rejection of our ideals as a nation.

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.

Second, the law is not, has not be, and will never be, a pure reflection of encouraging holy behavior and punishing sinful behavior. Divorce is legal. Having affairs are legal. Saying cruel things is legal. Being greedy is legal. Overeating is legal. Charging interest is legal. Eating on the Sabbath or holy days is legal. This is not a theocracy nor should it ever be. So arguing that it is your personal duty to fight sin, does NOT explain why just on one or two issues, you feel that the way to do that is through shaping the laws of a secular democracy.

Indeed, you will find that it was Calvin in Geneva who adopted crazy notions such as allowing women to divorce if their husbands cheated on them. You don't think theocracies should exist, I do. Who's right? We'll probably never prove that to each other, and we both believe to have sufficient proof for our own beliefs.

I am dead serious, what are you about next? Banning divorce? Laws against gluttony? Because I do not understand why Christians pick just these two topics, abortion and homosexuality, and think the way to express your faith is to try to pass legislation for everyone which restricts rights.

The focus on abortion should be obvious if you acknowledge Christian beliefs. We see it as the murder of babies, just as horrific as infanticide would be to you. As for the focus on homosexuality, that is because unlike other sins modern society is increasingly choosing to accept it.

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 20:34

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.

The United States is officially secular, and our laws must adhere to that. No law can be made purely on the basis of theocratic doctrine. There needs to be secular reasoning.

Just as a secular person cannot argue what laws a church has for its own members, the church and its members cannot force their views upon a secular state, unless their religious argument is backed up with a secular one.

Just because you aren't secular, that doesn't mean you don't need secular reasoning to make law.

Indeed, you will find that it was Calvin in Geneva who adopted crazy notions such as allowing women to divorce if their husbands cheated on them. You don't think theocracies should exist, I do. Who's right? We'll probably never prove that to each other, and we both believe to have sufficient proof for our own beliefs.

Theocracies have a significant history of authoritarianism and abuse of human rights. Muslim fundamentalist theocracies do some very atrocious things to those they deem sinners, and past christian theocracies have allowed witch trials, stonings, and crucifixions, Inquisitions and crusades.

However, that doesn't mean all theocracies are bad. Just all the ones that have ever existed so far. Theocracies could work, in theory, but they would have to conform to natural law, which is secular.

The focus on abortion should be obvious if you acknowledge Christian beliefs. We see it as the murder of babies, just as horrific as infanticide would be to you. As for the focus on homosexuality, that is because unlike other sins modern society is increasingly choosing to accept it.

We also chose to accept gambling, drinking, divorce, and many other things. Why the focus on gays? If we are to argue against the sins described in Abrahamic religions, then we must force Nevada to make prostitution, gambling, sodomy, and eating the wrong kinds of meat illegal. Also, we need to ban all pornography. If we take the Bible literally, we have far worse things to combat first besides marriage between consenting adults, which never ever gets brought up by the religious folks who call themselves defenders of morality.

To pick and choose your battles is one thing, but frankly I'd prefer we fought drugs, pedophiles, human trafficking, corruption, waste, fraud, and crackdown on violent crime before we even begin discussing the "evils" of gay marriage.

Priorities.

Lemur

10-14-2008, 20:37

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.
Hate to break it to you but my people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Colony#Jamestown_Settlement), the commercial secularists, the cast-offs from middle-upper-crust England were here decades before the Puritans.

Also, I get tired of pointing this out, but the Founding Fathers had a very clear memory of the wars of religion in England and Europe, and they had no desire to re-create that mess here. That's why our Declaration of Independence and Constitution largely reflect enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) ideals, which you can argue arise from, but cannot say are synonymous with the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And gay marriage is perfectly compatible with the enlightenment tradition, even if it conflicts with Leviticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus).

-edit-

And don't make me haul out the Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html), 'cause I will.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Note that this was published to general acclamation in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797, signed into law by President John Adams, and ratified by both houses of Congress. It doesn't get much more official than that.

yesdachi

10-14-2008, 20:40

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself.

That’s rich. :rolleyes:

Hey Frag, are these “piets” all male? Is Sinterklaas for or against gay marriage? :laugh4:

Askthepizzaguy

10-14-2008, 20:43

@yesdachi-

We may not agree with him, but we should respect him as a fellow member. Let's not mock.

:whip:

Appreciate the support, though. Let's focus on ideas and debate those. Thank you for listening. :grin:

Fragony

10-14-2008, 20:47

That’s rich. :rolleyes:

Hey Frag, are these “piets” all male? Is Sinterklaas for or against gay marriage? :laugh4:

Of course not that is one vile asshumption

yesdachi

10-14-2008, 20:57

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 21:10

Yes well religion conflicts with secularlism *gasps*. Your founding fathers happened to betray the ideas of your original Puritan settlers, not everyone believes in secularism.

Do you know what this is equivalent of?

Me: I think murdering someone worth less than $50,000 should be legal.
Rhyfe: No it shouldn't! It's still murder!
Me: Yes but only in an equal rights democracy, I'm an oligarchical authoritarian. They conflict with each other, you know.

My argument should have no bearing over the passage of laws in a democracy anymore than "the bible says x" should.

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 21:14

That’s rich. :rolleyes:

That's informative.

Anyway I expect to be mocked but I put forward my ideas nonetheless, its my duty.

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 21:26

Hate to break it to you but my people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Colony#Jamestown_Settlement), the commercial secularists, the cast-offs from middle-upper-crust England were here decades before the Puritans.

OK so they would have just banned the dissenters and kicked out those annoying Jews instead, unlike the intolerant Puritans.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 21:29

OK so they would have just banned the dissenters and kicked out those annoying Jews instead, unlike the intolerant Puritans.

Well part of my heritage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iroquois_Constitution) didn't come from anywhere, and their democratic framework was a stronger influence upon the present-day U.S. Constitution than ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Ben Franklin openly cited their society and culture and government many times in various speeches.

You're going to quickly run out of arguments for dismissing anyone but the Puritans as being the founders of this country, Rhyfe.

Lemur

10-14-2008, 21:31

Rhyf, I'm not sure where to go with that. You failed to address the meat of my post, which was about how the U.S. is founded on secular principles, thus making gay marriage perfectly compatible with our mos maiorum, and instead you throw down a strange comment about persecuting Jews and "banning dissenters," which doesn't even make sense in this context. Could you elaborate and elucidate, please?

Don Corleone

10-14-2008, 21:31

We also chose to accept gambling, drinking, divorce, and many other things. Why the focus on gays? If we are to argue against the sins described in Abrahamic religions, then we must force Nevada to make prostitution, gambling, sodomy, and eating the wrong kinds of meat illegal. Also, we need to ban all pornography. If we take the Bible literally, we have far worse things to combat first besides marriage between consenting adults, which never ever gets brought up by the religious folks who call themselves defenders of morality.

To pick and choose your battles is one thing, but frankly I'd prefer we fought drugs, pedophiles, human trafficking, corruption, waste, fraud, and crackdown on violent crime before we even begin discussing the "evils" of gay marriage.

Priorities.

Speaking as a devout Roman Catholic, HERE! HERE!

To quote the big guy Himself on this:
Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

Emphasis mine. I'm not going to get into a discussion on the morality of homosexual activity in my own playbook. Suffice it to say, it's pretty clear to me that Mrs. Corleone, and ONLY Mrs. Corleone is in the playbook, and anybody, male or female, otherwise is sinful to even consider.

Lemur one time chided me, saying "You know, between adultery and strip clubs, I think 'traditional marriage' is in a lot of trouble, with or without homosexuals. At least, I think it was you, Lemur. Might have been Goofball, or some other know-it-all Lefty that gets it really right once in a blue moon.

Point is, there's a lot bigger fish to fry out there. Why we waste time worrying about things like gay rights, when the real battle is to try to protect our children, our elderly and other defenseless from scourges like drugs, predators (sexual and financial)... is beyond me. I think all of us 'believers' are falling short of the glory, wasting our time on matters such as these, when there's more we could all be be doing to solve some problems we ALL would agree are dramatically worse.

I saw a Dateline NBC Sunday night. Now I'll grant you, they're not always 100% on the up and and up, but I want you to listen for a second. They were going around to San Francisco massage parlors. Forget consenting prostitutes, we have human sex slave trafficing going on right under our very noses. And what town doesn't have a massage parlor? Want to improve 'morality' and 'humanity' simultaneously? Get rid of human sexual slave trafficing. End exploitation of children. See to it that nobody in your community is hungry or cold this winter. Then we'll discuss playing 'smear the queer' again next spring, or next fall, whenever this perrenial issue is due for another re-tread.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 21:39

Lemur one time chided me, saying "You know, between adultery and strip clubs, I think 'traditional marriage' is in a lot of trouble, with or without homosexuals. At least, I think it was you, Lemur. Might have been Goofball, or some other know-it-all Lefty that gets it really right once in a blue moon.

You forgot Britney Spears and Elizabeth Taylor. :) And K-Fed!

Point is, there's a lot bigger fish to fry out there. Why we waste time worrying about things like gay rights, when the real battle is to try to protect our children, our elderly and other defenseless from scourges like drugs, predators (sexual and financial)... is beyond me. I think all of us 'believers' are falling short of the glory, wasting our time on matters such as these, when there's more we could all be be doing to solve some problems we ALL would agree are dramatically worse.

I agree, it honestly makes Christianity look like hypocritical, petty throwbacks who want to scapegoat gay people for all of society's ills. I'm not saying that to be nasty, I really and honestly think making this a "cornerstone" religious issue in national politics makes Christians look VERY petty and smallminded. It's is very much a question of, "Of all the problems out there...."

I saw a Dateline NBC Sunday night. Now I'll grant you, they're not always 100% on the up and and up, but I want you to listen for a second. They were going around to San Francisco massage parlors. Forget consenting prostitutes, we have human sex slave trafficing going on right under our very noses. And what town doesn't have a massage parlor? Want to improve 'morality' and 'humanity' simultaneously? Get rid of human sexual slave trafficing. End exploitation of children. See to it that nobody in your community is hungry or cold this winter. Then we'll discuss playing 'smear the queer' again next spring, or next fall, whenever this perrenial issue is due for another re-tread.

It's quickly becoming a trot-it-out-each-election-cycle issue to revv up the Biblethumping base. And it works. Unfortunately it's up to Christians to stop this, I think. Because asking gay people to just deal with not having equal rights until the Churchers get over the issue is not fair.

Goofball

10-14-2008, 21:42

If a State wants gay marriage, I believe that they can legislate the change.

Sorry, maybe I don't understand. I thought the way the law worked (in a very general sense) is that if something is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. Why would you have to legislate to allow something if there is no law prohibiting it in the first place?

I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish. I do not believe that there is anything inherent about it.

You're a pretty intelligent, well read, and worldly guy for the most part. That you can make such a statement with a straight face surprises me, and in my opinion, diminishes you.

Goofball

10-14-2008, 21:44

So it IS okay to discriminate against some people, just not people with sexual fetishes.

What if I said that most rich people were born that way?

You'd be correct...

yesdachi

10-14-2008, 22:05

That's informative.

Anyway I expect to be mocked but I put forward my ideas nonetheless, its my duty.

It’s a lie. More than worthy of an eye roll.

God is satisfied with his works
"God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31]
God is dissatisfied with his works.
"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6]

Is that not a contradiction? There are hundreds more if you look, the bible is filled with them.

I don’t care if you put forward your ideas but at least know what you are talking about, you’re giving god faring people a bad name. If you feel the need to represent, do a good job of it. I speak lie a fool most of the time but I am not compelled by some “duty”.

Don Corleone

10-14-2008, 22:13

Well, I'm actually in the metaphorically, not literally, true view of the bible, yesdachi, but you've not picked the best example of a contradiction. You're stepped over a fundamental (pun not intended) act between those two statements: Adam and Eve betraying God's love by breaking the one rule they had to live under.

It'd be the equivalent of:

-Bill made a statement in favor of the NY Yankees.
-Bill then spit in the face of Roger.
-Roger slugged Bill.

And having me describe it as "Bill made a statement in favor of the Yankees and Roger slugged him", implying that Roger slugged him because of his statment, when in reality it was the unmentioned act in-between.

Rhyfelwyr

10-14-2008, 22:35

It’s a lie. More than worthy of an eye roll.

Well no its not.

Is that not a contradiction? There are hundreds more if you look, the bible is filled with them.

I don’t care if you put forward your ideas but at least know what you are talking about, you’re giving god faring people a bad name. If you feel the need to represent, do a good job of it. I speak lie a fool most of the time but I am not compelled by some “duty”.

One verse refers to before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the other after it.

Rhyf, I'm not sure where to go with that. You failed to address the meat of my post, which was about how the U.S. is founded on secular principles, thus making gay marriage perfectly compatible with our mos maiorum, and instead you throw down a strange comment about persecuting Jews and "banning dissenters," which doesn't even make sense in this context. Could you elaborate and elucidate, please?

I'm just a bit tired of hearing all the bad press regarding Puritans. You gave me the example of the Royalists, who had ensured Jews were banned in England from the 13th Century IIRC, and discriminated against dissenters, basically dumping them in Northern Ireland and later Massachusetts. Of course Puritans discriminated as well, everyone did in those times, its not some specific flaw to raise up against Christians nowadays.

I know the US was founded as a secular state, thats one reason why I said to TuffStuff that if you want too much 'freedom to' then this is what happens. If we were to stick rigidly to the topic in the context of the modern US, then TuffStuff has focused more on the legal arguments.

I agree, it honestly makes Christianity look like hypocritical, petty throwbacks who want to scapegoat gay people for all of society's ills. I'm not saying that to be nasty, I really and honestly think making this a "cornerstone" religious issue in national politics makes Christians look VERY petty and smallminded. It's is very much a question of, "Of all the problems out there...."

Well we agree on those issues so they wouldn't make very fun Backroom topics. The reason for the media coverage of the Christian input in the gay rights debate is that Christians agree with you on the topics you list, so there's nothing to argue about. Christian-related charity work does of course focus on helping those in poverty, drug addiction, alcohol problems etc. But that doesn't help demonise Christians so its best not to go there.

Koga No Goshi

10-14-2008, 22:49

Sorry, maybe I don't understand. I thought the way the law worked (in a very general sense) is that if something is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. Why would you have to legislate to allow something if there is no law prohibiting it in the first place?

You are absolutely correct and courts saying exactly what you just said, in not so many words, is what is being challenged and overturned, and then criticized as "activist judging."

KukriKhan

10-15-2008, 00:23

Sorry, maybe I don't understand. I thought the way the law worked (in a very general sense) is that if something is not specifically forbidden, then it is permitted. Why would you have to legislate to allow something if there is no law prohibiting it in the first place?

Well, there's the licensing thing. To be recognized in a court as 'married' folks hafta be able to show a gov't license to do this special thing. People 'live as married' all the time, sans license, but run into trouble upon death or disability of the other partner, same as gay couples do now.

So: the license = the rub?

Goofball

10-15-2008, 01:05

Well, there's the licensing thing. To be recognized in a court as 'married' folks hafta be able to show a gov't license to do this special thing. People 'live as married' all the time, sans license, but run into trouble upon death or disability of the other partner, same as gay couples do now.

So: the license = the rub?

So it's not really a law against gay marriage in most cases, simply a bureaucratic regulation about the issuance of licenses. So again, it shouldn't require legislation to change a regulation. Simply (as the courts have rightly done) a judge saying, "Oh, that regulation is not constitutional. So sorry. Peter, Dave, here's your marriage license. Live long and prosper."

What seems to be the problem?

But you know, I'm starting to lean to Don's way of thinking on this. The government should be out of the marriage business altogether. If you want your relationship recognized by the government for tax, pension, estate, or any other purpose, then you need to get a civil union whether you're gay or straight. If you want to get married in a church, that's all well and good, but it won't count for anything legally.

Strike For The South

10-15-2008, 01:07

So it's not really a law against gay marriage in most cases, simply a bureaucratic regulation about the issuance of licenses. So again, it shouldn't require legislation to change a regulation. Simply (as the courts have rightly done) a judge saying, "Oh, that regulation is not constitutional. So sorry. Peter, Dave, here's your marriage license. Live long and prosper."

What seems to be the problem?

But you know, I'm starting to lean to Don's way of thinking on this. The government should be out of the marriage business altogether. If you want your relationship recognized by the government for tax, pension, estate, or any other purpose, then you need to get a civil union whether you're gay or straight. If you want to get married in a church, that's all well and good, but it won't count for anything legally.

Well yea. I thought thats how it worked now.

m52nickerson

10-15-2008, 01:08

ATPG the Bible does not contradict itself.

Really. Let put an end to this fallacy right now.

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.
Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Odd genetic engineering

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
The hydrological cycle

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle
Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
Moses' personality

NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."
Righteous live?

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
Jesus' last words

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Years of famine

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;
Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.
God be seen?

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
Tempts?

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
Ascend to heaven

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)
What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Before the cock crow - MAT 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - MAR 14:30
How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.
How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
Does every man sin?

1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Who bought potter's field

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Who prophesied the potter's field?

MAT 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13
Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.
Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Marriage?

Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)
Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

(various traipsings)
How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
MAT 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
ACT 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Judging

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."
Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)
For or against?

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)
Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
God change?

MAL 3:6
JAS 1:17
1SA 15:29
JON 3:10
GEN 6:6
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

ZEC 11:11-13 (Note: There is nothing in Jeremiah remotely like this.)
Who's sepulchers

ACT 7:16
GEN 23:17,18
Strong drink?

PRO 31:6,7
JOH 2:11-11
When second coming?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

(See also 1TH 4:15-18)
Solomon's overseers

1KI 9:23 550
2CH 8:10 250
The mother of Abijah:

2CH 11:20 Maachah the daughter of Absalom

2CH 13:2 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel
When did Baasha die?

1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa

2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa
How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2KI 8:26 22

2CH 22:2 42
Who was Josiah's successor?

2CH 36:1 Jehoahaz

JER 22:11 Shallum
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.
What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

MAT 27:28 scarlet

JOH 19:2 purple
What did they give him to drink?

MAT 27:34 vinegar

MAR 15:23 wine with myrrh
How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; MAT 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and MAR 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."

That is a lot of contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)

KukriKhan

10-15-2008, 01:19

Let's rather, stay on-topic, please: "Another State Legalizes gay Marriage".

PanzerJaeger

10-15-2008, 01:26

I speak like a fool most of the time but I am not compelled by some “duty”.

:laugh4:

Same here..

Seamus Fermanagh

10-15-2008, 04:01

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 04:38

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.

Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.

My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

I think everyone (who has participated here, at least) would be okay with that compromise. It really is, from a secular standpiont, the way things ought to work anyway.

However, don't you believe that a lot of people in the U.S. would view this as..... "dismantling marriage"? Or even destroying it? I am of course not saying that would be a rational or legally credible argument, but does anyone else think an awful lot of people would be making it to oppose the change?

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 05:26

The term marriage goes way back. It has traditionally been defined, throughout Western culture, as the union of a man and woman. For the Catholic Church, this is a sacrament wherein the two are bound together under the aegis of the Holy Spirit.

From that perspective, "gay marriage" is not a valid concept.

Kukri's story about his kin being unable to function as next of kin underlines the problems associated with the absence of any clearly defined rights for non-traditional couples.

My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

100% with you. This is one of the compromises that I would eagerly accept.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 06:36

Well part of my heritage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iroquois_Constitution) didn't come from anywhere, and their democratic framework was a stronger influence upon the present-day U.S. Constitution than ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Ben Franklin openly cited their society and culture and government many times in various speeches.

You're going to quickly run out of arguments for dismissing anyone but the Puritans as being the founders of this country, Rhyfe.

If I said the native american traditions would be greatly enriched by butt-sex, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much would you agree?

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 06:45

If I said the native american traditions would be greatly enriched by butt-sex, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much would you agree?

I would say that entire question is beside the point. How much is American culture enriched by Paris Hilton's sex video or Britney Spears' relationship with K-Fed? Or Elizabeth Taylor having what, six husbands? Or Woody Allen marrying his adopted daughter. Or Eminem singing a rap song about wanting to beat or strangle or kill his ex-wife, mother of his daughter? Yet these were all relationships or liaisons which had the right to avail themselves of legal rights extended from our government.

Point being, subjective judgments of a particular relationship's "worth", "morality", or "contribution to society" has NOTHING to do with extension of equal rights to everyone.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 06:49

Gimme. 0 being: hmm ok there are gay native americans get a tipi, 10 being: hiawatha dragged trough the streets with a buttplub jammed up tarred and feathered.

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 06:55

Gimme. 0 being: hmm ok there are gay native americans get a tipi, 10 being: hiawatha dragged trough the streets with a buttplub jammed up tarred and feathered.

Read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit) on Native American cultures' attitudes towards alternative gender roles and sexualities before making statements about them. They were, at bare minimum, vastly more accepting and formally recognized than in contemporary Europe-- as a general statement, of course.

Several other cultures like Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan) had all kinds of different levels of acceptance of what you would call "sexual deviance" today, before assimilating to western mindsets. Homosexuality had been encouraged both as a form of Buddhist worship and as an acceptable and positive act between samurai warriors. (You certainly won't see much of that in western-made movies about the samurai...)

Let's not forget Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece) or Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome), either. I loved how in the movie "Troy", they changed Achilles' friend Patroclus into a "beloved cousin."

Fragony

10-15-2008, 07:03

Read up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit) on Native American cultures' attitudes towards alternative gender roles and sexualities before making statements about them. They were, at bare minimum, vastly more accepting and formally recognized than in contemporary Europe-- as a general statement, of course.

Every culture does, molly bolly during victorian times, even Iran has a lifely gay-scene. Hiawatha and the elders dragged through the streets plugged so up so badly they cough up blood, by white men.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 09:13

Let's not forget Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece) or Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome), either. I loved how in the movie "Troy", they changed Achilles' friend Patroclus into a "beloved cousin."

Troy huh :laugh4: Higly unlikely there ever even was a battle. But common how high in the scale, I think there should also be a 'put those feathers somewhere else' day, maybe a movie, Very big man, Spirited inside, about time we deal with native american traditions I say. Chow LOL

Andres

10-15-2008, 09:19

My preference would be for government to withdraw from marriage entirely, leaving it purely to religion. Government would then, ideally, sanction legal contracts between mutually consenting adults to share those certain privacy rights etc. that constitute the "secular" portion of a marriage contract. Government would sanction ONLY such contracts, and marriage in a church would not have this effect. As is the case now, a civil contract would need to be executed in addition to the ceremony itself.

Perfect solution :bow:

This is, in fact, how it goes in Belgium.

When I married my wife, I married her twice (:smitten:), so to speak: 1) "for the law", i.e. for a state official (usually de "burgemeester" (mayor), 2) "for the Church", which was the Catholic Church in my case.

In Belgium, you are not allowed to marry "for the Church" before you have been married "for the law" and only the marriage "for the law" has legal consequences.

Gays are allowed to marry "for the law", but they can't (obviously) marry "for the Church" (at least, not for the Catholic Church).

There was some opposition before gays were allowed to marry, but nowadays, nobody seems to worry or even care about it :shrug:

However, don't you believe that a lot of people in the U.S. would view this as..... "dismantling marriage"? Or even destroying it? I am of course not saying that would be a rational or legally credible argument, but does anyone else think an awful lot of people would be making it to oppose the change?

So what? Everybody will get used to it once it's there.

If I said the native american traditions would be greatly enriched by butt-sex, on a scale of 1 to 10 how much would you agree?

And what exactly does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Fragony

10-15-2008, 09:23

And what exactly does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Marriage is a tradition, it's between a man and a woman, they should keep their hands of it. In my humble opinion thousand years old traditions>buttsex.

Andres

10-15-2008, 09:31

Marriage is a tradition, it's between a man and a woman, they should keep their hands of it. In my humble opinion thousand years old traditions>buttsex.

Sharia is also tradition ~;) *

Is a static society that isn't able to evolve but always sticks to its' traditions, what you wish for?

* It is not my intention to derail this thread, I'm just taking a low blow at my dear friend Fragony :grin:

Fragony

10-15-2008, 09:42

Sharia is also tradition ~;) *

Is a static society that isn't able to evolve but always sticks to its' traditions, what you wish for?

* It is not my intention to derail this thread, I'm just taking a low blow at my dear friend Fragony :grin:

So is us not having sharia :yes:

It's not a society evolving, it's overstretching the goodwill there is.

Andres

10-15-2008, 09:46

So is us not having sharia :yes:

It's not a society evolving, it's overstretching the goodwill there is.

So, what exactly is so important about "marriage is between man and woman" that we should stick to it, no matter what and thus deprive gay couples from the possibility to get the same legal rights (and duties) as a married couple?

What's the ratio behind the tradition? How did it start and why should we stick to it nowadays?

What exactly makes it unthinkable to move past that tradition?

Do you like living in a democracy? If so, then why was the tradition of living under a King not worth keeping and why is the tradition of keeping marriage between man and woman worth keeping? What exactly makes it an absolute necessity to keep the tradition of "marriage - only between man and woman"?

Ser Clegane

10-15-2008, 09:55

Fragony

10-15-2008, 09:58

Homosexuality is a condition, a defect. Same rights yes, same status no. Why do they want that in the first place how egocentric can you be to claim what is important to many.

^--for Andres

Andres

10-15-2008, 10:14

Homosexuality is a condition, a defect.

Well, I'm not a scientist and I'm not going into a scientific debate about that.

The more because it is not relevant to the question at hand.

Two people have a steady and long standing relationship and have built up something together and thus they decide that they want to add legal consequences to that relationship through marriage. If they are both men or both women, they can't have that. Whether being in love with a person of the same sex is a condition or not, the facts stay the same: two people want to marry, for pretty much the same reasons as a straight couple wants to marry, but they can't because they are gay. That's discrimination.

Same rights yes, same status no. Why do they want that in the first place how egocentric can you be to claim what is important to many.

^--for Andres

Yes, but why Fragony?

Why is the tradition of "marriage - only between man and woman" so important, so absolute that it can't be changed? What's the ratio behind the tradition? How did it start and why should we stick to it nowadays? What exactly makes it unthinkable to move past that tradition?

What's so important about that tradition that it justifies blatant discrimination between gay couples and straight couples?

To expand the question a little bit - how many of those here who are married have the feeling that the value of their marriage would be diminished by allowing homosexual couples to marry?

(NB: I am talking about the "legal" marriage of homosexuals here - not about marriage in church)

I don't see how my marriage is of less value because gays are allowed to marry :shrug:

Fragony

10-15-2008, 10:25

Yes, but why Fragony?

Why is the tradition of "marriage - only between man and woman" so important, so absolute that it can't be changed? What's the ratio behind the tradition?

The realist in me says, if it works for a long time, it works. And it is not absolute at all, things always change but change isn't something that needs to be persuited change doesn't need that. How terrible is the life of homosexuals?

Andres

10-15-2008, 10:38

The realist in me says, if it works for a long time, it works. And it is not absolute at all, things always change but change isn't something that needs to be persuited change doesn't need that.

That's debatable.

But in this case, the change has already occurred: in modern western societies, gay couples have relationships out in the open nowadays. They live together, go on holidays as a couple, go to restaurants as a couple, buy a house together, build up savings together, buy a car/cars together, in general: they build up lives together in pretty much the same way as straight couples.

Also, our western civilisations have moved further to a phase where blatant discrimination is considered to be a big no-no.

Isn't it time for the laws applicable to marriage to follow those changes?

Fragony

10-15-2008, 11:14

That's debatable.

But in this case, the change has already occurred: in modern western societies, gay couples have relationships out in the open nowadays. They live together, go on holidays as a couple, go to restaurants as a couple, buy a house together, build up savings together, buy a car/cars together, in general: they build up lives together in pretty much the same way as straight couples.

Also, our western civilisations have moved further to a phase where blatant discrimination is considered to be a big no-no.

Isn't it time for the laws applicable to marriage to follow those changes?

Of course it is debatable, but imho 'why do'>'why not', especially since gays couples can lead the same life as normal couples. Why can't that be enough it's like taking a dump in someones garden despite having a toilet at home.

Andres

10-15-2008, 11:30

Of course it is debatable, but imho 'why do'>'why not', especially since gays couples can lead the same life as normal couples. Why can't that be enough it's like taking a dump in someones garden despite having a toilet at home.

If they can lead the same life as straight couples, then what is the point in denying them the possibility to marry?

Apart from their sexual desires, "they" are exactly the same as straight couples.

There is no justification for this particular case of discrimination.

To put it Fragony-style : non-discrimination>traditions. In other words: if tradition leads to blatant legal discrimination without justification, then we should get rid of the tradition.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 11:40

If they can lead the same life as straight couples, then what is the point in denying them the possibility to marry?

Apart from their sexual desires, "they" are exactly the same as straight couples.

There is no justification for this particular case of discrimination.

To put it Fragony-style : non-discrimination>traditions. In other words: if tradition leads to blatant legal discrimination without justification, then we should get rid of the tradition.

Because that would be intruding the perceptions of marriage others have, that is not theirs to claim. I am against legal discrimination because the state should be neutral, but it most of all should be bound. Speaking of the 'idea' of marriage says it all really. It's that, an idea. State is an accountant. That don't mix. No anal probes.

You should see my point as the state threading where it shouldn't, not homosexuality per se. Heck, I gave a friend of mine a full frontal last week to chase of the pizza guy, hilarious.

yesdachi

10-15-2008, 13:37

To expand the question a little bit - how many of those here who are married have the feeling that the value of their marriage would be diminished by allowing homosexual couples to marry?

(NB: I am talking about the "legal" marriage of homosexuals here - not about marriage in church)

I have been married for 13 years and I am ok with it. I don’t see a diminishing effect or a watering down of the meaning anymore than we get from the 50% divorce rate that already exists.

The only thing about gay marriage that bothers me is the same thing that bothers me about straight marriage. I don’t think a lot of people wait until they are ready and I don’t think a lot of people take it serious enough. I see infidelity as a big issue with a lot of gays I know. Perhaps it is a guy’s take on casual sex but I don’t think it is conducive of a long-term relationship. :bow:

Lemur

10-15-2008, 13:44

Married for twelve years, still on my first wife. I fail to see how gay marriage has any impact whatsoever on my marriage. Someone needs to explain the connection to me.

Meneldil

10-15-2008, 13:47

Well I believe the facts in the Bible (that the earth was created by God, that Adam and Eve were created in Eden etc), although there are times it is obvious that metaphors are being used (for example Jesus was not a branch).

I don't believe that the earth was created by God, nor that Adam and Eve were created in Heaven, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus indeed was a branch.
What do we do now ?

Oh and the whole 'sodomy = homosexuality/buttsex/sinful act' speech is rather ludicrous.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but
- lesbians don't necessarily engage into 'buttsex', yet they're homosexual (even though we all know that they're not *as* bad *as* male homosexuals, mostly because they're hot as hell, yada yada)
- heterosexual couples practice anal sex, everyday or night. Yeah, that is, even married people.

So please, if you have any argument against gay marriage, find something else than 'ZOMG sodomy is soooo horrible :-(' because this one makes you look stupid.

KukriKhan

10-15-2008, 13:50

I don't believe that the earth was created by God, nor that Adam and Eve were created in Heaven, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus indeed was a branch.
What do we do now ?

We stay on-topic about state-sanctioned gay marriage, and not spin-off on religion - which would require another thread.

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 15:28

The real question here seems to be whether people see male/female sexual relationships as special or worthy of note. The people for Gay marriage seem to think not - at least not anymore than a sexual relationship between any two people - while the people against think that they are very special and unique.

If you honestly don't think it is special I don't have another fundamental argument for you. It seems to be clear as day that male/female sexuality is so inherent and special that I can't believe that you are de-legitimizing it, but hey - we are all entitled to our own facts, huh?

The other question is about the courts and the increasingly heavy handed and legislative role that they play in government. CT is different because they dug their own grave, but many people would overturn bans on the federal level without the legal precedent that CT has. I think that this is pretty clear cut too, but that has never stopped awful positions from being held by the opposition.

Ser Clegane

10-15-2008, 15:36

I can't believe that you are de-legitimizing it
I think it has been asked before - but since I have not seen an actual answer yet, I'll just ask again:

How exactly does legalizing gay marriage de-legitimize heterosexual marriage?
What difference would it make for a heterosexual married couple if a homosexual couple can refer to itself as married as well?
Judging by the first couple of responses I received from the married people here, it seems that they do not feel that their special relationship would be de-legitimized (and to no surprise I share that view).

I anyone of those here who so vehemently insist that gay marriage undermines marriage as an institution actually married?

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 15:40

I think it has been asked before - but since I have not seen an actual answer yet, I'll just ask again:

How exactly does legalizing gay marriage de-legitimize heterosexual marriage?
What difference would it make for a heterosexual married couple if a homosexual couple can refer to itself as married as well?
Judging by the first couple of responses I received from the married people here, it seems that they do not feel that their special relationship would be de-legitimized (and to no surprise I share that view).

I anyone of those here who so vehemently insist that gay marriage undermines marriage as an institution actually married?

How would making the purple heart available to anyone who sacrificed time or energy to war de-legitimize the sacrifice of those who were critically wounded or killed in war? Is your argument that it wouldn't?

One is clearly special and worthy of social note, unless the society decides it does not.

Ser Clegane

10-15-2008, 15:45

How would making the purple heart available to anyone who sacrificed time or energy to war de-legitimize the sacrifice of those who were critically wounded or killed in war? Is your argument that it wouldn't?

One is clearly special and worthy of social note, unless the society decides it does not.

I think it would be helpful for the discussion at hands if you answered the question directly instead of referring to an entirely unrelated example.

Ser Clegane

10-15-2008, 15:55

To expend a little bit on Marriage being "special".

What makes marriage "special" to me, is when my wife and I decided to marry it was a clear statement to each other and to the "public" that we believe that our love is strong and special enough to carry us through the rest of our lives.
It is a vow that we intend to support each other during the hard times of life and that we think that the happy parts of life will be even better when enjoyed together.

If a homosexual couple feels the same deep love and is willing to fight for the recognition that they have the same special relationship, I think that this yearning rather emphasizes the special character of marriage, but by no means de-legitimizes it.

De-legitimizing happens by treating your own marriage as nothing special - and this can be true for heterosexual and homosexual couples.

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 15:56

I think it would be helpful for the discussion at hands if you answered the question directly instead of referring to an entirely unrelated example.

I've written 4 pages on distinctions between the two types of relationships. I'm asking if you can see a distinction between two types of sacrifice. The mindsets might be the same irrespective of outcome, but the outcome is so clearly different in both cases.

I believe that marriage is a social recognition that, while symbolic, exists for the purpose of supporting procreation and family cohesiveness. Although this is the exception, I can extend this in my mind to male/female couples that are unable to procreate because they are disabled.

If you maintain that procreation is not the concern of society and government, you may have a point, but that would open marriage up to everyone, not just homosexual couples (which I would be adamantly against anyway). The idea that marriage would be open to any two people irrespective of the nature of their relationship would clearly demolish the institution of marriage.

If you don't see this as demolishing marriage, why do you require the State's acknowledgment of your relationship? Why not just the civil and legal agreements?

Nobody is keeping people apart, particularly not the people of CT, who have given homosexual couples the legal protections of married couples, but not the title.

Strike For The South

10-15-2008, 16:59

nvm.

yesdachi

10-15-2008, 17:03

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 17:41

So is us not having sharia :yes:

It's not a society evolving, it's overstretching the goodwill there is.

Frankly you do not seem to have goodwill towards very much, Fragony. Especially when it comes to actually making due on the values that you otherwise defend about Western cultures in any other topic. If you believe in equal rights, and equality of all people, show your commitment. Otherwise it's an empty conceit when you go around in other threads knocking Sharia or multiculturalism and touting the virtues of western societies' values.

You nor anyone else has provided a legal argument that works within the U.S. Constitution as to why rights should be qualified in this case only for an arbitrary grouping of people. The only thing being offered is a general feeling that being gay is bad, should be discouraged, or doesn't deserve recognition or "celebration" the way heterosexual couples do via marriage.

That's not acceptable in a secular democracy premised upon equal rights. It's more acceptable in theocratic societies which in any other thread you would probably be attacking.

Homosexuality is a condition, a defect. Same rights yes, same status no. Why do they want that in the first place how egocentric can you be to claim what is important to many.

You know, the definition of human used to be reserved for whites, and not for blacks, in the U.S. And not in ancient history, either, but much more recently. So was it "wrong" for some radical white people and a lot of black people to "force" everyone else to change their definition of what constituted another full human being entitled to full rights under the law?

According to you, that would be wrong, and egocentric, and an unreasonable demand upon something that belongs to other people. Frankly, I am shocked you grew up in a democratic nation. You don't sound like you either understand OR embrace democratic values one bit from what I can tell.

And gay people do NOT have the same rights. Not having the same status leads to not having the same rights. Kukri already gave a specific, real -life example of that, and that situation is far from unique. Many times with gay couples, one side of the family or the other is less accepting of the situation and eager to cause trouble as soon as the relationship is ended, or one of the partners dies. Hell, it is not unusual when ANYONE dies for the kids or siblings or spouse(s) to begin arguing over who should get what. The difference is, there are laws governing people's rights to what. These laws frequently fail to reflect the taken for granted rights that married individuals would have over their joint property, when it comes to a gay couple. And not just property either, but other rights, such as medical decisions.

Imagine if because someone decided that because of a gene you had somewhere in your genetic code, Fragony, that you were defected and entitled to equal rights, but not equal status. So your future wife... whoever she may be, gets ill with cancer. And the doctor refuses to even talk to you about your wife's condition, because you are not legally recognized as having any sort of say whatsoever. So the doctor instead gets all his directives for medical treatment from your wife's sister, who always hated you, or even hated her sister! Would you say this is a good thing? If you can't, then you can't defend standing U.S. laws.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 18:38

You nor anyone else has provided a legal argument that works within the U.S. Constitution as to why rights should be qualified in this case only for an arbitrary grouping of people.

Neither could the ones opposing it because the law got passed. Doesn't mean the law is good just meabs it was passed.

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 18:45

Neither could the ones opposing it because the law got passed. Doesn't mean the law is good just meabs it was passed.

Okay so in other words, there is no formal, Constitutional legal argument on the anti- gay marriage rights side.

Just "I don't like it."

Was 10+ pages necessary for that?

Askthepizzaguy

10-15-2008, 18:55

Point of fact, the constitution would require an amendment to ban gay marriage. There is no reason in the constitution why they could not. If a state passes a law, and so far 3 of them have, that allows gay marriage, the constitution upholds it.

Now, why do you guys want to alter the constitution in a way that discriminates against gay people? Why do you want to overturn the laws for people in other states who find that gay marriage is acceptable?

If the question is votes, I'd be happy with votes. But the courts, rightfully, strike down laws banning gay marriage because they are unconstitutional.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 18:55

Okay so in other words, there is no formal, Constitutional legal argument on the anti- gay marriage rights side.

Just "I don't like it."

Was 10+ pages necessary for that?

No it seems that the constitution can't prevent the government from kicking in the doors of private space, I don't think there is a country with a constitution that says one should like something. Ok maybe england.

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 18:57

No it seems that the constitution can't prevent the government from kicking in the doors of private space, I don't think there is a country with a constitution that says one should like something. Ok maybe england.

Who said you had to like it? I'm sure you can dig up some rednecks who don't like that black people can vote or Mexican people can buy homes in white neighborhoods. In fact, I have MET some such people. But those people should not be the ones consulted about what constitutes equal rights under our laws.

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2008, 19:00

I wouldn't even go so far to say that homosexuality is a defect, to me it still seems nothing more than a fetish, just shrouded in other gay stereotypes being forwarded by modern society and the extreme gay activists. Many people who engage in homosexual acts but nonetheless act like other men get just annoyed at these activists as anyone.

I've already given you the examples of ancient Rome and Greece. Unless all those Roman emperors happened to be bisexual, that shows that sodomy (in the broad meaning of the term) is nothing more than a fettish that can be encouraged/stigmatised by society, affecting how widespread it is.

Did Juluis Caesar feel the need to lisp and loosen his wrists - no! The way some who engage solely in homosexual activity noways act as they often do is simply because they are brainwashed into that by modern society.

Homosexual acts are performed out of fetishes, they do not allow to men to form a marriage, which has always been solely between men and women.

Got to go now...

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 19:41

All of which is OT to the topic of legal rights.

So I guess we can count the legal portion of the discussion as a slam dunk.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 19:55

All of which is OT to the topic of legal rights.

So I guess we can count the legal portion of the discussion as a slam dunk.

Especially since we all seem to agree on the equal rights provided, yes. You seem to be particulary able to mentally block the actual point(s)

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2008, 20:14

All of which is OT to the topic of legal rights.

So I guess we can count the legal portion of the discussion as a slam dunk.

Well the idea of marriage was created by humans, with the specific idea of it being between one man and one woman. Saying that any other combinatin of sexes/animals/objects should be allowed to marry is not done out of a requirement for equal rights (because a heterosexual man couldn't marry a man, say for tax purposes), but it is just a suggestion for practical reasons to help homosexual couples.

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 20:18

Especially since we all seem to agree on the equal rights provided, yes. You seem to be particulary able to mentally block the actual point(s)

What points are you talking about? Bring them forth. I thought the topic was the legalization of gay marriage rights in another U.S. state. Not "the sociological history of why I think being gay is icky, and lesser."

Well the idea of marriage was created by humans, with the specific idea of it being between one man and one woman. Saying that any other combinatin of sexes/animals/objects should be allowed to marry is not done out of a requirement for equal rights (because a heterosexual man couldn't marry a man, say for tax purposes), but it is just a suggestion for practical reasons to help homosexual couples.

Basically, I think that in the very beginning, the government made a blunder (and probably didn't realize it at the time) getting into marriage. It should have strictly created a civil contract licence which married couples could apply for and be issued, just like marriage licenses. Because the word marriage is what is really causing the problem here. When people go on about marriage being sacred, holy, special because of procreation, they're not really talking about life partnership. They're talking about the sacrament of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Gay people are not petitioning the Catholic Church (or any other church) to add a gay union sacrament to doctrine. They're looking for the same legal rights which protect basic decency issues and property and well-being rights for couples.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 20:30

What points are you talking about? Bring them forth. I thought the topic was the legalization of gay marriage rights in another U.S. state. Not "the sociological history of why I think being gay is icky, and lesser."

Just about 12 pages of them, can't be bothered or just the ambition to become the world greatest serial-faillure?

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 20:38

Gay people are not petitioning the Catholic Church (or any other church) to add a gay union sacrament to doctrine.

What? Of course they are, but they are using different methods at the moment.

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 20:40

Just about 12 pages of them, can't be bothered or just the ambition to become the world greatest serial-faillure?

I think that I've made a number of points. It is funny how people keep asking me to make the same points over again, but never acknowledge that I've made any. Those points may not be enough to sway Koga's opinion, but it doesn't mean that I haven't brought up any points at all.

In fact I've brought up the points that have swayed my opinion.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 20:47

I think that I've made a number of points.

Yes indeed, like water on a duck it just slides of. Another blind spot.

Askthepizzaguy

10-15-2008, 21:16

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 21:24

I think that I've made a number of points. It is funny how people keep asking me to make the same points over again, but never acknowledge that I've made any. Those points may not be enough to sway Koga's opinion, but it doesn't mean that I haven't brought up any points at all.

In fact I've brought up the points that have swayed my opinion.

Legal points, Tuff. You already conceded what 1 page back that you have no argument for someone who doesn't agree on the basic premise that heterosexual joinings are more desirable based on biology and evolution and tradition and the creation of children. I do not believe from a perspective of procreation, anyone ever argued that point. But from the perspective of legal rights under the law, one person having a same gender life partner and another person having a different gender life partner and giving them wildly separate rights in that relationship is not supportable under the Constitution.

What you've provided is an explanation of your personal opinion. Not a legally credible argument against extension of equal rights.

I'm sorry that you and Fragony are interpreting this as "my stubbornness", because it isn't. We're talking about laws, not opinion polls. I could care less if the reason you don't like gay people is because you think they raped and killed Santa Claus. That has nothing to do with qualification, restriction or condition upon equal rights in our society and courts have and will continue to recognize this when the issue comes before them. "I do not think homosexual relationships should have recognition like heterosexual ones do" is as irrelevant, legally speaking, as saying "I do not believe black people should have the rights that white people do."

We're talking opinion, vs. legal rationale. Two different things. And one cannot substitute for another in a society of laws.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 21:34

All of your points were unrelated to the legal question of gays being married, or they didn't explain why a constitutional amendment was necessary to prevent states from allowing gay marriage.

Or, refute me and post a link, or quote yourself.

All my mine points, well ours, is the discussion you guys seem to be elegantly, yet consistantly dodging. By doing so are doing this place a great disservice cheap personal shots are just that.

15 pages of link now, do that ready thingy so we can practys communicattsism

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 21:39

All my mine points, well ours, is the discussion you guys seem to be elegantly, yet consistantly dodging. By doing so are doing this place a great disservice cheap personal shots are just that.

15 pages of link now, do that ready thingy so we can practys communicattsism

Fragony, I seriously don't mean this in an insulting way, but do you understand what I mean when I say there is a difference between an opinion argument and a legal argument?

I can say I don't like charging interest, for example. That it's immoral and leads to usury and exploiting the poor and debt and poverty and making people homeless/penniless. And that my religious text teaches that it is immoral and should be discouraged. None of those can stand in court as a legal reason for overturning a constitutional law allowing the extension of loans with interest.

Fragony

10-15-2008, 21:50

Fragony, I seriously don't mean this in an insulting way, but do you understand what I mean when I say there is a difference between an opinion argument and a legal argument?

Glad you don't, now could we please actually make that difference between an opinion argument and a legal one as we have have been pleading for forever since page 1?

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2008, 21:56

Koga you are basically wanting to create a new institution, same-sex marriage. What exists is heterosexual marriages, these are defined by the fact there is one man and one woman. They are not discriminatory, a gay man could marry a woman if we wanted. But he won't want to. Just like some single straight guys won't want to. So should we let them 'marry' their best friend or whever since apparently everyone needs someone to make decisions for them in hospital and get tax cuts? That is all you see marriage as after all, you do not acknowledge it has always been solely for 1 man/1 woman.

Askthepizzaguy

10-15-2008, 21:59

Ser Clegane

10-15-2008, 22:02

apparently everyone needs someone to make decisions for them in hospital

Actually it is not about someone making decisions but about your beloved one making these decisions.
But I assume that the concept about actual love is alien to you in this context when you reduce the whole issue to "fetish" and "butt-sex".
Well - it seems we are living in somewhat different worlds...

Askthepizzaguy

10-15-2008, 22:11

I could almost agree with the opposition, but for one problem with their argument:

They don't feel gays can fall in love with one another, that they are trapped by a sexual fetish or desire, and that if they were "cured" they could have "normal" sex and feel love for the first time.

Therefore, only heterosexual love exists, because that's what God designed.

Right... however, plenty of heterosexual people get married for money, for political power, for lust, and for security, not for love. So even if I conceded gay people can't fall in love (something I cannot concede, because it's not true...), they still have a right to get married, because straight people can get married, love or not.

People should have the right to choose their adult partner to spend the rest of their life with, be they different race, same race, different religion, same religion, no religion, be they same sex, opposite sex, or transgender.

To say that marriage is something only men and women should be able to have together, is the same argument used to deny different races, different religions, from marrying. Can atheist/agnostic people get married? Under the state, they can. So, why is it not possible for two people of the same gender to get married?

Also, what about transgendered people? Can they not get married to either sex because they are somehow "freaks"? It's the same kind of thinking.

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2008, 22:20

same-sex marriage, different-religion marriage, different race marriage.

At one time, they were all illegal.

Now, two out of three are legal almost everywhere. The third is legal in 3 states.

Your argument, Rhyfelwyr, doesn't hold water, because you're basically arguing "something was illegal for a long time, therefore it should be."

And just because some things were legalised doesn't mean everything should be.

Marriage, as an institution, is based on the fact that there is one man and one woman involved. If they are of different religions, then it is up to them to judge at their discretion if marrying is compatible with their beliefs. As for race, I don't believe such a thing exists in any noteworthy form, so despite shameful attitudes in the past its a non-issue in this thread. So long as it is one man and one woman, it is marriage.

Any other combination does not = marriage.

If you make instutitions to allow for same-sex partnerships, then it is something totally seperate from the traditional idea of marrige.

If you change the definition of something, well then that doesn't mean that whatever you allow to happen through the changes are really legitimate in the original form of whatever you redefined.

Its like saying we should abandon the idea of heterosexuality because it discriminates against homosexuals. You can ban these two catagories and say only sexuality exists, but in the end you can't make homosexuals heterosexual in the traditional meaning of the word.

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2008, 22:22

To say that marriage is something only men and women should be able to have together, is the same argument used to deny different races, different religions, from marrying. Can atheist/agnostic people get married? Under the state, they can. So, why is it not possible for two people of the same gender to get married?

Well its not really since if you actually consider the real meaning of marriage as being between one man and one woman, then race, religion etc is irrelevant. But having two men involved does obviously create a problem.

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 22:25

I haven't brought God into this arguement.

I have said that in Connecticut there was no discrimination because they allow civil unions and marriage is essentially an extra symbolic recognition for male/female relationships because they are special. I have elaborated my opinions on why they are special and why I don't believe that sexual orientation is deserving of special protection beyond basic human rights.

I agree that two people should be able to engage in a civil union irrespective of gender or sexual orientation - friends, family, anyone should be able to pick favorite guardians and partners. I also believe that it is not unconstitutional for the government to recognize how particularly special the male/female committed sexual relationship is. I think that it is a common sense recognition. I believe that it would even be ok to eliminate any tax breaks (or punishments) marriages - better yet to extend those tax breaks to everyone (lower taxes).

I have a real problem with Judges erasing and creating laws, particularly by small margins. I disagree that any two people should be able to enter into a marriage - I believe in a rational division, but if it was enacted by the legislative branch it would be legitimate (however stupid).

The Massachusetts law didn't make me want to go out and overthrow the government. New York abortion laws don't make me want to go out and overthrow the government. I still disagree fundamentally, legally, morally and religiously, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Court cases that make things up and overthrow or write legislation on weak technicalities make me sick and horribly angry.

I hope that I've cleared things up for everyone.

Strike For The South

10-15-2008, 22:28

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 22:32

I dont like judicial activism either but that isnt what were talking about and why do you find the governments recognition of marriage unconstitutional?

What? I don't find the governments recognition of marriage unconstitutional. Where did you get that?

I believe that we ARE talking about judicial activism. People have been saying it is "Unconstitutional" to deny people marriage to their same sex partners. When something is "unconstitutional" it should be overturned by the courts.

I do not agree that it is unconstitutional nor do I agree that it should be. In fact, I am averse to the word unconstitutional because it is brandished so frequently by people when they want something that few others want. It is an underhanded tactic.

Strike For The South

10-15-2008, 22:36

What? I don't find the governments recognition of marriage unconstitutional. Where did you get that?

I believe that we ARE talking about judicial activism. People have been saying it is "Unconstitutional" to deny people marriage to their same sex partners. When something is "unconstitutional" it should be overturned by the courts.

I do not agree that it is unconstitutional nor do I agree that it should be.

The government should have no role in this other than making it legal. I said in this very thread I am against an amendment. The government should be out of marriage excluding tax breaks for children I find that to be valid.

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 23:22

The government should be out of marriage excluding tax breaks for children I find that to be valid.

Ok, sure. I'll agree to that. I just don't want my government recognizing homosexual partnerships as marriages. I'd sell civil marriage up the river instead.

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 23:26

And just because some things were legalised doesn't mean everything should be.

Marriage, as an institution, is based on the fact that there is one man and one woman involved. If they are of different religions, then it is up to them to judge at their discretion if marrying is compatible with their beliefs. As for race, I don't believe such a thing exists in any noteworthy form, so despite shameful attitudes in the past its a non-issue in this thread. So long as it is one man and one woman, it is marriage.

Any other combination does not = marriage.

If you make instutitions to allow for same-sex partnerships, then it is something totally seperate from the traditional idea of marrige.

If you change the definition of something, well then that doesn't mean that whatever you allow to happen through the changes are really legitimate in the original form of whatever you redefined.

Its like saying we should abandon the idea of heterosexuality because it discriminates against homosexuals. You can ban these two catagories and say only sexuality exists, but in the end you can't make homosexuals heterosexual in the traditional meaning of the word.

This whole quote is a perfect exemplar of what I meant when I made the post a page back about how our government messed up because it did not foresee how the word marriage would wind up being such an obsessive sticking point for so many people. They should have just called it domestic contracts or somesuch, with what happens in a church still being called a wedding or marriage, and we wouldn't be at this impasse. But we are.

Thank you for the history of the Euro/Judeo-Christian history of the concept of marriage, Rhyfe. In your own way you are not incorrect. However this argument fails, over and over and over, to address the question of legal rights within the framework of the United States. So it is entirely irrelevant to the question or rather topic posed in the original topic. I have no problem with anyone having their own opinion, be it man + toasters or "marriage is Christian" or whatever their personal beliefs may happen to be. But those all need to be checked at the door in a legal question of equal rights, and trying to posit them over and over again as arguments against a legal recognition of relationship rights to gay people is dragging the argument off topic. It is, as I have said, as legally relevant as "I don't think so and so should have that right just because I don't like them." And indeed that is pretty much what the opposition comes down to when it's all boiled down. A lot of the state ballots on recognizing gay rights winds up being pitched as little more than an up or down referendum on "do you like/mind gay people?"

Since this is going in circles, but many of you clearly feel passionate about it... could I offer a friendly suggestion to start a new thread on Homosexuality: Right or Wrong or something more suited to opinion arguments than a discussion of U.S. state laws recognizing gay relationships? It might be closed rather rapidly if things spiralled out of control, but it is honestly off topic in this discussion.

In order to make a real case against extending equal relationship rights to gay people, you are pretty much in the position of having to prove that doing so somehow harms other people or infringes upon their rights. Remembering of course that simply annoying people is not necessarily infringing their rights. ;)

I have said that in Connecticut there was no discrimination because they allow civil unions and marriage is essentially an extra symbolic recognition for male/female relationships because they are special.

Does the civil union statute extend ALL of the same rights, verbatim? If it does not then it is a "separate but "equal" law" which legal precedent has maintained does not work, and is rarely equal in practice. This would include things people don't normally consider, like the ability to cover each other under insurance policies, pensions, etc.

ICantSpellDawg

10-15-2008, 23:46

Does the civil union statute extend ALL of the same rights, verbatim? If it does not then it is a "separate but "equal" law" which legal precedent has maintained does not work, and is rarely equal in practice. This would include things people don't normally consider, like the ability to cover each other under insurance policies, pensions, etc.

But is there one man who can marry another man or one woman who can marry another woman? No. There is no legal discrimination or wording towards it unless you maintain that marriage is for the protection of all sexual relationships. I can't marry a man and neither can a homosexual man marry a man. If love isn't in the law books and homosexuality hasn't been proven to be something other than a choice, then it isn't discrimination.

Off topic:
Women are entitled to maternity leave and the choice of whether or not they have a baby and are responsible for it for it financially for the rest of their lives. Men don't have that choice, is that a separation of rights that is unconstitutional?

Rhyfelwyr

10-15-2008, 23:52

Koga No Goshi

10-15-2008, 23:54

But is there one man who can marry another man or one woman who can marry another woman? No. There is no legal discrimination or wording towards it unless you maintain that marriage is for the protection of all sexual relationships. I can't marry a man and neither can a homosexual man marry a man. If love isn't in the law books and homosexuality hasn't been proven to be something other than a choice, then it isn't discrimination.

Off topic:
Women are entitled to maternity leave and the choice of whether or not they have a baby and are responsible for it for it financially for the rest of their lives. Men don't have that choice, is that a separation of rights that is unconstitutional?

A man will never carry a baby in his womb. A gay man will have his partner dying in a hospital at some point or another, if they're together long enough. A gay couple will own property together. So the comparison of those rights based on maternity leave is specious. If, at some future point, sex change operations advance to the point where former men can fully carry babies to term, they should qualify for maternity leave, even if some throwbacks argue "but he's really still a man, he was born one, we've always defined someone's gender by the one they're born with."

And regarding the first paragraph, absolutely it is discriminatory. Different groups of people may tend towards different choices or lifestyles or experiences based on culture or identity. So saying that a gay man not being able to marry his partner is undiscriminatory because you, as a straight man, also cannot marry a man, is like saying a law banning Synagogue is not discriminatory. The Jews are not allowed to go to Synagogue, but neither are the Christians. So where's the discrimination? Fair for everyone.

We have a history of those kinds of "not discriminatory" laws, Tuff. Look at San Francisco during the post-gold rush era, where laws prohibited more than x people living in a house together or placed a special fee on businesses using a horse for delivery---- knowing, in advance, that those laws would hit the Chinese, and hardly anyone else.

That logic isn't really turning the tide here, sadly.

woad&fangs

10-15-2008, 23:56

Koga No Goshi

10-16-2008, 00:00

Well if the concern is over practical factors such as medical rights and tax cuts, then why would a secular state have to mutate the traditional concept of marriage and base civil partnerships on any kind of sexual relationship?

Why not say, OK, everyone can select one person to share certain privileges with. This will mean they can choose who has say over what happens to them if they're lying unconscious in a hospital bed. And perhaps some tax arragement.

That way, you are not basing secular politics on a corruption of a Judeo-Christian ideal, and it will be more encompassing than sexual-preference based civil partnerships, as it will mean even those not looking for a sexual relationship for whatever reason can have the practical benefits of civil partnerships.

I believe this is acceptable to everyone, as long as it is fully equal for everyone. I think the people you'd have a hard time selling this on would be the people who've resisted any change to the marriage legal institution. I can already hear the radio ads saying that this is an attempt to totally nullify and destroy your marriage, with little old people believing it.

ICantSpellDawg

10-16-2008, 00:49

I believe this is acceptable to everyone, as long as it is fully equal for everyone.

I think that most people would sign off on this eventually.

The problem with bringing up "dying in a hospital bed" is that rights regarding visitation is not what you are pushing for. You are pushing for the title. How do I know that? Because courts overturned the laws of CT after they gave same-sex couples the option of visitation rights - because they were not given the title.

PBI

10-16-2008, 01:07

So everyone should have the right to a civil union with all the same rights as a marriage, but only those who get a religious marriage should be able to actually use the word "marriage"?

Since it is the religious groups insisting that it is their type of marriage that is "special" and different from the commonly understood sense of the word, surely they should be the ones who have to invent a special new euphemism for something which is in all essential aspects identical to a marriage but specifically happens in a church? Meanwhile everyone else can just use the word "marriage" for their sordid lust-fuelled state of living in sin since it has long since ceased to be the case that people require a marriage to have happened in a church in order to recognize it as legitimate.

You don't think it should be called a marriage, just call it something else when you have to talk about it. The English language does not and never has had government-set rules on how it can and can not be used, you have no sound basis whatsoever to try to prescribe what word other people should be allowed to use to describe their relationship.

ICantSpellDawg

10-16-2008, 01:52

Koga No Goshi

10-16-2008, 04:25

I think that most people would sign off on this eventually.

The problem with bringing up "dying in a hospital bed" is that rights regarding visitation is not what you are pushing for. You are pushing for the title. How do I know that? Because courts overturned the laws of CT after they gave same-sex couples the option of visitation rights - because they were not given the title.

I am not pushing for a title, it's just that every single proposal of civil unions I have seen in some way fall deficient of the rights bestowed by marriage, and I support completely the refusal to accept a 2nd class citizen pawn off of the rights bestowed by marriage in the eyes of the law.

So everyone should have the right to a civil union with all the same rights as a marriage, but only those who get a religious marriage should be able to actually use the word "marriage"?

Since it is the religious groups insisting that it is their type of marriage that is "special" and different from the commonly understood sense of the word, surely they should be the ones who have to invent a special new euphemism for something which is in all essential aspects identical to a marriage but specifically happens in a church? Meanwhile everyone else can just use the word "marriage" for their sordid lust-fuelled state of living in sin since it has long since ceased to be the case that people require a marriage to have happened in a church in order to recognize it as legitimate.

You don't think it should be called a marriage, just call it something else when you have to talk about it. The English language does not and never has had government-set rules on how it can and can not be used, you have no sound basis whatsoever to try to prescribe what word other people should be allowed to use to describe their relationship.

The problem with insisting that the term marriage must remain associated only with the Judeo-Christian tradition of man-woman marriage, or the "sacrament" of marriage if you are Catholic, etc. etc. etc., is that atheist or Muslim or Wiccan heterosexuals marry and divorce every single day. I do not consider the hubbub over the word and its imagined necessary ties to religious and moral traditions of just 1 religion/culture to be legitimate, least of all in a secular democracy. But would be willing to compromise (personally) on something like changing the word to civil contract or civil union, as long as EVERYONE then uses that legal status and it confers the same rights on everyone who uses it, without regard to gender.