Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[woad&fangs]

Conneticut this time....

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?hp)

I didn't even know they were debating it:dizzy2:

Anyway's it makes me happy. So what do you guys think? Is the # of legalizing states going to snowball or is it going to be confined to staunch blue states like the current 3?

[m52nickerson]

I think for awhile it will be confined. The pull point will be when a other states do not recognize these marriages. That is the issue that may drive it to the supreme court.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Conneticut this time....

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?hp)

I didn't even know they were debating it:dizzy2:

Anyway's it makes me happy. So what do you guys think? Is the # of legalizing states going to snowball or is it going to be confined to staunch blue states like the current 3?

Debate??!!! No, No, No. That's not how it works anymore. They did debate it when they decided in favor of civil unions a few years ago in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

The current decision was by the Supreme Court of the State who has decreed that the people of CT shouldn't have the power to decide things that the court has a strong opinion of.

The only State to legitimately allow Gay Marriages is Mass. Others only allow it because the courts decided to overturn the law.

[m52nickerson]

Debate??!!! No, No, No. That's not how it works anymore. They did debate it when they decided in favor of civil unions a few years ago in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

The current decision was by the Supreme Court of the State who has decreed that the people of CT shouldn't have the power to decide things that the court has a strong opinion of.

The thing is a vote of the people only trumps a state constitution when that vote adds an amendment. In this case it did not.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The thing is a vote of the people only trumps a state constitution when that vote adds an amendment. In this case it did not.

Shame on them for thinking the amendment wasn't necessary, eh? It's funny how some people can say "I don't want an amendment, but I want marriage to remain between one man and one woman.". This should show them that that outcome isn't realistic.

Make up your minds or the Supreme Court will make it up for you. It will be nearly impossible to undo their decision once it has been made.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another session of legislation from the court. Great. Constitution be darned, let's rule based on what we want to be!

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law and the constitution. They did that. The people have the power to overturn it by amending the constitution. This is how america works :dizzy2:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The funny thing is that Slavery - arguably the most egregious breach of human rights and dignity was never ruled as unconstitutional. They recognized that it was acceptable during the writing of the Constitution and thereby acceptable practice. It took a few amendments to push black rights into the Constitution as it should have. They did it the right way because they recognized that the Constitution IS the perception that governs our legal reality.

If they had added an amendment FOR gay marriage or abortion, I would disagree, but I would understand. The current practices are so far beyond the ideals enshrined in the Constitution that it is laughable. They make a mockery of everything the Document stands for. We could probably hook up a few wires under the oldest cemetery in America and power every power grid in the world from all of the perpetually rolling caskets.

The Supreme court has become a modern version of The Oracle. "Truths are constantly revealing themselves to us that illuminate the TRUE meaning of the Constitution!"

[m52nickerson]

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law and the constitution. They did that. The people have the power to overturn it by amending the constitution. This is how america works :dizzy2:

Exactly!

Making laws are much easier then amending a constitution, so it is easier to pass unfair laws. The state's and US constitutions protect us from quickly passed laws and regulations.

[m52nickerson]

The funny thing is that Slavery - arguably the most egregious breach of human rights and dignity was never ruled as unconstitutional. They recognized that it was acceptable during the writing of the Constitution and thereby acceptable practice. It took a few amendments to push black rights into the Constitution as it should have. They did it the right way because they recognized that the Constitution IS the perception that governs our legal reality.

If they had added an amendment FOR gay marriage or abortion, I would disagree, but I would understand. The current practices are so far beyond the ideals enshrined in the Constitution that it is laughable. They make a mockery of everything the Document stands for. We could probably hook up a few wires under the oldest cemetery in America and power every power grid in the world from all of the perpetually rolling caskets.

The Supreme court has become a modern version of The Oracle. "Truths are constantly revealing themselves to us that illuminate the TRUE meaning of the Constitution!"

In Connecticut the state constitution guarantees equal protection for all people under the law. Not the separate but equal civil unions, but equal.

Not only that, but if you do not allow some liberal churches to perform gay marriages is than not taking peoples right to religious freedom away?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not only that, but if you do not allow some liberal churches to perform gay marriages is than not taking peoples right to religious freedom away?

What are you talking about? You believe that the law against gay marriage impacts the ability of religious institutions to perform gay marriages?

[PanzerJaeger]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage01-600.jpg

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage01-600.jpg

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

She's actually a well know model :laugh4:

[m52nickerson]

What are you talking about? You believe that the law against gay marriage impacts the ability of religious institutions to perform gay marriages?

If a church preforms a standard marriage it is recognized as legal, if people had the license. Another church performs a gay marriage a state may not recognize the marriage as legal. I believe in some states if a priest/pastor preforms a marriage without a license they can loss the ability to marry people.

What about the fact that two people of the same sex can't marry is sexually discrimination. The only reason they can't marry is because of there gender. Sounds like sexual discrimination.

What about the fact that allowing Gay couples to marry will not affect you or me, or anyone else. So much fro freedoms.

I don't understand how at this point this can even be an issue. Please explain to me why Gay couples should not be given the same rights as straight couples?

[ICantSpellDawg]

If a church preforms a standard marriage it is recognized as legal, if people had the license. Another church performs a gay marriage a state may not recognize the marriage as legal. I believe in some states if a priest/pastor preforms a marriage without a license they can loss the ability to marry people.

What about the fact that two people of the same sex can't marry is sexually discrimination. The only reason they can't marry is because of there gender. Sounds like sexual discrimination.

What about the fact that allowing Gay couples to marry will not affect you or me, or anyone else. So much fro freedoms.

I don't understand how at this point this can even be an issue. Please explain to me why Gay couples should not be given the same rights as straight couples?

Gay marriage diminishes marriage in general. I withdraw my support for state sanctioned marriage if gay marriage exists. We should have a national discussion about what marriage in is and what it is not.

[m52nickerson]

Gay marriage diminishes marriage in general. I withdraw my support for state sanctioned marriage if gay marriage exists. We should have a national discussion about what marriage in is and what it is not.

How does it diminish marriage in general? Why would you withdraw your support, are you a bigot?

Letting two people of the same sex marry id not going to affect your marriage, or any one else's, because marriage means something different to each couple.

Tuff, I doubt you are a bigot. You are more likely holding on to some feeling that being gay is somehow wrong.

[woad&fangs]

please don't bandy about words like "bigot". Tuff is certainly not one.

[m52nickerson]

please don't bandy about words like "bigot". Tuff is certainly not one.

I say I did not think he was one. I was using that word to try and get Tuff to really look at why he is against something that will not affect him in any way.

[Koga No Goshi]

Conneticut this time....

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?hp)

I didn't even know they were debating it:dizzy2:

Anyway's it makes me happy. So what do you guys think? Is the # of legalizing states going to snowball or is it going to be confined to staunch blue states like the current 3?

Thumbs up, welcome to the club Connecticut!

*California, here*

Edit: That didn't express my sentiment well enough.

WELCOME, CONNECTICUT! Glad to have ya.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How does it diminish marriage in general? Why would you withdraw your support, are you a bigot?

Letting two people of the same sex marry id not going to affect your marriage, or any one else's, because marriage means something different to each couple.

Tuff, I doubt you are a bigot. You are more likely holding on to some feeling that being gay is somehow wrong.

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

I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish. I do not believe that there is anything inherent about it. My opposition to supreme court decisions that repeal laws is different. I hate the idea of making things up about constitutions - projecting morality into them that is not there.

Here are two examples of laws that can be viewed as unconstitutional:
A. Miscegenation laws were clearly unconstitutional after the adoption of the 14th amendment, but not before.

B.Women had been citizens since the nations inception - yet they required the 19th amendment in order to get the right to vote - no court should have overturned laws that did not allow women to vote until after that amendment was ratified.

The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.

[PanzerJaeger]

She's actually a well know model :laugh4:

Doubt it, but either way, my post still stands.

[Koga No Goshi]

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

You're against it as a matter of principle, though. Would you really feel any better about it if it were legislated?


I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish.

You're wrong. Can't really say it better than that. You are entitled to your opinion but I've known a lot of gay people and I'll take their word on the nature of being gay over a straight person's.


The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.

I believe existing Constitutional rights already reflect the rights of gay people to pursue happiness and form families. It is the people who want to encode a removal of rights for a specific part of the population who go after a Constitutional Amendment.

[m52nickerson]

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

I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish. I do not believe that there is anything inherent about it. My opposition to supreme court decisions that repeal laws is different. I hate the idea of making things up about constitutions - projecting morality into them that is not there.

Here are two examples of laws that can be viewed as unconstitutional:
A. Miscegenation laws were clearly unconstitutional after the adoption of the 14th amendment, but not before.

B.Women had been citizens since the nations inception - yet they required the 19th amendment in order to get the right to vote - no court should have overturned laws that did not allow women to vote until after that amendment was ratified.

The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.

So if people are being discriminated against then we need to make laws that eliminate those discrimination when it is against the law to discriminate in the first place?

Plus you never answered any of my other questions. Does that mean it your state passed a law allowing gay marriage you would be alright with it?

[GeneralHankerchief]

This issue is not going to go away, one way or another.

Early reports show that Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative designed to reverse the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage is probably going to be passed (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-gaymarriage8-2008oct08,0,990086.story). Now, this most likely isn't going to happen in Connecticut, but assuming that gay marriage is banned in California then it will galvanize the bases of both sides - culture war reinvigorated.

Personally, I think if we see a cascade of courts doing what those in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have done, the conservative outcry (against judicial activism, NOT gay marriage) will be so great that there will be ramifications.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So if people are being discriminated against then we need to make laws that eliminate those discrimination when it is against the law to discriminate in the first place?

Plus you never answered any of my other questions. Does that mean it your state passed a law allowing gay marriage you would be alright with it?

My State has the most absurd abortion laws in the world. I view them as evil, but since they were unaffected by the Roe ruling and democratically enacted - They are democratically legitimate. Supreme court rulings like this rub salt into already open wounds and are no way to maintain a functional government and system.

This decision is a disgrace. I understand the idea of dialogue on the topic, but the strong-arming of the majority is unacceptable. Civil Unions were a distraction and simply fed the fire in Connecticut. The electorate in that State should feel betrayed by their government.

[Big_John]

good for connecticut, i guess. honestly, i don't really care that much. i've given up on the northeast, a cold and dreary place.

[m52nickerson]

My State has the most absurd abortion laws in the world. I view them as evil, but since they were unaffected by the Roe ruling and democratically enacted - They are democratically legitimate. Supreme court rulings like this rub salt into already open wounds and are no way to maintain a functional government and system.

This decision is a disgrace. I understand the idea of dialogue on the topic, but the strong-arming of the majority is unacceptable. Civil Unions were a distraction and simply fed the fire in Connecticut. The electorate in that State should feel betrayed by their government.

All well and good, but you are not answering my questions to you.

Why do we need a dialogue? Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.

Allowing gay marriage will not adversely affect anyone. No dialogue needed.

[Lemur]

Here's what I want to know -- why do they always do this right before an election? Didn't MA's supreme court do much the same thing exactly four years ago? It's like they want to turn out the anti-gay-marriage base. I'd say it's almost as suspicious as the National Journal discovering that the Dem candidate for Prez is teh most lubrul person evar every four years like clockwork ...

[Koga No Goshi]

This issue is not going to go away, one way or another.

Early reports show that Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative designed to reverse the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage is probably going to be passed (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-gaymarriage8-2008oct08,0,990086.story). Now, this most likely isn't going to happen in Connecticut, but assuming that gay marriage is banned in California then it will galvanize the bases of both sides - culture war reinvigorated.

Personally, I think if we see a cascade of courts doing what those in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have done, the conservative outcry (against judicial activism, NOT gay marriage) will be so great that there will be ramifications.

This is not the first time the issue has been overturned in CA, btw. A lot of fear tactic radio ad spots have been flooding the voters, too, just in the last week or so. They make this really grandiose, cue theatrical stinger music claims about how the sanctity of marriage won't be protected... but they never say how. And "we don't have to accept this." Accept what? The icky gay people? *Shrug*

[ICantSpellDawg]

All well and good, but you are not answering my questions to you.

Why do we need a dialogue? Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.

Allowing gay marriage will not adversely affect anyone. No dialogue needed.

Its just that your side seems to use that argument for nearly everything. Before you know it we won't have the right to decide much at all. There will be arguments that, since incomes are not equal people are being discriminated against. Since there is discrimination, why do we need to discuss economic legislation?

Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates? If you change one should you be constitutionally bound to change them all equally? That would go against the graded system that everyone supports.

The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.

Am I the only one who still thinks this battle is worth fighting? Is everyone else just exhausted or realize that our opinions no longer matter and that they will all be overturned anyway? We could put the ban into our State Constitution - but they would be overturned at the federal level. The misconception is that if we give them civil unions it will keep them at bay. It won't. This is appeasement for the ravenous wolves. We need to get the balls to put a silver bullet in the heart of their movement and pass an amendment now.

[GeneralHankerchief]

This is not the first time the issue has been overturned in CA, btw.

In what way has it been overturned? Court ruling? Law passed? Other ballot initiatives?

And for the record, there are two arguments against gay marriage: "sanctity of marriage" and "judicial activism". Judicial activism holds more water IMHO but it's not as effective a message to the masses (and the religious right) as Sanctity of Marriage.

[Koga No Goshi]

Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates?

When 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, and 1% of the population controls 30% of the wealth, what alternative tax structure would make sense to you? A "fair" flat tax rate would overtax people who already make barely enough, or less, than they need for basic living and secure retirement. And undertax people who have billions more than they need.


The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.

Wait... which party just had two turns to stuff the court and the justice department with hardliner ideological cronies? The Libertarians? No not them. Hmm.. the Greens? Nope. The Dems? Hmm... no, not those ones either...

[Koga No Goshi]

In what way has it been overturned? Court ruling? Law passed? Other ballot initiatives?

And for the record, there are two arguments against gay marriage: "sanctity of marriage" and "judicial activism". Judicial activism holds more water IMHO but it's not as effective a message to the masses (and the religious right) as Sanctity of Marriage.

If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year. Hooray, the state is safe from gay people wrecking marriage for four more years. Now, let's get back to the latest Paris Hilton sex tape and the documentary on Britney and K-Fed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

When 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, and 1% of the population controls 30% of the wealth, what alternative tax structure would make sense to you? A "fair" flat tax rate would overtax people who already make barely enough, or less, than they need for basic living and secure retirement. And undertax people who have billions more than they need.


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?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Wait... which party just had two turns to stuff the court and the justice department with hardliner ideological cronies?

Please don't use this argument. Every President has been doing this since FDR tried to pack the Court in the 1930s when it was overturning his New Deal legislation left and right. Do you honestly think that Obama and a heavily Democratic Senate will show the Right any mercy when it comes time to nominate appellate and Supreme Court justices? Shaping the courts is one of the president's most underrated powers.


If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year.

So, in this case, the Court overturned a direct popular vote? Well, I can see why it's so unpopular among the Right now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I suspect that we will have civil unions -- termed marriages -- between same sex couples in many states in the not-to-distant future. In practice, this will spread to all states.

The issue is emphatically NOT addressed in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the 10th ammendment notes that it is up to each state to decide such things for itself in accordance with its laws, so long as those laws/decisions do not contravene the rights of another U.S. citizen. Since extending "marriage" to include your same-sex couple does not impinge on my rights directly (doesn't make my marriage any less meaningful/beneficial), states may decide to make such unions legal.

Where it will get interesting is the "full faith and credence" clause to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that -- absent some compelling data that same-sex marriage somehow debases and harms traditional marrriage (thus constituing a impingement of another's rights) -- ALL states will be required to treat such marriages as legal unions with all rights, duties, and privileges thereunto apertaining EVEN if the state in question opposes such unions and does not allow them to be performed in that state.

I suspect that the court would have to rule thus even now based upon Massachusett's decision alone.

[Xiahou]

I suspect that the court would have to rule thus even now based upon Massachusett's decision alone.Don't you think that the DOMA should provide cover given the "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." part of the full faith and credit clause?

[drone]

The issue is emphatically NOT addressed in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the 10th ammendment notes that it is up to each state to decide such things for itself in accordance with its laws, so long as those laws/decisions do not contravene the rights of another U.S. citizen. Since extending "marriage" to include your same-sex couple does not impinge on my rights directly (doesn't make my marriage any less meaningful/beneficial), states may decide to make such unions legal.

Where it will get interesting is the "full faith and credence" clause to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that -- absent some compelling data that same-sex marriage somehow debases and harms traditional marrriage (thus constituing a impingement of another's rights) -- ALL states will be required to treat such marriages as legal unions with all rights, duties, and privileges thereunto apertaining EVEN if the state in question opposes such unions and does not allow them to be performed in that state.

In this case, the interstate commerce clause actually has some teeth though. There are too many legal/monetary benefits and implications with "marriage" to deal with these unions state by state. A generic "civil union" compliance law at the federal level might cover it, each state can comply with it's rules and has flexibility, but must accept other states' contracts regardless of the type of union.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't you think that the DOMA should provide cover given the "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." part of the full faith and credit clause?

Possibly. It would certainly allow all marriages to be labeled something else or provide some other means of making it seem more palatable; but I don't think it would allow for any substantive difference. Even if another state specifically denies such unions, the legal rights/duties/etc. would have to be honored -- even if not labeled a "marriage" by the other state.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I would personally love to see what will go down if they try to connect marriage to interstate commerce. Hoo boy. :hide:

[m52nickerson]

Its just that your side seems to use that argument for nearly everything. Before you know it we won't have the right to decide much at all. There will be arguments that, since incomes are not equal people are being discriminated against. Since there is discrimination, why do we need to discuss economic legislation?

Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates? If you change one should you be constitutionally bound to change them all equally? That would go against the graded system that everyone supports.

The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.

Am I the only one who still thinks this battle is worth fighting? Is everyone else just exhausted or realize that our opinions no longer matter and that they will all be overturned anyway? We could put the ban into our State Constitution - but they would be overturned at the federal level. The misconception is that if we give them civil unions it will keep them at bay. It won't. This is appeasement for the ravenous wolves. We need to get the balls to put a silver bullet in the heart of their movement and pass an amendment now.

Again we are just talking about gay marriage. So lets have the dialog.

What are your reasons that homosexuals couples should not have the right to marry? How will it negatively affect you?

[Devastatin Dave]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage01-600.jpg

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

Ahhh

This reminds me of a great joke about 4 nuns that die and go to heaven....

If you would like to hear the rest please PM me. :beam:

[Koga No Goshi]

Again we are just talking about gay marriage. So lets have the dialog.

What are your reasons that homosexuals couples should not have the right to marry? How will it negatively affect you?

Not having very ... hmm... "friendly" answers to these questions seems to be one of the main reasons for falling back on the "States rights, I'm a strict Constitution adherent" response.


Please don't use this argument. Every President has been doing this since FDR tried to pack the Court in the 1930s when it was overturning his New Deal legislation left and right. Do you honestly think that Obama and a heavily Democratic Senate will show the Right any mercy when it comes time to nominate appellate and Supreme Court justices? Shaping the courts is one of the president's most underrated powers.

Hey, I won't deny that. But if someone acts like it's just "liberals" "abusing" the courts for ideological advantage, that criticism works both ways.

Personally I think we have the courts to thank for a lot of very good decisions such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Loving vs. Virginia decision which ended the continuing persecution of miscegenated (mixed race) couples. And contrary to the "go through the legislative branch" argument, I think that an impartial, unelected judiciary which then has the freedom to pursue questions of Constitutionality without immediate fear of reprisal or veto is a good thing, not a bad thing. Especially given how many watershed cases for civil rights have been decided in the courts. Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Endo Ex Parte Endo and other related laws to the Japanese American internment during WWII.

I think sometimes people forget there are three branches of government, not two, and the proper function of Constitutional democracy in our country has net benefitted from the judiciary's role in our government, not been undermined by it. But maybe people whose histories and personal experiences do not include LEGISLATIVE OPPRESSION would not see why this was a good thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again we are just talking about gay marriage. So lets have the dialog.

What are your reasons that homosexuals couples should not have the right to marry? How will it negatively affect you?

You are asking a cyclical question. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman and is special. Two men should not be able to get married because there is not one man and one woman. A man marrying a toaster wouldn't overtly affect me in any way either.

What is marriage? Why do we have it? What are your reasons why a man shouldn't marry a toaster? Because it is ludicrous and is obviously not a marriage. I stand by the right of the people to enact ludicrous laws, but not to have them imposed on us.

I believe that society should be able to decide which types of relationships it admires most. Neither men nor women are excluded from the practice of marriage, but fetishists can't warp the institution at their leisure. There is no discrimination - marriage in the State is open to all and is a privilege - not a right.

[Koga No Goshi]

You are asking a cyclical question. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman and is special. Two men should not be able to get married because there is not one man and one woman. A man marrying a toaster wouldn't overtly affect me in any way either.

What is marriage? Why do we have it? What are your reasons why a man shouldn't marry a toaster? Because it is ludicrous and is obviously not a marriage. I stand by the right of the people to enact ludicrous laws, but not to have them imposed on us.

I believe that society should be able to decide which types of relationships it admires most. Neither men nor women are excluded from the practice, only fetishists. There is no discrimination - marriage in the State is open to all and is a privilege - not a right.

You didn't answer the question. You hinted around that there is some "reason" we want marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but you didn't make it explicit. What is it, childrearing? That argument has been brought up many times and retired. If childbearing is the only reason we affirm man-woman marriage, then should we revoke the "privilege" of marriage for barren couples, or couples which choose not to have children? IF childbearing is your hidden reason, then perhaps the marriage "privilege" should be revoked, as it's giving unfair tax advantages and rights to a couple which doesn't need them with regards to raising children.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You didn't answer the question. You hinted around that there is some "reason" we want marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but you didn't make it explicit. What is it, childrearing? That argument has been brought up many times and retired. If childbearing is the only reason we affirm man-woman marriage, then should we revoke the "privilege" of marriage for barren couples, or couples which choose not to have children? IF childbearing is your hidden reason, then perhaps the marriage "privilege" should be revoked, as it's giving unfair tax advantages and rights to a couple which doesn't need them with regards to raising children.

You are using the exception to negate the rule. A traditional marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children is something that society has deemed unique and worthy of special note. Not allowing barren couples to be wed would be discrimination based on disability and is the exception to the rule.

I'm all for the dialogue on what marriage means and why we have it if you feel it is necessary, but I think I have answered the question at hand.

He asked me why two people of the same gender shouldn't be married and I said because it would not be a union between one man and one woman and that the union of one man and one woman is unique and special. What else do you want me to say about it from a secular and legal point of view?

The government has other procedures for sharing assets and power of attorney if you are of the same gender, utilized by friends and family. You guys are saying that the government should make up a new institution without the consent or interest of the people and I fundamentally reject that idea.

Why don't you write what you wanted me to say and I will accept or reject it?

[Koga No Goshi]

You are using the exception to negate the rule. A traditional marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children is something that society has deemed unique and worthy of special note. Not allowing barren couples to be wed would be discrimination based on disability and is the exception to the rule.

I'm all for the dialogue on what marriage means and why we have it if you feel it is necessary, but I think I have answered the question at hand.

He asked me why two people of the same gender shouldn't be married and I said because it would not be a union between one man and one woman and that the union of one man and one woman is unique and special. What else do you want me to say about it from a secular and legal point of view?

The government has other procedures for sharing assets and power of attorney if you are of the same gender, utilized by friends and family. You guys are saying that the government should make up a new institution without the consent or interest of the people and I fundamentally reject that idea.

Why don't you write what you wanted me to say and I will accept or reject it?

You compared man-man to man-toaster. Toaster is an inanimate object. You can't dedicate your life meaningfully to a toaster or have the toaster make hospital decisions for you when you are incapacitated. So give me a meaningful explanation of why a gay marriage doesn't need all the same "unique and special" legal recognitions of rights as a couple other than comparing gay people to inanimate objects.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You compared man-man to man-toaster. Toaster is an inanimate object. You can't dedicate your life meaningfully to a toaster or have the toaster make hospital decisions for you when you are incapacitated.

How dare you judge the love between a man and his toaster? I'd bet the toaster would have professional knowledge about when it was time to pull the plug...

Marriage is special because it is between a man an a woman. Because it exemplifies the ideal it has been allotted special recognition and privileges. A union between two men or two women is not the same kind of special and shouldn't be allotted those privileges. It is not mystical. You can't put a piece of your body in one end of their body and then 9 months later a human being comes out. You have to admit that action is pretty freaking unique and worthy of note.

You can argue that society has no right to define an ideal or give special recognition to the naturally incredible miracle of life - but I would disagree. Are you guys going to take the issue up with mother nature and sue her because the relationships that you support don't have that amazing element of surprise inherent in them?

Anybody who doesn't see how unique the 1male/1female relationship is is already at least half way out of their minds. I think it deserves its own recognition and shouldn't be crowded out by court mandated, politically charged, sexual confusion.

[Koga No Goshi]

This is getting circular very fast. Marriage is man + woman, man + woman is good, so marriage is good for man + woman.

Remember that "pursuit of happiness" business? It wasn't just for one kind of person. The "well gay people can marry too, they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument is really bad, please don't repeat it.

What the U.S. hasn't mmm "gotten over yet", is that, for willing couples, same sex + same sex is good too, and so is being able to share medical decisions, and share property, and have the law recognize that as a couple, they have certain rights over their relationship and property that biological family shouldn't simply be able to step in and usurp when one partner dies, or is injured or ill.
And further, that acknowledging this in no way diminishes the good of man + woman, or in any way detracts from or harms their relationship or their legal status as married couples in the U.S.

It still comes down to, however, this is an issue of prejudice and not wanting to accept something different which in no way other than being different affects or harms or diminishes you or your rights or your marriage/future marriage.

[Viking]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage01-600.jpg

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

More wisdom you'd like to share? :inquisitive:


What are your reasons why a man shouldn't marry a toaster?

Well for one, it's not even alive. But, I don't see the problems of someone making love to a toaster - granted that it isn't my toaster. :laugh4:

[Redleg]

Well I dont find fault with the logic that the Court used to strike down the Civil Union law and make the definition of marriage apply to any couple.


“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”



The logic of the court falls in line with the Equal Opporunity laws that have been legislated by both the United States Congress and from what I can read that most states have also legislated also.


Just to throw a bit of history into the equation the purpose of a state sanctioned marriage was never about love or emotion it was about something else entirily

[m52nickerson]

How dare you judge the love between a man and his toaster? I'd bet the toaster would have professional knowledge about when it was time to pull the plug...

Marriage is special because it is between a man an a woman. Because it exemplifies the ideal it has been allotted special recognition and privileges. A union between two men or two women is not the same kind of special and shouldn't be allotted those privileges. It is not mystical. You can't put a piece of your body in one end of their body and then 9 months later a human being comes out. You have to admit that action is pretty freaking unique and worthy of note.

You can argue that society has no right to define an ideal or give special recognition to the naturally incredible miracle of life - but I would disagree. Are you guys going to take the issue up with mother nature and sue her because the relationships that you support don't have that amazing element of surprise inherent in them?

Anybody who doesn't see how unique the 1male/1female relationship is is already at least half way out of their minds. I think it deserves its own recognition and shouldn't be crowded out by court mandated, politically charged, sexual confusion.

A toaster is not a connecting adult.

People have children without being married all the time. Some married couples don't have children. Some married couples can't have children, should we not let them get married.

You say people who share a fetish should not be able to get married. Some states still have laws that make fellatio and cunnilingus illegal. Should couples who partake in these not be allowed to marry? What about couples into S&M, or swinger?

Marriage = 1 man and 1 women and we should not change that definition is your other argument. Well in this country at one time Black = Slave.

As far as mother nature, do your research other animals in nature display gay behavior. Plus, mother nature would have people die of simple diseases, should we let people die as well. Mother nature would have men having sex with every women he could, should we applaud this behavior, which is more dangerous to marriage.

Your finale point was that marriage between a man and a women is special. How does letting gay couples marry make your or my marriage less special?

It all comes down to the fact that you don't like what gay people do, so you can't bring yourself to allow anything that would make being gay "ok".

[KarlXII]

Debate??!!! No, No, No. That's not how it works anymore. They did debate it when they decided in favor of civil unions a few years ago in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

The current decision was by the Supreme Court of the State who has decreed that the people of CT shouldn't have the power to decide things that the court has a strong opinion of.

The only State to legitimately allow Gay Marriages is Mass. Others only allow it because the courts decided to overturn the law.

Ever hear of "Tyranny of the mob"?

[Strike For The South]

How does this effect any of you? I understand the use of the term marriage and maybe I can see the bullying of the churches but in what honest to God way will this have a negative effect on the country? The USA has extended larger rights to smaller groups of people in the past so whats the big deal? The judicial activism I dont like but as this kind of thing should go through legislature but that doesnt seem to be what some of yall are arguing.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Awsome. :2thumbsup:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I had no idea that this issue was so cut and dry. Those 3 Constitutional scholars that dissented must need to go back to university.

You guys seriously think that in nature two animals of the same gender have that spark of life inherent to their relationship? You can honsetly say that the union between a man and woman is not special? Same gender Animals hump the legs of humans more often than I've seen them hump one another.

How politically correct can we be? It's gotten to the extent that we deny basic realities. Perception is reality then, eh?

Redleg, you support this ruling, huh? They've gotten to you too? You are now signing off on one more domino fallen to to judicial activism.

[m52nickerson]

I had no idea that this issue was so cut and dry. Those 3 Constitutional scholars that dissented must need to go back to university.

You guys seriously think that in nature two animals of the same gender have that spark of life inherent to their relationship? You can honsetly say that the union between a man and woman is not special? Animals hump the legs of humans more often than I've seen them hump one another.

How politically correct can we be? It's gotten to the extent that we deny basic realities. Perception is reality then, eh?

Redleg, do you support this ruling?

Again how will gay marriage take away from the union of a man and a woman? It will not.

This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with allowing people to enjoy the rights regardless of who they love.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again how will gay marriage take away from the union of a man and a woman? It will not.

This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with allowing people to enjoy the rights regardless of who they love.

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

[Strike For The South]

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

What is the point of the institution?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is the point of the institution?

That's a good question. It is to celebrate the unique relationship between one man and one woman. If it no longer does that, it is no longer necessary for the State to be involved at all.

There are always civil unions. I think the way forward is to keep the State out of marriage and just let any two people - be they brother and sister, brother and brother, man and wife, man and other man, girl and girl, friend and friend - join into joint civil responsibility.

Religious institutions do metaphysical recognition much better anyway.

I don't believe in State marriage if it is incapable of its simple and reasonable purpose.

[m52nickerson]

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

No it would not make the marriage of a man and a woman any less special. A marriage is special becasue of the people in it.

So what is the point of the institution? If it is for children, should we not allow a women who can't have kids not marry, what about a man. Should we not allow couple who do not want children to marry.

If children is not the point what is?

By the way the sanctity of marriage argument has been used before.

https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/m52nickerson/gay-marriage-cartoonjpg.gif
https://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/m52nickerson/gay_marriage_toon_sml.jpg

[Don Corleone]

I think the whole idea of state sanctioned marriage is wrong and stupid. It was originally designed to protect women from the abuses of men, but those days are long past.

But as long as we keep the legal institution, it's hard to see where the state can deny marriage licenses to gay people, to me at least.

Now, may the gay agenda can move on to forcing all churces to perform gay weddings, whether they like it or not. If they complain, shut 'em down... :smash:

[Strike For The South]

Now, may the gay agenda can move on to forcing all churces to perform gay weddings, whether they like it or not. If they complain, shut 'em down... :smash:

That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problem

[ICantSpellDawg]

That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problem

You don't agree now. I'm sure that, given a few years, you will agree with that too. Most people who identify as homosexuals are not a-religious.

Those cartoons are more true than you know. It is funny that when conservatives say "slippery slope" or that these rulings will lead to new attacks on traditionally understood institutions, we are laughed at. When we recognize that people love pets and some love them too much, we can't point to new Spanish laws that give apes quasi-human rights - or to laws that make reproduction in marriage a nonissue. We are just being bigots. There is no way that man and ape will ever be married because that would be crazy. I'm sure that people used to say that about Gay marriage; "what is the purpose of that?" they'd say. I think that many conservatives have better imaginations than their liberal counterparts. Foresight is a gift when fighting things that you believe serve little purpose other than to take decisions away from the electorate and muddy important waters.

I think that the government should get out of the marriage business to be honest. Civil unions should be open to any two human beings for any reason whatsoever. It's funny. This is yet another position that Alan Dershowitz and myself agree on.

To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business

By Alan M. Dershowitz

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University. Link
(http://www.rossde.com/editorials/Dershowitz_marriage.html)

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.
The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.


The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.
Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.
Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.
In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.
Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.
Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally — except for labels — from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.
All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.
Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.
So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.


I like this idea because it doesn't acknowledge sexual relationships - only that there is some sort of relationship. This would open civil unions up to single mothers who are done with sexual relationships and just want to strengthen their children's futures, or brothers and sisters who are not all that interested in sex or dating and would rather focus on other things. All without sanctioning homosexuality as somehow worthy of note.

[KarlXII]

Tuff, do you know any homosexuals? I doubt it, but just asking.

I mean, I do. My location is full of them. And guess what? They're no different from you or me. They vote, they pay taxes, they have their favorite football teams. Giving them their right to actually marry those they love will not harm you, me, or anyone here. Of course churches should not be forced to, however, gays should not be denied the right to marry in this country.

Oh, and you repeat that marriage
between one man and one woman as special that those damned homosexuals shouldn't stain it. Then, you say,
marriage has historically rarely been about love.

If love doesn't make marriage special, I don't know what does anymore.

[m52nickerson]

I think that the government should get out of the marriage business to be honest. Civil unions should be open to any two human beings for any reason whatsoever. It's funny. This is yet another position that Alan Dershowitz and myself agree on.

Fine, but until that change takes place, we must give gay couples the rights the straight couples have. Not "same but different" but the same.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff, do you know any homosexuals? I doubt it, but just asking.

I mean, I do. My location is full of them. And guess what? They're no different from you or me. They vote, they pay taxes, they have their favorite football teams. Giving them their right to actually marry those they love will not harm you, me, or anyone here. Of course churches should not be forced to, however, gays should not be denied the right to marry in this country.

Oh, and you repeat that marriage that those damned homosexuals shouldn't stain it. Then, you say,

If love doesn't make marriage special, I don't know what does anymore.

I know many homosexuals. Most of whom have been in and out of heterosexual relationships and then change their sexual orientation description between "we are all creatures capable of love" to "Bi" "Straight" and "Gay". Most homosexuals that I know are profoundly confused and don't fit neatly into any one category, despite how intensely they claim to at various points in their lives.

Modern concepts of homosexuality are confusing and bizarre issues for the modern era to deal with. I don't believe that homosexuals are different at all in any biological way. I would be as adamantly against two heterosexual males who wanted to tie the knot if it makes you feel any better.

[KarlXII]

I know many homosexuals. Most of whom have been in and out of heterosexual relationships and then change their sexual orientation description between "we are all creatures capable of love" to "Bi" "Straight" and "Gay". Most homosexuals that I know are profoundly confused and don't fit neatly into any one category, despite how intensely they claim to at various points in their lives.

And they still should be denied marriage? If they love each other, they don't have a right to marry?

[m52nickerson]

I would be as adamantly against two heterosexual males who wanted to tie the knot if it makes you feel any better.

....and that is the whole problem. You are against something others are doing that will not affect you in one bit. If that not a mark against peoples freedoms I don't know what is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And they still should be denied marriage? If they love each other, they don't have a right to marry?

Like I've said; Love is not a qualification for marriage in the State. I love my family, friends and pets and inanimate objects.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And they still should be denied marriage? If they love each other, they don't have a right to marry?

What if you love five women? Six? Should you be allowed to marry all of them?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What if you love five women? Six? Should you be allowed to marry all of them?

Right. How would that affect you if I married 5 women that I love?

Some here are perfectly content in keeping certain arbitrary barriers up while demolishing others. I try to keep a consistent stance on issues.

[m52nickerson]

Like I've said; Love is not a qualification for marriage in the State. I love my family, friends and pets and inanimate objects.

I believe the point was that a gay couple loves each other just as a straight couple loves each other.

No one here is supporting marriage between inanimate objects, animals, children, multiple people. We are talking about 2 consenting adults having the right to enter into a marriage, regardless of their sex.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No one here is supporting marriage between inanimate objects, animals, children, multiple people.

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

You are not talking about those things because they haven't been brainstormed by progressives yet, just as gay marriage hadn't been brainstormed by most progressives when sodomy laws were overturned. As soon as some people start making an emotional case for bringing their pets into the hospital and leaving inheritances to their pets or more than one lover, you will be for it as well.

So many people have more than one lover, the government's prohibition of multiple marriages actually strains and destroys marriages because it forces the husband to choose between which family he lives with!!!!!!!! Lets get on it progressives!

[KarlXII]

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

You are not talking about those things because they haven't been brainstormed by progressives yet, just as gay marriage hadn't been brainstormed by most progressives when sodomy laws were overturned. As soon as some people start making an emotional case for bringing their pets into the hospital and leaving inheritances to their pets or more than one lover, you will be for it as well.

So many people have more than one lover, the government's prohibition of multiple marriages actually strains and destroys marriages because it forces the husband to choose between which family he lives with!!!!!!!! Lets get on it progressives!

A toaster can't give consent.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A toaster can't give consent.

Does it have to? I can destroy it without legal trouble, as long as it is mine. Is consent really an issue with inanimate objects?

[KarlXII]

Does it have to? I can destroy it without legal trouble, as long as it is mine. Is consent really an issue with inanimate objects?

What can a toaster do in bed?

[m52nickerson]

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

Good for you:inquisitive:

The whole "slippery slope" defense was BS when they used it against inter-racial marriages. Guess what, nothing went down any slope.

Not allowing gay couples to marry is nothing more then simple sexual discrimination.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What can a toaster do in bed?
You haven't lived, my friend.

About the slippery slope thing - I don't believe that the miscegenation law repeal has anything to do with the current situation. Those laws should have been nullified by the 13th and 14th amendments, but were in place after that because of real biological bigotry. The current situation would be comically absurd to me if it wasn't such a real threat. Certain legal rulings have opened up the floodgates for these rulings on gay marriage and we used gay marriage as a stop-gap against those rulings, but our foresight was dismissed. I don't have a problem with changing marriage laws, but the way it is going on is unconscionable. It is underhanded and undemocratic - spurred on by fallacious charges of discrimination.

[KarlXII]

You haven't lived, my friend.

Well, I'm sure it can make some hot, lovely,

toast.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Actually you shouldn't call it toast. It is our son - it carries my DNA!!

[KarlXII]

Actually you shouldn't call it toast. It is our son - it carries my DNA!!

So that isn't butter?

[Viking]

Why not? I'm not talking about marriage between two toasters, rather one human and a toaster.

You are not talking about those things because they haven't been brainstormed by progressives yet, just as gay marriage hadn't been brainstormed by most progressives when sodomy laws were overturned. As soon as some people start making an emotional case for bringing their pets into the hospital and leaving inheritances to their pets or more than one lover, you will be for it as well.

So many people have more than one lover, the government's prohibition of multiple marriages actually strains and destroys marriages because it forces the husband to choose between which family he lives with!!!!!!!! Lets get on it progressives!

Hehe, I think your logic makes sense to a certain extent. The problem is that toasters are not human and thus the marriage carries no legal purpose (same goes for marriages with DVD players, iPods computers and necrophiliac marriages), whereas gay marriage as well as polygamous marriages would.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hehe, I think your logic makes sense to a certain extent. The problem is that toasters are not human and thus the marriage carries no legal purpose (same goes for marriages with DVD players, iPods computers and necrophiliac marriages), whereas gay marriage as well as polygamous marriages would.

Uh oh. It is starting if I have to start it myself. hehe. Humanity and the rights that go along with it are relative to the time and place. There are a number of people in growing organizations that want to extend the rights that humans have to animals. When this happens, how will you rationalize not extending marriage rights to inter species relationships? Certain animals can communicate, show affection, enjoy sex and share bonds with people. Why shouldn't they be protected by the rights of marriage? Think down the road with the foresight given to you, using historical precedent whenever applicable.

Childhood is an illusion. A minors inability to give consent clashes with reason and is merely a legal construct. Who's right is it to say whether a 15 year old can get married if they want to?

These are all legitimate questions that lead me to attempt to define marriage as something that can weather the storm - using the realistic standard that biology gives us.

[Viking]

Uh oh. It is starting if I have to start it myself. hehe. Humanity and the rights that go along with it are relative to the time and place. There are a number of people in growing organizations that want to extend the rights that humans have to animals. When this happens, how will you rationalize not extending marriage rights to inter species relationships? Certain animals can communicate, show affection, enjoy sex and share bonds with people. Why shouldn't they be protected by the rights of marriage? Think down the road with the foresight given to you, using historical precedent whenever applicable.

Well, that's one question. Have I not seen dogs inheriting money? At the same time; comparing two humans (or more) to humans and animals is somewhat icky - human-human relationships got more to do with society than human-animal.



Childhood is an illusion. A minors inability to give consent clashes with reason and is merely a legal construct. Who's right is it to say whether a 15 year old can get married if they want to?

Most of Western society claims that right . This question goes beyond mere marriage, anyhow.


These are all legitimate questions that lead me to attempt to define marriage as something that can weather the storm - using the realistic standard that biology gives us.


Biology gives us all of this stuff. Only in one sort of relationship can the individuals produce offspring with each other; but this might change as technology advances.

[m52nickerson]

These are all legitimate questions that lead me to attempt to define marriage as something that can weather the storm - using the realistic standard that biology gives us.

If we go by biology then we should have no marriage. Most other primate males will have sex with as many females as possible.

You see Tuff the biology argument was also used against inter-racial marriage.

The fight for gay couples to marry mirrors other fights for rights, like inter-racial marriage, freedom from slavery, civil rights, woman's rights. All of these started with people like yourself resisting the change. History shows us that all of these people were on the wrong side in the end.

Perhaps you should look at your stance on this issue. Letting gay couples marry will not affect your life, or your marriage. You are on the wrong side of this.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If we go by biology then we should have no marriage. Most other primate males will have sex with as many females as possible.

You see Tuff the biology argument was also used against inter-racial marriage.

The fight for gay couples to marry mirrors other fights for rights, like inter-racial marriage, freedom from slavery, civil rights, woman's rights. All of these started with people like yourself resisting the change. History shows us that all of these people were on the wrong side in the end.

Perhaps you should look at your stance on this issue. Letting gay couples marry will not affect your life, or your marriage. You are on the wrong side of this.

Those things that you've quoted all required amendments, they were decided by the legislature. Oh man! You mean the legislature is capable of doing that?! It's been so long since I have heard of them making any social policy that I had forgotten what we were capable of!


humans and animals is somewhat icky - human-human relationships got more to do with society than human-animal.


Sounds like a pretty weak personal judgment call. Is that your argument? That it is icky? It hasn't worked on our end - I hope you fare better. I see dogs taken everywhere, they inherit money and property - they have great personalities, they are loyal, they don't ask for much, and they are sex machines - sounds like the ideal partner to some people.



Most of Western society claims that right . This question goes beyond mere marriage, anyhow.


Most of western society claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman too. Take a few foundational blocks out and it won't be such a simple sentiment to keep.

All of these questions go beyond marriage. They touch on government by the people, what the constitution means, what are people allowed to decide regarding their own government, Can the government promote a reasonable ideal, etc.

[Strike For The South]

Tuffstuff Do not tell me what I will think.


When we recognize that people love pets and some love them too much,

I had a long drawn out response but This isnt worth my time. You seem to think this is a battle and if the gays win everything will fall and soon Joe bob will marry his goat. Dont assume simply because I dont mind two men playing in the mud to solidify there relationship is the same as bestiality.

[KarlXII]

Tuffstuff Do not tell me what I will think.



I had a long drawn out response but This isnt worth my time. You seem to think this is a battle and if the gays win everything will fall and soon Joe bob will marry his goat. Dont assume simply because I dont mind two men playing in the mud to solidify there relationship is the same as bestiality.

Lewis Black: "Israel and Palestine will lay down their arms 'He stopped the queers, I love you to!'"

[Strike For The South]

Lewis Black: "Israel and Palestine will lay down their arms 'He stopped the queers, I love you to!'"


It's prejudice, and it's ignorance, on a level that is staggering at this point in time. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a group of gay bandidos. They travel from village to dell. And as night falls, they travel to that cul-de-sac, where only one house stands. And in the window, you see a family, just setting down to their evening meal. And these queers... these queers... don their black hoods, and matching pumps, very tasteful. Sneak up to the house ever so slightly, open the door, and start... ******* EACH OTHER IN THE ASS! AND ANOTHER AMERICAN FAMILY... IS DESTROYED!

You have been one upped:laugh4:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuffstuff Do not tell me what I will think.



I had a long drawn out response but This isnt worth my time. You seem to think this is a battle and if the gays win everything will fall and soon Joe bob will marry his goat. Dont assume simply because I dont mind two men playing in the mud to solidify there relationship is the same as bestiality.

I suspect that you will think it is fine once a few happy animals walk in front of you with loving and committed owners.

You don't see a trend in favor of more rights for animals? When do you think it will cross that logical line that gay marriage did into the land of reality?

Did you say years ago that gay marriage would be a reality? I doubt it.

[Strike For The South]

You don't see a trend in favor of more rights for animals? When do you think it will cross that logical line that gay marriage did into the land of reality?

Animals can't give consent however if you do know a goat that can say yes please point him or her out to me as I find goats to be less demanding and warmer than females.

[Koga No Goshi]

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

So wait.... the "point" of marriage is to give special privileges to heterosexual couples? There is no other purpose? And allowing every kind of consenting adult couple to have the same legal rights will take away that special privileged status? You realize the same argument was made for the special racial status of white people in not recognizing white marriages with other races. My genealogy, for instance, dead-ends with my great-grandparents. Because my great-grandmother was white and my great-grandfather was Blackfeet, and their marriage was illegal at the time they married in Arkansas.

I'm trying to keep up with your arguments, Tuff, but they're chameleoning on me.


I suspect that you will think it is fine once a few happy animals walk in front of you with loving and committed owners.

You don't see a trend in favor of more rights for animals? When do you think it will cross that logical line that gay marriage did into the land of reality?

Did you say years ago that gay marriage would be a reality? I doubt it.

So in other words, you oppose this only because you find it disgusting and on par with humans engaging in bestiality. Even though the issues of hospital and medical decisionmaking, property rights and inheritance rights utterly don't apply in the case of an animal.

If that's really your stance, just come out and say it. You've hinted as much but why pretend this is a legally righteous point you are defending?


That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problem

Strike is correct. (And great points you've been making btw STFS.)

Don, your argument is bunk and it's sheer fear tactics from the religious right and people who oppose gay marriage. Churches have NEVER been coerced to conduct marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs or traditions. My friend at work, for instance, was just telling me a story about how her friend from Japan married a Mormon guy in Utah. The parents came out for the wedding but, because it was a very traditional Mormon Church, they were not allowed inside the actual ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

Churches will never be "forced" to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. Individual preachers and priests break with their denomination and do them privately all the time, but I don't see how that's any concern to anyone but him/her.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Animals can't give consent however if you do know a goat that can say yes please point him or her out to me as I find goats to be less demanding and warmer than females.

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not? Do you own pets, have you ever interacted with an animal? They most assuredly have personalities, likes and dislikes.

[Koga No Goshi]

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not? Do you own pets, have you ever interacted with an animal? They most assuredly have personalities, likes and dislikes.

Can my dog tell my doctor what my medical directives are?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Can my dog tell my doctor what my medical directives are?
That depends on what your medical directives are. I know some people who couldn't relay medical directives.

[KarlXII]

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not?

You try asking your horse to marry you. What's it going to do, neigh?

Besides, Mr. Hands wouldn't agree!

[Strike For The South]

"Animals can't give consent". What is consent?

Consent; to give assent or approval.

You can say that animals can't do certain things, but give consent? They can't tell you whether they want something or not - whether they approve or not? Do you own pets, have you ever interacted with an animal? They most assuredly have personalities, likes and dislikes.

What is consent? Do you like being obtuse?

"Mary would you like to marry me?"

"Yes John"

"Goat would you like to marry me?"

There are no quotes for the goat because the goat cant talk how unfortunate.

Oh jesus now you're going to bring up deaf people.

[Koga No Goshi]

That depends on what your medical directives are. I know some people who couldn't relay medical directives.

Tuff even going back to the beginning of literacy, consent has been either oral or by making one's mark. Animals can't even do that unless trained to do so and even then are merely repeating a trained action and have no idea what it is they are "signing."

You are too smart to believe this ridiculous argument you are making. Try another tack.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tuff even going back to the beginning of literacy, consent has been either oral or by making one's mark. Animals can't even do that unless trained to do so and even then are merely repeating a trained action and have no idea what it is they are "signing."

You are too smart to believe this ridiculous argument you are making. Try another tack.

If people are born being attracted to animals and it hurts nobody, why is it wrong?

Aside:
Just curious, but where is there a federal prohibition against discrimination against personal practices or lifestyle choices in Federal law?

I can see how such laws in Connecticut have led to their recent ruling - Thank goodness our Federal law hasn't passed yet.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well TSM you want 'freedom' this is what happens.

EDIT: Meant TSM not TSF. :sweatdrop:

[Don Corleone]

Don, your argument is bunk and it's sheer fear tactics from the religious right and people who oppose gay marriage. Churches have NEVER been coerced to conduct marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs or traditions. My friend at work, for instance, was just telling me a story about how her friend from Japan married a Mormon guy in Utah. The parents came out for the wedding but, because it was a very traditional Mormon Church, they were not allowed inside the actual ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

Churches will never be "forced" to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. Individual preachers and priests break with their denomination and do them privately all the time, but I don't see how that's any concern to anyone but him/her.

Yeah, I just make this crap (http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/02/nation/na-briefs2.3) up.

[KarlXII]

If people are born being attracted to animals and it hurts nobody, why is it wrong?

And what of the animal?

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah, I just make this crap (http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/02/nation/na-briefs2.3) up.

That's a protest, not a law. What's your point? People can show up protesting a traditional rule of their own church, or someone else's church. This is a free country after all. I don't think they have any basis, they can go form their own church, or they can join a church with friendlier attitudes and traditions. There are many now. But this article is a far cry from saying the law is going to require churches to conduct ceremonies they do not condone.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And what of the animal?

What of the animal? Do you know a dog on earth who wouldn't appreciate more one on one time with their owner? Couldn't they say that a dog humping your leg was consent?

[Koga No Goshi]

If people are born being attracted to animals and it hurts nobody, why is it wrong?

Aside:
Just curious, but where is there a federal prohibition against discrimination against personal practices or lifestyle choices in Federal law?

I can see how such laws in Connecticut have led to their recent ruling - Thank goodness our Federal law hasn't passed yet.

Maybe because picking and choosing who to allow access to equal rights based upon whether you like their religious views or political views or what type or race of woman they marry or what kind of sex they like isn't a good thing? :)

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's a protest, not a law. What's your point? People can show up protesting a traditional rule of their own church, or someone else's church. This is a free country after all. I don't think they have any basis, they can go form their own church, or they can join a church with friendlier attitudes and traditions. There are many now. But this article is a far cry from saying the law is going to require churches to conduct ceremonies they do not condone.

You're right. They are within their rights to protest the Churches decision. We've seen what they've tried to do to the boy scouts, though. It doesn't seem to be a far cry.

[KarlXII]

What of the animal? Do you know a dog on earth who wouldn't appreciate more one on one time with their owner?

You say a man and his dog should be able to marry due to sexual attraction. It's already well known that animals are animals and have sex for the purpose of breeding, and they often do. However, a dog cannot give consent to marry, cannot say "I do" and cannot make decisions in the event of your incapacitation. Therefore- they cannot marry. Have all the wild sex you want, but unless you get the dog to say "I do" and sign a legal document that it knows what it states, your argument is silly. We're talking about two consenting adults, not a man and his fetis for his dog.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Maybe because picking and choosing who to allow access to equal rights based upon whether you like their religious views or political views or what type or race of woman they marry or what kind of sex they like isn't a good thing? :)

C'mon - that wasn't an answer.

My point is that the legislation against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual identity should fail at the Federal level in order to avoid this exact type of situation. The Federal protection doesn't currently exist for made up sexual identity - but it might soon. Then the Supreme court may use the same excuse to find the current marriage laws unconstitutional. People should know what they support.

[m52nickerson]

Those things that you've quoted all required amendments, they were decided by the legislature. Oh man! You mean the legislature is capable of doing that?! It's been so long since I have heard of them making any social policy that I had forgotten what we were capable of!

Yes they did. My point was that giving those right was the correct moral thing to do. Gay marriage will be looked at like that as well. Your children or grand children will look back at this time and wonder what we were thinking by not giving gay couple the right to marry.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You say a man and his dog should be able to marry due to sexual attraction. It's already well known that animals are animals and have sex for the purpose of breeding, and they often do. However, a dog cannot give consent to marry, cannot say "I do" and cannot make decisions in the event of your incapacitation. Therefore- they cannot marry. Have all the wild sex you want, but unless you get the dog to say "I do" and sign a legal document that it knows what it states, your argument is silly. We're talking about two consenting adults, not a man and his fetis for his dog.

So you don't believe that there should be laws against bestiality?

[m52nickerson]

C'mon - that wasn't an answer.

My point is that the legislation against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual identity should fail at the Federal level in order to avoid this exact type of situation. The Federal protection doesn't currently exist for made up sexual identity - but it might soon. Then the Supreme court may use the same excuse to find the current marriage laws unconstitutional. People should know what they support.

You do realize there is federal regulation against discrimination based on sex. It protects federal workers from being discriminated in the workplace.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes they did. My point was that giving those right was the correct moral thing to do. Gay marriage will be looked at like that as well. Your children or grand children will look back at this time and wonder what we were thinking by not giving gay couple the right to marry.

People always adapt. Remember the third reich? People would have come to accept the destruction of undesirables with time, had the Germans won the war. Do you doubt this? People used to watch men torn apart for sport.

The question shouldn't be "what will people get used to". The answer will disturb you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You do realize there is federal regulation against discrimination based on sex. It protects federal workers from being discriminated in the workplace.

Sex is defined as male/female. There is a pending bill dealing with sexual orientation, but it is not law yet.

[m52nickerson]

People always adapt. Remember the third reich? People would have come to accept the destruction of undesirables with time, had the Germans won the war. Do you doubt this? People used to watch men torn apart for sport.

The question shouldn't be "what will people get used to". The answer will disturb you.

Funny thing is we no longer watch people kill each other for sport. In fact as a society in at whole we are no were near as brutal. There are many examples of mass killing that are still looked on as wrong. Including the killing of Native Americans by the US government.

[m52nickerson]

Sex is defined as male/female. There is a pending bill dealing with sexual orientation, but it is not law yet.

Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the fact that not allowing gay couples to marry is sexual discrimination. I can marry a women but not a man, why, becasue of our sex, not our sexual orientation.

[KarlXII]

So you don't believe that there should be laws against bestiality?

That isn't the point, and now you're going off topic.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm the only one left against Gay marriage on these boards it seems. I guess I'll just move out of the way and let progress happen.

I do want marriage out of the government purview though.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're right. They are withing their rights to protest the Churches decision. We've seen what they've tried to do to the boy scouts, though. It doesn't seem to be a far cry.

Well it's just like how people say, you can sue for anything. It doesn't mean you're going to win. I don't like this "well I guess I'm not really against that per se, except I consider that a gateway drug into all kinds of changes I definitely don't want, so I'll oppose even reasonable stuff." Things like copkiller bullet laws would be an example for the gun issue, and things like civil unions or legal gay marriage are that for the religious crowds. Nothing about anyone's heterosexual Christian life is going to change after gay marriage, nor is it any broad-based, mainstream agenda to force any such change.

[Koga No Goshi]

C'mon - that wasn't an answer.

My point is that the legislation against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual identity should fail at the Federal level in order to avoid this exact type of situation. The Federal protection doesn't currently exist for made up sexual identity - but it might soon. Then the Supreme court may use the same excuse to find the current marriage laws unconstitutional. People should know what they support.

You keep saying this over and over, Tuff. You saying homosexuality is "made up" doesn't make it so. What exactly makes you think your personal rationalization for the right to discriminate against gay people (because they're "choosing" something undesirable, not born that way) should have more weight than what millions of gay people say?

[ICantSpellDawg]

You keep saying this over and over, Tuff. You saying homosexuality is "made up" doesn't make it so. What exactly makes you think your personal rationalization for the right to discriminate against gay people (because they're "choosing" something undesirable, not born that way) should have more weight than what millions of gay people say?

Just because they say it doesn't make it so either. It's a fake difference and a fake classification as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be added into the discrimination law. Obviously they shouldn't be persecuted, but protected as human beings just like anyone else , I just wish that passing a law allowing them discrimination rights in the workplace wouldn't be used in an underhanded fashion to take the marriage decision away from the people.

My refusal to buy into their opinion makes me thick, not stupid. You take them at their word.

[Koga No Goshi]

Just because they say it doesn't make it so either. It's a fake difference and a fake classification as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be added into the discrimination law. Obviously they shouldn't be persecuted, but protected as human beings just like anyone else , I just wish that passing a law allowing them discrimination rights in the workplace wouldn't be used in an underhanded fashion to take the marriage decision away from the people.

My refusal to buy into their opinion makes me thick, not stupid. You take them at their word.

Dude, if the law doesn't recognize it as something worthy of equal protection, and it is... not "desirable" the way you argue that straight coupling is, then why the hell shouldn't people persecute it? I don't know what to make of your view on this except that you want to leave the legal room open for discrimination, while "stating" that you wouldn't condone persecution. I'm sure the kind of guys who beat Matthew Sheperd to death would respect your feelings.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just because they say it doesn't make it so either. It's a fake difference and a fake classification as far as I'm concerned and shouldn't be added into the discrimination law. Obviously they shouldn't be persecuted, but protected as human beings just like anyone else , I just wish that passing a law allowing them discrimination rights in the workplace wouldn't be used in an underhanded fashion to take the marriage decision away from the people.

My refusal to buy into their opinion makes me thick, not stupid. You take them at their word.


TSM:

Based on the research conducted to date, there is no conclusive evidence to support either position (a = chosen behavioral fetish, b = hardwired biological compunction).

Prima facie, it would seem that homosexual behavior adds little to the survival of a species, which would make it an abberation. However, historical documents and observation of other animal species confirm that homosexuality is a recurrent (albeit small) component of most if not all populations. This calls into question whether or not we have a full understanding of the role of sexuality in species survival. God knows how this all fits together, we're still ignorant of a lot.

In the vast majority of historical cultures, "choosing" to be homosexual would be volunteering to be villified and sometimes persecuted. It strikes me as unlikely that this would be the choice made. Thus, absent better data, I am inclined to believe the self-reports of homosexuals, most of whom indicate that it was not a choice. This is a judgement call, since no definitive research exists as yet.

Personally, btw, I am not in favor of gay marriage -- you are not alone. I am simply analyzing things as I see them based on the facts at hand and the law. I am entitled to my own opinion, but not my own facts.

[Koga No Goshi]

Prima facie, it would seem that homosexual behavior adds little to the survival of a species

It can be observed in many animal populations when a) it's out of mating systen or b) given enclosed resources do not support prolific growth of populations. There is of course no conclusive proof yet but I've always leaned towards the theory that it DOES play a role in the survival of the species. It's a built-in genetic check on population control. But I believe it fails to "kick in" at a rate that would overcome vast increases in population and lifespan through medicine and technological improvement (many of which have happened in, from an evolutionary standpoint, a very short period of time.)

[ICantSpellDawg]

It can be observed in many animal populations when a) it's out of mating systen or b) given enclosed resources do not support prolific growth of populations. There is of course no conclusive proof yet but I've always leaned towards the theory that it DOES play a role in the survival of the species. It's a built-in genetic check on population control. But I believe it fails to "kick in" at a rate that would overcome vast increases in population and lifespan through medicine and technological improvement (many of which have happened in, from an evolutionary standpoint, a very short period of time.)

That sounds like alot of presumption there. It is a judgment call. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine.

[Koga No Goshi]

That sounds like alot of presumption there. It is a judgment call. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine.

Dolphins engage in homosexual activity outside of mating season. And dogs in enclosed environments allowed to breed and scavenge for their own food and water naturally start self-correcting their own population growth. I'm not sure how that's being "presumptious" to assume it may be some sort of built in population control. It's quite logical, though as I admitted, not a hard proven link.

It's certainly more logical than "people flaunt a fettish they know will bring down heaps of social prejudice and persecution on them", which is your view. So, glass houses, stone throwing...

[Redleg]

It can be observed in many animal populations when a) it's out of mating systen or b) given enclosed resources do not support prolific growth of populations. There is of course no conclusive proof yet but I've always leaned towards the theory that it DOES play a role in the survival of the species. It's a built-in genetic check on population control. But I believe it fails to "kick in" at a rate that would overcome vast increases in population and lifespan through medicine and technological improvement (many of which have happened in, from an evolutionary standpoint, a very short period of time.)

Most often its not out of any emotional concept, nor is it a survial concept for the species, a lot of the homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is based upon dominate behavior that is engaged when the species is confined in an area. Domestic animals are a primary examble of this type of behavior.

I am aware of some studies on homosexual behavior in wild animals, but I havent seen any explicite information that points to a genetic survival trait. Most of the studies I have read - however nothing recent - points to the demonstration of dominance of the Alpha male or female within the group.

Survival of species requires procreation. Population control for most species is done by predators or lack of food supply. Built in genetic check on population control is not a valid arguement, from any of the sources I have read, since the success of the species would breed out that genetic code over time.

[Productivity]

What of the animal? Do you know a dog on earth who wouldn't appreciate more one on one time with their owner? Couldn't they say that a dog humping your leg was consent?

Consent implies understanding what is being agreed to and unreservedly agreeing to that. While I think my dog is very smart and has quite a strong problem solving ability, I don't think there is anyway I can convey to him the entire concept of marriage and what it would entail and then proceed to ask him to consent to that. Until animals have clearly demonstrated the higher order functions needed to understand the concept of marriage and the concept of giving consent, then marriage between a human and an animal cannot happen as marriage requires consent from both parties.

You're running on a completely ridiculous slippery slope here as far as I can tell, do you actually intend to go anywhere with the whole marrying a goat argument or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm the only one left against Gay marriage on these boards it seems. I guess I'll just move out of the way and let progress happen.

Well I'm still here.

My point is if you want a secular society with 'freedom to', then really there is no way to resist these changes taking place.

[Viking]

Sounds like a pretty weak personal judgment call. Is that your argument? That it is icky? It hasn't worked on our end - I hope you fare better. I see dogs taken everywhere, they inherit money and property - they have great personalities, they are loyal, they don't ask for much, and they are sex machines - sounds like the ideal partner to some people.

Human-human involves two humans and gives legality beneficial for both, while human-animal only involves one human; who can legally gain what exactly from this hypothetical marriage? Inheriting the dog's possessions which he/she already legally owns? Only the animal could benefit from this; that's why it's got less to do with society, and is icky as it's comparing the interests of animals to the interests of humans in a outright silly way.


Most of western society claimed that marriage was between a man and a woman too. Take a few foundational blocks out and it won't be such a simple sentiment to keep.

You asked who could claim a certain right. Today, others claim their right to redefine marriage.


All of these questions go beyond marriage. They touch on government by the people, what the constitution means, what are people allowed to decide regarding their own government, Can the government promote a reasonable ideal, etc.

The question you posed does not only concern marriage in the following sense: it concerns the wider question of how much responsibility that can be given to minors; that's why just that restriction on marriage is in place. Homosexuals wouldn't able to marry as 15 year olds, either.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think it would prove useful in this discussion to recognise that the word "marriage" has two distinct meanings that have inevitably - but not necessarily - become inter-twined. Appeals to historical verisimilitude might also benefit from recognising that marriage customs through the ages and within human cultures vary enormously.

Firstly, a marriage is a legal contract which confers certain rights from the state. Thus, the state must be involved in defining the bounds of that contract.

Secondly, marriage is a religious ceremony binding two people - what my religious tradition would term a "sacrament". This requires the religious institution (and community) to acknowledge, via ritual and witness, the nuptials.

The two can be distinct within the same pair. In the Roman Catholic tradition, for example, a couple can marry legally in a state ceremony, but not take the sacrament and thus not be considered married by the Church.

The issue of consent is a thorny one to argue. For much of history, and still in many cultures, the consent of either party (but most especially women) is not necessarily a factor. The arrangement has been made by parents or guardians and the principals do what they are instructed.

A secular state may define marriage any way it likes. I happen to believe that since terminology appears to create division, it would be much more helpful to define state "marriage" as "civil union" or some such. Sadly, some people find this discriminatory, even though it is just vocabulary intended for clarity. Consent is integral to a legal civil union.

A religious institution may also define marriage as it wishes, and may (if it be a private institution) discriminate against anyone it likes. Those who wish to change the church's mind, must make their case to the church. There is nothing inherently more unjust in denying homosexuals the sacrament of marriage than denying divorcees. A religious sacrament confers no benefits outside the religious community - unless a civil union under the state is also entered into.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think it would prove useful in this discussion to recognise that the word "marriage" has two distinct meanings that have inevitably - but not necessarily - become inter-twined. Appeals to historical verisimilitude might also benefit from recognising that marriage customs through the ages and within human cultures vary enormously.

Firstly, a marriage is a legal contract which confers certain rights from the state. Thus, the state must be involved in defining the bounds of that contract.

Secondly, marriage is a religious ceremony binding two people - what my religious tradition would term a "sacrament". This requires the religious institution (and community) to acknowledge, via ritual and witness, the nuptials.

The two can be distinct within the same pair. In the Roman Catholic tradition, for example, a couple can marry legally in a state ceremony, but not take the sacrament and thus not be considered married by the Church.

The issue of consent is a thorny one to argue. For much of history, and still in many cultures, the consent of either party (but most especially women) is not necessarily a factor. The arrangement has been made by parents or guardians and the principals do what they are instructed.

A secular state may define marriage any way it likes. I happen to believe that since terminology appears to create division, it would be much more helpful to define state "marriage" as "civil union" or some such. Sadly, some people find this discriminatory, even though it is just vocabulary intended for clarity. Consent is integral to a legal civil union.

A religious institution may also define marriage as it wishes, and may (if it be a private institution) discriminate against anyone it likes. Those who wish to change the church's mind, must make their case to the church. There is nothing inherently more unjust in denying homosexuals the sacrament of marriage than denying divorcees. A religious sacrament confers no benefits outside the religious community - unless a civil union under the state is also entered into.

Thank you.

[m52nickerson]

A secular state may define marriage any way it likes. I happen to believe that since terminology appears to create division, it would be much more helpful to define state "marriage" as "civil union" or some such. Sadly, some people find this discriminatory, even though it is just vocabulary intended for clarity. Consent is integral to a legal civil union.

That would be fine as long as all marriages are defined as civil unions. Labeling one as marriage and one as civil union hearkens back to separate but equal.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah if we agree that any legal status of marriage is, in fact, just a civil contract, and we separate out "marriage" as a religious connotation or sacrament, then as the above poster said, simply make a civil contract law to replace the marriage law and leave marriage up to churches. This is an old argument too, because even before the issue of gay marriage became a hot topic, people have argued over the jurisdiction religion/churches have, or should have, over the institution of marriage. It's amazing how many people out there don't know what the "by the power vested in me by the State of.." means when the pastor or priest is saying it. It means he is conferring legal state-defined rights to the couple which a church does not have the power to bestow. This is why talking about a particular religion, or denomination's, view of what constitutes a morally acceptable marriage or family or couple or significant other is irrelevant, and why the state's definition of marriage does not and should not hinge upon the approval of religious viewpoints or ... don't even know what to call them, secular moralists? Who believe that being gay is wrong or gross or should be discouraged, but don't go to church.

I don't think the "definition of marriage" in a moral/religious sense will change a whit, no matter which way any future decision goes. That will always ultimately be up to churches. However, if people are playing semantics and what they really mean is that the LEGAL status of marriage should remain under the thumb of "strict conformity to the majority fettish", to use Tuff's characterization of sexuality, that is unsupportable and has no place in our government or institutions IMHO.

And Tuff, yes, you veered well off into the obtuse. Talking about rights between two humans and a human and an object or organism incapable of forming social contract is a table without any legs as an argument.

[Kralizec]

It's amazing how many people out there don't know what the "by the power vested in me by the State of.." means when the pastor or priest is saying it. It means he is conferring legal state-defined rights to the couple which a church does not have the power to bestow.

I didn't even know that ministers could legally pronounce marriages in the US. Over here that's the job of civil servants - it's even illegal to hold a church ceremony before you get your papers.

[m52nickerson]

I didn't even know that ministers could legally pronounce marriages in the US. Over here that's the job of civil servants - it's even illegal to hold a church ceremony before you get your papers.

They can with a marriage if you have a marriage license. In some states if they perform a marriage without seeing and signing a marriage license they can lose that power.

[Kadagar_AV]

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

[m52nickerson]

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

You missed this last page, the separation is what we have been talking about.

[Kadagar_AV]

Just noticed...

still no arguments why that would be bad though...

[m52nickerson]

Just noticed...

still no arguments why that would be bad though...

I don't think it would be, as long as everything was the same for all couples.

[Kadagar_AV]

Of course...

It is rather fun though... because when you really look into this issue, the only conter-argument would be... "but.... but.... it's GAY!!!"

[Koga No Goshi]

Just read to page 2, shwoever, there seemed to be the same arguments over and over.

However, why dont we separate marriage from legal rights?

Should gay people be allowed to be wed in the church... I believe that is for the church to decide!

If the church is against it, I see no reason to force them.

However a gay couple should have the same legal rights as married couples, for obvious reasons.

They can have a "state-marriage"...

So, what would the reasons be against this?

I ask both sides, although I have less respect for people claiming homosexuality is "a fetish". That just shows the level of intelligence and ability to read up on facts on the subject.

Hey Kadagar,

There is ZERO legal discussion of forcing churches to do anything. That is a scare tactic being used by people who oppose gay marriage in the U.S. Churches have not and never will be forced to perform any sort of ceremony they do not feel is in keeping with their beliefs or traditions.

The discussion or rather political controversy over gay marriage in the U.S. is strictly over the legal rights. In the U.S., many rights including shared property, inheritance (i.e. if you die, your wife gets the house, instead of your parents or your brother), medical decisions in the hospital or in case of coma or illness, hospital visitation (many U.S. hospitals only allow legal/blood family to visitation rights, which excludes gay partners) and such. With no form of "formal", legal status for gay couples in at least 48 of the 50 states, (and one of those likely to be overturned in 2 months) all kinds of legal problems arise because for many gay couples one side of the family or the other does not approve of the relationship and causes problems, either overriding the "spouse's" decisions in the hospital, or even making claim on property that was shared between a couple living together when one of them dies. And unless that couple has gone to a lawyer and had things cemented into stone about who owns what and who has medical directives and such, in rather costly and extensive documentation, the spouse has nebulous grounds upon which to challenge any of these things.

The problem in the U.S. is that some people say marriage is RELIGIOUS, and should be protected as only between a man and a woman and sacred. This argument is bunk because the legal rights of marriage under the law have nothing to do with a specific religion or religious viewpoint, or rather, SHOULDN'T according to our Constitution. While other people use a vague argument about how it "threatens the sanctity of marriage" or in some way devalues, attacks, or destroys traditional marriage if gay marriage is allowed. The second group tend to just be prejudiced people who don't want any sort of recognized rights for gay people because they don't "approve" of someone being gay.

That's about it, in a nutshell.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hmm... Geez, I thought western ideals had made more ground than that in the states.

Seriosly, to argue against church marriages for gay couples = fine.

To argue about legal rights for gay couples...???

I just can not see the sence in it, at all.

[Koga No Goshi]

Hmm... Geez, I thought western ideals had made more ground than that in the states.

Seriosly, to argue against church marriages for gay couples = fine.

To argue about legal rights for gay couples...???

I just can not see the sence in it, at all.

Well, as you've seen in this thread, some people think it's a mental illness or a sick fettish. That's what we have to deal with over here. :yes: And frankly just a lot of irrational hate and intolerance and people who don't want to see any rights observed for gay people or any..... particularly protections against people discriminating against them or persecuting them in some way. For instance a lot of people in the U.S. oppose gaybashing (physical beating etc.) being classified as a hate crime, and just think it should be prosecuted as any typical assault charge. The problem with that is, that a gay person is exponentially more likely than a straight person to be randomly attacked on the street by crazy people with a lead pipe or baseball bat for no provocation than "just anyone else." So I feel laws need to reflect that it's a special "target" of crime, and discourage it accordingly. But as I said, many disagree.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, as you've seen in this thread, some people think it's a mental illness or a sick fettish. That's what we have to deal with over here.

They are not very much into science, now are they?

We have those nutjobs in Sweden and Austria too, but they are far away from any political power, as should be.

[Koga No Goshi]

They are not very much into science, now are they?

We have those nutjobs in Sweden and Austria too, but they are far away from any political power, as should be.

The lack of a conclusive answer from science that definitively proves thing one way is apparently license to fall back on prejudices and bigotry and make up any story you like. It is used that way, at any rate.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Homosexuality is a fetish, that's why some people can turn away from it completely if they actually try. And equally why originally straight people can adopt it.

[Andres]

I really can't see the problem with allowing legal marriage for two (three, four, five,...?) consenting adults :shrug:

And if the use of the word "marriage" is the problem, well fine, call it "legal banana juice" for my part and keep the word "marriage" for religious marriage.

Surely, there are more important matters at hand in the world right now?

This is a luxury problem.

[The Celtic Viking]

Homosexuality is no more a "fetish" than heterosexuality is. In other words: it is not. You're either born homosexual, or you're not. Likewise, you're either born heterosexual or you're not. There is no choice in the matter, other than to live in denial of what you are.

Anything else than completely equal rights is discrimination, and that includes the whole "same thing but different name" argument. If the same rights are given anyway, what purpose except to say "you can't have what we have" would it serve to give it a different name?

[yesdachi]

I don’t mind giving a homosexual couple legal rights of partnership, allowing them to share things like health benefits or visitation rights in hospitals, it’s the word marriage that most people freak out about. I don’t think gay is the right choice but why deny others the perks of marriage just because I think who they sleep with is icky:laugh4:. I have an Aunt who has been with the same lady for over 25 years, why prevent them from sharing benefits or filing as “married” on their taxes? They have been a better couple than many boy/girl couples I know.

[Kadagar_AV]

Homosexuality is a fetish, that's why some people can turn away from it completely if they actually try. And equally why originally straight people can adopt it.

Heard of bisexuality?

Anyway, it would be interesting to see the sources you have, regarding homosexuality being a fetish.

[Viking]

Homosexuality is a fetish, that's why some people can turn away from it completely if they actually try. And equally why originally straight people can adopt it.

I'm pretty certain the lust does not go away; they only abstain. Self-oppression is a better word. Original gay people can also adopt heterosexuality if they want to; given today's society, that is probably a much easier thing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

How does bisexuality disprove anything?

Anyway, I don't have any internet-based sources, but have you ever seen a documentary of what goes on in prisons? Countless guys with families, 100% straight before they were jailed, go into relationships together.

Also I remember on the BBC news once a story of a man who had been homosexual who admitted that he chose to become straight, and he did!

So obviously it is a choice. People don't usually need to choose to be straight, but if they choose to be gay out of confusion/badness/because-they-think-its-coolness then they can also choose to go back on that choice.

[Craterus]

An inclination is not a conscious choice. People don't choose to be gay or straight, they can just follow their inclinations. And to condemn people on something they have no control over is wrong.

[Viking]

So obviously it is a choice.

No, you're not even considering the opposite option. You want absoluteness; that all people are born heterosexuals and that sexuality is a field of black and white. If you had not been so blind to opposite views; you'd see stories that tell the exactly opposite.

And really; where does fetish and something that one could call "natural sexual attraction" begin? Isn't my taste for ladies pretty much a fetish? Why not? Is a male heterosexual attraction to female breasts a sick fetish since this attraction alone cannot produce children? Either way, why do you want to discriminate people because they have a fetish they do not want to give up?

[Andres]

Does it matter if being gay is a choice or not?

If two consenting adults (gay or straight) want to marry, let them marry. This seems like a non-issue to me :shrug:

[Viking]

Does it matter if being gay is a choice or not?

If two consenting adults (gay or straight) want to marry, let them marry. This seems like a non-issue to me :shrug:

Yep, that's another great argument provided by libertarianism.

[Strike For The South]

Does it matter if being gay is a choice or not?

If two consenting adults (gay or straight) want to marry, let them marry. This seems like a non-issue to me :shrug:

My thought exactly

[Fragony]

Does it matter if being gay is a choice or not?

If two consenting adults (gay or straight) want to marry, let them marry. This seems like a non-issue to me :shrug:

If I can marry my macbook. I don't see why, all tax cuts ok but the seperation of church and state should work both ways that is fair imo, shouldn't intrude eachother's realm why did we seperate them in the first place to avoid meddling. And no I am not religious but you can't make any laws of where you don't have anything to say.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why should the state have to acknowledge relationships between homosexuals and give them tax cuts?

Tax cuts are not given to heterosexual couples for their lustfulness, but because of the historic role of the traditional family unit.

Liberals are trying to brainwash children through school through sex education classes. I only finished mine a few years ago, and they were always telling us how it is normal to be homosexual, how everyone must consider if they are homosexual! This is terrible, if they stopped making issues out of non-issues and fooling children into thinking they might be homosexual then there would be no problem.

Not to mention the disastrous consequences of gay couples being able to adopt children once they are married. They will brainwash their children (and yes Christian families brainwash children too but that doesn't make this OK), and make them start to think that maybe they could be gay, especially when they look up to daddy, and in particular when there's two daddies. Their kids will be picked on at school, and come home and tell everything to Daddy. I can see it already...

Kid: Daddy, how come all the other kids have one dad and one mum?
Dad: Well son, that is because your parents love each other anyway, so much that is doesn't matter that we're both men.
Kid: But everyone at school says men should only love women...
Dad: That is because they hate freedom.
Kid: So does this mean that I could be gay?
Dad: Why of course son, you must think about it seriously before you make your mind up.
Kid: But that doesn't make sense, they tell us at health education that its not a choice.
Dad: That is because Christian fundamentalists are trying to confuse you son, we must make you challenge their ridiculous notions that it is normal for men to be attracted to women.
Dad2: This kids a bigot.
Kid: *cries* Daddy why did Daddy2 say I am a bigot?
Dad: Aw, don't worry son, just go to your room and think about what we have told you.
Kid: Thanks Daddy, I feel better now, when I grow up I want to be just like you! *goes and wonders if he is gay*

[Fragony]

Feel free to find it rediculous, but demanding something from someone is a much more hostile act then denying someone something he doesn't really need in the first place.

[Strike For The South]

Feel free to find it rediculous, but demanding something from someone is a much more hostile act then denying someone something he doesn't really need in the first place.

Who is demanding anything? There is no legal basis for us to bar two gay men (or polygamists for that matter) Its fear wrapped in the false premise of "The I could marry my toaster fallacy"

[Viking]

Liberals are trying to brainwash children through school through sex education classes. I only finished mine a few years ago, and they were always telling us how it is normal to be homosexual, how everyone must consider if they are homosexual! This is terrible, if they stopped making issues out of non-issues and fooling children into thinking they might be homosexual then there would be no problem.

If you're not one; you got nothing to "fear" from that consideration. However, if you should happen to be one, it'd serve your best interests. As far as having green, blue or brown eyes is normal; homosexuality is too. It wouldn't be an issue if you didn't make it one.


Not to mention the disastrous consequences of gay couples being able to adopt children once they are married. They will brainwash their children (and yes Christian families brainwash children too but that doesn't make this OK), and make them start to think that maybe they could be gay, especially when they look up to daddy, and in particular when there's two daddies. Their kids will be picked on at school, and come home and tell everything to Daddy. I can see it already...

Or they will not. I've always understood it the way that 'brainwashing' the children has always been parents' right, anyhow. Children could be picked on for pretty much anything, that's not an argument.



Kid: Daddy, how come all the other kids have one dad and one mum?
Dad: Well son, that is because your parents love each other anyway, so much that is doesn't matter that we're both men.
Kid: But everyone at school says men should only love women...
Dad: That is because they hate freedom.
Kid: So does this mean that I could be gay?
Dad: Why of course son, you must think about it seriously before you make your mind up.
Kid: But that doesn't make sense, they tell us at health education that its not a choice.
Dad: That is because Christian fundamentalists are trying to confuse you son, we must make you challenge their ridiculous notions that it is normal for men to be attracted to women.
Dad2: This kids a bigot.
Kid: *cries* Daddy why did Daddy2 say I am a bigot?
Dad: Aw, don't worry son, just go to your room and think about what we have told you.
Kid: Thanks Daddy, I feel better now, when I grow up I want to be just like you! *goes and wonders if he is gay*

ROTFL ~~

[Fragony]

Who is demanding anything? There is no legal basis for us to bar two gay men (or polygamists for that matter) Its fear wrapped in the false premise of "The I could marry my toaster fallacy"

Someone is always demanding it is never enough, more gays here and that hole needs to be filled as well not enough gays there, if you want to be treated as an individual stop being a movement.

[Strike For The South]

Someone is always demanding it is never enough, more gays here and that hole needs to be filled as well not enough gays there, if you want to be treated as an individual stop being a movement.

This thread is about the legalization of gay marriage. I dont believe in giving a certain position to a man because he likes other men he should just have the right to marry. Is this one of the "freedom to" things we Americans are so fond of? Because until you mentioned it I never heard of Gay AA.

[Fragony]

This thread is about the legalization of gay marriage. I dont believe in giving a certain position to a man because he likes other men he should just have the right to marry. Is this one of the "freedom to" things we Americans are so fond of? Because until you mentioned it I never heard of Gay AA.

It exists because someone has been lobbying, what is the big deal they can shred eachother apart 24/7, they already had all fiscal rights why they need to get married when they know it is important to a lot of people, probably because it is, makes it all the more important.

[Koga No Goshi]

Homosexuality is a fetish, that's why some people can turn away from it completely if they actually try. And equally why originally straight people can adopt it.

Oh dear lord. Are we going to start doing faith healings now? Because this is well into the realm of the ridiculous. Stop believing whatever your fanatical church says and go meet some actual gay people from OUTSIDE your church, and listen to their perspective before making this kind of ridiculous claim.


Someone is always demanding it is never enough, more gays here and that hole needs to be filled as well not enough gays there, if you want to be treated as an individual stop being a movement.

If you don't like the movement, stop looking the other way or telling people to stop drawing attention to themselves when they have their property seized or are beaten into the hospital for no reason. If it hadn't been for widespread collusion in the mistreatment of people just because of their private home life, we wouldn't be where we are at as societies.

[Andres]

If I can marry my macbook.

Your macbook is not a consenting adult...

EDIT: And neither is TuffStuff's toaster for that matter.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhyfelwyr,


Why should the state have to acknowledge relationships between homosexuals and give them tax cuts?

Because they are also human being and entitled to love, and build relationships.


Tax cuts are not given to heterosexual couples for their lustfulness, but because of the historic role of the traditional family unit.

And what is that historic role?


Liberals are trying to brainwash children through school through sex education classes. I only finished mine a few years ago, and they were always telling us how it is normal to be homosexual, how everyone must consider if they are homosexual!

Maybe you should have paid better attention in class then, so we wouldn't have to educate you.


This is terrible, if they stopped making issues out of non-issues and fooling children into thinking they might be homosexual then there would be no problem.

Your argument is that homosexuality was a non-issue before sex education, or what?


Not to mention the disastrous consequences of gay couples being able to adopt children once they are married.

How are the two related? In Sweden they can marry, but not adopt.




They will brainwash their children (and yes Christian families brainwash children too but that doesn't make this OK), and make them start to think that maybe they could be gay, especially when they look up to daddy, and in particular when there's two daddies. Their kids will be picked on at school, and come home and tell everything to Daddy. I can see it already...

First of all, what evidence do you have for claiming kids of adopted gays gets brainwashed to become gay? I think the gays, if able to adopt, will try to ensure their kids can love whoever they want to. As they, if any, are aware of the problem of forbidden love.

You just sound veeery bigot.

What are you afraid of?

[Koga No Goshi]

That is the scariest avatar I have ever seen in my entire life. Seriously, it reminds me of that one part of Creepshow.

@Andres, off topic sorry.


Tax cuts are not given to heterosexual couples for their lustfulness, but because of the historic role of the traditional family unit.

Bunk. Heterosexual married couples do not get tax credit for children until they have children and claim them on a tax return, with social security number. You get a tax cut per child. If you have no children, you still get the generic married tax bracket. So it has nothing to do with fostering procreation.

[Fragony]

If you don't like the movement, stop looking the other way or telling people to stop drawing attention to themselves when they have their property seized or are beaten into the hospital for no reason. If it hadn't been for widespread collusion in the mistreatment of people just because of their private home life, we wouldn't be where we are at as societies.

que? Was it something I said?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am afraid that the world is becoming a cesspit of iniquity.

People must choose to engage in homosexual acts, unless it was just a coincidence that all the Roman emperors except Claudius did this.

Or ancient Greece, where it was seen as alright to have little boy slaves. Plato said it was good for population control after all. I'm not comparing this to paedophiles, but they all chose to engage in homosexual acts.

And this is not just a case of having 'freedom to', the gay pride movement wishes to force its 'values' on everyone. They want children to be indoctrinated into believing that unnatural things are natural, and telling them to make choices that don't exist. They don't just want to take people out the closet, they want to take them into a different room and bar them from the normal world, telling them they are gay and always will be gay and that they have no choice in the matter.

[Koga No Goshi]

I am afraid that the world is becoming a cesspit of iniquity.

People must choose to engage in homosexual acts, unless it was just a coincidence that all the Roman emperors except Claudius did this.

Or ancient Greece, where it was seen as alright to have little boy slaves. Plato said it was good for population control after all. I'm not comparing this to paedophiles, but they all chose to engage in homosexual acts.

And this is not just a case of having 'freedom to', the gay pride movement wishes to force its 'values' on everyone. They want children to be indoctrinated into believing that unnatural things are natural, and telling them to make choices that don't exist. They don't just want to take people out the closet, they want to take them into a different room and bar them from the normal world, telling them they are gay and always will be gay and that they have no choice in the matter.

Gay people all the time engage in straight sex acts for social acceptance or self-validation. In a culture like Greece or Rome where all power was tightly and exclusively male-held, and a culture that endorsed hedonism and pursuing any form of pleasure as acceptable, it is not exactly a shocking revelation that otherwise heterosexual men would mess around for political advantage. Though, they played around with powerful or high-born women for political advantage , too. So I am not sure what distinction you believe you are making about this.

And as for the "forcing their values on you", what values would those be? Family? Life commitment? Wanting to move out of the era of back alley or closeted casual sex and into formal, stable relationships? Accepting and tolerating difference?

I don't see what about the "values" behind gay marriage, any Christian should have a problem with. By your imagined-up image of how "values are being forced on you", straight people force their values on everyone every single day.

[Viking]

People must choose to engage in homosexual acts[/I]

Yes, but that's not the same as that people choose to become homosexuals. Either way, it's their choice, not yours.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes, but that's not the same as that people choose to become homosexuals. Either way, it's their choice, not yours.

Indeed, and unless their choices cause you some form of harm, encoded legislature to restrict or deny them certain equal rights they would have as heterosexuals is unsupportable in our country.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's just because you are inventing categories of people. For example saying that people are born homosexual or heterosexual, and have no choice in the matter. In reality, homosexuals just choose to commit particularly vile acts, it doesn't make them special and eligible for tax cuts as normal couples would.

Some people happen to make sodomy a way of life, either because they really embrace it or because gay activists tell them that they must because its who they are. They do not deserve privileges for this.

[Ser Clegane]

In reality, homosexuals just choose to commit particularly vile acts
Such as?

(NB: I am not looking for a detailed description here - I am just wondering what you consider to be "particularly vile")

[Strike For The South]

It exists because someone has been lobbying, what is the big deal they can shred eachother apart 24/7, they already had all fiscal rights why they need to get married when they know it is important to a lot of people, probably because it is, makes it all the more important.

If the church does not want to preform the service they dont have to. No one here has advocated that and if some gays feel smug oh well thats the way the cookie crumbles.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sodomy is abominable full stop. Don't give people tax cuts for it.

[drone]

Sodomy is abominable full stop. Don't give people tax cuts for it.

You can get a tax cut for sodomy? :inquisitive:

[Strike For The South]

Sodomy is abominable full stop. Don't give people tax cuts for it.

So are many other things. There really isnt even a christian basis for the discrimination of homosexuals anyway.

[Koga No Goshi]

That's just because you are inventing categories of people. For example saying that people are born homosexual or heterosexual, and have no choice in the matter. In reality, homosexuals just choose to commit particularly vile acts, it doesn't make them special and eligible for tax cuts as normal couples would.

Some people happen to make sodomy a way of life, either because they really embrace it or because gay activists tell them that they must because its who they are. They do not deserve privileges for this.

Um, no. You do realize straight people participate in this same "vile behavior", correct? It doesn't change which gender they are attracted to.

[Ser Clegane]

Sodomy is abominable full stop. Don't give people tax cuts for it.

Should heterosexual couples that practice sodomy (this would in absolute numbers well be more than homosexual couples) also be exempt from tax cuts?
Any other sexual activities that would make you forfeit your tax cuts?

[Koga No Goshi]

Should heterosexual couples that practice sodomy (this would in absolute numbers well be more than homosexual couples) also exempt from tax cuts?
Any other sexual activities that would make you forfeit your tax cuts?

Judging others is also a vile sin in the Bible. Never stopped a good Christian though.

[Strike For The South]

Judging others is also a vile sin in the Bible. Never stopped a good Christian though.

It doesn't seem it stopped a good liberal either ~;)

[Lemur]

Should heterosexual couples that practice sodomy (this would in absolute numbers well be more than homosexual couples) also be exempt from tax cuts?
I seem to remember a guy being sent to prison after it was proved in a court of law that he used his mouth on his wife's genitals ... oh, here it is (http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html).


Hard-time convicts in the prison yard derive no end of fun comparing their particular crimes to the transgression that landed James David Moseley behind bars 17 months ago.

Moseley, in the midst of a five-year sentence at a state prison outside Atlanta, is doing time for committing oral sex. With his wife.

"The other prisoners, some of them murderers and such, burst out laughing," said Clive Stafford-Smith of the Southern Prisoners Defense Committee. "Jim is bemused himself. Here he is languishing in jail for a crime that millions of Americans commit daily. Or perhaps nightly." Moseley, 34, a carpenter from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, was convicted under Georgia's 156-year-old sodomy statute last year after admitting in court that he had had oral sex with his estranged wife, Bette Roberts.

[Ser Clegane]

I seem to remember a guy being sent to prison after it was proved in a court of law that he used his mouth on his wife's genitals

Did he also lose his tax cuts? ~D

[Koga No Goshi]

It doesn't seem it stopped a good liberal either ~;)

Hey, I'm not the one using my archaic Middle Eastern moral code as a justification for denying people equal rights. :D

P.S. there are plenty of Christian liberals.

[Rhyfelwyr]

OK lets not get technical on the definitions of Sodomy. We all know what its widely used for, look for example at Ian Paisleys "Save Ulster From Sodomy" campaign.

I suppose the problem here is I see homosexuality as an act some people commit for whatever reason, others here see it as the defining aspect of those who engage in it.

Because if you acknowledge it as an act which any person can choose to commit, then you can't claim people are being unfairly discriminated against.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhyfelwyr, I hope you are joking...

I find it sad to see that western culture and tolerance has not come further. I wish I can blame teh school system, but obviolsy you have been thought, you just refused to listen.

A person refusing to learn is called, a what?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Tolerate people, whether they are of a different race, culture, religion etc.

Don't tolerate the sins which people choose to commit.

[Koga No Goshi]

OK lets not get technical on the definitions of Sodomy. We all know what its widely used for, look for example at Ian Paisleys "Save Ulster From Sodomy" campaign.

I suppose the problem here is I see homosexuality as an act some people commit for whatever reason, others here see it as the defining aspect of those who engage in it.

Because if you acknowledge it as an act which any person can choose to commit, then you can't claim people are being unfairly discriminated against.

Wait so... if we can prove a couple had sex before their wedding date, they should not get any rights either?

This is a clumsy, bumbling argument trying feebly to straw-grasp any justification to attack a group you feel is "vile" and sinful. Even though existing legal privileges for married couples extends to an awful lot of sinners.

[Strike For The South]

Tolerate people, whether they are of a different race, culture, religion etc.

Don't tolerate the sins which people choose to commit.

We all commit sins and they are for the most part tolerated! Not to mention separation of church and state! I would actually like to debate modern theology with you and scriptures impact on the modern world. Most people here are very entrenched in there ivory towers when it comes to the jesus.

[Kadagar_AV]

Rhyfelwyr, and you do not accept that people ahve other beliefs than you?

I mean, when you talk about sin, you expect other people to follow your version of the christian belief, no?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wait so... if we can prove a couple had sex before their wedding date, they should not get any rights either?

This is a clumsy, bumbling argument trying feebly to straw-grasp any justification to attack a group you feel is "vile" and sinful. Even though existing legal privileges for married couples extends to an awful lot of sinners.

But my point is there is no group! Homosexuals acts are no more than what they are - acts. It just so happens that some of the people who commit these acts choose to make them the defining features of their personality, because increasingly that's what gay activists are trying to make them think.

I don't like arguing on legal technicalities, that's why I'm avoiding the 'toaster argument'.


We all commit sins and they are for the most part tolerated! Not to mention separation of church and state! I would actually like to debate modern theology with you and scriptures impact on the modern world. Most people here are very entrenched in there ivory towers when it comes to the jesus.

Sins should not be tolerated. I don't know exactly what you mean by 'tolerated' though. If you mean should sins go unpunished, well then technically on this earth the answer would be yes I would think. God forgives us for our sins when we ask Him to, He will give forgiveness to those who commit homosexual acts just as for any other act. Sin is sin is sin. I'm not suggesting the death penalty for sodomy as in Iran, just as I wouldn't kill someone if they told a lie or stole something. Its purely for practical reasons we have to lock some sinners up, notably those who pose a threat to public safety.

But if you mean tolerate as in regard as morally acceptable, then I will never tolerate homosexual acts. The reason for the Christian outcry against homosexuality in particular is that, unlike with other sins, modern society is increasingly coming to accept it. And that is a frightening thought, indeed 'homosexuals' are already accepted into the clergy in Canada and the Anglican Church looks to implement them, its a sign of the end times as far as I'm concerned.


Rhyfelwyr, and you do not accept that people ahve other beliefs than you?

I mean, when you talk about sin, you expect other people to follow your version of the christian belief, no?

Well not specifically my beliefs. But mainstream Christian beliefs, yes.

[Kadagar_AV]

How come you feel the need to force your beliefs upon others?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Judging others is also a vile sin in the Bible. Never stopped a good Christian though.

I'm pretty sure that he was talking about stoning people to death in the street.

I'm also pretty sure that I'm not getting married to a gay man, so that plank isn't in my eye. Therefore I'm free to help my brothers pull the planks out of their "eyes".

Are we not supposed to judge politicians before election day? What about judging president Bush for invading Iraq?

Liberals arn't judgemental at all... Hey, why don't you pull the log out of your own brown eye?

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa. 37:30)"

[Strike For The South]

Sins should not be tolerated. I don't know exactly what you mean by 'tolerated' though. If you mean should sins go unpunished, well then technically on this earth the answer would be yes I would think. God forgives us for our sins when we ask Him to, He will give forgiveness to those who commit homosexual acts just as for any other act. Sin is sin is sin. I'm not suggesting the death penalty for sodomy as in Iran, just as I wouldn't kill someone if they told a lie or stole something. Its purely for practical reasons we have to lock some sinners up, notably those who pose a threat to public safety.

But if you mean tolerate as in regard as morally acceptable, then I will never tolerate homosexual acts. The reason for the Christian outcry against homosexuality in particular is that, unlike with other sins, modern society is increasingly coming to accept it. And that is a frightening thought, indeed 'homosexuals' are already accepted into the clergy in Canada and the Anglican Church looks to implement them, its a sign of the end times as far as I'm concerned.
.

Well yes. You make it seem like clergyman don't sin well they do! The end times? I didnt know they still made people like you in Britain ~;) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" How are you going to completely condemn an act that has no effect on you and poses no threat to public safety?

[Koga No Goshi]

But my point is there is no group! Homosexuals acts are no more than what they are - acts. It just so happens that some of the people who commit these acts choose to make them the defining features of their personality, because increasingly that's what gay activists are trying to make them think.

I don't like arguing on legal technicalities, that's why I'm avoiding the 'toaster argument'.

Where do you get this crap? Gay people are just addicted to a specific form of sex, and form it into a personality because gay activists brainwash them to? What, do you think all gay kids go to gay boot camp at age 12 and emerge at age 18? Almost all gay kids are raised by straight, frequently Christian parents. So where is this activist brainwashing stepping in and taking over?

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm pretty sure that he was talking about stoning people to death in the street.

I'm also pretty sure that I'm not getting married to a gay man, so that plank isn't in my eye. Therefore I'm free to help my brothers pull the planks out of their "eyes".

Are we not supposed the judge politicians before election day? What about judging president Bush for invading Iraq?

Liberals arn't judgemental at all... Hey, why don't you pull the log out of your own brown eye?

"The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment." (Psa. 37:30)"

I'm surprised when I hear Christians so intentionally abuse the teachings of their own Bible for unfriendly purposes. The "remove the log from your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's" does not refer to having to be guilty of precisely the same fault, and you are being obtuse to pretend so. Somewhere in your life there are things you will not admit (and shouldn't) and aren't proud of. I don't know what they are. Maybe you pressured a girl who wasn't ready. Maybe you hit a girl once. Maybe you've had copious premarital sex. Maybe you've cheated on a girlfriend. Who knows, who cares. Even if you haven't done any of those things, you are imperfect, flawed, and sinful. So going around correcting the sins of others is judgment, which is reserved for God. Making up punishments or restrictions for others based on sins you feel they commit and you don't, even worse IMHO.

According to your little book, anyway. And 13 years of what Rhyr would call "Christian activist brainwashing", seeing as how I went to Christian schools.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm surprised when I hear Christians so intentionally abuse the teachings of their own Bible for unfriendly purposes. The "remove the log from your own eye before removing the speck from your brother's" does not refer to having to be guilty of precisely the same fault, and you are being obtuse to pretend so. Somewhere in your life there are things you will not admit (and shouldn't) and aren't proud of. I don't know what they are. Maybe you pressured a girl who wasn't ready. Maybe you hit a girl once. Maybe you've had copious premarital sex. Maybe you've cheated on a girlfriend. Who knows, who cares. Even if you haven't done any of those things, you are imperfect, flawed, and sinful. So going around correcting the sins of others is judgment, which is reserved for God. Making up punishments or restrictions for others based on sins you feel they commit and you don't, even worse IMHO.

According to your little book, anyway. And 13 years of what Rhyr would call "Christian activist brainwashing", seeing as how I went to Christian schools.

So are you against judging people who kill other people? What about people who judge?

Judgement is pretty straight forward. Judge not lest ye be judged. I'm open to being judged. I judge myself and like to hear the judgments of others about elements of decency that I am lacking.

It is stupid not to judge people - we do it everyday and it is healthy and good. Hey, maybe AA sponsors shouldn't judge alchoholics since they were alchoholics themselves once too?

What if we just try to help reform the lives of those who sin, including homosexuals? I'm not calling for them to be imprisoned or stoned to death. Maybe you havn't read up enough on it. Read wrtings from Paul. Read about when Jesus flipped those tables in the temple. Or how he came not to destroy the laws (of which one book is entitled "judges") but to fulfill them.

[Koga No Goshi]

So are you against judging people who kill other people? What about people who judge?

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Jesus never said it's okay to judge people for crimes. He said it was your duty to forgive. But he acknowledged worldly authority and heavenly authority as totally separate. Your flaw here as well as the entire Christian right, and the whole of Sharia Islam, is that they can ever be, or should ever be, one and the same. Jesus did not attempt to overturn all the laws of the land during his life, but nor did he try to add some for "sins not on the books yet."


Judgement is pretty straight forward. Judge not lest ye be judged. I'm open to being judged. I judge myself and like to hear the judgments of others about elements of decency that I am lacking.

Your argument was "I'm not gay so I can judge gay people as much as I want." I would like to see you present that one to your god.


It is stupid not to judge people - we do it everyday and it is healthy and good. Hey, maybe AA sponsors shouldn't judge alchoholics since they were alchoholics themselves once too?

So now you are calling your religion stupid. P.S. there is a difference between making distinction/decision, and judging. I can say blue is different from green. But if I say if you like blue more than green you're vile and should have fewer rights and will go to hell, well, that's different.


What if we just try to help reform the lives of those who sin, including homosexuals? I'm not calling for them to be imprisoned or stoned to death. Maybe you havn't read up enough on it. Read wrtings from Paul. Read about when Jesus flipped those tables in the temple. Or how he came not to destroy the laws (of which one book is entitled "judges") but to fulfill them.

Jesus never said one word about homosexuality, so why it is so high up on the vile 10 most wanted hate list of Christians is beyond me. Probably just becuase most Christians aren't gay and thus it's a sin they can scapegoat as being so "bad" and feel good that they themselves aren't guilty of it, while they go back to being greedy, selfish, gluttonous judgmental capitalists who lie and harm others and covet things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well yes. You make it seem like clergyman don't sin well they do! The end times? I didnt know they still made people like you in Britain ~;) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" How are you going to completely condemn an act that has no effect on you and poses no threat to public safety?

God calls us wherever we are. You'll find a few of us dotted around Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although if you're wondering I didn't inherit my beliefs through my parents.

Anyawy, the sin doesn't have to affect me, it is an abomination in God's eyes and as His servant I'm obliged to try to prevent it happening. Through eradicating the sin, not the sinner. Because we are of course all sinners, and born as sinners.

Regardless, the whole "judge not" argument used by atheists is ridculous, and taken spectacularly out of context. So basically what TuffStuff said. We judge as best as we can through God's grace. But Christians must remember that we are all born equally sinful, it would be comitting the sin of Lucifer to deny so.

EDIT: Also Koga stop spamming absurd generalisations against Christians. We're not all Shirley Phelps. Its a bit like me saying Stalin is from now on the basis of all socialism, which of course as a lefty I wouldn't!

[Koga No Goshi]

Anyawy, the sin doesn't have to affect me, it is an abomination in God's eyes and as His servant I'm obliged to try to prevent it happening. Through eradicating the sin, not the sinner. Because we are of course all sinners, and born as sinners.

If you believe it is within your power to eradicate sin, least of all by seeking legislative power to punish "sins", you have a lot to learn about being Christian.

[ICantSpellDawg]

P.S. there is a difference between making distinction/decision, and judging

There is? Isn't it just a semantic difference?

I can distingish good from bad. I can distinguish between guilty and not guilty, black and white.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If you believe it is within your power to eradicate sin, least of all by seeking legislative power to punish "sins", you have a lot to learn about being Christian.

Of course it is my duty to try, what makes you think otherwise?

Only God can grant forgiveness, all I can do is spread the Word. The problem is when I do that I'm told I'm being hateful of people (which is blatantly untrue), and that I'm infringing on their beliefs.

[Koga No Goshi]

Of course it is my duty to try, what makes you think otherwise?

Only God can grant forgiveness, all I can do is spread the Word. The problem is when I do that I'm told I'm being hateful of people (which is blatantly untrue), and that I'm infringing on their beliefs.

It is your duty to correct sin in yourself, and forgive and help others for theirs. Not to pursue petty legal persecution against what you believe to be a "fake made up identity surrounding a sin act", some strange prejudiced qualification you make on gay people even though plenty of straight people have nothing binding them together but a sinful sex act.


There is? Isn't it just a semantic difference?

I can distingish good from bad. I can distinguish between guilty and not guilty, black and white.

That's discrimination. Telling the difference between two things. Judgment is assigning punishment or weight to offenses as if you are perfect and have the right to decide who is more befouled than who.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is your duty to correct sin in yourself, and forgive and help others for theirs. Not to pursue petty legal persecution against what you believe to be a "fake made up identity surrounding a sin act", some strange prejudiced qualification you make on gay people even though plenty of straight people have nothing binding them together but a sinful sex act.

And how does telling children that its OK to be gay correct that sin in them?

[Lemur]

And how does telling children that its OK to be gay correct that sin in them?
How does telling your children anything affect whether they wind up gay or straight? Last time I checked, gay children were as likely to emerge from Bible-loving households as any other. What evidence do you have that ...

Oh nevermind. Carry on.

[Strike For The South]

God calls us wherever we are. You'll find a few of us dotted around Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although if you're wondering I didn't inherit my beliefs through my parents.

Anyawy, the sin doesn't have to affect me, it is an abomination in God's eyes and as His servant I'm obliged to try to prevent it happening. Through eradicating the sin, not the sinner. Because we are of course all sinners, and born as sinners.

Regardless, the whole "judge not" argument used by atheists is ridculous, and taken spectacularly out of context. So basically what TuffStuff said. We judge as best as we can through God's grace. But Christians must remember that we are all born equally sinful, it would be comitting the sin of Lucifer to deny so.

EDIT: Also Koga stop spamming absurd generalisations against Christians. We're not all Shirley Phelps. Its a bit like me saying Stalin is from now on the basis of all socialism, which of course as a lefty I wouldn't!

we are not born with sin .

[Koga No Goshi]

And how does telling children that its OK to be gay correct that sin in them?

Know what happens when you do the opposite, Rhyfe?

At 17 your kid is slipping off behind your back to clubs for casual sex, or online hookups, because you've repressed him and made him ashamed of something he can't change.

HIV for the win.

You choose to believe it's just a choice/fettish, keep on believing that. It's not helping, and this issue isn't going to go away, either.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Know what happens when you do the opposite, Rhyfe?

At 17 your kid is slipping off behind your back to clubs for casual sex, or online hookups, because you've repressed him and made him ashamed of something he can't change.

HIV for the win.

You choose to believe it's just a choice/fettish, keep on believing that. It's not helping, and this issue isn't going to go away, either.


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

[Strike For The South]

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

I could say the same about abortion....

[Kadagar_AV]

I resign from this thread.... To much blatant idiocy.

Let people be with the ones they love, for gods sake.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I could say the same about abortion....

You could? Please explain.

[Strike For The South]

You could? Please explain.

Its an issue designed to fire up the base without a chance for it to go the way the base so desperately wants it. Abortion will never be outlawed and gay marriage will never be made an amendment or federal law. Both issues in the respect are dead. It is mind boggling to see how much time people spend on abortion or gay marriage when they could be using there money and power for something useful like the economy foreign affairs or education. This is why the country is slowly descending into socialism because people like to feel warm and fuzzy when they are defending others it makes them feel like they make a difference. When in reality what is really killing the country is labeled as drawn out and boring by us. SHEEPLE

[ICantSpellDawg]

Its an issue designed to fire up the base without a chance for it to go the way the base so desperately wants it. Abortion will never be outlawed and gay marriage will never be made an amendment or federal law. Both issues in the respect are dead. It is mind boggling to see how much time people spend on abortion or gay marriage when they could be using there money and power for something useful like the economy foreign affairs or education. This is why the country is slowly descending into socialism because people like to feel warm and fuzzy when they are defending others it makes them feel like they make a difference. When in reality what is really killing the country is labeled as drawn out and boring by us. SHEEPLE

I think gay marriage will become enshrined in federal law one way or another. I wouldn't be fighting it if I didn't think it would happen. Why fight an enemy if you don't feel threatened?

I also believe that abortion can become a democratically brokered thing in the future either Federally or on a State by State basis.

It all goes to priority. To you the economy is the most important thing, but I'd do without TV and air conditioning to save a bunch of kids, particularly ones who were abandoned or killed by their parents. I think we can do both, though and that they feed each other at their base.

To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.

[Strike For The South]

I think gay marriage will become enshrined in federal law one way or another. I wouldn't be fighting it if I didn't think it would happen. Why fight an enemy if you don't feel threatened?

I also believe that abortion can become a democratically brokered thing in the future either Federally or on a State by State basis.

It all goes to priority. To you the economy is the most important thing, but I'd do without TV and air conditioning to save a bunch of kids, particularly ones who were abandoned or killed by their parents. I think we can do both, though and that they feed each other at their base.

To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.

For the record abortion does not fit into my view however since there is no shred of evidence saying that a human has a pluse or brian activity before the 1st trimester I cant call it murder either. I like the way you put up creature comforts as well that will never happen so why post it? To show how dedicated you are? This is why the government should stay out of social issues as much as possible. Outside of destroying or harming life or property everything should be legal. You are proving my point with your statement. Social issues cause divisions where one side is made out to be good and the other bad and that only breeds hate and contempt. Thats where I fear we are headed. People need to mind there own damn business.The grey area within these issues is astronomic. The gays in no way threaten you or property so why care?

[Don Corleone]

Strike, I agree with you completely. But here's the issue I have with so-called wedge issues. You have to have two sides to make a good wedge. Yes, people on the social-right tend to have an 'all-or-none' approach, but so do people on the left. Not talking about gay marriage for a second, to move to your abortion issue... what is it about the madness of the American political machine that requires us to have elective abortion in the 39th week? At 39 weeks, the so-called mass of tissue will rock in the mother's womb if you sing to it. But it's still a choice at that point? Can't expect a woman to go the next 4 days? That's the way our laws are written.

I'm sad to say this, but the reason slippery slope arguments work so well in America is because we're such fools, we also dive right down the slope. There is no balance, no reason. There's just, I won last week, so I'm back, asking for twice as much. That's not a condmenation of the Left, the Right is just as stupid and overbearing.

Nobody wants common-sense solutions or compromises. Everyone just wants to stick it to the other side. This is why I'm slowly weaning myself out of the Backroom, and out of politics in general. We're just a bunch of mindless morons screaming sound bytes at each other. :furious3:

[Koga No Goshi]

To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.

The right to visit your life partner injured, ill, or dying in the hospital, IS a basic human right. It just isn't respected for certain kinds of couples.

Regarding wedge issues, Don, I agree it takes two to tango. However, I don't think an argument of recognize rights vs. do not recognize rights are just two equally valid extremes. Not in a democracy. There are some elements of the movement that will not settle for less than inclusion into the Federal legal entity of marriage because separate but equal has never proven equal in the United States, and there is no legal basis upon which to separate out two separate marriage contracts, one for gays and one for straights, except to appease religious people who want to hold onto the validation that straight marriage is better, superior or preferred, and gay marriage immoral or secondary or begrudgingly allowed.

I have listened to the arguments from the anti-gay marriage side. There are a couple categories. People who believe the scare tactics that churches are going to be legally forced for the first time in history to perform ceremonies they do not wish to. This one has no basis in reality, it is a scare tactic. The other are people who either, out of personal disgust for homosexuality, or religiously-motivated disgust for homosexual activity as "immoral", feel that any recognition of gay people, who most certainly are here and among us whether people like it or not, is an "endorsement" of gay "values" or "morals." (And those are never made explicit, except occasionally you get people like Rhyfe detailing it as something ridiculous like gay people out to indoctrinate and convert or brainwash young people into being gay, which is an extremely ignorant claim for which there is no evidence.)

I have laid out the rights and what I consider to be basic human dignity issues that convince me that gay marriage is not only acceptable but necessary. People focus so much on the tax issue, I'm sure that would help a lot of gay couples out there but I am sure if you did a survey that is not the reason most of them want it. Most of them want formal equality, for one, They want their right to make medical decisions, visit in the hospital, and share and have equal ownership over property to be unchallengeable by outsiders for two. It is not up to you or anyone else to, on a case by case basis, "decide" upon the death or divorce of a couple, who should be entitled to something, everything, or nothing. It's frankly not your business nor your right. Nor if your lesbian sister died one day should you be able to step in and lay claim on half the house she and her life partner lived in. Yet, today, legally, there is frequently room, depending on the state in question, to do exactly that. And it has been done, not just over property, but even over rights to children and pets as well.

On the other hand, you have people comparing it to marrying a toaster or dog, or the first step in a Gay Normandy to brainwash via gay activism everyone into accepting gay values-- whatever those may be. Or saying that gay rights is a "made up non-issue" from a bunch of fettishists and as soon as they shut up about it we can get back to something that "really matters."

So... with your pardon, excuse me for not saying yes this is just a gray area issue where the arguments on both sides are valid.

[m52nickerson]

Wow, I'm just aghast at the amount of people on these boards that still look at homosexuality as something perverse. People scream about the government taking away freedoms, or taxes being unfair. Then when a group of people just want to be treated as everyone else.

Why?

Perhaps it is because some still hold on to some religious beliefs. Yet on a site which is founded around a game in which shows us how religion has propagated wars, how can we let this religious hate dive us.

Perhaps it is just fear. Fear that the world in which we grew up is fading away. We know fear can breed hate. We also know ignorance can breed fear.

Whatever the reasons it is unexceptionable for any of us to infringe on another persons rights to live as they see fit, as long as it does not hurt other.

I may not have a lot of post on these boards. I may not be well known, but I have always seen these boards as a place of learned discussion and fierce debate. I have always been proud to be a regular member of these boards.

This is really the first time I'm embarrassed to be a member here. Thankfully only members can see the backroom.:shame:

[PanzerJaeger]

So much introspection around here lately... :magnify:

[Koga No Goshi]

Wow, I'm just aghast at the amount of people on these boards that still look at homosexuality as something perverse. People scream about the government taking away freedoms, or taxes being unfair. Then when a group of people just want to be treated as everyone else.

Why?

Perhaps it is because some still hold on to some religious beliefs. Yet on a site which is founded around a game in which shows us how religion has propagated wars, how can we let this religious hate dive us.

Perhaps it is just fear. Fear that the world in which we grew up is fading away. We know fear can breed hate. We also know ignorance can breed fear.

Whatever the reasons it is unexceptionable for any of us to infringe on another persons rights to live as they see fit, as long as it does not hurt other.

I may not have a lot of post on these boards. I may not be well known, but I have always seen these boards as a place of learned discussion and fierce debate. I have always been proud to be a regular member of these boards.

This is really the first time I'm embarrassed to be a member here. Thankfully only members can see the backroom.:shame:

This (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/1456267/posts) has a lot to do with it.

"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Robb Willer, a sociology doctoral candidate at Cornell. Willer is presenting his findings Aug. 15 at the American Sociological Association's 100th annual meeting in Philadelphia.

"Masculine overcompensation is the idea that men who are insecure about their masculinity will behave in an extremely masculine way as compensation. I wanted to test this idea and also explore whether overcompensation could help explain some attitudes like support for war and animosity to homosexuals," Willer said.

[Lemur]

Nobody wants common-sense solutions or compromises.
[Lemur raises his hand hesitatingly ...]

Please, sir, may I have some more?

[Koga No Goshi]

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

You're pretty ignorant about the past, Tuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Did you know that police and local governments used to systematically raid and beat up gay people in incidents like the ones that prompted this one? Bet you didn't...

Gay rights and the persecution and second class status of openly gay people is nothing new. You do yourself a disservice saying something like it's a non-issue and a fake problem. All that really translates into is "it's not a problem for me so I don't give a crap."

[ICantSpellDawg]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality. Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

Couple the idea that humans can have sex with whatever they want, but that sex between one man and one woman is the building bloc of human life and deserves special recognition - you have my understanding of the issue. If no man can marry any other man nor woman marry any other woman irrespective of their sexual attraction - there is no discrimination and our "special social recognition" should be changed by legislation if at all.

You idealise homosexuality by a historical standard, Koga.

[Koga No Goshi]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality.

Point being what? When homosexuals have been burned at stakes and killed and were even targets in the Holocaust, I wouldn't expect any form of accurate headcount throughout history. Are you arguing that if some group is only 1% of the population, it's okay to oppress or persecute them, or revoke rights?


Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

Couple the idea that humans can have sex with whatever they want, but that sex between one man and one woman is the building bloc of human life and deserves special recognition - you have my understanding of the issue. If no man can marry any other man nor woman marry any other woman irrespective of their sexual attraction - there is no discrimination and our "special social recognition" should be changed by legislation if at all.

You idealise homosexuality by a historical standard, Koga.

Yes you have stated this before. There are two problems with it and they've been repeatedly pointed out. One is that it is unconstitutional to extend special rights exclusive only to people of a certain set of sexual habits. Two is that gay marriage in no way will deter heterosexual people from forming the "building block of life" relationship and have children.

Since you have repeatedly failed to illustrate that either point is incorrect, your argument is merely a statement of your own personal belief that the nature of our legal system should bend, in this one case, to make special privilege for one group and marked unrecognition of another.

And how the heck am I "Idealizing" homosexuality? Homosexuals throughout history, either in the desire to have children, appease social and familial pressures, or even for basic survival, have engaged in heterosexual relationships. And there is a complex stretch of sexuality which doesn't embrace either strict homo or heterosexuality. What is your point with that? There are heterosexuals who likewise have engaged in homosexual acts, under voluntarily or under duress, while otherwise not having any personal sexual leanings towards the same gender. I am not sure what "point" you believe you are proving with that.

[Don Corleone]

The right to visit your life partner injured, ill, or dying in the hospital, IS a basic human right. It just isn't respected for certain kinds of couples.

Regarding wedge issues, Don, I agree it takes two to tango. However, I don't think an argument of recognize rights vs. do not recognize rights are just two equally valid extremes. Not in a democracy. There are some elements of the movement that will not settle for less than inclusion into the Federal legal entity of marriage because separate but equal has never proven equal in the United States, and there is no legal basis upon which to separate out two separate marriage contracts, one for gays and one for straights, except to appease religious people who want to hold onto the validation that straight marriage is better, superior or preferred, and gay marriage immoral or secondary or begrudgingly allowed.

I have listened to the arguments from the anti-gay marriage side. There are a couple categories. People who believe the scare tactics that churches are going to be legally forced for the first time in history to perform ceremonies they do not wish to. This one has no basis in reality, it is a scare tactic. The other are people who either, out of personal disgust for homosexuality, or religiously-motivated disgust for homosexual activity as "immoral", feel that any recognition of gay people, who most certainly are here and among us whether people like it or not, is an "endorsement" of gay "values" or "morals." (And those are never made explicit, except occasionally you get people like Rhyfe detailing it as something ridiculous like gay people out to indoctrinate and convert or brainwash young people into being gay, which is an extremely ignorant claim for which there is no evidence.)

I have laid out the rights and what I consider to be basic human dignity issues that convince me that gay marriage is not only acceptable but necessary. People focus so much on the tax issue, I'm sure that would help a lot of gay couples out there but I am sure if you did a survey that is not the reason most of them want it. Most of them want formal equality, for one, They want their right to make medical decisions, visit in the hospital, and share and have equal ownership over property to be unchallengeable by outsiders for two. It is not up to you or anyone else to, on a case by case basis, "decide" upon the death or divorce of a couple, who should be entitled to something, everything, or nothing. It's frankly not your business nor your right. Nor if your lesbian sister died one day should you be able to step in and lay claim on half the house she and her life partner lived in. Yet, today, legally, there is frequently room, depending on the state in question, to do exactly that. And it has been done, not just over property, but even over rights to children and pets as well.

On the other hand, you have people comparing it to marrying a toaster or dog, or the first step in a Gay Normandy to brainwash via gay activism everyone into accepting gay values-- whatever those may be. Or saying that gay rights is a "made up non-issue" from a bunch of fettishists and as soon as they shut up about it we can get back to something that "really matters."

So... with your pardon, excuse me for not saying yes this is just a gray area issue where the arguments on both sides are valid.


In other words, anybody that doesn't agree with you 110% must be off their rocker. Thank you for making my point for me. For starters, I've said, repeatedly, on this issue, I actually agree with you, that legal marriage, if it's to be granted at all, must be granted to everyone. My point was on the absurdity of the absolutism of our politics in the US, and I was building from Strike's mention of abortion. I give up....

[Koga No Goshi]

In other words, anybody that doesn't agree with you 110% must be off their rocker. Thank you for making my point for me. For starters, I've said, repeatedly, on this issue, I actually agree with you, that legal marriage, if it's to be granted at all, must be granted to everyone. My point was on the absurdity of the absolutism of our politics in the US, and I was building from Strike's mention of abortion. I give up....

No... you have a tendency to put this imaginary extremist spin on anything I say. What I said was that the weight of validity between the two sides here is not equal. So I wasn't sure waht you were saying... that wedge issues are non-issues people get heated over, or one side is just equally responding to the other side. And I do not believe, morally, legally, or Constitutionally, there is anywhere near as much validity on the anti- side of this debate. Nor has even Tuff pretended that there is. He's just made some strange comparisons to marrying non-human objects and saying that heterosexual marriages are "special" and should be recognized as such. And I have no idea why he thinks that would change with passage of a law which will not impact heterosexuals in any way.

Out of curosity Don.... you said no one believes in compromises anymore. How would a gay person compromise with someone who argues that they are nothing but someone obsessed with a fettish and don't deserve any rights beyond "basic human rights"? It reminds me, and feels, a lot like trying to reach a compromise between a black person and someone saying black people are 2/3rds of a person. It's hard to find middle ground when one side has drawn an ideological hard line and refuses to listen to any other perspective.

[Strike For The South]

Strike, I agree with you completely. But here's the issue I have with so-called wedge issues. You have to have two sides to make a good wedge. Yes, people on the social-right tend to have an 'all-or-none' approach, but so do people on the left. Not talking about gay marriage for a second, to move to your abortion issue... what is it about the madness of the American political machine that requires us to have elective abortion in the 39th week? At 39 weeks, the so-called mass of tissue will rock in the mother's womb if you sing to it. But it's still a choice at that point? Can't expect a woman to go the next 4 days? That's the way our laws are written.

I'm sad to say this, but the reason slippery slope arguments work so well in America is because we're such fools, we also dive right down the slope. There is no balance, no reason. There's just, I won last week, so I'm back, asking for twice as much. That's not a condmenation of the Left, the Right is just as stupid and overbearing.

Nobody wants common-sense solutions or compromises. Everyone just wants to stick it to the other side. This is why I'm slowly weaning myself out of the Backroom, and out of politics in general. We're just a bunch of mindless morons screaming sound bytes at each other. :furious3:

You have a disciple Mr.Corleone:2thumbsup: We are saying the same thing at this point

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd be happier if the government got out of the marriage business entirely. In practice, it really amounts to little more than just another way to tax me -- or do you really believe that the notary crimp on the certificate justifies its price-tag?

Any public "rights" should be handled on a contractual basis by mutually consenting adults.

Matrimony is a sacrament, and functions differently -- as it should.


Don:

Don't leave the Backroom. I enjoy your company here. My best to your ladies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have a disciple Mr.Corleone:2thumbsup: We are saying the same thing at this point

It is good that you speak with respect for Don Corleone. His enemies...fare poorly.

[cut to theme music]

[m52nickerson]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality. Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.



I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

[Strike For The South]

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. That way you're a mile away and have his shoes

[woad&fangs]

walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. That way you're a mile away and have his shoes

:laugh4:

[Lemur]

Any public "rights" should be handled on a contractual basis by mutually consenting adults.
Yeah, that's a common-sense notion with a longish tradition in Western law (http://hnn.us/articles/42361.html). It's a reasonable compromise that would satisfy most everyone and cause no damage.

So I despair that it will ever happen.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah, that's a common-sense notion with a longish tradition in Western law (http://hnn.us/articles/42361.html). It's a reasonable compromise that would satisfy most everyone and cause no damage.

So I despair that it will ever happen.

It won't. As much as the religious like to protest that laws should not be Federal and regulate issues of morality such as abortion, they defend its use to "discourage immorality" or give special status to "desirable" behaviors in other cases.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?


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.

I can say all of this because I believe that it gives me credit to talk with more authority on the subject. I've said it all before - I'm sure much to the chagrin of posters who recall and are not intoxicated by my musky allure. I believe that sexual interests are largely chosen or pursued for conscious or subconscious reasons. I believe that if you closed your eyes and thought about it that you could become aroused by anything. I believe that homosexuals closed their eyes and thought about the wrong thing too long and it made them neurotically averse to their inherent biological function.

I stand by peoples choices to do what they want and not be pursued by the law as long as it hurts no one even abstractly., but male female unions are something that we are all equipped for biologically (barring an actual mutation or malformation). My religious slant on the issue is something else entirely. I believe that it is common sense that male/female unions are special - and so long as they are open to all, non-discriminatory.

Short of that I'd say get the government out of marriage and allow any two people to engage in contractual agreements in civil unions with no tax breaks. Why should couples get tax breaks? Why should single people be persecuted for their lifestyle choice? I think that is a better Idea anyway.

(post note : Thinking about it the heterosexual pornography is probably closer to 99.99% - but out of 100 that is still enough to make my point)

[woad&fangs]

Short of that I'd say get the government out of marriage and allow any two people to engage in contractual agreements in civil unions with no tax breaks. Why should couples get tax breaks? Why should single people be persecuted for their lifestyle choice? I think that is a better Idea anyway.



It's amazing that we've amassed over 200 posts when everyone appears to agree on this.:dizzy2:

[m52nickerson]

I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it.


Congratulations, your bisexual!

[Koga No Goshi]

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.

I can say all of this because I believe that it gives me credit to talk with more authority on the subject. I've said it all before - I'm sure much to the chagrin of posters who recall and are not intoxicated by my musky allure. I believe that sexual interests are largely chosen or pursued for conscious or subconscious reasons. I believe that if you closed your eyes and thought about it that you could become aroused by anything. I believe that homosexuals closed their eyes and thought about the wrong thing too long and it made them neurotically averse to their inherent biological function.

What you've just said is probably true, just in inverse, of most gay men who would identify as gay and not bi. Although probably many more of them have actually had relationships with women and seen more straight porn, due to availability and social pressures.

The question Tuff is... did you choose to be .... 99% drawn to heterosexual sexual activity? Was that a choice where at one point you had been 50% drawn one way and 50% drawn the other? For me the answer is no, I didn't choose to be straight. And I can't think of a single logical reason that people would choose to be gay.

And regarding the "special" male-female relationship... I ask again, how is that in any way challenged or questioned? At all? No one denies that is the basic foundation of procreation. Some would just deny it is the only possible, healthy or acceptable path to procreation, though no one is suggesting eliminating it or elevating something over it. Certainly women, for instance, are single mothers, or artificially inseminate, just as one example.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's amazing that we've amassed over 200 posts when everyone appears to agree on this.:dizzy2:

My basic point is that the government shouldn't celebrate homosexual unions. I'd rather have them celebrate NO unions at all.

I used to say that tax breaks for couples were stupid since they get a shared income bulk buying benefit anyway. If couples got rid of their tax benefits and it was combined with an overall diversification of the burden - everyone would have lower taxes relatively.

Kids benefit irrespective of government support because thye have two guardians and a more stable home life. The tax breaks and combined earnings bracket are stupid ideas for the modern era.

I honestly believe that Catholic marriage will be strengthened by a repeal of civil marriage as opposed to allowing homosexuals marry. I'm all for strenghtening spiritual marriage. Maybe then the people who have a joke of a marriage won't call it that and only those who want to go the extra mile will. The church could even make the requirements more strict.

[Koga No Goshi]

My basic point is that the government shouldn't celebrate homosexual unions. I'd rather have them celebrate NO unions at all.

How do equal rights constitute celebrating something?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What you've just said is probably true, just in inverse, of most gay men who would identify as gay and not bi. Although probably many more of them have actually had relationships with women and seen more straight porn, due to availability and social pressures.

The question Tuff is... did you choose to be .... 99% drawn to heterosexual sexual activity? Was that a choice where at one point you had been 50% drawn one way and 50% drawn the other? For me the answer is no, I didn't choose to be straight. And I can't think of a single logical reason that people would choose to be gay.


I don't beleive that we choose to be straight. Heterosexuality is based on biological evidence. My parts are designed to engage in intercourse with a female irresepective of anything else I think or feel. I beleive that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals with a strong subconscious desire to engage in a specifc fetish due to varied reasons. Since there are only illusory claims of biological homosexual function (some people claim that there is a lockness monster and even provide pictures - because they want it to be there) I am skeptic that it is anything but a desired myth for some.

I have a huge desire for asian women. Why asian women? Because my first "real" relationship was with an asian woman - because she had a nice body. OR I could lie to myself and say that I was born that way and that maybe my genetic ancestors were asians and that one was adopted or something. Bunk.

The mind invents logic for the whims of the will. I'll side with the the biological reality beofre I beleive the fantasy that sounds good politically right now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How do equal rights constitute celebrating something?

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

I tend to agree that the government has little business telling churches or couples that their union is legitimate, and the idea of marriage automatically getting a tax benefit is absurd to me.

Marriage should be marriage, not a tax dodge. Children should not be used as tax shelters. At the same time, I'm not prepared to raise taxes on working families.

Let's get real, though. This debate is not about taxes for one side. The debate is about legitimizing a union they disagree with.

Bottom line, gay people deserve equal rights as straight people. They are allowed to be with the one they love, they are allowed to live together and express themselves freely in public, and they pay their taxes and are a large minority of our society. When two people who don't love each other can get married under the law for the purposes of tax benefits, and divorce quite easily, the thing we call marriage is diminished. One solution is to eliminate all the benefits for all, that would make things equal.

But then, married couples' taxes would increase because of the denial of exceptions in the tax code. They would lose many of their protected legal rights, and people would lose the right to speak in their spouse's interest in medical matters, settle their estates, or visit in the hospital.

The alternative is to simply allow gays the same civil rights as straight people. But then, conservatives and religious types object that two men can call themselves "married". So to compromise, they call it a "civil union", and many people, including people who aren't even couples, can enter into a legal union like this.

This should satisfy all sides, but it doesn't. It overlooks the right of two people to consider themselves married under the law, when by all measures, they are married. It's stepping on their liberties. Unless we are prepared to condemn gays back to the dark ages, it's time to welcome them as part of civilized society, and decide for ourselves whether or not we think it's "marriage".

The thing is, it is not up to us, and it never was. if two people want to be married, neither religions nor governments nor votes can stop them. They will live as a married couple, make their vows and celebrate their union in whatever way they deem fit, remember their anniversary, and defy any law we pass which tramples on their rights.

Some states have had it with the complications. Churches will not have to accept gay marriage, but states will have to. It's the fairest way forward, it's equality and justice under the law. If that makes people squeamish, too bad.

A miscarriage of justice would be to have churches be forced to accept gay marriage. I won't go that far. Church is a private group with it's own rules. They don't have to believe "God" likes gay marriage if they don't want to. But their rights will be upheld, as well as gays. Those who refuse to accept, will go to their graves disagreeing on principle. But everyone's rights will be protected.

[Koga No Goshi]

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

None of the reasons you gave as to why it's special require tax breaks, hospital vistation rights or property rights. You listed more esoteric and evoluntionary and biological reasons it should be special. Giving life partner couples "dignity rights" when it comes to illness, hospitals, medical decisions and not kicking one of the house and stealing it when the other dies is not taking away any recognition of male-female relationships as the basis of procreation and continuance of the species.

Or is it?

Let me edit. I do not agree that male female sexual relations are the special basis of anything. Family is the foundation of society. And families have always come in every shape and size. From grandparents raising kids to uncles raising kids to foster parents raising orphans to older sisters taking over when the parents die for the younger siblings, to single moms, to single dads, to a mom and sister, or a dad and grandmother, and every mix in between. And divorced parents, and a divorced parent who later coupled with a same gender partner, and gay parents from the get go.

I thought it over again, and I see no compelling reason that we should celebrate the nuclear family of mom + dad + kids as a special and privileged arrangement which has contributed more or less than all the other variations which have raised great people throughout history. That is a conceit, the more I think about it. I will walk with you as far as saying that, biologically, male + female is the basis of procreation, genetically this is undeniable. But so many cultures have done so many different things with parenting... from kids being raised by the mother's family, and not the biological parents, in old Japan, to aunts grandmothers and mothers being the only directly involved family for Pueblo Indians, to gender segregated parenting.

No two cultures have identical definitions of what the family is, or what constitutes an acceptable or healthy family arrangement. China would say we're degenerates for throwing away our old people. People in rural areas say city people are degenerates for all moving away from each other and having no long-lasting extended family ties or relationships.

The real binding tie of family is something subjective and personal to each family out there. And I really think it's arrogant, exclusive and closed-minded to arbitrarily pick one and say that is the special, privileged one that should be celebrated.

[ICantSpellDawg]

None of the reasons you gave as to why it's special require tax breaks, hospital vistation rights or property rights. You listed more esoteric and evoluntionary and biological reasons it should be special. Giving life partner couples "dignity rights" when it comes to illness, hospitals, medical decisions and not kicking one of the house and stealing it when the other dies is not taking away any recognition of male-female relationships as the basis of procreation and continuance of the species.

Or is it?

Most Civil unions have exactly the same rights as marriages except that they are not called marriages. You don't think that the immense biological differences are even worth sperate mention?

As far as "raising tax rates" goes ATPG - Why don't we just give singles the married tax breaks? nobody is paying more in taxes - net loss in taxes collected. Why should the government celebrate unions over singledom. Isn't that discriminatory?

[Koga No Goshi]

Most Civil unions have exactly the same rights as marriages except that they are not called marriages. You don't think that the immense biological differences are even worth sperate mention?

Not in terms of equal rights under the law, no. No more than I think female family members should get hospital visitation rights and male family members should not. Read the below link/spoiler area if you believe they confer all the same rights, they do not.


As far as "raising tax rates" goes ATPG - Why don't we just give singles the married tax breaks? nobody is paying more in taxes - net loss in taxes collected. Why should the government celebrate unions over singledom. Isn't that discriminatory?

It is, frankly, straight people who think it's about the tax breaks. I've never met a gay person who said that was their reason for wanting marriage equality.

This (http://www.afterelton.com/people/2008/6/georgetakei_bradaltman?page=0%2C0) is what one well-known couple in CA had to say about it:


These are relevant snippets from an interview with Brad Altman & George Takei:
Brad Altman: Another thing I wanted to add to what George just said, Michael, is to us, domestic partnership is sort of like being a second-class citizen. California, as you know, has a legal designation of domestic partnerships for same-gender couples, but that was never really an option that George and I considered because it doesn’t give the same weight or heft or emotion as is given to marriage in our society and culture.

And I think one of the key points about the California Supreme Court ruling that your readership should understand is that it’s not just that I don’t think domestic partnership is the same thing as a marriage – that is a key part of this Supreme Court ruling. They said domestic partnerships are not the same thing as marriage, and you and I know that’s the truth.

AE: What do you say to the couples out there, especially the young gay men who are disinterested in marriage or don’t think it’s something particularly worth fighting for?
BA: I think that they need to see it in a broader perspective of a struggle for civil rights for all Americans. There’s going to be a lot of words said between now and November 4th when the California voters decide on the anti-gay ballot initiative. But ultimately, when you boil it down, it’s about equal legal protection.

GT: There are many laws that litigate against gays and lesbians, bisexual and transgender people. Once [a gay couple] decide they want to be committed, there are other laws that make that relationship for a same-sex couple that much more unfair. They wouldn’t be able to share their pension rights, their insurance benefits, their inheritance rights. There are many, many laws that are unequal, and so equality in marriage is a great, both symbolic as well as a real, victory for the GLBT community.

BA: I always find it funny when you hear like same-sex marriages are going to destroy traditional marriage. Look at George and me for example. We’ve been together more than 21 years, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad times. We are a well-established couple. I look at us, and then you look at marriage in general and you see the divorce rate – and then look at George and my long-term relationship and I say my goodness, we represent stability in marriage. We’ll strengthen the institution of marriage.

BA: And that’s a good point because no matter what happens in November, and I’m optimistic that the voters in California will make the right decision because it’s really about fairness and equality and treating people the same. But George’s and my relationship is going to continue to be live long and prosper beyond November. But it is really an opportunity for California to send a message to the rest of the country … that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people are ready to take the responsibility of marriage. In the olden days, the anti-gay people said that we were promiscuous and couldn’t have a relationship because we were shallow people and now we’re saying let us have the responsibility of marriage and now they’re arguing that we’re going to destroy marriage. We can’t win!

GT: I think marriage is defined not as a union between a man and a woman but by a relationship bound by love. It’s love that defines marriage, not man and a woman.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Most Civil unions have exactly the same rights as marriages except that they are not called marriages. You don't think that the immense biological differences are even worth sperate mention?

*

As far as "raising tax rates" goes ATPG - Why don't we just give singles the married tax breaks? nobody is paying more in taxes - net loss in taxes collected. Why should the government celebrate unions over singledom. Isn't that discriminatory?

**

*

No, I don't believe the immense biological differences matter.

A man can have his penis blown off in a war. A woman can be infertile. People are born intergendered, or hermaphroditic. All of these people have a right to get married, even if they cannot procreate.

If it's about love, it should not be any of anyone else's business, least of all the church's, especially if you don't even go to that church or believe its preachings.

**

I do agree it's discriminatory. I think income taxes are discriminatory as it is, because the rich have ways of avoiding them, and the poor cannot realistically pay, so the middle class get the whole burden.

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

This is about marriage, not taxes. No one has any authority to say that gay people cannot fall in love and be together, and agree to be with only each other forever. That's marriage, pure and simple. The government cannot stop it, the church cannot. It's just a fact of life.

People just need to deal with it. The alternative is forcing your views on them, and possibly charging them with a crime when they have done no wrong. The solution is to treat one another equally.