Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

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 is what one well-known couple in CA had to say about it:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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

---

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

This is unrelated to the thread, but whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

This is unrelated to the thread, but whatever.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

I think procreation and marriage are entirely distinct concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I think procreation and marriage are entirely distinct concepts.

---

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

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





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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artorius Maximus

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

---

So does a 50% divorce rate WHY AM I STARTING AGIAN@!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

Good luck, and good night.

I need sleep too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artorius Maximus

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

---

Okay.

Now, tell me why.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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

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

Good luck, and good night.

I need sleep too.

---

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

No explanation will be suitable for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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



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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

No explanation will be suitable for all.

---

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

anti-miscegnation? Really? Dear me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

No explanation will be suitable for all.

---

P.S. Tuff I have enjoyed going back and forth and reading your opinion, I hope you do not feel harassed. I believe I speak for Strike and ATPG that we would all still take ya for a drink. ;) Especially Strike. :yes:

And Tuff I think you meant you would be AGAINST anti-miscegenation laws. Not for them. :) Miscegenation = mixing or cohabitating of members of different groups. Might have just been a typo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

No explanation will be suitable for all.

---

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

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

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

Why is it unreasonable?

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

---

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

This is also off topic, so lets stay focused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

you're right. off topic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

you're right. off topic

---

I want stats to back that up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I want stats to back that up

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

way to pricey. Boxed wine and Keystone light.

Off topic, off topic, off topic~

:whip:

Back in line, soldiers! :laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Off topic, off topic, off topic~

:whip:

Back in line, soldiers! :laugh2:

---

Hell no, we won't go!

FRAGICIDE MODE ENGAGED!

:furious3:

Just kidding.

*Gets back in line*

Back on topic, taken straight from Wikipedia

Quote:

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

How would you respond to that observation?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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

How would you respond to that observation?

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

Now, you're thinking.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Now, you're thinking.

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

---

:egypt: Pharaoh thanks you.

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

I'm just curious.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

I'm just curious.

---

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My sincere sympathies go to her.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

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

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

---

Gah!

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

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I would cut my throat sever my limbs and pluck my eyes out before I engaged in sodomy.

---

Dude, that's some sick, kinky stuff you're talking about. Most people have some dark fantasies, but self-mutilation and self-blinding? That is some sick kink you got going there.

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

Rhyfelwyr-

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Gah!

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

Talk about fuel for the fires of hypocrisy.

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

---

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

Sodomy means BJ's too.

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

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

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

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

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ia/anaslex.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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

Sodomy means BJ's too.

---

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

You are a sick, sick man Lemur.

Don't ever change! :laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

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

---

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

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


I now see why I was wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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