NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Do you mean the work of Edward Gibbons? While the chronology may be nearly impeccible the moralizing and results drawn therefrom are laughable by the standards of modern historians. At any rate, it is also very bad science, if the study of history may be called that, to base one's belief's about the accuracy of interpretations on just one source.

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?

I respect you for your calm and intelligent presentation of your views.

However...
Tyranny of the majority is true, I have used those same words many times myself to explain why we have a Republic instead of a Democracy. However, our nation is also founded on moral principals (yes, found in the Bible) and the Founding Fathers would disagree with including a lifestyle such as homosexuality under the umbrella of a civil right. Since marriage is a religious institution it stands to reason that it should remain defined by religious standards.

Not Directed at You: For those who cannot stand Christians and continually attack me for being one, I can only suggest that you perhaps consider that christians founded this country and based it on Biblical principals. If you hate that, I'm sorry but you were born in the wrong country. You would have been happier in Russia with Stalin while he killed off all the Christians I'm sure.

Goed: You continue to amaze me with your innacurate perceptions of what I say. The whole point of what I posted in that comment was that DEMOCRATS were trying to have it both ways. I didn't say I thought they should have it either way. I only say that they should either accept the will of the majority or ignore, and not try to do both. Read more carefully.

I respect you for your calm and intelligent presentation of your views.

However...
Tyranny of the majority is true, I have used those same words many times myself to explain why we have a Republic instead of a Democracy. However, our nation is also founded on moral principals (yes, found in the Bible) and the Founding Fathers would disagree with including a lifestyle such as homosexuality under the umbrella of a civil right. Since marriage is a religious institution it stands to reason that it should remain defined by religious standards.

Not Directed at You: For those who cannot stand Christians and continually attack me for being one, I can only suggest that you perhaps consider that christians founded this country and based it on Biblical principals. If you hate that, I'm sorry but you were born in the wrong country. You would have been happier in Russia with Stalin while he killed off all the Christians I'm sure.

Goed: You continue to amaze me with your innacurate perceptions of what I say. The whole point of what I posted in that comment was that DEMOCRATS were trying to have it both ways. I didn't say I thought they should have it either way. I only say that they should either accept the will of the majority or ignore, and not try to do both. Read more carefully.



.....

**kills self**

**written in a suicide note**

"The US is NOT founded after christianity. Get it through your heads. This is the two bajillionth time I've said it. It never has been. It never will be."

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?

There are several problems with your arguments here

1) It was Al Gore who brought the matter to the courts trying to get the State of Florida to allow illegal recounts in certain counties. Bush countered suited to stop the illegal recounts as the State of Florida had already recounted the votes twice before and Al Gore's third recount would have been past the legal deadline to certify the results. There was no reason to believe Al Gore would have one the illegal recount anyway. Bush had won the original and the first two recounts. and then later won every recount done by the media in the aftermath using the most liberal methods of counting votes. the Supreme Court didnt stop the recounting. the recounting was done twice before.

2)The argument the Bush lawyers had before the SCOTUS was that a third recount of select counties using various standards was in violation of the Constitution. and it was. You cant expect a count using different methods of figuring out what is a vote to make all votes equal. Al Gore tried to manufacture votes in Florida and had the audacity to do it in front of the entire world and he was stopped. And a good thing too. He has had a total mental breakdown since.

3)Your arguements about the tyranny of the majority is faulty. Minorities are not given precedence over the the majority. If they were that would be Tyranny period. minorities are simply protected by the same rights the majorities are as spelled out in the Bill of Rights. This does not give minorities the right to force their views on the majority or take away the majorities rights to govern.

You are however right that the Founders were wise for placing the Electorial college system together. Can you imagine the 2000 election without it? We would have had recounts all over the nation instead of just Florida. The vote was that close. It would have been interesting to see who actually did win that popular vote though, some people seem to forget that there were more than half a absentee ballots not counted in California because it wouldnt have effected the EC votes. Well over the marginal difference between the two candidates so it could have fallen either way.

Luckily we wont have to worry about any election controversies this year. President Bush is going to win in a landslide barring any world changing events. There are going to be alot of surprised Democrats come November.

Thanks for the support Fiznab ;)

Goed, say something that is backed up with fact. How can you possibly prove the US was not founded on christian ideals?

I would also like to point out that everyone ignores Athens. Athens was the best example of a true Democracy that you could hope for. Homosexuality was actually encouraged, because Athenians glorified the beauty of the male body. Of course, they also ended up encouraging the practice of adult males having relationships with young boys until they reached adulthood. But keep ignoring it.

Violets, you can criticize my bad science if you like, but you didn't say anything or use any source. Would you prefer for me to make a list of good books to read on the subject? I can do that if you like. However, I was trying to keep it simple.

Thanks for the support Fiznab ;)

Goed, say something that is backed up with fact. How can you possibly prove the US was not founded on christian ideals?

I would also like to point out that everyone ignores Athens. Athens was the best example of a true Democracy that you could hope for. Homosexuality was actually encouraged, because Athenians glorified the beauty of the male body. Of course, they also ended up encouraging the practice of adult males having relationships with young boys until they reached adulthood. But keep ignoring it.

Violets, you can criticize my bad science if you like, but you didn't say anything or use any source. Would you prefer for me to make a list of good books to read on the subject? I can do that if you like. However, I was trying to keep it simple.

**comes back to haunt NS**

Article 11 of the Treat of Tripoli clearly states that the US was no founded on the christian religion.

I really believe in the saying ABB. Anyone But Bush. He can go hang himself!
Not only that, but gay people should be able to what they want to do.. It's not our issue..

.....

**kills self**

**written in a suicide note**

"The US is NOT founded after christianity. Get it through your heads. This is the two bajillionth time I've said it. It never has been. It never will be."

Me thinks one needs to read President George Washingtons Speeches as President.

Fact is Representative governments in America began because of Christianity. The first one was started by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower Pact in the early 1600s. As was the Puritan community and later the Quakers in Pennsylvania.

Where do you think the idea of not having a king came from?

Where do you think the idea of the Judiciary branch came from. (here is a hint. There is a whole book called Judges in the Bible)

There is a reason that Representative government arose out of the Christian nations and not out of Muslim nations or Buddhist nations.

Heck Freedom of religion is a Biblical teaching "Choose ye this day whom you will serve" when Joshua told the Israelites they could worship who they wanted but he and his family would serve the Lord.

You need to look at history in the long view. until the Bible was available to the people there were no Representative governments. the people were oppressed. And then boom the Printing press begins printing enough Bibles so everyone can have them and the fights against tyranny toward enlightenment begins.

You may not like Christianity much. You dont even have to believe it. But to ignore its influence on the foundations of the United states is not only dumb but dishonest.

I really believe in the saying ABB. Anyone But Bush. He can go hang himself!
Not only that, but gay people should be able to what they want to do.. It's not our issue..


They can do what they want. No one is stopping them from their illicit and dangerous sexual activities. But they cant force their views on society. They cant tell us we cant speak out agianst what they do because this is America. We can say what we want. And we are allowed to vote how we want too. We dont have to support the break down of the family. we are part of society too and ill be damned if im going to let someone just change society or indoctrinate the rising generation with crap and im not going to say anything about it. The majority has rights too and we dont have to put up with the tyranny of the minority.

Me thinks one needs to read President George Washingtons Speeches as President.

Fact is Representative governments in America began because of Christianity. The first one was started by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower Pact in the early 1600s. As was the Puritan community and later the Quakers in Pennsylvania.

Where do you think the idea of not having a king came from?

Where do you think the idea of the Judiciary branch came from. (here is a hint. There is a whole book called Judges in the Bible)

There is a reason that Representative government arose out of the Christian nations and not out of Muslim nations or Buddhist nations.

Heck Freedom of religion is a Biblical teaching "Choose ye this day whom you will serve" when Joshua told the Israelites they could worship who they wanted but he and his family would serve the Lord.

You need to look at history in the long view. until the Bible was available to the people there were no Representative governments. the people were oppressed. And then boom the Printing press begins printing enough Bibles so everyone can have them and the fights against tyranny toward enlightenment begins.

You may not like Christianity much. You dont even have to believe it. But to ignore its influence on the foundations of the United states is not only dumb but dishonest.

Sorry, but you're wrong. To claim that there IS one is to be ignorant.

As I said, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

They can do what they want. No one is stopping them from their illicit and dangerous sexual activities. But they cant force their views on society. They cant tell us we cant speak out agianst what they do because this is America. We can say what we want. And we are allowed to vote how we want too. We dont have to support the break down of the family. we are part of society too and ill be damned if im going to let someone just change society or indoctrinate the rising generation with crap and im not going to say anything about it. The majority has rights too and we dont have to put up with the tyranny of the minority.

Funny, the same thing was said about black people some time ago...


So, out of curiosity, when do we illegalize divorce or pre-marital sex?

Might I also remind you that the "majority" supported slavery and denied women's rights for several centuries? No one can stop your from making your statement, but as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with saying: "The right to swing my fist ends at the point of another
person's nose". And that's exactly what the issue of gay marriage is all about. You can *tell* me that I can't get married to a man, but that doesn't mean that you can, or should, *stop* me from getting to a man.

surely if you crazy people are going to try and outlaw homosexuality you should also outlaw the consumption of shellfish (especially lobster). the bible says that both homosexuality and eating shellfish are equally despicable acts against god.

And just so that Goed has actual proof and lazy people won't just rebuke his claims:

From the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary"

"Article 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

It was brought to the Senate on June 7, 1791 where it was read aloud and was approved unanimously.

First off, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli only says that to ensure that America did not fight Muslims based on religious differences. Second off, that was not the founding of America. The reason it says that is because America was in no position to piss off the Muslims. Third off, America could not hope to defeat the Barbary pirates, and ended up being forced to bribe them with a considerable fortune, listed below.

twelve thousand Spanish dollars
five hawsers-8 Inch
three cables-10 Inch
twenty five barrels tar
twenty five d° pitch
ten d° rosin
five hundred pine boards
five hundred oak d°
ten masts (without any measure mentioned, suppose for vessels from 2 to 300 ton)
twelve yards
fifty bolts canvas
four anchors

In other words, we were sucking up to them.

First off, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli only says that to ensure that America did not fight Muslims based on religious differences. Second off, that was not the founding of America. The reason it says that is because America was in no position to piss off the Muslims. Third off, America could not hope to defeat the Barbary pirates, and ended up being forced to bribe them with a considerable fortune, listed below.

twelve thousand Spanish dollars
five hawsers-8 Inch
three cables-10 Inch
twenty five barrels tar
twenty five d° pitch
ten d° rosin
five hundred pine boards
five hundred oak d°
ten masts (without any measure mentioned, suppose for vessels from 2 to 300 ton)
twelve yards
fifty bolts canvas
four anchors

In other words, we were sucking up to them.


Guess what?

It's still a legal document.

And, that article was the only one NOT to appear in arabic. Furthermore, it was read aloud before being ratified.

That article is there for the prime purpose of saying that we arn't a christian nation.



Oh, and kindly show me how we ARE a christian nation? Because the founding fathers were diests.

Diesm is still a form of christianity. It just subscribes more to the "clockmaker God" theory. Also, Fiznab already explained how the US is based on religion. Go back and read his post.

Diesm is still a form of christianity. It just subscribes more to the "clockmaker God" theory. Also, Fiznab already explained how the US is based on religion. Go back and read his post.

Whoo whoooooo! Here comes the clue train! Deism and Christianity are FAR apart. One has it's main belief in Jesus, the other doesn't.

As for him, EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE he used can have christianity removed and STILL EXIST.

Muslims have judges. So do jews. OMGWTF!

Several colonies were started NOT for religious reasons, but for the pure reason of getting cash.

Representative governments were around with the greeks, who were NOT christian.

Actually, most of our laws and morals come from the theroies of natural law. I believe Locke wrote them, though it could've easily been Hobbes or Descartes instead.

Saying "freedom of religion" comes ONLY from christianity is the equivalent to saying "I am an ignoramous." it's simply not true.



Any more?

Here is a legal document for you, I call it the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And so on and so forth


Who gave Americanstheir rights? God. Jefferson says so. That is the whole reason we rebelled. Because our GOD-GIVEN rights were being ignored.

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

There is a road that leads to a T-junction 200 yards away, you and I are standing facing the T-junction. You say I should take one step forward. I reply that if I do that I'll inevitably end up walking into the wall 200 yards ahead of me.

Am I being rational? Be careful, because if saying taking one step means I will end up walking 200 yards isn't logical then neither is ANY slippery slope fallacy based argument.

Here is a legal document for you, I call it the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And so on and so forth


Who gave Americanstheir rights? God. Jefferson says so. That is the whole reason we rebelled. Because our GOD-GIVEN rights were being ignored.

You do know that the word "God" isn't the exclusive property of the christian religion, right? Actually, didn't we already say that they were diests, not christians?

What a ridiculous analogy. We aren't on a road. The "slippery slope" would require an analogy that goes something like this.

We are standing at the top of a slope whose surface is covered with wet gravel. I tell you to take one step forward. You say no, because you are not a fool and don't want to get hurt.

Who gave Americanstheir rights? God. Jefferson says so. That is the whole reason we rebelled. Because our GOD-GIVEN rights were being ignored.

Your 'God Given' rights which in the Declaration of Independence were stated to be 'self-evident?' And when the 'God' named is 'nature's god' and not the Biblical God at all?

"No man [should] be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor [should he] be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor ... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ... All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ... the same [should] in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."- Thomas Jefferson.

Goed, it says Creator. Quit dodging the issue. As diests, they still beleived in God. Once again, it is the "clockmaker God" theory. As used by diests, it will still refer to the christian God. Diests beleive that God created the world and then let it go along on its own. Either way you look at it, not all of the Founding Fathers were diests anyways.

What a ridiculous analogy. We aren't on a road. The "slippery slope" would require an analogy that goes something like this.

We are standing at the top of a slope whose surface is covered with wet gravel. I tell you to take one step forward. You say no, because you are not a fool and don't want to get hurt.

False, because NONE of the steps are connected in any way. If you legalise one thing it does not follow that you must legalise another, in much the same way as taking one step down a road does not mean you will necessaryily take further steps. It is an ENTIRELY valid analogy.

Your 'God Given' rights which in the Declaration of Independence were stated to be 'self-evident?' And when the 'God' named is 'nature's god' and not the Biblical God at all?

"No man [should] be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor [should he] be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor ... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief ... All men [should] be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and ... the same [should] in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."- Thomas Jefferson.


Excellent. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said. I am not forcing anyone to beleive in my God. You are free not to. However, if you challenge my beliefs, then I will defend them, which is my right.

Ok, dumbass, diests =/= christians. Do we or do we not understand this?

I'm not dodging ANY issue. You continuously say "diests are christians. Diests are christians. Somebody's poisened the waterhole! Diests are christians."

And it's NOT TRUE.

We're not talking "moderatly false." We arn't even going on "somewhat untrue."

IT'S FLAT OUT INCORRECT.

False, because NONE of the steps are connected in any way. If you legalise one thing it does not follow that you must legalise another, in much the same way as taking one step down a road does not mean you will necessaryily take further steps. It is an ENTIRELY valid analogy.

Wrong, because history has and will continue to repeat itself.

Ok, dumbass, diests =/= christians. Do we or do we not understand this?

I'm not dodging ANY issue. You continuously say "diests are christians. Diests are christians. Somebody's poisened the waterhole! Diests are christians."

And it's NOT TRUE.

We're not talking "moderatly false." We arn't even going on "somewhat untrue."

IT'S FLAT OUT INCORRECT.

Fool.

Diests believe in the "clockmaker God." This God is the same one that christians believe in. Not all of the Founding Fathers were diests. I believe you are referring specifically to Jefferson, who did not represent a majority of the US.

Fool.

Diests believe in the "clockmaker God." This God is the same one that christians believe in. Not all of the Founding Fathers were diests. I believe you are referring specifically to Jefferson, who did not represent a majority of the US.

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/FU2.jpg

DIESTS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. Deists don't believe in Jesus. That is the PRIMARY FOCUS of christianity.

by your logic, EVERY FUCKING MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION is the same one.

GROW A BRAIN. USE IT.

Is there a reason behind banning gay marriage besides personal hatred for it or biblical hatred of it?? Person hatred is a personal problem and shouldnt be able to make a law soley based on this. Also there is the comment about it being against the bible and isnt basing a law on that mixing church and state?? For those people that are worried about seeing "homos making out in the streets wildly!!" well letting them get married isnt going to do this gay dating is not illegal, infact from what ive heard your sexuality goes down alot after you get married so wouldnt letting them get married lessen the "massive amounts of super gayness"??

Dumb SHIT
I am not saying that diests are christians.
If you weren't so ignorant and close-minded you could see that.
HOWEVER, they share the same God.
Just as Jews and christians share the same God- MINUS JESUS
Either way, they are all speaking of the same God. The diests (especially Jefferson) merely believe that christianity (specifically Catholicism) has corrupted the original teachings.

Jefferson
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

He refers to the system. However, he does not say he disbeleives Jesus.

Wrong, because history has and will continue to repeat itself.

Which can also be said as 'sometimes things happen more than once.' Brilliant insight, Holmes.

Diests believe in the "clockmaker God." This God is the same one that christians believe in. Not all of the Founding Fathers were diests. I believe you are referring specifically to Jefferson, who did not represent a majority of the US.

Christians must by definition believe that their God had a son and interfered with the world after it was created. Therefore, it is NOT that same God at all.

Dumb SHIT
I am not saying that diests are christians.
If you weren't so ignorant and close-minded you could see that.
HOWEVER, they share the same God.
Just as Jews and christians share the same God- MINUS JESUS
Either way, they are all speaking of the same God. The diests (especially Jefferson) merely believe that christianity (specifically Catholicism) has corrupted the original teachings.

Jefferson
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

He refers to the system. However, he does not say he disbeleives Jesus.

Therefore by your own logic, it's NOT BASED ON CHRISTIANITY, because it could just as easily be based on the religion of Islam.

QED, BITCH

Read that quote again.
Jefferson does not say he doesn't believe in Jesus. However, he does say that Paul (whom Catholics consider to be the creator of their church) corrupted Christs' teachings. Do you even know what you are talking about? Or are you merely parroting someone else? Jefferson says that Christianity has *become* perverted. He believes it, but not in its current form.

Note that he says Jesus teaching were CORRUPTED. He never claims that he doesn't believe in Jesus. He says that others mixed up the original message.

And where the fuck did you pull Islam from in all that?

Read that quote again.
Jefferson does not say he doesn't believe in Jesus. However, he does say that Paul (whom Catholics consider to be the creator of their church) corrupted Christs' teachings. Do you even know what you are talking about? Or are you merely parroting someone else? Jefferson says that Christianity has *become* perverted. He believes it, but not in its current form.

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

OWNED

Read that quote again.
Jefferson does not say he doesn't believe in Jesus.

He also doesn't say he does.

However, he does say that Paul (whom Catholics consider to be the creator of their church)

Catholics believe it was PETER, not Paul.

Jefferson says that Christianity has *become* perverted. He believes it, but not in its current form.

Nice. Where the hell did he make a positive statement of belief in there, again?

Yes, good one, the only reason he didn't put down Jesus Christ as that the people of the US wanted to include religious freedom. So, christianity still holds vast influence, even to the point of ensuring religious freedom.

And it is 4:00 in the morning, so you will have to forgive the Peter/Paul mixup.

Yes, good one, the only reason he didn't put down Jesus Christ as that the people of the US wanted to include religious freedom. So, christianity still holds vast influence, even to the point of ensuring religious freedom.

http://www.wackyweaselworld.com/flameINC/images/w6.gif

DO we need to-once AGAIN-go over the LEGAL DOCUMENT which states that the US was NOT founded on christianity?

What you fail to realize is that what I and Fiznab are speaking of is not an official basis on christianity, but rather an ethical one. Officially, we are not based on christianity. Ethically, in terms of morals and values, we are.

What you fail to realize is that what I and Fiznab are speaking of is not an official basis on christianity, but rather an ethical one. Officially, we are not based on christianity. Ethically, in terms of morals and values, we are.

How?

Please remember that christianity does NOT have full monopoly on the words "ethics" or "values."

What you fail to realize is that what I and Fiznab are speaking of is not an official basis on christianity, but rather an ethical one. Officially, we are not based on christianity. Ethically, in terms of morals and values, we are.

Even though the Declaration states that they are 'self-evident,' in other words that they just made sense?

Violets, you can criticize my bad science if you like, but you didn't say anything or use any source. Would you prefer for me to make a list of good books to read on the subject? I can do that if you like. However, I was trying to keep it simple.

I criticized your science as from your post it seemed as though you were drawing your conclusions from one heavily biased book - which is bad science. If this does not apply to you then I apologize.

I have read many books on the Roman Empire. Reasons given for its fall vary greatly. One example would be Harl's book on coinage in the empire, where the fall is largely attributed to inflation and the devaluation of currency. Great book for someone who want to argue for the gold standard.

Gibbons also pointed to the spread of fChristianity and mysticism as a cause of the fall. Do you see this as part of the overall "decadence?"

Just a comment on the banning of gay marriage:

It is fucking DEVOLUTION!!!!!

I was so shocked to read in this topic, to read that it's already the 38th state that outlawed gay marriage. (Did I understood that well? Is it really true??)

America...Land of The Free??

I spit on your stars and stripes.

It's a mystery to me... all the Americans I meet on Internet (well, with a few exceptions, but really, they are just a neglectable minority) seem to be so openminded, progressive and everything you want and then there is this big contradiction with all the decisions American governments make.
What should I conclude? That by some weird coincidence all the cool Americans that do not agree with these sick decisions of their governments are on Internet and those that do agree not...or that you are just all oppressed by your governments, that take decisions that most of you do not agree with? It's just not...representative, do you know what I'm saying?

I can understand that each church decides for itself if gay marriage should be allowed or not, but this banning is about banning gay marriage for law, I just can't understand it. Also, I can't understand why this issue can't be seen as important enough to be discussed on federal level.

Hope to get some comment on this.

Just a comment on the banning of gay marriage:

It is fucking DEVOLUTION!!!!!

I was so shocked to read in this topic, to read that it's already the 38th state that outlawed gay marriage. (Did I understood that well? Is it really true??)

America...Land of The Free??

I spit on your stars and stripes.

It's a mystery to me... all the Americans I meet on Internet (well, with a few exceptions, but really, they are just a neglectable minority) seem to be so openminded, progressive and everything you want and then there is this big contradiction with all the decisions American governments make.
What should I conclude? That by some weird coincidence all the cool Americans that do not agree with these sick decisions of their governments are on Internet and those that do agree not...or that you are just all oppressed by your governments, that take decisions that most of you do not agree with? It's just not...representative, do you know what I'm saying?

I can understand that each church decides for itself if gay marriage should be allowed or not, but this banning is about banning gay marriage for law, I just can't understand it. Also, I can't understand why this issue can't be seen as important enough to be discussed on federal level.

Hope to get some comment on this.


I have a feeling the same sex marriage ban will die one day in a court challenge. In effect, the definition of marriage is religious in nature. Secondly, not all churches look down their noses at gay marriage, some even perform them. Thirdly, as marriage is largely a religious concept and it is conceivable some homosexuals ascribe to such religion, denying them the opprtunity to have their union officiallly recognised on par with conventional marriage would seem to run afoul with the spirit and letter of freedom of religious expression. I can see two outcomes. Either 'politcally correct" civil unions become available and legally recognised or the issue is going to find its way into the court system as do most things in the US. *smirk*

Now all we need is a really uppity lawyer. :D

I'm a republican, but I support gay marriage. Anti-stereotype.

Secondly, not all churches look down their noses at gay marriage, some even perform them.


Nice to know. I live in a country where the majority of religious people are catholic, so here it's impossible to marriage for church if you're gay.
I had no idea there where churches who have nothing against gay marriage.

Nice to know. I live in a country where the majority of religious people are catholic, so here it's impossible to marriage for church if you're gay.
I had no idea there where churches who have nothing against gay marriage.

Try Scandenavia. I hear in Denmark (where the official church is not seperate from the goverment but is actualy controlled by it rather than the other way around or something along those lines) almost all churches now give gay marriages. Also I know of a few Anglican priests in the UK that are willing to do it.
The Catholics however are still grumbling about protecting the family model which is rich considering how many family wrecking paedophiles they have amongst their ranks...

The majority has rights too and we dont have to put up with the tyranny of the minority.

And how are the rights of the majority diminished by allowing gay marriage? It's about sharing those rights with a minority, not taking them away from the majority...

For me it's all about personal freedom: Have people the freedom to marry the one they love or do you deny people this right based on some stupid pretexts?

Erwin,
Belgium, where equal rights are more than words

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.

Might it be that a book written in the context of the morality in 177x is not really fit to be used as an argument? The bias is pretty strong there.

Might it be that a book written in the context of the morality in 177x is not really fit to be used as an argument? The bias is pretty strong there.

Not to mention it is wrong anyway as the fall was more to do with decaadence in general not promiscuity. Oh and the Greeks were FAR more promiscous and they only got defeated because the romans were better fighters. Er...POINT?

Not to mention it is wrong anyway as the fall was more to do with decaadence in general not promiscuity. Oh and the Greeks were FAR more promiscous and they only got defeated because the romans were better fighters. Er...POINT?

Nooooo! It can't be true! They were defeated because teh panzee fagz rekked their country!!!11one!!11!two

Hallelujah, I have returned.

What an interesting turn this thread has taken! Greeks and Romans and Belgians, oh my!

Empires fall for all kinds of reasons, and the reasons for the fall of the Roman empire are not truly known, nor will they likely ever be (unless somebody invents a time machine). Blaming homosexuals for the fall of the Roman empire is like blaming ferrets for an earthquake. Sure, the ferrets might have developed a sophisticated grasp of seismic disruptor technology, but how likely is it?

Now, citing religious dogma as grounds for the denial of civil rights to one group is fundamentally flawed, especially in a nation that espouses religion having no direct influence over the state. Sure, you're religious doctrine, as you interpret it, may say that what I do is wrong, but I am not of your religion and as such, am not bound by its 'rules'. Heck, throughout history, many people who have claimed to be of Christian faith have picked and chosen what 'rules' they obeyed and did not obey. It would seem that almost immediately after "You shall not kill" was written on that rock, there was a caveat inserted by people that allowed it to be suspended when they thought they should be able to.

I have nothing against Christians. I do have something against people who use their faith as a justification for their own personal fear and hatred. I've said it before; God doesn't hate fags, God is Love. God doesn't hate anybody. Certain people, however, seem to hate everybody.

I have also still not seen anybody answer the question about marriage being about creating an ideal environment to raise a child. This has been stated many times during this thread, and refuted. If marriage was about creating the ideal environment for a child, then infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Couples where the female is post-menopausal would not be allowed to marry. Couples where one party has been convicted of beating children would not be allowed to marry. Yet, they all are, as long as the parties are of opposite gender. The fact of the matter is, marriage is not about creating an ideal environment for children.

Oh, and Many Rainbows... Belgium sounds great! What are the immigration laws there like? Would they let an Australian move there?

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.
I don`t see any reason why the law should be considered unconstituitional. And I don´t see reasonable grounds for a change of the law.
The equality principal doesn´t mean that everything has to be treated the same way: It requires to treat the same thing the same way and DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

So: if you want this change you have to change the law itself. And for that you need a majority which you fortunately don´t have.

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.
Again: the equality principle doesn´t mean that everything has to be treated the same way. The same thing has to be treated the same way and different things differently. I know not so much about US law. However we have a simular list in our constituition. But this list is to be considered examplatory. So: that means that it is not final. Also groups that are not specificly mentioned can claim that they shall not be discriminated against. Therefore your argument that gay marriage and polygamy are to completly different things doesn´t stand. If you allow the one the pressure is going to build to allow the other as well. And I don´t want either of those things.
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. And there are good reasons for that and therefore it shall remain that way.

1)Stop saying point.
2)What of the UK? Most favour civil unions here but it is not law.
.
We life in a parlamentarian democracy. That of course means that you need a majority in parliament (except if you are in Switzerland though).
And by the way: Gay marriage and civil union are not the same thing. The latter usually doesn´t include everything a marriage includes (tax benefits, adoption, e.g.)

defining marriage as between a man and a woman doesn't necessarily mean that the state discriminates against gays.

the state should get out of marriage anyway. enforce the contractual obligations.

Again: the equality principle doesn´t mean that everything has to be treated the same way. The same thing has to be treated the same way and different things differently. I know not so much about US law. However we have a simular list in our constituition. But this list is to be considered examplatory. So: that means that it is not final. Also groups that are not specificly mentioned can claim that they shall not be discriminated against. Therefore your argument that gay marriage and polygamy are to completly different things doesn´t stand. If you allow the one the pressure is going to build to allow the other as well. And I don´t want either of those things.
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. And there are good reasons for that and therefore it shall remain that way.

Will the pressure build? Well at most there are a fwe hundred polygamists. Them having already gone away from the idea of monogomy (which is may I add the basis of marriage) so will not want it. And equality means things should be...Er...Equal. Right now hetros can marry who they love were as homos can not. THIS IS UNEQUAL.
Also lesbian marriage is one consenting adult and one consenting adult. Polygamy is X number of consenting adults all marrying each other. DIFFERENCE.
Oh and if marriage is about a perfect condition for raising a child how come murders and convicted paedophiles are permitted marriage?

We life in a parlamentarian democracy. That of course means that you need a majority in parliament (except if you are in Switzerland though).
And by the way: Gay marriage and civil union are not the same thing. The latter usually doesn´t include everything a marriage includes (tax benefits, adoption, e.g.)

Ok that is the US definition dimmy. In the UK civil union= renamed marriage.

Also Kyb I object to you inventing other reasons for unequal rights. If you do not like gay people then just say so and do not invent other reasons for your opposition to us having the same rights that you do.

I don`t see any reason why the law should be considered unconstituitional. And I don´t see reasonable grounds for a change of the law.
The equality principal doesn´t mean that everything has to be treated the same way: It requires to treat the same thing the same way and DIFFERENT THINGS DIFFERENTLY.

So: if you want this change you have to change the law itself. And for that you need a majority which you fortunately don´t have.

The fact that you see one loving, committed relationship as different to another loving, committed relationship makes me pity you. The fact is, they are only different if you see them through glasses tinted with irrational religious 'morality'.

As has been stated, the majority has no place in deciding this issue. An unjust law, ruled so by the court, can be overturned without majority vote. This is what should (and hopefully will) happen. To allow a tyrannical majority to restrict the rights of a minority which poses no threat to them is unjust.

The fact that you see one loving, committed relationship as different to another loving, committed relationship makes me pity you. The fact is, they are only different if you see them through glasses tinted with irrational religious 'morality'.

As has been stated, the majority has no place in deciding this issue. An unjust law, ruled so by the court, can be overturned without majority vote. This is what should (and hopefully will) happen. To allow a tyrannical majority to restrict the rights of a minority which poses no threat to them is unjust.

I hope Kyb reincarnated as a pre-60s african american so he can see for himself why the minority should never be trusted with the minority.

(BTW I am The-Libertines)

I respect you for your calm and intelligent presentation of your views.

However...
Tyranny of the majority is true, I have used those same words many times myself to explain why we have a Republic instead of a Democracy. However, our nation is also founded on moral principals (yes, found in the Bible) and the Founding Fathers would disagree with including a lifestyle such as homosexuality under the umbrella of a civil right. Since marriage is a religious institution it stands to reason that it should remain defined by religious standards.

Whether or not the US was founded on christian principles is irrelevant--we weren't, but that's a debate for another place and time. It's irrelevant because regardless of what the situation was at the inception of the United States, we live in a different world today, a world where secular thought is not only commonplace, it's close to dominant, and where there are real federally provided benefits to being married, benefits that are necessarily denied to same-sex couples.

Look--if you want marriage to be a solely religious institution, I'm fine with that. Remove all benefits that come along with state-approved marriage and let churches decide who they'll marry and who they'll refuse. But as long as the federal and state governments get to say who marries and provide certain benefits for entering into that civil bond, then to deny those benefits solely because the majority feels it violates their personal religious principles is unconstitutional--it violates the 14th Amendment principle of equal protection. That is truly the tyranny of the majority.

The fact that you see one loving, committed relationship as different to another loving, committed relationship makes me pity you. The fact is, they are only different if you see them through glasses tinted with irrational religious 'morality'.


*applauds* And only that is due to a lack of belief not strength in it! People feel unsure of how good (or strait) they themselves are and so they attempt to attack another group to make themselves feel better. I doubt anyone that picketed the lesbian marriages in Boston were actualy intersted in saving anyone. If they were they would realise the best way was to convert the homosexuals to Christianity by pretending that god did not mind sodomy so they would pray to Jesus and so get forgiven. Instead they simply made more atheist homosexuals as who wants to be in a religion that thinks the love you feel for your partner is wrong?
If the Religious Right's real concern was for the homosexuals spiritual welfare they would be better off obscuring what they think the bible teaches of gays not highlighting them.
Foolish bigots...

I hope Kyb reincarnated as a pre-60s african american so he can see for himself why the majority should never be trusted with the minority.

I've edit that little snippet to correct your typo, there TenDef/Lib. :)

But you are right. The majority simply cannot be trusted with the safety fof the minority. If homosexuals were in the majority, then they could not be trusted with the safety of heterosexuals, either.

Of course, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were 50/50 then there wouldn't be a problem with this (or with humanity's current outrageous population, either!). But alas, there is a majority. And as a majority, they are largely untrustworthy in the matters of a minority.

I've edit that little snippet to correct your typo, there TenDef/Lib. :)

But you are right. The majority simply cannot be trusted with the safety fof the minority. If homosexuals were in the majority, then they could not be trusted with the safety of heterosexuals, either.

Of course, if heterosexuals and homosexuals were 50/50 then there wouldn't be a problem with this (or with humanity's current outrageous population, either!). But alas, there is a majority. And as a majority, they are largely untrustworthy in the matters of a minority.

I sort of wish it was 50/50. If only hommosexuality really was contagious and we could recruit...Sorry for the typo >< I will edit that.

I sort of wish it was 50/50. If only hommosexuality really was contagious and we could recruit...Sorry for the typo >< I will edit that.

Well, I don't know about that.

Although, if you believe a handful of conservatives, it is contagious and we already 'recruit'.

Yes, because homosexuals are raising an army. To do what? The same thing we do everynight, Pinky, try to take over the world!

Here is a legal document for you, I call it the Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And so on and so forth


Who gave Americanstheir rights? God. Jefferson says so. That is the whole reason we rebelled. Because our GOD-GIVEN rights were being ignored.

Here's another quote from Jefferson:"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."

Here's a comment he made regarding the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom (which, given their current law passage, is rather ironic): Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

And finally, here's something from a letter he wrote to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814: Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

Belief in God is one thing. The sovergnty of Jesus Christ in our common law is something completely different. Jefferson may very well have believed in the first, but he was most stridently against the second.

Well, I don't know about that.

Although, if you believe a handful of conservatives, it is contagious and we already 'recruit'.

Yes, because homosexuals are raising an army. To do what? The same thing we do everynight, Pinky, try to take over the world!

That was my point.

That was my point.

Heh, I know. I was just being facetious. :)

Heh, I know. I was just being facetious. :)

I betcha three enslaved underage rent boys that I can make 500 five year olds gay before you can!
*runs off with liberal gay propoganda to a nursery wearing nothing but a pink bra*

I betcha three enslaved underage rent boys that I can make 500 five year olds gay before you can!

Hah! You underestimate the ultra-contagious strain of homosexuality that I'm infected with!

Hah! You underestimate the ultra-contagious strain of homosexuality that I'm infected with!

god damn, I forgot yours was contagious!

I think we just hijacked and killed the thread, Libertines! Do we rock or do we rock?

some other are still here. just busy.

Shame all the gay bashers have left
enjoyed making fun of them? Curious are you both gay?
Realisticaly though, did you really expect a different outcome to the vote?

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.

WTH!?! :) I wasn't hitting on anyone! I was just giving a complement.

This is exactly how rumors get started!!!!

I'm just curious here, but in all of these pages and post and etc.. Plus the requests on top of that...

Has banning gay marriage been justified in any other form than religion? [And saying "Has gay marriage been justified in any other form" is the same as saying "Has letting black votes and giving all minorites equal rights been justified" so don't even try that.]

I'm just curious here, but in all of these pages and post and etc.. Plus the requests on top of that...

Has banning gay marriage been justified in any other form than religion? [And saying "Has gay marriage been justified in any other form" is the same as saying "Has letting black votes and giving all minorites equal rights been justified" so don't even try that.]
Not yet.

Poopy. =(

some other are still here. just busy.

Shame all the gay bashers have left
enjoyed making fun of them? Curious are you both gay?
Realisticaly though, did you really expect a different outcome to the vote?.

'Tis a shame, isn't it? Did I enjoy making fun of them (I assume the question is directed at me)? Why, yes. They make it so very easy!

I can't speak for Libertines, but I'm gay.

The Missouri vote, you mean? No, probably not. Not with all I've heard about Missouri. But there really should never have been a vote on it in the first place. It's been said before, but it can never be said too many times: the safety of the minority should never be placed in the hands of the majority, because the majority cannot be trusted with it.

Not yet.

To be fair, it's been attempted (heterosexual marraige provides the "ideal" environment for child rearing, it would require the implementation of new laws, it would allow people to marry protazoa and we all know where that type of thing leads, etc.), but not a single coherent, cogent argument has been put forth and remained standing other than religious doctrine for defining marriage as one man one woman.

[QUOTE=Goed]Welllllll, what I meant was, you say "the democrats first say the majority rules, then they say they DON'T rule!"
[quote]

Well, I'm not a Democrat, but I can explain this pretty simply. In the case of legislative and executive elections - where people who are supposed to represent the will of the people are chosen - of course the majority should have its say.

However, the issue of civil rights is not a majority rule issue. Under no circumstances should a majority rule over the minority unfairly. We could probably pass a law saying that gays should be denied all sorts of legal rights. We could probably pass a law that says we could round them up and put them in jail. In some places, we could get a law passed that all Muslims should be shipped off to concentration camps. We used to have laws that let whites rule over blacks, just because of majority rule. Would any of these be right? Of course not! This is why the idea of "majority rules" cannot be used on issues of civil rights and equality. Sorry if that bothers anyone, but it is true.

Crap, Goed I know you didn't originally say that, I forget who actually did =(

Well, I'm not a Democrat, but I can explain this pretty simply. In the case of legislative and executive elections - where people who are supposed to represent the will of the people are chosen - of course the majority should have its say.

However, the issue of civil rights is not a majority rule issue. Under no circumstances should a majority rule over the minority unfairly. (
So, the majority has to rule in those areas your party thinks they have an majority of the population on their side and on other issues it shouldn´t. Did I get it right?????
Well, that is not only biased but hypocritical. Either you say: yes or no. And by the way: Who is going to decide whether it is "unfair" treatment?????

WTH!?! :) I wasn't hitting on anyone! I was just giving a complement.

This is exactly how rumors get started!!!!

*gasp* Berk is teh homo!!!!111!1!

So, the majority has to rule in those areas your party thinks they have an majority of the population on their side and on other issues it shouldn´t. Did I get it right?????

The majority rules where the majority can be trusted to rule responsibly. Letting the majority rule over minority rights is like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bottle shop.

The majority rules where the majority can be trusted to rule responsibly. Letting the majority rule over minority rights is like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bottle shop.
And who else should "rule" and decide about this issue?????
The minority itself giving themself special privileges on the expense of the taxpayer??? No: this is not about civil rights. This is an attack on the instituition of marriage which is between one man and one woman.
That´s the way it is. Accept it.

www.idoin30seconds.org


and i'm very pro-gay marriage. there is no reason not to be.

*gasp* Berk is teh homo!!!!111!1!

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*thinks a minute*

Well, there was that one time in college, but I was young and needed the money.

*thinks a minute more*

Okay, there was that time a few years ago, but I was really drunk and we didn't kiss.*

*thinks some more*

Hmm, then, I guess, that thing with the plummer last week was technically sex.

All in all, I guess I now finally have something to tell my girlfriend the next time she asks me, "Where is this all going." Throw pillows, honey, it's all going to throw pillows and window treatments.

And who else should "rule" and decide about this issue?????
The minority itself giving themself special privileges on the expense of the taxpayer??? No: this is not about civil rights. This is an attack on the instituition of marriage which is between one man and one woman.
That´s the way it is. Accept it.
The Federalist is your friend

And who else should "rule" and decide about this issue?????
The minority itself giving themself special privileges on the expense of the taxpayer??? No: this is not about civil rights. This is an attack on the instituition of marriage which is between one man and one woman.
That´s the way it is. Accept it.How is the ability to marry a "special privilege?" Heteros do it all the time, often more than once in a lifetime, at no cost to the taxpayer--other than the license fee that the betrothed pay at City Hall. Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to pay the same fee and take part in the same legal partnerships?

Now is it an attack on the institution of marriage? If by "attack" you mean "the next logical step in an institution that has continually changed over time" then I suppose you could be right. But if by "attack" you mean "the end of marital civilization as we know it" then I'm afraid you're grossly mistaken.

And who else should "rule" and decide about this issue?????
The minority itself giving themself special privileges on the expense of the taxpayer??? No: this is not about civil rights. This is an attack on the instituition of marriage which is between one man and one woman.
That´s the way it is. Accept it.

Who else should 'rule'? Those who can be trusted to decide responsibly. The closest thing, for the moment, is the court system, which is about as rational and impartial as we can manage for now.

In this case, the minority does not wish to give itself special privileges at the expense of the taxpayer. There would be no burden on the taxpayer (and in case you have forgotten, homosexuals are also taxpayers) and the freedom to marry one's partner is not a 'special privilege'. This is about civil rights. There s no 'attack' on the institution of marriage here. The institution of marriage differs depending on where you are. There are countries where the 'institution of marriage' is not limited to one man and one woman. This is about making the institution of marriage in the United States non-discriminatory.

Where is the attack, here? Please be so kind as to point it out for me.

The Federalist is your friend
I don´t know what you are talking about. I´m not American as I´ve already stated very often.
But someone has to decide. And you are only accepting if your opinion is shared. Everybody else is in your view evil, being it the "evil" majority that reject gay marriage, the "evil" parliaments that reject it or "evil" courts who reject it. So: obviously everybody who is not your opinion is "evil. I got your point!!! That also shows your tolerance.

I don´t know what you are talking about. I´m not American as I´ve already stated very often.
But someone has to decide. And you are only accepting if your opinion is shared. Everybody else is in your view evil, being it the "evil" majority that reject gay marriage, the "evil" parliaments that reject it or "evil" courts who reject it. So: obviously everybody who is not your opinion is "evil. I got your point!!! That also shows your tolerance.
fine
let me give yo ua general idea

in the federalist, a few of the framers write that the majority cannot always be trusted with governing the nation, checks and balances must be put in place to stop the majority from taking away rights of the majority, the majority has NO right to be a tyranny

and why teh FUCK are you arguing with us about banning gay marriage in america if your not from america, shut the hell up

*walks in, checks the first page, skips to the last page*

*sees the flame war and hurries away*

I don´t know what you are talking about. I´m not American as I´ve already stated very often.
But someone has to decide. And you are only accepting if your opinion is shared. Everybody else is in your view evil, being it the "evil" majority that reject gay marriage, the "evil" parliaments that reject it or "evil" courts who reject it. So: obviously everybody who is not your opinion is "evil. I got your point!!! That also shows your tolerance.

You're the only one to use the word "evil" so far.

Who else should 'rule'? Those who can be trusted to decide responsibly. The closest thing, for the moment, is the court system, which is about as rational and impartial as we can manage for now.
.
You miss the point. The divisions of power doesn´t mean that everything should be decided by courts. On the conterary: The legislature makes the law (and may change it), the executive enacts it and the jurisprudence rules according to the law (passed by the legislature, in your common law system mainly based on precedents (I like to refer to the state of Utah who had to accept the principal that marriage is to be between one man and one woman to be allowed to enter the union, and by the interpretation of the constituition).
But the courts can´t make up laws to please a minority. They have no right to do so. That is in my view an abuse of power and a violation of the balance of powers in this system. That can only happen in a common law system. It can´t happen in a roman law system since the laws here are written down, fortunately. And they say: marriage is between one man and one woman. If you want to change that you have to convince the majority of the legislature.

*hehheh heh. :) (yes, Berk, I was trying to be silly, too. :) )

And, uh, Kyber, 'who decides what's fair,' is pretty simple. The Constitution and related laws, which are interpreted in America by the Judicial Branch.

You know, checks and balances, that regulation of government power to prevent tyrrany, all that stuff that seems to be lost on Republicans when they aren't getting *their* way over my life?

The courts are in place to interpret and uphold the Constitution to the highest possible standards, as a check against the power of the other branches, ...that's how we do it in America. If even the slimmest majority of a Supreme Court determines in their professional opinion that a law is unfair or violates the Constitution, then that law is overturned. And be glad it's so.

Laws can be voted in, especially by an uneducated populace who don't even seem to know how government *works* ...that could turn out to have unforseen consequences for civil liberties and legal principles and precedents.

From a *legal* standpoint, whatever you think of gay marriage itself, it's been discrimination to have denied marriage to gays all along. There's simply no rational basis to do so.

What's even scarier is the violence that homophobes in government are doing to the public's *idea* of how our government *works:* making people angry at the justices for doing their *jobs,* and telling them they've been *robbed of something,* when, no, they haven't.

The courts are there to provide us stability and principle.

Homophobia has made people try to pass a law that the Courts can't rule on the Constitutionality of a gay marriage law, which is *alarming* in that they're trying to write an Unconstitutional law enjoining judges against ruling on the Constitutionality of something.

This is nothing less than an attack on our governmental system itself, whether the actual issue were gay marriage or the colour of street signs.

fine
let me give yo ua general idea

in the federalist, a few of the framers write that the majority cannot always be trusted with governing the nation, checks and balances must be put in place to stop the majority from taking away rights of the majority, the majority has NO right to be a tyranny

and why teh FUCK are you arguing with us about banning gay marriage in america if your not from america, shut the hell up
I exercise my right of freedom of speech. Secondly what happends in your country usually swaps over the atlantic anyway. Therefore I´m most interested in the discussions and participate in it.

You miss the point. The divisions of power doesn´t mean that everything should be decided by courts. On the conterary: The legislature makes the law (and may change it), the executive enacts it and the jurisprudence rules according to the law (passed by the legislature, in your common law system mainly based on precedents (I like to refer to the state of Utah who had to accept the principal that marriage is to be between one man and one woman to be allowed to enter the union, and by the interpretation of the constituition).

I'm not saying courts should be solely responsible for making laws. But they do have the power to overturn laws that are judged as unjust or unconstitutional. In that case, a law would have to be introduced to replace it which was niether unjust nor unconstitutional, lest it be challenged in court and overturned again.

I exercise my right of freedom of speech. Secondly what happends in your country usually swaps over the atlantic anyway. Therefore I´m most interested in the discussions and participate in it.
1) your are not in this country, you can excercise said freedom when you learn the laws of this country, THEN you can start arguing, uneducated speech is worse than no speech at all

2) irrelevant, this is america, our law systems are different than yours, ok thanks bye

You miss the point. The divisions of power doesn´t mean that everything should be decided by courts. On the conterary: The legislature makes the law (and may change it), the executive enacts it and the jurisprudence rules according to the law (passed by the legislature, in your common law system mainly based on precedents (I like to refer to the state of Utah who had to accept the principal that marriage is to be between one man and one woman to be allowed to enter the union, and by the interpretation of the constituition).
But the courts can´t make up laws to please a minority. They have no right to do so. That is in my view an abuse of power and a violation of the balance of powers in this system. That can only happen in a common law system. It can´t happen in a roman law system since the laws here are written down, fortunately. And they say: marriage is between one man and one woman. If you want to change that you have to convince the majority of the legislature.

Funny, Jefferson disagrees with you.

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

The thing that baffles me is that the people who are against gay marriage often don't even know any gay people, or they don't know any closely.
I'm straight, or so I think, and my best friends are gay. I've had other girls have crushes on me (even going so far as to kiss me..), I've snuggled with gay men, I've lived and had wonderful times with gay people.
They're just like you and me.

Homophobes, in my opinion, are that way simply because they are insecure about their own sexuality. Or they're just unduly prejudiced.

Since when are people so dumb as to let sexual preference be the determining factor in social acceptance? There's more than sex in the world! Honestly, do you have sex or make out or fall in love with every person that crosses your path? I sure hope not.
And neither do homosexual people.

They are people. They breath, they think, they love, they live, they laugh. They shouldn't be treated as objects, nor should straight people who have no clue what they are talking about be allowed to make their decisions for them.
It's rediculous.

Know the person before you judge them, or make laws up about them.

I'm not saying courts should be solely responsible for making laws. But they do have the power to overturn laws that are judged as unjust or unconstitutional. In that case, a law would have to be introduced to replace it which was niether unjust nor unconstitutional, lest it be challenged in court and overturned again.
And which court would be responsible for that??
The individual state supreme court or the supreme court of the US?????
I doubt that the US supreme court would overule that.
Many decisions (even the abolition of slavery) were not done by courts but by the legislature or the president.
It is not the job of courts to engage in politics. That would decrease their credibility. So: political decisions should and ought to be left to parliament and not the courts.

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*thinks a minute*

Well, there was that one time in college, but I was young and needed the money.

*thinks a minute more*

Okay, there was that time a few years ago, but I was really drunk and we didn't kiss.*

*thinks some more*

Hmm, then, I guess, that thing with the plummer last week was technically sex.

All in all, I guess I now finally have something to tell my girlfriend the next time she asks me, "Where is this all going." Throw pillows, honey, it's all going to throw pillows and window treatments.


*Runs off to spread rumors*

1) your are not in this country, you can excercise said freedom when you learn the laws of this country, THEN you can start arguing, uneducated speech is worse than no speech at all
2) irrelevant, this is america, our law systems are different than yours, ok thanks bye
A so you pose a condition on people before they can exercise the law. Interesting: so people have to be law experts in order to argue about such things. How many people here really are????
I don´t allow you to restrain my right of freedom of speech.

And which court would be responsible for that??
The individual state supreme court or the supreme court of the US?????
I doubt that the US supreme court would overule that.
Many decisions (even the abolition of slavery) were not done by courts but by the legislature or the president.
It is not the job of courts to engage in politics. That would decrease their credibility. So: political decisions should and ought to be left to parliament and not the courts.

Look, the fact is that the majority often want something that is drasticaly unfair for the minority. Take Sudan, there the goverment is in fact following the wishes of it's people by trying to commit genocide. It is a slippery slope to obeying the majority on an issue like this to an issue like that. If the majority were trusted with the minority black people would still be slaves which could be executed for theft and the death penalty would still be in use here in the UK.

Oh and stop arguing already, we already know you do not like gay marriage because you do not like gay people so quite frankly I would rather shoot myself than admit you are right about anything you dumb homophobe. You disgust me as much as I disgust you.

Oh and I am bi by the way.

And which court would be responsible for that??
The individual state supreme court or the supreme court of the US?????
I doubt that the US supreme court would overule that.
Many decisions (even the abolition of slavery) were not done by courts but by the legislature or the president.
It is not the job of courts to engage in politics. That would decrease their credibility. So: political decisions should and ought to be left to parliament and not the courts.

How do you figure this is a 'political' decision? Yes, the debate has become a political one. But the decision itself is a matter of the legality of a law and the enforcement thereof, and thus, a legal decision.

And which court would be responsible for that??
The individual state supreme court or the supreme court of the US?????
I doubt that the US supreme court would overule that.
Many decisions (even the abolition of slavery) were not done by courts but by the legislature or the president.
It is not the job of courts to engage in politics. That would decrease their credibility. So: political decisions should and ought to be left to parliament and not the courts.
there is no parliament, there is congress
i told you once i will tel you again

stop arguing until you gain an at least educated knowledge of how our government works

Oh and Kyb how does your bigoted little brain respond to the following proposals:
1)Civil Unions Blighty flavour, the rights but not the name.
2)Civil Unions Vermont flavour, some rights but nowhere near all.

Funny, Jefferson disagrees with you.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Nice: but not everything is treated equally. The same things have to be treated the same way and different things differently.
For example the US doesn´t treat an US national who commited multiple murderer the same way than lets say an foreign terrorist who did the same. The first comes to a proper court the other to Guantanamo or some other facility.

Nice: but not everything is treated equally. The same things have to be treated the same way and different things differently.
For example the US doesn´t treat an US national who commited multiple murderer the same way than lets say an foreign terrorist who did the same. The first comes to a proper court the other to Guantanamo or some other facility.

So? America commits some injustice so your thought is that it should do the same too more people? Also bear in mind that (almost all) gays have not commited mass murder and neither have many of the people cruelly detained without trial in Cuba as I type.

Oh and just in case you missed it the first time:



Look, the fact is that the majority often want something that is drasticaly unfair for the minority. Take Sudan, there the goverment is in fact following the wishes of it's people by trying to commit genocide. It is a slippery slope to obeying the majority on an issue like this to an issue like that. If the majority were trusted with the minority black people would still be slaves which could be executed for theft and the death penalty would still be in use here in the UK.

Oh and stop arguing already, we already know you do not like gay marriage because you do not like gay people so quite frankly I would rather shoot myself than admit you are right about anything you dumb homophobe. You disgust me as much as I disgust you.

Oh and I am bi by the way.

Nice: but not everything is treated equally. The same things have to be treated the same way and different things differently.
For example the US doesn´t treat an US national who commited multiple murderer the same way than lets say an foreign terrorist who did the same. The first comes to a proper court the other to Guantanamo or some other facility.

That... is an irrelevant example.

As for the same things being treated the same, that is exactly what we are advocating. That one loving, committed relationship be treated the same as another loving, committed relationship.

The only reason one would see them as different is through a misguided sense of morality, a desire for social stagnation, or blind prejudice.

Actually, it's kind of a myth that these homophobes don't know any gay people, that gay people all live off in Northern cities and live some strange 'lifestyle.'

Actually, they probably know *lots* of gay people.
Odds are, maybe five percent of the people they *meet* are gay...

It's just that they're less likely to have come out to people telling ignorant 'queer' jokes and trying to take their rights away.

there is no parliament, there is congress
i told you once i will tel you again

stop arguing until you gain an at least educated knowledge of how our government works
I know that: It is a two-chamber system: House of representatives (elected in constituencies for two years by a simple majority: supposed to give proper representation of the American people), Senate (100 senators: 2 for each states: elected directly for six years, 1/3 elected all two years). President: elected indirectly by the people (through an electoral college every 4 years. Every state has as much members in the electoral college as it has in the House of representatives + 2 (like in the senate): historical compromise between those who favoured the equality of states (every states should have the same weight) and those who stood for the principal: one man one vote.

That... is an irrelevant example.
As for the same things being treated the same, that is exactly what we are advocating. That one loving, committed relationship be treated the same as another loving, committed relationship.
The only reason one would see them as different is through a misguided sense of morality, a desire for social stagnation, or blind prejudice.
No it is not the same. The one is between one man and one woman who are (although of execption - but they do not count) able to found a family. Homosexuals can´t.

I know that: It is a two-chamber system: House of representatives (elected in constituencies for two years by a simple majority: supposed to give proper representation of the American people), Senate (100 senators: 2 for each states: elected directly for six years, 1/3 elected all two years). President: elected indirectly by the people (through an electoral college every 4 years. Every state has as much members in the electoral college as it has in the House of representatives + 2 (like in the senate): historical compromise between those who favoured the equality of states (every states should have the same weight) and those who stood for the principal: one man one vote.


You still have not accepted that if majority rule was the system we used we would still view black people as property.

No it is not the same. The one is between one man and one woman who are (although of execption - but they do not count) able to found a family. Homosexuals can´t.

They do not count? Oh yes they do. Homosexuals CAN found a family via adoption or sperm donation or suggogacy. Stop ignoring my posts.

You still have not accepted that if majority rule was the system we used we would still view black people as property.
As far as I know it wasn´t a court that banned slavery. It was the legislature after all.
And you can´t compare the ability to marry or not to marry with slavery. That is not only inapropiate, it is outrageous and an insult to the people who suffered under this practise.

I know that: It is a two-chamber system: House of representatives (elected in constituencies for two years by a simple majority: supposed to give proper representation of the American people), Senate (100 senators: 2 for each states: elected directly for six years, 1/3 elected all two years). President: elected indirectly by the people (through an electoral college every 4 years. Every state has as much members in the electoral college as it has in the House of representatives + 2 (like in the senate): historical compromise between those who favoured the equality of states (every states should have the same weight) and those who stood for the principal: one man one vote.
good you have the set up down, now tell me how it works

As far as I know it wasn´t a court that banned slavery. It was the legislature after all.
And you can´t compare the ability to marry or not to marry with slavery. That is not only inapropiate, it is outrageous and an insult to the people who suffered under this practise.

Erm...You are an idiotic bigot with no grasp of history. The majority of Americans (and Europeans) were NOT opposed to slavery when it was banned.

They do not count? Oh yes they do. Homosexuals CAN found a family via adoption or sperm donation or suggogacy. Stop ignoring my posts.
But they can´t provide a father and a mother. And your scientific experiments don´t work. It is not natural anyway. Only lesbians could give birth to a child. But even they need a doner for it.

No it is not the same. The one is between one man and one woman who are (although of execption - but they do not count) able to found a family. Homosexuals can´t.

This 'equality' argument of yours is stupid and mere semantics. One could easily argue that 'all pairings of two consenting adults' are the same and therefore deserve equal protection. You're merely focusing on the differences, you might as well me demanding that a tall woman never be able to marry a short man because they're 'different.'

Actually, the slaves were freed by presidential proclamation.

And it's entirely relevant to the question of whether majority rule is always right.

No it is not the same. The one is between one man and one woman who are (although of execption - but they do not count) able to found a family. Homosexuals can´t.

Incorrect. Homosexuals can form a family. A married couple is considered a 'family' regardless of whether they breed or not.

If presence of children is how you define 'family', then you are still incorrect. Lesbian couples have been having children ia IVS for years. Homosexuals of both varieties can (provided they make it through a biased assessment program) adopt, and thus form a 'family'.

If you define 'family' by the 'natural' conception of children ("the old fashioned way"), then by your logic, infertile couples should be disallowed from marriage, couples where the female is post-menopausal should be disallowed also.

there is no parliament, there is congress
i told you once i will tel you again

stop arguing until you gain an at least educated knowledge of how our government works

Actually Parliment=Congress. Just a fancy change name. LOL

But they can´t provide a father and a mother. And your scientific experiments don´t work. It is not natural anyway. Only lesbians could give birth to a child. But even they need a doner for it.

The experments are a work in progress. Whether it is natural or not is irrelivent, adoption is not natural either but you let infertile couples. Also the father and mother figure are not ESSENTIAL for a child. Otherwise you should ban single mothers.

It is not natural anyway.

Neither is your computer, your house, your clothes, your Bible or your morality. Care to get rid of them, too?

No it is not the same. The one is between one man and one woman who are (although of execption - but they do not count) able to found a family. Homosexuals can´t.

*sigh* Would you continue to deny people rights based on their lack of ability to procreate naturally? Post-menopausal women can't have children naturally, and neither can infertile couples, but I bet you don't protest when infertile couples or post-menopausal women get married, do you? Oh wait, they don't count. That's right. Be sure to let them know.

Erm...You are an idiotic bigot with no grasp of history. The majority of Americans (and Europeans) were NOT opposed to slavery when it was banned.
Funny: I haven´t commented on that issue. But I have said that it was not a court who banned it. It was the legislature. And we elect legislatures because it is assumed that the people there have more oversight and therefore can make decisions on our behalf.
We don´t have a so-called imperative mandate. That means that the members of the legislature (in your case congress) are bound to vote like the majority of their voters wants them to vote. They are free to make their decisions. And they banned slavery.

Actually, the slaves were freed by presidential proclamation.

And it's entirely relevant to the question of whether majority rule is always right.

only those in the South but NOT in the Border STates.

As far as I know it wasn´t a court that banned slavery. It was the legislature after all.
And you can´t compare the ability to marry or not to marry with slavery. That is not only inapropiate, it is outrageous and an insult to the people who suffered under this practise.
and it was the COURT who outlawed ruels set into practice by the LEGISLATURE that made black people second class citizens, hell not even second class

I'm ashamed to live in this state...religion has no place in ANY constitution. It's not whether you're for gay marriage or against it, it's about whether or not you want the state or national government controlling a RELIGIOUS issue. These constitutional bans on gay marriage are nothing more than us acting like the British did when our founding fathers made this nation.

By the way, I'm against gay marriage for religious reasons. However, seperation of church and state is a wonderful thing...WAS a wonderful thing. I don't know where the line can be drawn now. We've officially opened Pandora's Box.

Funny: I haven´t commented on that issue. But I have said that it was not a court who banned it. It was the legislature. And we elect legislatures because it is assumed that the people there have more oversight and therefore can make decisions on our behalf.
We don´t have a so-called imperative mandate. That means that the members of the legislature (in your case congress) are bound to vote like the majority of their voters wants them to vote. They are free to make their decisions. And they banned slavery.

Ah, but seperate states in America formed a Convederacy and continued the practice.

Oh and how about marriages between partners one of whom change gender. You would not propose to ban those so why these?

Also I object to the fact I have made several well thought out and reasonably lenghty posts you have utterly ignored.

and it was the COURT who outlawed ruels set into practice by the LEGISLATURE that made black people second class citizens, hell not even second class
Well: you jump to different points. You have argued about slavery in the 19 th century. And that wasn´t banned by a court. Now you refer to access to schools and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
And I´m shure very soon you again insult me. But you have to stick to a topic and not changing it around and then claim the other person is wrong although he is talking about another issue.

Ah, but seperate states in America formed a Convederacy and continued the practice.
Oh and how about marriages between partners one of whom change gender. You would not propose to ban those so why these?
According to the law marriage is between one man and one woman. So if one person really changes sex and legally also change its name the marriage is not valid anymore.
I´m all for the rule of law and that says: marriage is between one man and one woman.

According to the law marriage is between one man and one woman. So if one person really changes sex and legally also change its name the marriage is not valid anymore.
I´m all for the rule of law and that says: marriage is between one man and one woman.

That is the law here according to DOMA (Now getting challenged) and the MPA will eliminate this from the Federal Courts and leave it up to the states.

I´m all for the rule of law and that says: marriage is between one man and one woman.

So you would also have supported slavery, unequal treatment of women, apartheid, forced segregation of minorities and Stalin's persecution of political dissidents? They were the law too, you see...

So you would also have supported slavery, unequal treatment of women, apartheid, forced segregation of minorities and Stalin's persecution of political dissidents? They were the law too, you see...

But they got overturned by other laws or executive orders. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the South but the 13th Amendment, passed by Congress and the states, abolished it throughout the land.

According to the law marriage is between one man and one woman. So if one person really changes sex and legally also change its name the marriage is not valid anymore.
I´m all for the rule of law and that says: marriage is between one man and one woman.

Ah but this is because you are a homophobe and thus your opinion on the matter is irrelivent to me.
You see your cry of "It is what the majority wants" is not sound, the majority of americans DID support slavery. Are you suggesting it was right to keep the laws that allowed it because that is what the majority wanted? Of course not, it was oppression of the minority.

Kybernetica, you're being either astoundingly naive or completely disingenuous, here.

Gay couples can come by children in many ways, ...from the old-fashioned way, from previous relationships, with the help of friends, (hey, if straights can 'close their eyes and think of England,' so can gays,) to the aforementioned in vitro and surrogacy techniques, (these are hardly 'experimental,' in this day and age, sterile straight couples do it all the time,) ...and there's adoption and all, of course.

I have been engaged to someone who had a wonderful daughter from a previous marriage, and I can tell you that we have only the *assertions* of people with a religious agenda to say that children need a male father and a female mother.

The only thing that 'confuses' children is when adults tell them life has to be one way and then they see it can be another.

There's a simple answer for that. Tell them the truth about life in the first place, instead of some whitebread fantasy of universal heretosexual monogamy.

You want to teach them unconfusing 'family values', then don't teach them to *value* one kind of family over another. Don't teach them that there's something *wrong* with families with a single parent, or gay parents, or even no biological parents.

Pretty simple. Unconfusing. 'There's different kinds of families, kids.'

Well: you jump to different points. You have argued about slavery in the 19 th century. And that wasn´t banned by a court. Now you refer to access to schools and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

It is the same broad issue. Unreasonable oppression of one group is the same as unreasonable oppression of another group.

But they got overturned by other laws or executive orders. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the South but the 13th Amendment, passed by Congress and the states, abolished it throughout the land.

Irrelevant. Kybernetica's statement is that he is 'all for the rule of law,' implying he doesn't care if that rule happens to be just or not.

So you would also have supported slavery, unequal treatment of women, apartheid, forced segregation of minorities and Stalin's persecution of political dissidents? They were the law too, you see...
I follow the Radbruch formula. That states that "even the unjust law has a legitimacy because it gives legal security." But before you cry out at me let me say to you that it also states that there are laws that are so unjust and unfair that they are against "natural law" and against principals that every reasonable human being accepts.
For example murder belongs to that or rape and other things. But to say that the non existence of gay marriage is a violation of natural law is not true, because it doesn´t belong to it. And if you say it you imply that all opponents to it are not reasonable and therefore evil people. I don´t respect that.
So: you have to respect the so called positive law: which is in your case the common law (in continental Europe it is the written law (based on the Roman legal system)

Kybernetica, you're being either astoundingly naive or completely disingenuous, here.

Gay couples can come by children in many ways, ...from the old-fashioned way, from previous relationships, with the help of friends, (hey, if straights can 'close their eyes and think of England,' so can gays,) to the aforementioned in vitro and surrogacy techniques, (these are hardly 'experimental,' in this day and age, sterile straight couples do it all the time,) ...and there's adoption and all, of course.

I have been engaged to someone who had a wonderful daughter from a previous marriage, and I can tell you that we have only the *assertions* of people with a religious agenda to say that children need a male father and a female mother.

The only thing that 'confuses' children is when adults tell them life has to be one way and then they see it can be another.

There's a simple answer for that. Tell them the truth about life in the first place, instead of some whitebread fantasy of universal heretosexual monogamy.

You want to teach them unconfusing 'family values', then don't teach them to *value* one kind of family over another. Don't teach them that there's something *wrong* with families with a single parent, or gay parents, or even no biological parents.

Pretty simple. Unconfusing. 'There's different kinds of families, kids.'

Ah, but that would be too simple...I believe I am right in saying that Kyber is the type of person who believes even allowing the child to know an option exists is something that makes him/her mroe likely to take it. This is perhaps true but the child WILL find out in the end and remember that homosexuality is not a choice at all.

Kyber I have tried everything. I have even tried to empathise with you and made you try and think about how YOU would feel iif denied marriage for no reason but someone elses opinions of you and a crack pot, unproven theory about what your marriage would result in but it seems you are well beyond my help.
For now I shall bid you a good day. Farewell bigot.

It is the same broad issue. Unreasonable oppression of one group is the same as unreasonable oppression of another group.
It is not unreasonable. And by the way: Why not allowing polygamy, paedophile marriage, incestous marriage, bestiality???? Why not "free" this oppresed minorities??????

I follow the Radbruch formula. That states that "even the unjust law has a legitimacy because it gives legal security." But before you cry out at me let me say to you that it also states that there are laws that are so unjust and unfair that they are against "natural law" and against principals that every reasonable human being accepts.

It's a shame there's no such thing as 'natural law' because it's a logical fallacy, really. Animals follow 'natural law' and cheerfully murder each other all the time.

And if you say it you imply that all opponents to it are not reasonable and therefore evil people.

Again, you are the only one using the word "evil" to describe those people.

It is not unreasonable. And by the way: Why not allowing polygamy, paedophile marriage, incestous marriage, bestiality???? Why not "free" this oppresed minorities??????

Polygamy is too complex and (I really which you would stop comparing those last two with the first two) paedophilic and bestial marriages are impossible due to lack of consent and incest is proven to harm the child.

Kyber I have tried everything. I have even tried to empathise with you and made you try and think about how YOU would feel iif denied marriage for no reason but someone elses opinions of you and a crack pot, unproven theory about what your marriage would result in but it seems you are well beyond my help.
For now I shall bid you a good day. Farewell bigot.
With your statement you show again disrespect for other opinions. How should I respond to that??? Call you a pervert????
No, I won´t go down at your level.

It is not unreasonable. And by the way: Why not allowing polygamy, paedophile marriage, incestous marriage, bestiality???? Why not "free" this oppresed minorities??????

In the cases of polygamy and incest, the problems are mostly religion-based, though parent-child incest also often involves underage sexual activity. In the other two, it's because of the issue of CONSENT, you raving idiot.

With your statement you show again disrespect for other opinions. How should I respond to that??? Call you a pervert????
No, I won´t go down at your level.

Ok fine ignore how horrible the situation would be for you then. Remain ignorant as I am not so that suits me just fine.

Polygamy is too complex and (I really which you would stop comparing those last two with the first two) paedophilic and bestial marriages are impossible due to lack of consent and incest is proven to harm the child.
Incestous relationship can be between adults as well: e.g. father and son or between brothers or sisters
So: would you allow it???

Well: you jump to different points. You have argued about slavery in the 19 th century. And that wasn´t banned by a court. Now you refer to access to schools and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
And I´m shure very soon you again insult me. But you have to stick to a topic and not changing it around and then claim the other person is wrong although he is talking about another issue.
1) you brought up slavery not me
2) the civil rights movement is in direct relation to the slavery issue

It is not unreasonable. And by the way: Why not allowing polygamy, paedophile marriage, incestous marriage, bestiality???? Why not "free" this oppresed minorities??????

Polygamy should be legal. The bestiality and pedophilic marriage violate consent laws, so no. Incestuous marriage is a bit more tricky. There are very good reasons for opposing it, but I've not studied that issue in enough detail to be certain of whether or not there are solid legal grounds for outlawing it.

It is not unreasonable. And by the way: Why not allowing polygamy, paedophile marriage, incestous marriage, bestiality???? Why not "free" this oppresed minorities??????

Consent, boy, consent. A paedophile marriage or zoophile marriage has no basis of consent.

Incestuous marriage is more of a public health issue. Heterosexuals of the same immediate family are not permitted to marry, because the they have a high chance, if they chose to breed with each other, of producing unhealthy children. Homosexuals would also not be allowed to marry immediate family, because heterosexuals do not have that right and equality would need to be maintained.

Polygamy is a different issue entirely. As far as I know, there have been no serious calls for polygamous marriage to be allowed. Until such time as there are, it is a non-issue in this debate.

Incestous relationship can be between adults as well: e.g. father and son or between brothers or sisters
So: would you allow it???

Well I would let it be legal but probably not if there are children involved. I did not in fact even MENTION consent I mentioned that incestious offspring would be at a far higher risk of mutation. As for marriage well it is not really needed as most of the rights of marriage are in fact provided in family laws. Also read the above post for a better reason than I could ever hope to give.

In the cases of polygamy and incest, the problems are mostly religion-based, though parent-child incest also often involves underage sexual activity. In the other two, it's because of the issue of CONSENT, you raving idiot.
Don´t insult me. That is not acceptable.
So: you are in favour of polygamy as well, just to note that down.
And by the way: What do you consider underage sexual activity. 12, 14, 16, 18????
There are already demands to decrease the protection age. So what: it is only a matter of time before this issue is going to be raised again. The issue of gay marriage is about a principal issue: Should marriage remain what it is (between one man and one woman) or should it be opened to every strange if not to say abnormal forms of life style.

It is not unreasonable. And by the way: Why not allowing polygamy, paedophile marriage, incestous marriage, bestiality???? Why not "free" this oppresed minorities??????
ahhh im going down, the slippery slope isnt letting me stand up

Well I would let it be legal but probably not if there are children involved. I did not in fact even MENTION consent I mentioned that incestious offspring would be at a far higher risk of mutation. As for marriage well it is not really needed as most of the rights of marriage are in fact provided in family laws. Also read the above post for a better reason than I could ever hope to give.
So you would allow gay incestous relationship (as they natural can´t produce offspring) but not hetero sexual incestous relationsip (because they could produce offspring)?????

Don´t insult me. That is not acceptable.
So: you are in favour of polygamy as well, just to note that down.
And by the way: What do you consider underage sexual activity. 12, 14, 16, 18????
There are already demands to decrease the protection age. So what: it is only a matter of time before this issue is going to be raised again. The issue of gay marriage is about a principal issue: Should marriage remain what it is (between one man and one woman) or should it be opened to every strange if not to say abnormal forms of life style.

Look you are an idiot: you use multiple ????? signs and do not like an entire variety of people. This means you are an idiot and will continue to be until you use a single ? and are not such a homophobe. The age of consent should be 16 as it is where I live. Marriage will remain between two people as if it is not it is incredibly complex and defeats the purpose of marriage which is monogomy.
Also you find being insulted wrong so do not call others life style choices weird or abnormal unless they hurt other (non-consenting) people.

So you would allow gay incestous relationship (as they natural can´t produce offspring) but not hetero sexual incestous relationsip (because they could produce offspring)?????

No as that would be unequal.

Don´t insult me. That is not acceptable.

Don't use the same ridiculous arguments over and over. That is not acceptable either.

So: you are in favour of polygamy as well, just to note that down.

If all participants are consenting adults of sound mind, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

And by the way: What do you consider underage sexual activity. 12, 14, 16, 18????

It'd be the age at which the child could sensibly be judged to understand the ramifications of their decision, I'd nominally say somewhere around sixteen but judge it on a case-by-case basis because some children are far more or less mature than others.

There are already demands to decrease the protection age. So what: it is only a matter of time before this issue is going to be raised again. The issue of gay marriage is about a principal issue: Should marriage remain what it is (between one man and one woman) or should it be opened to every strange if not to say abnormal forms of life style.

No, that would be another piss-poor slippery slope fallacy. As I said ealier, taking one step does not mean you're going to walk two hundred yards, and legalising one thing doesn't mean you have to legalise another.

And that would be 'strange and abnormal' from who's perspective? The 'normal' couple who enjoy playing with whips and chains? The straight couple who practice auto-erotic asphyxiation for kicks?

No as that would be unequal.
But how would you justify banning it as it is "not harming" anybody (after all they can´t produce offspring) and they both consent?

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.
Bush doesn't give half a turd about banning gay marriage. He knew it wouldn't pass: it was just an election-year ploy by Karl Rove.

And what do you mean "re"elected?

Also you find being insulted wrong so do not call others life style choices weird or abnormal unless they hurt other (non-consenting) people.
I exercise my right of freedom of speech. I don´t attack anybody personally. I haven´t called anybody an idiot. But I exercise my right to say my opinion about certain life styles. And it is outrageous that I´m insulted because I exercise my right of freedom of speech.

There is no Slippery Slope.

Because that is not what the legal system is. It is never made directly downhill. The fact is that there are less people that accept polygamy than accept homosexuality, in fact the former is often an excuse for not liking the latter. There is less demand as there are less polygamists and the polygamists there are do not tend to want to marry as they have already rebelled against the mainstream society.
Incest also has less public backing and it's children are often mutated and it would be inequal to help one but not the other for of incest.
Bestiality and paedophilia do not have two consenting partners and the age of consent is all to do with societies norms and nothing at all to do with whether or not two people of the same gender are recognised officialy by the goverment and granted equal rights.

But how would you justify banning it as it is "not harming" anybody (after all they can´t produce offspring) and they both consent?

Err... didn't you read his post? I mean.... come on, it was one sentence. It wasn't that hard to read.

It wouldn't be allowed because it would not represent equal rights between heterosexuals and homosexuals, which is exactly what we are advocating.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the way it should be done. It should be purely a state issue, and the federal government should keep their brown noses out of it.
Actually, I'd like the government to stay out of marriage and stick to civil unions. Marriage is a religious institution, and separating it from government achieves two purposes:

1) Separation of church and state
2) Shutting up fundamentalists

But how would you justify banning it as it is "not harming" anybody (after all they can´t produce offspring) and they both consent?

I exercise my right of freedom of speech. I don´t attack anybody personally. I haven´t called anybody an idiot. But I exercise my right to say my opinion about certain life styles. And it is outrageous that I´m insulted because I exercise my right of freedom of speech.



1) It would be inequal so no.
2)We are exercising ours.
3)What is outrageous is that you would dismiss a whole group of people as people who you "Do not like" due to their consenting actions to each other. You are the outrageous one and you are the one who is dying out. Us libertines are growing in number wheras you oppressive homophobes are dwindling.
4)You are obviously the type of prude who belongs back in the 50s. *to the Beatles* La, la, la, lalala, lalala, hey Prude...

I exercise my right of freedom of speech. I don´t attack anybody personally. I haven´t called anybody an idiot. But I exercise my right to say my opinion about certain life styles. And it is outrageous that I´m insulted because I exercise my right of freedom of speech.

Welcome to a privately owned website. You have no right to freedom of speech here.

In addition, you're using the common Free Speech fallacy. If you have a right to say you're correct, why can't people tell you you're wrong and / or an idiot? Isn't that free speech too?

Bush doesn't give half a turd about banning gay marriage. He knew it wouldn't pass: it was just an election-year ploy by Karl Rove.

And what do you mean "re"elected?

Actualy Bush does as he will suck cock to keep the religious right happy (and because so many of them are closet cases chances are it would).

Oh and just incase anyone missed it the other times: Kyber do you like gay people?

Actualy Bush does as he will suck cock to keep the religious right happy (and because so many of them are closet cases chances are it would).

Well.. heh, I don't know about sucking cock.. but whether Bush personally supports it or not is not known. He must appear to support it, otherwise his neo-con powerbase will dump him.

I exercise my right of freedom of speech. I don´t attack anybody personally. I haven´t called anybody an idiot. But I exercise my right to say my opinion about certain life styles. And it is outrageous that I´m insulted because I exercise my right of freedom of speech.

You certainly have the right to speak what you will freely, but I certainly resent the fact that you haven't "attacked anybody personally". You, calling me and my friends "abnormal" is just a euphemism and we all know it.

Well.. heh, I don't know about sucking cock.. but whether Bush personally supports it or not is not known. He must appear to support it, otherwise his neo-con powerbase will dump him.

Look the guy mocked the pleas of mercy of a lady he was about to execute so I think he is conservative enough to hate gay marriage.

You certainly have the right to speak what you will freely, but I certainly resent the fact that you haven't "attacked anybody personally". You, calling me and my friends "abnormal" is just a euphemism and we all know it.

Well he has attacked no one personaly. He has lumped us all together along with paedophiles, bestials, incesters and polygamists and THEN told us he does not like us.

La, la, la, lalala la, lalala la, hey Prude.

I'd point something out about the Santorum argument regarding polygamy:

So what?

I think people shouldn't be prohibited from marrying cabbages if that is really what will make them happy.

(Though it's worth noting that the desire to marry a cabbage is probably indicative of deap-seated psychological issues that ought to be addressed.)

everyoen stop arguing this issue with kyber

he is not from the usa, as far as i can tell not even familiar with the WORKINGS of the legal system, and no, set up is NOT the workings.

he is an ignorant third party to the subject and should be given the time of argument, go ahead and lsiten yo him if you want, just dotn bother arguing with him

Look the guy mocked the pleas of mercy of a lady he was about to execute so I think he is conservative enough to hate gay marriage.

Ack, that's bad. Okay, so the guy is a willing puppet of ultra-conservative religious right-wingers.

I'd point something out about the Santorum argument regarding polygamy:

So what?

I think people shouldn't be prohibited from marrying cabbages if that is really what will make them happy.

(Though it's worth noting that the desire to marry a cabbage is probably indicative of deap-seated psychological issues that ought to be addressed.)

Well if they can find a religion that will do it or wanna do it themselves then fine but I do not think that legaly it should happen.

Kyber, you obviously don't understand American government and law.

It's not the English system. It's not on us to prove that 'natural law' demands equal marriage rights for gay couples.

In America, the burden of proof is on the law that seeks to restrict civil rights and liberties and legal 'privileges' to one class of people. Any such selective restrictions are subject to *very high standards* of state interest.

The continual insistence that giving homosexual marriages the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual ones will somehow cause bestiality and pedophilia to become legal ...is frankly, ridiculous. It's just a crass attempt to paint gays as a class of criminal sexual deviants. That's about *fear,* not the law, or justice, or the ideals of democracy, for that matter.

The laws that define the legal status of children are quite solid and many in number. And, frankly, our laws against bestiality are older than our laws against child abuse, if you can believe that. In one of the original test cases, a prosecutor had to *use* a cruelty to animals law to show that animals were better protected than children of (straight) abusive parents.

As has been amply discussed before, (you seem to not have read or registered the previous refutations,) that's simply not a real concern, never mind a public interest in denying legal protections of marriage to couples who happen to be of the same sex.

Err... didn't you read his post? I mean.... come on, it was one sentence. It wasn't that hard to read.

It wouldn't be allowed because it would not represent equal rights between heterosexuals and homosexuals, which is exactly what we are advocating.
But he said:
Look you are an idiot: you use multiple ????? signs and do not like an entire variety of people. This means you are an idiot and will continue to be until you use a single ? and are not such a homophobe. The age of consent should be 16 as it is where I live. Marriage will remain between two people as if it is not it is incredibly complex and defeats the purpose of marriage which is monogomy.
Also you find being insulted wrong so do not call others life style choices weird or abnormal unless they hurt other (non-consenting) people.
So: How do gay incestous relationships can hurt other people if they are done with the consent of the partners????
So: he is contradicting himself. And that is what I wanted to point out.

Look the guy mocked the pleas of mercy of a lady he was about to execute so I think he is conservative enough to hate gay marriage.
Quite possibly--though I really think he's just an apolitical sociopath whose emotional development has been stunted by alcoholism and a Texan upbringing.

Look the guy mocked the pleas of mercy of a lady he was about to execute so I think he is conservative enough to hate gay marriage.

Huh? Do you happen to have a source?

Ack, that's bad. Okay, so the guy is a willing puppet of ultra-conservative religious right-wingers.

Yes. Also he put to death a child under the adult age based on the evidence of one lady who saw the murder from 200 yards through a rain dotted windscreen when there were multiple witnesses who said they saw someone else do it close up who were not called to give evidence due to an incopetant defence lawyer and did NOT execute a necropliac who admitted to /50/ murders and killed and entered his own mother.

Quite possibly--though I really think he's just an apolitical sociopath whose emotional development has been stunted by alcoholism and a Texan upbringing.
Hey: I´m not American: So I´m neither a yankee or a cowboy like you

Quite possibly--though I really think he's just an apolitical sociopath whose emotional development has been stunted by alcoholism and a Texan upbringing.

Hey now. No need to bash Texans.

But he said:

So: How do gay incestous relationships can hurt other people if they are done with the consent of the partners????
So: he is contradicting himself. And that is what I wanted to point out.

I said that they were unequal. That is my opinion all else was a mistake.

You contradict yourself! You claim to hate slavery at one point (or at least imply it) and then say that the majority should be ALLOWED to be a tyranny against the minority!

Welcome to a privately owned website. You have no right to freedom of speech here.
In addition, you're using the common Free Speech fallacy. If you have a right to say you're correct, why can't people tell you you're wrong and / or an idiot? Isn't that free speech too?
The freedom of speech stops by personal insults. You are not allowed to insult a person. And insult is something which is aimed directly at a person. So if you call me an idiot that´s a personal insult if I call gays abnormal it is not as it is directed to a group and not an individual.

Huh? Do you happen to have a source?

You Are Being Lied To. It is a book, it has the source in it but now it is in storage so I will get the source for you when I get it back. Try Google.

Well he has attacked no one personaly. He has lumped us all together along with paedophiles, bestials, incesters and polygamists and THEN told us he does not like us.

La, la, la, lalala la, lalala la, hey Prude.

Even worse...although polygamists aren't bad, my roommate's one and he's got to be the nicest person in the universe, aside from, say Jesus...but then you know how the roman catholics messed with that.

The freedom of speech stops by personal insults. You are not allowed to insult a person. And insult is something which is aimed directly at a person. So if you call me an idiot that´s a personal insult if I call gays abnormal it is not as it is directed to a group and not an individual.

You said you do not like gays and that we are abnormal. I am a gay (or at least bi) this is an insult. Whether you aimed it at the millions of us there are in the world or not I am offended.

Fine lemme amend my statement then: all homophobes are fucking stupid morons who would suck there own mothers before contronting their own sexuality and yes this includes a certain person who posts on a message board who's name starts with a K. There, happy?

Actualy no I take that back as you can not decide what I say because, guess what, free speech DOES cover insults you bigoted moron!

So: How do gay incestous relationships can hurt other people if they are done with the consent of the partners????

The relationship is not the issue. Incestuous marriage is the issue. A homosexual, incestuous marriage would not be permitted because a heterosexual, incestuous marriage would not be permitted. Equal rights.

Ohohohohohohohohoh...I just remembered. If it was not for libertines like me through history battling for equality (hey that rymes) then you would not be allowed to be an atheist, blacks would still be slaves, gays would be beheaded, church and state would still be in coitus and YOU would be forced to go to church! Hell for sprouting the atheist stuff you have here YOU could even be killed along with the fags for disobeying Dog! And now we are battling for equal rights for gays to try and furthur the path that has made the modern civilised western world and do you join us with gratitude? Nope. Ungrateful and a bigot, what a great combination.

Oh, and incest is considered wrong because of the potential for inbreeding, as well as the notion that power dynamics within a family unit make the problem of consent a big issue.

Maybe the inbreeding thing isn't an issue with say, gay cousins, but the other one can be.

The merits of incestuous marriages being illegal, however, are irrelevant to the merits of equal protection under the law for gay couples.

You Are Being Lied To. It is a book, it has the source in it but now it is in storage so I will get the source for you when I get it back. Try Google.

Thanks. I'll try and Google it.

Oh, and incest is considered wrong because of the potential for inbreeding, as well as the notion that power dynamics within a family unit make the problem of consent a big issue.

Maybe the inbreeding thing isn't an issue with say, gay cousins, but the other one can be.

The merits of incestuous marriages being illegal, however, are irrelevant to the merits of equal protection under the law for gay couples.

Actualy cousin sex does not make mutatated babies. Just though I would comment before I hopped back on topic.

So what do you think of my anti-SS argument Kyby?

I exercise my right of freedom of speech. I don´t attack anybody personally. I haven´t called anybody an idiot. But I exercise my right to say my opinion about certain life styles. And it is outrageous that I´m insulted because I exercise my right of freedom of speech.

Hmmm... interesting. You take offense to a personal attack for attacking an entire segment of society and recalling what I've seen you "express", I'd have to say either you've been personally harmed by the persons you attack or you simply have nothing better to do than ignorantly troll with misconceptions and religio-political tripe.

Congratulations as you've thus earned something I vowed never to do here.

*CLICK*

:D

Hmmm... interesting. You take offense to a personal attack for attacking an entire segment of society and recalling what I've seen you "express", I'd have to say either you've been personally harmed by the persons you attack or you simply have nothing better to do than ignorantly troll with misconceptions and religio-political tripe.

Ahh, but feeding this particular troll is fun! The kind of stuff he vomits up afterwards is quite amusing.

Ahh, but feeding this particular troll is fun! The kind of stuff he vomits up afterwards is quite amusing.


Fortunately I won't see it. :D

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

You're forgetting the fact that I believe same sex parenting to be harmful for the development of the child and society. Therefore, I am not for outlawing something that I believe to be harmless.

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 never said all scientists were out to make gay marriage legal. However, you cannot tell me that the scientists carrying out the studies had absolutely no interest in promoting same sex parenting. Many (though not all) scientists conduct the research they do because they have a specific goal in mind. Right now my research entails making marketable products out of soybean oil, because the Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council wants to expand the market for soybeans. Do you know where funding for the same sex parenting studies came from?

I also said that there were valid objections about the validity of the research brought up by others on this forum, such as small sample size, etc. etc. That is what scientific criticism is - questioning the hypothesis, methods, and conclusions of a scientific experiment. Above you seem to ignore those objections, though for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you addressed them on the pages of the thread that I haven't read.

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!

I brought up tax breaks because that is one of the rights frequently brought up by gay marriage proponents.

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 don't see any point to the inheritance tax other than for the government to make a quick buck during someone's time of grief. If there is no other reason, then I don't think there should be inheritance taxes for anyone. If there is a good reason for inheritance taxes, I'd like to hear it.

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.

a) If you mean to imply I don't understand all of the legal nuances of marriage, then you're correct, because I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any interest in becoming one.
b) Well, then the last five years of my life have been a big waste, despite the fact that I recently graduated with a B.S. in chemistry (3.91 GPA). Oh well, I'll just have to live with my shame while I prepare to begin my Ph.D. work at a top 20 grad school and hope nobody there finds out that I don't know how science works :rolleyes:

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.
(quote)gays can marry if they wanna go find your precious bush and stick him up your ass!!!! yankee scum!! peace out

Actually, relations between cousins *do* vastly increase the chances of a mutation or defective gene being expressed: many conditions require a copy of a bad gene to come from *both* parents, thus the more ancestors the parents have in common, the more likely a mutation is to express.

That's just how genetics work.

(quote)gays can marry if they wanna go find your precious bush and stick him up your ass!!!! yankee scum!! peace out

Err... what?

You're forgetting the fact that I believe same sex parenting to be harmful for the development of the child and society. Therefore, I am not for outlawing something that I believe to be harmless.

The American Psychology Association as well as the American Medical Association disagrees with your belief and I'd sooner give credit to mental and general health professional than any individual with a B.Sc. in Chem. If you wanna discuss making rubber or something I'd intently listen.

Well, time for bed again.

Have fun, all!

I'll come back and comment again tomorrow.

The American Psychology Association as well as the American Medical Association disagrees with your belief and I'd sooner give credit to mental and general health professional than any individual with a B.Sc. in Chem. If you wanna discuss making rubber or something I'd intently listen.

Don't forget the American Pediatric Association, the North American Council on Adoptable Children and the American Psyciatric Association.

Basically, the science saying children of gay couples are no differently-adjusted are peer-reviewed and repeatable. Many of them are funded by medical associations with an interest in *treating* mental health issues, and governments with an interest in public welfare, who are looking for the *facts,* more than trying to support some social agenda based on religious-based presumptions that the modern nuclear family is ordained by God and Nature and all.

You can vaguely claim *anything* is biased, but I trust accredited medical associations and governments looking for *where best to put the money involved in social services* a lot more readily than I trust religious-right political groups like the FRC, who just happen to be trying to get political power based on a wedge issue and sell spurious Christian 'reparative therapy' that they claim can 'cure' homosexuality (whereas the results of this are quite obvious: the *leaders* of the 'ex-gay' movement have all been caught cruising gay bars and some are now openly gay after failed heterosexual marriages, ...and *they* say it's all BS.

So. Basically, how science works, you can decide which research is good, and who's more likely to be biased, ...or, at most, you can say that science has not conclusively shown whether gay marriages cause any harm to their children, ...thus you can't take people's civil rights away based on the notion it harms children.

Besides, no one is suggesting that *other* things that are *known* to cause harm to children, like, say, alcoholism, drug abuse, or even a history of child abuse, should bar someone from getting married or even having kids.

Again: the equality principle doesn´t mean that everything has to be treated the same way. The same thing has to be treated the same way and different things differently. I know not so much about US law. However we have a simular list in our constituition. But this list is to be considered examplatory. So: that means that it is not final. Also groups that are not specificly mentioned can claim that they shall not be discriminated against. Therefore your argument that gay marriage and polygamy are to completly different things doesn´t stand. If you allow the one the pressure is going to build to allow the other as well. And I don´t want either of those things.
Marriage is to be between one man and one woman. And there are good reasons for that and therefore it shall remain that way.

Equality means that if you offer a privilege to one group, it has to be offered to everyone equally unless there is a good reason to not do so. There has been no good reason put forth, therefore disallowing it is unequal.

And since you don't know about US law, you can't argue one whether or not gay marriage and polygamy would be different according to US law. The 14th Amendment can be used to determine any law forbidding gay marriage to be unconstitutional. It cannot be used to determine any law forbidding polygamy (which is an entirely different institution anyways) unconstitutional.

As soon as you name a single "good reason" for it, I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt.

So, the majority has to rule in those areas your party thinks they have an majority of the population on their side and on other issues it shouldn´t. Did I get it right?????
Well, that is not only biased but hypocritical. Either you say: yes or no. And by the way: Who is going to decide whether it is "unfair" treatment?????

Nope you got it completely wrong. First of all, I don't have a party, so I guess "my party" doesn't decide anything, you know - not existing and all.

Second of all, if you knew the first thing about the US government, you would know that this is the way it works. Government officials (legislators, president, commisioners, sherrifs, etc.) are elected by the people (except the president who is elected indirectly by the people). This should be based off of a majority vote because the people are electing those who will do their bidding.

Now, we have this little thing called "checks and balances." You see, the legislature can make laws (any law they might want to), but they don't enforce them. The executive branch can enforce the laws and basically decides how to do so. And the judicial branch makes sure that the laws in place (as well as the way in which they are applied) are applied fairly and constitutionally. It is the judicial branch that provides the check (or balance, if you will) to keep minorities from getting tromped all over. Without it, the legislature could pass a law that said all natural blondes had to be decapitated and the executive branch could go right on ahead and enforce that law. But the judicial branch would say "Hey now, wait a minute, that's discrimination against blondes! That's unconstitutional and you can't do it."

Now, do you understand?

I know that: It is a two-chamber system: House of representatives (elected in constituencies for two years by a simple majority: supposed to give proper representation of the American people), Senate (100 senators: 2 for each states: elected directly for six years, 1/3 elected all two years). President: elected indirectly by the people (through an electoral college every 4 years. Every state has as much members in the electoral college as it has in the House of representatives + 2 (like in the senate): historical compromise between those who favoured the equality of states (every states should have the same weight) and those who stood for the principal: one man one vote.

You missed the checks and balances provided by three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. This is much more important to the discussion than how exactly our Congress is elected.

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.

I've said before that divorces should be harder to obtain, but not impossible, since there are cases in which divorce is the best option for everyone involved. There are no legal privileges attached to fornication or adultery, nor do I believe there should be any attached to homosexuality. This being the case, to prevent children from being born out of wedlock, we would have to force unmarried pregnant women to have an abortion. Death is a lot less healthy that growing up without two parents.

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?

Medical decisions - get a durable power of attorney. If that is not currently possible for unmarried people, it should be. For an example not involving same sex couples, John Smith is unmarried and has no living close family. He should be able to list a close friend in a durable power of attorney over a distant relative he hardly knows.

Remains of deceased spouse - delegate responsibilty for funeral arrangements in your will. If that's not possible, it should be. The above situation can be applied in this situation as well.

Hospital visitation - Why should only spouses be able to visit the severly sick? The above example can also be applied in this situation.

My point is that same sex couples can or should have access to some of these rights without needing a civil marriage or union, because other people should have access to them as well.

You're forgetting the fact that I believe same sex parenting to be harmful for the development of the child and society. Therefore, I am not for outlawing something that I believe to be harmless.

Erm... You said you weren't trying to outlaw homosexuality and I replied that this was a good thing. The particular part of your quote I was referring to mentioned nothing of parenting. So, I didn't forget anything. What was your point?

I never said all scientists were out to make gay marriage legal. However, you cannot tell me that the scientists carrying out the studies had absolutely no interest in promoting same sex parenting. Many (though not all) scientists conduct the research they do because they have a specific goal in mind. Right now my research entails making marketable products out of soybean oil, because the Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council wants to expand the market for soybeans. Do you know where funding for the same sex parenting studies came from?

I don't know where the funding came from, no. But I know that more research has public funding that private. Although, I am highly disturbed by what you are suggesting here. You are basically suggesting that all scientists will skew their data to please whoever happens to be funding them. This is not the case. Then, you are suggesting that this bias will be passed through peer review (even though the peer review is not affected by whoever funded the study).

You are in a private organization, rather than an organization intent on publishing, but would you skew your data to make your investors happy? If you found that you couldn't make what they wanted out of soybean oil, would you lie to make them happy? Would you drop a few data points here and there to make it look like you had a different result? Because, if you would, you are unethical and undeserving of your job.

In fact, most of the papers I have looked over (in credible journals that have been peer-reviewed) started with the original hypothesis that children *would* be harmed by same-sex parenting. However, the numbers in the end suggested otherwise.

I also said that there were valid objections about the validity of the research brought up by others on this forum, such as small sample size, etc. etc. That is what scientific criticism is - questioning the hypothesis, methods, and conclusions of a scientific experiment. Above you seem to ignore those objections, though for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you addressed them on the pages of the thread that I haven't read.

Actually, I must have missed where you said that. Unfortunately, issues like sample size are very prevalent in social-type studies. However, no large-scale studies have been done (to my knowledge), so at the moment, small sample sizes are all we have to go on.

I don't see any point to the inheritance tax other than for the government to make a quick buck during someone's time of grief. If there is no other reason, then I don't think there should be inheritance taxes for anyone. If there is a good reason for inheritance taxes, I'd like to hear it.

::shrug:: Ask your elected officials.

a) If you mean to imply I don't understand all of the legal nuances of marriage, then you're correct, because I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any interest in becoming one.

I actually meant that you don't understand everything that is entailed in marriage. Parenting is not th end-all-be-all of marriage.

b) Well, then the last five years of my life have been a big waste, despite the fact that I recently graduated with a B.S. in chemistry (3.91 GPA). Oh well, I'll just have to live with my shame while I prepare to begin my Ph.D. work at a top 20 grad school and hope nobody there finds out that I don't know how science works :rolleyes:

It bothers me that someone who seems to think that all scientists skew their data just to keep their investors happy is working on a Ph.D. Good luck with your soybeans. Thank God you aren't working in the medical industry.

Medical decisions - get a durable power of attorney. If that is not currently possible for unmarried people, it should be. For an example not involving same sex couples, John Smith is unmarried and has no living close family. He should be able to list a close friend in a durable power of attorney over a distant relative he hardly knows.

Remains of deceased spouse - delegate responsibilty for funeral arrangements in your will. If that's not possible, it should be. The above situation can be applied in this situation as well.

Hospital visitation - Why should only spouses be able to visit the severly sick? The above example can also be applied in this situation.

My point is that same sex couples can or should have access to some of these rights without needing a civil marriage or union, because other people should have access to them as well.But guess what? The state of Virginia in their recent anti-gay legislation outlawed most of this so that only a spouse or relatives have access to these things. This is how far states will go in their rabid desire to take away rights from the obivously evil homosexuals. :P And yet, because no-one actually read the law, and most people don't even know it passed, they just think gay marriage is illegal, and nothing will get done until they get scewed over by the law. Thus is the natur of the general American public. Mis-informed, ignorant, and filled with opinions on stuff they know nothing about.

But guess what? The state of Virginia in their recent anti-gay legislation outlawed most of this so that only a spouse or relatives have access to these things. This is how far states will go in their rabid desire to take away rights from the obivously evil homosexuals. :P And yet, because no-one actually read the law, and most people don't even know it passed, they just think gay marriage is illegal, and nothing will get done until they get scewed over by the law. Thus is the natur of the general American public. Mis-informed, ignorant, and filled with opinions on stuff they know nothing about.

Ahh! Virginia seems truly eeevil...

The Libertines,

you haven´t presented a consistent argument for your position. First you said marriage should be about love. Then I confronted you with incestous relationship, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, e.g.
Then you argued that it should be allowed if it doesn´t „harm“ anybody. Therefore you constructed the ban of heterosexuel incestous relationship. So your argument it is all about „love“ doesn´t stand. But you failed to explain why homosexual incestous relationships should be banned.
Then you said everything should be treated equally. But your yourself don´t. Or using your argumentation: you „deny“ incestous relationships their „rights“. You differentiate or in your wording „discriminate“ incestous relationships towards non-incestous relationships. Your argument that everything should be treated equal is led ad absurdum by yourself because you differentiate. Or as I would quote: The equality principle requires to treat the same things the same way and DIFFERENT THING differently. Incestous and non-incestous relationships are different as well as hetero- and homosexuality is. Therefore it is not only legal but also required to treat this different things differently. And therefore homosexuality (same-sex relationship) and marriage exclude each other.

The Libertines,

you haven´t presented a consistent argument for your position. First you said marriage should be about love. Then I confronted you with incestous relationship, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, e.g.
Then you argued that it should be allowed if it doesn´t „harm“ anybody. Therefore you constructed the ban of heterosexuel incestous relationship. So your argument it is all about „love“ doesn´t stand. But you failed to explain why homosexual incestous relationships should be banned.
Then you said everything should be treated equally. But your yourself don´t. Or using your argumentation: you „deny“ incestous relationships their „rights“. You differentiate or in your wording „discriminate“ incestous relationships towards non-incestous relationships. Your argument that everything should be treated equal is led ad absurdum by yourself because you differentiate. Or as I would quote: The equality principle requires to treat the same things the same way and DIFFERENT THING differently. Incestous and non-incestous relationships are different as well as hetero- and homosexuality is. Therefore it is not only legal but also required to treat this different things differently. And therefore homosexuality (same-sex relationship) and marriage exclude each other.
i agree with you on one point: denying incestuous relationships is hypocritical if people support homosexual relationships. so long as a relationship is between consenting adults, it's their business...if two siblings get together then it is their business. i think it's gross and warped, but people think the same thing about homosexuality and they don't have the right to forbid gays to marry.

the cases where incest is unacceptable are actually the most common: when an adult, heterosexual father has sexual contact with his minor daughter. these cases represent 95% of incest cases in the United States, and they aren't wrong because of the relation of the two parties but because one party is a minor and therefore being raped. if both parties are consenting adults then the relationship should be legal (in my opinion), but if one party is a minor then it's a crime. pretty simple, it's still all about that magic word: consent.

and to people who cite medical or procreative reasons to forbid incest, please be aware that a woman over 40 is more likely to bear a genetically or physically deformed child than an incestuous relationship between two 30 year old siblings is. age is a much more critical medical issue for fetal health, and evidence suggests that age of the father is also critical (though we don't have as much evidence of it as we do for mother's age), so should we forbid people over 40 from having sex? should we forbid them to marry?

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

Absolutely right! Couldn't agree more. Doesn't anyone else see that any ammendment to the constitution regarding a religious issue (that's what this is all about!) is in direct violation of the separation of church and state? How would Christians feel if someone decided to ammend the constitution to make it a crime to beleive in the divinity of Christ?

If Bush signed an ammendment to the constitution proclaiming a religious view over and against others, he would be violating the First Amendment. Not that that would really bother him a whole lot - he's pretty much scrapped the entire constitution in his 4 year reign.....

The Libertines,

you haven´t presented a consistent argument for your position. First you said marriage should be about love.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I agree with you on one point: denying incestuous relationships is hypocritical if people support homosexual relationships. so long as a relationship is between consenting adults, it's their business...if two siblings get together then it is their business. i think it's gross and warped, but people think the same thing about homosexuality and they don't have the right to forbid gays to marry.

You prove my slipery-slope argument. That is one of the reason why I´m against it. If there is a change on the definition of marriage (away from the one man and one woman principal) we are going to see other groups demanding "equal rights". Polygamists, incestous relationships, e.g.
And there would be no valid arguments to keep monogamy (as the score scell of society and as the score cell of a family and therefore clearly determined as being between one man and one woman).

You prove my slipery-slope argument. That is one of the reason why I´m against it. If there is a change on the definition of marriage (away from the one man and one woman principal) we are going to see other groups demanding "equal rights". Polygamists, incestous relationships, e.g.
And there would be no valid arguments to keep monogamy (as the score scell of society and as the score cell of a family and therefore clearly determined as being between one man and one woman).What makes you so sure that a family of multiple parents would not create a better loving enviroment for the child? If you think about it, it would give the child more experieince and more chance for affection and learning.

Inter-generational incestuous marriages will enver happen because they unfairly use age and station to make an unequal relationship. Not going to happen, and most people won't be fond of it anyway.

But get this. No-one is clamouring for those things. There is no core group of millions in the country, or anywhere in the world, demanding this. Not to mention that there is a difference between polygamy. It kind of is a choice to be with multiple people, or sometimes, a lack of decision between people.

I don't know where the funding came from, no. But I know that more research has public funding that private. Although, I am highly disturbed by what you are suggesting here. You are basically suggesting that all scientists will skew their data to please whoever happens to be funding them. This is not the case. Then, you are suggesting that this bias will be passed through peer review (even though the peer review is not affected by whoever funded the study).

You are in a private organization, rather than an organization intent on publishing, but would you skew your data to make your investors happy? If you found that you couldn't make what they wanted out of soybean oil, would you lie to make them happy? Would you drop a few data points here and there to make it look like you had a different result? Because, if you would, you are unethical and undeserving of your job..

I was referring to interpretation of results, not intentional skewing of data. If I set out to synthesize a specific compound, I have to look at various spectra to try and determine exactly what happened during the reaction, whether or not the desired compound actually formed, impurities present, etc. etc. Because I have a vested interest in making that compound, it is sometimes easier to unintentionally misinterpret the data, when someone with less of an interest in the outcome can make a more neutral interpretation of the data. It doesn't happen all of the time, but it can happen.

It bothers me that someone who seems to think that all scientists skew their data just to keep their investors happy is working on a Ph.D. Good luck with your soybeans. Thank God you aren't working in the medical industry.

I hope my above reply helped you to understand my thinking a bit better....I was in no way trying to suggest that all scientists intentionally skew their data. Sorry if it sounded like I was.

You prove my slipery-slope argument. That is one of the reason why I´m against it. If there is a change on the definition of marriage (away from the one man and one woman principal) we are going to see other groups demanding "equal rights". Polygamists, incestous relationships, e.g.
And there would be no valid arguments to keep monogamy (as the score scell of society and as the score cell of a family and therefore clearly determined as being between one man and one woman).
um, no i don't support your theory, and perhaps you would have been able to avoid looking foolish if you read my post more carefully. i simply believe the standards for sexual relationships should be very simple and consistent: consent of the parties involved. a minor is biologically unable to give adult consent, so pedophilia could never be legitimized by my course, and that "slope" isn't a problem. animals, objects, and dead people cannot consent, and therefore those aren't a problem. exactly what slope is there? adult humans have the right to choose their life-partner, and if our societies and governments are going to recognize these relationships then i don't see any grounds to discriminate between different sorts just because we don't all like who others have picked.

also, please remember that the concept of "slippery slope" is disproven by all current laws in America. the "slippery slope" argument leads us to the conclusions that we shouldn't let anybody drive because then we will have to let EVERYBODY drive, including blind people and babies. after all, if we let 16 year olds drive then what will stop them liberals from saying 15 year olds can drive?! the "slippery slope" tells us that nobody should be allowed to have sex, because if we let adults straight people have sex then what's next?! we'll have to allow gay people to have sex!! and children?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

according to the slippery slope, we shouldn't let ANYBODY get married; by allowing straight people to marry we openned the door for gay people to potentially marry, and if we just denied everyone the right to marry then that wouldn't be a problem. by setting the precident that a state should recognize romantic unions of any kind we began our way down the slippery slope to recognizing all romantic unions.

the reality is that we can and do draw the line in these situations. we have, historically, changed our standards for many other things, like consumption of alcohol or driving age, and society has not collapsed. we mess with tradition all the time, and to no ill effect. just because we did something a certain way for a long time doesn't mean a new way will necessarily be worse. just because we drew a line in one spot for a long time doesn't mean that moving it an inch means we must move it a mile.

so congrats, you just refuted yourself with two short words: slippery slope. aren't you the smart one?

Have we (California) banned it yet?

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

What you call choas I call Civil Rights

What you call choas I call Civil Rights

Even though it violated the California's Constitution?

Even though it violated the California's Constitution?
Yes the Constitution is Discrimitive

Yes the Constitution is Discrimitive

Well NOT according to the California Supreme Court.

Bottles,

I agree with you in one point.
The standards for marriage should be very simple and consistent: and that we have currently: one man and one woman.
If we give that up we loose that consistency and at the end have to allow polygamy and incestous relationships.
And that I don´t want.

Question to Americans:
Which states have up until now failed to defind marriage as between one man and one woman or not passed laws or amendments outlawing gay marriage?????

Homosexuals make up 3% of the nation,
68% of all serial killers are homosexual

Homosexuals make up 3% of the nation,
68% of all serial killers are homosexualSTOP POSTING THIS CRAP. You have now posted these flawed stats 3 times in this thread, and that's three times too many. You have no source, no proof, and nothing to back you up other than your made up crap. First of all, 3% is way too low a statistic, and you have nothing backing you up otherwise. Stop flame baiting, stop posting random number, and get the hell out of here unless you have something new, thought provoking or real to bring to the table.

Gah... some people.

Question to Americans:
Which states have up until now failed to defind marriage as between one man and one woman or not passed laws or amendments outlawing gay marriage?????

Well only 1 has legalized Gay marriage and One has Civil Unions! Gay Marriage is in Massachuttes and Civil Unions are in Vermont!

Bottles,

I agree with you in one point.
The standards for marriage should be very simple and consistent: and that we have currently: one man and one woman.
If we give that up we loose that consistency and at the end have to allow polygamy and incestous relationships.
And that I don´t want.

So, you believe that rights should be recognized based on the subjective opinions of person like yourself? That's all you seem to be standing on now, with your "slippery slope" (call it "loss of consistency" or rephrase it any other way) discredited. Has your argument boiled down to that? Your fear of change?

Bottles,

I agree with you in one point.
The standards for marriage should be very simple and consistent: and that we have currently: one man and one woman.
If we give that up we loose that consistency and at the end have to allow polygamy and incestous relationships.
And that I don´t want.

Ah, but nobody cares what you want. Because you're not in charge of deciding the rights of the minority.

Question to Americans:
Which states have up until now failed to defind marriage as between one man and one woman or not passed laws or amendments outlawing gay marriage?????This is kind of a tricky question, because some states have outright passed anti-gay laws, and some have just voted to put it in front of voters later. I'm not sure which have done which. I know Michigan's vote to make an amendment failed, and that both Virginia, and now Missouri have passed things.

Well NOT according to the California Supreme Court.

Really, so why don't you point us to a link over what happened (those of us noiw living in CA are curious)? It's not been banned, as the graphic from CNN.com that I posted around page 30 shows that only 5 states have constitutional bans on gay marriage (Hawaii, Alaska, Missouri, Nebraska, and one other I forget). If you want to cite the CA Supreme Court, I want their ruling, not your claim to the factuality of the matter.

Ah, but nobody cares what you want. Because you're not in charge of deciding the rights of the minority.
And you are not in charge of deciding the rights of the minority either. So: why should anybody care what you think?

Really, so why don't you point us to a link over what happened (those of us noiw living in CA are curious)? It's not been banned, as the graphic from CNN.com that I posted around page 30 shows that only 5 states have constitutional bans on gay marriage (Hawaii, Alaska, Missouri, Nebraska, and one other I forget). If you want to cite the CA Supreme Court, I want their ruling, not your claim to the factuality of the matter.

Actually Anbar, by a referendum voted on by the people of California, they voted to ban gay marriage. I'll have to hunt for it but from all accounts, CA law doesn't allow for gay marriage and the California Supreme Court told SF mayor to stop.

As I said, I'll have to hunt for a link but that is what I've heard from different sources.

Ah, but nobody cares what you want. Because you're not in charge of deciding the rights of the minority.

Now if only the Neocons and religious extremists could get this through their heads, we might be able to add some intelligence to this nationally debated issue.

And you are not in charge of deciding the rights of the minority either. So: why should anybody care what you think?

Because I haven't shown my "thoughts," I've shown ample evidence as to why gay marrige should be allowed.

You've showed arguments that have already been disproved and personal opinion ;)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37077

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/13/wgay13.xml

http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=353058

These are just a couple of the links I found regarding California and banning gay marriage. Hopes this helps Anbar.

So, you believe that rights should be recognized based on the subjective opinions of person like yourself? That's all you seem to be standing on now, with your "slippery slope" (call it "loss of consistency" or rephrase it any other way) discredited. Has your argument boiled down to that? Your fear of change?
And you think it should be determined according to your subjective opinion?
I would say it should follow the law. And the law is since many centuries of years: one man and one woman form a marriage.
If you want to change that it is you who need a consistent argument for it. And that has not been presented.

ho·mo·sex·u·al ** *P* ** Pronunciation Key **(h m-s ksh -l, -m -)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

every priest,and pervert guy who ever molested a little boy is a homosexual.

Really, so why don't you point us to a link over what happened (those of us noiw living in CA are curious)? It's not been banned, as the graphic from CNN.com that I posted around page 30 shows that only 5 states have constitutional bans on gay marriage (Hawaii, Alaska, Missouri, Nebraska, and one other I forget). If you want to cite the CA Supreme Court, I want their ruling, not your claim to the factuality of the matter.I don't have anything on California. Go to http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=353058 to read about the current news. 6 states have apparently passed stuff. I'm not sure what the heck is going on in Virginia, because I know they passed a law. Anyways, that's an unbiased site, and should give at least some info.

Edit: Skip the intro and go farther and you'll see that it gives a state by state rundown on what has happened.

Actually Anbar, by a referendum voted on by the people of California, they voted to ban gay marriage. I'll have to hunt for it but from all accounts, CA law doesn't allow for gay marriage and the California Supreme Court told SF mayor to stop.

As I said, I'll have to hunt for a link but that is what I've heard from different sources.

I couldn't care less about unconstitutional laws which have been passed (there have been plenty of those in history). I want to see the verdict that the law is consitutional or an amendment placed in its stead. When the SF issue came up, I just loved how one of the often-touted arguments was, "It's wrong because there's a law against it!" This is such laughable logic, showing just what a tragic lack of thought exists in the nation today.

"Here's your box, folks - try not to think outside of it, for your own good."

EDIT: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031219-093703-5531r.htm

You seem to be thinking of Proposition 22, and that seems to be eroding already.

Because I haven't shown my "thoughts," I've shown ample evidence as to why gay marrige should be allowed. hahaha
Shure. According to whom? According to your own subjective judgements and the subjective judgements of your "friends" here.

You've showed arguments that have already been disproved and personal opinion

No, they haven´t.