NationStates Jolt Archive

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID gay marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.

Missouri Sucks.

Missouri Sucks.
agreed

Have we (California) banned it yet?

I mean...everyone remembers San Fransisco and all that chaos...right?

W00t!

i don't think your governer likes the idea of banning it.


missouri does suck indeed.

Have we (California) banned it yet?

I mean...everyone remembers San Fransisco and all that chaos...right?

They have!

MO, CA, and about 3 other states have amendments. Other states will probably have votes on this soon! At least 10 have it on the ballot in November. Ohio might have it there this november too.

I applaud MO for the vote on the issue. This is how this issue showed be decided. Let the voters decide on this issue.

With regards to CA, as I've stated above, yea they banned it via amendment to the Constitution overwhelmingly.

Missouri Sucks.
No, San Francisco sucks ;). Missouri Rocks.

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.

Two points:

Missouri had already outlawed gay marriage, this just put the ban in their constitution.
The President has no power to amend the Constitution. At this time only 48 Senators (possibly fewer, as there has yet to be an up-or-down vote on said amendment) support such amendment, and 67 Senators are needed to approve an amendment.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the way it should be done. It should be purely a state issue, and the federal government should keep their brown noses out of it.

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.

38 actually! 38 have banned gay marraige thus 12 more to go but alas it really is down to 10 more to go since Vermont has Civil Unions and thanks to the Mass Supreme Court, Mass has it legalized.

Ah. Yeah. It's a good idea to for the first time in our nation's history amend the Constitution to *deny* civil rights to a specific group of citizens...

In order to please Bush supporters who, can't seem to *spell,* never mind understand that the President has nothing to do with the process of amending the Constitution?"

That's not the America *I* was raised to love, I'll tell you that.

Homophobes are all just angry because they can't get laid.

---Jesus

Ah. Yeah. It's a good idea to for the first time in our nation's history amend the Constitution to *deny* civil rights to a specific group of citizens...

In order to please Bush supporters who, can't seem to *spell,* never mind understand that the President has nothing to do with the process of amending the Constitution?"

That's not the America *I* was raised to love, I'll tell you that.

Ahem! That failed. This is a state issue and 71% of Missouri Voters voted for this amendment to the MO Constitution.

Ah. Yeah. It's a good idea to for the first time in our nation's history amend the Constitution to *deny* civil rights to a specific group of citizens...

In order to please Bush supporters who, can't seem to *spell,* never mind understand that the President has nothing to do with the process of amending the Constitution?"

That's not the America *I* was raised to love, I'll tell you that.

I didn't mean he ammend it by himself, but as president he would have to sign it.

Civil rights isn't a state issue. It's an everywhere issue.

I didn't mean he ammend it by himself, but as president he would have to sign it.

WOuld have yes if it passed the Congress AND the states.

Civil rights isn't a state issue. It's an everywhere issue.

Gay Marriage IS a state issue.

WOuld have yes if it passed the Congress AND the states.
When a constitutional amendment is in consideration, the president has no legal effect on whether there is one or not. Congress doesn't really have it, either. All Congress decides is whether to call the state legislatures together to discuss an amendment. If the states really wanted to, they could organize their own convention, without the consent of Congress.

When a constitutional amendment is in consideration, the president has no legal effect on whether there is one or not. Congress doesn't really have it, either. All Congress decides is whether to call the state legislatures together to discuss an amendment. If the states really wanted to, they could organize their own convention, without the consent of Congress.

Right but doesn't it still have to pass the senate with 2/3 majority?

That doesn't make it any more right to do it state by state, Formal.

The only interests a state has in limiting the civil institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are *religious,* ...and this means that the state is favouring the religious establishments that oppose equal gay marriage rights over those that do not, which makes it wrong and un-American on any level.

Our state and federal governments are meant to guarantee liberty and equal protection under the law to all, even if that means protecting a minority from a majority that seems to be fixated on somene else's business.

That doesn't make it any more right to do it state by state, Formal.

The only interests a state has in limiting the civil institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are *religious,* ...and this means that the state is favouring the religious establishments that oppose equal gay marriage rights over those that do not, which makes it wrong and un-American on any level.

Our state and federal governments are meant to guarantee liberty and equal protection under the law to all, even if that means protecting a minority from a majority that seems to be fixated on somene else's business.

However, the MAJORITY of the people are against gay marriage. Would you rather have a judge to decide this issue and not the states?

What exactly makes marraige a government issue in the first place, straight or gay? State or Federal?

Gay Marriage IS a state issue.

In fact, all marriage is a state issue. The states have the right to make whatever decision they want to, unless it blatantly comes out against the Constitution. That means that there cannot and should not be a national anti-gay marriage amendment. As for the states, while I disagree with the idea of banning gay marriage, that is absolutely and solely their right.

Gay Marriage IS a state issue.

No, the state or federal governments have no business ruling on marriage of any type one way or another. It as good as admits that there is not separation of church and state as the only rationale that has been put forward to deny same-sex couples is that it is not "biblical". It also puts into question those religious congregations throughout this state that do indeed condone and perform same-sex marriages (and yes, they do exist), clearly violating freedom of religion.

It's also interesting to note how the votes broke down. It didn't pass in St. Louis and barely passed in Kansas City. It was the rural voters who passed it and proved, once again, that religious freedom only applies if you're worshiping the right God. This is a sad day for my state.

In fact, all marriage is a state issue. The states have the right to make whatever decision they want to, unless it blatantly comes out against the Constitution. That means that there cannot and should not be a national anti-gay marriage amendment. As for the states, while I disagree with the idea of banning gay marriage, that is absolutely and solely their right.

Thank you for your post Salamae. It is very well thought out and I appreciate posts like these. Thanks!

However, the MAJORITY of the people are against gay marriage. Would you rather have a judge to decide this issue and not the states?

How about not letting the government butt their nose into religion period? It is just as wrong to say a church must accept same-sex marriage as it is to say they can't even make the decision for themselves.

What exactly makes marraige a government issue in the first place, straight or gay?

Amen to this one. Other than tax purposes (which are kinda weird anyway-- a holdover from total male domination of the household), the government should not have anything to say about marriage. Your religion is fine to tell you who you can and can't marry; if you're Catholic and want to marry someone of the same sex, too bad. But the government itself (an allegedly non-religious organization) should have no say in it.

How about not letting the government butt their nose into religion period? It is just as wrong to say a church must accept same-sex marriage as it is to say they can't even make the decision for themselves.

Where the hell have I mentioned religion? Your the ONLY one that has mentioned it thus far.

Right but doesn't it still have to pass the senate with 2/3 majority?
I think it still does. In any case, I think that is more of a Congressional rule, and not exactly part of the constitution.

Homophobes are all just angry because they can't get laid.

---Jesus
hmmm, what Jesus are you refferring to there?

Where the hell have I mentioned religion? Your the ONLY one that has mentioned it thus far.

Because marriage is a religious issue that the government has coopted in a blurry power grab, basing the idea of preferential rights on a religious definition. While I believe that if the government is going to stick their oar in at all, it should be at a state level, my contention is now and always will be that this is an issue that should be left to churches and congregations to decide for themselves.

Well-put, Berkylvania. I have to say, it's sad that Missouri would think it a serious enough issue to AMEND THEIR CONSTITUTION over. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ANY constitution, state or federal, has ever been amended to limit the rights of any specific group. And, Formal Dances, just because the majority of people believe something is right doesn't make it so. In the early 1800s, the majority of Americans believed slavery should be legal. Doesn't make it right. If you allow majority consensus to be the only factor in legislation, you end up with tyranny by the majority, something none of us, I'm sure, want to see. It's a sad day for Missouri, and for the nation.

You *bet* I'd rather have a judge decide it. That's the *role* of the Courts in our American system. They are the *balance* against people using popular votes to cause the American Constitution's ideals to be violated, even if the life of a minority *is* unpopular with a majority.

The Constitution is the *law* of the land, and the ideals to which we all hold ourselves. Judges are given their jobs to *keep* the laws, and *judge* the laws. If a popular vote in your town decided that all people with your name should be stoned to death, then you'd need the Courts to say that law is unconstitutional.

If one day you found out the 'will of the Majority' was that you should be considered a second-class citizen in your own country forevermore, you'd feel the same way.

It's not so long ago since 'activist judges' had to strike down a lot of *racist* laws as violating the Constitution.

That's part of America. Progress. How the system is *made.* That's *how we do it, here.* It's why we're still *free.*

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."--Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

Well-put, Berkylvania. I have to say, it's sad that Missouri would think it a serious enough issue to AMEND THEIR CONSTITUTION over. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think ANY constitution, state or federal, has ever been amended to limit the rights of any specific group. And, Formal Dances, just because the majority of people believe something is right doesn't make it so. In the early 1800s, the majority of Americans believed slavery should be legal. Doesn't make it right. If you allow majority consensus to be the only factor in legislation, you end up with tyranny by the majority, something none of us, I'm sure, want to see. It's a sad day for Missouri, and for the nation.
As long as Missouri's new amendment doesn't interfere with the federal constitution, however, it isn't unethical. Granted, these amendments are not a denial of rights, but a limitation of legal priviledges that, in no way, shape or form, deny gays their rights. All it means for them is that they can't transfer money between eachother tax-free, and other financial things like that.

hmmm, what Jesus are you refferring to there?


*the jesus of course!

*"the" should be italized for emphasis

As long as Missouri's new amendment doesn't interfere with the federal constitution, however, it isn't unethical. Granted, these amendments are not a denial of rights, but a limitation of legal priviledges that, in no way, shape or form, deny gays their rights. All it means for them is that they can't transfer money between eachother tax-free, and other financial things like that.

And MOs amendment does not violate the US Constitution.

It was the rural voters who passed it and proved, once again, that religious freedom only applies if you're worshiping the right God. This is a sad day for my state.As if that hasn't been obvious to everyone living in St. Louis.

Concerning gay marriage being unbiblical, I say this country bases way to many of its decisions on what the bible say. It's amazing that abortion is legel with some of the religious fanatics that there are in the US.

And MOs amendment does not violate the US Constitution.

Other than, of course, violating the right to freedom of religion.

Other than, of course, violating the right to freedom of religion.

Again you brought up religion where I didn't! Please stop adding it to my posts please.

Jesus said it in the holy gospel of i don't give a flippin fuck about who you are sexually attracted to and want to marry. He also said if God really hated you he would strike you down. And since Bush hasent dropped dead yet, you guys are all safe.

Other than, of course, violating the right to freedom of religion.
It can be argued that way. I'm sure some gay advocacy group or the ACLU or someone like that will think it up, and bring it to the Supreme Court. I'd love to hear their verdict should this case go before them.

Its a matter of perception on wheter its a right or a priviliage, but its unequal, and thats the important thing. Some people are being given a privilage that others are not. Thats about as bad as some being denyed a right that others have.

Again you brought up religion where I didn't! Please stop adding it to my posts please.

HA! You said it didn't violate the US Constitution. I pointed out that it did indeed violate the First Amendment.

HA! You said it didn't violate the US Constitution. I pointed out that it did indeed violate the First Amendment.

Actually it didn't Berkylvania!

Its a matter of perception on wheter its a right or a priviliage, but its unequal, and thats the important thing. Some people are being given a privilage that others are not. Thats about as bad as some being denyed a right that others have.
However, the same arguement could've been made when they tried to pass ERA. Remember that? It was to declare that men and women are the same under the law. The amendment got past Congress, but it failed at the states. In not passing ERA, it can be argued, important priviledges are still distributed unequally. Interestingly, however, it was women's advocacy groups that defeated it.

Actually it didn't Berkylvania!

Actually, it does.

Basically, it comes down to this: there's no legitimate state interest in denying the same rights and responsibilities to me and my sweetie, should we get married, ...this is another legal standard to which the judiciary is held.

There's no state interest in keeping me from seeing her on her deathbed, if, Gods forbid, something terrible were to happen, there's no state interest in 'defining marriage' in religious terms: frankly, religions can solemnize or forbid whatever marriages they *like* in their own churches. This is about *civil* marriage, which is a *civil* affair, and a *civil* contract, between private citizens, and, you know, without legitimate *state* interest, all rights fall to the individual. Just like without legitimate national interests, they devolve to the states.

That's in the Constitution, too.

And no one has shown a legitimate state interest in prohibiting gay marriages from receiving the same rights as straight ones. There's just no evidence.

That's why they keep trying to take it to a referendum.

Cause any legally-trained judge pretty much has to say that prohibiting gay civil marriage *just isn't fair,* by the standards of our own laws and ideals.

Berkylvania, I encourage you to take this child out, she is out in right field, wouldn't know the truth if it hit her face on.. it's sad.. I blame the parents.

However, the same arguement could've been made when they tried to pass ERA. Remember that? It was to declare that men and women are the same under the law. The amendment got past Congress, but it failed at the states. In not passing ERA, it can be argued, important priviledges are still distributed unequally. Interestingly, however, it was women's advocacy groups that defeated it.

and here I thought that the 14th was the Equal Rights Amendment! LOL

Berkylvania, I encourage you to take this child out, she is out in right field, wouldn't know the truth if it hit her face on.. it's sad.. I blame the parents.

And this from a woman that says that this should be a state issue? A state decided and now that I'm supporting their decision you think I'm out in right field? Rich, steph very rich.

My parents actually taught me to be an independent thinker. My parents have their views and mine does lean that way but I still have the FULL CAPACITY to make up my own mind.

The ERA was defeated, but by now, I have to wonder who really would suggest women *aren't* equal citizens in all ways, even if discrimination still happens.

Imagine if twenty years earlier, someone made an amendment to the Constitution *limiting* womens' rights forevermore.

That's what all this 'defense of Marriage' stuff is like.

38 actually! 38 have banned gay marraige thus 12 more to go but alas it really is down to 10 more to go since Vermont has Civil Unions and thanks to the Mass Supreme Court, Mass has it legalized.

And what I can never understand is, why is it so important for this country to restrict rights of its citizens in such a profound manner? The Constitution says, each citizen is guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...it doesn't add 'but only for straight people'.

Missouri Sucks.


I beg to differ. Missouri is a wonderful state, I consider it home. However, even though it is a Democrat state, the powers that be have made it very difficult to vote in urban areas. If the people of Kansas City and St. Louis's voices were actually ever heard, Missouri would have a very different face. Remember in the last presidential election, when John Ashcroft was still a senator for Missouri, the polling places in the inner city of St. Louis were locked down while angry black voters were lined up around the corner to vote? Black voters in Missouri turned out in record numbers to vote against Bush, and their votes were never counted. In light of the debacle in Florida, this seemed to slip past the media. In one neighborhood I lived in in Kansas City, I had to walk 2 miles to vote. The reason I had to walk was because the city had put put emergency no parking signs up throughout the inner city on election day. It sent a clear signal to those of us who new the crime rate well enough to fear for our lives more than we felt the urge to vote. Essentially the Missouri you know, is the hillbilly, ozark one. Not the culturally rich, progressive, urban one I know.

And this from a woman that says that this should be a state issue? A state decided and now that I'm supporting their decision you think I'm out in right field? Rich, steph very rich.

My parents actually taught me to be an independent thinker. My parents have their views and mine does lean that way but I still have the FULL CAPACITY to make up my own mind.

Good then, independently think about this. There isn't a single, solitary reason to narrowly define marriage as between a man and a woman other than religious doctrine. There is no rationale provided as to why this Amendment was based on anything other than religious ideals. This is a violation of the separation of church and state and a tacit admissal that governmental policy is based on religious doctrine. No public policy should ever, EVER, be based on the doctrine of a religious group. It can parallel it, but not be based on it. Offer me one rationale as to why same-sex domestic partnerships are 'more valid' social contracts than mixed-sex domestic partnerships.

While you thinking about that, let's look at the texts.

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Full text of the Missouri Constitution Amendment 2:

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2004, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article 1 of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article 1, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 33, to read as follows:

Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.

This means that any marriage performed by any congregation or church in the State of Missouri is now subject to an unconstitutional "hierarchy of value". Mixed-sex marriages performed by a church are automatically bestowed a host of rights and incentives, whereas the same ceremony, performed by the same church and given the same religious weight, but on a same-sex couple, is now "less than", even though the church attributes the same spiritual weight to both bindings. This is a direct regulation of church activity and freedom of religious conscience.

That was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution... I think.

But what is state policy, is that everyone is entitled to the rights of life, liberty, and property. Civil Marrage effects all three, if you think about it.

Life, in that you share your life with another.

Liberty, in that you mantain the liberty to marry whoever you want.

Property, in that some taxes and inheritence are related to marrage.

IMO, people deserve the right to marry whomever they choose at least on one of these grounds, if not countless others.

The ERA didn't pass no, and with, yes, some women's groups wanting to decide for all the women in the country.

Good then, independently think about this. There isn't a single, solitary reason to narrowly define marriage as between a man and a woman other than religious doctrine. There is no rationale provided as to why this Amendment was based on anything other than religious ideals. This is a violation of the separation of church and state and a tacit admissal that governmental policy is based on religious doctrine. No public policy should ever, EVER, be based on the doctrine of a religious group. It can parallel it, but not be based on it. Offer me one rationale as to why same-sex domestic partnerships are 'more valid' social contracts than mixed-sex domestic partnerships.

While you thinking about that, let's look at the texts.

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Full text of the Missouri Constitution Amendment 2:

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2004, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article 1 of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article 1, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 33, to read as follows:

Section 33. That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.

This means that any marriage performed by any congregation or church in the State of Missouri is now subject to an unconstitutional "hierarchy of value". Mixed-sex marriages performed by a church are automatically bestowed a host of rights and incentives, whereas the same ceremony, performed by the same church and given the same religious weight, but on a same-sex couple, is now "less than", even though the church attributes the same spiritual weight to both bindings. This is a direct regulation of church activity and freedom of religious conscience.

Ok and were in the MO Amendment mentions religion? The Federal Government under DOMA recognises marriage as only one man one woman. Does that Violate the US Consitution. Leaving religion out of it since that is what your basing this on, does DOMA violate the US Constitution and if so, Where?

I beg to differ. Missouri is a wonderful state, I consider it home. However, even though it is a Democrat state, the powers that be have made it very difficult to vote in urban areas. If the people of Kansas City and St. Louis's voices were actually ever heard, Missouri would have a very different face. Remember in the last presidential election, when John Ashcroft was still a senator for Missouri, the polling places in the inner city of St. Louis were locked down while angry black voters were lined up around the corner to vote? Black voters in Missouri turned out in record numbers to vote against Bush, and their votes were never counted. In light of the debacle in Florida, this seemed to slip past the media. In one neighborhood I lived in in Kansas City, I had to walk 2 miles to vote. The reason I had to walk was because the city had put put emergency no parking signs up throughout the inner city on election day. It sent a clear signal to those of us who new the crime rate well enough to fear for our lives more than we felt the urge to vote. Essentially the Missouri you know, is the hillbilly, ozark one. Not the culturally rich, progressive, urban one I know.

Absolutely! And never forget, we were smart enough to vote for a dead man over Ashcroft.

Ok and were in the MO Amendment mentions religion? The Federal Government under DOMA recognises marriage as only one man one woman. Does that Violate the US Consitution. Leaving religion out of it since that is what your basing this on, does DOMA violate the US Constitution and if so, Where?

Absolutely it violates the Constitution as well as violating states rights and I will most certainly NOT leave religion out of it as that is where the fundamental violation lies. It is amazing to me how quickly everyone is so eager to forget religion when it becomes inconvenient to them or doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Freedom of religion means that, as citizens of the United States of America, we have a right to practice our religions, under reasonable doctrines, as we see fit. If that includes gay marriage, then so be it and the government has no fit business regulating it one way or the other.

You also again miss my fundamental point or simply refuse to address it. There is no qualitative reason to define "marriage" as one man, one woman other than religious doctrine.

Personally, I find it insulting. If you're straight you can *impulse-purchase* a marriage for like thirty bucks in Vegas and get something like four thousand legal rights and privileges, but if it's a *gay marriage of thirty years' unrecognized commitment,* it's somehow a bigger threat to heterosexuals' marriages than prenups and J-Lo, thus states can take a Massachusetts marriage and exempt themselves from the full faith and credit clause.


I mean, that's *way* out of whack.

Waaaay, out of whack, since the only thing gay marriage opponents can come up with are unconstitutional Biblical arguments, (even if several Christian denominations have been blessing gay unions a long time) ...and some undefined, completely abstract, nebulous way people will feel the institution isn't as 'sacred' as heterosexuals with a fifty-percent divorce rate have made it themselves.

I mean, what gives, here?

Absolutely it violates the Constitution as well as violating states rights and I will most certainly NOT leave religion out of it as that is where the fundamental violation lies. It is amazing to me how quickly everyone is so eager to forget religion when it becomes inconvenient to them or doesn't agree with their own beliefs. Freedom of religion means that, as citizens of the United States of America, we have a right to practice our religions, under reasonable doctrines, as we see fit. If that includes gay marriage, then so be it and the government has no fit business regulating it one way or the other.

Now you just opened up another can of worms. Everyone was against the FMA, me included, because it should be a states rights issue. Now we have 38 States with 5 of those with Amendments banning gay marriage. Thus the rights are states are being accomplished.

Now you still haven't shown me where in the US Consitution this violates.

Now you just opened up another can of worms. Everyone was against the FMA, me included, because it should be a states rights issue. Now we have 38 States with 5 of those with Amendments banning gay marriage. Thus the rights are states are being accomplished.

Now you still haven't shown me where in the US Consitution this violates.

I've shown you chapter and verse where it violates it, but you refuse to actually refute it. Offer me a single rationale for placing more value on a domestic contract between a mixed-sex couple and a domestic-contract between a same-sex couple that does not involve religious doctine.

I've shown you chapter and verse where it violates it, but you refuse to actually refute it. Offer me a single rationale for placing more value on a domestic contract between a mixed-sex couple and a domestic-contract between a same-sex couple that does not involve religious doctine.

Actually you should me religion. I'm asking you where it says that states can't ban gay marriage.

Actually you should me religion. I'm asking you where it says that states can't ban gay marriage.

*Sigh* How do you get that smiley for banging your head into a brick wall?

The Missouri Amendment (and DOMA and FMA) narrowly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

There is no other justification for this than religious doctrine.

For the state to accept this definition of marriage is admitting that the state, or the federal government, is basing it's policy on religious doctrine.

This is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

Actually you should me religion. I'm asking you where it says that states can't ban gay marriage.
States could ban interracial marriage, but that doesn't make it right.

What reason for banning gay marriage do you have besides religion?

(Oh, and you'd have the 9th amendment preventing the Constitution from being used in such a manner...)

*Sigh* How do you get that smiley for banging your head into a brick wall?

The Missouri Amendment (and DOMA and FMA) narrowly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

There is no other justification for this than religious doctrine.

For the state to accept this definition of marriage is admitting that the state, or the federal government, is basing it's policy on religious doctrine.

This is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

Ok, back to the original question. Where in the US Constitution does it say that give gays the right to marry or to have it recognized?

Ok, back to the original question. Where in the US Constitution does it say that give gays the right to marry or to have it recognized?

No. I'm done with you. I've showed you arguments and you've refused to address them. What you're looking for I'll even grant you. The US Constitution does not make ANY remarks about marriage and it is therefore a de facto states rights issue. However, this does not refute my point, that for a state to accept a definition of marriage based SOLELY on religious doctrine, which is precisely what the Missouri Amendment 2 is, is indeed a violation of the US Constition under the First Amendment. That is the point you have refused to address or refute in any way, therefore I can only assume that you have no refutation of it, which is, frankly, typical.

I will, however, leave you with a quote to consider. Perhaps if you sometime sat down and actually read the thoughts and writings of our founding fathers, you would have a better appreciation for the amazing power of their vision and the vast responsibility they have charged us with.

"I readily... suppose my opinion wrong, when opposed by the majority... however, I should have done it with more complete satisfaction, had we all judged from the same position."--Thomas Jefferson, 1788.

No. I'm done with you. I've showed you arguments and you've refused to address them. What you're looking for I'll even grant you. The US Constitution does not make ANY remarks about marriage and it is therefore a de facto states rights issue. However, this does not refute my point, that for a state to accept a definition of marriage based SOLELY on religious doctrine, which is precisely what the Missouri Amendment 2 is, is indeed a violation of the US Constition under the First Amendment. That is the point you have refused to address or refute in any way, therefore I can only assume that you have no refutation of it, which is, frankly, typical.

Well since you are leaving I guess you don't realize that they are not violating the Constitution. You used the 1st amendment which has no bearing here. That is what I was saying. You failed to recognise that fact.

Well since you are leaving I guess you don't realize that they are not violating the Constitution. You used the 1st amendment which has no bearing here. That is what I was saying. You failed to recognise that fact.
It doesn't?

However, the MAJORITY of the people are against gay marriage. Would you rather have a judge to decide this issue and not the states?

Absofuckinglutely YES!

Laws are made to protect the minority from the majority, not to impose the will of the majority.

It doesn't?

No. The 1st amendment has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage. It is purely a states issue and should not be decided at the federal level. Though I approve of the amendment of MO, I do not approve of the FMA. I do support DOMA and the MPA because it shows what the feds think about it but doesn't ban it. The states are deciding on this issue as they should be doing.

No. The 1st amendment has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage. It is purely a states issue and should not be decided at the federal level. Though I approve of the amendment of MO, I do not approve of the FMA. I do support DOMA and the MPA because it shows what the feds think about it but doesn't ban it. The states are deciding on this issue as they should be doing.
Let me say this slower. If it is about religion, then it violates the first amendment (in this case). If it violates the first amendment, it doesn't matter if God himself came down and ordered it done, it has to do.

Let me say this slower. If it is about religion, then it violates the first amendment (in this case). If it violates the first amendment, it doesn't matter if God himself came down and ordered it done, it has to do.

As I see how the bill was written, thanks to Berk, there was no mention of God in it. To me, this is an exercise by a state to exercise state rights and should be applauded. If it was turned down, I would applaud it just the same if the state of MO voted to turn it down.

If gay marriage would have passed, (even though many Missourians
don't have a problem with the lifestyle) EVERYTHING
would be up for grabs. If you can change sex, then what about age?
What about species? It would be a free for all, NO bill ever discloses
the entire empact. Let's not be naive about this people.

Well since you are leaving I guess you don't realize that they are not violating the Constitution. You used the 1st amendment which has no bearing here. That is what I was saying. You failed to recognise that fact.

SHOW PROOF.

1. Prove that marriage can be defined as "Man-Woman" instead of "Man-Man" or "Woman-Woman" to a valid point without using any religious doctrine.
2. Establish that such an amendment is a state's right and not a granted freedom.

If you cannot accomplish this, I await your concession.
If you can, I await your refutation.

As I see how the bill was written, thanks to Berk, there was no mention of God in it. To me, this is an exercise by a state to exercise state rights and should be applauded. If it was turned down, I would applaud it just the same if the state of MO voted to turn it down.
What is the reason for banning gay marriage besides religion formal?

Missouri has a majority of rat bastard pieces of sh#t. Or at least the majority of those who vote are. I hope they have a natural disaster that knocks some damn sense into them.

SHOW PROOF.

1. Prove that marriage can be defined as "Man-Woman" instead of "Man-Man" or "Woman-Woman" to a valid point without using any religious doctrine.
2. Establish that such an amendment is a state's right and not a granted freedom.

If you cannot accomplish this, I await your concession.
If you can, I await your refutation.

You're going to be waiting awhile...

If gay marriage would have passed, (even though many Missourians
don't have a problem with the lifestyle) EVERYTHING
would be up for grabs. If you can change sex, then what about age?
What about species? It would be a free for all, NO bill ever discloses
the entire empact. Let's not be naive about this people.

False Analogy.

Underage marriage is not the same as marriage between two consenting adults.
Marriage between two species, one of which as a nonhuman is incapable of consent, is not comparable to marriage between two consenting adults.

What is the reason for banning gay marriage besides religion formal?

There isn't one. Not a single one was offered during debate and campaigning for this amendmend. I live in Missouri. I've heard the rhetoric from both sides. There has been no attempt to provide any rational differentiation from the religious conceptualization of marriage as one man and one woman. In fact, it has been used as a selling point.

SHOW PROOF.

1. Prove that marriage can be defined as "Man-Woman" instead of "Man-Man" or "Woman-Woman" to a valid point without using any religious doctrine.
2. Establish that such an amendment is a state's right and not a granted freedom.

If you cannot accomplish this, I await your concession.
If you can, I await your refutation.

Well if you listen to 38 states, they have defined it as one man one woman and have banned gay marriage, 5 of which have an amendment.

The Federal Government, though hasn't banned it, recognises gay marriage as one man one woman in DOMA and the MPA will prevent the FEDERAL COURTS from deciding it sense as the liberals have always stated, its a states issue. Now they are not happy because the states, 38 out of 50 have banned it but NOT the federal government.

Not false, I'm saying that anything is possible if you open up
pandora's box, the sky is the limit.
Age is just as relevant as sex.

Formal Dances: The U.S. Constitution applies to states, due to precidence of a certain Supreme Court case, the name of which escapes me at the moment. So, since the only justification states have to ban gay marrage may be religous, it violates the Federal Constitution, which has authority over all state constitutions. It is not simply Federal Law. Its is /the/ law.

Well if you listen to 38 states, they have defined it as one man one woman and have banned gay marriage, 5 of which have an amendment.

The Federal Government, though hasn't banned it, recognises gay marriage as one man one woman in DOMA and the MPA will prevent the FEDERAL COURTS from deciding it sense as the liberals have always stated, its a states issue. Now they are not happy because the states, 38 out of 50 have banned it but NOT the federal government.

And this proves it is a state's right?

Provide proof that Gay Marriage is wrong in the sense that it can be banned with a reason.

As for the religious dogma issue, concession accepted.

Not false, I'm saying that anything is possible if you open up
pandora's box, the sky is the limit.
Age is just as relevant as sex.

Congratulations on your own admitted inability to control your lust for underaged sex partners without some religion-based law to restrain you.

Not false, I'm saying that anything is possible if you open up
pandora's box, the sky is the limit.
Age is just as relevant as sex.

So did they with Interracial Marriage, and I must have missed the hellfire from our angry God once a black man married a white woman.

Age is irrelevant, a person of 10 years of age is unable to get married no matter what gender he wants to have as a partner.

Anyway, being from Missouri, I know that we already had a law against same-sex marriage, this is what our state has chosen by a very large majority, who are you to trample on our state's decision?

Anyway, being from Missouri, I know that we already had a law against same-sex marriage, this is what our state has chosen by a very large majority, who are you to trample on our state's decision?

Who were we to grant Blacks voting rights when segregationists didn't want them to get any?

Formal Dances: The U.S. Constitution applies to states, due to precidence of a certain Supreme Court case, the name of which escapes me at the moment. So, since the only justification states have to ban gay marrage may be religous, it violates the Federal Constitution, which has authority over all state constitutions. It is not simply Federal Law. Its is /the/ law.

Oh you mean the Texas Sodomy Law that was struct down? As far as I'm concerned, the SCOTUS over stepped their grounds by butting in on a state issue. Besides, SCOTUS did not rule on gay marriage in that decision. Never did Corennia.

*The Missouri Amendment (and DOMA and FMA) narrowly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

There is no other justification for this than religious doctrine.

Uh.. no. Much as people may dislike it, studies have shown that having both a mother and a father produces the ideal climate for raising a child. In turn, the government supports this with benefits - not because they are supporting religion - but because they are supporting the ideal climate for a growing child. One man, one woman, and what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment.

Just as an example:

A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.

The quote was taken from here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01); yes, I'm aware it's a Christian site. However the study was not done by the site or anyone obviously affiliated with it, and as such it has no relevance on the accuracy of the study.

Bottom line: heterosexual (married) couple has the potential to produce the overall healthiest child possible. This is good. The government supports and encourages this with benefits.

Homosexual co-habitants showed the worst overall results in raising healthy children. Hence encouraging this with benefits doesn't really make a great deal of sense.

Now, as a preemptive strike against the people who will bring up "What about people who get married, but are infertile, or don't want children?". The simple fact remains that there will always be the chance they will change their mind. An infertile couple can adopt, and a couple who doesn't want children may change their mind, or find themselves unexpectedly with child.

If we were to restrict marriage benefits only to those heterosexual couples who have children, or are going to have children, we would be required to grossly invade their privacy to avoid abuse of the system.

One would first have to make sure both adults are fertile. So you'd need fertility testing before marriage. You'd need to make sure they aren't using contraception, since that would prevent children. So we would have to monitor contraception purchase for married couples.

Finally, we'd ideally have to make sure they are actually making efforts to produce a child; and schedule regular tests to see if they have in fact succeeded in producing a child, so we can find out why not if they haven't.

Ignoring cost for a moment, that's just a blatant encroaching of the government on privacy. Even though we cannot monitor every person getting married, the principle stands: a married heterosexual couple still has the potential to be the ideal home for a child. A homosexual couple does not.

That should squash your argument that there are only religious reasons to support heterosexual marriage, but not homosexual marriage.

Formal Dances: The U.S. Constitution applies to states, due to precidence of a certain Supreme Court case, the name of which escapes me at the moment. So, since the only justification states have to ban gay marrage may be religous, it violates the Federal Constitution, which has authority over all state constitutions. It is not simply Federal Law. Its is /the/ law.

McCulloch v Maryland, 1819

Age is irrelevant, a person of 10 years of age is unable to get married no matter what gender he wants to have as a partner.[/QUOTE]

They could if the Constitution was ammended, Just exactly like gay marriage.

Anyway, being from Missouri, I know that we already had a law against same-sex marriage, this is what our state has chosen by a very large majority, who are you to trample on our state's decision?

And I applaud Missouri for even voting on it. Wether it was voted for the amendment to be approved or disapproved, you held the vote and let the voters decide.

And, uh, Rilinda, the exact same argument was used against allowing *interracial* marriages.

In fact, the Republican governor of Massachusetts is trying to use a law that *expressly mentions* intermarriage* to try and prevent out-of state gay couples from marrying here.


Funny, isn't it?

The panicked-sounding 'what next!' argument is based on fear and fallacy, just as much as when they said, 'If we allow my child to marry a black person, what next? Polygamy? Incest? Marrying goats?'


It's the same darn thing they said then, and it's still a lie, now.

Undoubtedly, it is in everyone's best interests to allow states the rights to govern themselves in a manner which is most beneficial to its inhabitants. But how is it most beneficial to a same-sex couple who just -happens- to live in a state that decides it is best to ban their legal union? Why should someone who is willing to be open and honest with themselves and everyone else about who they are and what they want to do with their life be penalised and/or forced to move elsewhere to gain what the rest of the population already has?

No, it isn't always the best choice for the federal government to intervene and override state edicts. But what if the states are clinging to skewed moral views based on a Puritanistic system that was hardly bearable when it was in fashion 400 years ago?

Granted, it would be best if the population of the state in question could be educated and guided into understanding a lifestyle other than that which has been engrained in them since birth. But, unfortunately, humans are rarely malleable and are all too often willing to be led by others who are rarely even capable of keeping up with themselves. So we end up with laws in place to protect a system that is not fair to everyone because it makes a religious/moral majority feel more secure in themselves. They can wrap themselves up in a nice constricting law and never have to face the reality that there are other people, other faiths, other beliefs, and other lifestyles than their own in the world and in this very country...a country which supposedly prides itself on its acceptance and diversity.

It's funny that it's rarely the majority that has that sense of pride. The only ones who truly appreciate it are the ones most likely to be persecuted. And they are losing that slowly...day by day...and state by state.

It's to be hoped that people will see their midguided intentions for what they are before they incarnate the death of everything that our great nation is -supposed- to stand for.

I live in Missouri and am appalled by the decision, and yes it does suck.

Uh.. no. Much as people may dislike it, studies have shown that having both a mother and a father produces the ideal climate for raising a child. In turn, the government supports this with benefits - not because they are supporting religion - but because they are supporting the ideal climate for a growing child. One man, one woman, and what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment.

Just as an example:



The quote was taken from here (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01); yes, I'm aware it's a Christian site. However the study was not done by the site or anyone obviously affiliated with it, and as such it has no relevance on the accuracy of the study.

Bottom line: heterosexual (married) couple has the potential to produce the overall healthiest child possible. This is good. The government supports and encourages this with benefits.

Homosexual co-habitants showed the worst overall results in raising healthy children. Hence encouraging this with benefits doesn't really make a great deal of sense.

Now, as a preemptive strike against the people who will bring up "What about people who get married, but are infertile, or don't want children?". The simple fact remains that there will always be the chance they will change their mind. An infertile couple can adopt, and a couple who doesn't want children may change their mind, or find themselves unexpectedly with child.

If we were to restrict marriage benefits only to those heterosexual couples who have children, or are going to have children, we would be required to grossly invade their privacy to avoid abuse of the system.

One would first have to make sure both adults are fertile. So you'd need fertility testing before marriage. You'd need to make sure they aren't using contraception, since that would prevent children. So we would have to monitor contraception purchase for married couples.

Finally, we'd ideally have to make sure they are actually making efforts to produce a child; and schedule regular tests to see if they have in fact succeeded in producing a child, so we can find out why not if they haven't.

Ignoring cost for a moment, that's just a blatant encroaching of the government on privacy. Even though we cannot monitor every person getting married, the principle stands: a married heterosexual couple still has the potential to be the ideal home for a child. A homosexual couple does not.

That should squash your argument that there are only religious reasons to support heterosexual marriage, but not homosexual marriage.

Indeed, it does not. This assumes that the only reason for a domestic partnership of any sort is the production of children. Therefore, this only applies if marriage is made equally illegal for non-productive heterosexual couples, be they non-child bearing by choice or by biological predetermination. Your 'preemptive strike' is as bogus as the one that's currently going on in Iraq.

Furthermore, a heterosexual couple may very well not produce the best environment for a child. Child abuse is rampant. Should we then allow retroactive abortions?

Try again.

Indeed, it does not. This assumes that the only reason for a domestic partnership of any sort is the production of children. Therefore, this only applies if marriage is made equally illegal for non-productive heterosexual couples, be they non-child bearing by choice or by biological predetermination.

Try again.

Now you're disputing a scientist? well aren't you just the poster child for everyone but heterosexuals.

I live in Missouri, I hate it. First of all, they're all ignorant, second, God tells them what to do, what to think, and what to say, and anything that God tells doesnt tell them is wrong.

Dumbass Baptist preachers spend most of their time driving around in new Porches, building churches the size of the White House, and travelling to Catholic countries to convert the "ignrant heathens" to Baptists (i.e. Brazil, Mexico, Italy, Phillipines.) In backwater Missouri (though very, very, VERY few people have an ounce of intelligence, which I applaud) preachers have urged the populace to vote against gambling in Rockaway Beach (An EXTREMELY big issue here), and to vote against Gay MArriage because it's against the bible, a flawless book which says that billions of years of evolution actually occured in seven days and that in the begining, there was a man, a woman, and their two sons, which apparently, the whole global populace sprang from. Somewhere, a document called the Constitution of the United States of America clearly states a "seperation of church and state", which of course, means the bible and the government do not mix. But in Missouri, hardly anyone knows what a Constitution is, or how to spell document, or even in what state Boston is in, so the term is unfamiliar.

Many of you do not know what the big issue about Rockaway Beach is, well, in the 1920's, to encourage job growth, Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a dam to be built along the white river, a large river where Rockaway Beach was situated near, and which tourists from all around flocked to see a famous hurdle of the west. After the river flow was stemmed, Rockaway Beach shrunk and is hardly more than a town full of elderly people. In trying to revitalize their town, the asked permission to build a harmless riverboat casino, which would create hundresd of jobs and millions of dollars in income, but a vote was passed against the casino because it was "un-religious". The problem with Missouri is not it's people, it is the rampant ignorance and the un-seperation of Church and state, now that is a problem.

Who were we to grant Blacks voting rights when segregationists didn't want them to get any?


You're comparing homosexuals with Blacks?
I'm sorry I don't remember the gays out in the
cotton fields ' Swing low, ssweet chariot..'

Indeed, it does not. This assumes that the only reason for a domestic partnership of any sort is the production of children. Therefore, this only applies if marriage is made equally illegal for non-productive heterosexual couples, be they non-child bearing by choice or by biological predetermination.

Try again.

That was non sequitur. I didn't say it mattered why people get married. It doesn't. A man and a woman, married, make the ideal climate for raising a child. Period.

The government cannot monitor every couple getting married to ensure they are:

a) Trying to produce children
b) Already caring for children
c) Not past the age of caring for their children

Both for economic and privacy reasons. The benefits are given to encourage the ideal climate for a healthy child's growth. Whether or not a child comes in to the picture can't be guaranteed, they can only encourage the potential.

Homosexuals largely complain that they want marriage for the benefits that are lacking in civil unions. However, the benefits are given because of the naturally healthy nature (for a child) of a man and woman relationship.

Homosexuals do not have the same likelihood of a healthy, normal child, and as such do not have any claim to the same benefits.

Try reading the entire post next time.

That was non sequitur. I didn't say it mattered why people get married. It doesn't. A man and a woman, married, make the ideal climate for raising a child. Period.

The government cannot monitor every couple getting married to ensure they are:

a) Trying to produce children
b) Already caring for children
c) Not past the age of caring for their children

Both for economic and privacy reasons. The benefits are given to encourage the ideal climate for a healthy child's growth. Whether or not a child comes in to the picture can't be guaranteed, they can only encourage the potential.

Homosexuals largely complain that they want marriage for the benefits that are lacking in civil unions. However, the benefits are given because of the naturally healthy nature (for a child) of a man and woman relationship.

Homosexuals do not have the same likelihood of a healthy, normal child, and as such do not have any claim to the same benefits.

Try reading the entire post next time.

This has nothing to do with marriage, as homosexuals are incapable of having children with their partner without going to extreme lengths...

Now you're disputing a scientist? well aren't you just the poster child for everyone but heterosexuals.

When the American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with it, yes I do challenge it.

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/febsamesex.htm

You're comparing homosexuals with Blacks?
I'm sorry I don't remember the gays out in the
cotton fields ' Swing low, ssweet chariot..'

Are you aware that Blacks during the civil rights movement were not slaves, or did you miss the Emancipation Proclamation? (I'm aware they were still virtual salves for a time after that (including the Civil War), but not up till the CRM).

I'm sorry if I don't believe in second-class citizens, but your religion has no place in a secular government.

On the fact of Texas getting there sodemy law struck down, if I'm interpreting that correctly, it violated the implied right to privacy reserved under the 9th amendment, so the Supreme Court struck it down. If someone could find the Decision on that, that be great.

For the slippery slopers, no, it will not lead to marrage between children and adults, and adults and animals, or children and animals, or children and children, or your cat and the space aliens. Why?

Its called the legal age of consent. Non-sentiant beings can't give consent to marraige. Neither can a child. Neither can an imaginary space alien.

That was non sequitur. I didn't say it mattered why people get married. It doesn't. A man and a woman, married, make the ideal climate for raising a child. Period.

The government cannot monitor every couple getting married to ensure they are:

a) Trying to produce children
b) Already caring for children
c) Not past the age of caring for their children

Both for economic and privacy reasons. The benefits are given to encourage the ideal climate for a healthy child's growth. Whether or not a child comes in to the picture can't be guaranteed, they can only encourage the potential.

Homosexuals largely complain that they want marriage for the benefits that are lacking in civil unions. However, the benefits are given because of the naturally healthy nature (for a child) of a man and woman relationship.

Homosexuals do not have the same likelihood of a healthy, normal child, and as such do not have any claim to the same benefits.

Try reading the entire post next time.

I did read the entire post and you simply ignore the legitimate argument against your assertion by somehow assuming that the only purpose of a domestic partnership contract is child bearing. This is patently false and a personal bias.

They could if the Constitution was ammended, Just exactly like gay marriage.

And now Gays are not able to make decisions on their own? Nice blow, comparing a 30 year old gay man decision-making processes(who I'm not, but I'm sure there are many) to a ten year old boy.

the asked permission to build a harmless riverboat casino, which would create hundresd of jobs and millions of dollars in income, but a vote was passed against the casino because it was "un-religious". The problem with Missouri is not it's people, it is the rampant ignorance and the un-seperation of Church and state, now that is a problem.

Wrong again, we have Casinos Everywhere in Missouri, if it was so wrong against, God, why did that vote pass? The whole stat all of the sudden became God fearing?
Nope, it's because all the casinos would come inland, do you know what's inland? Our scenic rivers. Artists would keel before the MO river was cluttered w/ Crap like casinos. ALSO
Anyway, the largest turnout of voters in Mo was DEMOCRATS

You're comparing homosexuals with Blacks?
I'm sorry I don't remember the gays out in the
cotton fields ' Swing low, ssweet chariot..'

Then you obviously also don't remember their "Christian" masters who were whipping them when they were trying to run away to freedom.

Indeed, it does not. This assumes that the only reason for a domestic partnership of any sort is the production of children. Therefore, this only applies if marriage is made equally illegal for non-productive heterosexual couples, be they non-child bearing by choice or by biological predetermination. Your 'preemptive strike' is as bogus as the one that's currently going on in Iraq.

Furthermore, a heterosexual couple may very well not produce the best environment for a child. Child abuse is rampant. Should we then allow retroactive abortions?

Try again.

This is a most excellent point. I would be willing to wager that you will find less abuse and a far more understanding and embracing environment in a larger majority of same-sex domestic unions than heterosexual ones. That is strictly an ungrounded opinion, but to get to the point of the question, what does child production have to do with domestic partnerships? Why should it even be an issue? It quite simply shouldn't. I was under the impression that humans had evolved far beyond the simple innate impulse to disseminate our genes by producing children. A dog mates to produce offspring because it is compelled by nature to do so. A fish mates to produce offspring because it is compelled to do so. Even birds, who often mate for life, do so because they are compelled to reproduce and continue their bloodlines.

Humans have the choice. They are not necessarily compelled to reproduce for the sake of reproduction. While not always giving the impression of being the most sentient beings, we have evolved to the point of being able to deny our baser instincts to pursue that which is truly fulfilling.

Wrong again, we have Casinos Everywhere in Missouri, if it was so wrong against, God, why did that vote pass? The whole stat all of the sudden became God fearing?
Nope, it's because all the casinos would come inland, do you know what's inland? Our scenic rivers. Artists would keel before the MO river was cluttered w/ Crap like casinos. ALSO
Anyway, the largest turnout of voters in Mo was DEMOCRATS

And that changes the fact that particular casino was voted down because it is "un-religious", how?

I did read the entire post and you simply ignore the legitimate argument against your assertion by somehow assuming that the only purpose of a domestic partnership contract is child bearing. This is patently false and a personal bias.

[sigh]

Noun: potential
the inherent capacity for coming into being

I didn't claim marriage existed to produce children, so kindly stop saying that. You're making yourself look really dumb. What I said, and I'll make it a different colour:

Heterosexual marriage harbors the potential to produce a healthier child than other, non-heterosexual marriage situations.

Understand potential, one realizes the government is encouraging the ideal climate for a healthy child. Whether or not a child actually occurs is the choice of the family. The government can only encourage the potential.

Oi.

Actually, *scientific* studies show that children of gay couples are statistically as-well, if not better-adjusted than children of straight ones, particularly when these studies are equalized for economic class.

In fact, the only unique stressors on children of gay couples come from being exposed to *homophobia,* which is the whole motivation for denying gay marriage in the first place. It's only right-wing Christian journals which purport to show otherwise, and, frankly, any science they troubled to involve has been refuted.

And, let's get real, all these 'justifications' aren't the motivation for denying me the right to see my sweetie in the hospital, or even possibly attend her funeral, Gods forbid, ...these 'reports' are constructed to *justify a preexisting ideological prejudice,* which doesn't have a basis in statistical reality.

Oh, and thanks Berkylvania for that case. :)

What does -potential- have to do with it?

If it's JUST potential, then it's a non-factor. It's basing decisions on hypotheticals that most likely won't apply...and, in my opinion, are probably a bit biased.

But then, aren't we all?

And that changes the fact that particular casino was voted down because it is "un-religious", how?

If you say that Rockaway was voted down because Mo is religious
how did we get Casinos in the first place?

[sigh]

Noun: potential
the inherent capacity for coming into being

I didn't claim marriage existed to produce children, so kindly stop saying that. You're making yourself look really dumb. What I said, and I'll make it a different colour:

Heterosexual marriage harbors the potential to produce a healthier child than other, non-heterosexual marriage situations.

Understand potential, one realizes the government is encouraging the ideal climate for a healthy child. Whether or not a child actually occurs is the choice of the family. The government can only encourage the potential.

Oi.
Thanks for saying that. Now what does this have to do with gay marriage, considering that they can't have children without going to great pain...and not allowing them to marry changes this situtation how?

And, let's get real, all these 'justifications' aren't the motivation for denying me the right to see my sweetie in the hospital, or even possibly attend her funeral, Gods forbid, ...these 'reports' are constructed to *justify a preexisting ideological prejudice,* which doesn't have a basis in statistical reality.

You pay a lawyer about $20 (may vary from place to place) and he can draft a legal document that grants full rights to your partner. You don't need marriage for that.

Moreover, I'm hoping you have a source for your claims. Every study I've ever heard quotes a man and a woman as the ideal situation.

[sigh]

Noun: potential
the inherent capacity for coming into being

I didn't claim marriage existed to produce children, so kindly stop saying that. You're making yourself look really dumb. What I said, and I'll make it a different colour:

Heterosexual marriage harbors the potential to produce a healthier child than other, non-heterosexual marriage situations.

Understand potential, one realizes the government is encouraging the ideal climate for a healthy child. Whether or not a child actually occurs is the choice of the family. The government can only encourage the potential.

Oi.

So:

A. Gays shouldn't produce Children because it is not ideal.
B. Gay marriage is not ideal for children because they cannot produce children.

You got me going in circles.... You got me going in circles.... Oh round and round I go...

You pay a lawyer about $20 (may vary from place to place) and he can draft a legal document that grants full rights to your partner. You don't need marriage for that.

Moreover, I'm hoping you have a source for your claims. Every study I've ever heard quotes a man and a woman as the ideal situation.

Substantiate- Show reports that don't have a right wing Christian agenda and say that Gay Marriage is some how more inherently flawed than Heterosexual Marriage.

1: No, Non-Right-Wing Christian reports do not have a liberal agenda. Don't try, the entire business of sociology is not a conspiracy.

This is a most excellent point. I would be willing to wager that you will find less abuse and a far more understanding and embracing environment in a larger majority of same-sex domestic unions than heterosexual ones.

Did you also know that 85% of cereal killers are homosexual?
Also, most child molestations are inflicted by none other than
your "understanding and embracing" gay men.

Just waiting for the inevitable bashing of Massachusetts....

Thanks for saying that. Now what does this have to do with gay marriage, considering that they can't have children without going to great pain...and not allowing them to marry changes this situtation how?

Many homosexuals want marriage over civil unions because civil unions don't have the benefits of marriage. The benefits are given for a reason however - the potential to produce a healthy child. Hence, their claim to the benefits of marriage are void, and their reason for 'needing' marriage is too.

Did you also know that 85% of cereal killers are homosexual?
Also, most child molestations are inflicted by none other than
your "understanding and embracing" gay men.

Source?

You pay a lawyer about $20 (may vary from place to place) and he can draft a legal document that grants full rights to your partner. You don't need marriage for that.

Moreover, I'm hoping you have a source for your claims. Every study I've ever heard quotes a man and a woman as the ideal situation.

But why should marriage be banned?
Do you want someone telling you that you can't do something that you believe with all your heart is the best decision for you?
Who gives you that right?

Did you also know that 85% of cereal killers are homosexual?
Also, most child molestations are inflicted by none other than
your "understanding and embracing" gay men.
How do you kill cereal?

And isn't that entire homosexuals abuse children thing disproven? To snopes...

Did you also know that 85% of cereal killers are homosexual?
Also, most child molestations are inflicted by none other than
your "understanding and embracing" gay men.

False.
False.

Substantiate or I assume you made up those statistics on the spot. You, in all likelyhood, did.

Estimates run at 10% Homosexual population. Are you saying that 10% of the population is reponsible for 85% of the murders? IE- They are 850% more likely to kill? That statistic is idiotic and stretches my belief beyond the point where I even care about any proof- it's not true.

Most? Substantiate. Number needed. False. Most child molestations are inflicted by heterosexuals. Are you saying Gay men have a 510%+ sexual abuse rate as compared to heterosexuals?

You, sir, need to learn how to fudge statistics- try smaller next time.

And isn't that entire homosexuals abuse children thing disproven? To snopes...

Hmm maybe the world or the abusive catholic priests didn't get that memo.

So:

A. Gays shouldn't produce Children because it is not ideal.
B. Gay marriage is not ideal for children because they cannot produce children.

You got me going in circles.... You got me going in circles.... Oh round and round I go...

Homosexuals are free to produce children, but no receive benefits for doing it to a level less of heterosexual couples.

Substantiate- Show reports that don't have a right wing Christian agenda and say that Gay Marriage is some how more inherently flawed than Heterosexual Marriage.

If Hitler agreed that 1+1=2, are you going to start denying that? The Christian site did not do the study. They just quoted it. Hence, your claim of a "right wing Christian agenda" hold about as much water as claiming that Hitler saying 1+1=2 would be a Nazi trick, and we should reject it.

Homosexuals are free to produce children, but no receive benefits for doing it to a level less of heterosexual couples.



If Hitler agreed that 1+1=2, are you going to start denying that? The Christian site did not do the study. They just quoted it. Hence, your claim of a "right wing Christian agenda" hold about as much water as claiming that Hitler saying 1+1=2 would be a Nazi trick, and we should reject it.

False. Hitler's 1+1=2 is a mathematical constant. (Hitler was also a very distorted Christian, but let's not get into that. I will ignore anything you reply to this parenthetical note because this is not the topic for that. Remember Godwin's Law...)

Gay Marriage, on the other hand, is not a constant, natural property of the universe. Prove it is "wrong" or "Bad" to allow Gay Marriage or I accept your concession. Prove it WITHOUT religion.

Hmm maybe the world or the abusive catholic priests didn't get that memo.
Rilindia...A, homosexuality means you like adult males, pedophilia is a whole different ball game, B. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

Homosexuals are free to produce children, but no receive benefits for doing it to a level less of heterosexual couples.


How exactly do homosexual marriages produce children?

Who ever said I was talking solely about gay men?

Lesbian couples are just as likely to want marriage. Do you have statistics to blurt about them, too? There are entire religions based on mother figures. So what could be better than two mother figures?

Did it ever occur to you that someone so conflicted as to become a serial killer (who happens to be gay) might have become so damaged because of the stresses and rigors applied to them by homophobic elements in their life? Most serial killers, as I understand it, are working out a pathology that is grounded in a horrible upbringing....most likely a restrictive, Christian, -heterosexual- household that oppressed and ridiculed him for being different and ünacceptable." Beaten, perhaps, for being too "effeminate?" No wonder that person wanted to release some demons....if narrow-minded homophobes didn't abuse their children for considering the potential of what is considered an alternative lifestyle, perhaps there wouldn't be so many psychologically damaged serial killers?

But why should marriage be banned?
Do you want someone telling you that you can't do something that you believe with all your heart is the best decision for you?
Who gives you that right?

a) The reason (many, can't speak for all) gays want marriage over civil unions is benefits. They have no claim to the benefits, and those who want marriage for the benefits have no need therefore of marriage.

b) We can't always have what we want.

c) See A. You can have a civil union, just not the benefits.

[QUOTE=Doomduckistan]False.
False.
Estimates run at 10% Homosexual population. Are you saying that 10% of the population is reponsible for 85% of the murders?
QUOTE] Who's fudging? I said 85% of serial killers, NOT the population

a) The reason (many, can't speak for all) gays want marriage over civil unions is benefits. They have no claim to the benefits, and those who want marriage for the benefits have no need therefore of marriage.

b) We can't always have what we want.

c) See A. You can have a civil union, just not the benefits.

A) Prove Gays are second class citizens. Prove they have no right to marriage without refering to religion.

B) See A.

C) See B.

How exactly do homosexual marriages produce children?

For the last time: many (though I can't say all, that would be unfair) homosexuals want marriage solely for the benefits inherent to it. They have no claim to the benefits, as the benefits are given to heterosexual couples for being the ideal situation for raising a child. They want marriage for the benefits, but can't have them - so they don't need marriage.

[QUOTE=Doomduckistan]False.
False.
Estimates run at 10% Homosexual population. Are you saying that 10% of the population is reponsible for 85% of the murders?
QUOTE] Who's fudging? I said 85% of serial killers, NOT the population
Source?

I don't support gay marriage nor do I support it being banned or the constitution being amended as it often is. Amendments gave us the income tax and other wonderful things. I'd say some is good, like say the voting age being 18 or how about ridding the world of slavery fine but using it to treat gays the way it is being used is wrong. Marriage should be left to the individuals involved, its a spiritual/religious private matter not for government and society etc. it may not be right but at least your not being forced to recognize it thats the great thing about no government involvement in marriage, that is constitutional and this ban is not. Furthermore by giving government control over a sacred thing such as marriage you only demean and lessen its sacredness I find it better left to society and individuals and the churches instead.

[QUOTE=Doomduckistan]False.
False.
Estimates run at 10% Homosexual population. Are you saying that 10% of the population is reponsible for 85% of the murders?
QUOTE] Who's fudging? I said 85% of serial killers, NOT the population

You have no concept of math, do you?

300,000,000 people (about)
30,000,000 Gays, 270,000,000 Straights.
X Serial Killers.
By statistics, X/10 should be serial murders by Homosexuals. You are saying that 8.5X/10 are. Thus, your claim is that Homosexuals have an 850% higher serial murder rate than average would suggest.

Prove that Homosexuals have an 850% average murder rate.

For the last time: many (though I can't say all, that would be unfair) homosexuals want marriage solely for the benefits inherent to it. They have no claim to the benefits, as the benefits are given to heterosexual couples for being the ideal situation for raising a child. They want marriage for the benefits, but can't have them - so they don't need marriage.
Such as?

And for another thought....

I don't know how others feel, but I'm not impressed by statistics. Yes, they are supposedly a sound argument. But it is most often the case in any debate where numbers are presented as evidence that the numbers are just as skewed as the argument.

If it is a centrist argument, then the numbers tend to be more accurate. But if it is a more radical argument, then there are always biased reports and studies to draw on to support your case...be it pro or con.

I know it may sound flighty, but I'm not impressed by someone spewing a bunch of stats and expecting that to make their case.

by Berkylvania
Mixed-sex marriages performed by a church are automatically bestowed a host of rights and incentives, whereas the same ceremony, performed by the same church and given the same religious weight, but on a same-sex couple, is now "less than",


In my Church, there never would be same sex marriages performed. So what Churches do you know of that perform these types of marriages?

A) Prove Gays are second class citizens. Prove they have no right to marriage without refering to religion.

B) See A.

C) See B.

I never referred to religion, nor called them second class citizens. The benefits given to heterosexual marriage are bound to the beneficial nature of the relationship to any potential children. Homosexuals who raise children do not produce the same beneficial results (see study quoted earlier), and hence are not given the benefits.

People, I'm getting sick of having to reiterate the same points over and over. Either come up with something new and start reading the damned posts, or I can leave this 'debate' - if you can call this debacle a debate - and leave you to fight amongst yourselves.

Noun: potential
the inherent capacity for coming into being

I didn't claim marriage existed to produce children, so kindly stop saying that. You're making yourself look really dumb. What I said, and I'll make it a different colour:

Heterosexual marriage harbors the potential to produce a healthier child than other, non-heterosexual marriage situations.[/b]

Understand potential, one realizes the government is encouraging the ideal climate for a healthy child. Whether or not a child actually occurs is the choice of the family. The government can only encourage the potential.

Oi.[/QUOTE]

And I provided an entire associations of pediatricians who disagree with you. There is no inherant reason to assume any potential child in a heterosexual relationship will receive better foundation than a child in a homosexual one.

http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/olrdata/jud/rpt/2002-R-0879.htm

http://www.aap.org/policy/020008.html

http://www.nacac.org/pub_statements.html

http://www.psych.org/public_info/gaylesbianbisexualissues22701.pdf

http://apsa-co.org/ctf/cgli/parenting.htm

http: //www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html#2

Let me quote some pertanint details from the above policy statements:

American Association of Pediatrics: Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

North American Council on Adoptable Children: Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the sexual orientation of potential parents. Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care or adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration.

American Psychiatric Association: Many gay men and women are parents. For example, estimates of the numbers of lesbian mothers range from 1 to 5 million and with the number of children ranging from 6 to 14 million...Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be as healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater instance of homosexuality of gender identity issues than other children.

American Psychoanalytic Association: The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is the best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. With the adoption of this position statement, we support research studies that further our understanding of the impact of both traditional and gay/lesbian parenting on a child's development.

American Psychological Association: The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural, or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases.

As you can plainly see, the inherant sexuality of a couple makes no difference in the potentiality for child care.

Indeed, the potential for heterosexual divorce is a more pressing problem than any posed to a child raised by a same-sex couple.

In my Church, there never would be same sex marriages performed. So what Churches do you know of that perform these types of marriages?

Religious Society of Friends

Unitarian Universalists

Many individual churches throughout the nation and individual congregations.

The point is, though, that it is equally incorrect for the government to force individual churches to accept same-sex marriage as it is for them to deny them the option. Either route represents a basic violation of religious freedom.

[QUOTE=Doomduckistan]False.
False.
Estimates run at 10% Homosexual population. Are you saying that 10% of the population is reponsible for 85% of the murders?
QUOTE] Who's fudging? I said 85% of serial killers, NOT the population

it's 68%
current affairs
talk about the day's news * *
Name: jabran
Date: 10/03/2001
Time: 04:11:48 AM
Category:
Subject: Serial Killers
Donald Harvey killed 37
John Wayne Gacy killed 33
Patrick Wayne Kearney killed 32
Bruce Davis killed 28
Dean Corll killed killed 27
Elmer Wayne Henley killed 27
David Owen Brooks killed 27
Juan Corona killed 25
Stephen Kraft killed 16

What these people have in common is that they are all homosexuals. Homosexuals are less than 3 percent of the population yet they account for 68 percent of all serial killers.



Posted: *10/4/01 6:26:37 AM ***|*** IP: *Recorded

werechick
New Member

Total Posts:*5

Such as?

You're not aware of the legal benefits accorded by marriage? o_O; Oi. Here are some examples:

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

I never referred to religion, nor called them second class citizens. The benefits given to heterosexual marriage are bound to the beneficial nature of the relationship to any potential children. Homosexuals who raise children do not produce the same beneficial results (see study quoted earlier), and hence are not given the benefits.

People, I'm getting sick of having to reiterate the same points over and over. Either come up with something new and start reading the damned posts, or I can leave this 'debate' - if you can call this debacle a debate - and leave you to fight amongst yourselves.

yes, you did.

A. Homosexuals have all the rights of human beings in America.
B. But they can't have marriage.
C. They still have all the same rights.
D. C is Absurd.
E. Thus, Homosexuals are currently not equals to Heterosexuals.

Address my point- your non-support of Gay Marriage automatically would make Gays second-class ciizens.

Find an unbiased, non right-wing christian survey. Prove that there are benefits from being in a straight household as compared to a gay one.

For the last time: many (though I can't say all, that would be unfair) homosexuals want marriage solely for the benefits inherent to it. They have no claim to the benefits, as the benefits are given to heterosexual couples for being the ideal situation for raising a child. They want marriage for the benefits, but can't have them - so they don't need marriage.

You're still on this child bearing kick. I am failing to see the relevance to the issue. What does anyone's idea of an "ideal" have to do with whether someone should be allowed to enter into a legal and binding partnership with someone they love and gain all the legal benefits associated with it?

a) The reason (many, can't speak for all) gays want marriage over civil unions is benefits. They have no claim to the benefits, and those who want marriage for the benefits have no need therefore of marriage.

b) We can't always have what we want.

c) See A. You can have a civil union, just not the benefits.

No, we can't always have what we want.

Logically, you shouldn't be allowed to ban gay marriage just because you think it's somehow wrong.

Religious Society of Friends

Unitarian Universalists

Many individual churches throughout the nation and individual congregations.

Proving that it's NOT a religious issue

Actually, a source was already referenced above, Sydenia. But you could try any site that isn't, like the 'Family Research Council' expressly out there to push a Religious Right agenda on America.

I think the American Academy of Pediatrics will do nicely.

I think the APA has done several studies as well, if you're so worried about the children of gay marriages.

I presume you're also insisting that children of gay marriages will do better if their parents have no legal standing in America?

Cause I hate to break the news, but gay marriages have existed a *long* time, they just haven't been given all the same rights and benefits as straight ones.

Apart from that, the assertion that marriage is expressly for the production and nurturance of offspring is *not* related to civil marriage.

That's actually a *religious* belief.

In America, we marry because we love someone and want to spend our lives with them as family.

That's *all* marriage does, civilly.

And that's all it needs to. By 'community standards.

Children are another issue. Dragged in by people wanting to deny other people rights based on standards they *don't hold straights to,*

...Cause you're uncomfortable.

I'm sorry you're uncomfortable. But 'civil unions' are *not* equal to marriage. There are over 4,000 rights and privileges and obligations written into just *federal* law regarding the word *marriage.*

It doesn't hurt *anyone* to allow couples of any kind to take on those responsibilities and receive those rights.

It's a matter of *organization.*

Allowing me the right to commit to a female lover, and be legally recognized as having done so has *nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else,* ...it has *nothing to do* with whether or not we choose to raise a child or how we would do it, except that if we *did,* that child wouldn't lose *both* parents and end up in the foster system if the birth-mother died.

Things like that.

Gay marriage is already a reality.

If you're worried about the *kids,* let's make it legally empowered and accountable.

For the kids. If nothing else.

But it's not always about kids.

You're not aware of the legal benefits accorded by marriage? o_O; Oi. Here are some examples:

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

And you wish to deny all of these rights to Homosexuals? Second-Class Citizens. Your own proof. Concession Accepted.

You're not aware of the legal benefits accorded by marriage? o_O; Oi. Here are some examples:

Tax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.

Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Most of these do not affect having children at all, and these are not given just for having the ideal environment for raising children (which is debatable at best), they are just ways for your other to defend you if you are disabled/injured/whatever.

it's 68%
current affairs
talk about the day's news * *
Name: jabran
Date: 10/03/2001
Time: 04:11:48 AM
Category:
Subject: Serial Killers
Donald Harvey killed 37
John Wayne Gacy killed 33
Patrick Wayne Kearney killed 32
Bruce Davis killed 28
Dean Corll killed killed 27
Elmer Wayne Henley killed 27
David Owen Brooks killed 27
Juan Corona killed 25
Stephen Kraft killed 16

What these people have in common is that they are all homosexuals. Homosexuals are less than 3 percent of the population yet they account for 68 percent of all serial killers.



Posted: *10/4/01 6:26:37 AM ***|*** IP: *Recorded

werechick
New Member

Total Posts:*5
Source.

In my Church, there never would be same sex marriages performed. So what Churches do you know of that perform these types of marriages?

We could start with the American Catholic Church...a parish of which is located in my hometown and I personally know the Bishop....who is homosexual and would gladly perform such a ceremony.

How about any number of groups who don't believe you need a cross and a building to worship? Church is where Deity is...and Deity is where you are. So a lot more "churches" than you might think

Proving that it's NOT a religious issue

Please don't tell me you are calling Quakers and Unitarians "non-religious" organizations.

Source.

It's a message board post, you can tell by the quote.

American Association of Pediatrics: Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition.

That's just someone else making the claim. I want to see the study, not the claim the studies exist. If there is in fact "a considerable body of professional literature", you should have no problem pointing out specific studies that echo it.

North American Council on Adoptable Children: Children should not be denied a permanent family because of the sexual orientation of potential parents. Everyone with the potential to successfully parent a child in foster care or adoption is entitled to fair and equal consideration.

That's a moral standpoint, not a scientific one.

American Psychiatric Association: Many gay men and women are parents. For example, estimates of the numbers of lesbian mothers range from 1 to 5 million and with the number of children ranging from 6 to 14 million...Numerous studies have shown that the children of gay parents are as likely to be as healthy and well adjusted as children raised in heterosexual households. Children raised in gay or lesbian households do not show any greater instance of homosexuality of gender identity issues than other children.

Again, "many studies". Link to these studies. They're apparently plentiful enough.

American Psychoanalytic Association: The American Psychoanalytic Association supports the position that the salient consideration in decisions about parenting, including conception, child rearing, adoption, visitation and custody is the best interest of the child. Accumulated evidence suggests the best interest of the child requires attachment to committed, nurturing and competent parents. Evaluation of an individual or couple for these parental qualities should be determined without prejudice regarding sexual orientation. Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. With the adoption of this position statement, we support research studies that further our understanding of the impact of both traditional and gay/lesbian parenting on a child's development.

"Gay and lesbian individuals and couples are capable of meeting the best interest of the child and should be afforded the same rights and should accept the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents."

Yet I see no actual studies, reasoning, or proof to back this up. Not a single one. Just another claim without basis.

[QUOTE=Berkylvania]American Psychological Association: The sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation of natural, or prospective adoptive or foster parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in custody or placement cases.

AGAIN, a moral argument. No evidence is presented, no studies, no anything. Just "we think so".

As you can plainly see, the inherant sexuality of a couple makes no difference in the potentiality for child care.

No, what I see is a lot of drivel. You wasted my time reading all that junk, only to find not one scrap of actual study or evidence to support their claims. You're an inch away from being ignored. I have better things to do with my time than waste them on giant posts with no substance.

A post on another forum is considered a source? I think not.

It's a message board post, you can tell by the quote.
I know, I'm just wondering if he can salvage some of his credibility by posting a source, any source, backing him up.

That's just someone else making the claim. I want to see the study, not the claim the studies exist. If there is in fact "a considerable body of professional literature", you should have no problem pointing out specific studies that echo it.



That's a moral standpoint, not a scientific one.



Again, "many studies". Link to these studies. They're apparently plentiful enough.



No, what I see is a lot of drivel. You wasted my time reading all that junk, only to find not one scrap of actual study or evidence to support their claims. You're an inch away from being ignored. I have better things to do with my time than waste them on giant posts with no substance.

And you have blithely dodged all of my points- address them or concede.

All 1 of your studies linked to are so biased I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time, provide an actual study.

What I see is a lot of dodging. You wasted my time reading all of that junk, not to find a single argument against me. You're an inch away from being ignored, since I have better things to do than debate with someone who does not agknowledge me.

Speaking of drivel...
I have yet to see Sydenia present a source that isn't second hand or very open to the possibility of being highly skewed.

So why don't we apply that same line of thought and insist that you provide something a bit more substantial than your own bias?

And you wish to deny all of these rights to Homosexuals? Second-Class Citizens. Your own proof. Concession Accepted.

Those are privileges, not rights. They are accorded to encourage a healthy enviroment for a child. They are no more given to single parents than they are homosexuals. I guess single parents are second class citizens.

Most of these do not affect having children at all, and these are not given just for having the ideal environment for raising children (which is debatable at best), they are just ways for your other to defend you if you are disabled/injured/whatever.

They are not intended to make raising children easier. They are intended to encourage people towards behaviour that makes a healthier life for a child.

My patience is growing very thin. -__- You people are blinded by your compassion (admirable, but foolish), and I'm getting tired of having to spoon feed you the answers you'd get if you thought.

Source.
www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/misery_and_the_gay.htm

www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/misery_and_the_gay.htm

Did we not just talk of bias and right-wing Christian agendas? Let's try this:

Credible Source.

Actually, speaking of interesting but non-statistical statistics, a disporoportionate lot of famous killers have the middle name "Wayne."

I learned that from News of the Wierd.

Believe me.

www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/church_issues/misery_and_the_gay.htm

A ministry?

Not that anyone here who is pissed that Missouri passed their ban on gay marriage (I am from Missouri and voted in favor of the ban), but in my world view (which is definitely defined by my relgious views and faith and morals) since gay people cannot procreate, and God created Adam and Eve to create the human race (a man and a woman), I think it makes absolute sense to ban gay marriages. There is room for debate on the civil union stuff, where a couple or any group of people living together should be able to get all the same legal rights a married couple would have. Such as right to medical care for all in same household whether married or immediate family or not, right to visit housemate in hospital, jail; right to own property together; right to inheritance if named in will or other legal document. I don't have a problem with college roommates, or gay couple already living together, or siblings share a house together to have familial ties like a husband-wife-child family would have. But I don't think that the state should encourage all sorts of groups to move in together to get such legal rights.

When I married my husband, I took his last name. I had to take all sorts of documents to get my name changed. And we are legally to the state seen as a single entity. Our money is in joint accounts, our names are on our vehicles titles, our names our on our house. We choose to keep our own insurance because it is cheaper, but if we ever adopt a child, I would get put on my husband's insurance for family coverage since it is cheaper.

The same could be done for a group that is living together. All the same legal stuff that document things as if these people are connected someway...as I said before (ie roomates, siblings, couple).

Marriage however does have a religious point to it. It always has since beginning of time, the Old Testament explains this very well. Men might have had concubines, slaves, and multiple wives at times, but somewhere along the way, God strikes out at these things. And as a Christian you will read many passages about man leaving his parents and clinging to his wife and the two becoming as one. It does not ever say man clings to his husband or woman clings to her wife. I think that St Paul wrote a lot about marriage and love.

Those are privileges, not rights. They are accorded to encourage a healthy enviroment for a child. They are no more given to single parents than they are homosexuals. I guess single parents are second class citizens.



They are not intended to make raising children easier. They are intended to encourage people towards behaviour that makes a healthier life for a child.

My patience is growing very thin. -__- You people are blinded by your compassion (admirable, but foolish), and I'm getting tired of having to spoon feed you the answers you'd get if you thought.

If these are the answers you have to feed me, I would rather you change the menu. You want to talk about thinning patience and blindness? How about being blinded by narrow-minds?

I haven't yet seen you "feed" any of us something substantial. You're blinded by your unequivocal misunderstanding and LACK of compassion.

Those are privileges, not rights. They are accorded to encourage a healthy enviroment for a child. They are no more given to single parents than they are homosexuals. I guess single parents are second class citizens.



They are not intended to make raising children easier. They are intended to encourage people towards behaviour that makes a healthier life for a child.

My patience is growing very thin. -__- You people are blinded by your compassion (admirable, but foolish), and I'm getting tired of having to spoon feed you the answers you'd get if you thought.

And are single parents denied the right to marry?

The fact that they are De Facto denied to Gays is a violation of rights.

Your credibility is growing very thin. -__- You are blinded by your right wing (Christian and foolish) vendetta against Gays and I'm tired of having a spoon full of propaganda inserted into my mouth.

Missouri Rocks

And you have blithely dodged all of my points- address them or concede.

All 1 of your studies linked to are so biased I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time, provide an actual study.

a) Your points were non-existent. You linked to opinions without facts to back them.

b) On what basis is the study biased? Because someone you don't like quoted it? You don't understand bias, do you?

c) "What I see is a lot of dodging." Yes, me too. Posting loads of opinions without anything to back up what is claimed.

You're ignored. I gave you more of my time than I should have, I read your opinions and tried to respond as comprehensively and sensibly as I could, and you simply are out to prove yourself right, not find out what is right.

This debate was obviously a mistake, so before my blood pressure gets any higher, I'm bowing out. Nothing will ever be accomplished here, as much as I hate to say it. Have a nice evening, all.

[QUOTE=Doomduckistan]And you have blithely dodged all of my points- address them or concede.

All 1 of your studies linked to are so biased I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time, provide an actual study.QUOTE]

a) Your points were non-existent. You linked to opinions without facts to back them.

b) On what basis is the study biased? Because someone you don't like quoted it? You don't understand bias, do you?

c) "What I see is a lot of dodging." Yes, me too. Posting loads of opinions without anything to back up what is claimed.

You're ignored. I gave you more of my time than I should have, I read your opinions and tried to respond as comprehensively and sensibly as I could, and you simply are out to prove yourself right, not find out what is right.

This debate was obviously a mistake, so before my blood pressure gets any higher, I'm bowing out. Nothing will ever be accomplished here, as much as I hate to say it. Have a nice evening, all.

a) I'm sure all of my responses to your posts were in English, but excuse me if you didn't get around to noticing every single one of them against every single one of your posts.

b) The same basis that they started with a conclusion from their religion and worked backwards.

c) Yes, you realized you were, didn't you?

You're ignored also. Have a nice evening.

Those are privileges, not rights. They are accorded to encourage a healthy enviroment for a child. They are no more given to single parents than they are homosexuals. I guess single parents are second class citizens.



They are not intended to make raising children easier. They are intended to encourage people towards behaviour that makes a healthier life for a child.

My patience is growing very thin. -__- You people are blinded by your compassion (admirable, but foolish), and I'm getting tired of having to spoon feed you the answers you'd get if you thought.
They do nothing of the sort, or you would be required to produce children in a marriage.

My patience is growing very thin. -__- You people are blinded by your religion (admirable, but foolish), and I'm getting tired of having to spoon feed you the answers you'd get if you thought.

Not that anyone here who is pissed that Missouri passed their ban on gay marriage (I am from Missouri and voted in favor of the ban), but in my world view (which is definitely defined by my relgious views and faith and morals) since gay people cannot procreate, and God created Adam and Eve to create the human race (a man and a woman), I think it makes absolute sense to ban gay marriages. There is room for debate on the civil union stuff, where a couple or any group of people living together should be able to get all the same legal rights a married couple would have. Such as right to medical care for all in same household whether married or immediate family or not, right to visit housemate in hospital, jail; right to own property together; right to inheritance if named in will or other legal document. I don't have a problem with college roommates, or gay couple already living together, or siblings share a house together to have familial ties like a husband-wife-child family would have. But I don't think that the state should encourage all sorts of groups to move in together to get such legal rights.

When I married my husband, I took his last name. I had to take all sorts of documents to get my name changed. And we are legally to the state seen as a single entity. Our money is in joint accounts, our names are on our vehicles titles, our names our on our house. We choose to keep our own insurance because it is cheaper, but if we ever adopt a child, I would get put on my husband's insurance for family coverage since it is cheaper.

The same could be done for a group that is living together. All the same legal stuff that document things as if these people are connected someway...as I said before (ie roomates, siblings, couple).

Marriage however does have a religious point to it. It always has since beginning of time, the Old Testament explains this very well. Men might have had concubines, slaves, and multiple wives at times, but somewhere along the way, God strikes out at these things. And as a Christian you will read many passages about man leaving his parents and clinging to his wife and the two becoming as one. It does not ever say man clings to his husband or woman clings to her wife. I think that St Paul wrote a lot about marriage and love.

Paul was one to talk....as someone who pretty much hated women.
You are basing your decisions on religion, which is OK...for you. But it is totally unfair to expect other people to see your views when you base them on a religion that, in the scheme of things, is very very young. I happen to be a follower of a much older religion. It doesn't make it better or worse....but it makes it different. Marriage may have a religious point...but only if the two involved wish it to be so. I hate to break the news...but Judeo-Christian faith guidelines aren't the only ones in use around here. So why should I be held to them? It is admirable to have faith and to let your faith guide you. But not to expect others to conform to it.

So we get back to the fact that the only reason to ban gay marriages are religious, not civil.

QED.

I think one of the deepest purposes of debate has been lost on people like Sydenia. The grounding of debate is the sharing of ideas. And, hopefully, the assimilation of valid points into your own collection of views. You argue to be able to see more than just what you already hold to be true and right. You argue to grow and expand.

Obviously some people argue just to hear their keys clack.

Again, "many studies". Link to these studies. They're apparently plentiful enough.

Done

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Gay-Lesbian-Family-Study.htm

http://health.yahoo.com/health/centers/sexual_health/1321

From, www.religioustolerance.org with links or cites to specific studies, abstracts or reviews where available:

1997-APR: Three 3 recent studies from the US, Britain and the Netherlands were presented at the national meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development during 1997-APR .

Charlotte Patterson, a research psychologist at the University of Virginia and author of one of the new studies, said "When you look at kids with standard psychological assessments, you can't tell who has a lesbian parent and who has a heterosexual parent...That's really the main finding from these studies." She agreed that the studies to date are relatively few and open to criticism.

There may be indications that children benefit from having two lesbian parents. Fiona Tasker of Birkbeck College in the Netherlands, "...found that the non-biological lesbian parent was usually more involved with the children than are the fathers of heterosexual couples." There is also anecdotal evidence that children of gay or lesbian parents tend to be less prejudiced.

1999-APR: Researcher Fiona Tasker at Birkbeck College, UK, published an article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. A summary reads: "There are an increasing number of children who are being brought up in lesbian-led families. Research on non-clinical samples of children raised in lesbian-led families formed after parental divorce, together with studies of children raised in families planned by a single lesbian mother or lesbian couple, suggest that growing up in a lesbian-led family does not have negative effects on key developmental outcomes. In many ways family life for children growing up in lesbian-led families is similar to that experienced by children in heterosexual families. In other respects there are important distinctions, such as different types of family forms and the impact of social stigma on the family, that may influence how clinicians approach therapeutic work with children in lesbian mother families."

CITE:Fiona Tasker, "Children in Lesbian-led Families : A Review," Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol 4, Issue 2, 1999-APR-1.

2001-APR: Researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California studied sexual orientation and parenting. They reported their findings in the American Sociological Review, a peer-reviewed journal. They:
1)Discussed "...limitations in the definitions, samples and analyses of the studies to date."

2)Examined 21 studies which "almost uniformly reports findings of no notable differences between children reared by heterosexual parents and those reared by lesbian and gay parents..."

3)Suggested a "less defensive, more sociologically informed analytic framework" for future studies in this area.

http://www.e-noah.net/ASA/MO/articles/stacey.pdf

by Mighty Eggplant

Quote:
Originally Posted by United Seekers
In my Church, there never would be same sex marriages performed. So what Churches do you know of that perform these types of marriages?



We could start with the American Catholic Church...a parish of which is located in my hometown and I personally know the Bishop....who is homosexual and would gladly perform such a ceremony.



Any Catholic priest or bishop that is performing gay marriages is not following Church Dogma, Church teachings and not in accord with the Holy See. Any marriage he performed would be invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

The trouble the Church has is these renegade priests and bishops who do whatever they want. They are supposed to follow the Pope, and I can tell you he would have them defrocked or something if he knew they were doing this. The other problem is that they teach inerrent things to the laity and they don't know any better. Such a shame. It's men who do what they want as they see fit. They shouldn't be Catholic priests. They should switch religious affiliations to another Christian denomination or whatever.

No wonder people don't trust the Church like they used to. They don't know the truth, and some of the leaders don't either.

And it was the Church that brought us hospitals. Can you believe that?
They actually cared about people 1000 years ago to create hospitals to make people well. And now we take them for granted.

The United States was created to give supressed people the rights that they deserve. I'm a very happily involved straight marine, but I think that if these AMERICAN CITIZENS want the right to be married to make their quality of life, then let them. I work day in and day out to defend the rights of all Americans, and this is something that doesn't need to be so complicated. Who are they hurting anyway?

There isn't one. Not a single one was offered during debate and campaigning for this amendmend. I live in Missouri. I've heard the rhetoric from both sides. There has been no attempt to provide any rational differentiation from the religious conceptualization of marriage as one man and one woman. In fact, it has been used as a selling point.

Actually, I can think of a few reasons that are not religous based.

One has to do with equal protection. If gays are allowed to marry, then what would be the reasoning behind banning polyamorous marriages?

Other has to do with the protection of family values. Psychiatrists have stated that the presense of both a male role model and a female role model is best for the development of children. The arguements about a loving homosexual couple makes a better home than an abusive heterosexual couple is of course true. But then, so to a loving heterosexual couple makes a better home than an abusive homosexual one. What the studies have stated was that a loving heterosexual couple is better for the children than the loving homosexual one.

Not that anyone here who is pissed that Missouri passed their ban on gay marriage (I am from Missouri and voted in favor of the ban), but in my world view (which is definitely defined by my relgious views and faith and morals) since gay people cannot procreate, and God created Adam and Eve to create the human race (a man and a woman), I think it makes absolute sense to ban gay marriages.

That is all fine, except for one thing -it is your personal religion which every single person in Missouri does not follow. What makes you think you have the right to force it upon them?

There is room for debate on the civil union stuff, where a couple or any group of people living together should be able to get all the same legal rights a married couple would have.

I hate to break it to you, but legal marriage is, quite simply, "all the same legal rights a married couple would have. That's what you just voted to ban. Congratulations on banning something you say you think is ok.

When I married my husband, I took his last name. I had to take all sorts of documents to get my name changed. And we are legally to the state seen as a single entity. Our money is in joint accounts, our names are on our vehicles titles, our names our on our house. We choose to keep our own insurance because it is cheaper, but if we ever adopt a child, I would get put on my husband's insurance for family coverage since it is cheaper.

Yes, and again, these are the things you have just denied homosexuals. A homosexual cannot marry his/her partner and be seen as a single legal entity. It is more difficult for them to have joint accounts, they cannot share insurance like you can, they cannot adopt a child (at all in some states) together.
If one of the members of the couple has a child, and the two are raising it together, the second parent has no recourse to take legal responsibility for the child - the second parent cannot provide health insurance or make any sorts of decisions for that child even though he/she has been a part of raising it since birth.
The members of a homosexual couple can buy a house together, but they cannot own it together - each owns half. If one dies, the other does not automatically get the other half of the house - it goes to the next of kin. Even if there is a will, the surviving member of the couple has to pay inheritance tax (which married couples do not), usually having to sell the house in order to do so.

Marriage however does have a religious point to it.

Wrong. Legal marriage does not have a "religious point to it." If it did, the government would be establishing whatever religion it got the marriage ceremony from and that would be unconstitutional. Two atheists (if they are a man and a woman) can go to the justice of the peace and get a marriage liscense. Your marriage has a religious point to it, and that is fine, but the legal institution of marriage (which includes all those things we just discussed) does not.

You seem like a decently well-spoken person and I will assume that you are fairly well-educated. This means you know that there is a thing called separation of church and state. This means that if your only reason for opposing gay marriage is religious, your view has absolutely no business being encoded in law.

Any Catholic priest or bishop that is performing gay marriages is not following Church Dogma, Church teachings and not in accord with the Holy See. Any marriage he performed would be invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

And that is a matter for the church to decide amongst itself, not for the government to legislate one way or the other. The religious institution of marriage should be separate and not controlled by the governmental regulation of social contracts. Period.


The trouble the Church has is these renegade priests and bishops who do whatever they want. They are supposed to follow the Pope, and I can tell you he would have them defrocked or something if he knew they were doing this. The other problem is that they teach inerrent things to the laity and they don't know any better. Such a shame. It's men who do what they want as they see fit. They shouldn't be Catholic priests. They should switch religious affiliations to another Christian denomination or whatever.

Again, that's the whole point. This is an internal church conflict and, as such, it should be handled by that church. The government stepping in one way or another obliterates the line between separation of church and states and violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.


No wonder people don't trust the Church like they used to. They don't know the truth, and some of the leaders don't either.

And it was the Church that brought us hospitals. Can you believe that?
They actually cared about people 1000 years ago to create hospitals to make people well. And now we take them for granted.

I am a very religious person myself (although I am not Catholic). Posters on this board can attest to the fierceness which I debate religious issues and rights and the sanctity of the church. That is the precise reason why this amendment is fundamentally offensive to me as a religious person and as a citizen of the United States. In one fell swoop, one of the most basic freedoms that has been a hallmark of our country since it's inception has been abridged by the government involving itself in religious matters. While the Catholic church may very well have doctrine against gay marriage, other religions don't and specific congregations within the Catholic church have made the decision to honor same-sex marriage. Any repercussion from that decision should come from the church and that specific faith community, not as a fiat from either state or federal government.

One has to do with equal protection. If gays are allowed to marry, then what would be the reasoning behind banning polyamorous marriages?

Perhaps the fact that the current marriage laws wouldn't work in a polygamous relationship. We have to remember that the reasons the state even recognizes marriage at all involve its own convenience. Polygamy would be very inconvenient. There would have to be an entirely new law code enacted to allow government-recognized unions of this sort.

Actually, I can think of a few reasons that are not religous based.

One has to do with equal protection. If gays are allowed to marry, then what would be the reasoning behind banning polyamorous marriages?

The government must come up with a rational reason not based on religious doctrine. If you can provide such a reason, please do so. If you can't, then your point is moot.


Other has to do with the protection of family values. Psychiatrists have stated that the presense of both a male role model and a female role model is best for the development of children. The arguements about a loving homosexual couple makes a better home than an abusive heterosexual couple is of course true. But then, so to a loving heterosexual couple makes a better home than an abusive homosexual one. What the studies have stated was that a loving heterosexual couple is better for the children than the loving homosexual one.

See my postings a couple of pages back concerning the fact that the major Pediatrics associations along with the major sociological, psychological and psychiatric associations do not agree with this at all. Additionally, I just posted a sampling of studies and cites that support the conclusion that there is no qualitative difference between the parental capacities of a same-sex couple versus the parental capacities of a mixed-sex couple.

The government must come up with a rational reason not based on religious doctrine. If you can provide such a reason, please do so. If you can't, then your point is moot.



See my postings a couple of pages back concerning the fact that the major Pediatrics associations along with the major sociological, psychological and psychiatric associations do not agree with this at all. Additionally, I just posted a sampling of studies and cites that support the conclusion that there is no qualitative difference between the parental capacities of a same-sex couple versus the parental capacities of a mixed-sex couple.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3
Deals with the bias and inaccuracy of the studies showing "no difference between" paranting orientations

http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html
More of the inaccuracy of the studies for gay paranting and offers statistics against gay paranting

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3
Deals with the bias and inaccuracy of the studies showing "no difference between" paranting orientations

http://www.family.org.au/journal/2001/j20010728.html
More of the inaccuracy of the studies for gay paranting and offers statistics against gay paranting

Both hideously biased. Family Research Council and the Australian Family Association are right-wing lobby groups.

Produce independently peer-reviewed criticism.

The government must come up with a rational reason not based on religious doctrine. If you can provide such a reason, please do so. If you can't, then your point is moot.

As much as people dont want to believe this... marriage is a privilige, not a right. As such the State has the right to put what restrictions on it as it sees fit. The states, by refusing the privilige to gay couples to civilly marry, they are preventing opening up the can of worms about a man wanting to marry multiple wives, or a woman marrying multiple husbands.

States have the Constitutional Right to decide who may marry in that state. However, the Constitution also states that if ONE state chooses to marry a couple, then that union must be considered legal and valid in all states. Thus laws designed NOT to recognize any homosexual marriage are unconstitutional.

Article IV


Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

I'm just personally disgusted by how these people still call themselves Americans while they ban gay marriage. They scream that we are a free nation and the best place on earth. We accept others, we can do no evil. The whole nine yards. Then they go turn around and ban gay marriage. Isn't marriage a freedom? Isn't the ban based on religious grounds? Doesn't America have seperation of church and state? I'm sorry, but if you look to limit the freedom of others, than to me, you are not an American.

States have the Constitutional Right to decide who may marry in that state. However, the Constitution also states that if ONE state chooses to marry a couple, then that union must be considered legal and valid in all states. Thus laws designed NOT to recognize any homosexual marriage are unconstitutional.

Article IV


Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Someone should point this out to Virginia.

Both hideously biased. Family Research Council and the Australian Family Association are right-wing lobby groups.

Produce independently peer-reviewed criticism.

::sigh:: the APA is itself hideously biased. What's your point.

As much as people dont want to believe this... marriage is a privilige, not a right. As such the State has the right to put what restrictions on it as it sees fit. The states, by refusing the privilige to gay couples to civilly marry, they are preventing opening up the can of worms about a man wanting to marry multiple wives, or a woman marrying multiple husbands.

But what those states do not have the right to do is base their criteria on religious doctrine, which is exactly what they are doing.

Two points:

Missouri had already outlawed gay marriage, this just put the ban in their constitution.
The President has no power to amend the Constitution. At this time only 48 Senators (possibly fewer, as there has yet to be an up-or-down vote on said amendment) support such amendment, and 67 Senators are needed to approve an amendment.


It also requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. This will never become an amendment, and I don't think the federal government has any business being involved in this issue. Marriage is a state-level issue, and is rightly decided in the manner of Missouri today, in accordance with the 9th and 10th Amendments. We can only wait and see if the federal government will use the time-honored interstate commerce angle to force states to recognize gay marriages from other states. I hope not.

The fact that most of the measures banning gay marriage passed by HUGE (65% - 75%) margins does not bode well for its proponents.

But what those states do not have the right to do is base their criteria on religious doctrine, which is exactly what they are doing.

No, you're absolutely wrong. Wherever the criteria originate from, they are passed through a democratic process. The bans passed by HUGE margins in most of the states where they exist.

::sigh:: the APA is itself hideously biased. What's your point.

That it's decidedly less biased than the FRC or the AFA who are clearly pushing an agenda. If the studies are so flawed, then there must be easily findable, independent, peer-reviewed critiques of them. Additionally, most of the studies admit to their own flaws.

The point, however, is that it if one is going to make an assertion that studies have shown that heterosexual couples are "better", at least in potential, at raising children, then they have to allow the validity of the other studies saying that this is not so. Either you admit both and concede that there is no definitive proof one way or the other, and are thus back to square one in finding a rational justification for a government-sponsered "marriage value heirarchy", or you admit neither and are back there anyway.

States have the Constitutional Right to decide who may marry in that state. However, the Constitution also states that if ONE state chooses to marry a couple, then that union must be considered legal and valid in all states. Thus laws designed NOT to recognize any homosexual marriage are unconstitutional.

Article IV


Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Right.. this is an example of how the poster child of the priviliged LEFT lies to the Country and to the US Senate.

Senator Kennedy D-Mass in a speach on the floor of the US Senate against the gay marriage ban: There is NOTHING (he shouted this word) that states the marriages enacted in one state will have to be recognized in any other state.

No, you're absolutely wrong. Wherever the criteria originate from, they are passed through a democratic process. The bans passed by HUGE margins in most of the states where they exist.

No, I'm not, because this majority is based on a religious concept of marriage which the state and federal government have no business endorsing in the first place.

No, I'm not, because this majority is based on a religious concept of marriage which the state and federal government have no business endorsing in the first place.

Please site reference stating that the legislators, or the referendoms voted on by the people used religious concepts when writing said legislation or referendoms. You are stating over and over your opinion on what it's based. Until then your point is moot.

As much as people dont want to believe this... marriage is a privilige, not a right. As such the State has the right to put what restrictions on it as it sees fit. The states, by refusing the privilige to gay couples to civilly marry, they are preventing opening up the can of worms about a man wanting to marry multiple wives, or a woman marrying multiple husbands.

(a) The state can regulate a priviledge, yes, but it must do so blind to the idea of race, creed, color, or sex. Anything else violates due process.

Now, the courts have held that sexual orientation falls under the "sex" category. Granted, the "sex" category is the weakest one, needing only rational basis (this meaning the state basically says "I want to") for discrimination. However, if we allow the government to use rational basis to deny gays the *priviledge* of marriage, we are allowing them to have any sort of sex discrimination in marriage. Thus, they could state that any marriage proposed initially by the woman would not be granted. They could propose that a man get all of the rights and benefits of marriage but women don't. After all, they have a rational basis to do so.

There are also certain issues for which the sex category has been moved to the "strict scrutiny" level of judicial review. This is a more stringent level. Things like the right to vote have fallen under this (hence why the government can't say women can't vote "just because"). Considering the huge number of rights afforded by marriage, I would say that marriage falls under strict scrutiny. Thus, the government would have to provide a damn good reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry. They have not.

(b) Please stop equating gay marriage with polygamy. They are not related in the least.

It also requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures. This will never become an amendment, and I don't think the federal government has any business being involved in this issue. Marriage is a state-level issue, and is rightly decided in the manner of Missouri today, in accordance with the 9th and 10th Amendments. We can only wait and see if the federal government will use the time-honored interstate commerce angle to force states to recognize gay marriages from other states. I hope not.

And ignoring the 14th. Good job.

And not recognizing *any* marriage from another state ignores the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. Are you advocating that Missouri leave the union?

No, I'm not, because this majority is based on a religious concept of marriage which the state and federal government have no business endorsing in the first place.

Your position essentially denies the people of the state of Missouri their democratic process and their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. The 1st Amendment is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion; get used to it. Show a little tolerance.

Before you flame me as a "right-wing religious homophobe", I am none of those. If a ban on gay marriage were to be put up for a vote in my state, I would vote against it. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the constitutionality of these bans.

And ignoring the 14th. Good job.

And not recognizing *any* marriage from another state ignores the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. Are you advocating that Missouri leave the union?

Stop being ridiculous. If you would take your blinders off and read my posts carefully, you would see that I am against banning gay marriage. There are contradicting constitutional issues here, it will be ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

(b) Please stop equating gay marriage with polygamy. They are not related in the least.

How are they not related? If you argue against denying the right to marry to gays, how then can you argue for denying the right to marry as many as you want?

Please site reference stating that the legislators, or the referendoms voted on by the people used religious concepts when writing said legislation or referendoms. You are stating over and over your opinion on what it's based. Until then your point is moot.

Show me where it wasn't? Right now, the only rationale that has been offered to define marriage as one man and one woman is religious in origin. Proponents of this amendment specifically targetted religious organizations in order to increase turnout. The Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri (http://www.cpmm.net/index.html) used churches to garner support, "wedding" their view to religious ideals.

Your position essentially denies the people of the state of Missouri their democratic process and their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. The 1st Amendment is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion; get used to it. Show a little tolerance.

Your right to religious freedom stops where it harms another person. A discriminatory law cannot be based completely on a specific religion, because you are then allowing that religion to harm other American citizens.

Suppose that a religion called Theifsters advocated taking all assets away from non-believers. And suppose they had enough of a majority to pass a law that said they could do so. When the law was ruled as unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment, would you scream that Theifsters were being denied their democratic process and their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion?

Your position essentially denies the people of the state of Missouri their democratic process and their 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion. The 1st Amendment is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion; get used to it. Show a little tolerance.

It most certainly does not. It protects it. By ruling either way on this issue, the government imposes the will of a religious doctrine on all religions in Missouri, several of which support same-sex couplings under their religious doctrine. The Amendement, in effect, robs them of that right while enforcing a single religious practice on the entire religious whole of the state. I firmly maintain that marriage is a religious institution and that is why individual religions must be allowed to make their own decisions on this issue within the boundaries of their own faiths and doctrines and at risk only of criticism and censure from their religious leaders. The government has no part in this either way.

The difference between polygamy and gay marriage for purposes of this debate is, frankly, that to exclude gays from ordinary marriage requires a specific unfairness to exclude a specific group of people from rights others have, under a large number of existing laws, based solely on the fact that some members of some religious sects don't happen to approve of the people involved, based solely on the sex and orientation of the individuals involved.

Instituting polyamorous marriage would require a whole new and special set of laws.

Frankly, I'm not against that, myself. Who said there was anything wrong with it in the *first place,* as long as all parties involved have fair and equal rights within such a marriage?

Heck, even the *Bible* everyone's waving endorses polygamy.

United States law, however, does not cover it.

It's a separate issue. Legally. And that's all there is to it.

The only thing it has in common with *gay* marriage is that people are currently expressing distaste for both.

I don't like broccoli, and I don't like tripe. That doesn't mean they're related.

Missouri fucking sucks.

I know. Those fascists. We need to do something. I have a friend who is gay.

How are they not related? If you argue against denying the right to marry to gays, how then can you argue for denying the right to marry as many as you want?

Well, for one, the rights given to married couples can really only work between, well, couples. For instance, when married, the government sees the couple as a single legal entity, all things belonging to one entity, all things coming from one entity, legal rights being afforded to one entity. They do this out of a need for a convenient way to keep track of people who are so entwined, that you cannot legally tell them apart. Polygamy would not fall under the convenience umbrella. There would be no way for the government to regulate, say, a 100 person entity.

Another would be the next-of-kin problem. If someone has 20 wives, which one gets to determine medical procedures? What if they all disgree? Who gets all the stuff? What if they argue over it? Does the order of marriage make a difference? I mean, if 19 of them were married when the house was bought, does that mean that the 20th doesn't get a share?

Child custody becomes a problem. All 21 parents cannot have equal custody of the child, that splits the responsibility too much.

The extension of 5th amendment rights to basically everyone a person knows becomes a *big* problem. A drug-dealing pimp could "marry" all of his prostitutes. Now there is no one who has to testify against him - they can all just plead the 5th.

The IRS could not really keep track of a 30 person household all filing under the same tax returns.

Immigration laws would be moot, as someone would just have to get married to enter, and there would be no real way to keep track of a man and his 50 wives.

The government can come up with all sorts of reasons to deny polygamy. None of these even mention the fact that the government cannot discriminate based on race, creed, color, or sex. There's nothing in there about number.

Well, for one, the rights given to married couples can really only work between, well, couples. For instance, when married, the government sees the couple as a single legal entity, all things belonging to one entity, all things coming from one entity, legal rights being afforded to one entity. They do this out of a need for a convenient way to keep track of people who are so entwined, that you cannot legally tell them apart. Polygamy would not fall under the convenience umbrella. There would be no way for the government to regulate, say, a 100 person entity.

Another would be the next-of-kin problem. If someone has 20 wives, which one gets to determine medical procedures? What if they all disgree? Who gets all the stuff? What if they argue over it? Does the order of marriage make a difference? I mean, if 19 of them were married when the house was bought, does that mean that the 20th doesn't get a share?

Child custody becomes a problem. All 21 parents cannot have equal custody of the child, that splits the responsibility too much.

The extension of 5th amendment rights to basically everyone a person knows becomes a *big* problem. A drug-dealing pimp could "marry" all of his prostitutes. Now there is no one who has to testify against him - they can all just plead the 5th.

The IRS could not really keep track of a 30 person household all filing under the same tax returns.

Immigration laws would be moot, as someone would just have to get married to enter, and there would be no real way to keep track of a man and his 50 wives.

The government can come up with all sorts of reasons to deny polygamy. None of these even mention the fact that the government cannot discriminate based on race, creed, color, or sex. There's nothing in there about number.

What you posted here (while probably a fairly accurate representation of the current situation) simply points out difficulties involved in polygamous relationships.. not how it's a hypocracy to advocate the giving of rights to one group, while denying another group (based soley on the difficulties involved.)

What you posted here (while probably a fairly accurate representation of the current situation) simply points out difficulties involved in polygamous relationships.. not how it's a hypocracy to advocate the giving of rights to one group, while denying another group (based soley on the difficulties involved.)

No, not really. As Kinsella Islands pointed out, granting polygamous relationships would be granting entirely new rights, which would have to be entailed by an entirely new code of laws.

An example would be in the case of driver's licenses. The government grants you with the right to drive by giving you one, and they cannot deny this based on race, creed, color, or sex. However, they don't have to give you two driver's licenses.

And again, as I pointed out, the 14th amendment demands equality in the areas of race, creed, color, and sex - not in the "number of people I want to marry" area. Thus, in this case, "the difficulties involved" would be a constitutional reason for the government to deny someone the right to be married to lots of people.

Another thing to point out (whether you believe it or not) is that being a polygamist is a choice, being homosexual is not.

Ah. Yeah. It's a good idea to for the first time in our nation's history amend the Constitution to *deny* civil rights to a specific group of citizens...

Actually,this would be the second time the Constitution has been amended to restrict rights....

...and it worked so well with Prohibition...
:rolleyes: :headbang:

Yeah, but Prohibition restricted rights for *everyone,* ill-advised as that amendment was.

good for missouri...now even more of the well-educated and affluent will migrate out of that state. remind me why we don't let the South "rise again"...?

Take heart, Bottle--a judge in Washington state upheld the same-sex marriages conducted earlier this year. It's going to their Supreme Court for a final decision.

Take heart, Bottle--a judge in Washington state upheld the same-sex marriages conducted earlier this year. It's going to their Supreme Court for a final decision.

I just read that too! Depending on what comes out at the supreme court, that could be the second state with enough intelligence to move them closer to equality. And it's my birth-state!

Of course, the state I live in now is so bass ackwards, we'll probably be the last state to allow it, despite large gay populations in all the major cities =(

Say what you like about Missouri, but at least we were smart enough to realize even a dead man is better than Ashcroft.

/cry for the people of MO

in other news

A court in Seattle has found in favor of gay marriage and the case is on the way to the state supreme court.
Hopefully gay marriage will be legalized in Wash St.


But with it being legal in certain states and not in others, i think it will make things more confusing for lawyers, companies, and the sort.

/cry for the people of MO

in other news

A court in Seattle has found in favor of gay marriage and the case is on the way to the state supreme court.
Hopefully gay marriage will be legalized in Wash St.


But with it being legal in certain states and not in others, i think it will make things more confusing for lawyers, companies, and the sort.Actually, it won't be more confusing in the long run. The simple fact is that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and it's ripe for being overturned--the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because there hasn't been a test case, and there hasn't been a test case because same-sex marriage hasn't been legal anywhere in the US until now. It's important to remember that DOMA was passed as a response to the potential for same-sex marriage in Hawaii.

So what will happen is that a couple will get married in Massachussetts or perhaps Washington state, will move to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, or more likely, apply for federal benefits of some sort, be denied, and file suit. DOMA will be overturned and same-sex marriage will be recognized as the law of the land as a result of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, and then the fight over amending the constitution will begin in earnest.

Now you're disputing a scientist? well aren't you just the poster child for everyone but heterosexuals.And aren't you the posterchild for the idiots. Just because they're a scientist doesn't mean their word is law. You can skew any data any way you want it to. I take classes in college to even learn how to do this. Unless the study is done by someone with no prior expectations or desires to get out of the study, in a controlled environment, things will never give accurate representations. And when you're dealing with people and psyches and other unstable things, you can't always get hard, scientific evidence. It's not that easy.

You're comparing homosexuals with Blacks?
I'm sorry I don't remember the gays out in the
cotton fields ' Swing low, ssweet chariot..'I'm sorry, I don't remember the white heterosexuals being beaten to death for being who they were. In fact, through most of history, I seem to remember them doing much of the beating.

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.
Oh god, my poor brother. I guess he will just have to move some where that it is legal. I think the government needs to stop saying who should and shouldn't be together.

You pay a lawyer about $20 (may vary from place to place) and he can draft a legal document that grants full rights to your partner. You don't need marriage for that.Hahaha, no. Not in Virginia anymore. Now, those legal benefits can only be extended to family or spouse, which can not be anything other than someone of the opposite gender. This is all thanks to Virginia's recent anti-gay law.

Did you also know that 85% of cereal killers are homosexual?
Also, most child molestations are inflicted by none other than
your "understanding and embracing" gay men.Oh my god! I had no idea that most of the people that beat up on and murdered Trix and Fruit Loops were gay! So shocking!

Now that I'm done mocking your spelling, please give proof for your wonderful, base accusations. Just because a man molests a boy does not mean he is gay. Most of the child molesters are quite heterosexual. The claims you are repeating are just stereotypes and unfounded.

Hahaha, no. Not in Virginia anymore. Now, those legal benefits can only be extended to family or spouse, which can not be anything other than someone of the opposite gender. This is all thanks to Virginia's recent anti-gay law.
Plus some rather live as husband and husband or wife and wife. I am getting married not because I have to but because I choose to. My friends deserve the same opportunity.

This reminds me of the time Georgia tried to make vibrators illegal. People mail-ordered them anyway.

I digress, though.

I hope that if this passes, that the government starts nosing into EVERYBODY who supported this thing's damned sex life and makes them sorry that they ever thought it was ok to allow it to happen to anyone. I hope they fall victim to the monster they've created.

That is all.

This reminds me of the time Georgia tried to make vibrators illegal. People mail-ordered them anyway.

I digress, though.

I hope that if this passes, that the government starts nosing into EVERYBODY who supported this thing's damned sex life and makes them sorry that they ever thought it was ok to allow it to happen to anyone. I hope they fall victim to the monster they've created.

That is all.
No joke, I did a poll back in high school for a report and found that 90% of the students had at one time or another had or acted on a homosexual impulse. I was from Missouri and that was a small bible beating town. I wonder if maybe the test results would have been the same in a big school, maybe, maybe not. I will never know.

Missouri makes the 32nd state to FORBID marriage, only 18 more states to go and the sooner the better. I hope Bush gets reelected to changed the constitution to ban it.

dumbass. i bet you wield a rebel flag and think since our president spends most of his working year vacationing.. well, hunting, that he's just awesome. as far as supporting the changing of the constitution.. wow.. i doubt you're old enough to vote. and really, i hope people with ideals like yours, not justified but learned ideals, never vote.

a) Your points were non-existent. You linked to opinions without facts to back them.

b) On what basis is the study biased? Because someone you don't like quoted it? You don't understand bias, do you?

c) "What I see is a lot of dodging." Yes, me too. Posting loads of opinions without anything to back up what is claimed.

You're ignored. I gave you more of my time than I should have, I read your opinions and tried to respond as comprehensively and sensibly as I could, and you simply are out to prove yourself right, not find out what is right.

This debate was obviously a mistake, so before my blood pressure gets any higher, I'm bowing out. Nothing will ever be accomplished here, as much as I hate to say it. Have a nice evening, all.My god, seriously, you're ridiculous. You linked to one study that was quoted on a christian site! Berkly linked to at least 4, and you demanded to see them all, and refused to admit that you were lacking in evidence? Who is blind here? Seriously. So fine, ignore the people who disagree, argue with you, and actually attempt to use evidence to back themselves up. Either way, I'd say that opinions from national bodies that are supposedly without bias are much more reliable than quotes from a christian site about another study...

Right.. this is an example of how the poster child of the priviliged LEFT lies to the Country and to the US Senate.

Senator Kennedy D-Mass in a speach on the floor of the US Senate against the gay marriage ban: There is NOTHING (he shouted this word) that states the marriages enacted in one state will have to be recognized in any other state.There's a difference between ignorance and lies, that one should know. Also, this thread is really about gay marriage, not right-wing propaganda. Try to keep it toned down a bit. Thanks.

Ahem! That failed. This is a state issue and 71% of Missouri Voters voted for this amendment to the MO Constitution.

It seems weekly now that I wonder just why the Union fought to keep the South. Oh well, I guess we need some place known mostly for poverty, ignorance, and fanatical religiousity (in no particular order) to make the rest of the states look good. Between this and the ordeal with the Iraqi group in Memphis today, I've had it up to here with those backwater states.

Hmm, I wonder if a movement for Southern Secession can be made on their behalf....

If gay marriage would have passed, (even though many Missourians
don't have a problem with the lifestyle) EVERYTHING
would be up for grabs. If you can change sex, then what about age?
What about species? It would be a free for all, NO bill ever discloses
the entire empact. Let's not be naive about this people.



Yes! :Lets not be naive, what business it of YOURS, the STATES or the FEDS if you decide to change you sex, age or species??

Answer: It's none of your business.

Yes! :Lets not be naive, what business it of YOURS, the STATES or the FEDS if you decide to change you sex, age or species??

Answer: It's none of your business.
I am to the point that if people are zoophiles, so be it, it leaves more people out there that are free to love some one. I have my limits but there is nothing wrong with me being in love with a woman and wishing to spend the rest of my life with her and sharing my name with her.

dumbass. i bet you wield a rebel flag and think since our president spends most of his working year vacationing.. well, hunting, that he's just awesome. as far as supporting the changing of the constitution.. wow.. i doubt you're old enough to vote. and really, i hope people with ideals like yours, not justified but learned ideals, never vote.

It's that ignorant neo-conservative ideology so rampant today...anything to make America into what *I* think it ought to be! Nevermind that many of my policies and how I seek to go about implementing them contradict what I seem to be trying to uphold, I'm right because I know I'm right! And so is the guy who leads my party!

Incidentally, maybe this has already been covered (my connection sucks to much to read 16 pages), but this is the map of same-sex marriage legislation:

map (javascript:CNN_openPopup('/interactive/allpolitics/0307/same.sex.marriages/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollb ars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430'))

I don't see 32 or 38 states on there...I see, what, 4? I'm not too upset about MI, see my last post about why. This was no surprise, and quite frankly, homosexuals in such states have far more to worry about than if they can get married (such as a goal of dying of natural causes).

Luckily this won't be an issue in Australia for quite some time. State's cannot legislate on marriage so I can go back to apathy, sweet apathy.

Luckily this won't be an issue in Australia for quite some time. State's cannot legislate on marriage so I can go back to apathy, sweet apathy.

Has Oz got ss marriages or civil unions?

However, the MAJORITY of the people are against gay marriage. Would you rather have a judge to decide this issue and not the states?

A gay marriage would not affect someone who is not gay. So who cares whether they marry or not?
By banning it your just removing the benefits they would receive, whether tax breaks or whatever. They could still live together for their entire lives. If a coupe loves each other is that not what counts.
AND how can a country that claims to be founded on equality, justice and all that only apply it to certain demographics?

Honestly, the side for gay marrige has shown too many good points for me to try and interject myself here. I'm completely for gay marrige.

Here's to hoping that the Courts kick it down...

In my Church, there never would be same sex marriages performed. So what Churches do you know of that perform these types of marriages?

Anglicans would allow it.

That's part of America. Progress. How the system is *made.* That's *how we do it, here.* It's why we're still *free.*

I've always foound it interesting when people use the word "free". If you were all free there would be no need to have a law for or against gay marriage.

I think that this sort of thing is the main problem with the original Greek "Let the people decide...Directly" political system, minority groups are often disliked by the majority and if America had always used it blacks would still be slaves, homosexuals would be burnt at the stake and the whole country's legal system would be based around passages from the Bible.

Maybe it is too soon for the US to allow for gay marriage. Until only a while ago, being gay in most countries either meant death or "re-education".

And although I see the US as being quite progressive, in such matters the US tends to be quite reactionary

Trying to look for the thread on why capitalism works and communism does not.
Can anyone help?

Maybe it is too soon for the US to allow for gay marriage. Until only a while ago, being gay in most countries either meant death or "re-education".

And although I see the US as being quite progressive, in such matters the US tends to be quite reactionary

I think that this issue may stick around for a decade, maybe two? By then the US will probably have legalised it. A generation after that the issue will seem slightly odd to most, like the civil rights campains in the 60s do to me. Wishful thinking? "Maybe I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one..."