NationStates Jolt Archive

guess not.....

Yeesh, these debates get heated. It seems to come up a lot here... which is probably a good thing. The more its talked about, surely the more obvious it must become that not only would it be a simple matter to allow gay marriages, and that it would harm nobody. I guess I should just throw my 2 cents in and see what happens.

On the issue of the morality/immorality of two people of the same gender becoming married... well, morality is highly subjective. But which do you think is the more immoral? Allowing two people who share a mutual love for each other to be allowed the same freedoms as the two people standing beside them, who also love each other, have? Or, in a country that outwardly advocates liberty above all else, have the liberties of some its citizens restricted because of some people in that country disagree with their lifestyle?

I know which I would choose as the more immoral.

I've also seen the "homosexuality is a choice" thing come up in this, and other threads. Anybody who is heterosexual has no ground on which to base this, because they are not homosexual. Is heterosexuality a choice? I wouldn't know, I'm homosexual and was never given the opportunity to choose. I can however tell you, first hand, that being homosexual was not a 'choice'. Would I have chosen it? No, I probably would not have. Would I change it now? No, I would not. Why should I not be given the same rights as heterosexuals based on the grounds of the gender of the person I am in love with belongs to?

Also, "letting the majority decide" on an issue like this one is ludicrous. One of the purposes of Democracy is to protect the minority from the will of a tyrannical majority. To quote Agent Kay from "Men in Black":
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
If 38 states have banned same-sex marriage, all this proves is that the majority of people in 38 states of the United States of America believe that they have the right to determine which people are equal enough to have basic civil rights and which aren't. The fact that the majority of people in these states wanted to ban same-sex marriage, in my opinion, is reason enough to deny them the opportunity to do so.

One more thing, heh... "God hates fags!"... well, God also hates violent zealots, but we've seen no shortage of them through history, committing acts of violence in His name, no less. However, neither of these states are true if you actually listen to what Christians concerned about their own faith say. God is Love. God doesn't 'hate' anybody.

Thank you for reading!

Yeesh, these debates get heated. It seems to come up a lot here... which is probably a good thing. The more its talked about, surely the more obvious it must become that not only would it be a simple matter to allow gay marriages, and that it would harm nobody. I guess I should just throw my 2 cents in and see what happens.

On the issue of the morality/immorality of two people of the same gender becoming married... well, morality is highly subjective. But which do you think is the more immoral? Allowing two people who share a mutual love for each other to be allowed the same freedoms as the two people standing beside them, who also love each other, have? Or, in a country that outwardly advocates liberty above all else, have the liberties of some its citizens restricted because of some people in that country disagree with their lifestyle?

I know which I would choose as the more immoral.

I've also seen the "homosexuality is a choice" thing come up in this, and other threads. Anybody who is heterosexual has no ground on which to base this, because they are not homosexual. Is heterosexuality a choice? I wouldn't know, I'm homosexual and was never given the opportunity to choose. I can however tell you, first hand, that being homosexual was not a 'choice'. Would I have chosen it? No, I probably would not have. Would I change it now? No, I would not. Why should I not be given the same rights as heterosexuals based on the grounds of the gender of the person I am in love with belongs to?

Also, "letting the majority decide" on an issue like this one is ludicrous. One of the purposes of Democracy is to protect the minority from the will of a tyrannical majority. To quote Agent Kay from "Men in Black":
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
If 38 states have banned same-sex marriage, all this proves is that the majority of people in 38 states of the United States of America believe that they have the right to determine which people are equal enough to have basic civil rights and which aren't. The fact that the majority of people in these states wanted to ban same-sex marriage, in my opinion, is reason enough to deny them the opportunity to do so.

One more thing, heh... "God hates fags!"... well, God also hates violent zealots, but we've seen no shortage of them through history, committing acts of violence in His name, no less. However, neither of these states are true if you actually listen to what Christians concerned about their own faith say. God is Love. God doesn't 'hate' anybody.

Thank you for reading!


Great post. I like to see Christians like you(assuming you are), they really do help me differenciate between the extremists and moderates.
What do people here think of civil unions? I mean not the rubbish US type but the UK version i.e. all the rights but a different name. Does that sound good to anyone?

Ok I snipped a bit your post just so I could focus on this piece of bullshit in paticular. HOMOSEXUALS ///CAN/// HAVE CHILDREN! There is a process that has been in existance for a few years now where the egg of a women is geneticaly altered to that of a man. Then a sperm cell from another man can be inserted to fertilise this egg thus producing a baby which is geneticaly made up of two gay sets of genes. It is not natural but it is a circumstance thus making your point void.

I really wish you would stop saying this. Have people been experimenting with such ideas? Yes. Have they gotten a viable human out of it? No. As of right now, the only way to get a viable human child is one male sperm and one female egg. (Not that this matters to this discussion anyways).

God bless Missouri. At least 32 states have the guts to take a stand against perversion. If we allow gay marriages, how long will it be before they will want to marry their pets, legalize child porn, and call pedaphiles normal?

I really wish you would stop saying this. Have people been experimenting with such ideas? Yes. Have they gotten a viable human out of it? No. As of right now, the only way to get a viable human child is one male sperm and one female egg. (Not that this matters to this discussion anyways).

Actualy last I heard the process had been perfected and used once already. Not sure if that is true but I think I heard it somewhere.

God bless Missouri. At least 32 states have the guts to take a stand against perversion. If we allow gay marriages, how long will it be before they will want to marry their pets, legalize child porn, and call pedaphiles normal?

Quite a while? Gay marriage depends on consent while pets and children can not give consent. Your slippery slope fallacy is showing.

Did you know that if you lived in the civil war era it would be people like you standing up to CONSERVE slavery? Pretty funny huh, bigots just find new targets...

Oh and do you consider homosexuals perverts?

Missouri Sucks.

Yes, indeed, Misery does suck.

This is just sad. The amount of ignorance left in the world breaks my heart.

France's High Court Annulled a Gay Marriage.
Because it is against the law. Marriage - in this case civil marriage is clearly defined as to be between one man and one woman. That is stated in the law and there is no doubt about it.
Why don´t you write down your laws???? That is the problem with common law. A judge who belongs to a lunatic fringe group or has sympathy for it may suddenly change it.
You should write it down in federal law. I´m not an expert in American law. But wasn´t a marriage protection act passed under Clinton defining marriage as to be between one man and one woman?????
After all: this condition was also made to Utah to define marriage that way as a condition to enter the union. So it seems to me as a precedent that only one man and one woman can marry.

And that is right that way.

Because it is against the law. Marriage - in this case civil marriage is clearly defind as to be between one man and one woman. That is stated in the law and there is no doubt about.
Why don´t you write down your laws???? That is the problem with common law. A judge who belongs to a lunatic fringe group or has sympathy for it may suddenly change it.
You should write it down in federal law. I´m not an expert in American law. But wasn´t a marriage protection act not passed under Clinton defining marriage as to be between one man and woman?????
After all: this condition was also made to Utah to defind marriage that way as a condition to enter the union. So it seems to me as a precedent that only one man and one woman can marry.

And that is right that way.


Ok:

1)Awnser my question. As far as I can see you have not done that anywhere on this thread.
2)Would you ban people with funny accents from marrying so their children would not be teased at school.
3)Your slippery slope is PROVEN wrong by the fact Scandenavia has had legal same sex marriages for YEARS now and there have been NO plans to introduce bestial or polygamous marriage or legalise paedophilia. The same goes for Canada.
So you are wrong.
4) On other threads you stated that you did not like homosexuals (not even lesbians *cough cough* closet case! *cough cough*) and found them disgusting. Is this the real reason for your opposition to homosexual marriage?

Ok:

1)Awnser my question. As far as I can see you have not done that anywhere on this thread.
2)Would you ban people with funny accents from marrying so their children would not be teased at school.
3)Your slippery slope is PROVEN wrong by the fact Scandenavia has had legal same sex marriages for YEARS now and there have been NO plans to introduce bestial or polygamous marriage or legalise paedophilia. The same goes for Canada.
So you are wrong.
I´ve answered it before: if you can´t find it it is your problem. The slippery slope argument is right. Next thing on the list is polygamy and then the "decriminalisation of paedophilia.
That comes step by step. We shouldn´t endorse this development.

I´ve answered it before: if you can´t find it it is your problem. The slippery slope argument is right. Next thing on the list is polygamy and then the "decriminalisation of paedophilia.
That comes step by step. We shouldn´t endorse this development.

Er...No it does not. Scandenavia has seen neither of those things. In fact there are NO countries that allow homosexual marriage that allow polygamy. However some countries such as Saudi Arabia stone homosexuals to death but allow polygamy.

Go on admit it, the fact you dislike homosexuals (even lesbians mr.closet case) and find them disgusting is your real reason of opposition to gay marriage.

Oh and would you ban people with funny accents from marrying to save their children from teasing or not?
Obviously I would think not, then why judge homosexuals ability on how much teasing occurs?

Well fine if you are not willing to awnser then I will tear you apart: infertile couples can not contibute to helping the human race survive (as if it needs more people anyway) so really allowing them marriage is hypocricy if it is your main argument to denying homosexuals equal rights (which it is). You are against homosexual marriage because you are against homosexuals.

Er...No it does not. Scandenavia has seen neither of those things. In fact there are NO countries that allow homosexual marriage that allow polygamy. However some countries such as Saudi Arabia stone homosexuals to death but allow polygamy.
Go on admit it, the fact you dislike homosexuals (even lesbians mr.closet case) and find them disgusting is your real reason of opposition to gay marriage.
Oh and would you ban people with funny accents from marrying to save their children from teasing or not?
What hasn´t happend yet can still happend. There are very view countries who allow really gay marriage. There is a difference to civil union - which don´t have the same rights and exclude the right of adoption.
That is a to short period to tell that it is not going to happen. I´m convinced it will as a next step: the next step is decriminalizing paedophilia or the reduction of the protection age. And than it is polygamy.

Because it is against the law. Marriage - in this case civil marriage is clearly defined as to be between one man and one woman. That is stated in the law and there is no doubt about it.
Why don´t you write down your laws???? That is the problem with common law. A judge who belongs to a lunatic fringe group or has sympathy for it may suddenly change it.
You should write it down in federal law. I´m not an expert in American law. But wasn´t a marriage protection act passed under Clinton defining marriage as to be between one man and one woman?????
After all: this condition was also made to Utah to define marriage that way as a condition to enter the union. So it seems to me as a precedent that only one man and one woman can marry.

And that is right that way.

You are right! It is the law in Europe! Here though, it isn't as cut and dry. At least 38 States have banned it either through laws or Amendments to the state constitutions. DOMA takes out the protection of Full Faith and Credit on Gay marriage so states don't have to recognize gay marriages if Gay Marriage is illegal in their state. Hopefully The MPA will get approved by the Senate and we won't have to worry about the Federal Courts deciding this since most Senators, Dem and Rep, have stated that this is a state issue.

Now the states are deciding it and people aren't liking it. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

Well fine if you are not willing to awnser then I will tear you apart: infertile couples can not contibute to helping the human race survive (as if it needs more people anyway) so really allowing them marriage is hypocricy if it is your main argument to denying homosexuals equal rights (which it is). You are against homosexual marriage because you are against homosexuals.
They can, for example by adopting children and giving them a father and a mother.
Gays can´t. You can´t be homosexual and pretend to be heterosexual and form a family. That is reserved by nature to heterosexual couples.

What hasn´t happend yet can still happend. There are very view countries who allow really gay marriage. There is a difference to civil union - which don´t have the same rights and exclude the right of adoption.
That is a to short period to tell that it is not going to happen. I´m convinced it will as a next step: the next step is decriminalizing paedophilia or the reduction of the protection age. And than it is polygamy.

Actualy no they do not do gay marriage they do homosexual marriage, lesbians can marry too. Scandenavia DOES have full gay marriage as does Canada. Look, homosexuality and paedophilia getting legalised are IN NO WAY LINKED. I know you really want them to be but sorry CONSENT exists and it will be a lot harder to get rid of than unequal rights. Go try fucking a child in Canada will you? I'll bail you out...Maybe.

I´ve answered it before: if you can´t find it it is your problem. The slippery slope argument is right. Next thing on the list is polygamy and then the "decriminalisation of paedophilia.
That comes step by step. We shouldn´t endorse this development.

1)Polygamy

and

2) Incest marriage

That will be what is next in my mind.

You are right! It is the law in Europe! Here though, it isn't as cut and dry. At least 38 States have banned it either through laws or Amendments to the state constitutions. DOMA takes out the protection of Full Faith and Credit on Gay marriage so states don't have to recognize gay marriages if Gay Marriage is illegal in their state. Hopefully The MPA will get approved by the Senate and we won't have to worry about the Federal Courts deciding this since most Senators, Dem and Rep, have stated that this is a state issue.

Now the states are deciding it and people aren't liking it. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.
DOMA and the MPA will be ruled un-constitutional if push comes to shove.

They can, for example by adopting children and giving them a father and a mother.
Gays can´t. You can´t be homosexual and pretend to be heterosexual and form a family. That is reserved by nature to heterosexual couples.

GAYS CAN ADOPT! Homosexuals do not have to pretend to be strait, you do not have to be strait to raise balanced children as those gay couples already raising children show. What nature reserves is not for YOU to determine as an excuse to rob others of equal rights.

Establishment of religion. Hmmm...This does not mean seperation of church and state, but rather the adoption of an official state religion, such as the church of England.

What religion are we "prohibiting the free exercise of" by prohibiting gays to marry?

There is actually no provision in our constitution for "seperation of church and state".

In a letter to Samuel Miller in 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote the following:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

James Madison, in a letter to Robert Walsh, 1819, wrote:

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State

While the Constitution may not specifically use the phrase "Separation of Church and State", the First Amendement most certainly implies it, as do the thoughts and writings of the founding fathers of this nation, whatever their person spiritual beliefs may have been.

There have been several religions previously pointed out (Buddism, Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, many individual churches and religious communities within their organizations) that either in whole or in large part sanctify same-sex unions and the adoption of this amendment specifically limits their ability to perform those rituals legally and equally according to their religious and, thus, violates the Constitutional First Amendement.

Furthermore, the entire conceptualization of marriage advocated by this amendment is religious in origin. While the social contract of marriage may have one time lacked religious connotations, when promoters of this amendment speak of "traditional marriage" they're referring to the religious conceptualization of marriage. The government has additionally offered no specific argument or evidence to suggest that it is adopting this amendment using anything other than this religious definition of marriage. For the government, either state or federal, to be so obviously influenced by religious interests is tacit admission that the government is basing it's policies on a single religious doctrine.

1)Polygamy

and

2) Incest marriage

That will be what is next in my mind.


Oh for Dog's sake try going to Saudi Arabia. Loads of polygamy AND gay stonings. Now go to Salt Lake City, loads of incest, gays are pariahs.

1)Polygamy

and

2) Incest marriage

That will be what is next in my mind.
*sigh*
The slippery slope argument is a logical fallicy. It hasn't happened in the places where Gay Marriage has been legalized.
1. Won't happen because of the legal tangles that it causes. Too much work.

2. Won't be allowed because of danger to the populous at large it causes. Incest is a public health risk.

Under Article IV Section 1 it states that 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

However, if you read the whole thing, this is what is in the middle of it And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof

With this, Congress has already acted by taking away full faith and credit, by general law with DOMA (States that outlaw gay marriage don't have to recognize gay marriage) and the MPA (Will take out the federal courts on this issue)! I've had this arguement over this before. Congress followed the dictates of the Constitution and did NOT violate it.

It says congress may prescribe how these proceedings shall be proved. This means that they can say, "In order to prove you are married, you have to provide the marriage liscense from the other state, a valid driver's license, and your social security numbers." They cannot say "If we don't like your marriage, it's null and void BWAHAHAHAHA!" because that is not regulating "how these procedures shall be proved."

GAYS CAN ADOPT! Homosexuals do not have to pretend to be strait, you do not have to be strait to raise balanced children as those gay couples already raising children show. What nature reserves is not for YOU to determine as an excuse to rob others of equal rights.
Equality means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO BE TREATED differently. Therefore a differentiation between heterosexuality and homosexuality is compeltly justified: Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.
And I resign now again from this thread so that you can continue to flame alone around here.

Oh and countries that do provide civil unions but not full marriage often have religions or mainstream churches that are willing to provide the wedding rights seperatly from the legal side.

See here's what I don't get...THis country was FOUNDED by people who were persecuted for their BELIEFS and now we are (when some of YOU are) sitting here in judgement of another groups beliefs? The country has come full circle I guess *shrugs*

DOMA and the MPA will be ruled un-constitutional if push comes to shove.

I actually doubt it to be honest. This is a State's rights issue and not one for the Federal Courts. Federal Courts Can't dictate Law but they can interpret the law. That is what they are SUPPOSED TO DO! Interpret the law not MAKE the law. To many laws have been made from the Bench and not in the Legislature.

Equality means to treat simular things the same way and different things HAVE TO BE TREATED differently. Therefore a differentiation between heterosexuality and homosexuality is compeltly justified: Marriage is to be between one man and one woman.
And I resign now again from this thread so that you can continue to flame alone around here.

Pff...You resign because I called you a closet case and you are feeling unsure in your sexuality more like. No that is not an insult you bigot. And equality means....THINGS ARE EQUAL. This means if gays and lesbians can adopt properly and give the child a good life (which the CAN I may add) in the same fashion of a strait person then they should be permitted to.

Oh for Dog's sake try going to Saudi Arabia. Loads of polygamy AND gay stonings. Now go to Salt Lake City, loads of incest, gays are pariahs.

Hmm The-Libertines, Polygamy is LEGAL under ISLAM so that arguement is gone.

I actually doubt it to be honest. This is a State's rights issue and not one for the Federal Courts. Federal Courts Can't dictate Law but they can interpret the law. That is what they are SUPPOSED TO DO! Interpret the law not MAKE the law. To many laws have been made from the Bench and not in the Legislature.
Full faith and credit clause. The moment someone gets married in another state, they will start suing for it to be recognized in another.

Oh, and the Courts don't make laws, they just rule them unconstitutional.

I actually doubt it to be honest. This is a State's rights issue and not one for the Federal Courts. Federal Courts Can't dictate Law but they can interpret the law. That is what they are SUPPOSED TO DO! Interpret the law not MAKE the law. To many laws have been made from the Bench and not in the Legislature.

Have you been to Saudi Arabia and Salt Lake City to see all the gay hating inscesters and polygamists?

France's High Court Annulled a Gay Marriage.

Yeah, well France has also banned the right of kids to practice their own religion. What's your point exactly?

Hmm The-Libertines, Polygamy is LEGAL under ISLAM so that arguement is gone.

No it is not. I am showing that gay marriage does not=polygamy.

Pff...You resign because I called you a closet case and you are feeling unsure in your sexuality more like. No that is not an insult you bigot. And equality means....THINGS ARE EQUAL. This means if gays and lesbians can adopt properly and give the child a good life (which the CAN I may add) in the same fashion of a strait person then they should be permitted to.
NO, I don´t but I don´t have much time left to debate.
And by the way: Stop insulting me. That doesn´t hit me, that does only hit you and shows how poor your "arguments" are.

NO, I don´t but I don´t have much time left to debate.
And by the way: Stop insulting me. That doesn´t hit me, that does only hit you and shows how poor your "arguments" are.

Is saying that you are unconfident with your sexuality an insult? No, I pity you. Oh and I note you leave just before I could reasonably harass you for not replying to my comments. My arguments are not the worn out conservative cliches that are the Slippery Slope arguments that have been used since Black Marriage was the issue.

Actualy last I heard the process had been perfected and used once already. Not sure if that is true but I think I heard it somewhere.

Well, it was mentioned at the seminar I went to recently. It has been done, I think, in mice - but the offspring had developmental problems. And it has never worked in primates or humans.

Full faith and credit clause. The moment someone gets married in another state, they will start suing for it to be recognized in another.

Oh, and the Courts don't make laws, they just rule them unconstitutional.

CSW, it is getting challenged! In florida no less! So far, no one has challenged the, to quote you, unconstitutionality of CAs amendment that bans it!

Your right, they can rule it unconstitutional but the question is, will they? I don't think they will CSW because, as stated, it should be done at the state level. The Federal Government isn't dictating that Gay Marriage is illegal, they gave the states the power NOT TO RECOGNISE said marriage if they have outlawed it.

Yeah, well France has also banned the right of kids to practice their own religion. What's your point exactly?
NO, France has banned religion out of public schools. And that is good that way. Like Turkey did. Guess why the Islamists are not that strong in Turkey??? Because Turkey cracks down on them and keeps a very clear seperation between religion and state and between state instituitions and religious symbols. I applaude the French decides. It is an important step in the fight against Islamism and in the global fight against terrorism.

Well, it was mentioned at the seminar I went to recently. It has been done, I think, in mice - but the offspring had developmental problems. And it has never worked in primates or humans.

My apologies, I did not know the full facts.

It would.... providing Marriage were a religious institution. As I have pointed out, Marriage is, historically, not a religious institution, but about kinship and property, a legal and civil institution. The religious aspects were added later.

So, in short, you are turning a civil arguement into a religious arguement.

Actually, no, because while the social contract of marriage may indeed trace it's origins back to a civil institution regarding kinship and property, the current definition and insitution as well as the specific conceptualization of that institution when it is referred to as "traditional marriage" by proponents of amendments such as the Missouri Amendment 2 is based on a religious definition of marriage. As the government pushing this legislation has not offered any rationale as for why their working definition of marriage for purposes of this amendment is what it is, then the conclusions must be that it is only for religious reasons.

No it is not. I am showing that gay marriage does not=polygamy.

Polygamy is legal under islam. Jeez don't you have a religions course or something?

You can't equate the two between Saudi Arabia and your arguements.

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

Another great example of how people wanting to take away other's rights have the ability to spell the word amend. What in the world will happen if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry? Will you be in some form or another hurt financially, emotionally, spiritually? no. Why do people have to tell other people how to live their lives? Let others do what they want as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. FFS, it's downright cruel.

NO, France has banned religion out of public schools. And that is good that way. Like Turkey did. Guess why the Islamists are not that strong in Turkey??? Because Turkey cracks down on them and keeps a very clear seperation between religion and state and between state instituitions and religious symbols. I applaude the French decides. It is an important step in the fight against Islamism and in the global fight against terrorism.

Not letting some children wear scarfs means there will be less terrorists? Pfff...Frances decision not to go into Iraq has done that better. Oh and if you are posting on another topic and seem to have stuck around could you please tell me where your "information" of homosexuals being bad parents came from?

CSW, it is getting challenged! In florida no less! So far, no one has challenged the, to quote you, unconstitutionality of CAs amendment that bans it!

Your right, they can rule it unconstitutional but the question is, will they? I don't think they will CSW because, as stated, it should be done at the state level. The Federal Government isn't dictating that Gay Marriage is illegal, they gave the states the power NOT TO RECOGNISE said marriage if they have outlawed it.
I know that it is getting challanged, and the law will be struck down.

"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.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. "

The first part is more important, obviously.

Great post. I like to see Christians like you(assuming you are), they really do help me differenciate between the extremists and moderates.

Me? No, I'm no Christian. I wouldn't claim to be. I do, however, have a healthy respect for the Christian faith and a man named Jesus Christ. Despite that some far-right 'Christian' zealots that seem to crawl out of the woodwork occasionally make it seem that Christianity is a beligerent religon that wants to dominate the world (again) and kill all those that are different from them (again), it really isn't. Christianity and, specifically, Jesus Christ have many wonderful things to teach. Like being accepting, not being judgemental and helping those in need, as well as many other great things that have done a lot of good in the world in the past, and continue to do good today.

There are however, some archaic and mostly irrelevant odds and sods lying around within Christianity's holy book, and certain people cling to a small number of these like a drowning man grasps at straws.

So no, Christianity is not beligerent and violent. Just of some its followers.

Myself, I've been (jokingly) classified as a "filthy pagan". I have certain core beliefs about the nature of spirit and such, and try to live my life as the best person I can be. This is true for most Christians too.

I don't really like the Christian-bashing that seems to go on sometimes when this topic arises. Christian-bashing isn't cool. Fanatic-bashing is okay, though.

Erm, but I digress. Let's see if I can actually contribute in some way.

I´ve answered it before: if you can´t find it it is your problem. The slippery slope argument is right. Next thing on the list is polygamy and then the "decriminalisation of paedophilia.

The "slippery slope" arguement is not right, no matter hard you try to convince yourself and others that it is. Now, I've nothing against polygamy. As long as all parties are fine with it, then it's their business and nobody else's. And no, simply allowing people of the same sex to marry each other will not lead to the deciminalisation of paedophilia. Nobody is harmed by a consenting homosexual relationship that is recognised in the eyes of the law. With paedophilia, the child is not giving (and is, in fact, unable to give) consent and are often harmed by the act. There is no comparison between the two and no sound logical basis for the 'slippery slope' arguement.
And please, do not start talking about bestiality. An animal is unable to give consent under law, just as a child is unable. Actually, though, if you think about it, in some ways, zoophiles have more rights than the average homosexual. If zoophile's animal lover is injured, they are permitted to visit it at the veterinary hospital. If a homosexual's same-sex lover is injured, in many cases, they are not permitted to visit them at the hospital. How is that fair?

Polygamy is legal under islam. Jeez don't you have a religions course or something?

You can't equate the two between Saudi Arabia and your arguements.

Yes I do know that polygamy is allowed under Islam (and Judaism and Christianity arguably) but that is irrelevent. My point that all countries that have gay marriage do NOT have polygamy while many that do not do have it negates your tired old slippery slope.

NO, France has banned religion out of public schools. And that is good that way. Like Turkey did. Guess why the Islamists are not that strong in Turkey??? Because Turkey cracks down on them and keeps a very clear seperation between religion and state and between state instituitions and religious symbols. I applaude the French decides. It is an important step in the fight against Islamism and in the global fight against terrorism.

Well you also think all orthodox Muslims are terrorists, so I don't really care about your opinion on this.

You know it is times like this when I wish I was a Buddhist not an atheist so I could believe that all the far right people trying to block gay marriage would come back as lesbians so they could find out how terrible being denied marriage rights and facing bigotry like this on a day to day basis really is.

My apologies, I did not know the full facts.

No need to apologize. I'm a big proponent of bringing scientific fact into arguments, but I feel the need to correct misconceptions that the public may have. Too many things get overblown when a scientists mentions a future possibility and I think the public (especially the taxpayers in the case of public-funded research) should know where their money is going. =)

Yes I do know that polygamy is allowed under Islam (and Judaism and Christianity arguably) but that is irrelevent. My point that all countries that have gay marriage do NOT have polygamy while many that do not do have it negates your tired old slippery slope.

No it is relevent because your trying to equate the two and you failed miserably.

No need to apologize. I'm a big proponent of bringing scientific fact into arguments, but I feel the need to correct misconceptions that the public may have. Too many things get overblown when a scientists mentions a future possibility and I think the public (especially the taxpayers in the case of public-funded research) should know where their money is going. =)

Hmm...Methinks bigoted folks like Kyb and Formal would be unhappy to know it was going to help "fags" make babies...

Well you also think all orthodox Muslims are terrorists, so I don't really care about your opinion on this.
I don´t. But I think that people living in the west should act that way as well and adopt to our culture. After all: you wouldn´t be allowed to walk around naked in Saudi-Arabia or other Arab countries and woman have to wear a scarf.
If people want to life and orthodox islamic life style it is better for them to go to an orthodox islamic country where they can do so and can be shure that there children don´t go astray like in the evil west: Or: wait: we can do something against that: Why not employ teachers who wear the scarf or the burqa. They can certainly convince some other students to convert to islam as well, don´t they???

No it is relevent because your trying to equate the two and you failed miserably.

Equate what two? Salt Lake City and Saudi Arabia? Well no I was not, the two do share a strong religious movement and a hatred for gays but that was not my point. I was saying that there are NO polygamy excepting gay marriage/civil union excepting countries in existance. I was also saying that most countries that allow polygamy have a strong hatred for gays for whatever reason (often bastardised Islamic teachings) so really saying there is a slippery slope involved is utterly unfounded and wrong and has no evidence at all.
Never rely on logic over cold hard facts but always keep it in mind.

No it is relevent because your trying to equate the two and you failed miserably.

No, Libertines did not "equate the two."

What was stated was a refute to the argument that legalizing gay marriage will immediately lead to legalizing polygamy.

There are countries that have legal recognition of gay marriages, but do not recognize polygamy.

There are countries that recognize polygamy, but execute homosexuals.

Obviously, the two are not inherently linked.

Do you understand now?

I don´t. But I think that people living in the west should act that way as well and adopt to our culture. After all: you wouldn´t be allowed to walk around naked in Saudi-Arabia or other Arab countries and woman have to wear a scarf.
If people want to life and orthodox islamic life style it is better for them to go to an orthodox islamic country where they can do so and can be shure that there children don´t go astray like in the evil west: Or: wait: we can do something against that: Why not employ teachers who wear the scarf or the burqa. They can certainly convince some other students to convert to islam as well, don´t they???

Ok please start a new thread on this as we are digressing. Tell me what is wrong with homosexuals adopting and state facts that show they are bad at it from a neutral source please.

No, Libertines did not "equate the two."

What was stated was a refute to the argument that legalizing gay marriage will immediately lead to legalizing polygamy.

It does: Many of its supporters argue for polygamy as well. They demand what the call "equal rights" and ask "why limit it to two people". Giving up here is leading to a downfall. If that happends the next target of the lunatic fringe groups is to allow polygamy, "decriminalize" paedophilia, allow incestous marriage., e.g.

I don´t. But I think that people living in the west should act that way as well and adopt to our culture. After all: you wouldn´t be allowed to walk around naked in Saudi-Arabia or other Arab countries and woman have to wear a scarf.
If people want to life and orthodox islamic life style it is better for them to go to an orthodox islamic country where they can do so and can be shure that there children don´t go astray like in the evil west: Or: wait: we can do something against that: Why not employ teachers who wear the scarf or the burqa. They can certainly convince some other students to convert to islam as well, don´t they???

So people should start having sex with lots and lots of people, right? After all, the norm in Western culture these days is promiscuity. I guess we should start forcing people to be promiscuous against their religions then?

And eating pork is the "norm" in Western society, so I guess all those orthodox Jews and Muslims should conform to the west and eat pork. Otherwise, they should go to Jewish or Muslim fundametalist countries where they might be executed for no reason.

As for your teacher coverting comment, you are just full of conspiracy theories and slippery slopes, aren't you? A teacher trying to convert children in a secular school to her own religion would be a clear abuse of power and she should be fired. A teacher following her own religion is not an abuse of power. Would you please use your brain for a minutes.

Ok children it is time to go on a history tour of The Slippery Slope Argument:

A few years prior to the US winning it's independence the UK was under pressure to give the US standing in parliment as they were paying (some) taxes. Parliment refused saying the idea was ridiculous and soon the Americans would be asking for indepence if we did something stupid like that.

During times of slavery the slave traders and their advocates claimed that if we made slavery of black men illegal then soon they would have ALL of the rights of a white person and of course we could never let those savages have equal rights now could we?

When blacks were trying to get married the conservatives said no! This would make a horrible slippery slope and next thing there would be people marrying their pigs!

When white tried to marry blacks the conservatives said: No! This would make a slippery slope and soon people would be marrying shoes and turnips!

So I think we can agree that the slippery slope has been 100% accurate and useful to us. Right?

It does: Many of its supporters argue for polygamy as well. They demand what the call "equal rights" and ask "why limit it to two people". Giving up here is leading to a downfall. If that happends the next target of the lunatic fringe groups is to allow polygamy, "decriminalize" paedophilia, allow incestous marriage., e.g.

Ok you are just making that up. I have NEVER encountered ANYTHING like that. How can you invent so many lies?

It does: Many of its supporters argue for polygamy as well. They demand what the call "equal rights" and ask "why limit it to two people". Giving up here is leading to a downfall. If that happends the next target of the lunatic fringe groups is to allow polygamy, "decriminalize" paedophilia, allow incestous marriage., e.g.

A few of its suporters might argue that, but not all, or even many.

Now, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, polygamy would not fall under the same laws as marriage - a whole new set of laws would have to be enacted. Thus, no one is being denied rights when they are denied government recognition of polygamy.

"Decriminalizing" pedophilia, as has also pointed out, will not happen because children cannot give consent.

Incestous marriage has a known health concern, and thus the government has a "compelling interest" in denying it.

It does: Many of its supporters argue for polygamy as well. They demand what the call "equal rights" and ask "why limit it to two people". Giving up here is leading to a downfall. If that happends the next target of the lunatic fringe groups is to allow polygamy, "decriminalize" paedophilia, allow incestous marriage., e.g.

Cite it.

A few of its suporters might argue that, but not all, or even many.

Now, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, polygamy would not fall under the same laws as marriage - a whole new set of laws would have to be enacted. Thus, no one is being denied rights when they are denied government recognition of polygamy.

"Decriminalizing" pedophilia, as has also pointed out, will not happen because children cannot give consent.

Incestous marriage has a known health concern, and thus the government has a "compelling interest" in denying it.

This post will either be ignored or have a stupid an illogical counter argument made in 3, 2, 1...

So people should start having sex with lots and lots of people, right? After all, the norm in Western culture these days is promiscuity. I guess we should start forcing people to be promiscuous against their religions then?
And eating pork is the "norm" in Western society, so I guess all those orthodox Jews and Muslims should conform to the west and eat pork. Otherwise, they should go to Jewish or Muslim fundametalist countries where they might be executed for no reason.
As for your teacher coverting comment, you are just full of conspiracy theories and slippery slopes, aren't you? A teacher trying to convert children in a secular school to her own religion would be a clear abuse of power and she should be fired. A teacher following her own religion is not an abuse of power. Would you please use your brain for a minutes.
And you are naive: There are things that don´t fit together: One is Islamism (people who want to establish sharia laws) and a western and democratic society. If people want that they should leave and go to Saudi-Arabie, Iran or somewhere else because that doesn´t fit to democracy. And regarding teachers. I don´t want any religious symbols in public schools: Neither a cross on the wall or a scarf on the teacher. People who want that differently can sent their children to private schools for godness sake.
And by the way: In contrast to your reception people in western societis are on average not that promiscous. That may be different in the gay community and among a small group of heterosexuals but not for the rest.
People in Africa are on average much more promiscous. One reason why AIDS is spreading so much through that continent.

You homophobic.

Who really cares about gay people? I'm not gay so they aren't my problem. If they wanna get married they can. If they don't get to get married because of some dumb religious people, that's they're problem.

Cite it.
You just have to go through the threads here (there are many about this subject). Many responded: well why not polygamy as well, free love, blablalabala.

You just have to go through the threads here (there are many about this subject). Many responded: well why not polygamy as well, free love, blablalabala.

So it should be easy to pull a cite. Do so.

People in Africa are on average much more promiscous. One reason why AIDS is spreading so much through that continent.

Ok shut up and get back on topic. I found that wrong though, much of Africa is strongly Christian. The reason they have high STD rates is the lack of information of contraceptives and actual contraceptives partly thanks to the sterling efforts of the Catholic Church to uphold morals whether millions die or not.

You just have to go through the threads here (there are many about this subject). Many responded: well why not polygamy as well, free love, blablalabala.

So? Polygamy involves NEW laws rather than the abolition of OLD ones. The two are as seperate as Saudi Arabia and Salt Lake City.

Oh and if in charge as well as oppressing people due to your definition of natural would you ban entirely RELGIOUS gay marriage?

And are you willing to admit your real opposition to gay marriage is that you do not like gay people yet? Or must we be bored even further by your hackneyed bullshit about slippery slopes.

So? Polygamy involves NEW laws rather than the abolition of OLD ones. The two are as seperate as Saudi Arabia and Salt Lake City.
Your are speaking nonsense. It would require a change of law.
And I can definately tell you that in continental Europe it would as our WRITTEN law definds marriage as to be between one man and one woman. There would be no difference to allow polygamy. Both requires a change of law. And I assume if the federal courts in the US rule about this issue the would (via the common law tradition (precedent Utahs accession to the US) rule that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. So you would need to change the law as well. And for doing so you need a majority in parliament which you don´t have. POINT)

Your are speaking nonsense. It would require a change of law.
And I can definately tell you that in continental Europe it would as our WRITTEN law definds marriage as to be between one man and one woman. There would be no difference to allow polygamy. Both requires a change of law. And I assume if the federal courts in the US rule about this issue the would (via the common law tradition (precedent Utahs accession to the US) rule that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. So you would need to change the law as well. And for doing so you need a majority in parliament which you don´t have. POINT)

Ok:

1) POINT does not make you right. POINT.
2) It is however annoying. POINT.
3) The change in law for homosexuals would be easier: remove the law. For polygamy it would be more tricky and polygamy is still more frowned on by society than homosexuality and there is little demand for it.
4) The slippery slope is nonsense, did you read my post to see how many times it has been used and been found wrong before?

Honestly, if we're talking about slippery slopes.... I'm far more concerned about the slippery slope of denying people civil rights because they might not conform to other people's religious beliefs or morality. We might start disallowing women to vote again, or disallowing black people to marry white people, or hispanic people to marry black people, or asian people to marry white people. Sure, it's probably not going to happen, but if we're talking slippery slopes here...

Ok:
1) POINT does not make you right. POINT.
2) It is however annoying. POINT.
3) The change in law for homosexuals would be easier: remove the law. For polygamy it would be more tricky and polygamy is still more frowned on by society than homosexuality and there is little demand for it.
There is also very little demand for gay marriage as well. So you give a point to me. Thanks.

There is also very little demand for gay marriage as well. So you give a point to me. Thanks.

LOL! Oh no wait you are not joking...There IS demand for gay marriage. Polygamist marriage would be a hard issue to push as there are only a handful of couples who want it. With gay marriage it is hundreds. Will you persist in just making facts up and ignoring most of my points? POINT

Honestly, if we're talking about slippery slopes.... I'm far more concerned about the slippery slope of denying people civil rights because they might not conform to other people's religious beliefs or morality. We might start disallowing women to vote again, or disallowing black people to marry white people, or hispanic people to marry black people, or asian people to marry white people. Sure, it's probably not going to happen, but if we're talking slippery slopes here...

I agree! To stop being gays getting hung for having sex with each other and black men for looking at white women we must defend gay marriage!

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.

I will pray for the misguided homophobia that permeates this country. I will pray for the lives these amendments are destroying. I will pray for all who believe one love is greater or lesser than another. I will pray because my faith is in a G-d who does not exclude it's children. Every LGBT person in this country, indeed all people, should be able to marry whomever they choose and I am saddened outright by this influx of hate. It has nothing to do with morals, or the bible or natural behavior. What it has to do with is power and one very small minded, and vocal group believing they should have power over another malligned group. My G-d is a G-d that loves and cherishes all of you, and all people in this world - however they express their faith. And I think the last thing G-d would put limits on is love. I am reminded of a story I read about a gay military officer who was beaten to death by fellow soldiers for being gay. His gravestone reads "When I was in desert storm they gave me a medal for killing men - and death for loving one." In Hebrew, we have the phrase "Refua'shlei-ma." Which means "A complete healing of mind and body." I will pray for a country overcome with it's own conservatism that it calls morality hate.

With most heartfelt sincerity,
Shalom.

I will pray for the misguided homophobia that permeates this country. I will pray for the lives these amendments are destroying. I will pray for all who believe one love is greater or lesser than another. I will pray because my faith is in a G-d who does not exclude it's children. Every LGBT person in this country, indeed all people, should be able to marry whomever they choose and I am saddened outright by this influx of hate. It has nothing to do with morals, or the bible or natural behavior. What it has to do with is power and one very small minded, and vocal group believing they should have power over another malligned group. My G-d is a G-d that loves and cherishes all of you, and all people in this world - however they express their faith. And I think the last thing G-d would put limits on is love. I am reminded of a story I read about a gay military officer who was beaten to death by fellow soldiers for being gay. His gravestone reads "When I was in desert storm they gave me a medal for killing men - and death for loving one." In Hebrew, we have the phrase "Refua'shlei-ma." Which means "A complete healing of mind and body." I will pray for a country overcome with it's own conservatism that it calls morality hate.

With most heartfelt sincerity,
Shalom.

Just compare this well thought out elequont post to the rubbish in the conservative's last post about "points".

There is also very little demand for gay marriage as well. So you give a point to me. Thanks

Erm... no. Estimates place homosexuals at about 10% of the population. The vast majority of homosexuals would like the option to marry. In the United States alone, with its population of 200+ million people, that is around 20 million people (the entire population of my country, Australia!). Then there are the heterosexuals who want these basic civil rights extended to their fellow citizens. Don't go trying to tell me there isn't much demand for it. Hey, there isn't much demand for intolerant fools who cling to archaic, irrational values, yet here you are.

LOL! Oh no wait you are not joking...There IS demand for gay marriage. Polygamist marriage would be a hard issue to push as there are only a handful of couples who want it. With gay marriage it is hundreds. Will you persist in just making facts up and ignoring most of my points? POINT
So, you would push for polygamy if I get you right. And of course: after this is pushed through the polygamists would feel encouraged to push their agenda. And there would be more people than just a handful.
But what are few hundred gay people who want to marry (as you yourself stated). There is no real demand accept a few out of a lunatic fringe group. So: its the same question. Do you want to change the law just because of a handfull few who want to redefine the instituition marriage. And I´m against that.
And yes: I don´t like gays, polygamists, paedophiles, e.g.

Erm... no. Estimates place homosexuals at about 10% of the population. The vast majority of homosexuals would like the option to marry. In the United States alone, with its population of 200+ million people, that is around 20 million people (the entire population of my country, Australia!). Then there are the heterosexuals who want these basic civil rights extended to their fellow citizens. Don't go trying to tell me there isn't much demand for it. Hey, there isn't much demand for intolerant fools who cling to archaic, irrational values, yet here you are.

Great post but I believe that the 1 in 10 statistic is wrong and was from a biased source. The amount of homosexuals is lower than that I believe but I am not sure how bisexuals fit into all this...But yes there is a huge demand.

[QUOTE=United Seekers]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.
QUOTE]

That's a broad assumption on your part.
Note I said the AMERICAN Catholic Church. NOT the ROMAN Catholic Church. BIG DIFFERENCE! The Roman Catholic Church is the denomination that follows the pope...the Orthodox and American denominations do not. Make sure you check your facts.

Erm... no. Estimates place homosexuals at about 10% of the population..
It is 3-4% according to realistic estimates: And some of them only do that as a life style choice.
So: a very small group among that only a minority is interested in long-term relationships. That are the facts.

So, you would push for polygamy if I get you right. And of course: after this is pushed through the polygamists would feel encouraged to push their agenda. And there would be more people than just a handful.
But what are few hundred gay people who want to marry (as you yourself stated). There is no real demand accept a few out of a lunatic fringe group. So: its the same question. Do you want to change the law just because of a handfull few who want to redefine the instituition marriage. And I´m against that.
And yes: I don´t like gays, polygamists, paedophiles, e.g.

No I would not. I am not sure polygamous marriage is neccessary. And yes there is a lot of demand and we are not a "lunatic fringe group" at all as there is a large amount of the populace (a narrow majority where I live in the UK in fact) of people who think civil unions are a good idea.

I love the way you lump gays, polygamists and paedos together making them look the same where with polys and gays all concerned are consenting. Your bigorty against a whole group of people shows that you are the lunatic around here, what do you think of lesbians?

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: It is 3-4% according to realistic estimates: And some of them only do that as a life style choice.
So: a very small group among that only a minority is interested in long-term relationships. That are the facts.

PEOPLE NEVER _CHOOSE_ TO BE HOMOSEXUAL! Also the number is not as low as 3-4%. But I am glad that you dislike so many as it just highlights what an idiot you are.

Oh and HOW are those the facts? Do you have a reliable source? Have you met and befriended many gay people and found that they are not interested in long term relashonships? Or are you relying on stereotypes and lies.

It is 3-4% according to realistic estimates: And some of them only do that as a life style choice.
So: a very small group among that only a minority is interested in long-term relationships. That are the facts.

Alright, I'll conceed that the 10% estimate may be biased. Let's look at it through your realistic estimates then... 3-4% percent of the population. In the United States, that is 6-8 million people. Are you going to say 6-8 million people plus those heterosexuals who support it. This is still not 'not much demand'.
If 6-8 million people demanded to have their houses made entirely out of fluffy pillows, but a bunch of other people condemned houses made entirely out fluffy pillows, you can bet that some business would spring up and meet the demand for fluffy pillow houses.



Great post but I believe that the 1 in 10 statistic is wrong and was from a biased source. The amount of homosexuals is lower than that I believe but I am not sure how bisexuals fit into all this...But yes there is a huge demand.

Yes, it may well be from a biased source. That is number I've had thrown at me throughout my recent life, however, so I've always accepted it. But I'm willing to admit that it could easily be wrong. Then again, the surveys that would have acquired these numbers do not account for homosexuals who are not openly so. I doubt an exact figure will ever be possible. I think that you and I can agree, however, that when talking about as large a numer as the population of a large country, then it is 'a lot'?

It is 3-4% according to realistic estimates: And some of them only do that as a life style choice.
So: a very small group among that only a minority is interested in long-term relationships. That are the facts.

If you want a real estimate, the 10% is probably closer to it because you have to factor in all the people who are still in the closet because people like you won't admit that they're human.

Alright, I'll conceed that the 10% estimate may be biased. Let's look at it through your realistic estimates then... 3-4% percent of the population. In the United States, that is 6-8 million people. Are you going to say 6-8 million people plus those heterosexuals who support it. This is still not 'not much demand'.
If 6-8 million people demanded to have their houses made entirely out of fluffy pillows, but a bunch of other people condemned houses made entirely out fluffy pillows, you can bet that some business would spring up and meet the demand for fluffy pillow houses.

For a change of the law you need not 3-4% but more than 50%. Point. You can don whatever you want. But to instituitonlize by the state you need to change the law. And that is done by the legislature (not the courts). And in order to do so you would need to convince a majority of people and that is 50% and not 3 or 4%.

Yes, it may well be from a biased source. That is number I've had thrown at me throughout my recent life, however, so I've always accepted it. But I'm willing to admit that it could easily be wrong. Then again, the surveys that would have acquired these numbers do not account for homosexuals who are not openly so. I doubt an exact figure will ever be possible. I think that you and I can agree, however, that when talking about as large a numer as the population of a large country, then it is 'a lot'?

I agree, the number is no doubt large and EXTREMELY hard to work out as you said because of closet cases, people who are not open about their sexuality, liars e.t.c. but I recall reading something in The Times about how biased and badly done the survey that found the 10% stat was. Apparently the number is about 6-8%.

For a change of the law you need not 3-4% but more than 50%. Point. You can don whatever you want. But to instituitonlize by the state you need to change the law. And that is done by the legislature (not the courts). And in order to do so you would need to convince a majority of people and that is 50% and not 3 or 4%.

1)Stop saying point.
2)What of the UK? Most favour civil unions here but it is not law.
3)We do not live in that form of democracy. If we did black people would still be slaves.

Okay, Kyber. You seem to be having some trouble grasping the difference between *not excluding gay couples from the institution of marriage as it stands:* To do that, basically all that has to happen is that the government needs to, umm, stop excluding gays.

The legal codes relating to and governing marriage, however, (and there are thousands) are designed in their actual texts to cover a partnership between *two people.*

Instituting polygamous marriage (what the heck's wrong with that in the first place, anyway, really?) would require *thousands* of laws to be *rewritten,* tax codes and various other laws would each have to be changed or supplemented in order to manage just the *organization* of a poly marriage.

Gay people are consenting adults who deserve equal protection under the law, and don't deserve to be compared to pedophiles, which is sheerest bigotry and slander.

See posts above.

Have we (California) banned it yet?

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

California already has, and has had for quite some time, a law pertaining to Marriage defining it as a union between a Man & Woman. The communist/socialist/liberal hippies of San Franciso politics simply chose to ignore the law. They selectively choose laws which they ignore and do as they damn well please, whichever law it is that suits them. Otherwise, everyone else can pretty much go stuff themselves as far as they're concerned.

Oh yeah ... right on Missouri!

Well, Kybernetia, I'll be the first to admit that many young homosexuals are not interested in long-term relationships. Yet as they get older and more mature, they become more and more interested in settling down and forming a long-term relationship.

Many young heterosexuals are not interested in long-term relationships. Yet as they get older and more mature, they become more and more interested in settling down and forming a long-term relationship.

Erm... POINT ?

For a change of the law you need not 3-4% but more than 50%. Point. You can don whatever you want. But to instituitonlize by the state you need to change the law. And that is done by the legislature (not the courts). And in order to do so you would need to convince a majority of people and that is 50% and not 3 or 4%.

For a change in law, you need reasonable grounds for there to be a change in law. Reasonable grounds exist. The law is currently that a marriage is "between one man and one woman". A change in legislature will eventually become necessary, but all that is required at the moment is for the current law to be ruled unconstituonal by the courts, at which point the law becomes void and a new law must be enacted to replace it. Now, whether or not the current law is unconstitional is up for debate.

don't deserve to be compared to pedophiles, which is sheerest bigotry and slander.


Ah, but that is what idiots rely on to support there views. Obviously our friend has his faith in gays being evil wavering so he is grouping them with paedophiles to try and make them seem worse to his own eyes and ours.

Kyb did you hear about that study that showed that homophobes like you get more aroused by gay porn?

California already has, and has had for quite some time, a law pertaining to Marriage defining it as a union between a Man & Woman. The communist/socialist/liberal hippies of San Franciso politics simply chose to ignore the law. They selectively choose laws which they ignore and do as they damn well please, whichever law it is that suits them. Otherwise, everyone else can pretty much go stuff themselves as far as they're concerned.

Oh yeah ... right on Missouri!

Heh, people who want to marry are all communists, socialists and liberal hippies? Riiight...

Somehow I think that if there was a law that prohibited you from marrying your loved one for no apparent reason appart from some shitty slippery slope theory then you would ignore it. You have no empathy at all...

California already has, and has had for quite some time, a law pertaining to Marriage defining it as a union between a Man & Woman. The communist/socialist/liberal hippies of San Franciso politics simply chose to ignore the law. They selectively choose laws which they ignore and do as they damn well please, whichever law it is that suits them. Otherwise, everyone else can pretty much go stuff themselves as far as they're concerned

Hmm, the majority of a region deciding how to govern themselves. Imagine that.

California already has, and has had for quite some time, a law pertaining to Marriage defining it as a union between a Man & Woman. The communist/socialist/liberal hippies of San Franciso politics simply chose to ignore the law. They selectively choose laws which they ignore and do as they damn well please, whichever law it is that suits them. Otherwise, everyone else can pretty much go stuff themselves as far as they're concerned.

Now, because I would like the option to marry the one I love, I'm a communist, a socialist and a liberal hippy? Nice, some more labels to add to my collection. Feel free to add "fool" to yours.

Hmm, the majority of a region deciding how to govern themselves. Imagine that.

Shocking, next we will be letting the majority elect there own presidents!

Now, because I would like the option to marry the one I love, I'm a communist, a socialist and a liberal hippy? Nice, some more labels to add to my collection. Feel free to add "fool" to yours.

Hey, count yourself lucky, I have so far got bisexual, pacifist, atheist, socialist and vegetarian. Admittadly they are self labelling but they just do not explain enough and make me sound weird.

Shocking, next we will be letting the majority elect there own presidents!

I don't know about that, Libertines. It didn't happen last time.

Your are speaking nonsense. It would require a change of law.
And I can definately tell you that in continental Europe it would as our WRITTEN law definds marriage as to be between one man and one woman. There would be no difference to allow polygamy. Both requires a change of law. And I assume if the federal courts in the US rule about this issue the would (via the common law tradition (precedent Utahs accession to the US) rule that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. So you would need to change the law as well. And for doing so you need a majority in parliament which you don´t have. POINT)

No, you missed it. You see, marriage law defines how two people relate to each other in a marriage relationship. An entire new code of laws would have to be enacted to spread that to three, four, 50 people. Not to mention that, despite how it might be in your country, the constitutional argument wouldn't work for polygamy. The US government cannot discriminate based on race, creed, color, or sex. There is no "number of spouses" in there.

Now, because I would like the option to marry the one I love, I'm a communist, a socialist and a liberal hippy? Nice, some more labels to add to my collection. Feel free to add "fool" to yours.

Don't be an ass. I refered to the communist/socialist/liberal hippies running the government in Frisco... boo-hoo, you feel so abused don't you? You can marry the one you love, be it the same sex, opposite sex, or your pet dog rover. You just can't do anything but marry the same sex BY LAW in California.

Don't put words in my mouth pal, really.

I don't know about that, Libertines. It didn't happen last time.

Well let us just pray they make those machines the right way so they can mis count themselves and delete all the info so we can be sure the right[wing] man wins the job.

Heh, people who want to marry are all communists, socialists and liberal hippies? Riiight...

Somehow I think that if there was a law that prohibited you from marrying your loved one for no apparent reason appart from some shitty slippery slope theory then you would ignore it. You have no empathy at all...

Again, I was refering to the POLITICIANS you dolt. And no, I have no empathy for people who ignore and scoff at the law just because it doesn't suit them. Tough beans if you don't like it... what's next in 'Frisco, ignoring the law so they can cornhole little boys and free NAMBLA from the law?

cry me a river you sadsack

Don't be an ass. I refered to the communist/socialist/liberal hippies running the government in Frisco... boo-hoo, you feel so abused don't you? You can marry the one you love, be it the same sex, opposite sex, or your pet dog rover. You just can't do anything but marry the same sex BY LAW in California.

Don't put words in my mouth pal, really.

You can only marry people of your OWN gender? MY GOD THE CONSERVATIVES WERE RIGHT!!! RUN! RUN FOR THE HILLS AND JOIN A MILITIA!

Don't be an ass. I refered to the communist/socialist/liberal hippies running the government in Frisco... boo-hoo, you feel so abused don't you? You can marry the one you love, be it the same sex, opposite sex, or your pet dog rover. You just can't do anything but marry the same sex BY LAW in California.

My apologies. I conducted myself like somebody like you. For that, I am truly sorry.

Again, I was refering to the POLITICIANS you dolt. And no, I have no empathy for people who ignore and scoff at the law just because it doesn't suit them. Tough beans if you don't like it... what's next in 'Frisco, ignoring the law so they can cornhole little boys and free NAMBLA from the law?

cry me a river you sadsack

Great, comparing paedophilia to gay marriage again and calling me a sadsack. You are obviously concerned in mature and sensible discussion. I was pointing out that if the roles were reversed then you as the oppressed would do the same. Which you would.

California already has, and has had for quite some time, a law pertaining to Marriage defining it as a union between a Man & Woman. The communist/socialist/liberal hippies of San Franciso politics simply chose to ignore the law. They selectively choose laws which they ignore and do as they damn well please, whichever law it is that suits them. Otherwise, everyone else can pretty much go stuff themselves as far as they're concerned.

Oh yeah ... right on Missouri!

"You law abiding citizens
Come listen to this song
Laws are made by people
And people can be wrong
Once unions were against the law
But slavery was fine
Women were denied the vote
While children worked the mine
The more you study history
The less you can deny it
A rotten law stays on the books
'til folks with guts defy it!

Have you been to jail for justice?
I want to shake your hand
'Cause sitting in and laying down
Are ways to take a stand
Have you sung a song for freedom
Or marched that picket line?
Have you been to jail for justice?
Then you're a friend of mine"

Peter, Paul, and Mary. Definitely "liberal hippies," but that's not always a good thing.

"You law abiding citizens
Come listen to this song
Laws are made by people
And people can be wrong
Once unions were against the law
But slavery was fine
Women were denied the vote
While children worked the mine
The more you study history
The less you can deny it
A rotten law stays on the books
'til folks with guts defy it!

Have you been to jail for justice?
I want to shake your hand
'Cause sitting in and laying down
Are ways to take a stand
Have you sung a song for freedom
Or marched that picket line?
Have you been to jail for justice?
Then you're a friend of mine"

Peter, Paul, and Mary. Definitely "liberal hippies," but that's not always a good thing.


Yes, I just noticed he had compared standing up to injustice to raping children.

My apologies. I conducted myself like somebody like you. For that, I am truly sorry.

Fact of the matter is, you don't ignore the law because it doesn't suit you, you change the law. And if the majority doesn't want it changed, tough.

Why do you think Kerry has absolutely NOT touched on the Gay Marriage issue in his campaign? Because he supports it and if elected, he will try to what most of the liberal homosexuals have screamed and ranted about Bush trying to do, Kerry will change the constitution. He'll change it to support Gay Marriage. And that's why he will not discuss Gay Marriage on his campaign 'trail of tears'. He knows he can't say he's against it, becuase he's for it. He will lose tons of votes if he publicly states he's for it.

Personally, I don't care if you marry your pet gerbil, but if it's against the law and you ignore the law to suit your own personal AGENDA, then I have a problem with it.

Fact of the matter is, you don't ignore the law because it doesn't suit you, you change the law. And if the majority doesn't want it changed, tough.

Why do you think Kerry has absolutely NOT touched on the Gay Marriage issue in his campaign? Because he supports it and if elected, he will try to what most of the liberal homosexuals have screamed and ranted about Bush trying to do, Kerry will change the constitution. He'll change it to support Gay Marriage. And that's why he will not discuss Gay Marriage on his campaign 'trail of tears'. He knows he can't say he's against it, becuase he's for it. He will lose tons of votes if he publicly states he's for it.

Personally, I don't care if you marry your pet gerbil, but if it's against the law and you ignore the law to suit your own personal AGENDA, then I have a problem with it.


Yeah, that terrorist George Washington should never have disobeyed the law and fought against the British he should have just paid us Brits loads of taxes and shut the hell up.

"You law abiding citizens
Come listen to this song
Laws are made by people
And people can be wrong
Once unions were against the law
But slavery was fine
Women were denied the vote
While children worked the mine
The more you study history
The less you can deny it
A rotten law stays on the books
'til folks with guts defy it!

Have you been to jail for justice?
I want to shake your hand
'Cause sitting in and laying down
Are ways to take a stand
Have you sung a song for freedom
Or marched that picket line?
Have you been to jail for justice?
Then you're a friend of mine"

Peter, Paul, and Mary. Definitely "liberal hippies," but that's not always a good thing.

Peter, Paul, and Mary. Definitely "liberal hippies" and drug addicted communists. Yup, they really know what's right and what's wrong. Oh, did you know that Peter was arrested once for child molestation? Yeah, they really got it going on... you go girl/boy!

Peter, Paul, and Mary. Definitely "liberal hippies" and drug addicted communists. Yup, they really know what's right and what's wrong. Oh, did you know that Peter was arrested once for child molestation? Yeah, they really got it going on... you go girl/boy!

Was he convicted? If not your assumption of his guilt is wrong.

Hey, not everyone in missouri voted for this thing, I mean some citizens of the state are for gay marriage, so some peole in MIssouri suck, but not all

Yeah, that terrorist George Washington should never have disobeyed the law and fought against the British he should have just paid us Brits loads of taxes and shut the hell up.

Well, that statement goes to show right there how uneducated and bereft of intelligence you are.

The United States did not yet exist. North America was not even a country. It was a mish-mash of colonies and people like George Washington helped form a country from it.

way to go Lib ... wrong again!

Hey, not everyone in missouri voted for this thing, I mean some citizens of the state are for gay marriage, so some peole in MIssouri suck, but not all

Fine, you good, progressive 3/10 are fine and commendable for standing up to the tyranny of the majority. The other 7/10 are who suck.

Well, that statement goes to show right there how uneducated and bereft of intelligence you are.

The United States did not yet exist. North America was not even a country. It was a mish-mash of colonies and people like George Washington helped form a country from it.

way to go Lib ... wrong again!

Well he stilll should have obeyed the law.

Fine, you good, progressive 3/10 are fine and commendable for standing up to the tyranny of the majority. The other 7/10 are who suck.

Because they're not in line with your PERSONAL AGENDA ... see how you are?

Fact of the matter is, you don't ignore the law because it doesn't suit you, you change the law. And if the majority doesn't want it changed, tough.

Why do you think Kerry has absolutely NOT touched on the Gay Marriage issue in his campaign? Because he supports it and if elected, he will try to what most of the liberal homosexuals have screamed and ranted about Bush trying to do, Kerry will change the constitution. He'll change it to support Gay Marriage. And that's why he will not discuss Gay Marriage on his campaign 'trail of tears'. He knows he can't say he's against it, becuase he's for it. He will lose tons of votes if he publicly states he's for it.

Personally, I don't care if you marry your pet gerbil, but if it's against the law and you ignore the law to suit your own personal AGENDA, then I have a problem with it.

No, you ignore the law if it is unjustified. This law is unjustified. Also, if I remember correctly, Kerry has said that he does not support same-sex marriage, but he also does not support amending the constitution to prevent it. He may have said he supports civil unions, but I can't be sure of that. Both major political parties are rather conservative in the United States, but one simply leans more to the right than the other.

What about people who support unjustifiable laws to suit their own agenda? Do you have a problem with that?

I think the responses we get here are *exactly why* it's unconstitutional do deny gay people marriage rights.

The 'majority' (a majority that's thinning as old prejudices begin to fade,) that oppose allowing marriage rights to gay couples, oppose such marriages *simply because they don't like the people involved.*

The *majority* opposed *interracial* marriages, not too long ago.
And, as I said, they used the exact same logic. "What next? Polygamy? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality?"

It was a lie and blind prejudice then, and it *still* is.

To deny civil rights and privileges to someone, there has to be a compelling state interest in doing so. The only thing the anti-marriage people can come up with are irrational, reactionary fears: they say gay marriage will 'desanctify' a *secular institution* (your church can marry or refuse to marry whomever they want, but civil marriage is tacked on there as a *courtesy:* you don't need to be married in a church and a church isn't obligated to take all comers. This would not change.)

There's no compelling state interest in denying these marriages. Just because it involves an unpopular minority doesn't mean the majority has a right to deny those rights.

That's what the Constitution is *for*, and that's why some people do right to defy unconstitutional discriminatory laws.

Fact of the matter is, you don't ignore the law because it doesn't suit you, you change the law. And if the majority doesn't want it changed, tough.

Why do you think Kerry has absolutely NOT touched on the Gay Marriage issue in his campaign? Because he supports it and if elected, he will try to what most of the liberal homosexuals have screamed and ranted about Bush trying to do, Kerry will change the constitution. He'll change it to support Gay Marriage. And that's why he will not discuss Gay Marriage on his campaign 'trail of tears'. He knows he can't say he's against it, becuase he's for it. He will lose tons of votes if he publicly states he's for it.

Personally, I don't care if you marry your pet gerbil, but if it's against the law and you ignore the law to suit your own personal AGENDA, then I have a problem with it.

Actually Kerry himself does not support gay marriage, but he also does NOT support changing the United States Constitution to take away peoples' rights.

Did you know that it was also illegal for interracial marriages to occur? Guess what? People didn't like it, and now the law has been changed.

Actually Kerry himself does not support gay marriage, but he also does NOT support changing the United States Constitution to take away peoples' rights.

Did you know that it was also illegal for interracial marriages to occur? Guess what? People didn't like it, and now the law has been changed.

Since you seem to know Kerry does not support Gay Marriage, where has he stated so? Or are you on 'the inside'? He's never publicly denounced it to my knowledge. Enlighten me...

At one point in time, not only was it illegal to marry interracially, a child born of that union could be destroyed (killed) if discovered. Yeah, that really sucks, and the law was changed, and that's what needs to happen here. And if the law's not changed, then it must be obeyed, not ignored. What other laws shall be ignored and then CONDONED by the politicians that run a city?

Peter, Paul, and Mary. Definitely "liberal hippies" and drug addicted communists. Yup, they really know what's right and what's wrong. Oh, did you know that Peter was arrested once for child molestation? Yeah, they really got it going on... you go girl/boy!

I did not know that, and it also isn't *quite* true. He never had sex with the girl who accused him and was in fact accused of taking "immoral and improper liberties." Basically, he answered the door naked and made a few lewd comments. Now, that is not right, and he has acknolwedged it as the worst mistake he ever made.

However, does the fact that one of them did something wrong back in 1970 mean that they were wrong when they stood with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the march on Washington? Or were those "drug addicted communists" just doing their evil communist thing?

At one point in time, not only was it illegal to marry interracially, a child born of that union could be destroyed if discovered. Yeah, that really sucks, and the law was changed, and that's what needs to happen here. And if the law's not changed, then it must be obeyed, not ignored. What other laws shall be ignored and then CONDONED by the politicians that run a city?

I'm glad that you agree the law needs to be changed. You're not near as foolish as I thought.

I can't agree that people must be compelled to obey an unjust law, however. People showing contempt for an unjust law is part of what must be done for people to take notice and get the law changed.

So you're telling me that as a city official, if a bunch of people voted a referendum in to kill children of mixed parentage, you'd go, "Oh, well, ho hum, gotta follow the law. Where's my truncheon?"

At one point in time, not only was it illegal to marry interracially, a child born of that union could be destroyed (killed) if discovered. Yeah, that really sucks, and the law was changed, and that's what needs to happen here. And if the law's not changed, then it must be obeyed, not ignored. What other laws shall be ignored and then CONDONED by the politicians that run a city?

So you're telling me that those people should have allowed their children to be killed until they could get the law taken care of? Rosa parks should have scooted her ass to the back of the bus, after all, that was the law. None of those black people should have ever went into white-only restaraunts, after all, that was the law. Laws like this don't get changed unless someone stands up to them and shows just how stupid they are. Seriously, read a history book and get a clue.

Since you seem to know Kerry does not support Gay Marriage, where has he stated so? Or are you on 'the inside'? He's never publicly denounced it to my knowledge. Enlighten me...

At one point in time, not only was it illegal to marry interracially, a child born of that union could be destroyed (killed) if discovered. Yeah, that really sucks, and the law was changed, and that's what needs to happen here. And if the law's not changed, then it must be obeyed, not ignored. What other laws shall be ignored and then CONDONED by the politicians that run a city?

It is the politician's JOB to do what the majority wants them to. In this case, the majority wants them to ignore the law. It would be undemocratic to do otherwise.

BTW: You mean condemned, not condoned.

It is the politician's JOB to do what the majority wants them to. In this case, the majority wants them to ignore the law. It would be undemocratic to do otherwise.

ha... haha... hahahahah

So what you're saying is that the 'majority' of a city should ignore the law(s) of an entire State, because it suits their personal agenda? What makes you think the 'majority' of San Francisco area residents were for ignoring the law anyways? Was there a vote?

:rolleyes:


...

I wonder if Meatoppia is a member of Judaism or Christianity? After all, according to his/her logic, Moses' mom should have just let him be killed, since that was the law. And when the pharoah's daughter found him, she should have had him killed since it was the law. Same thing with Christ - he should've been killed as a baby. How dare Mary and Joseph run away with him?

So you're telling me that those people should have allowed their children to be killed until they could get the law taken care of? Rosa parks should have scooted her ass to the back of the bus, after all, that was the law. None of those black people should have ever went into white-only restaraunts, after all, that was the law. Laws like this don't get changed unless someone stands up to them and shows just how stupid they are. Seriously, read a history book and get a clue.

Seriously, again, you put words in the mouths of people to tailor fit their statement to your argument. That's not what I said... nice try though :rolleyes:

I think this is where the conservative-is-backed-into-a-contradiction-and-ignores-that-it-happenned.

I ask again, Meat. If the law told you as a city official that you had to kill mixed-race babies, what would you do?

Since you seem to know Kerry does not support Gay Marriage, where has he stated so? Or are you on 'the inside'? He's never publicly denounced it to my knowledge. Enlighten me...

At one point in time, not only was it illegal to marry interracially, a child born of that union could be destroyed (killed) if discovered. Yeah, that really sucks, and the law was changed, and that's what needs to happen here. And if the law's not changed, then it must be obeyed, not ignored. What other laws shall be ignored and then CONDONED by the politicians that run a city?

When I find a news article, I'll let you know.

In the meantime, have you ever thought about how those laws are changed? Some people have to disobey them first, and make a big enough of a political fuss and show enough reasoning for why the law should be changed. People are doing that! The laws will be changed because gay people have viable arguments that hold up to all other reasonings.

I wonder if Meatoppia is a member of Judaism or Christianity? After all, according to his/her logic, Moses' mom should have just let him be killed, since that was the law. And when the pharoah's daughter found him, she should have had him killed since it was the law. Same thing with Christ - he should've been killed as a baby. How dare Mary and Joseph run away with him?

I wonder if Dempublicents is a member of the society of people with COMMON SENSE and LOGIC and even a small bit of INTELLIGENCE.

They used to kill retards too Dempublicent, good thing for you they changed that law too ... :eek:

I bet Dempublicent knows what 'ad hominem' means, and how they score it in debating clubs. :)

*pointpointing to question above.* Waiting...

When I find a news article, I'll let you know.

In the meantime, have you ever thought about how those laws are changed? Some people have to disobey them first, and make a big enough of a political fuss and show enough reasoning for why the law should be changed. People are doing that! The laws will be changed because gay people have viable arguments that hold up to all other reasonings.

And another unanticipated result of their scoff-law behavior is that they have caused many, many states to change or strengthen their laws to BAN gay marriage. So you see, just becuase one little group of people want it THEIR WAY, doesn't mean they should have it THEIR WAY.

Instead of just scoffing the law, they should have quietly had it changed, they never tried that first. Now, as a result of their own behavior and child-like rantings, more states are banning it and there will be further attempts to constitutionally ban it... way to go. You cut off your nose to spite your face!

I wonder if Dempublicents is a member of the society of people with COMMON SENSE and LOGIC and even a small bit of INTELLIGENCE.

Yup, sure am - that's why I'm pointing out the lack of common sense and logic in what you said. You said that everyone should follow the law, no matter how unjust it is, until they can get it changed. I was just pointing out the fact that it doesn't work that way. Unjust laws have to be defied in order to point out to the majority that made them just how unjust they are. Like I said, Rosa Parks not moving was against the law - do you fault her for it?

They used to kill retards too Dempublicent, good thing for you they changed that law too ... :eek:

Isn't it interesting how I am being quite logical and not resorting to insults and I get to see this? Hmmm...

I bet Dempublicent knows what 'ad hominem' means, and how they score it in debating clubs. :)

*pointpointing to question above.* Waiting...

hahahah ... ad hominem

Yes, I am aware of ad hominem myself, although, I hadn't really thought about it here.

Ad Hominem is a fallacy anyway ;)

Here ya go, Meatopiaa. An article on Kerry's position on gay marriage. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/26/kerry_backs_state_ban_on_gay_marriage/)

I bet Dempublicent knows what 'ad hominem' means, and how they score it in debating clubs. :)

*pointpointing to question above.* Waiting...

I don't bother with using "big words" when people are slinging insults. =)

Meatopiaa, here is a news article that outlines Kerry's position:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28118-2004May14.html

Yup, sure am - that's why I'm pointing out the lack of common sense and logic in what you said. You said that everyone should follow the law, no matter how unjust it is, until they can get it changed. I was just pointing out the fact that it doesn't work that way. Unjust laws have to be defied in order to point out to the majority that made them just how unjust they are. Like I said, Rosa Parks not moving was against the law - do you fault her for it?

Repost: And another unanticipated result of their scoff-law behavior is that they have caused many, many states to change or strengthen their laws to BAN gay marriage. So you see, just becuase one little group of people want it THEIR WAY, doesn't mean they should have it THEIR WAY.

Instead of just scoffing the law, they should have quietly had it changed, they never tried that first. Now, as a result of their own behavior and child-like rantings, more states are banning it and there will be further attempts to constitutionally ban it... way to go. You cut off your nose to spite your face!

read...

Ahhh, I type too slow. You beat me, Naro Alen!

Banned gay marriage?

Is this an attempt to stop inbreeding?

Hyuk hyuk

Meatopiaa, here is a news article that outlines Kerry's position:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28118-2004May14.html

Thank You...

But there he goes, true to form...

"The presumptive Democratic nominee has long opposed gay marriage, favoring instead state-sanctioned civil unions that extend legal protections to gay couples."

What's the difference? "I don't support Gay Marriage, all you conservatives can vote for me now... I do support civil unions, all you liberals can vote for me now". Marriage-Civil Union... it's the same damn thing for all intents and purposes.

He's still a waffler and indecisive as ever. I guess a leopard can't change its spots.

Yes, Meat. It's a *fallacy.* One you've used by calling people who disagree with you 'commie hippies,' and one you've been using since you backed yourself into a baby-killing corner...

If the law told you to, would you kill interracial children, as you suggested?

If not, where do you draw the line? "Old prejudices were bad, of course, but *mine* are different?"

And as a matter of historical fact, the 'Defense of Marriage' acts forced gays to bring up all these test cases before gay marriage was outlawed forever by REpublicans looking for a cheap wedge issue. The timing was not really of gay activists' choosing.

It was the conservatives who wanted to get their prejudices entrenched before a younger and less homophobic generation comes to power.

Repost: And another unanticipated result of their scoff-law behavior is that they have caused many, many states to change or strengthen their laws to BAN gay marriage. So you see, just becuase one little group of people want it THEIR WAY, doesn't mean they should have it THEIR WAY.

Instead of just scoffing the law, they should have quietly had it changed, they never tried that first. Now, as a result of their own behavior and child-like rantings, more states are banning it and there will be further attempts to constitutionally ban it... way to go. You cut off your nose to spite your face!

read...

I did read it, but it is pretty much outside the scope of things. People have been trying to get the law changed for a while now (so your "they didn't even try" is baseless), but the majority doesn't realize it is unjust, so that isn't happening. You don't think Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus spurred a backlash? Have you never seen the videos of black people peacably sitting in "white areas" or marching in the street being beaten and jailed for it? Of course there is backlash, doesn't mean it isn't the start of a movement towards getting rid of the law.

ha... haha... hahahahah

So what you're saying is that the 'majority' of a city should ignore the law(s) of an entire State, because it suits their personal agenda? What makes you think the 'majority' of San Francisco area residents were for ignoring the law anyways? Was there a vote?

:rolleyes:


...

Of course I'm saying that. Amending the constitution of the entire state would ensure that 47% (I'm using the national average, but I seriously doubt it's any lower in CA) of the people wouldn't be represented. If you left it up to cities themselves it would be much more democratic since places like san francisco would be much more well represented. I admit that I don't have any factual information that would say the majority of san fran agrees with it, but come on. Those politicians would be well on their way out of office if they weren't supported.

Isn't it interesting how I am being quite logical and not resorting to insults and I get to see this? Hmmm...

wow, no kidding. hey Meat: if you have any good points they are all being obscured by your poor debate tactics and flawed logic. take a break from slinging insults and focus on your arguments...people will be much less likely to laugh at you.

Yes, Meat. It's a *fallacy.* One you've used by calling people who disagree with you 'commie hippies,' and one you've been using since you backed yourself into a baby-killing corner...

If the law told you to, would you kill interracial children, as you suggested?

If not, where do you draw the line? "Old prejudices were bad, of course, but *mine* are different?"

And as a matter of historical fact, the 'Defense of Marriage' acts forced gays to bring up all these test cases before gay marriage was outlawed forever by REpublicans looking for a cheap wedge issue. The timing was not really of gay activists' choosing.

It was the conservatives who wanted to get their prejudices entrenched before a younger and less homophobic generation comes to power.

Wrong...

Yes, if it was still the law, and still 1809.

You the pot or the kettle?

Defense of Marriage is much older than that, and it still remains the law after all other attempts have failed. The laws against it are increasing across the country, and some of the ones already in existence are being strengthened. You lose... try another "cause".

No, it was not the "conservatives" entrenching prejudices, it's the politicians doing the will of their constituents. Again, you lose... try another "cause".

Repost: And another unanticipated result of their scoff-law behavior is that they have caused many, many states to change or strengthen their laws to BAN gay marriage. So you see, just becuase one little group of people want it THEIR WAY, doesn't mean they should have it THEIR WAY.

Instead of just scoffing the law, they should have quietly had it changed, they never tried that first. Now, as a result of their own behavior and child-like rantings, more states are banning it and there will be further attempts to constitutionally ban it... way to go. You cut off your nose to spite your face!

read...

What?! They never tried changing the law first? Do you know how many endless court cases, bills in Congress, and public campaigns their have been since Stonewall? That statement is laughable.

And it wasn't the gay people who scoffed the law, it was their elected officials. So the legality of such occurrences is kind of wishy-washy anyway.

It's a different article, so it adds to the argument.

Repost: And another unanticipated result of their scoff-law behavior is that they have caused many, many states to change or strengthen their laws to BAN gay marriage. So you see, just becuase one little group of people want it THEIR WAY, doesn't mean they should have it THEIR WAY.

Instead of just scoffing the law, they should have quietly had it changed, they never tried that first. Now, as a result of their own behavior and child-like rantings, more states are banning it and there will be further attempts to constitutionally ban it... way to go. You cut off your nose to spite your face!

read...

People are trying to ban gay marriage because they are scared. They are scared or homosexuals, they are scared of our way of life, they are scared of what else MIGHT occur. The problem is that they're also being unreasonable and their fears are based on nothing but propaganda and stereotypes.

Laws are never quietly changed. Laws affect everyone and must be announced so that everyone knows what's going on. Give it a few more years and civil rights will pull through. We just need to get some of those scared people out of office.

wow, no kidding. hey Meat: if you have any good points they are all being obscured by your poor debate tactics and flawed logic. take a break from slinging insults and focus on your arguments...people will be much less likely to laugh at you.

How am I expected to 'debate' with poeple who are door knobs?

Laugh, and the world laughs with you

What?! They never tried changing the law first? Do you know how many endless court cases, bills in Congress, and public campaigns their have been since Stonewall? That statement is laughable.

And it wasn't the gay people who scoffed the law, it was their elected officials. So the legality of such occurrences is kind of wishy-washy anyway.

pretzel logic ... and no, they never tried to change the laws using the customs and practices that are used to change laws. They simply stomped their feet, ranted and raved, and brought a whole bunch of unnecessary attention to themselves. They shot themselves in the foot. Good...

I did read it, but it is pretty much outside the scope of things. People have been trying to get the law changed for a while now (so your "they didn't even try" is baseless), but the majority doesn't realize it is unjust, so that isn't happening. You don't think Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus spurred a backlash? Have you never seen the videos of black people peacably sitting in "white areas" or marching in the street being beaten and jailed for it? Of course there is backlash, doesn't mean it isn't the start of a movement towards getting rid of the law.

Right. And Meat: just because a LARGE number of people want things THEIR way, doesn't mean they should have it THEIR way. Yes, this is a democracy, but majority opinion doesn't equate constitutionality.

Thank You...

But there he goes, true to form...

"The presumptive Democratic nominee has long opposed gay marriage, favoring instead state-sanctioned civil unions that extend legal protections to gay couples."

What's the difference? "I don't support Gay Marriage, all you conservatives can vote for me now... I do support civil unions, all you liberals can vote for me now". Marriage-Civil Union... it's the same damn thing for all intents and purposes.

He's still a waffler and indecisive as ever. I guess a leopard can't change its spots.

Frankly, I'd rather a leader be indecisive than be decisive about supporting discrimination.

And... well, politicians have been doing that sort of thing for a long time. Basically supporting two sides of an issue in some way to get votes.

And a Civil Union isn't really the same as a marriage, not at the moment anyway. It is still missing many of the rights and responsibilies that are inherent in a marriage.

Actually, if they gave Civil Unions all the rights and responsibilties of a marriage, but let the conservative heterosexuals keep the name "marriage" for themselves, I'd be happy. But what would be the point? It's just simpler to make "marriages" available for same-sex couples and be done with it.

pretzel logic ... and no, they never tried to change the laws using the customs and practices that are used to change laws. They simply stomped their feet, ranted and raved, and brought a whole bunch of unnecessary attention to themselves. They shot themselves in the foot. Good...

That's not true. Did you read what I wrote? Taking things to court and putting bills up for vote ARE the customs and practices that are used to change laws.

As an interesting side note, that law against out of state interracial marriages the Republican governor dusted off in Massachusetts to use against gay couples was never actually taken off the books... It was just forgotten, and no one would even *think* about using it to bar interracial couples from out of state from getting married in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts had 'activist judges' deciding that barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional way back in 1915, too. So the 'popular government' decided that they could at least *contain* the phenomenon. Kinda familiar, isn't it?

It's the duty of people like city officials to make *decisions,* and that includes not-enforcing *racist* laws that slipped by, forgotten, but still remain on the books.

No, it was not the "conservatives" entrenching prejudices, it's the politicians doing the will of their constituents. Again, you lose... try another "cause".

You laughed when I said it is right for the politicians to ignore the law if the majority doesn't agree with it. Unless you're saying it's ok for politician to do what the people want them to but only if you agree with it, you're a hypocrite.

How am I expected to 'debate' with poeple who are door knobs?

Laugh, and the world laughs with you

as an objective observer of the ongoing discussion here, i can tell you that several of the people you deride bear significantly less resemblence to "door knobs" than you do yourself. the world does indeed laugh with me, particularly when those who are unable to debate effectively think that throwing mud at better players will in any way disguise their own incompetance.

Oh, and 'rev,' the problem with the 'separate but equal' civil unions idea is that most of the laws, rights and privileges officially relate to 'marriage,' so that does get legally tricky.

And one does worry, you know, if some Christians want to 'define marriage' as only heterosexual, ...what will they decide to 'define marriage' as, next?

Maybe they'll decide that having Jews and Pagans and Buddhists and atheists call their marriages 'marriage' is eroding some abstract 'sanctity...'


That's the *real* slippery slope I worry about.

Yes, if it was still the law, and still 1809.

I must say that I find it very hard to respect anyone who would kill a child just because the law says so.

Oh, and 'rev,' the problem with the 'separate but equal' civil unions idea is that most of the laws, rights and privileges officially relate to 'marriage,' so that does get legally tricky.

And one does worry, you know, if some Christians want to 'define marriage' as only heterosexual, ...what will they decide to 'define marriage' as, next?

Maybe they'll decide that having Jews and Pagans and Buddhists and atheists call their marriages 'marriage' is eroding some abstract 'sanctity...'


That's the *real* slippery slope I worry about.

see, and i would be delighted with that end. i WANT to have a different union for my (hetero) partner and i, because i think the tradition of marriage is deplorable. the history of marriage in the Judeo-Christian world is one of rape, abuse, and denial of rights. it is a tradition that makes 50% of the population into objects to be bought and sold. it is a tradition of ignorance and sexual stupidity.

i don't want to dirty my relationship with the word "marriage," ever, and i would be delighted if i could have a legally equivalent civil union so that i wouldn't have to use the word "marriage" at all. as long as the legal standings of civil unions is made 100% equal to marriage, i say let the slopes get as slippery as they please.

I must say that I find it very hard to respect anyone who would kill a child just because the law says so.
how do you feel about being called "retard" by somebody who is that foolish? how does it feel to have your intelligence insulted by somebody who, by their own admission, is unable to think or reason for themself?

i'd say Meat is well on his/her way to earning a special place among the forum court jesters, don't you?

I dunno, Bottle, just cause you don't want marriage doesn't mean it's a good idea to set a precendent that the religious ideas of the majority can be imposed on everyone.

As for Meat.... well, I dunno what you mean about pits and kettles, that's just a *weak* ad hominem attack.

As for who loses, ...I still got a horse in this race, and I like my chances better than I do the 'interracial baby-killing' position.

'Defense of Marriage,' however old you think it is, is really just defense of old prejudices that before the Civil Rights movement were simply too universal for most to to even think about opposing overtly.

My ancestors were considered lesser people for being Irish, until not too long ago, for being Catholic, till more-recently-than-that, for marrying outside their *ethnicity,* around the same time, and except here in Massachusetts, I'm a second-class citizen for being queer.

The only thing that we're *losing* in the fight for universal rights and equality, is *time,* time a civil, free, and equal society could be using for important things, like the cause of peace and not croaking the environment so badly all our cool cities will be knee-deep in ocean water by the time our grandchildren are born.

I'm curious to know what you think you stand to *win,* sport.

Kinsella, yes I understand what you're saying.

Basically, what I'm saying is that copy-pasted the 'marriage' laws and changed the word 'marriage' to 'civil union', it would be better than not getting anything. This would also require editing every law that refers to 'marriage' and inserting 'civil union' into the law as well. Like I said, it would be simpler to just allow same-sex couples to 'marry' using the exisiting laws (except those that exclude same-sex couples from marrying, obviously).

Actually, one of the little glitches they've run into in Vermont is that the somewhat limited 'Civil Unions' have turned out to be somewhat appealing to certain straight couples, who are choosing that over marriage if the federal tax laws aren't favourable, etc.

Which is kind of funny, in a way. By 'preserving the sanctity,' of the word...
Straights are now choosing to bail from the actual *institution* of marriage.

Actually, one of the little glitches they've run into in Vermont is that the somewhat limited 'Civil Unions' have turned out to be somewhat appealing to certain straight couples, who are choosing that over marriage if the federal tax laws aren't favourable, etc.

Which is kind of funny, in a way. By 'preserving the sanctity,' of the word...
Straights are now choosing to bail from the actual *institution* of marriage.

Hehe, my boyfriend and I have actually talked about that. No type of homosexual union is currently allowed in our state, but if things go the way of "marriage" for straight couples and "civil unions" for gay couples, we figure we'll sue to get a civil union, just to point out how idiotic the whole concept of separate and equal is.

I dunno, Bottle, just cause you don't want marriage doesn't mean it's a good idea to set a precendent that the religious ideas of the majority can be imposed on everyone.

As for Meat.... well, I dunno what you mean about pits and kettles, that's just a *weak* ad hominem attack.

As for who loses, ...I still got a horse in this race, and I like my chances better than I do the 'interracial baby-killing' position.

'Defense of Marriage,' however old you think it is, is really just defense of old prejudices that before the Civil Rights movement were simply too universal for most to to even think about opposing overtly.

My ancestors were considered lesser people for being Irish, until not too long ago, for being Catholic, till more-recently-than-that, for marrying outside their *ethnicity,* around the same time, and except here in Massachusetts, I'm a second-class citizen for being queer.

The only thing that we're *losing* in the fight for universal rights and equality, is *time,* time a civil, free, and equal society could be using for important things, like the cause of peace and not croaking the environment so badly all our cool cities will be knee-deep in ocean water by the time our grandchildren are born.

I'm curious to know what you think you stand to *win,* sport.

my point was that marriage is a disgusting prize, so why would we try to win it? as a bisexual woman, i am no stranger to second-class citizenship...but i have to ask why getting "marriage" rights would be any sort of victory? if the Christians want to keep their tradition of ignorance, sexism, racism and sexual repression to themselves then by all means we should let them do so. let's create our own tradition of equality and justice, and let them sulk in their little matrimonial corner until they get over themselves.

Hehe, my boyfriend and I have actually talked about that. No type of homosexual union is currently allowed in our state, but if things go the way of "marriage" for straight couples and "civil unions" for gay couples, we figure we'll sue to get a civil union, just to point out how idiotic the whole concept of separate and equal is.

I'd love to see that!

Anyways, I'm signing off for the night. I need to get at least some sleep tonight. It's been fun!

I'll check back after work tomorrow and see how this, or another similar thread is going.

Keep fighting the good fight, brothers and sisters. Even if a debate on an internet forum don't amount to a hill o' beans in this crazy world ;)

Have fun, all!

Hmn... This is getting old, so...

HEY!! CANADA...or at least Quebec, Ontario and BC have gay marriages! You wanna get hitched? Come here if you don't want to get married in Mass..

California already has, and has had for quite some time, a law pertaining to Marriage defining it as a union between a Man & Woman. The communist/socialist/liberal hippies of San Franciso politics simply chose to ignore the law. They selectively choose laws which they ignore and do as they damn well please, whichever law it is that suits them. Otherwise, everyone else can pretty much go stuff themselves as far as they're concerned.

Oh yeah ... right on Missouri!

Well....here's something else.

It seems that what you are proposing is a blind allegiance to the law as it's laid out in the criminal/civil code of wherever it is one happens to reside. However, what one must realize is that, occasionally, laws are made that are not just in that they either:

1) Are anachronistic
2) Are based on the values of a group within the state
3) Infringe on the rights of another

Remember that the laws of the United States (with the exception of Louisiana) are based on English Common Law which was more or less transferred from England to the United States with those who founded the country. And English Common Law is based in large part on rules of conduct and behavior set forth in what Christians call "the bible." "The bible," (or Tanakh, as I refer to it) has been a source, since then, for interpretation of law by individuals, for justification of attitudes, and also for new laws. The atitudes we hold towards especially sex issues, come from the Puritanical and Calvinist roots of the United States. But here's where the hypocrisy begins:

You talk of picking and choosing what we will and will not obey - but that's all too easy to reverse. You see, often, the only voiceable objection of same sex marriage is that it is non-biblical, somehow, or that it is an "affront to G-d." But what about the other laws that are in *that* book that are chosen to be ignored. Do you wear gold rings, walk without your head covered, or wear clothing of two different fabrics? This is why I refer to biblical "literalists" as "selective literalists."

The ultimate question comes down to whether something will hurt society as a whole by the action. And, in this law student's opinion, there is absolutely no way that allowing same-sex couples to marry could hurt anyone or any instutution. The root of the argument is arrogance, presumption, and control. The Christian right argues that gays should not be promiscuous (which there is rediculously little evidence for that they are more so than any heterosexual group) and yet they refuse them the very method that would allow them full inclusion in society? It is nothing more than one monolith pushing their views on a minority because through that they can control. The same way blacks were treated by whites in the USA historically, and how my people (as well as many others) were treated by Germans during WWII.

It is not wrong to love another person, and G-d willing, they will be able to sanctify that love legally, soon. I'm a reform Jew, my synagogues marry gay people. And, through my plodding through the conservative argument, I find no logic for keeping the law defining marriage between a man and a woman only other than power. But what else could I expect from the Christian right. *sigh*

Pretty ballsy that the Christians, who obey so few of the 613 mitzvot (commandments), are the ones who take the holier than thou attitude because I don't see the ones who keep all 613 (orthodox Jews) out on the front line. lol. They can't even read Hebrew. Sad, very sad.

You are right! It is the law in Europe! Here though, it isn't as cut and dry. At least 38 States have banned it either through laws or Amendments to the state constitutions. DOMA takes out the protection of Full Faith and Credit on Gay marriage so states don't have to recognize gay marriages if Gay Marriage is illegal in their state. Hopefully The MPA will get approved by the Senate and we won't have to worry about the Federal Courts deciding this since most Senators, Dem and Rep, have stated that this is a state issue.

Now the states are deciding it and people aren't liking it. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.
YOU CANT OVER RIDE THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME

my point was that marriage is a disgusting prize, so why would we try to win it? as a bisexual woman, i am no stranger to second-class citizenship...but i have to ask why getting "marriage" rights would be any sort of victory? if the Christians want to keep their tradition of ignorance, sexism, racism and sexual repression to themselves then by all means we should let them do so. let's create our own tradition of equality and justice, and let them sulk in their little matrimonial corner until they get over themselves.
the religious idea of marriage, no one cares about. marriage is also a civil act that the couple engaging in is given a good number of extra rights and abilities

the religious idea of marriage, no one cares about. marriage is also a civil act that the couple engaging in is given a good number of extra rights and abilities

yeah. so...what's your point? if those rights are what matter then why not allow people to get those rights? what does the word "marriage" or its traditional meanings have to do with anything?

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.

it's things like this that make me very glad that i live in canada.

Missouri Sucks.

Missouri is awesome. You guys don't know what you're talking about.

yeah. so...what's your point? if those rights are what matter then why not allow people to get those rights? what does the word "marriage" or its traditional meanings have to do with anything?
what is YOUR point? you are saying gays shouldnt marry and christians should be able to keep their silly marriage, thats what i gather, so what for

what is YOUR point? you are saying gays shouldnt marry and christians should be able to keep their silly marriage, thats what i gather, so what for

no, i'm saying that gays should get the same legal rights for their unions that Christians get for theirs. if Christians want the word "marriage" to be their personal property then let them have it, and make another legally recognized sort of union available for people, straight or gay, who don't want to have anything to do with Christian "marriage."

no, i'm saying that gays should get the same legal rights for their unions that Christians get for theirs. if Christians want the word "marriage" to be their personal property then let them have it, and make another legally recognized sort of union available for people, straight or gay, who don't want to have anything to do with Christian "marriage."


Umm, the church lost its dominion over language when literacy became widespread.

no, i'm saying that gays should get the same legal rights for their unions that Christians get for theirs. if Christians want the word "marriage" to be their personal property then let them have it, and make another legally recognized sort of union available for people, straight or gay, who don't want to have anything to do with Christian "marriage."
i ahgree,m i didnt understand what you had said

You needed to put CAPS LOCK ON and use alot more explantion marks and fucking swear words and insults you stupid little ****!!!!!!!!!!MAke sure to use as many emoticons as possible too. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :cool: :gundge: :D :fluffle: :eek: :sniper:

I'm a Missourian, and I voted in favor of the amendment. I fully believe homosexual acts are wrong, along with a host of other sexual acts such as fornication, masturbation, adultery, etc. However, I do not wish to outlaw those acts since people are free to choose their own actions, no matter how immoral I believe them to be. Marriage is a bit different though. I agree fully with those who stated earlier that heterosexual parenthood offers the potential for the best environment for children that are raised, and therefore the government has an interest to promote heterosexual marriage. I have seen the links to studies that claim otherwise, but I believe them to be highly biased and the data skewed. It is not uncommon for scientists to draw conclusions from data that match what they were hoping to see in the results, and I believe that is what has happened with the pro-homosexual parenting studies as others have noted. As such, I see no reason why the state should grant the priveleges associated with marriage to homosexual couples - there is just not enough valid scientific evidence to support homosexual marriage.

Yes, I know there are many things wrong with heterosexual marriage, and I believe they need to be fixed as well. I believe it needs to be harder (but not impossible) to get a divorce, because then maybe people will think twice before getting married. I also don't believe married couples should get a tax break unless they can claim children as dependants - there is no good reason to give them one. I believe there should be state sponsered pre-marriage preparation for anyone that doesn't have a similar religious marriage preparation (such as pre-Cana in the Catholic Church), so that couples will be forced to communicate with each other about their expectations for the marriage. I don't believe there should be 5-minute wedding chapels as in Las Vegas. If and when issues such as these come up, I will give them the same amount of support I have given to the recent constitutional amendment here in Missouri. Just because homosexual marriage is a hot-topic at the moment does not mean I am using it as a scapegoat.

I'm sure somebody will result to calling me a homophobe, which is no better than Christians who proclaim "God hates fags", because both are lies intended to debase someone else. I have had gay friends before (one of them was a fraternity brother), and I'm sure I'll have gay friends in the future. I am no more afraid of gays than I am of fornicators, yet I will firmly tell both that their actions are wrong, just as I hope others will tell me when I am wrong.

it's things like this that make me very glad that i live in canada.
Me too! *waves from Toronto*

2) Have you ever left the country? Or your state for that matter?
Or the house... or the basement... or your chair... >.>;

Which states have banned gay marriage so far?

I'm a Missourian, and I voted in favor of the amendment. I fully believe homosexual acts are wrong, along with a host of other sexual acts such as fornication, masturbation, adultery, etc. However, I do not wish to outlaw those acts since people are free to choose their own actions, no matter how immoral I believe them to be.

Good. That you don't want to outlaw things that you don't like but don't hurt anyone, that is.

Marriage is a bit different though. I agree fully with those who stated earlier that heterosexual parenthood offers the potential for the best environment for children that are raised, and therefore the government has an interest to promote heterosexual marriage. I have seen the links to studies that claim otherwise, but I believe them to be highly biased and the data skewed. It is not uncommon for scientists to draw conclusions from data that match what they were hoping to see in the results, and I believe that is what has happened with the pro-homosexual parenting studies as others have noted. As such, I see no reason why the state should grant the priveleges associated with marriage to homosexual couples - there is just not enough valid scientific evidence to support homosexual marriage.

If all of the priveledges had to do with children, this might be a valid argument. However, they don't. There are many statutes pertaining to marriage and all of them do not have to do with children. As for the studies showing that having homosexual parents does not harm children, you can claim they are biased all you want. But you need to understand something about science. Yes, it is possible for scientists to misinterpret data in order to get the results they want. So-called "Creation scientists" have been proving that for years. However, for something to be published in a valid journal, it must undergo scientific review. Even once it is published, it is criticized by other scientists in the field. Do you really think that all scientists are out to make gay marriage legal?

I also don't believe married couples should get a tax break unless they can claim children as dependants

Good, because they don't. At least, that is, if you are talking about income taxes. If you take a look at the tax law and how tax brackets work, middle class citizens do not receive a "tax break" from getting married. In fact, they end up paying more taxes!

The only tax break I know of that is afforded by marriage is the lack of inheritance tax. If I died right now and left you my car, you would have to pay a big inheritance tax because you and I are not married. However, if I was married and died and everything went to my husband, he would not have to pay this tax. Of course, that just makes sense - generally, when people are married, they share everything anyways. Thus, it would already pretty much be his just as much as it is mine. This is the type of right you have just denied to gay couples.

I'm sure somebody will result to calling me a homophobe, which is no better than Christians who proclaim "God hates fags", because both are lies intended to debase someone else.

I don't think you are a homophobe. Believe me, I have seen homophobes post on here. I have no problem with you thinking homosexuality is wrong, although I disagree with you. However, I do think you have somehow been misled as to (a) what exactly the legal institution of marriage entails and (b) the way science works.

Teach acceptance. Teach the reality.How about actually TEACHING about homosexuality. Don't make kids find out on their own through insults and whispered secrets. Explain it as a fact of life, not some alternative lifestyle choice. We can't prevent abuse or diseases if people are informed incorrectly and don't even have a clue about what's right or not.

God bless Missouri. At least 32 states have the guts to take a stand against perversion. If we allow gay marriages, how long will it be before they will want to marry their pets, legalize child porn, and call pedaphiles normal?wow, it's like... word for word out of the republican handbook...

I'm a Missourian, and I voted in favor of the amendment.
I'm a Missourian that voted against it. We already have a law on the books banning gay marriage, and I oppose that too.

No one is suggesting that we change how churches see marriage---churches can be as inclusionary or as exclusionary as they like. They always have been. However, I do not see how the government should itself become involved, specifying to whom it will and will not offer the legal endorsement of "marriage." Ultimately, marriage (to the state) is a form of contract between parties, and it seems absurd to me that we would limit the kinds of parties that can enter such a legal contract.

Now, because I would like the option to marry the one I love, I'm a communist, a socialist and a liberal hippy? Nice, some more labels to add to my collection. Feel free to add "fool" to yours.Ooh, ZING!

Well, that statement goes to show right there how uneducated and bereft of intelligence you are.

The United States did not yet exist. North America was not even a country. It was a mish-mash of colonies and people like George Washington helped form a country from it.

way to go Lib ... wrong again!Those damn black people should have just shut up and stayed in their seperate but equal conditions. And who cares if they couldn't vote, why should the protest the law? If it's the law, it must be right. BUZZ! Wrong. In order for a government to be representative of the people, the people must keep it in check. If all laws had to be obeyed, and were always right, this would be a much more authoritarian government. It's up to the people to revolt, and show the government when it has overstepped its bounds. This can be taken to extreme grounds sometimes, but judging by the massive amount of copy cat marriages that occurred across the US, I'd say there was demand and support enough of it.

No, I don´t say that. But I think children would have to suffer if they lived with gays. The other people and children wouldn´t respect that an the child could become very isolated. So: I don´t think it is in the interest of a child to be adopted by gays. And that is adoption should be about: it should be decided according to the best interest of the child and not in order to satisfy the demands of a lunatic frindge group.
Regarding marriage: forming a family is a main reason for it. I underline this fact.

You say forming a family is a main reason for marriage. You say homosexuals cannot form a family. Yet you allow for the marriage of infertile people because you say forming a family is not the ONLY reason for marriage. Please state these other reasons and state how they apply to some people (the infertile ones for example) but not the homosexuals.

Umm, the church lost its dominion over language when literacy became widespread.
try telling them that.

You say forming a family is a main reason for marriage. You say homosexuals cannot form a family. Yet you allow for the marriage of infertile people because you say forming a family is not the ONLY reason for marriage. Please state these other reasons and state how they apply to some people (the infertile ones for example) but not the homosexuals.
yeah, explain to me why you'd be okay with me have a hetero marriage but not a homosexual one, even though i won't be having children either way. since i won't be making a "real" family of my own (via breeding), does that mean i can't get married at all? if not, then why can i marry a hetero partner but not a homo one?

It's a very good thing that the gay marriage ban passed.
Do you want 10 year old boys marrying 30 year old men?
It could happen, if you can change anything you want about marriage,
say for example sex, why not age? It's just as relevant. No
Sex is first but you can be age is next.
Changing the laws will open pandora's box and no one knows how far
they'll go. I'm not as naive to believe that this how far it can go, this will open up the door for anything. Children are at stake.

It's a very good thing that the gay marriage ban passed.
Do you want 10 year old boys marrying 30 year old men?
It could happen, if you can change anything you want about marriage,
say for example sex, why not age? It's just as relevant. No
Sex is first but you can be age is next.
Changing the laws will open pandora's box and no one knows how far
they'll go. I'm not as naive to believe that this how far it can go, this will open up the door for anything. Children are at stake.

This got firmly slapped down yesterday. Stop retreading old arguments.

This got firmly slapped down yesterday. Stop retreading old arguments.
oh please, dont try to explain it to the homophobe, he lives on a slope so slippery that i have to have rock climbing gear to stay up

How do you kill cereal?

I prefer a VERY large hammer!!


As for gay marriages who cares who marries who(m)???

Honestly, I don't care who gets married. The only people who should care are the people getting married. Do I care if Bob & Bob get married? NO. Do I care if Shelly and Shelly get married? NO. So I fail to see why anyone else would give a rat's a$$, "who marries who".

What I'm going to say, does not apply to all American luckily, but certainly to Bush & co.

- It's okay to start a war based on what appears to be fake evidence.
- It's okay to put people in a Guantanamo for several years without a trial or other civil rights.
- It's not okay to marry the one you love, because it's against the Bible, unnatural, ...

Last time I checked, the Bible was more conclusive about disallowing the first two than the last one. Furthermore, in a land that is funded on equal rights, denying rights to minorities seems totally crazy. What on earth have other people to do with my marriage? I do not violate anyones freedoms, I just want my own, like many other gay people. Marriage is something between two people and should not be limited by law, unless for the protection of one of the partners (no marriage with children, like some seemed to think to be the next step).

Also funny that some people who talk about Islam fanatics turn out to be Christian fanatics themselves... For me those people are not better than the Islam fanatics... no one can force others to live up to their religious 'ideals'. If there is a God who can forgive Bush, he certainly can forgive gays too.

Happy to live in Belgium, a civilized land with gay marriage
Erwin

We need to just remove marraige from government powers altogether and have civil unions (all the benefits or such).

I agree with you. Part of the reason why the gay marriage rights issue is so convoluted is because too many people are confusing the religious sacrament of marriage with the civil union aspect of marriage when in fact they are two separate issues.

Legal marriage is not a religious issue. Atheists can obtain a legal license to marry and can marry be legally joined by anyone authorized to perform legal marriages, such as a justice of the peace. No church needs to recognize a marriage in order for it to be legal. It should also be pointed out that there are many legal marriages that certain churches do not and should never be forced to recognize. The prime example of this is that the Catholic church does not recognize marriages between people where one of the spouses is divorced and grounds for annulment do not exist while the previous legal spouse of the divorced person is still alive.

Converesly, I know many people - including heterosexual couples- who have had religious ceremonies but did not wish to be married in the legal definition of the word.

I personally think we need to reform the marriage laws altogether. I have some vague idea that we could have some kind of legal contract between two people who are of age which has to be renewed every now and then. Maybe one year, two years, three years and five years. Then people won't take what they have for granted, and if it doesn't work out, there is no divorce. The contract has simply expired. They walk away as set out by the terms of the contract. If they know that they have to renew, it's a reminder that they have to think about what they want throughout the relationship. Just a thought.

(Sorry I cut out in mid-'debate' earlier, I'll look back: Unexpected guest. )

Actually someone brought up an interesting argument: "Gay marriage should be illegal because homophobia exists and children might be hurt by it."

Guess what. In a civilized nation such as ours, we seek to *outgrow* predjudice, not use it as a justification for the prejudice, itself.

If you're teaching your children that they need to pick on children of homosexual couples, then *you're* the one doing wrong.

People seem to forget in this debate that homosexual marriages *already exist,* and have for a very long time. The only question *here* is whether or not they should continue to be denied the same civil rights and responsibilities that a heterosexual couple who has made the same commitment is given as a matter of course.

If you want to 'think of the children,' consider that the *children* of homosexual couples don't *deserve* to be picked on, told their parents don't belong together, or that anyone involved is a lesser American citizen,or lesser *human being.*

Outlawing the civil recognition of gay marriages will not stop us from having families, it only denies us and our children the equal protection of the law.

And that's what that is.

Since you seem to know Kerry does not support Gay Marriage, where has he stated so? Or are you on 'the inside'? He's never publicly denounced it to my knowledge. Enlighten me...

At one point in time, not only was it illegal to marry interracially, a child born of that union could be destroyed (killed) if discovered. Yeah, that really sucks, and the law was changed, and that's what needs to happen here. And if the law's not changed, then it must be obeyed, not ignored. What other laws shall be ignored and then CONDONED by the politicians that run a city?

The problem with your arguement is that it would completely cut out any judicial review. One purpose for judicial review is to remove laws that are unconstitutional. Because of how the system is set up however, people cannot just say "that law is unconstitutional" in order to get it reviewed. A case must be brought up through the civil or criminal courts. So, the law has to be "broken" first. Otherwise illegal laws, like the ones that did not allow for interracial marriage would stand.

Meatoppia, since you apparently don't believe in google searches, here's a link to an article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/) that discusses the issue and contains the following paragraph:
Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has said he supports civil unions and equal protection for gays and lesbians but that he opposes marriage for them. He also said he believes the matter should be an issue for the states.

Given another minute or two, I could no doubt come up with a direct quote, but then what would you have to do with yourself? Enjoy.

Given that the gay marriage amendment is being pushed in an election year as a political thrid rail for idealistic libreals to step on in the first place, I don't fault Kerry for not coming out for gay marriage. It may be time for equal rights, but it's *not* a time when you can get elected on them.

The alternative is manifestly and maliciously worse.

Given that the gay marriage amendment is being pushed in an election year as a political thrid rail for idealistic libreals to step on in the first place, I don't fault Kerry for not coming out for gay marriage. It may be time for equal rights, but it's *not* a time when you can get elected on them.

The alternative is manifestly and maliciously worse.

Kinsella, this is totally out of topic, but I just want to say you have a turn of phrase that I admire.

Kinsella, this is totally out of topic, but I just want to say you have a turn of phrase that I admire.

Stop hitting on him/her.

Stop hitting on him/her.Someone's jealous!

I'm a Missourian, and I voted in favor of the amendment. I fully believe homosexual acts are wrong, along with a host of other sexual acts such as fornication, masturbation, adultery, etc. However, I do not wish to outlaw those acts since people are free to choose their own actions, no matter how immoral I believe them to be. Marriage is a bit different though. I agree fully with those who stated earlier that heterosexual parenthood offers the potential for the best environment for children that are raised, and therefore the government has an interest to promote heterosexual marriage. I have seen the links to studies that claim otherwise, but I believe them to be highly biased and the data skewed. It is not uncommon for scientists to draw conclusions from data that match what they were hoping to see in the results, and I believe that is what has happened with the pro-homosexual parenting studies as others have noted. As such, I see no reason why the state should grant the priveleges associated with marriage to homosexual couples - there is just not enough valid scientific evidence to support homosexual marriage.

Yes, I know there are many things wrong with heterosexual marriage, and I believe they need to be fixed as well. I believe it needs to be harder (but not impossible) to get a divorce, because then maybe people will think twice before getting married. I also don't believe married couples should get a tax break unless they can claim children as dependants - there is no good reason to give them one. I believe there should be state sponsered pre-marriage preparation for anyone that doesn't have a similar religious marriage preparation (such as pre-Cana in the Catholic Church), so that couples will be forced to communicate with each other about their expectations for the marriage. I don't believe there should be 5-minute wedding chapels as in Las Vegas. If and when issues such as these come up, I will give them the same amount of support I have given to the recent constitutional amendment here in Missouri. Just because homosexual marriage is a hot-topic at the moment does not mean I am using it as a scapegoat.

I'm sure somebody will result to calling me a homophobe, which is no better than Christians who proclaim "God hates fags", because both are lies intended to debase someone else. I have had gay friends before (one of them was a fraternity brother), and I'm sure I'll have gay friends in the future. I am no more afraid of gays than I am of fornicators, yet I will firmly tell both that their actions are wrong, just as I hope others will tell me when I am wrong.

Your arguemnets are a bit illogical. While you feel all these action to be immoral, you seem to be willing to ban only the one that would have the least actual impact on heterosexual marriage.

I would think that outlawing fornication would "promote" heterosexual marriage a lot faster than outlawing gay marriage. Stop homosexuals from marrying is not going to cause any more or any less heterosexuals from going to the alter. Or from bearing children outside of marital relationships. And outlawing adultery would certainly protect and preserve marriages far more than outlawing homosexual marriage.

If your concern is for the children, then once again, why would you vote to outlaw homosexual marriage but not fornication or divorce? Surely there are studies which show that children are better off in two parent homes.

Your sole stated reason for banning homosexual marriage is that heterosexual marriage offers the best enviornment in which to raise a child but the only right you stated that you wish to deny to childless married couples are tax breaks. What about the right to visit an ill spouse in the hospital, to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, to make decisions about what to do with the remains of a deceased spouse - should those rights also be revoked from childless married couples? If not, then what scientific evidence do you have that supports the idea that non-child related issues are better handled by heterosexual couples than homosexual ones?

Actually, I might add, isn't it funny that conservatives and Religious Right Republicans are all about 'States' Rights' when it comes to regulating the air and water pollution that flows from one state to another, but when it comes to *my* state saying, "We find it unfair to discriminate against gays in marriage," all of a sudden we *need* a Federal amendment prohibiting it....

Maybe, this is one of those issues when we should be standing for America's *highest ideals,* not our most parochial prejudices.

Freedom, not theocracy.

Families, not religions that are running so scared they panic if they don't have their religious writings carved in stone on government buildings, and call it 'discrimination' to say, 'No, we won't elevate your verbal idols above the other people and cultures of this nation.'

These people are screaming, "They're excluding 'Gawd' from the public square."

No, they aren't. They're excluding specific interpretations of certain religions from the public square. This doesn't just protect the government and the people from the corruption of religion, it protects *religion* from the corruption of political power.

Frankly, if your church can't get it across, maybe it doesn't belong anywhere else. But the public square is about *rationality,* not the whim of the masses masquerading as some kind of eternal truth.

If you study that eternal truth, historically, you may notice it changes to suit who has the money and power.

America, was made to be different. We were made to be fair and free and equal and educated and rational and civil.

Even if it hurts, sometimes.

History shows, though, that it doesn't hurt as long as people scream and complain and prognosticate it will.

Under real liberty and justice, people come to know and accept and understand their neighbors.

At about the moment I was conceived, the New York cops could 'raid' and terrorize gay clubs in our most cosmopolitan city with *impunity,* ...until some transsexual with nothing to lose decided, with others, ...to fight back.

In my short lifetime, gay people no longer have to live in that all-encompassing fear... There's still fear, but that passes, too.

The language may have become more informed, but we are, I hope, *still dedicated to the proposition that all are equal.*

This government is *about the people,* not religion. People. That means, that your religious ideas, can be safe from government power, as long as you realize that the temptation to use religion for political power will sooner or later turn on you, and, as the Europe our founding fathers were not so far from could tell you, ...would result in centuries of war, bloodshed, fear, and atrocity.

America is a place where you can be free to have your religion because your neighbors *know* that your religion will *not* be the power with the guns and taxes and laws.

Our only standard here is *fairness,* and the Constitution.

And for good reason.

Anything else isn't America.

And anything else, in this world, is frickin *doomed.*

Where the heck is Missouri? Is that like Nebraska?
What funny words... Missooooouri. Nebrasssskah.

Where the heck is Missouri? Is that like Nebraska?
What funny words... Missooooouri. Nebrasssskah.
Best part is that if you pronounce the names like the natives, the two states rhyme. Mizzurah, Nuhbraskuh. :D

Stop hitting on him/her.

Wow, if you're serious, then it's truly a sorry state of things when someone can't pay someone else a complement without everyone assuming there's an agenda involved.

Besides, baby, don't worry. There's enough at the Buffet of Berk for everyone to get a mouthful.

Best part is that if you pronounce the names like the natives, the two states rhyme. Mizzurah, Nuhbraskuh. :D

That is a lie. Native Missourians do NOT pronounce it "Mizzurah", only West Coast, cultural elitist snobs do. :)

*facepalming* So much for my shreds of patriotic pride.

Wow, if you're serious, then it's truly a sorry state of things when someone can't pay someone else a complement without everyone assuming there's an agenda involved.

Besides, baby, don't worry. There's enough at the Buffet of Berk for everyone to get a mouthful.

That is soooo dirty. I don't think you should be allowed to get married. ;-)

That is soooo dirty. I don't think you should be allowed to get married. ;-)

So, are they outlawing all types of marriage then? ;)

Also, I might add, it's really hard not to feel elitist when conservatives bypass stuff like I just said to complain about regional pronunciations like they mean anything more than linguistic drift.

If that means anything, fronounce for me 'Dorchester,' 'Worcester,' 'Houston St.' 'St. Botolph's,' and 'Maverick Station.'

That is a lie. Native Missourians do NOT pronounce it "Mizzurah", only West Coast, cultural elitist snobs do. :)Tell that to the native Mizzurah-ans who I knew when I lived in Arkansas. :D Folk from Springfield pronounce it Mizzurah.

That is a lie. Native Missourians do NOT pronounce it "Mizzurah", only West Coast, cultural elitist snobs do. :)

I lived in St. Louis for 2 years, and I definately did notice that it was pronounced "mizzurah." Especially when referring to UMSL (if they didn't say 'umsel' instead." Just one person's observation, though.

Tell that to the native Mizzurah-ans who I knew when I lived in Arkansas. :D Folk from Springfield pronounce it Mizzurah.

As a native MissouriAn, I'll be more than happy to tell them that. Besides, Springfields just plain messed up, no matter how you slice it and you can tell them I said so. :D

I am so happy that this thread has taken the divergent tone it has.

Yeah, it needed something.

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

---Jesus

This is a state's issue, and Bush should keep away from the Constitution at all costs. There are way too many big words for him.
If Missouri bans gay marriage, good for them; I don't know if Missouri is a gay hangout or not, but whatever.
If the Constitution should be ammended, it should states that marriage is between two people, not between only a man and a woman.
(And for all of you Daily Show buffs, between man and box turtle should be OK too.)

And I'm glad we have Jesus' stance on this.

This is a state's issue, and Bush should keep away from the Constitution at all costs. There are way too many big words for him.
If Missouri bans gay marriage, good for them; I don't know if Missouri is a gay hangout or not, but whatever.
If the Constitution should be ammended, it should states that marriage is between two people, not between only a man and a woman.
(And for all of you Daily Show buffs, between man and box turtle should be OK too.)

And I'm glad we have Jesus' stance on this.

When I lived in St. Louis, I was very active in the gay community there. It's a very colorful one. They're good people. And they generally stick together extra tight because they're in such a hostile state. I'm studying gay advocacy law, and I lived there during the first year of college where I worked as an activist for things like ending homophobia in schools and whatnot.

This only proves that we as a nation have learned little or nothing from the days of the 60's civilrights movements. Why this is even an issue is beyond me?! There is always this idiotic argument that "If we allow for gay marriage, then where will we draw the line? What's to stop people from marrying multiple wives or thier dog?" This is pure paranoid ignorance and a weak argument against for allowing more tax dollars to flow when you look at legalizing gay marriage. Obviously, our separation of church and state clause in the constitution is being completely ignored. I have yet to see one argument against gay marriage, that is backed by pure reason or logic.

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.

Jim Crowe ring a bell?
That was repealed. Hopefully people will get over this too.

Jim Crowe ring a bell?
That was repealed. Hopefully people will get over this too.

and let the people say....Amen.

Denying civil rights?
Promoting a separate but equal amendment?
Promoting a second class citizenship amendment?

This would never happen in America a place where we are all equal, right?
Freedom?

:rolleyes: :gundge:

Appearantly, many voters didn't know if YES meant "Yes, we want gay marraige to be legal." or "Yes, we want it banned."

Missouri is a funny place. I love it.

Heh, how about this, if I can't get married legally to *a* girl, I *do* get religiously married to *lots* of people, then take *that* to court.

Heh, he, won't you be sorry...

Or... actually, would it really matter at *all?*

Even if it became cool.

I wonder.

Really.

Congress shall make no law.....

This implies that no law can be passed endorsing or condemning a religion. If it is a constitutional amendment, this little section does not apply.

(note, there is NO actual seperation of church and state -- this line was twisted into wording it that way)
===================
I personally feel that homosexuality is (depending on if IS genetics or not) immoral and/or a genetic fuckup, and that heterosexual families have a much better potential for a stable child-raising environment.

Also, I feel government (at ALL levels) should step out of marriage, exept maybe that it has to be between two consenting adults, just for general saftey (screwing a box turtle is probably not good for you). Marriage IS a religious institution, (by the way, Unitarian Universialist is not really a "church" of sorts) and it needs to stay that way.

It all comes down to personal responsibility and personal choice, which are garenteed by the Constitution.



By the way, I'm a radical right-winger.

I personally disagree with homosexuality, but I cannot deny the fact that they have a right to be together. I just hope that during a gay pride parade a suicide bomber blows them all up. I may acknowledge the fact that they have a right to be together, but I will not personally accept it, tolerate it, or fight for it.

I personally disagree with homosexuality, but I cannot deny the fact that they have a right to be together. I just hope that during a gay pride parade a suicide bomber blows them all up. I may acknowledge the fact that they have a right to be together, but I will not personally accept it, tolerate it, or fight for it.Wow. That's nice. Real nice. I don't agree with most republicans on things, and I certainly don't agree with Colorado Avalanche fans, but I certainly don't wish that a suicide bomber would kill them all. This is taking intolerance and hate to a new level. I don't care if you like it or not, or whether you are willing to fight for or against it. Wishing death on a group of people that you just have a disagreement or slight distaste for harkens back to overly militaristic eras and a certain leader who loved swastikas.

Why do you people care who everyone else is marrying. People do what makes them happy and half of you are gonna turn out gay anyways

Congress shall make no law.....

This implies that no law can be passed endorsing or condemning a religion. If it is a constitutional amendment, this little section does not apply.

(note, there is NO actual seperation of church and state -- this line was twisted into wording it that way)
===================
I personally feel that homosexuality is (depending on if IS genetics or not) immoral and/or a genetic fuckup, and that heterosexual families have a much better potential for a stable child-raising environment.

Also, I feel government (at ALL levels) should step out of marriage, exept maybe that it has to be between two consenting adults, just for general saftey (screwing a box turtle is probably not good for you). Marriage IS a religious institution, (by the way, Unitarian Universialist is not really a "church" of sorts) and it needs to stay that way.

It all comes down to personal responsibility and personal choice, which are garenteed by the Constitution.



By the way, I'm a radical right-winger.

I personally disagree with homosexuality, but I cannot deny the fact that they have a right to be together. I just hope that during a gay pride parade a suicide bomber blows them all up. I may acknowledge the fact that they have a right to be together, but I will not personally accept it, tolerate it, or fight for it.

Constitutional amendments start out as what ladies and gentlemen?

Well. Isn't that just rich.

I should probably add, to Berk, on posts I somehow missed... thanks for the compliment, and isn't it just like me to completely miss being 'hit on,'

(not how you conservatives see us queers, is it, but very true. Even in jest. :) )

Sadly, I'm spoken for.

Except of course that being in a long-term committed queer relationship with my lady may as well be polygamy, so I guess we'd all better go out sometime.

Mind you, conservatives will tell you I think about nothing but sex, but somehow I seem to find rhetoric and politic much more compelling, ...but I'm sure I'm corrupting traditional society in my own way, somehow. We'll try and make it suits the prurient fetishistic interests of puritanical ideologues somehow, I'm sure.

*scratching head,* Let's see. Sex, sex, sex, I'm sure I work that in somewhere. Oh, right, that stuff. Right. Yeah, you wouldn't want to see that, Moral People. Nah, you wouldn't.

But it's *good,* baby. And I can say, "Oh, Goddess," all I want, without worrying about this 'Hell' thing, anyway. Phhhhhhbt. :P

Now that that's established, I don't suppose you 'Christians' could find it in your hearts to allow me to legally establish the fact that if you gaybash me near to death on the sidewalk, I want my sweetie to be able to see me on my deathbed in the hospital, rather than, say, the family that kicked me to the street cause someone taught them a queer kid was too big a shame to bear?

Now that that's established, I don't suppose you could *respect* the fact that if I commit my *life* to someone, she shouldn't be a legal nonentity, as compared to people who hide me from my relatives, lie about me to my sister's kids, and keep telling a church I repudiate that I give two rat-turds about St Francis, so they can bury me under a fricking *cross*...

That *maybe* what the *sanctity* of marriage is *really* about, is one person, trusting their life, their work, their wealth, and their *memory* ...to one other person, who for Gods-know-what-reason is the other half of your heart.

What if, ...what if 'marriage,' *gasp* ....*isn't actually about sex?*

Whoa. What a trip.

Is marriage about sex for *anyone?*
Or do certain religions just *say* 'sex is bad and you can only have sex in a marriage.'


What if... Marriage is something else and sex is just a *fricking religious hangup that straights can't deal with in the first place?*

What if ...marriage is about someone you *want to get up every morning and make breakfast for?*

Maybe not *every* morning. But you want to.

What if marriage is about... Going to a place you don't know cause the place you know and love is empty without... Her.

What if marriage isn't about sex.

What if it's about *life?*

Commitment.

Love.

Whoa.
Radical idea.

We talk about marriage, you talk about sex you find too 'immoral.'

Funny, I don't remember any gay couples asking to marry bringing that *up,* now that I think of it...

Who *did?*



All you people screaming how it's wrong, all you can think of is someone's d*** up someone's a**.

And you know it.

You have no idea.
And you have no right.
You have no damn *clue.*

Heh, I mean. Okay, you wanna say I want to redefine marriage?


Let's redefine marriage *right now.*


How about we redefine marriage so it's about *love* and *legal rights people are willing to swear to for the rest of their lives,*


Instead about where some guy is allowed to put his member.


Go ahead. Pick a definition.

Derscon is correct, there is no seperation of Church and State. It states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Anglican church was the established religion when England still ruled the colonies. This meant that colonists, regardless of religion, were required to pay taxes that supported the Anglican church. The amendment merely prevents Congress from establishing a specific faith (such as Catholicism or Seventh Day Adventists) as the official church of the USA. Congress always opens with a prayer, in case you haven't noticed. Basically, to use it to enforce seperation of church and state is to use the wrong definition of establishment in your interpretation.

I also disagree with Derscon for his completely unacceptable statement regarding homosexuals (i.e. suicide bomber attack). As a christian, I may disagree with them, but I still would not wish death on them. Rather, I would hope that they would turn away from the path they walk. I may disagree with them, but I do not hate them. I just want to point out that all people who vote against gay marriage may not do it out of prejudice and hate.

Also, if anyone has read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire", or knows anything at all about the fall of Athens, then you will know exactly where the "slippery slope" argument comes from. It has historically been repeated that homosexuality usually leads to much more corrupt lifestyles such as polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. I do not put homosexuality or polygamy on the same level as the latter two practices, but the "slippery slope" argument has been proven many times in history.

Also, I resent the constant flaming against the people who do NOT support gay marriage. I am from the South, and I constantly find it humorous that, while preaching equality, the North had more race riots than the South had slave uprisings. Please do not take my use of the term slave offensively, I simply use it to refer to a different time. I am not referring to African- Americans of this day and age as slaves, and I am not racist. However, I am fairly sure that someone will try and tout me as such.

Now, it is interesting to me that, even though an obvious majority of Americans are attempting to ban gay marriage, the Democrats refuse to allow it. When Bush was elected, you cried foul because Gore had more popular votes (about half a million). It was pointed out in an earlier thread that the electoral system was put into place to protect the minority, and many people complained that it should be up to the majority (one person, one vote). Now, when the majority IS getting its way, you claim this is ALSO unfair. You also call them all racists. Please, explain this?

Derscon is correct, there is no seperation of Church and State. It states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. The Anglican church was the established religion when England still ruled the colonies. This meant that colonists, regardless of religion, were required to pay taxes that supported the Anglican church. The amendment merely prevents Congress from establishing a specific faith (such as Catholicism or Seventh Day Adventists) as the official church of the USA. Congress always opens with a prayer, in case you haven't noticed. Basically, to use it to enforce seperation of church and state is to use the wrong definition of establishment in your interpretation.

I also disagree with Derscon for his completely unacceptable statement regarding homosexuals (i.e. suicide bomber attack). As a christian, I may disagree with them, but I still would not wish death on them. Rather, I would hope that they would turn away from the path they walk. I may disagree with them, but I do not hate them. I just want to point out that all people who vote against gay marriage may not do it out of prejudice and hate.

Also, if anyone has read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire", or knows anything at all about the fall of Athens, then you will know exactly where the "slippery slope" argument comes from. It has historically been repeated that homosexuality usually leads to much more corrupt lifestyles such as polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia. I do not put homosexuality or polygamy on the same level as the latter two practices, but the "slippery slope" argument has been proven many times in history.

Also, I resent the constant flaming against the people who do NOT support gay marriage. I am from the South, and I constantly find it humorous that, while preaching equality, the North had more race riots than the South had slave uprisings. Please do not take my use of the term slave offensively, I simply use it to refer to a different time. I am not referring to African- Americans of this day and age as slaves, and I am not racist. However, I am fairly sure that someone will try and tout me as such.

Now, it is interesting to me that, even though an obvious majority of Americans are attempting to ban gay marriage, the Democrats refuse to allow it. When Bush was elected, you cried foul because Gore had more popular votes (about half a million). It was pointed out in an earlier thread that the electoral system was put into place to protect the minority, and many people complained that it should be up to the majority (one person, one vote). Now, when the majority IS getting its way, you claim this is ALSO unfair. You also call them all racists. Please, explain this?


I'd actually like to ask you the same question.

You can't have it both ways :p


Oh, and Rome fell because of a) poor leadership, b) christianity, and c) german barbarians. I don't remember sex bringing down the roman empire.

And I would like for you to actually state what question you are asking me, because your statement seems fairly trivial. And, obviously you have not read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire." Rome fell from within as a result of the decadence that plagued its people. They grew so pathetically corrupt and lazy that the nation was already in shambles when it was finally attacked, not just by Germanic invaders, but by the very people it had subjugated. You should do more reading.

Also, I should point out the reason that its leadership was bad was (again) a symptom of the moral corruption that plagued it. And please, Nero had walkways lined with crucified christians. The only nation ever to persecute more christians than Rome would be Russia, under Stalin. Also, by the time Constantine became a christian and made christianity acceptable, Rome already was on the brink of collapse.

And I would like for you to actually state what question you are asking me, because your statement seems fairly trivial. And, obviously you have not read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire." Rome fell from within as a result of the decadence that plagued its people. They grew so pathetically corrupt and lazy that the nation was already in shambles when it was finally attacked, not just by Germanic invaders, but by the very people it had subjugated. You should do more reading.

sex does not necessarily corruption make. and it's news to me that being homosexual is a decadent lifestyle. funny, isn't it, because they're actually being denied monetary benefits from lack of marriage. how disgustingly decadent.

Kern, you are pathetic. I never said that homosexuality was decadent. I said that the Roman people led decadent lifestyles. Some common features were (again) pedophilia and bestiality. Don't put words in my mouth.

And again, the "slippery slope" argument is proven many times in history, which is why I can safely use it.

Kern, you are pathetic. I never said that homosexuality was decadent. I said that the Roman people led decadent lifestyles. Some common features were (again) pedophilia and bestiality. Don't put words in my mouth.

And again, the "slippery slope" argument is proven many times in history, which is why I can safely use it.

1. don't call me kern.
2. pedophilia and bestiality are decadent how?
3. pedophilia and bestiality really have nothing to do with homosexuality.
4. if you didn't intend to infer that homosexuality was decadent, why would this argument belong in this thread?

Uh, if 'Homosexuality leads to corrupt lifestyles like polygamy,' you maybe ought to look at how a lot of the authors of and heroes in the Bible had numerous wives, a state of affairs treated as admirable, in the actual text of this Bible you seem to want to judge me by.

In the Bible, women are treated as *property* in marriage: in fact, the Bible says that women are obligated to marry their rapists, as long as the woman's *father* is paid off.


Is that the 'traditional' model of marriage you believe is enshrined in American law by some strange conservative radio logic?

You wanna talk about North and South, I got a sabre right here.

You're not imposing those 'values' on *my* Northern town, I'll tell you that. Not in *my* house.

The Roman Empire fell *because* of Christianity, not in spite of it.
It had distinct flaws, mind you, but if you read the oratory of the time, it destabilized because of *reactionary militaristic, expansionist authoritarianism* which destroyed its pluralistic, cosmopolitan, merit-based ideals.

Old money and inbred dynastic crap.

The old stories about the Roman Empire being decadent at the end actually come from popular *porn,* not history. If you read the actual proceedings of the Senate, well, they were starting to get pretty hung-up, let's just say. Prudish, even. That's why Catullus got in all that trouble.

You could like, read it in Latin. These orations aren't all that much different from the people on the Senate floor saying queers are to blame for failures in economic policy even when it's clear that, say, a deregulated electrical power industry in California that cut production capacity to increase profits by farming out power production to developing states that were coming to need it got caught by Texas energy interests that knew Dubya wouldn't stop from leveraging higher prices once he took office, thus causing rolling blackouts that could be blamed on Clinton while causing a recession......



Or, umm, something like that.

I don't care if you 'disagree' with me being queer, but you damn well better follow the money before you compare this to the fall of Rome and blame my orgasms.

That's just stupid.

Now, it is interesting to me that, even though an obvious majority of Americans are attempting to ban gay marriage, the Democrats refuse to allow it. When Bush was elected, you cried foul because Gore had more popular votes (about half a million). It was pointed out in an earlier thread that the electoral system was put into place to protect the minority, and many people complained that it should be up to the majority (one person, one vote). Now, when the majority IS getting its way, you claim this is ALSO unfair. You also call them all racists. Please, explain this?There are a couple of problems with your thesis. First of all, the problem with the 2000 election had far more to do with election fraud and the disenfranchisement of black voters in Florida than with the electoral college (an institution I still support, despite its unpopularity among many of my fellow Democrats). I cried foul because Bush's lawyers actually had the temerity to argue before the Supreme Court of the US that he would be irrevocably damaged if a recount of the Florida votes was allowed to continue and SCOTUS bought it. But that's another argument all together.

The second problem is that you and many others in this country are trying to use the idea of democracy to codify exactly what the Founding Fathers warned most about--the tyrrany of the majority. The Constitution protects minority rights at the expense of majority opinion because it's dangerous for a society to act otherwise. The tyrrany of the majority leads to second class citizenry, to segregation and discrimination, and in severe cases, ethnic cleansing. That's why the rights of the minority are given precedence over the will of the majority. Understand now?

Wait...So gay marriage was legal before?

And I would like for you to actually state what question you are asking me, because your statement seems fairly trivial. And, obviously you have not read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire." Rome fell from within as a result of the decadence that plagued its people. They grew so pathetically corrupt and lazy that the nation was already in shambles when it was finally attacked, not just by Germanic invaders, but by the very people it had subjugated. You should do more reading.

Also, I should point out the reason that its leadership was bad was (again) a symptom of the moral corruption that plagued it. And please, Nero had walkways lined with crucified christians. The only nation ever to persecute more christians than Rome would be Russia, under Stalin. Also, by the time Constantine became a christian and made christianity acceptable, Rome already was on the brink of collapse.

Welllllll, what I meant was, you say "the democrats first say the majority rules, then they say they DON'T rule!"

And I responded with "Ok, so choose one. Either Gore is president or there's no gay marrige. Actually, if Gore was president he'd probebly veto the ammendment, so in both cases it's a no go."



Oh, and homosexuality =/= decadence and laziness. Rome was lazy because they felt they had already taken everything worth having, and they had too much.

As for the german barbarians, the Roman army at the time was made up very strongly of german mercinaries. That's how they managed to get into the cities.

Furthermore, Rome had become TOO LARGE for what technology could give at the time. It was splintered up because of it's size and collapsed in on itself.

But for the record, no, I didn't read the book :p

I'm *very* tired of Christians acting like they're still under some storybook persecution of Rome, or whatever.

*cocking imaginary pistol and chambering a round, handing it over, butt-first.*

You're Rome, now, sport.

How you gonna play it?

First, Good for the state of Missouri. Its nice to see that the states are taking their right to govern themselves back from these activists judges and Civil authorities who seem to have the audacity to think they are above the law and violate laws voted on through direct election. Such as the laws in California defining marriage between a man and a woman. The people voted, the people decided. and any group that thinks they can tyrannically force their policies on the people are in for a rude awakening.

Second, Ive read some of the thread. dont know if everythings been addressed but the President really doenst have any say whatsoever on a constitutional Ammendment. Congress could pass one over his head if they wanted to. But you know they will never trust this issue to the people themselves because the people wouldnt vote for it. Thats why they have to use activists judges to force it on the people and then prevent the people from actually voting on it. Regardless, we will probably just end up bypassing the Senate anyway. I mean even California is opposed to gay marriage, all we need is enough states to support a constitutional convention to fix this once and for all and it will be all over for the activist judges.

Third, Gay marriage isnt a civil right. In fact marriage isnt a right at all its a privelage. One that has certain qualifications towards it. In order to get married you need to be: of legal age, not related, not already married and of the opposite sex. As long as you follow these guidelines you can get married regardless of whether your gay. straight, old, young, white, black, etc. We all have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that isnt related to us, isnt married and isnt jail bait.

Fourth, Marriage between a man and a woman is recognized by the government not because of religious reasons, but because marriage between a man and a woman benefits society. its the best way to bring children into the world and raise them right. Same sex couples have no benefits toward society. They dont help reproduce the human species at all. they dont create a stable environment to raise children. In fact the health care costs from homosexuals in their high risk lifestyle drain the government of tax revenues that could be used for more important things like national security and education. Its essentially the same reason polygamous marriages are not recognized, they are a drain on the resources of society so why encourage them by recognizing them?

I think the people need to get more riled up about this. If the gay community was advocating this through the legal democratic way i dont think this would be much of a problem. But they are not only trying to undermine the family as the basic unit of society, they are trying to do it by circumventing the Constitutional means of creating laws. Thus, this issue is attacking the foundations of our society on two levels, the basic level IE the Family itself, and the foundation of our Representative government. If you want to see Tyranny in action, watch these advocates of Gay marriage force their views on the people unconstitutionally. but if you love freedom, protect the rights of the people to govern themselves. Stop the attacks against our freedom and our families.