NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow. I guess this thread will go to 1000.

As before Gay marriage does not mean antyhing to me.

Mother married twice, divorsed twice.

Father married 4 times, divorsed 3 times and will probably be divorsed again.

Me. Married once going on 16 years.

The myth of marriage is one people will have to get over. It is far from perfect and praying to God doesn't seem to stop divorces.

I am going on 16 years. We are both Catholics. I am an AWOL Catholic(due to stances on gays, aids, and now the pedophilia), my wife is recently AWOL(she is a Sicilian so she was very much the Catholic ;) ).

Our marriage will succeed because we know fighting is ok, we know mistakes will happen, and I am not hung up with looks and strong women. Having said that my wife is a looker. Other girl friends have been better looking but on the advice my saintly aunt once said. "Don't use looks as the full measure of a mate. In time they will fail and if she can't make you laugh, or has no personality, you will be miserable."

To end this tangent; better to have them open and married vs closted and marrying your sisters and daughters.

In answer to a proposed question... If I had to choose who to eliminate, it'd be gays.

Before Im attacked consider this.

From my unhappily atheistic viewpoint it would be the gays:

A) Because they have a hard life.

B) Because it brings up questions to the validity of God.
Why would this matter to me if Im atheist?
Because:
C) Religion helps people to get over the fear of death

D) Religion helps people become better

E) Religion is just plain comforting

Id give anything to beleive in a god. I just can't. I would never wish atheism upon anyone, and for that eason id get rid of the gays in the world.

By the way I am very pro-gay. I hope that any of you who are gay soon get the rights you deserve.

Poll: Which would you rather get rid of permanently? Bible-thumpers GaysSomehow I think the mods would flag that as flame-bait.

Pity.

Try wording it a bit differently. Something like:

Who is more dangerous?
-Gays
-People who walk around with signs saying "God hates fags"

B) Because it brings up questions to the validity of God.

How does homosexuality question the validity of God?

it would mean that some of my friends could get married someday. well, they can here, because it's legal in ontario. but still it's nice to know that my homosexual friends can get married and be happy like everybody else.


Yeah...too bad they can't get divorced. So much for equal treatment.

So, logically, they should say "whatever, here you are" and be done with it, and then handling problems like crime, poverty, poor education, disease, war, terrorism, etc, instead of whining about 2 men/women getting married?

YES! You're the man (woman?)! That would be the perfect solution, the government should stay out of the privat lives of men and women!

Originally Posted by Dakini
it would mean that some of my friends could get married someday. well, they can here, because it's legal in ontario. but still it's nice to know that my homosexual friends can get married and be happy like everybody else.

Does that mean they can't get happy without being married?

Does that mean they can't get happy without being married?

For sure they can be happy without marrying, however gay marriage would improve their lives on some points:

1. Legal rights, as abundantly said above.
2. It would be a clear sign of the governement against discrimination.
3. Gays would feel more accepted in the end.
...


Answering on some Darwinistic nonsense:
Saying it's not biological and evolutianary wrong is foolish, as evolutianary steps can only be judged after a couple of hundred years. In this case, being proven that there have been gays for more than three thousand years now, we can't speak of a evolutionary misstep, as otherwise it would have disappeared already.

Secondly, one thing that makes humans unique is the ability for empathy, so we don't kill everything that does not fit our world view. You should agree that e.g. albinism is not very common and is seen as not normal, however no one has taken steps to outlaw these people.

Thirdly: successful steps in evolution are seen in many species, e.g. sight, hearing, ... Some biologists claim that our intelligence is not that good, seen from an evolutionary point of view (consumes lots of energy) and therefor it's not found in other species. Being what we are, I don't think that you would say we should stop procreating when this is proven.

Last but not least: why is being gay evolutianary wrong? There is more to life than procreating and perhaps gays just have a special role in the community : e.g. adoption, as already said, slowing population growth, and perhaps do they also have more time to work when not having children and are gays just nature's way to keep productivity of the community up... who will tell?. Fact is: a lot of artists in history were homo- or bisexual, perhaps creativity is linked to homosexuality?

In the end, the question here is: do you think we can think? :) Or are we just evolutianary robots, just following nature's rules?

--
If Michelangelo had been straight, the Sistine Chapel would have been wallpapered.
~Robin Tyler

How does homosexuality question the validity of God?


Hakratopia, I've made an 18-page thread on the question that you just asked. It started as "How Does Gay Marriage Affect You?", then spun off into a whole "Is God Real?" topic.


It's better to not get me started and just not ask. Atheists aren't quick to give up in a debate like that. ;)

It's sacrilege. Even if it doesn't affect me, it's still sacrilege.

The initial question.... "How does Homosexual Marriage Affect You?" has been answered eloquently by many people. Some people have made honest answers, some have made spurious answers.

Kybernetia however has not made a continuing discussion. He or she has constantly quoted the same statement over and over again. I am currently waiting for a response from a german friend who will send me a word for word account of the 'german dictionary definition' of the word equality... WITH translation.
I have already written you that I was referring to the legal definition of the equality principle in the German constituition.
A dictionary translation won´t help you here because it is a legal principle.

It's sacrilege. Even if it doesn't affect me, it's still sacrilege.


God says a lot of really ridicilous things are sacrilege. Take lieing for example; everyone has lied at one point or another in their life. OMFG! There are no Christians in the whole world!

God also says that a lot of things unaccepted in today's society are acceptable. Anyone heard of how he promotes slavery? Yeah, children, your caring and compassionate God promotes the enslavement of other people.

What a great leader to be listening to, huh?

It's sacrilege. Even if it doesn't affect me, it's still sacrilege.Actually, it is not.

God says a lot of really ridicilous things are sacrilege. Take lieing for example; everyone has lied at one point or another in their life. OMFG! There are no Christians in the whole world!
God also says that a lot of things unaccepted in today's society are unacceptable. Anyone heard of how he promotes slavery? Yeah, children, your caring and compassionate God promotes the enslavement of other people.
What a great leader to be listening to, huh?Even more. This god has ordered the slaughter of entire peoples.

Even more. This god has ordered the slaughter of entire peoples.


Yep, he says it's acceptable to kill witches, so God promotes murder.


The good qualities keep on comin'!


Oh, and I've always wanted to know...what sort of God would throw his own creations into a lake of fire for all eternity and call it 'teaching them a lesson'?


And don't be smart with me and answer "Zeus"...

Yep, he says it's acceptable to kill witches, so God promotes murder.
The good qualities keep on comin'!
Oh, and I've always wanted to know...what sort of God would throw his own creations into a lake of fire for all eternity and call it 'teaching them a lesson'?
And don't be smart with me and answer "Zeus"...What? I was talking about the books of Exodus, Yoshua and Kings.

Wow, I'm exhausted.

Here I am, working 'round the clock covering Hurricane Frances, using my few rest periods to contribute to this tempestuous thread, only to return to:

I'm a "grit-eating," "Bible-Thumping," Cro-Magnon who wears a "Jesus Hates Fags" t-shirt, and want everyone of color dead, and all Arabs nuked.

a. I'm a Yankee, and I hate grits.
b. I've read most of the Bible, but do not belong to any Church, do not Evangelize, but I do believe in the Divinity of Jesus, and use those Scriptures that quote His statements as the basis for most of my beliefs. Sadly, I am a sinner and continue to sin, but wish I didn't, and was better equipped against Temptation.
c. I don't believe that Jesus hates anyone, and "fags" is an inappropriate epithet.
d. I try very hard not to be prejudicial and bigoted towards people of color. I have suffered much (murder) at the hands of some people not of the same race, and expend all effort to not hold the actions of those individuals against the race.
e. I depart from Jesus' teachings when He encourages us to turn the other cheek. I do believe that sometimes, Fire can only be fought with Fire.

This entire debate would be dead for me under the following conditions:

Homosexual unions are conducted by secular officials
Private individuals and institutions are not forced to recognize such unions

Homosexual unions are conducted by secular officials
Private individuals and institutions are not forced to recognize such unions

But the problem with this, as I have already pointed out, is the fact that I could then claim to not have to recognize *anything*, since it could be against my religion.

Oh, and I've always wanted to know...what sort of God would throw his own creations into a lake of fire for all eternity and call it 'teaching them a lesson'?


The "lake of fire" is a metaphor. The concept of hell is being separated from God. To those who follow God, being completely separated from God is like the worst thing imaginable, ie. being thrown into a lake of fire.

The "lake of fire" is a metaphor. The concept of hell is being separated from God. To those who follow God, being completely separated from God is like the worst thing imaginable, ie. being thrown into a lake of fire.Maybe you should google for Gehenna? And you might want to read "Paradise Lost" ?

e. I depart from Jesus' teachings when He encourages us to turn the other cheek. I do believe that sometimes, Fire can only be fought with Fire.

Learn the true meaning of "turn the other cheek" before you decide it means wimping out. That is truly one of the most misinterpreted passages in the Bible. "Turn the other cheek" was a way for slaves and servants (or even women) to peacibly stand up to their masters (or husbands) without resorting to violence and likely getting themselves killed. Peaceful resisitance definitely has its place for the oppressed, as shown by such outstanding characters as Ghandi and MLK Jr.

Maybe you should google for Gehenna? And you might want to read "Paradise Lost" ?

Why? They are no authority to me.

Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.


HOW *DARE* YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HOW DARE YOU CALL ME "PROMISCUOUS." YOU CANNOT DO THAT! YOU JUST CAN'T FUCKING DO THAT. YOU ARE A MORON. YOU ARE THE MOST MORONIC PERSON I HAVE *EVER* COME ACROSS.

You can't just say all gay people all whores. Maybe this will strike a chord with you, that's like saying all priests molest children. How can you just make up some random fucking fact saying that gay people will molest "young virginal children?" You are fucking disgusting to even come up with that kind of reasoning.

I am just so angry I can't write anymore. I am just going to hope every night that you will die some horrible death. I hate you so much for being such a disgusting, ignorant asshole. Fucking die.

He'd just assume let a good christian straight father beat the kid every night after drinking.

Why? They are no authority to me.Then stop speculating about the symbolism of "lake of fire".

Then stop speculating about the symbolism of "lake of fire".

Again, why? Neither of the sources you suggested is an authority on the subject of Hell (which is what we were talking about).

Where I used to live there was 2 convicted homosexual pedophiles, one sodamized a 11 year old boy, the other sodamized a 7 year old boy. Both of them ended up recieving 5 years prison each, which is less than fair. They both should've been tied to a pole in public while citizens took machetes to their bodies till their skin flayed off and they died of internal bleeding.

I dont really care about homosexuals getting married, it doesn't personally affect me. The only thing that bothers me is the psychological repercussions of an adopted child growing up with 2 homosexual parents. :gundge:

Yeah, a loving family with two parents who didn't get you by accident.

Where I used to live there was 2 convicted homosexual pedophiles, one sodamized a 11 year old boy, the other sodamized a 7 year old boy. Both of them ended up recieving 5 years prison each, which is less than fair. They both should've been tied to a pole in public while citizens took machetes to their bodies till their skin flayed off and they died of internal bleeding.

I dont really care about homosexuals getting married, it doesn't personally affect me. The only thing that bothers me is the psychological repercussions of an adopted child growing up with 2 homosexual parents. :gundge:

are tehy actually homosexuals? just because they're men who had sex with little boys doesn't make them homosexuals. most pedohpiles are straight males.


oh, and there have been children raised in same sex households. they're pretty much the same as otehr children, possibly a little more open minded about different sexual orientations than average, but other than that, perfectly healthy.

oh, and there have been children raised in same sex households. they're pretty much the same as otehr children, possibly a little more open minded about different sexual orientations than average, but other than that, perfectly healthy.

And, strangely enough - they are more often than not, straight (just like the rest of the population). Imagine that, homosexuality is not a learned behavior.

And, strangely enough - they are more often than not, straight (just like the rest of the population). Imagine that, homosexuality is not a learned behavior.

yeah, who would have thought?

dang alot of posts in 15 mins, yes they are actually homosexuals.

are tehy actually homosexuals? just because they're men who had sex with little boys doesn't make them homosexuals. most pedohpiles are straight males.


Most pedophiles are Catholic priests.

Most pedophiles are Catholic priests.

I'd say less than a third >_>

An actually as it happened, one of the pedophiles was attending a church I was at(at the time I had no idea) and he was managing the sound board and had signed up to do child care. The pastor had just moved from houston, texas so he unwittingly agreed without doing a background check first. I'm not quite sure how it all went down, but I guess someone got wind of it and there was a rash of phone calls from outraged parents and community members. He was told to leave the church and the authorities were notified...just goes to show you you can never be too careful.

(This really has nothing to do with gay marriage.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Marriage, the legal rights part, should not be a religious thing.

Marriage, the religious part, as defined by those of a religious bent, IS a religious thing by definition.

If the majority of a population considers it a religious thing, then it is a religious thing.

Would you be one of those to "demand we clothe the naked polynesians" because it puts them at a social "advantage" because they don't have to buy clothes, and you do..!?

It is their way,.. and you would force them to change their culture for your sense of "right and wrong" within THEIR culture.

Very curious how such "liberal" minds can be so tyranical and intolerant...


(Emphasis added by me)

Thank you so much for doing nothing but proving my point.

And your point is......?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
]"Equal rights under the lawIf you don't think someone has a right that they should have, then change the law (under which they DON'T have equal rights) to suit your needs.[/COLOR]

Actually, I think those rights are quite clearly spelled out in the Constitution. I made a 14th Amendment argument in this post that spelled it out fairly clearly. The problem isn't that we need new law, the problem is that we need to enforce the laws we have. Recognizing rights that are granted to one group, but not another, is already against the (amended) US Constitution.

As to the concept of Civil Union being created as 'separate but equal' ... well, I grew up under Jim Crow laws in the South. I've had quite enough of 'separate but equal', and Brown vs. the Board of Education agrees with me. This issue shouldn't be about getting gays into marriage, it ought to be about getting the government out of the marriage business altogether.

If the solution is Civil Unions, then require Civil Unions for heterosexual marriages too. If they (gay or straight) want a religious marriage, they can go to church. As to what the churches want ... last time I checked, churches weren't democratic republics. They can do what they want without worrying about silliness like 'rights'.

Firstly, same sex couples should be "afforded" the rights of marriage as much as are a dog and a cat, by definition of the law.

Secondly, I agree with you that the government should have nothing to do with marriage. Civil Unions SHOULD be required for heterosexuals, as well. And if 16 people wish to marry, then the laws should be changed again (democratically) to allow it.

There should be one legal concept containing the rights of "present-day marriage" that is not called marriage.

Then, marriage is simply a religious concept (and institution) that people may choose as they would choose what color to wear at their wedding, and whether to invite the ex-wife's ex-husband's adopted nephew's biological grandmother.

(( I read your other post [#735] or HERE (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6928467&postcount=207), and it hinges on the idea that because homosexuals are citizens, they MUST have the same rights as all other citizens. I should like the rights afforded to members of Congress [the lovely perks] but as I don't qualify for them, I can't get them. ))



So, we agree actually. What I have a problem with is the "civil rights" agrument that my society should be changed by a tyranical vocal minority with inordinant power on the basis that "they say this is THE RIGHT thing" which they hold as a religious conviction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homocracy
Quote:
If I shared a house with a male lover and it was in his name, what happens if, when we're both much older, he dies or becomes terminally ill? What am I supposed to do, with no grandchildren, no legal claim on the estate, with an autistic younger brother to support? WHAT?

Posted this a while back, still waiting for an answer.

I can tell you exactly what happens in such circumstances, from immediate personal experience.

My step-nephew 'Dave' died, and his partner 'Fred' had no legal rights whatsoever. His father (my bro-in-law), not being a Neanderthal about it, made sure that Fred had every possible access and permission. Luckily, Dave had taken the time an expense to make wills and bequests and such, and the family was fully supportive of those wishes.

Had just one cousin or shirt-tail releative made a fuss about it, they could have kept Dave's estate tied up for years, despite the legal paperwork. Even though several of them hadn't seen Dave in years ('cause he was an openly gay man in the south? Horrors!), they had more legal rights than the man who had been by his side the past 14 years.

That's one of the reasons that I, a straight divorced male, am so up-in-arms over this issue. My family did it right, but from reading this topic it's clear we're the exception, not the rule. There oughta be a law ... and I'm gonna try to defeat anyone who opposed the concept of fairness and equality in the law.

This ain't going away because you don't like gays, folks. Eventually, some of you'll be forced to see the fundamental inequities in the system when it hits close to home, and you'll be standing next to me. Uncomfortable, perhaps, but you'll be there too.

And that example points toward the only sensible solution that doesn't involve trampling people's society by a "fervent powerful minority"...

The legal parts should be contained in laws.

The religious parts should be contained in "marriage".

Disgusting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lardtrophia
Also we must consider the fact that gay people will then demand the right to adopt children as they cannot make any naturally. This is a natural progression of their non-discrimination rights. A gay persons lifestyle is promiscuous by choice, the only thing stopping gay people being more promiscuous is the possibility of disease,(aids and the likes). The best way to reduce this risk is to have sex with young virginal children. By opening the door to gay adoption as a natural progression from gay marriage, we put children at risk by exposing them to people with an undesirable motive.


HOW *DARE* YOU SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HOW DARE YOU CALL ME "PROMISCUOUS." YOU CANNOT DO THAT! YOU JUST CAN'T FUCKING DO THAT. YOU ARE A MORON. YOU ARE THE MOST MORONIC PERSON I HAVE *EVER* COME ACROSS.

You can't just say all gay people all whores. Maybe this will strike a chord with you, that's like saying all priests molest children. How can you just make up some random fucking fact saying that gay people will molest "young virginal children?" You are fucking disgusting to even come up with that kind of reasoning.

I am just so angry I can't write anymore. I am just going to hope every night that you will die some horrible death. I hate you so much for being such a disgusting, ignorant asshole. Fucking die.

You might want to NOT take anything you see in ANY forum quite so seriously, as there is NO accountability associated with posting the most innane drivel.

Calm down,.. and your flinging verbal death threats back is just as bad as the original post.

Other than that,... have a nifty and chipper day..! :D

Wow, I'm exhausted.

Here I am, working 'round the clock covering Hurricane Frances, using my few rest periods to contribute to this tempestuous thread, only to return to:

I'm a "grit-eating," "Bible-Thumping," Cro-Magnon who wears a "Jesus Hates Fags" t-shirt, and want everyone of color dead, and all Arabs nuked.

a. I'm a Yankee, and I hate grits.
b. I've read most of the Bible, but do not belong to any Church, do not Evangelize, but I do believe in the Divinity of Jesus, and use those Scriptures that quote His statements as the basis for most of my beliefs. Sadly, I am a sinner and continue to sin, but wish I didn't, and was better equipped against Temptation.
c. I don't believe that Jesus hates anyone, and "fags" is an inappropriate epithet.
d. I try very hard not to be prejudicial and bigoted towards people of color. I have suffered much (murder) at the hands of some people not of the same race, and expend all effort to not hold the actions of those individuals against the race.
e. I depart from Jesus' teachings when He encourages us to turn the other cheek. I do believe that sometimes, Fire can only be fought with Fire.

This entire debate would be dead for me under the following conditions:

Homosexual unions are conducted by secular officials
Private individuals and institutions are not forced to recognize such unions

Well actually, fire COULD always be fought with non-fire, but sometimes finding huge volumes of water or dirt (or foam, etc..) is difficult.

What is this "FIRE" you're talking about..?

(( I read your other post [#735] or HERE (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6928467&postcount=207), and it hinges on the idea that because homosexuals are citizens, they MUST have the same rights as all other citizens. I should like the rights afforded to members of Congress [the lovely perks] but as I don't qualify for them, I can't get them. ))

The Constitution doesn't bar discriminating based on Congressional status though, now does it? Congress gets paid to do a job and the perks given to them are given by their employers (ie. us). This is not even close to a valid comparison.

So, we agree actually. What I have a problem with is the "civil rights" agrument that my society should be changed by a tyranical vocal minority with inordinant power on the basis that "they say this is THE RIGHT thing" which they hold as a religious conviction.

I disagree with anyone who does not hold the rights of others as important as their own as a "religious conviction." It's not hard to determine here. You either believe that all people (and couples) should have the same rights regardless of race, creed, color, or sex - or you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
](( I read your other post [#735] or HERE, and it hinges on the idea that because homosexuals are citizens, they MUST have the same rights as all other citizens. I should like the rights afforded to members of Congress [the lovely perks] but as I don't qualify for them, I can't get them. )) [/COLOR]



The Constitution doesn't bar discriminating based on Congressional status though, now does it? Congress gets paid to do a job and the perks given to them are given by their employers (ie. us). This is not even close to a valid comparison.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
So, we agree actually. What I have a problem with is the "civil rights" agrument that my society should be changed by a tyranical vocal minority with inordinant power on the basis that "they say this is THE RIGHT thing" which they hold as a religious conviction.


I disagree with anyone who does not hold the rights of others as important as their own as a "religious conviction." It's not hard to determine here. You either believe that all people (and couples) should have the same rights regardless of race, creed, color, or sex - or you don't.

"(and couples)"

And couples....?

How about "and triples"...?

Your "inherent rights" of people is your religious conviction of what you feel all people should have. You stated that yourself as "you either believe it or you don't". Your belief is your religious conviction.

It is not law until it is law.

Last time I checked, "all persons" means "all individuals", not "all couples".

A married PERSON has rights that an un-married person does not.

Two people must be of opposite sexes to marry.

The constitution says nothing about the rights of "couples".

If you don't fit the definition of qualifying for "marriage", just as if you don't fit the definition of qualifying for access to the perks of being a congressman, then you can not receive those benfits,.. thus you can not marry...

..which disqualifies you from claiming the benefits of an individual who is married.

Very simple really.

"(and couples)"

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]And couples....?

Yes, marriage rights are rights granted to *two* people who decide to become a single legal entity. There is no individual right to marry - as that would indicate you could marry yourself and get all the rights afforded to married couples.

Your "inherent rights" of people is your religious conviction of what you feel all people should have. You stated that yourself as "you either believe it or you don't". Your belief is your religious conviction.

If you believe people should not have the inherent right to be treated as equals, that is fine - but it is really a topic for another thread. Our Constitution states that they do, so going on legal means - the country agrees that they do.

Last time I checked, "all persons" means "all individuals", not "all couples".

A married PERSON has rights that an un-married person does not.

Wrong. Once two people get married - they are a single entity before the government. And it is that entity that gets marriage rights, not the individuals within it.

The constitution says nothing about the rights of "couples".

It also says nothing about marriage. But our government has seen fit to provide certain benefits to pairs of people who wish to be seen as a single legal entity. Thus, according to our Constitution which bans discrimination based on race, creed, color, or sex - rights afforded to one type of pair of people cannot be denied to another pair based on sexual orientation.

If you don't fit the definition of qualifying for "marriage", just as if you don't fit the definition of qualifying for access to the perks of being a congressman, then you can not receive those benfits,.. thus you can not marry...

Again, your congressman line doesn't work. The benefits of being a Congressman have nothing to do with an inherent trait of the person. Congress works for the government and is given perks because of that, just like I work for GA Tech, and I get certain benefits from that. These are not legal benefits, they are employer benefits.

What you meant to say is something more like: "If you don't qualify to sign a contract, then you don't get the perks of being able to sign a contract" or, better still "if you don't qualify to drive a car, you don't get a driver's license." Of course, the Constitution states that you cannot deny the right to sign contracts, nor can you deny a driver's license to someone based on sexual orientation.

..which disqualifies you from claiming the benefits of an individual who is married.

Again, there are no individual benefits of marriage - that is a non sequitur. When I get married, I will no longer be viewed strictly as an individual by the government. My husband and I will be viewed as a single legal entity for all purposes relating to marriage. It is that entity that receives the benefits of marriage, not the individuals who are married.

Learn the true meaning of "turn the other cheek" before you decide it means wimping out. That is truly one of the most misinterpreted passages in the Bible. "Turn the other cheek" was a way for slaves and servants (or even women) to peacibly stand up to their masters (or husbands) without resorting to violence and likely getting themselves killed. Peaceful resisitance definitely has its place for the oppressed, as shown by such outstanding characters as Ghandi and MLK Jr.

I didn't say "Turn the other cheek" means "wimping out."

I believe that not all conflicts can be resolved peaceably, or without violence. Sometimes the tumor must be excised. Non-violent resistance is only a weapon against those who are betraying their conscious. Peace is completely ineffective against those who have no conscious.

This is off topic, so I don't want to go too far.

Well actually, fire COULD always be fought with non-fire, but sometimes finding huge volumes of water or dirt (or foam, etc..) is difficult.

What is this "FIRE" you're talking about..?

"Fire" would be representative of the use of violence; that is, sometimes the only way to respond to a violent act is with an equally or greater violent act.

The Constitution doesn't bar discriminating based on Congressional status though, now does it? Congress gets paid to do a job and the perks given to them are given by their employers (ie. us). This is not even close to a valid comparison.



I disagree with anyone who does not hold the rights of others as important as their own as a "religious conviction." It's not hard to determine here. You either believe that all people (and couples) should have the same rights regardless of race, creed, color, or sex - or you don't.

STICKING POINT:
Some engaged in this debate do not hold sexual preference in the same category as "race, creed, or color." That is, sexual preference is not a determining factor in the adjudication of civil rights.

Yes, marriage rights are rights granted to *two* people who decide to become a single legal entity. There is no individual right to marry - as that would indicate you could marry yourself and get all the rights afforded to married couples.



If you believe people should not have the inherent right to be treated as equals, that is fine - but it is really a topic for another thread. Our Constitution states that they do, so going on legal means - the country agrees that they do.



Wrong. Once two people get married - they are a single entity before the government. And it is that entity that gets marriage rights, not the individuals within it.



It also says nothing about marriage. But our government has seen fit to provide certain benefits to pairs of people who wish to be seen as a single legal entity. Thus, according to our Constitution which bans discrimination based on race, creed, color, or sex - rights afforded to one type of pair of people cannot be denied to another pair based on sexual orientation.



Again, your congressman line doesn't work. The benefits of being a Congressman have nothing to do with an inherent trait of the person. Congress works for the government and is given perks because of that, just like I work for GA Tech, and I get certain benefits from that. These are not legal benefits, they are employer benefits.

What you meant to say is something more like: "If you don't qualify to sign a contract, then you don't get the perks of being able to sign a contract" or, better still "if you don't qualify to drive a car, you don't get a driver's license." Of course, the Constitution states that you cannot deny the right to sign contracts, nor can you deny a driver's license to someone based on sexual orientation.



Again, there are no individual benefits of marriage - that is a non sequitur. When I get married, I will no longer be viewed strictly as an individual by the government. My husband and I will be viewed as a single legal entity for all purposes relating to marriage. It is that entity that receives the benefits of marriage, not the individuals who are married.

not fanning the flames, but where specifically in the Constitution of the United States does it "state that you cannot deny the right to sign contracts, nor can you deny a driver's license to someone based on sexual" preference (your word: orientation)? I can't find it.

More specifically I can't find any mention of sexual preference at all, whether to provide nor deny protection under the law.

The Nineteeth Amendment provides that the right to vote shall not be denied on the basis of "sex," specifically referring to one's gender.

Indeed, it seems that the US Constitution does not provide any rights to those who are heterosexual for which the homosexual community would need to sue the Government.

not fanning the flames, but where specifically in the Constitution of the United States does it "state that you cannot deny the right to sign contracts, nor can you deny a driver's license to someone based on sexual" preference (your word: orientation)? I can't find it.

More specifically I can't find any mention of sexual preference at all, whether to provide nor deny protection under the law.

The Nineteeth Amendment provides that the right to vote shall not be denied on the basis of "sex," specifically referring to one's gender.

Indeed, it seems that the US Constitution does not provide any rights to those who are heterosexual for which the homosexual community would need to sue the Government.

The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the government cannot discriminate based on race, creed, color, or sex. They have also held that sexual preference falls under the umbrella of the sex category. Like many things, it is a matter of interpretation, but this is the way the courts have interpreted it.

I ask because I don't know: when has the US Supreme Court equated gender with sexual preference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"(and couples)"

And couples....?



Yes, marriage rights are rights granted to *two* people who decide to become a single legal entity. There is no individual right to marry - as that would indicate you could marry yourself and get all the rights afforded to married couples.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Your "inherent rights" of people is your religious conviction of what you feel all people should have. You stated that yourself as "you either believe it or you don't". Your belief is your religious conviction.



If you believe people should not have the inherent right to be treated as equals, that is fine - but it is really a topic for another thread. Our Constitution states that they do, so going on legal means - the country agrees that they do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Last time I checked, "all persons" means "all individuals", not "all couples".

A married PERSON has rights that an un-married person does not.



Wrong. Once two people get married - they are a single entity before the government. And it is that entity that gets marriage rights, not the individuals within it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
The constitution says nothing about the rights of "couples".



It also says nothing about marriage. But our government has seen fit to provide certain benefits to pairs of people who wish to be seen as a single legal entity. Thus, according to our Constitution which bans discrimination based on race, creed, color, or sex - rights afforded to one type of pair of people cannot be denied to another pair based on sexual orientation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
If you don't fit the definition of qualifying for "marriage", just as if you don't fit the definition of qualifying for access to the perks of being a congressman, then you can not receive those benfits,.. thus you can not marry...



Again, your congressman line doesn't work. The benefits of being a Congressman have nothing to do with an inherent trait of the person. Congress works for the government and is given perks because of that, just like I work for GA Tech, and I get certain benefits from that. These are not legal benefits, they are employer benefits.

What you meant to say is something more like: "If you don't qualify to sign a contract, then you don't get the perks of being able to sign a contract" or, better still "if you don't qualify to drive a car, you don't get a driver's license." Of course, the Constitution states that you cannot deny the right to sign contracts, nor can you deny a driver's license to someone based on sexual orientation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
..which disqualifies you from claiming the benefits of an individual who is married.



Again, there are no individual benefits of marriage - that is a non sequitur. When I get married, I will no longer be viewed strictly as an individual by the government. My husband and I will be viewed as a single legal entity for all purposes relating to marriage. It is that entity that receives the benefits of marriage, not the individuals who are married.

So,... if what you say is accurate, why is same-sex marriage not accepted as a legal construct..?

What you're saying is that the constitution already says that there's a right for same-sex couples to marry, and just needs to be "correctly interpreted" so as to say that.

Your line: "Once two people get married - they are a single entity before the government. And it is that entity that gets marriage rights, not the individuals within it."

"Once two people GET married...". Doesn't that mean that they must have gotten married before they get marriage rights..?

If they can't GET married, because marriage is defined as "between a man and a woman", then the question of their getting marriage rights is moot.

And your contention is that the limitation that says "only between and man and a woman" is therefore unconstitutional because all citizens are to be seen as neuters (in essence).

This is utterly persuasive, if the constitution is to be interpreted as dealing with all individuals as neuters.

And that is the crux, then.

And that brings up the bugga-boo of not only considering the sexes of the parties to marriage, but the number as well.

Under your interpretation, 16 persons could claim the right to marry, as the question of the number of partners has exactly the same quality as the sex of the partners.

An interesting conundrum..! :)

We'll just have to see how it all plays out.

Aloha nui..!

I got the 800th post and the 9,100th view, arent I cool? :D

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Comic Sans MS]So,... if what you say is accurate, why is same-sex marriage not accepted as a legal construct..?

Because human beings are generally intolerant to anything different than them. Oh, and because "the Bible says so."

"Once two people GET married...". Doesn't that mean that they must have gotten married before they get marriage rights..?

If they can't GET married, because marriage is defined as "between a man and a woman", then the question of their getting marriage rights is moot.

Except for the fact that it is obvious discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And your contention is that the limitation that says "only between and man and a woman" is therefore unconstitutional because all citizens are to be seen as neuters (in essence).

No, that is not it at all (although gender should enter in very very rarely and only in cases of demonstrable physical differences). What I said was that the law that says "only between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional because it discriminates against pairs of people who want to enter into a contract based on the gender and sexual preference of the members of that pair.

And that brings up the bugga-boo of not only considering the sexes of the parties to marriage, but the number as well.

Under your interpretation, 16 persons could claim the right to marry, as the question of the number of partners has exactly the same quality as the sex of the partners.

Nope, because:

(a) The marriage laws are written specifically for two people. They would not work and would have to be entirely rewritten and added to in order to include any more people. At this point, it ceases to be convenient for the government to recognize said marriages.

(b) The Constitution says nothing of barring certain numbers of people from doing anything, it simply states that a right/privilege afforded to one type of person/couple cannot be denied another unless there is a damn good reason. As of yet, none has been brought up in this case.

I ask because I don't know: when has the US Supreme Court equated gender with sexual preference?

Romer v. Evans stated that we cannot create classes based on sexuality. It was found that due process/equal protection extendes to groups based on sexual orientation.

Lawrence v. Texas used this fact to overturn sodomy laws (specifically a conviction where some cops burst into a gay guy's house to find him having sex with his boyfriend and then tried to convict them of sodomy).

There are others but both of these are examples of the court holding that the penumbric rights of the 14th amdenment cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation. The 14th amendment itself actually does not mention sex either - but the rights afforded by that amendment have been held repeatedly to be penumbric rights for all groups involving race, creed, color, sex, and (since most people want to make this separate), sexual orientation.

Nope, because:

(a) The marriage laws are written specifically for two people. They would not work and would have to be entirely rewritten and added to in order to include any more people. At this point, it ceases to be convenient for the government to recognize said marriages.

(b) The Constitution says nothing of barring certain numbers of people from doing anything, it simply states that a right/privilege afforded to one type of person/couple cannot be denied another unless there is a damn good reason. As of yet, none has been brought up in this case.

(c) For polygamous marriage to be allowed, that would imply that single and married people (should) have all or most of the same rights. That's extending protection against discrimination based on marital status beyond employment law, which hasn't been established, to my knowledge, in any great way.

I say that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and any legal benefit or penalty associated with marriage be done away with. People who want to show a deep commitment towards each other or for religious reasons can still marry by a religious leader (or who ever) and any arrangements can be handled by civil contracts.
Those who want to cohabitate are still free to do so with no obligation to each other and nothing to bind them.
If two guys want to hitch up, go for it! And if a man wants to "marry" 5 women, go for it! Problem solved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
So,... if what you say is accurate, why is same-sex marriage not accepted as a legal construct..?



Because human beings are generally intolerant to anything different than them. Oh, and because "the Bible says so."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
"Once two people GET married...". Doesn't that mean that they must have gotten married before they get marriage rights..?

If they can't GET married, because marriage is defined as "between a man and a woman", then the question of their getting marriage rights is moot.



Except for the fact that it is obvious discrimination based on sexual orientation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And your contention is that the limitation that says "only between and man and a woman" is therefore unconstitutional because all citizens are to be seen as neuters (in essence).



No, that is not it at all (although gender should enter in very very rarely and only in cases of demonstrable physical differences). What I said was that the law that says "only between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional because it discriminates against pairs of people who want to enter into a contract based on the gender and sexual preference of the members of that pair.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And that brings up the bugga-boo of not only considering the sexes of the parties to marriage, but the number as well.

Under your interpretation, 16 persons could claim the right to marry, as the question of the number of partners has exactly the same quality as the sex of the partners.



Nope, because:

(a) The marriage laws are written specifically for two people. They would not work and would have to be entirely rewritten and added to in order to include any more people. At this point, it ceases to be convenient for the government to recognize said marriages.

(b) The Constitution says nothing of barring certain numbers of people from doing anything, it simply states that a right/privilege afforded to one type of person/couple cannot be denied another unless there is a damn good reason. As of yet, none has been brought up in this case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinewydd
I ask because I don't know: when has the US Supreme Court equated gender with sexual preference?



Romer v. Evans stated that we cannot create classes based on sexuality. It was found that due process/equal protection extendes to groups based on sexual orientation.

Lawrence v. Texas used this fact to overturn sodomy laws (specifically a conviction where some cops burst into a gay guy's house to find him having sex with his boyfriend and then tried to convict them of sodomy).

There are others but both of these are examples of the court holding that the penumbric rights of the 14th amdenment cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation. The 14th amendment itself actually does not mention sex either - but the rights afforded by that amendment have been held repeatedly to be penumbric rights for all groups involving race, creed, color, sex, and (since most people want to make this separate), sexual orientation.

My use of "neuter" is not derogatory. :) I'm just putting a word to the concept of a person considered as having no sexual quality whatsoever for this argument.

I'm actually agreeing with you that the constitution does indeed seem to say that it's unconstitutional to deny marriage rights based on the quality of sex of either of the people being married.

What I'm arguing NOW is that the quality of number (or for that matter age or "animosity" [a tortured way of saying non-living ?! :) ]) could be and will be argued equally well on the same grounds.

YES,.. it would be a freaky argument that would be battled against, but it holds the same basis as the same-sex argument.

This is why I would change the constitution to recognize the "uniquity" [yet another tortured word!] of marriage as between "a single man and a single woman", and would ALSO grant all the rights and priviledges that accrue with marriage to civil unions.

In fact, I'd make marriage an entirely religious rite (which would also grant the rights of a civil union out of convenience as to paperwork), and civil unions which grant all the rights that accrue from "present day" marriage.

Which of course, won't satisfy you, as you're stuck on the idea that it's "just plain old rude" to make any distinction in any realm of life having to do with the sexual quality of a person.

:)

But that's fine.... You've more than made your case, which I agree with. I just don't like the concept of extending "equality" into areas in which it doesn't belong (which is indeed a religious conviction just as your position is a religious conviction).

So,.. let the battle commence. :D Many joys to you..!

I say that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and any legal benefit or penalty associated with marriage be done away with. People who want to show a deep commitment towards each other or for religious reasons can still marry by a religious leader (or who ever) and any arrangements can be handled by civil contracts.
Those who want to cohabitate are still free to do so with no obligation to each other and nothing to bind them.
If two guys want to hitch up, go for it! And if a man wants to "marry" 5 women, go for it! Problem solved.

This is a dangerous proposition as it would lead to the tying up of the family and civil courts even more so than now, assets and ownership would have to be thrown down the tubes, and next-of-kinship would be something someone who didn't even know you could fight for in court. Basically, it would make things incredibly difficult for any long-term cohabitating couple and for the government. Why make things difficult?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skwerrel
I say that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether and any legal benefit or penalty associated with marriage be done away with. People who want to show a deep commitment towards each other or for religious reasons can still marry by a religious leader (or who ever) and any arrangements can be handled by civil contracts.
Those who want to cohabitate are still free to do so with no obligation to each other and nothing to bind them.
If two guys want to hitch up, go for it! And if a man wants to "marry" 5 women, go for it! Problem solved.


This is a dangerous proposition as it would lead to the tying up of the family and civil courts even more so than now, assets and ownership would have to be thrown down the tubes, and next-of-kinship would be something someone who didn't even know you could fight for in court. Basically, it would make things incredibly difficult for any long-term cohabitating couple and for the government. Why make things difficult?

:D

So, it's OK to "change society" for your pet cause, but not for any other causes..?!

Excellent.

According to your words thus far, it's a matter of right and wrong. (AKA a religious conviction.)

NOW,.. it's about "complexification" and bother...!

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But hey,.. that's what life's about. We can only do SO much. Can't do everything.

...but someone eventually will.

This is a dangerous proposition as it would lead to the tying up of the family and civil courts even more so than now, assets and ownership would have to be thrown down the tubes, and next-of-kinship would be something someone who didn't even know you could fight for in court. Basically, it would make things incredibly difficult for any long-term cohabitating couple and for the government. Why make things difficult?

That is a very good point. I think it could be solved by more paperwork (a standard next of kin document, a kin to a will), lawyers would love it. Ownership issues would be worked out in pre-nuptial civil contracts, which would probably also deal with the issue of children. In the case of the divorce you just rework the paper work, change a clause about who gets to associate with the children. All the standard child laws would apply.

The main point is that if we are not willing to give everyone the oppurtunity to reap the economic benifits and penaties that come from marriage then we should do away with them.

:D
So, it's OK to "change society" for your pet cause, but not for any other causes..?!

And what cause would this represent, exactly? The state has a compelling interest to recognize it when two people are essentially living as one.

Excellent.

According to your words thus far, it's a matter of right and wrong. (AKA a religious conviction.)

NOW,.. it's about "complexification" and bother...!

What on earth are you talking about? I have repeatedly stated that the *only* reason the government recognizes civil marriage at all is for convenience. My last post changes nothing about that.

I never said it was right or wrong for the government to recognize marriage, I simply stated why they do it. What is wrong is to give special priveleges to one group that are unavailable to another unless there is a clear, rational reason for doing so [ie. compelling interest].

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But hey,.. that's what life's about. We can only do SO much. Can't do everything.

...but someone eventually will.

Are you on drugs?

That is a very good point. I think it could be solved by more paperwork (a standard next of kin document, a kin to a will), lawyers would love it. Ownership issues would be worked out in pre-nuptial civil contracts, which would probably also deal with the issue of children. In the case of the divorce you just rework the paper work, change a clause about who gets to associate with the children. All the standard child laws would apply.

The main point is that if we are not willing to give everyone the oppurtunity to reap the economic benifits and penaties that come from marriage then we should do away with them.

But it would be much easier and much more convenient to do this all in one document, especially because there are specific rights afforded to married couples that are extrememly important, but cannot be provided for in any other document.

As for giving everyone the opportunity, I'm all for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

So, it's OK to "change society" for your pet cause, but not for any other causes..?!


And what cause would this represent, exactly? The state has a compelling interest to recognize it when two people are essentially living as one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Excellent.

According to your words thus far, it's a matter of right and wrong. (AKA a religious conviction.)

NOW,.. it's about "complexification" and bother...!


What on earth are you talking about? I have repeatedly stated that the *only* reason the government recognizes civil marriage at all is for convenience. My last post changes nothing about that.

I never said it was right or wrong for the government to recognize marriage, I simply stated why they do it. What is wrong is to give special priveleges to one group that are unavailable to another unless there is a clear, rational reason for doing so [ie. compelling interest].


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

But hey,.. that's what life's about. We can only do SO much. Can't do everything.

...but someone eventually will.


Are you on drugs?

No,... I'm on sand. And perhaps a bit too much sun. :)

"..What is wrong is to give special privileges to one group that are unavailable to another unless there is a clear, rational reason for doing so [ie. compelling interest]."

I see a clear, rational reason for defining marriage as "between a single man and a single woman".

You don't. That is where we disagree.

I DO agree with your interpretation of the law, IF all people are to be considered as "units" regardless of their quality of sex.

It's a simple impasse. But it's nice to see that we can mutually SEE the impasse itself. :)

My "live by the sword" comment refers to the fact that, in my view, the "same-sex marriage" issue will prompt other changes to society (which is in no way necessarily a bad thing) that will use the same general argument(s).

I simply think that these decisions regarding societal change are better left to the populus as opposed to a powerful minority.

Then again,... my culture is one of benign dictatorship tempered with the fact that everyone has a whole set of persistant Aunties that will "Whomp yo' noggin for being a big ka-ka-head!"

:D

I see a clear, rational reason for defining marriage as "between a single man and a single woman".

You don't. That is where we disagree.

The only reason you have given is that a lot of people think it should be that way because of their religion. In the US, we have separation of church and state. Thus, "my religion says so" is all well and good for an individual, but is not a clear, rational reason to the state.

I am really confused as to your viewpoint on this matter. In one post, you will state that the government should not recognize gay marriage because some people would find that unholy. In the next, you argue for "civil unions for everyone." So which is it, as these are two opposing views really.

I simply think that these decisions regarding societal change are better left to the populus as opposed to a powerful minority.

Do you not agree that if the majority always rules, minorities will be abused? The majority in most Southern states did not want to afford citizenship and freedom to slaves, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. The majority then did not want to recognize said citizens as equal, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. Most men did not want to allow women to vote, but it was forced upon them.

Often, societal change can only happen if it is forced upon the majority, as the majority often cannot see the injustices they are perpetrating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I see a clear, rational reason for defining marriage as "between a single man and a single woman".

You don't. That is where we disagree.



The only reason you have given is that a lot of people think it should be that way because of their religion. In the US, we have separation of church and state. Thus, "my religion says so" is all well and good for an individual, but is not a clear, rational reason to the state.

I am really confused as to your viewpoint on this matter. In one post, you will state that the government should not recognize gay marriage because some people would find that unholy. In the next, you argue for "civil unions for everyone." So which is it, as these are two opposing views really.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
I simply think that these decisions regarding societal change are better left to the populus as opposed to a powerful minority.


Do you not agree that if the majority always rules, minorities will be abused? The majority in most Southern states did not want to afford citizenship and freedom to slaves, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. The majority then did not want to recognize said citizens as equal, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. Most men did not want to allow women to vote, but it was forced upon them.

Often, societal change can only happen if it is forced upon the majority, as the majority often cannot see the injustices they are perpetrating.

All our individual decisions are arrived at however we individuals decide on them. A part of that is through one's religion.

Quite often the majority is silly, and inert. It often is not the best arbiter of the "societal good". And when it's not, it should be tweaked into "proper shape" by a benign dictator.

I just think this particular issue is better handled in other ways than "the benign dictator".

Other than that, we agree entirely..! :D

Romer v. Evans stated that we cannot create classes based on sexuality. It was found that due process/equal protection extendes to groups based on sexual orientation.

I've just read the US Supreme Court decision on Romer v. Evans, and I don't come to the same conclusion as you.

Romer v. Evans was brought to the US Supreme Court as a challenge to Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution which reads:

"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self executing." Ibid.

The US Supreme Court concluded that:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

In my opinion the US Supreme Court is not recognizing sexual preference as much as saying that COLORADO had a poorly written Amendment trying to make sexual preference unprotected.

All our individual decisions are arrived at however we individuals decide on them. A part of that is through one's religion.

Quite often the majority is silly, and inert. It often is not the best arbiter of the "societal good". And when it's not, it should be tweaked into "proper shape" by a benign dictator.

I just think this particular issue is better handled in other ways than "the benign dictator".

Other than that, we agree entirely..! :D

Instead of a benign dictator..... education (athough not allways a quick fix as we can not make people learn or make them honest ),is in the long run the only answer to illogical intolorance because it seems to me in the long run the human attribute known as Empathy will win out.
It is only a matter of time. Humans are not just hateful and destructive. We are loving also. Propaganda based on facts, logic, and an appeal to human empathy will win out.

Yes much of intolorance stems from,.... "Our traditions of what higher power is and expects from mankind "IS" the Ultimate Truth",.... is largely to blame. Greed and lust for power and using religion as well as politics to stroke the sheep and rob humanity of its potential for a world based on Empathy and Knowlege is the other cause of disorder and uncaring attitudes in the world.

If we benefit from searching for God then we must make sure that everyone benefits without needlessly trying to change thier nature. After all religion is only tradition. Its ok to have traditions so long as we allow others to test them for unfounded predjudice, bigotry, and chauvinism. All religious traditions must be willing to accept that they may be wrong and allow such testing. Thank God for atheists! God bless them! God bless us all and I pray that we can all just let each other just do our thing so long as we harm no one.

Do you not agree that if the majority always rules, minorities will be abused? The majority in most Southern states did not want to afford citizenship and freedom to slaves, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. The majority then did not want to recognize said citizens as equal, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. Most men did not want to allow women to vote, but it was forced upon them.

Often, societal change can only happen if it is forced upon the majority, as the majority often cannot see the injustices they are perpetrating.

I'm struggling with this logic.

When we discuss society, do the terms "majority" and "minority" refer to all of the individuals who make up that society, or are we referring to percentages of groups within that society?

For example, you cite the abolition of slavery as the will of the minority imposed upon the majority. Perhaps you are wrong. The abolition of slavery was a decision that affected the entire populous of the United States. If the entire populous of the United States was polled, I'm sure that the MAJORITY of the populous supported the abolition of slavery. You cite that the "majority in most Southern states did not want to afford citizenship and freedom to slaves," but what you are actually referring to is White Adult Land-owning Males in the pre-Civil War United States, clearly a MINORITY of the United States populous, but perhaps a MAJORITY of those afforded the right to express their opinion at that time.

The problem is we don't always know what the will of the TRUE MAJORITY is, we (US society) need to find accurate ways of learning this.

In a Democracy, where the honest will of the TRUE MAJORITY is known, societal change should never be influenced by the MINORITY, and certainly MUST NEVER BE FORCED. This, my friend is THE GREATEST THREAT TO FREEDOM: THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IMPOSED UPON THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

In a Democracy, where the honest will of the TRUE MAJORITY is known, societal change should never be influenced by the MINORITY, and certainly MUST NEVER BE FORCED. This, my friend is THE GREATEST THREAT TO FREEDOM: THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IMPOSED UPON THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.
and that logic is exactly why the founding fathers of America specifically and deliberately ensured that America would NEVER be a pure democracy.

the will of the minority being imposed on the majority isn't any greater a threat to freedom than the will of the majority being imposed on the minority, unless you consider the freedom of the majority to be the only important freedom.

polls from 60 years ago show, beyond any doubt, that the MAJORITY of Americans opposed inter-racial marital rights...does this mean that we were wrong to allow persons of different ethnicities to wed? the majority of Americans opposed granting women the vote (and yes, that DOES include women), so should we not have granted women voting rights? is denying equal rights suddenly a just and "free" thing to do simply because the majority of a population supports it?

if the majority of people believed the Earth was orbitted by the sun, would that make it true?

In a Democracy, where the honest will of the TRUE MAJORITY is known, societal change should never be influenced by the MINORITY, and certainly MUST NEVER BE FORCED. This, my friend is THE GREATEST THREAT TO FREEDOM: THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IMPOSED UPON THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

Concluding from your answer: all minorities may be discriminated if the majority wants is... So in your democracy, every minority should be scared of the majority... nice state you would make. It's an intelligent thing to defend minorities too. Before you can know it, you are sitting in some kind of a minority too.

Example: People in a country suffer from high unemployment rates. If a white majority then decides that coloured people are not able any more to get a job, everything is just fine? This seems rather barbaric to me.

Why do have people empathy and compassion if we shouldn't use it to let others live how they like and be happy. In the case of gay marriage, the only thing standing in the way for you is some weird morale and religion. If you can't even see that people are allowed to have different opinions and to act differently when it is not really affecting you, you're just a fool.

Please, don't say it affects you a lot. The only thing you're scared of is that people you don't like would have rights too and you should allow them to have these rights.

--
Everybody's journey is individual. If you fall in love with a boy, you fall in love with a boy. The fact that many Americans consider it a disease says more about them than it does about homosexuality.
-James Baldwin

I'm struggling with this logic.

When we discuss society, do the terms "majority" and "minority" refer to all of the individuals who make up that society, or are we referring to percentages of groups within that society?

For example, you cite the abolition of slavery as the will of the minority imposed upon the majority. Perhaps you are wrong. The abolition of slavery was a decision that affected the entire populous of the United States. If the entire populous of the United States was polled, I'm sure that the MAJORITY of the populous supported the abolition of slavery. You cite that the "majority in most Southern states did not want to afford citizenship and freedom to slaves," but what you are actually referring to is White Adult Land-owning Males in the pre-Civil War United States, clearly a MINORITY of the United States populous, but perhaps a MAJORITY of those afforded the right to express their opinion at that time.

The problem is we don't always know what the will of the TRUE MAJORITY is, we (US society) need to find accurate ways of learning this.

In a Democracy, where the honest will of the TRUE MAJORITY is known, societal change should never be influenced by the MINORITY, and certainly MUST NEVER BE FORCED. This, my friend is THE GREATEST THREAT TO FREEDOM: THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IMPOSED UPON THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

I know this has already been debunked and proven as shit, but I'll add anyways.

I'm sure your logic would work wonderfully in a democracy. But dear, this is a democratic republic. Sorry champo.

I know this has already been debunked and proven as shit, but I'll add anyways.

I'm sure your logic would work wonderfully in a democracy. But dear, this is a democratic republic. Sorry champo.

I agree with the FACT that you have pointed out that the United States Of America IS IN FACT a Democratic Republic.

This means that the Constitution AND Bill of Rights are the foundation of America. Its funny how some religionists (epsecially the Fundamemtalist christians) Only take the time to learn what America stands for and is founded on from the pulpit instead of allowing our Founding Fathers to speak to us through READING ALL OF THE CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS AND THE WRITINGS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES! This also means digging into our history for a better clarification if needed since so many fundamentalist christians are so intent on being dishonest in thier understanding of what America stands for and what it is founded on.

I agree with the FACT that you have pointed out that the United States Of America IS IN FACT a Democratic Republic.

This means that the Constitution AND Bill of Rights are the foundation of America. Its funny how some religionists (epsecially the Fundamemtalist christians) Only take the time to learn what America stands for and is founded on from the pulpit instead of allowing our Founding Fathers to speak to us through READING ALL OF THE CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS AND THE WRITINGS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES! This also means digging into our history for a better clarification if needed since so many fundimentalist christians are so intent on being dishonest in thier understanding of what America stands for and what it is founded on.

Um, I meant what HE said had been debunked. Not what I said :p

I'm no fundy. I'm not even religious xD

And I'm for gay marrige, to that ;)

Um, I meant what HE said had been debunked. Not what I said :p

I'm no fundy. I'm not even religious xD

And I'm for gay marrige, to that ;)
I know. I was acting as back up singer. I do GUESS that there is a Higher Power. I just wanted to show that superstition does not neccesarily have to hinder Love as well as Truth.

I agree with the FACT that you have pointed out that the United States Of America IS IN FACT a Democratic Republic.

This means that the Constitution AND Bill of Rights are the foundation of America. Its funny how some religionists (epsecially the Fundamemtalist christians) Only take the time to learn what America stands for and is founded on from the pulpit instead of allowing our Founding Fathers to speak to us through READING ALL OF THE CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS AND THE WRITINGS OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS THEMSELVES! This also means digging into our history for a better clarification if needed since so many fundimentalist christians are so intent on being dishonest in thier understanding of what America stands for and what it is founded on.

A Federal Republic, actually.

And that makes it all the more funny, when people in power talk about bringing "democracy" to the world...

But, you are right... the Founding Fathers set America up to ESCAPE from tyrannies like organised religion. They envisioned a nation with religious freedom. (Admitted, many of the earliest settlers were extremists from religions 'back home' - but they still had 'freedom' to be extreme.)

That's kind of the POINT of America.

A Federal Republic, actually.

And that makes it all the more funny, when people in power talk about bringing "democracy" to the world...

But, you are right... the Founding Fathers set America up to ESCAPE from tyrannies like organised religion. They envisioned a nation with religious freedom. (Admitted, many of the earliest settlers were extremists from religions 'back home' - but they still had 'freedom' to be extreme.)

That's kind of the POINT of America.

Any events prior to the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the very reasons why the Constitution and Bill of Rights were worded the way they are worded.
The Earliest settlers had the POWER to be exremist and opressive.
Just a clarification.

Let us remember all the events that has led up to the Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of confusing said events with the reasons that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were Worded the way they are Worded.

"Reason and Respect"

I've just read the US Supreme Court decision on Romer v. Evans, and I don't come to the same conclusion as you.

Romer v. Evans was brought to the US Supreme Court as a challenge to Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution which reads:

"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self executing." Ibid.

The US Supreme Court concluded that:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

In my opinion the US Supreme Court is not recognizing sexual preference as much as saying that COLORADO had a poorly written Amendment trying to make sexual preference unprotected.

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else...violates the Equal Protection Clause."

This clearly states that sexual orientation is protected by the Equal Protection Clause (ie. the 14th Amendment).

In the reasoning for why the law is unconstitutional it is stated that:
"The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies. "

Clearly, the law is wrong because it is specifically designed to allow discrimination against homosexuals - something that cannot be allowed.

The very fact that it was the 14th Amendment that was invoked in this case demonstrates that the court deems sexual orientation to be protected under this amendment. If sexual orientation were not included, then there would be no constitutional issue with making whatever laws you want to discriminate against them.

I'm struggling with this logic.

When we discuss society, do the terms "majority" and "minority" refer to all of the individuals who make up that society, or are we referring to percentages of groups within that society?

For example, you cite the abolition of slavery as the will of the minority imposed upon the majority. Perhaps you are wrong. The abolition of slavery was a decision that affected the entire populous of the United States. If the entire populous of the United States was polled, I'm sure that the MAJORITY of the populous supported the abolition of slavery. You cite that the "majority in most Southern states did not want to afford citizenship and freedom to slaves," but what you are actually referring to is White Adult Land-owning Males in the pre-Civil War United States, clearly a MINORITY of the United States populous, but perhaps a MAJORITY of those afforded the right to express their opinion at that time.

If you never give the minority the right to express their opinions, then those who already have that right are the only ones that matter, now aren't they? I'm sure most of the slaves didn't want to be slaves - but they had no political power to get what they want. Thus, allowing them to be citizens had to be FORCED on those who had power at the time.

In a Democracy, where the honest will of the TRUE MAJORITY is known, societal change should never be influenced by the MINORITY, and certainly MUST NEVER BE FORCED. This, my friend is THE GREATEST THREAT TO FREEDOM: THE WILL OF THE MINORITY IMPOSED UPON THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The will of the majority means absolutely nothing where it infringes upon civil rights of the minority. If you don't believe me, try going somewhere that you are a member of the minority and see how you feel then. Besides, the founding fathers of our country would very much disagree with you here.

You may have guessed it, but up until now there's never been proof. The real reason gay marriage is good is because it's good for the economy! Doubt it? Here's the proof.

If gay marriage were to become legal, gays would get married, no?

If gays are getting married, then they are bound to have a marriage ceremony, and probably a reception.

Since we all know gays are notorious for their awesome and extravagant parties and excellent taste in foods, wine, and decor (as per Queer Eye for the Straight Guy), we can therefore assume that their marriage ceremonies, if not receptions, will have said qualities.

It is a given that said qualities (awesomeness, extravagance, food, wine, and decor) cost money.

If these things cost money, then it is logical that money will be spent.

If money will be spent, it will go into the economy.

If money is going into the economy, then the economy is getting better.

Therefore it is reasonable to assume that gay marriage being allowed will significantly improve the economy, not to mention the fun had by all at said parties.

(If you hadn't realized by now, this is meant to be funny. If you didn't think it was funny - get out more, and go to an awesome party or three. You'll see what I mean.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
All our individual decisions are arrived at however we individuals decide on them. A part of that is through one's religion.

Quite often the majority is silly, and inert. It often is not the best arbiter of the "societal good". And when it's not, it should be tweaked into "proper shape" by a benign dictator.

I just think this particular issue is better handled in other ways than "the benign dictator".

Other than that, we agree entirely..!



Instead of a benign dictator..... education (athough not allways a quick fix as we can not make people learn or make them honest ),is in the long run the only answer to illogical intolorance because it seems to me in the long run the human attribute known as Empathy will win out.

It is only a matter of time. Humans are not just hateful and destructive. We are loving also. Propaganda based on facts, logic, and an appeal to human empathy will win out.

Yes much of intolorance stems from,.... "Our traditions of what higher power is and expects from mankind "IS" the Ultimate Truth",.... is largely to blame. Greed and lust for power and using religion as well as politics to stroke the sheep and rob humanity of its potential for a world based on Empathy and Knowlege is the other cause of disorder and uncaring attitudes in the world.

If we benefit from searching for God then we must make sure that everyone benefits without needlessly trying to change thier nature. After all religion is only tradition. Its ok to have traditions so long as we allow others to test them for unfounded predjudice, bigotry, and chauvinism. All religious traditions must be willing to accept that they may be wrong and allow such testing. Thank God for atheists! God bless them! God bless us all and I pray that we can all just let each other just do our thing so long as we harm no one.

Empathy will eventually win out, indeed..! SO true. :)

And YES..! God bless the atheists, as you said, as they are a spur to move us from our complacencies.

And eventually, they make the very best believers, because they do so with conscious intent and true lived experience of the obverse.

(( I'm very agreeable today..! I rather like it..!! ))

:D

i shall start out by answering the topic's question:

gay marraige would affect me because then i would be allowed to marry the love of my life. marraige may have started off as being a method of child-rearing and procreation, but it has since became different.

now, let me go on a tangent and address a few of the issues that i read.

someone posted that allowing gay marraiges would make for gay adoption, in which situation gays would raise gay children. that makes no sense. my parents attempted to raise me to like girls, but that didn't work out so well. if it were a question of teaching and learning, then there would be no homosexuality. that's why i have a distaste for the term "sexual preference". "preference" implies that it is merely something that is prefered (*doi de doi doi doi*) rather than something that is required. i don't prefer men to women. i have no attraction to women as anything other than friends. naked women of any body type do not give me erections. i physically cannot have sex with a woman, my body won't let me (i tried a few times in high school). also, if it were a question of choice, if a person could choose to be gay or straight, then even most gays wouldn't support gay marraige. why give people special rights when they could just choose to fall in love with a person of the opposite gender?

that disease free sex slave comment is bizarre. maybe that guy wants a disease free sex slave....

slippery slope argument is debunked very easily: gay marraige has been legal for years in european countries, even longer than 10 years in some, and none of those "unforseen consequences" have even been mentioned in those countries.

now for my own personal opinion of marraige in general.

illegalize it for everyone. civil unions for all. marraige is a religious institution, and should not be recognized by the government for any reason. if two people are married, that is a private matter between them and their religious organization. Civil unions between two people of any race, sexuality, religion, et cetera et cetera. Marraiges between whoever and however many people/places/things/animals/poptarts the given religious affiliation will allow.

that is my humble opinion on the matter, and i am sure that i will be flamed by someone for something that i have said....

I have a question that I haven't ever heard answered. What possible effects would allowing homosexual marriages affect you personally? What other reason could there possibly be to outlaw homosexual marriages?

It would allow me to marry a man. Simple. It would not force me to, anymore than current law forces me to marry a woman. Regardless of the law I am married, in my heart, to a beautiful woman. The ritual and legal aspects will be taken care of soon enough.

If two men love each other, then, who the hell am I or anyone else to deny them that love?

Or two women for that matter?

And your point is......?
That people who have a personal dislike against a certain group of other people should not be allowed to force their believes upon those others... which is exactly what is happening. That is my point.

As I said in my first entry: the only reasoning I've seen so far (and after that) for not allowing gay marriage is "I don't like it. I think it's immoral. I think it's disgusting. "
EDIT: What I'm saying is that there's opinions, but no proper justification... the "why" behind it all. /EDIT

If you as a Christian or whatever group you consider yourself part of are not willing to have your rights restrained over other peoples' beliefs or customs, then what gives you the right to do exactly that to them?

There's the religious marriage, and there's the state-approved marriage (the latter being more of an acknowledged union than a God-approved institution). As I can understand the church being unwilling to support the union between two people from the same sex, there is no just cause to have the state deny them that right, too. "Seperation of state and church" ring a bell?

Gay people are not gay by choice. They didn't wake up one morning and said to themselves "hey, I feel like becoming an unappreciated, oppressed minority that will go to hell, loathed by the masses... what can I do to-... OOH! LET'S TURN GAY!"

They're human, and the only thing that makes them "different" is the fact they can not fall in love with someone from the "other gender".

Last but not least: why is being gay evolutianary wrong? There is more to life than procreating

Nope, not from the evolutionary point of view.

and perhaps gays just have a special role in the community : e.g. adoption,

Anyone can do that, gays are not required for that.

as already said, slowing population growth,

We (humans itself and mother Nature) have more efficient ways to handle that.

and perhaps do they also have more time to work when not having children and are gays just nature's way to keep productivity of the community up...

I don't think so, in a healthy family there are more than enough people to watch for the children.

who will tell?

Dunno, not me thats for sure, perhaps some being of supreme enlightenment beyond the grasp of our puny little minds.

Fact is: a lot of artists in history were homo- or bisexual, perhaps creativity is linked to homosexuality?

Maybe, can't really deny that...

In the end, the question here is: do you think we can think? :) Or are we just evolutianary robots, just following nature's rules?

Hm... interesting question, perhaps you should start an own thread about that...

Passing legislation to allow homosexual marriages wouldn't affect me in the slightest because I'm not homosexual. I, personally, have no problems with gay marriage. Apparently it "ruins the sanctity of marriage". That's the only excuse against it that I have heard, and it's bullshit! Aussie comedian Wil Anderson has said a number of times something along the lines of 'How does the marriage of two people in love "ruin the sanctity of marriage"?' He's right, you know... :fluffle:

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.Erm ... marrying the same sex is simular to marrying a tv how? My gay friends cant get married because they remind you of beastiality???

WTF is with everyone comparing 2 consenting, non-related people joining themselves in the eyes of the law to beastiality and a love for inanimate objects ... NOT THE SAME! Being in love with a coffee table is not the same as being in love with another (stats as per above) person.

I debated this topic with my father at one point ... he said that a man and a women based relationship is different to a same sex relationship in a 'contributing to the nation' sort of way. I asked him to explain how 2 civilly unioned gay people who work, pay taxes and what-not (just like any other heterosexual couple) are different, and wrong in his eyes. He couldnt explain it ... all he could say was, "it just is".

Children aside (and we wont go back to the famous "they cant have kids - it must be wrong" arguement - because we have already discussed it to death and provided many counter examples that refute such a statement) ... there is no difference! They interact with the world in exactly the same way as any other couple.

Homosexual marriage doesnt affect me negatively in any way. In fact, when it is finally passed and legal, I will be very happy to see that the world is finally acknowledging that everything is changing around us ... many new and wonderful things are happening ... we have to move with the change. Pick up the new, and carry it with us. :fluffle:.

But of course, just like womens rights ... it is a work in progess that will take a very long time to get to a acceptable level. But taking the first step, we could turn this hell into something better then bitter fighting yet.

Fanku for your time, sorry to waste space with obviously repeated statements.

Erm ... marrying the same sex is simular to marrying a tv how? My gay friends cant get married because they remind you of beastiality???

WTF is with everyone comparing 2 consenting, non-related people joining themselves in the eyes of the law to beastiality and a love for inanimate objects ... NOT THE SAME! Being in love with a coffee table is not the same as being in love with another (stats as per above) person.


What if the coffee table was really sexy?

What if the coffee table was really sexy?I've seen some sexy coffee tables in my time ... but I just dont know if I could support their expensive taste in what they call "coffee table books". The coffee table just wanted too many. :rolleyes:

I've seen some sexy coffee tables in my time ... but I just dont know if I could support their expensive taste in what they call "coffee table books". The coffee table just wanted too many. :rolleyes:

I know, man. It's always about their needs, never yours. We should oppress all furniture and outlaw all furniture accessories. That'll show 'em!
*smites desk lamp*

I'd think twice about implementing anti-accessory legislation if I were you. Last country to take any steps in that direction found themselves with a insurrection on their hands. Sweden was quick to deny any involvement, but several members of parliament ended up flatpacked and missing one or two screws and plugs each.

I'd think twice about implementing anti-accessory legislation if I were you. Last country to take any steps in that direction found themselves with a insurrection on their hands. Sweden was quick to deny any involvement, but several members of parliament ended up flatpacked and missing one or two screws and plugs each.

You make me sick. The furniture is just using you to get what it wants! We are humans, and we get what we want! And no inanimate object will stand in our way!

If any of you patriots are out there reading this, please support your local HAFA* group today!

*Humans against furniture-accessories

Lets smite that furnature before it demands rights equal to other household appliances ... it will just be asking too much!!! Stop the furnature equality movement before it starts, oppress all!

Haha.

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else...violates the Equal Protection Clause."

This clearly states that sexual orientation is protected by the Equal Protection Clause (ie. the 14th Amendment).

In the reasoning for why the law is unconstitutional it is stated that:
"The amendment withdraws from homosexuals, but no others, specific legal protection from the injuries caused by discrimination, and it forbids reinstatement of these laws and policies. "

Clearly, the law is wrong because it is specifically designed to allow discrimination against homosexuals - something that cannot be allowed.

The very fact that it was the 14th Amendment that was invoked in this case demonstrates that the court deems sexual orientation to be protected under this amendment. If sexual orientation were not included, then there would be no constitutional issue with making whatever laws you want to discriminate against them.

Okay, I think I may have found what's happenng here.

I now understand your point of view in regards to homosexuality and the 14th Amendment.

I believe that the sticking point may be the found in the definition of homosexuality. Is homosexuality genetic? Is one born gay? Is homosexuality a lifestyle choice? Is homosexuality a psychological dysfunction?

I refuse to debate/discuss this issue, and am willing to concede an understanding of the point of view that the 14th Amendment may be interpreted to include the rights of homosexuals.

I know this has already been debunked and proven as shit, but I'll add anyways.

I'm sure your logic would work wonderfully in a democracy. But dear, this is a democratic republic. Sorry champo.

The key words (lost in the emphasis) were "FORCED," and "IMPOSED."

A true Democracy is a wonderful and admirable form of government, however it relies on the goodwill and compassion of the majority to treat the minority fairly.

By definition, the will of the majority must always dictate policy, whether fair or unfair, and those who feel wronged must APPEAL to the conscious of the majority, not FORCE the majority.

In other words, true growth and justice occurs when one is enlightened (like with intelligent discussion, not flaming, within a forum), not when one is coerced.

now for my own personal opinion of marraige in general.

illegalize it for everyone. civil unions for all. marraige is a religious institution, and should not be recognized by the government for any reason. if two people are married, that is a private matter between them and their religious organization. Civil unions between two people of any race, sexuality, religion, et cetera et cetera. Marraiges between whoever and however many people/places/things/animals/poptarts the given religious affiliation will allow.

that is my humble opinion on the matter, and i am sure that i will be flamed by someone for something that i have said....

Interesting, perhaps you're right, perhaps not. Did you realize there is a difference between church (religious) and legal (before mentioned tax advantages) marriage?

Wouldn't have any effect on me at all. There are mixed religion marriages, mixed racial marriages, mixed class marriages. I can't see how allowing gays to marry would make that big of a difference at all. Bush is just trying to create a wedge issue to get his rabid right wing Christians to vote for him.

If they succeed, a marriage ban will eventually effect me, since fascists start their attacks on one group, then expand it to other groups.

First they started with the gays, then atheists, then the non-Christians, then the non-Apocalyptic Christians, and so on.

So, gay marriage won't effect me, but if Bush is successful with his plans, then eventually the loss of freedoms will effect me, and all Americans. The US is supposed to be the "Land of the Free" right? Of was that just a corporate marketing slogan?

You know, it's funny. When I think of Jesus and his message, I think of the qualities of compassion, understanding, mercy, tolerance, forgiveness and kindness. I see precious little of that from people claiming to follow that path. Instead, they talk of morality, values, forbidden things, and quote scripture to validate their intolerance. They don't seem to be paying much attention to the qualities above.

THEN, they bring up taxes, as if gay people were collecting money from them, and not paying any in themselves.

Personally, I say live and let live. It's not my job to judge anyone. If we need to, let's make it a legal issue and not a religious one. Civil ceremonies can overcome this. Let's not make it a hot-button emotional issue for the election.

*agrees with Tao_Eight*

But gay marriage will affect me in the way that I will be able to marry whomever I want, which will be a good thing. I beleive everyone should have the right to marry who they want, regardless of what ignorant bigots think, considering their arguements are shit. You cannot compare gay marriage to perversions, because that just doesn't work. The key term is 'consent' here. You can love whoever you want, and you can have sex with someone who gives consent, therefore children, animals and objects cannot be fornicated with. Therefore, they also cannot consent into marriage.
But this crap about gay marriage affecting other marriages; how the hell would that happen? Apparently marrying my girlfriend would cause the hetero marriages around me to fall apart.....? It makes no goddamn sense. And if someone divorces someone else because they're gay, that's not gay marriage ruining straight marriage, that's the spouse in question finding themselves, like everyone should, and some of us have been denied because of a bunch of ignorant people....it's bullshit

You have no idea what you are talking about. The will of the majority means absolutely nothing where it infringes upon civil rights of the minority. If you don't believe me, try going somewhere that you are a member of the minority and see how you feel then. Besides, the founding fathers of our country would very much disagree with you here.

Please, let's not flame. I'm enjoying this discussion, and my brain is thanking you for the exercise.

We're getting a little off-topic, but that's okay. And I feel a little like I'm becoming the Devil's Advocate, but again it's good for the sake of discussion.

I'm not espousing the idea that the majority can run rough-shod over the minority. What I am saying, however, is that it is the majority who defines civil rights. If the majority decides that "Group X" does not have "Right A," then they do not have it. Ex: 3/5 Compromise.

that is my humble opinion on the matter, and i am sure that i will be flamed by someone for something that i have said....

I hope you are not flamed.

And I hope that as you read back this thread that you are not driven to the conclusion, as others have, that I am a "grit-eating, Bible-thumping, Jesus Hates Fags," Neanderthal.

I am not.

I have the same capacity for Love and Hate as others on this thread.

Just interpretate this golden frase:
"Your freedom finishes where my one begins..."
(and not before!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
And your point is......?

That people who have a personal dislike against a certain group of other people should not be allowed to force their believes upon those others... which is exactly what is happening. That is my point.

As I said in my first entry: the only reasoning I've seen so far (and after that) for not allowing gay marriage is "I don't like it. I think it's immoral. I think it's disgusting. "
EDIT: What I'm saying is that there's opinions, but no proper justification... the "why" behind it all. /EDIT

If you as a Christian or whatever group you consider yourself part of are not willing to have your rights restrained over other peoples' beliefs or customs, then what gives you the right to do exactly that to them?

There's the religious marriage, and there's the state-approved marriage (the latter being more of an acknowledged union than a God-approved institution). As I can understand the church being unwilling to support the union between two people from the same sex, there is no just cause to have the state deny them that right, too. "Seperation of state and church" ring a bell?

Gay people are not gay by choice. They didn't wake up one morning and said to themselves "hey, I feel like becoming an unappreciated, oppressed minority that will go to hell, loathed by the masses... what can I do to-... OOH! LET'S TURN GAY!"

They're human, and the only thing that makes them "different" is the fact they can not fall in love with someone from the "other gender".

.."That people who have a personal dislike against a certain group of other people should not be allowed to force their believes upon those others... which is exactly what is happening."..

That's "beliefs" (seems a rather common spelling error). :)

The CURRENT state of affairs, which is historical, is that the majority doesn't think that marriage between same-sex partners is appropriate.

To change that, a minority opinion would have to be imposed on a majority population.

If that's fine with you, then you agree that an inherently anti-democratic process (benign dictatorship at best) is an appropriate remedy for this situation.

And I would argue that you're exactly right. That sometimes a benign dictatorship IS the best solution.

I just don't think that this issue calls for this solution. The reason? Because the "problem" can be handled by a civil-union solution, and because it is (IMHO) a trivial problem.

(( Of course those involved in this problem will claim it's not trivial, and as the "fashion of the day" is to be as indignant, inflexible and impatient as possible to get one's way, the "adrenaline" produced by this issue is not surprising. ))

Wouldn't have any effect on me at all. There are mixed religion marriages, mixed racial marriages, mixed class marriages. I can't see how allowing gays to marry would make that big of a difference at all. Bush is just trying to create a wedge issue to get his rabid right wing Christians to vote for him.

If they succeed, a marriage ban will eventually effect me, since fascists start their attacks on one group, then expand it to other groups.

First they started with the gays, then atheists, then the non-Christians, then the non-Apocalyptic Christians, and so on.

So, gay marriage won't effect me, but if Bush is successful with his plans, then eventually the loss of freedoms will effect me, and all Americans. The US is supposed to be the "Land of the Free" right? Of was that just a corporate marketing slogan?

Wow,... how'd Bush get in here..?

Oh yeah,... we hate Bush and, as the "Antileft", he's the instigator of all things evil,.. well,.. more accurately, that special non-religious evil of the left, which doesn't like to call anyone evil, unless it's that special non-religious evil, which Bush is the very embodiment of,.. of course.

:)

*agrees with Tao_Eight*

But gay marriage will affect me in the way that I will be able to marry whomever I want, which will be a good thing. I beleive everyone should have the right to marry who they want, regardless of what ignorant bigots think, considering their arguements are shit. You cannot compare gay marriage to perversions, because that just doesn't work. The key term is 'consent' here. You can love whoever you want, and you can have sex with someone who gives consent, therefore children, animals and objects cannot be fornicated with. Therefore, they also cannot consent into marriage.
But this crap about gay marriage affecting other marriages; how the hell would that happen? Apparently marrying my girlfriend would cause the hetero marriages around me to fall apart.....? It makes no goddamn sense. And if someone divorces someone else because they're gay, that's not gay marriage ruining straight marriage, that's the spouse in question finding themselves, like everyone should, and some of us have been denied because of a bunch of ignorant people....it's bullshit

16 people could consent to "marriage"...

"Ignorant bigots",.. "shit",.. "bullshit",.. Nice to see you call it like you see it..! :)

"Slutty dykes",.. "poo",.. "ass fudge",.. could also be used, in the other direction, though I personally choose not to.

(( Although, I don't really see how "shit", "bullshit", "poo" or "ass fudge" could be claimed by either side... come to think of it ))

(( Hmmmmmm.. maybe not even "Ignorant Bigots"..! ))

Let's get back to the "equal rights for furniture" discussion..!

16 people could consent to "marriage"...


Yes, but there are valid reasons for government not to recognize such a marriage. It gets way too administratively complex and expensive to try and figure out who is whose next of kin, who may make healthcare decisions for whom, who may be a dependent on whose insurance or tax forms, who has custody over which children, etc. when each person may have as many spouses as they like. Sure, you can do it by individual contracts - but then where's the purpose of having a legal marriage at all? There is no such impossible complexity with two-person gay marriage.
Also, banning polymarriages does not stop any one person from having any access to the institution of marriage at all, or limit any one person to a type of marriage which is for them necessarily loveless and/or celibate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
16 people could consent to "marriage"...



Yes, but there are valid reasons for government not to recognize such a marriage. It gets way too administratively complex and expensive to try and figure out who is whose next of kin, who may make healthcare decisions for whom, who may be a dependent on whose insurance or tax forms, who has custody over which children, etc. when each person may have as many spouses as they like. Sure, you can do it by individual contracts - but then where's the purpose of having a legal marriage at all? There is no such impossible complexity with two-person gay marriage.
Also, banning polymarriages does not stop any one person from having any access to the institution of marriage at all, or limit any one person to a type of marriage which is for them necessarily loveless and/or celibate.

So it's not a matter of "rights and human justice" but convenience..?

I could make the same argument against same-sex marriage. It's inconvenient to change the forms. It's inconvenient to re-work "employee benefits". Etc..

If the quality of the sex of the parties being married is a non-issue, and deemed a "good" (in the eyes of the parties),.. then the quality of the NUMBER of the parties being married is a non-issue, and deemed a "good" (in the eyes of the parties).

And those who believe in the "good" of polygamy have the exact same opportunity to change the rules with the exact same arguments.

yes, i do know that there is a difference between religious marraige and a state marraige. my point is that "marraige" is a religious term that should be dispensed with in terms of government recognition. allow any two consenting adults to have a civil union, recognized by the state, but allow whoever/whatever the religious affiliation deems appropriate to have a marraige. thus, two/more people can be married without it being legally recognized, and two people can be civilly unioned without their religion acknowledging it. as is, when a person is married, as long as it is one man/woman and there's a piece of paper involved, they are recognized by both church and state, and thus should be discarded.

this would also get rid of a lot of future debates, because you would be establishing that you can marry whoever you want within your religion, but the government isn't going to recognize it.

as for the evolutionary validty of homosexuality, it is displayed in over 300 animal species... a notable example are the two gay penguins at the new york zoo who have been together for 6 years, and rescued an egg and raised the chick together. their names are Wendell (sp?) and Cass.

as for adoption, there are tons of heterosexual couples that are unfit as parents. if you allow gay couples to adopt, then you are increasing the pool of good parents that the children whose parents were drug addicts, prostitutes, abusive, alcoholics, etc can be given to for better care. you are also increasing the pool of prospectiove parents to take in an unwanted baby. far too many children in America are born and raised in the fostercare/orphanage system. allowing gays to be legally recognized would help out a lot.

I'm not espousing the idea that the majority can run rough-shod over the minority. What I am saying, however, is that it is the majority who defines civil rights. If the majority decides that "Group X" does not have "Right A," then they do not have it. Ex: 3/5 Compromise.

Would you care to explain how the majority defining the civil rights of the minority does not equate to the majority running "rough-shod" over the minority?

Suppose that I was part of the majority and we decided that you did not have the right to your left testicle (or breast). In your view, it would be just fine if we just ran in and chopped it off, since the decision would have been made by the majority.

yes, i do know that there is a difference between religious marraige and a state marraige. my point is that "marraige" is a religious term that should be dispensed with in terms of government recognition. allow any two consenting adults to have a civil union, recognized by the state, but allow whoever/whatever the religious affiliation deems appropriate to have a marraige. thus, two/more people can be married without it being legally recognized, and two people can be civilly unioned without their religion acknowledging it. as is, when a person is married, as long as it is one man/woman and there's a piece of paper involved, they are recognized by both church and state, and thus should be discarded.

this would also get rid of a lot of future debates, because you would be establishing that you can marry whoever you want within your religion, but the government isn't going to recognize it.

as for the evolutionary validty of homosexuality, it is displayed in over 300 animal species... a notable example are the two gay penguins at the new york zoo who have been together for 6 years, and rescued an egg and raised the chick together. their names are Wendell (sp?) and Cass.

as for adoption, there are tons of heterosexual couples that are unfit as parents. if you allow gay couples to adopt, then you are increasing the pool of good parents that the children whose parents were drug addicts, prostitutes, abusive, alcoholics, etc can be given to for better care. you are also increasing the pool of prospectiove parents to take in an unwanted baby. far too many children in America are born and raised in the fostercare/orphanage system. allowing gays to be legally recognized would help out a lot.

Hear hear..! :D

No disagreements here..!

Aloha kakou..!

A true Democracy is a wonderful and admirable form of government, however it relies on the goodwill and compassion of the majority to treat the minority fairly.

And since goodwill and compassion are not in most majority's dictionaries, then true democracy really just can't work.

By definition, the will of the majority must always dictate policy, whether fair or unfair, and those who feel wronged must APPEAL to the conscious of the majority, not FORCE the majority.

Again, you are advocating the majority doing whatever they want. As for appealing to the conscious of the majority - you are incredibly naive. Human beings in general have a "Who care about you, I got mine" mentality. Appealing to the majority to recognize that they are doing wrong is like trying to explain quantum physics to a mouse.

Study history - the majority always has to be forced to recognize the rights of the minority. Luckily, in this country, we have non-violent ways to do that. Thus, if I were in the minority being shat upon, I could appeal to the court system, rather than trying to deal with the mob mentality of the majority.

In other words, true growth and justice occurs when one is enlightened (like with intelligent discussion, not flaming, within a forum), not when one is coerced.

Some people will never be enlightened, because they refuse intelligent discussion. However, if they are coerced, then the next generation will see that nothing major changes, and will thus be enlightened.

I find it interesting that so many people espouse the "get government out of marriage altogether and have civil unions for all!" idea. It is a good idea, definitely.

Here's the problem though:

It solves nothing in this debate. The people who are very anti-gay marriage are against *any* recognition of homosexual couples. On top of that, these same people will get very angry if you change the term for civil marriage to civil union. Why? Because they feel that "only them homosexuals should have to have something stupid like a civil union! I want me a marriage!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinewydd
I'm not espousing the idea that the majority can run rough-shod over the minority. What I am saying, however, is that it is the majority who defines civil rights. If the majority decides that "Group X" does not have "Right A," then they do not have it. Ex: 3/5 Compromise.



Would you care to explain how the majority defining the civil rights of the minority does not equate to the majority running "rough-shod" over the minority?

Suppose that I was part of the majority and we decided that you did not have the right to your left testicle (or breast). In your view, it would be just fine if we just ran in and chopped it off, since the decision would have been made by the majority.

Yup,.. that would be fine.

And directly afterward, the "larger" populace (extra-group) would (if they had any guts) jump into the fray and stomp the crap out of the previous "majority".

Or (if the "larger populace" is gutless) the "majority" and it's "minority left-appendageless" will just have to live with it.

Think "Taliban".

And this is why the invocation of the "benign tyrannical minority" (the non-gutless ones that could muster the force) is the ultimate and necessary "safety-valve" for society.

I have nothing against men or women marrying someone of their own sex.
Beside the fact that one of the sayings I use a lot is "to each his own", what does it matter? Really.
Two men (or women), happily living together, married, not being a public problem to anyone. Just doing the same as a married man with woman would do (of course, every family has its house rules, lets not discuss that).

They are just like that. For those few ignorants who don't know yet: you can't choose to be, you can't change it, you can accept or ignore it, but it doesn't change the fact that your sexual preferences cannot be changed.

So, the happy group of gay/lesbian people that CAN accept it (good luck for them, I know some guys that resent the fact that they fancy other guys) should be allowed to live a normal life. And if living a normal live together would include them marrying each other, what is there against it?

I know, conservatists are against it, they see it, with no clear reason, as a threat to the building blocks of their happy, secluded, conservative, sometimes xenophobic, life.

But for the rest: whats the problem?

And since goodwill and compassion are not in most majority's dictionaries, then true democracy really just can't work.



Again, you are advocating the majority doing whatever they want. As for appealing to the conscious of the majority - you are incredibly naive. Human beings in general have a "Who care about you, I got mine" mentality. Appealing to the majority to recognize that they are doing wrong is like trying to explain quantum physics to a mouse.

Study history - the majority always has to be forced to recognize the rights of the minority. Luckily, in this country, we have non-violent ways to do that. Thus, if I were in the minority being shat upon, I could appeal to the court system, rather than trying to deal with the mob mentality of the majority.



Some people will never be enlightened, because they refuse intelligent discussion. However, if they are coerced, then the next generation will see that nothing major changes, and will thus be enlightened.

Ahhh, yes. The FYIGM attitude. (Fuck You, I Got Mine)

I find it interesting that so many people espouse the "get government out of marriage altogether and have civil unions for all!" idea. It is a good idea, definitely.

Here's the problem though:

It solves nothing in this debate. The people who are very anti-gay marriage are against *any* recognition of homosexual couples. On top of that, these same people will get very angry if you change the term for civil marriage to civil union. Why? Because they feel that "only them homosexuals should have to have something stupid like a civil union! I want me a marriage!"

Your use of words I take as intentional.

Your "shit-kicker" dialogue is then used derogatorially.

Are people with that accent to be arbitrarily designated "persecutable", then..?

Isn't "arbitrary persecution" what you are arguing AGAINST..!?

Your use of words I take as intentional.

Your "shit-kicker" dialogue is then used derogatorially.

Are people with that accent to be arbitrarily designated "persecutable", then..?

Isn't "arbitrary persecution" what you are arguing AGAINST..!?

I didn't really write anything in an accent, but a general misuse of grammar. No, people who do not use proper grammar are not to be persecuted in any way. However, many of those who would espouse such a view, are rather uneducated and I was basically repeating something I had heard before.

I meant no disrespect by it really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinewydd
A true Democracy is a wonderful and admirable form of government, however it relies on the goodwill and compassion of the majority to treat the minority fairly.


And since goodwill and compassion are not in most majority's dictionaries, then true democracy really just can't work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinewydd
By definition, the will of the majority must always dictate policy, whether fair or unfair, and those who feel wronged must APPEAL to the conscious of the majority, not FORCE the majority.


Again, you are advocating the majority doing whatever they want. As for appealing to the conscious of the majority - you are incredibly naive. Human beings in general have a "Who care about you, I got mine" mentality. Appealing to the majority to recognize that they are doing wrong is like trying to explain quantum physics to a mouse.

Study history - the majority always has to be forced to recognize the rights of the minority. Luckily, in this country, we have non-violent ways to do that. Thus, if I were in the minority being shat upon, I could appeal to the court system, rather than trying to deal with the mob mentality of the majority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceinewydd
In other words, true growth and justice occurs when one is enlightened (like with intelligent discussion, not flaming, within a forum), not when one is coerced.


Some people will never be enlightened, because they refuse intelligent discussion. However, if they are coerced, then the next generation will see that nothing major changes, and will thus be enlightened.

I generally agree with Dem's rational points. But Dem has just described Dem in an interesting way...

.."goodwill and compassion are not in most majority's dictionaries"..

.."Appealing to the majority to recognize that they are doing wrong is like trying to explain quantum physics to a mouse"..

..a bitter persecuted person with a religious conviction that they are superior to the vast majority of the population.

Dem may be right. I actually think that Dem is right in most matters, but Dem's opinion of people in general is the view of an angry person with no faith in humanity whatsoever, except for those of Dem's exact frame of mind.

And I doubt Dem would argue that Dem is angry. (Everything ELSE, probably, would be argued with,.. of course.)

Yet another elitist.

(Which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing..! :) )

I didn't really write anything in an accent, but a general misuse of grammar. No, people who do not use proper grammar are not to be persecuted in any way. However, many of those who would espouse such a view, are rather uneducated and I was basically repeating something I had heard before. .

I meant no disrespect by it really


Not buying that one. :)

Which is fine.

Another old truism: "I heard'ja when ya' first drove up.."

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.

I'm essentially of the same mind. If we are to say that prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, and that there is no legal bar thereto, then ultimately what is to prevent the legalization of pedophilia, etc.? Not that all or even most gays are pedophiles (and vice versa) but there is a small and noisy contingent calling for the legalization of adult-child sexual activity. It makes me uneasy that we may be going down a dangerous road.

..a bitter persecuted person with a religious conviction that they are superior to the vast majority of the population.

I don't know how I can be a "bitter persecuted person" when I am, pretty much by definition, a member of the majority in this country. The only thing I don't have going for me is that I am not male. Other than that, I pretty much meet the white, middle class, WASP type descriptions that define the majority.

And I do not feel that I am superior to the vast majority of the population. More educated? Probably. But not superior. I am sure there are any number of things that I am irrational about and there are those who I have an unfounded bad reaction to - but I at least try to recognize these things in myself and do what I can to get rid of them.

Dem may be right. I actually think that Dem is right in most matters, but Dem's opinion of people in general is the view of an angry person with no faith in humanity whatsoever, except for those of Dem's exact frame of mind.

I actually have more faith in humanity that most people I know. The difference is that my faith lies with the intrinsic goodness of the individual - mob mentality takes over when you move to the majority.

Again, study history, rights of the minority have always had to be fought for. Simply appealing to the majority only gets you one or two converts.

And I doubt Dem would argue that Dem is angry. (Everything ELSE, probably, would be argued with,.. of course.)

Angry? Of course I am. I have seen the rights of people I care about trampled on for something that they had no control over in the first place. Are you saying I do not have a reason to be angry?

Not buying that one. :)

Which is fine.

Another old truism: "I heard'ja when ya' first drove up.."

Now, don't make fun of a Southern accent - I'm a good ole' Southern Belle myself. And, in every day speech, I often fall into one. =)

Because I don't want a million Brazilian transexuals trying to get green cards and refugee status!

I'm essentially of the same mind. If we are to say that prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, and that there is no legal bar thereto, then ultimately what is to prevent the legalization of pedophilia, etc.? Not that all or even most gays are pedophiles (and vice versa) but there is a small and noisy contingent calling for the legalization of adult-child sexual activity. It makes me uneasy that we may be going down a dangerous road.

Slippery slope fallacy. Debunked numerous times. This isn't the thread you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

i, personally am all for gay union (marriage isnt really a good word for it by current deffinition) its baisic human rights, if you care about another person enought to want to spend the rest of your life with them, let alone enter a legally binding contract with them, then all the power to you. Im from canada so its already legal here, and im looking forward to the day my two best friends sign a piece of government paper and throw a huge glam party. thats all it really is isnt it? a signing of a government paper followed by a party of sorts, whether the traditonal wedding (which is boring and over rated) or somthing more modern. either way, no one is free till everyone is free.

Whats to stop people from marrying their television(sp?) and future debates like this one.


Yes, because a television can sign a marriage lisence...

I'm essentially of the same mind. If we are to say that prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, and that there is no legal bar thereto, then ultimately what is to prevent the legalization of pedophilia, etc.? Not that all or even most gays are pedophiles (and vice versa) but there is a small and noisy contingent calling for the legalization of adult-child sexual activity. It makes me uneasy that we may be going down a dangerous road.

Ewww pretty strawman!

Consent blows your argument away. A minor's concent is not legal.

Heading off your next argument, how do you prove consent from animals(ie beastiality).

Marriage is between concenting adults.

Almost all pedophilliacs are straight so we should probably outlaw hetro marriage to end it! ;)

Well over 95% all children's sex abuse is perpetrated by straight men (even when the victim is a child). Add to that the fact that, inthe overwhelming majority of child molestation cases, the perpetrator is a family member. Then look at the fact that over half of all marriages end in divorce.

Why *shouldn't* homosexuals be allowed to marry? I doubt they could do any worse than heterosexuals have until now...

One other thing... since marriage is, at its heart, a RELIGIOUS act, shouldn't the churches, and not the government, be responsible for whether or not they want to endorse homosexual marriage?

I did answer the question, it affects me personnaly becuase I dont agree with it and im not comfortable with the thought of it. But for example, lets say there is a bill passed that allows for legal gay marriage. Whats to stop people from marrying their television, family members, or an animal? It opens a door to alot of unforseen consequinces(sp?) and future debates like this one.



You are kidding, right? I think there are fundamental differences between homosexuals (they are human beings if you haven't noticed) and televisions (machines) and animals (humans are animals too, so what's your point?) and marrying family members (happens all the time in India, the Middle East and Middle US states....)

What consequences? That gays can actually have their partners finally receive pension benefits when they die? Did you know that is not allowed currently because they are not legally married in some areas?

Bottom Line is: If you're straight or gay, you should get married...heck, why should the straights be the only ones to suffer???

I, a straight man, am in no way opposed to gay marriage...because it doesnt effect me at all, and I'm all for equal rights. I think it can all be summed up quite geniously by Jon Stewart of the daily show:

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sahmed2/shared/Movies/7-31-03-gayrights.mov

One other thing... since marriage is, at its heart, a RELIGIOUS act, shouldn't the churches, and not the government, be responsible for whether or not they want to endorse homosexual marriage?
Perhaps at its heart, but not in practice. The principal arguments for gay marriage are civil rights questions relating to how the government allows privileges to married people and couples. All this is explained multiple times throughout this topic.

As for the religious institutions, they can permit or deny gay marriage according to their own rules. I don't think anyone is disputing that at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
..a bitter persecuted person with a religious conviction that they are superior to the vast majority of the population.


I don't know how I can be a "bitter persecuted person" when I am, pretty much by definition, a member of the majority in this country. The only thing I don't have going for me is that I am not male. Other than that, I pretty much meet the white, middle class, WASP type descriptions that define the majority.

And I do not feel that I am superior to the vast majority of the population. More educated? Probably. But not superior. I am sure there are any number of things that I am irrational about and there are those who I have an unfounded bad reaction to - but I at least try to recognize these things in myself and do what I can to get rid of them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iake
Dem may be right. I actually think that Dem is right in most matters, but Dem's opinion of people in general is the view of an angry person with no faith in humanity whatsoever, except for those of Dem's exact frame of mind.



I actually have more faith in humanity that most people I know. The difference is that my faith lies with the intrinsic goodness of the individual - mob mentality takes over when you move to the majority.

Again, study history, rights of the minority have always had to be fought for. Simply appealing to the majority only gets you one or two converts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iake
And I doubt Dem would argue that Dem is angry. (Everything ELSE, probably, would be argued with,.. of course.)



Angry? Of course I am. I have seen the rights of people I care about trampled on for something that they had no control over in the first place. Are you saying I do not have a reason to be angry?

No,.. I've got no problem with your anger. I'm angry about stuff too.. :)

The only thing that I find "distasteful" with your presentation (the "you" I see via your words here) is the lack of faith in (the concept of) "groups of people".

Groups of people take on the qualities of what they collectively believe. There are good groups and there are bad groups.

One of the only differences that I personally see between the "motives" of individuals and groups is that individuals are at least limited in number (max 1). :)

Large groups are far more STABLE than individuals, or the world would be UTTERLY chaotic with roaming bands of nutjobs doing "whatever"..!

I also cherish the individual as the base of society. Groups don't think. Individuals think.

Thus,.. a "tyranny of the minority" is the inevitable balance of the "tyranny of the majority".

The only question is when to invoke one or the other to "restore" the balance.

And that's a matter of "religious conviction",.. always.

One other thing... since marriage is, at its heart, a RELIGIOUS act, shouldn't the churches, and not the government, be responsible for whether or not they want to endorse homosexual marriage?

Nah, because you dont need a church or a minister to get married. The church, or most denominations of Christianity are against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Me and my fiancee are both athiest, and we're going to get married by a judge.

I, a straight man, am in no way opposed to gay marriage...because it doesnt effect me at all, and I'm all for equal rights. I think it can all be summed up quite geniously by Jon Stewart of the daily show:

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/sahmed2/shared/Movies/7-31-03-gayrights.mov

i couldnt agree more.

Nah, because you dont need a church or a minister to get married. The church, or most denominations of Christianity are against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Me and my fiancee are both athiest, and we're going to get married by a judge.

But why should the government discriminate in what it does? These churches are free to discriminate however they want, no government is, at least in the civilised world, is free discriminate based on gender.

I'm really sick of these "Is gay marriage good or bad??!?!?!!!" threads that keep popping up. They're all the same. A few people answer with their opinions, and then more people come in, quote those who issued their opinions as the thread requested, and talk about how that's wrong and how their opinion is obviously correct.

Then, after about 3 pages of this, someone comes in and starts making intelligent posts. This compells other intelligent people to come and make intelligent arguments, which are much the same as the first three pages, but with capitalisation and punctuation.

You know what? I'd like to see a thread on something that isn't overdone this badly. How about marriage to animals not within the human species? In fact, I believe I'll make that thread.

One other thing... since marriage is, at its heart, a RELIGIOUS act, shouldn't the churches, and not the government, be responsible for whether or not they want to endorse homosexual marriage?

Precisely.

You know how you fix this problem? Stop marrying people. Let people enter into contracts that allow them all the legal rights of marriage, and then, if they want, they can go to their church or synagogue or temple or mosque or whatever and have the union sacntified as a marriage.

Bam. Problem solved.

The idea of a homosexual marrige just doesnt work. if we were all gay, and married, the nthe human race would die out. Gay marriges with children would only further this, it should be banned completly.

Omg Everyone Will Turn Gay...ahhhhh!!!!!

laeth they6 gay'¨'s marri4age

The idea of a homosexual marrige just doesnt work. if we were all gay, and married, the nthe human race would die out.

Lucky for us then we are not all gay.

Gay marriges with children would only further this, it should be banned completly.
Because straight parents only raise straight children right?

The idea of a homosexual marrige just doesnt work. if we were all gay, and married, the nthe human race would die out. Gay marriges with children would only further this, it should be banned completly.

Problem: We're not saying everyone should be forced into gay marriage.

Problem: If everyone was in gay marriages, the men could donate sperm that the women could pump in using turkey-basters.

Problem: You're a bigotted fucktard.

The idea of a homosexual marrige just doesnt work. if we were all gay, and married, the nthe human race would die out. Gay marriges with children would only further this, it should be banned completly.

Ahh the old marriage is only for children strawman.

Sorry but not everybody marries for children.

Some actually do it to be committed and want to share a life with a person. Some for tax reasons......

Gays happened when you took your chances at getting assaulted by good Christians.

Gays will still happen after we allow them to be married.

I would rather have them in the open and married versus back in the closet and marrying our sisters and daughters as they did a few decades ago....

Omg Everyone Will Turn Gay...ahhhhh!!!!!


That's ok sweetie, we know you are! :p

That's ok sweetie, we know you are! :p

Yeah I am but I blame my straight parents. :p

If marriage is purely for procreation, surely that means going against the teachings of the Bible? Read the book of Genesis, specifically the lives of Abraham and Jacob.

Both of them had wives whose "wombs were closed by God", Sarah and Rachel respectively, and these unions were blessed by God. The author goes to great length to describe Jacob's love for Rachel(check Genesis 29), he even works for Laban, her father, for fourteen years to allow them to marry.

So, marriage for love with no possibility of reproduction is A-OK. In both these examples, they use surrogate mothers, Hagar and Bilhah respectively, so that's OK aswell. Therefore, there's no problem with gay marriage, since they can marry for love and let someone else have their babies for them, though I'm sure adoption is acceptable.

Who gives a crap about the fucking bible...

I'm just burning down a strawman of the Christian Right, leave me be. It's valid reasoning, though, yes?

I'm just burning down a strawman of the Christian Right, leave me be. It's valid reasoning, though, yes?


Arguing on those terms only validates them.

How? I just have enough respect for Christians to look at their holy text. That's a damn sight more than evangelists do, it seems.

I'm going to repost this (It was a thread a while back) just to demonstrate how silly all of these arguments really are.

And to tie it in to the original question - How would gay marriage affect me? The exact same way gay drivers affect me - more people would be doing it, some of them well and some of them poorly.

Michigan passes ban on gay driver’s licenses

The people of Michigan passed a constitutional amendment today by a 70% majority vote. This amendment will prevent the state government from issuing driver’s licenses to homosexuals. In addition, Michigan will no longer recognize driver’s licenses from other states if they have been issued to homosexuals.

Bill Georges, a proponent of the bill, explained the reasoning behind it:

“Well, I don’t hate the gays or anything. I mean, I had a gay friend once, until he stopped talking to me when I told him that his lifestyle was dirty and vile. Anyways, this isn’t discrimination or anything, it’s really just natural. You see, Henry Ford invented cars, and he was against gays. So gays shouldn’t be allowed to drive them. It’s ok if they own cars and pretend like they are normal, straight drivers, as long as they keep the car in their own driveway and don’t drive it where we normal people can see.”

When faced with the fact that policy based completely on what Henry Ford may or may not have said may be unconstitutional, he had this to say:

“Well, I mean, the whole purpose of driving a car is to drive your kids around. And the gays can’t have kids, so why would they need a car? We can’t deny driver’s licenses to straight people who don’t have kids, because they can drive other people’s kids around and one day might have their own. But the gays can’t have kids and nobody wants to let them drive their kids around, right? And we know Henry Ford was against the blacks too, but they have kids so we have to let them drive.

“Then there’s the fact that they just aren’t safe drivers. I mean, they tend to drive other people’s cars more than their own. And I read a study somewhere once that said that they do more drugs and drink more before they drive. The gays are going to destroy the roadways if we let them drive!

“Plus, there is no right to drive a car, it’s a privilege that the government gives you and they can regulate it however they want. There is absolutely no reason why the gays should be able to drive cars legally.”

And to the question of whether or not homosexuals might lose their jobs, and then their homes and assets:

“Well, that’s all about money and it’s just greedy. Driving a car isn’t about money, it’s about the children. Henry Ford made the car and he didn’t like the gays. So they shouldn’t drive.”

Penny Lane had the following to say:

“If Henry Ford were here today, he’d slap all the gays that are driving cars! Gays have no place in cars!”

John Lane added:

“We have to protect the tradition of driving! Driving has a fine tradition in this country stretching all the way back to the frontier days when good, God fearing men drove their families all the way across the country in nothing more than a covered wagon. It’s bad enough we gave women and blacks the right to drive, but we will stand firm when we defend the tradition of driving and will keep gays off our roads! It’s their choice to be gay and if they’re going to make that choice, then not having a license is just a price they’re going to have to pay!”

Steven Doe acknowledged that while gays in other countries have the right to acquire license that,

“The US doesn’t bow to international pressure! Who cares that other countries have given gays licenses? We know better than all of them and we’re the ones that make the rules in our country. Things like civil rights, human rights, and social policies should not be influenced just because a bunch of other countries in the “Old World” and Canada have a different view. Why should we care what they think? The international community is full of a bunch of sissies anyway! This is America and in America, Americans make the laws! Not the freedom hating British, French, or those damn, druggie, hippie, commie-bastard Scandinavians. Where is Scandinavia anyway?! Is it even a country, I ask you?!”

Michigan lawmakers insist that this amendment will help to protect the roadways and ensure that the gays are kept in their proper place.

Meanwhile, some have proposed a new type of license known as the union license. This license would allow homosexuals to drive, but only on days with odd numbers and only in the right lane. No one has yet proposed a reason as to why the license offered to those of one sexual preference should be any different.

Empathy will eventually win out, indeed..! SO true. :)

And YES..! God bless the atheists, as you said, as they are a spur to move us from our complacencies.

And eventually, they make the very best believers, because they do so with conscious intent and true lived experience of the obverse.

(( I'm very agreeable today..! I rather like it..!! ))

:D
Hehe. I am glad you value your human empathy. If there is a Higher Power, (And my >GUESS< is that there is even though I only have evidance for myself and no one else) , It would seem to me that because different people exist then diversity is very appealing to Higher Power/s.

Atheists serve a purpose and it may just be that some are serving the higher purpose through QUESTIONING.
I am not so sure that God wants atheists to change necassarily nor would it be logical to ASSume that God would punish atheists for viewing the world in a way that is natural to them.
Thier natures are useful to humanity. And there are many that are honorable.

As for as gays and lesbians same thing. God set into motion factors that would insure diversity therefore God wants Diversity.
Religions only have a blury imperfect picture of Higher Power and therefore, for the sake of goodness if we must have our traditions then we need to keep the loving parts of our traditions and discard the chauvinism and bigotry.
Even if that means admiting that our holy books are fallable and have some bad advise salt and peppered throughout the scriptures. No holy book is infallable.
They are all distorted perceptions of Higher Power/s

Holy books are Human traditions and expresions of what High Power is hoped to be. It is wishfulness.
If there is a God/s no one knows what it is really. Our decsriptions so far are illogical. We need a do over. The less we say of God the less illogical our description will be. Let us look to nature and the Universe (let the scientists do thier damn jobs without being pestered by amatures), and what imformation is given us by scientist let us see if a holiness can not be found in the data. If there is a God/s and God/s want to be found the scientists will be the first to tell us.
Be brave and say you do not know exactly but keep your hearts and eyes open.

This intolorance of Gays and Lesbians is because of our flawed traditions.
They are Humans. There is nothing wrong with thier nature. They are acting on thier God given nature and thier nature harms no one. If someone is honorable it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Same as with being a jerk.
Morality should be based on avoiding what can be >PROVEN< to cause hurt feelings or injury.

The idea of a homosexual marrige just doesnt work. if we were all gay, and married, the nthe human race would die out. Gay marriges with children would only further this, it should be banned completly.


Just because people COULD get married to members of their own gender, doesn't mean they WOULD....

I'm curious as to what goes on inside some people's heads? Why do YOU think legalising gay marriage would make us ALL gay AND married?

I didn't say it was a bad thing.

I'm not married.

It would affect marriages in general by changing what the point of marriage is.






You are quite correct, those examples show redefinitions of marriage. But those changes are more like superficial changes, groundbreaking and important as they are. Gay marriages would change the essential nature of marriage.

How so? I find that marriage isn't being redefined at all. Straight people have redefined marriage to such a degree that it no longer makes sense to deny the right to gay people.

It used to be about procreation and combining estates. Now people enter willingly into marriages with people who are poor, barren, or uninterested in having children all the time. Many straight spouses adopt despite the fact that they are able to have biological children. Why? Love. Free will. And, well, if someone wants to claim that those things don't apply to gays, I have nothing to say to that person.

So just how does the nature of marriage change here? It's straight people that changed it, not activist judges.

Just because people COULD get married to members of their own gender, doesn't mean they WOULD....

I'm curious as to what goes on inside some people's heads? Why do YOU think legalising gay marriage would make us ALL gay AND married?

I think it's the only reason he can come up with.

"Eep! Um... an argument against gay marriage... let's seee... um... icky? no... people won't buy that... er... I know! I'll tell them we'll all die when we allow it! No-one wants to die, I can't lose!"

And since it can't be posted enough:
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-03-04.gif

And since it can't be posted enough:
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW03-03-04.gif

He he. I love those comics. I'm especially fond of the one where Bush plans to destroy the moon - for America's safety.
"Sir, that will have drastic negative effects on our tidal system and other world-wide systems!"
"Shut up, stupid moon-lover!"

Anything I would have to say on this topic would already have been said by nice, kind, unselfish and intelligent liberals and leftists.

so all i have to say is this:

conservatives scare and often disgust me.

jeez...
why don't we legalize 'em for a month, see what happens, and go from there, so everyone can get proven wrong by their own assholes?
as fer me, gay marriages mean that some of my friends get married, but whatever. if that floats their boats, so be it.

Would you care to explain how the majority defining the civil rights of the minority does not equate to the majority running "rough-shod" over the minority?

Suppose that I was part of the majority and we decided that you did not have the right to your left testicle (or breast). In your view, it would be just fine if we just ran in and chopped it off, since the decision would have been made by the majority.

I'm not saying it would be "just fine."

I previously stated that the majority defines civil rights. To further clarify my statement I will say that the majority within a society determines the operating structure and the laws for that entire society, including what is held to be accepted under the heading of "rights," whether that be human rights or civil rights.

My statement that the majority should not run rough-shod over the minority implies that the ruling class typically has an obligation to maintain a level of fairness for all citizens.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the German Government, under the leadership of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, killed approimately 6,000,000 members of the minority, including Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, among others. If the majority, the Nazis, who were responsible for determining the laws, executed these people within the bounds of their own policies, then this event, which we call "The Holocaust," was a legal, albeit, immoral event. The leadership of the NSDAP was not influenced by the outside pressure of subjective morality.

There is the law. It is created by the ruling class. There is morality, that is subjective, and its application is unique for every human being on Earth.

The acts of the majority may not be in accordance to a subjective ruling of what is "right or wrong," but within that society, that's the law.

So, in your example, when you come to remove my testicle I will resist, but the Government, if acting in accordance within its own laws, has the right to take it.

I didn't really write anything in an accent, but a general misuse of grammar. No, people who do not use proper grammar are not to be persecuted in any way. However, many of those who would espouse such a view, are rather uneducated and I was basically repeating something I had heard before.

I meant no disrespect by it really.

C'mon Dem, don't disappoint me. You're supposed to be the "good guy," here, and I'm supposed to be the prejudiced, jack-booted Jesus-Nazi thug in this thread.

I don't know how I can be a "bitter persecuted person" when I am, pretty much by definition, a member of the majority in this country. The only thing I don't have going for me is that I am not male. Other than that, I pretty much meet the white, middle class, WASP type descriptions that define the majority.

And I do not feel that I am superior to the vast majority of the population. More educated? Probably. But not superior. I am sure there are any number of things that I am irrational about and there are those who I have an unfounded bad reaction to - but I at least try to recognize these things in myself and do what I can to get rid of them.



I actually have more faith in humanity that most people I know. The difference is that my faith lies with the intrinsic goodness of the individual - mob mentality takes over when you move to the majority.

Again, study history, rights of the minority have always had to be fought for. Simply appealing to the majority only gets you one or two converts.



Angry? Of course I am. I have seen the rights of people I care about trampled on for something that they had no control over in the first place. Are you saying I do not have a reason to be angry?

THOSE AREN'T MY QUOTES!

You know, it's funny. When I think of Jesus and his message, I think of the qualities of compassion, understanding, mercy, tolerance, forgiveness and kindness. I see precious little of that from people claiming to follow that path. Instead, they talk of morality, values, forbidden things, and quote scripture to validate their intolerance. They don't seem to be paying much attention to the qualities above.

THEN, they bring up taxes, as if gay people were collecting money from them, and not paying any in themselves.

Personally, I say live and let live. It's not my job to judge anyone. If we need to, let's make it a legal issue and not a religious one. Civil ceremonies can overcome this. Let's not make it a hot-button emotional issue for the election.

That is a strange yet somehow intriguing concept I think I will put some further rtesearch on that...

I'm not saying it would be "just fine."

You are if you claim that the majority always should have the right to do whatever they want.

Meanwhile, our country has specific protections put into place so that the Nazi-type persecution you talked about cannot legally happen here. The "ruling class" has already stated that people cannot be denied equal protections under the law based on minority status. So, if all you are saying is that the law must provide for the minority - it already does. The majority wishes that it doesn't, but that doesn't really matter at this point - since it does.

Now, they can (and are) backing a Constitutional Amendment that would allow blatant discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, the framers of the Constitution were smart enough to ensure that any additions to the Constitution require, not just a majority, but an overwhelming majority in order to pass. It is highly unlikely that they will get this overwhelming majority for their cause.

C'mon Dem, don't disappoint me. You're supposed to be the "good guy," here, and I'm supposed to be the prejudiced, jack-booted Jesus-Nazi thug in this thread.

::shrug:: I'm still trying to figure out how writing something out in the vernacular in which I have heard it (having known quite a few "good ole' boys" from the South, considering that I live here and all) could be considered prejuidced and jack-booted. But I won't worry about it too much.

THOSE AREN'T MY QUOTES!

Never said they were. I was replying to Ieka (however you spell it - the person who writes everything in red).

It doesn't affect me, you, the government, or anyone if homosexuals get married. I support homosexual marraige 100%. If two people are in love, then who cares if he/she gets married? It doesn't affect anyone.

He he. I love those comics. I'm especially fond of the one where Bush plans to destroy the moon - for America's safety.
"Sir, that will have drastic negative effects on our tidal system and other world-wide systems!"
"Shut up, stupid moon-lover!"
LOL!

"If we allow Gays to marrry next thing you know people will want to marry children, brothers and sisters, and farm aninmals."

The above statement is a logical fallacy known as the slippery slope!

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

There is no logical argument against gay marriages. PERIOD.

Here's how it would affect people personally: Legalizing gay marriage would pretty much require that insurance companies cover a whole slew of people that many of them currently don't cover. It would give long-time partners the right to make decisions about the medical care of the other. Rather than have them consigned to the realm of "friend of the patient," they'd be considered next of kin. Those inheriting property from their deceased partners would no longer have to pay a gift tax on it. While there are a lot of ethical and personal reasons that both sides feel the way they do, those are some of the major practical outcomes of legal gay marriage.

Personally, I find the prospect of barring a whole group of people from something as basic as legal union to be abhorrent when it is based solely on individual moral opinions. There is absolutely no justification for such action by a free nation whose constitution guarantees that the government will make no establishment concerning religion. This is not a theocrisy, and I thank God that it isn't.

Anything I would have to say on this topic would already have been said by nice, kind, unselfish and intelligent liberals and leftists.

so all i have to say is this:

conservatives scare and often disgust me.

I have to reply to this.
[Begin slightly off-topic rant] What kind of conservative are you talking about? And what kind of liberals and leftists? Are you implying that all leftists are nice, kind, unselfish and intelligent, or that all conservatives are the opposite? Technically, Stalin and Lenin were leftists, and they killed vast numbers of people. I personally know people who are fiscally liberal and morally conservative, and vice versa. On some issues (the ones that most politicians won't touch with a 10-foot pole), there is no way to define your position as purely liberal or conservative. There are lots of times when both sides have scared and disgusted me, and overall, if someone defines themselves as anything but "moderately [insert useless political word here]," little red flags go up in my mind. [End rant]

How? I just have enough respect for Christians to look at their holy text. That's a damn sight more than evangelists do, it seems.

Thank you for your respect. I, for one, will return it. As for Fuglies, he or she seems just as bigoted as those he's criticizing.
As for the whole surrogate mother thing, in those cases, it's pretty clear that it wasn't A-Ok, especially considering that the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Isaac ended up fighting each other numerous times throughout the Old Testament. I get your point, though. Besides, you were arguing on the terms of an argument that was itself ridiculous.

Precisely.

You know how you fix this problem? Stop marrying people. Let people enter into contracts that allow them all the legal rights of marriage, and then, if they want, they can go to their church or synagogue or temple or mosque or whatever and have the union sacntified as a marriage.

Bam. Problem solved.

So far as I can tell, that's basically how it works right now, except that we deny homosexuals the right to do it. It's only politicians and extremists who get all worked up over the word marriage. The marriage license is a contract, nothing more. People have the right to invest in it whatever spiritual, religious, moral, or emotional meaning they want. What they don't have a right to do, according to the Constitution as it's currently written, is deny some other bunch of consenting adults the ability to sign the same contract.

Think "Taliban".

And this is why the invocation of the "benign tyrannical minority" (the non-gutless ones that could muster the force) is the ultimate and necessary "safety-valve" for society.

Actually, the Taliban government was one of those tyrannical minorities. They ruled by force, not by majority consent.

Wouldn't have any effect on me at all. There are mixed religion marriages, mixed racial marriages, mixed class marriages. I can't see how allowing gays to marry would make that big of a difference at all. Bush is just trying to create a wedge issue to get his rabid right wing Christians to vote for him.

If they succeed, a marriage ban will eventually effect me, since fascists start their attacks on one group, then expand it to other groups.

First they started with the gays, then atheists, then the non-Christians, then the non-Apocalyptic Christians, and so on.

So, gay marriage won't effect me, but if Bush is successful with his plans, then eventually the loss of freedoms will effect me, and all Americans. The US is supposed to be the "Land of the Free" right? Of was that just a corporate marketing slogan?

While I absolutely agree with you, doesn't this fall under the category of "slippery slope fallacy"? And, don't forget, this does set a precedent that can come back and bite the ultra-right-wing Christians in the butt as well. The potential retaliation by a subsequent leading group is just as frightening a prospect as the other discriminations of the current leading group.

conservatives scare and often disgust me.

They sure as heck don't scare me but they do disgust me.
:headbang:

Do you not agree that if the majority always rules, minorities will be abused? The majority in most Southern states did not want to afford citizenship and freedom to slaves, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. The majority then did not want to recognize said citizens as equal, but this was forced upon them by a powerful minority. Most men did not want to allow women to vote, but it was forced upon them.

Often, societal change can only happen if it is forced upon the majority, as the majority often cannot see the injustices they are perpetrating.

I think your use of the word "force" is a bit confusing. Coersion would probably be a better word. Certainly, during the Civil War, there was a measure of force exerted, but most of the societal changes this country has seen have not been the product of violent upheaval, which is what usually comes to mind with the word "force." Our government has a system of checks and balances, which usually serve to temper the extremes of both the majority and minority opinions. Constitutional amendments must be ratified by an overwhelming majority. How this majority comes to the decision of ratifying or not ratifying an amendment is a process of opinion and coersion, e.g., your gay neighbor refusing to mow his lawn until he gets the right to marry or convincing you by argument, not force, e.g., your gay neighbor with a gun to your head at the polls.

Thank you for your respect. I, for one, will return it. As for Fuglies, he or she seems just as bigoted as those he's criticizing.
As for the whole surrogate mother thing, in those cases, it's pretty clear that it wasn't A-Ok, especially considering that the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Isaac ended up fighting each other numerous times throughout the Old Testament. I get your point, though. Besides, you were arguing on the terms of an argument that was itself ridiculous.

AHEM! I am still here!


big·ot·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-td)
adj.

Being or characteristic of a bigot: a bigoted person; an outrageously bigoted viewpoint.

bigot·ed·ly adv.

bigoted

\Big"ot*ed\, a. Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others. ``Bigoted to strife.'' --Byron.

Syn: Prejudiced; intolerant; narrow-minded.

Now if someone would explain to me how refusing to argue from a heavily biased position based in religiosity is bigoted while doing so is not?

Here's how it would affect people personally: Legalizing gay marriage would pretty much require that insurance companies cover a whole slew of people that many of them currently don't cover.
So what of it? Most Gay couples will not have children. So were is this whole slew of people that you speak of? Gays are a very small percentage of the population.
Insurance is a service. Who are we to say what married couples are and what married couples are not entitled to such benifits? Gay married couples would meet the requirements for these benifits. Why dont we disallow a black man to marry a white woman for the same reasons? That would ensure even fewer couples getting these special benifits that insurance companies have to offer.
The insurance companies could ony give special breaks to couples with children if they wanted to eventually.
It would give long-time partners the right to make decisions about the medical care of the other. Rather than have them consigned to the realm of "friend of the patient," they'd be considered next of kin. Those inheriting property from their deceased partners would no longer have to pay a gift tax on it. These are all factors that effect married couples? yes? What is your point? Let the couple decide the pros and cons of marriage. Gays and Lesbians are adults and should be allowed to weigh the pros and cons. They are tax payers and should get the same benifits any other couple are entiteled to. These things you speak of tell us what is involved with marriage. It makes no argument against Gay marriage.

While there are a lot of ethical and personal reasons that both sides feel the way they do, those are some of the major practical outcomes of legal gay marriage.
Going by this logic we could find reasons to bar immigrants from marriage as well as interracial couples from getting married. This argument could justify any couple from being allowed to marry.

If these things worry you then it would only be logical and fair to take it up with the insurance companies. Insurance companies could if they wanted only give special breaks to married couples with children.

As for the rest of your pathetic excuses you are only telling us what goes with being married. Not how gay marriage itself would effect others. Mariage by itself can effect others. Poor excuse. Why don't you just admit that your traditions pervert your ability to reason in cases that contradict your religion. Christianity must do a better job of teaching people to question thier own traditions as well as teaching them how to respect others. Thank God for liberal Christians as they know how to respect if not love others.

If this is the best you can do why don't you just admit that you are a biggot? ;)

http://www.psiguy.com/humor/images/marriage.jpg

So what of it? Most Gay couples will not have children. So were is this whole slew of people that you speak of? Gays are a very small percentage of the population.
Insurance is a service. Who are we to say what married couples are and what married couples are not entitled to such benifits? Gay married couples would meet the requirements for these benifits. Why dont we disallow a black man to marry a white woman for the same reasons? That would ensure even fewer couples getting these special benifits that insurance companies have to offer.
The insurance companies could ony give special breaks to couples with children if they wanted to eventually.
These are all factors that effect married couples? yes? What is your point? Let the couple decide the pros and cons of marriage. Gays and Lesbians are adults and should be allowed to weigh the pros and cons. They are tax payers and should get the same benifits any other couple are entiteled to. These things you speak of tell us what is involved with marriage. It makes no argument against Gay marriage.


Going by this logic we could find reasons to bar immigrants from marriage as well as interracial couples from getting married. This argument could justify any couple from being allowed to marry.

If these things worry you then it would only be logical and fair to take it up with the insurance companies. Insurance companies could if they wanted only give special breaks to married couples with children.

As for the rest of your pathetic excuses you are only telling us what goes with being married. Not how gay marriage itself would effect others. Mariage by itself can effect others. Poor excuse. Why don't you just admit that your traditions pervert your ability to reason in cases that contradict your religion. Christianity must do a better job of teaching people to question thier own traditions as well as teaching them how to respect others. Thank God for liberal Christians as they know how to respect if not love others.

If this is the best you can do why don't you just admit that you are a biggot? ;)

Um, good job not reading my post at all. If you'd bothered, you would have noticed that I consider all of those practical effects to be good reasons to legalize gay marriage. And, where do you get off implying that no Christian, not even a "liberal" one can love others? Surely, you love people that you disagree with? Does baptismal water hold some kind of chemical that takes away my capability to do the same? I agree that the Christian church in general should do a better job of teaching its people to question and to respect. I propose that you do a better job of listening to people you disagree with rather than making assumptions about them.

Fuglies,
I think "illiberal toward the opinions of others" fits. Do I not have a right to hold or not hold the Bible in regard? Do people on a message board not have the right to quote a religious document, a historical personage, or an internet dictionary in a discussion? Your response to someone's religious viewpoint on an issue appears to be to ignore or denigrate them on the sole basis that they are religious. That leaves you ignoring or denigrating a rather large portion of the world's people. Not only do you criticize the religious, but you criticize anyone who tries to discuss religion. You don't see me shouting at all the people NOT using religion to justify their point. In fact, I've used non-religious arguments to back up my position on the issue at hand, which is, as far as I can tell, the same position you hold.

Thank you for your respect. I, for one, will return it. As for Fuglies, he or she seems just as bigoted as those he's criticizing.
As for the whole surrogate mother thing, in those cases, it's pretty clear that it wasn't A-Ok, especially considering that the sons of Ishmael and the sons of Isaac ended up fighting each other numerous times throughout the Old Testament. I get your point, though. Besides, you were arguing on the terms of an argument that was itself ridiculous.

Hey, it may be ridiculous, but these debates always go the same way, it adds some spice to try something new. It's interesting to get the experience of how it feels to have your life supported by a holy book, it's a great endorphin rush. A bit sceptical, but it explains a lot.

The thing about the brothers' sons fighting, where does this happen? There's a little unsavouriness in Genesis between the sons that I can see, at least nothing major. Remember, Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham together.

I think your use of the word "force" is a bit confusing. Coersion would probably be a better word. Certainly, during the Civil War, there was a measure of force exerted, but most of the societal changes this country has seen have not been the product of violent upheaval, which is what usually comes to mind with the word "force." Our government has a system of checks and balances, which usually serve to temper the extremes of both the majority and minority opinions. Constitutional amendments must be ratified by an overwhelming majority. How this majority comes to the decision of ratifying or not ratifying an amendment is a process of opinion and coersion, e.g., your gay neighbor refusing to mow his lawn until he gets the right to marry or convincing you by argument, not force, e.g., your gay neighbor with a gun to your head at the polls.

You are right. What I meant was that our government system has methods for "coercing" people to treat others as if they have equal rights, regardless of how they personally feel about them. Basically, the 14th Amendment is a guideline that can be used to keep the majority from denying equal protections just because they don't like the minority.

We should ban gay marriage. Marriage is between a mannad a woman, goddamn it!!

However, if this is true, I am still able to marry my mare. Or my 11-year-old-sister. As they're both chicks. And I am a guy.

We should ban gay marriage. Marriage is between a mannad a woman, goddamn it!!

However, if this is true, I am still able to marry my mare. Or my 11-year-old-sister. As they're both chicks. And I am a guy.

You're disgusting,












Standing in the way of the obvious love between that mare and your sister like that.

Hey, it may be ridiculous, but these debates always go the same way, it adds some spice to try something new. It's interesting to get the experience of how it feels to have your life supported by a holy book, it's a great endorphin rush. A bit sceptical, but it explains a lot.

The thing about the brothers' sons fighting, where does this happen? There's a little unsavouriness in Genesis between the sons that I can see, at least nothing major. Remember, Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham together.

While the brothers themselves didn't kill each other, the generally accepted (by Christians and Jews alike) interpretation of later books in the New Testament is that their great-great-grandchildren did. Ishmael's sons formed one "nation" while Isaac's formed another. It is also generally accepted, although I doubt that there's much hard evidence for it, that the sons of Ishmael became the Arabs as we know them today.

Now if someone would explain to me how refusing to argue from a heavily biased position based in religiosity is bigoted while doing so is not?

Refusing to argue from a religious position is not bigoted. Immediately lashing out at anyone who does bring up religion is.

I've been thinking, if it's so bad for a minority to cause the majority to have to adapt, especially when the majority is companies etc, would this apply to disabled people as well?
I mean, if you say "The majority should not be forced to change their viewpoints, opinion and several laws and policies to accept gay marriage", could you not as easily say "The majority should not be forced to provide for disabled people, in the form of special access to public buildings and transportation."
I mean, if a man rides around in a wheelchair, it's his choice to do so instead of staying home in bed, just like a gay man chooses to be openly gay and wish to marry, instead of staying home in bed, right?
So what is it? Are you against special access for disabled people, or is going against gays based on something besides the inconvenience?


(Note for any whiny people who like to jump to conclusions, I do not feel that disabled people (or gays for that matter) should be treated the way I mentioned in this post. Just so you know.)

I've been thinking, if it's so bad for a minority to cause the majority to have to adapt, especially when the majority is companies etc, would this apply to disabled people as well?
I mean, if you say "The majority should not be forced to change their viewpoints, opinion and several laws and policies to accept gay marriage", could you not as easily say "The majority should not be forced to provide for disabled people, in the form of special access to public buildings and transportation."
I mean, if a man rides around in a wheelchair, it's his choice to do so instead of staying home in bed, just like a gay man chooses to be openly gay and wish to marry, instead of staying home in bed, right?
So what is it? Are you against special access for disabled people, or is going against gays based on something besides the inconvenience?


(Note for any whiny people who like to jump to conclusions, I do not feel that disabled people (or gays for that matter) should be treated the way I mentioned in this post. Just so you know.)

I wish the situation were that rational.

As far as I can tell, those who are Pro-Gay-Marriage are that way because they believe in equality of human rights.

As far as I can tell, those who are Anti-Gay-Marriage are that way because they think it's kind of 'yukky'.

Fuglies,
I think "illiberal toward the opinions of others" fits. Do I not have a right to hold or not hold the Bible in regard? Do people on a message board not have the right to quote a religious document, a historical personage, or an internet dictionary in a discussion? Your response to someone's religious viewpoint on an issue appears to be to ignore or denigrate them on the sole basis that they are religious. That leaves you ignoring or denigrating a rather large portion of the world's people. Not only do you criticize the religious, but you criticize anyone who tries to discuss religion. You don't see me shouting at all the people NOT using religion to justify their point. In fact, I've used non-religious arguments to back up my position on the issue at hand, which is, as far as I can tell, the same position you hold.

For me to be 'illiberal' towards your opinion (religion) must mean the basis of it is the be all end all absolute authority on the matter. Well, guess what? It isn't and this matter is about individual civil rights and IMHO religion really has no place in it. Not everyone is Christian or Muslim or whathaveyou in fact many people don't have such beliefs at all.

I'm not even familiar with your opinion on this issue and my original remark to Homocracy was to not argue from a point where there exists a fatal bias based neither in fact or reason but obscure contextual lore backed up by beliefs in the supernatural. It's like arguing the existence of God. It is tedious, fruitless, and purely subjective.

I don't recall denigrating anyone for their religious beliefs in this thread. My point was to ignore it unless those are your beliefs or wish to discuss those beliefs on their own. And lastly, I don't recall gay rights groups flicking quite the amount of shit at Christians as religious groups and individuals hurl at homosexuals. It's truly astounding and sickening too, and you should consider exactly who is slandering who in the bigger picture.

Refusing to argue from a religious position is not bigoted. Immediately lashing out at anyone who does bring up religion is.


Yeahup, though where did I "lash out"?

Um, good job not reading my post at all. If you'd bothered, you would have noticed that I consider all of those practical effects to be good reasons to legalize gay marriage. And, where do you get off implying that no Christian, not even a "liberal" one can love others? Surely, you love people that you disagree with? Does baptismal water hold some kind of chemical that takes away my capability to do the same? I agree that the Christian church in general should do a better job of teaching its people to question and to respect. I propose that you do a better job of listening to people you disagree with rather than making assumptions about them.
I know that some people do not want Gay couples to have the benefits that you mentioned. They do not want Gay couples to have tax breaks.
They fear that more couples getting married might raise the insurance rates as more spouses will have coverage and feel that they should not have to pay higher rates because of "obominations" to the lord having the right to marry. They want to make laws based on thier morals. They want a theocracy.
What I did was bad but I wanted to make a point even if it meant messing with your post. I have done the same to atheists that post to get attention to the points. In this case it can not be shown that gay marriage will have a major impact on non-biggoted heterosexuals. At least I only left out the relevant part of your post instead of altering it altogether. I have done that before. hehe.

Originally Posted by Neutered Sputniks
So, would you like me to edit my original post to include that distinction? I think everyone actually partaking in this discussion could readily determine what you posted above.


And, DeFuny, please, dont mess with my posts, ok? Ask anyone around here, I've no sense of humor, and you wouldnt want to upset me.



Quite right . I sincerely apologise. You have every right to be angry.
I am very childish. hehe. I will delete my post. and again sorry.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=348812&page=5&pp=15

I have messed with others posts to get more attention to a point that I feel is important. I am bad and am sorry. hehe. consider yourself zinged. I am sorry for being a butthead.

But It should be crystal clear that Gay marriage will have zero impact on heterosexuals lives. period. Also it should be crystal clear that if a person has no problem letting people do thier thing even if it goes against thier religion it does not make them a bad christian,or musslem, or what ever.

You do not try to make people behave in a way that is christian so long as they harm no one. You have made that crystal clear with even more words in replying to my erm...childishness. Sorry. Hehe.

My particulars.....
Biography:
I dont take my meds.
Location:
The planet Koloff
Interests:
Troll
Occupation:
village lunatic

I wish the situation were that rational.

As far as I can tell, those who are Pro-Gay-Marriage are that way because they believe in equality of human rights.

As far as I can tell, those who are Anti-Gay-Marriage are that way because they think it's kind of 'yukky'.

Oh Come On!

I am, at the present time, against the legalisation of homosexual marriages. Not because it is 'yukky' but because of the wider spread implications. For the same reasons i am against homosexuals in the military. And, believe it or not, my argument is human rights based.

In view of the military, staight personnal are not allowed to live in accomodation with members of the opposite sex unless they are married. This is prevent any potential fraternization between personnel. How are they supposed to enforce this from an equal rights perspective? A straight barrack, a gay barracks and isolation barracks for bisexuals?

On the marriage issue, we have look further than just marriage, and to children (for those who would be childish these would obviously be adopted) and divorce. At the current time, during a custody battle where the father and mother are both equally suitable custodians, the decision invariable falls with the mother. But in a homosexual relationship who is the mother? Would they have to define the role as part of the marriage ceremony? I think not.

In order for a law to be passed on this matter, the wider implications must be thought through and included in any law passed.

And for your information, I have no prolem with homosexuals, getting married or otherise, and i find my current stance on homosexual marriage downgraded to 'i think homosexuals are yukky' insulting.

Oh Come On!

I am, at the present time, against the legalisation of homosexual marriages. Not because it is 'yukky' but because of the wider spread implications. For the same reasons i am against homosexuals in the military. And, believe it or not, my argument is human rights based.

In view of the military, staight personnal are not allowed to live in accomodation with members of the opposite sex unless they are married. This is prevent any potential fraternization between personnel. How are they supposed to enforce this from an equal rights perspective? A straight barrack, a gay barracks and isolation barracks for bisexuals?

On the marriage issue, we have look further than just marriage, and to children (for those who would be childish these would obviously be adopted) and divorce. At the current time, during a custody battle where the father and mother are both equally suitable custodians, the decision invariable falls with the mother. But in a homosexual relationship who is the mother? Would they have to define the role as part of the marriage ceremony? I think not.

In order for a law to be passed on this matter, the wider implications must be thought through and included in any law passed.

And for your information, I have no prolem with homosexuals, getting married or otherise, and i find my current stance on homosexual marriage downgraded to 'i think homosexuals are yukky' insulting.

1) cannot comment on the military thing; I know little about that situation. However...what exactly would be the problems of having someone who's gay in there? I mean, if he hits on you, you say "no thanks."

..........

I really can't think of anything else he could do.

2) I think it's a mistake to immidiatly send the kids with the mother in the first place. It should be a decision based one 1) who the kids want, and 2) who is best situated for taking care of them.

Oh Come On!

I am, at the present time, against the legalisation of homosexual marriages. Not because it is 'yukky' but because of the wider spread implications. For the same reasons i am against homosexuals in the military. And, believe it or not, my argument is human rights based.

In view of the military, staight personnal are not allowed to live in accomodation with members of the opposite sex unless they are married. This is prevent any potential fraternization between personnel. How are they supposed to enforce this from an equal rights perspective? A straight barrack, a gay barracks and isolation barracks for bisexuals?

On the marriage issue, we have look further than just marriage, and to children (for those who would be childish these would obviously be adopted) and divorce. At the current time, during a custody battle where the father and mother are both equally suitable custodians, the decision invariable falls with the mother. But in a homosexual relationship who is the mother? Would they have to define the role as part of the marriage ceremony? I think not.

In order for a law to be passed on this matter, the wider implications must be thought through and included in any law passed.

And for your information, I have no prolem with homosexuals, getting married or otherise, and i find my current stance on homosexual marriage downgraded to 'i think homosexuals are yukky' insulting.

I don't see why you should be offended... you have basically stated a Pro-Gay-Marriage stance, but with provisos. You said the wider implications should be considered first, which basically means that, once those implications are sorted, you would theoretically have no further objection, right?

And, surely the issue of who is the 'mother' to a child in a gay couple, would be addressed by which one went outside the couple to conceive the child, or would be tabled at the point that the child was adopted, in the case of adoption?

Regarding the army... the army is a world on it's own, it doesn't operate on the same footing as the rest of society... but "Don't ask, don't tell" seems to be fairly successful. If you want a more permanent solution, why not divide accomodation based on sexuality? Men and Gay Women in one area (where they can't 'access' the 'straight female population' and Women and Gay Men in the other area? Or is the army not confident enough of it's soldiers abilities to not 'interfere with' each other under those circumstances?

I have a question that I haven't ever heard answered. What possible effects would allowing homosexual marriages affect you personally? What other reason could there possibly be to outlaw homosexual marriages?

Fuck knows!

It had probably boiled down to "youz difirent, so youz bad!!!!"

I'd like to share a story that you should have heard if you'd taken a U.S. Gov't class in college. It is somewhat long, please excuse me.

See, a long time ago (not really in the overall span of history) in a land not so far away there was this guy named Alexander Hamilton. You may have heard of him. He's a well known author of such best sellers as "The Constitution of the United States". Well, around the same time he wrote a gripping newspaper series called "The Federalist Papers" in which he tried to explain why his other work (The Constitution) was so nifty and worth the time.

Well, these Federalist Papers talked about how this Constition thing was trying to set up a whole new system of government that would try to limit tyranny. Early on (Federalist 10) he talks about the source of pretty much all tyranny. These little things he calls "factions" that cause tyranny when they have power.

So what are factions and what do they have to do with this new government system? Well, if I had to define them, it's essentially any group with a shared opinion and agenda. Why do they cause tyranny when they have power? Because people are ruled by passions more than reason, and when a faction gains power they just want to do what is best by them.

So what does this have to do with this new government? Well, we were talking about starting a Democracy... or maybe a Republic... or maybe they mean the same thing. Either way, what it means is that power rests in the hands of the people.

So why is this important with factions? Well, in a democracy, if you get a majority faction and they go unchecked they have free reign to impose their will on the minority. And chances are, they really don't know what's best for the minority, or they don't want to reason through what would be, they just want to go with their gut feeling.

What does this have to do with the argument going on? Everything. In this case, we have a majority faction (socially conservative people, primarily Christians) who wants to impose their will on a minority faction (homosexuals). Now, we do have people using "enlightened reason" (as Hamilton would say). Often these are people who have close relationships with homosexuals. People like... Dick Cheney, vice president of the United States who, as frighteningly conservative as he is, has a homosexual daughter and realizes these people aren't as bad as those without dealings with them believe.

So, before you go off on a righteous crusade against these evil godless deviants and feel justified in it because socially conservative people are the majority so, hey, we should be able to do what we want since this is a democracy (which it technically isn't), you should stop and read a bit about the basis for the country you live in. Perhaps it will inspire you to act with enlightened reason. But then, Hamilton would still expect you to just base your decisions off of your passions, feelings, and whims. I wouldn't expect you to do any differently. Thankfully, that is what the Supreme Court is for.


As for who homosexual marriage *really* effects, it is homosexuals and those directly dealing with them on an intimate level. So, their family, friends, and *potential* family. When I say *potential* I refer to children. Now, despite marvelous medical advancements, I think it is safe to say that at least *half* of homosexual couples will be unable to have children of their own. Chances are, some of them will still want to raise children. This means, they will adopt.

Now, I know you are going to argue "it takes a mother and father to properly raise a child!" First off, you're wrong. There are plenty of children who have been properly raised by single mothers and even single fathers. And plenty of children IMproperly raised with both.

Suffice it to say, I would think that having two parents, even if they are the same sex, would be superior to having only one (more time recieving love and supervision).

Now consider this really important part. You may feel that homosexual parents would be bad for a child. I think you're foolish, but, oh well. As bad as you may believe them to be, consider the alternative: the foster system. Undoubtedly this is a shittier place to be than even this parenting you believe is bad. Oh, and the jails they would also wind up in are even worse. This also costs you money since you have to pay for these: jails, foster system, social workers, stolen property, police, drug rehabilitation... you get the picture.

And isn't saving money what true conservatism is all about?

The idea of marraige as religious insitiution only addresses the adoption of marraige by religion. Marriage, in its origins, established a regular set of accepted rules to establish and extend family to allow for the orderly transfer of property after ones death.

Although much later than the the origins of marriage, it was the primary way of tranfering property and order of succession in the monarchies of Europe during the Middle Ages and before. Marriage did not include any religious connotation until the 9th century.

This should debunk any arguments that homosexual marriage would delife the religious insitiution of marriage.

Personally, homosexual marraige has no direct effect upon me or my lifesyle. And, it seems to me that the only people that are opposed to homosexual marriage are the same people that are opposed to homosexualatilty in general because, as states in a previous post, "it's yuckky."

So if gay marriage being banned because of the religious argument?
If so, why don't a bunch of people get together and modify the religion to their owns menas. In other words, make a new religion. Then there could be no argument

I've been thinking, if it's so bad for a minority to cause the majority to have to adapt, especially when the majority is companies etc, would this apply to disabled people as well?
I mean, if you say "The majority should not be forced to change their viewpoints, opinion and several laws and policies to accept gay marriage", could you not as easily say "The majority should not be forced to provide for disabled people, in the form of special access to public buildings and transportation."
I mean, if a man rides around in a wheelchair, it's his choice to do so instead of staying home in bed, just like a gay man chooses to be openly gay and wish to marry, instead of staying home in bed, right?
So what is it? Are you against special access for disabled people, or is going against gays based on something besides the inconvenience?


(Note for any whiny people who like to jump to conclusions, I do not feel that disabled people (or gays for that matter) should be treated the way I mentioned in this post. Just so you know.)

Okay, I'll bite.

The comparisons of homosexuality to physical handicap, as well as comparisons of gay rights and racial equality are apples and oranges.

That said, to keep my Devil's Advocacy consistent, yes, the private sector should not have to provide for the disabled.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING AN IDEA THAT THE HANDICAPPED ARE NOT DESERVING OF COMPASSION OR ASSITANCE!!

I am saying, in an open society, where the will of the majority dictates the policies, if the majority chooses to ignore the needs of less fortunate, then that is legal.

One would hope that common decency would prevail, and the majority would willingly elect to provide, but they must not be FORCED to. Force does not encourage empathy, in fact, it stifles it and creates resentment.

Okay, I'll bite.

The comparisons of homosexuality to physical handicap, as well as comparisons of gay rights and racial equality are apples and oranges.

Why? What's so special about homosexuality?

Okay, I'll bite.

The comparisons of homosexuality to physical handicap,

You're right, there is no comparison here.

as well as comparisons of gay rights and racial equality are apples and oranges.

You are wrong. They are both inherent traits of a person for which many have been mistreated and looked down upon.

That said, to keep my Devil's Advocacy consistent, yes, the private sector should not have to provide for the disabled.

And they do not. Private entities do not have to put up ramps or have elevators unless they already have a person who is working there that is handicapped. From what I have seen, this means that such private entities lose business, as handicapped people avoid going there.

However, handicapped individuals pay taxes. So, *public* workplaces and *public* entities do have to provide ramps, elevators, etc. And anyone receiving govnernment funds for their private company has to be an equal opportunity employer.

I am saying, in an open society, where the will of the majority dictates the policies, if the majority chooses to ignore the needs of less fortunate, then that is legal.

And this is the reason that we have a government system in which the will of the majority is no absolute.

One would hope that common decency would prevail, and the majority would willingly elect to provide, but they must not be FORCED to. Force does not encourage empathy, in fact, it stifles it and creates resentment.

This only works if you say that the minority does not have to pay any taxes or provide the majority with anything at all. Otherwise, the majority is responsible for acknowledging the rights of the minority. If they do not, then the laws can step in and make them do so.

While the brothers themselves didn't kill each other, the generally accepted (by Christians and Jews alike) interpretation of later books in the New Testament is that their great-great-grandchildren did. Ishmael's sons formed one "nation" while Isaac's formed another. It is also generally accepted, although I doubt that there's much hard evidence for it, that the sons of Ishmael became the Arabs as we know them today.

That seems to show that people, however closely related, can find something to balkanise over and fight with each other. I don't see how how that applies to Abraham and Jacob's family structure, in any case.


As for comparing homosexuality to being physically "disabled", I don't really see that as offensive or irrelevant. In a recent issue of New Scientist(No2462, 28 August 2004), there was an interesting article on deafness, and the issue surrounding cochlear implants to "cure" deafness. Though they are viewed by the majority as disabled, many deaf people reject the idea that they have a disability that needs fixing.
There was even the case of a deaf lesbian couple in Bethesda, Maryland, USA who used IVF to conceive a deaf child. Now, the two conditions, homosexuality and deafness, may not be directly comparable in any way, but they are conditions that are prominent in one's identity and profoundly changes a person's experience of the world.
The article ends with the interesting quote "Had [gene therapy] emerged in the 1950s, there would have been immense social pressure to use this technology to remove homosexuality. Fifty years later, we can imagine the magnitude of the crime that would have committed in society's name."
The idea that any condition is superior to another is ridiculous, and we should try to accommodate all people who don't harm others.

For me to be 'illiberal' towards your opinion (religion) must mean the basis of it is the be all end all absolute authority on the matter. Well, guess what? It isn't and this matter is about individual civil rights and IMHO religion really has no place in it. Not everyone is Christian or Muslim or whathaveyou in fact many people don't have such beliefs at all.

I'm not even familiar with your opinion on this issue and my original remark to Homocracy was to not argue from a point where there exists a fatal bias based neither in fact or reason but obscure contextual lore backed up by beliefs in the supernatural. It's like arguing the existence of God. It is tedious, fruitless, and purely subjective.

I don't recall denigrating anyone for their religious beliefs in this thread. My point was to ignore it unless those are your beliefs or wish to discuss those beliefs on their own. And lastly, I don't recall gay rights groups flicking quite the amount of shit at Christians as religious groups and individuals hurl at homosexuals. It's truly astounding and sickening too, and you should consider exactly who is slandering who in the bigger picture.

I'm sorry for being so concerned about appearing "right" or "liberal" or "moderate" that I got offended and stereotyped your perspective. Sincerely, I'm sorry. Lately, I've realized that I'm growing tired of being offended at the way people may or may not be stereotyping me. It only gets me into petty arguments, which are always counterproductive to the work of Christ.
To address your comments about rationality, etc., many in the secular and religious worlds have begun to doubt that rational objectivity is the only approach to life. Believe it or not, this kind of thinking is probably going to hack off a lot more people inside the church than outside it. Anyway, I don't want to "argue" much of anything, certainly not the existence of God. Conversations seem much more useful to me today.
I honestly hope that the proposed marriage amendment does not pass. I also hope that you have a good day and that you can find a way to look past the self-aggrandizement and prideful selfishness of the modern church and see the people inside it who are really just trying to do what they think is right, however misguided.

I know that some people do not want Gay couples to have the benefits that you mentioned. They do not want Gay couples to have tax breaks.
They fear that more couples getting married might raise the insurance rates as more spouses will have coverage and feel that they should not have to pay higher rates because of "obominations" to the lord having the right to marry. They want to make laws based on thier morals. They want a theocracy.
What I did was bad but I wanted to make a point even if it meant messing with your post. I have done the same to atheists that post to get attention to the points. In this case it can not be shown that gay marriage will have a major impact on non-biggoted heterosexuals. At least I only left out the relevant part of your post instead of altering it altogether. I have done that before. hehe.

Originally Posted by Neutered Sputniks
So, would you like me to edit my original post to include that distinction? I think everyone actually partaking in this discussion could readily determine what you posted above.


And, DeFuny, please, dont mess with my posts, ok? Ask anyone around here, I've no sense of humor, and you wouldnt want to upset me.



Quite right . I sincerely apologise. You have every right to be angry.
I am very childish. hehe. I will delete my post. and again sorry.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=348812&page=5&pp=15

I have messed with others posts to get more attention to a point that I feel is important. I am bad and am sorry. hehe. consider yourself zinged. I am sorry for being a butthead.

But It should be crystal clear that Gay marriage will have zero impact on heterosexuals lives. period. Also it should be crystal clear that if a person has no problem letting people do thier thing even if it goes against thier religion it does not make them a bad christian,or musslem, or what ever.

You do not try to make people behave in a way that is christian so long as they harm no one. You have made that crystal clear with even more words in replying to my erm...childishness. Sorry. Hehe.

My particulars.....
Biography:
I dont take my meds.
Location:
The planet Koloff
Interests:
Troll
Occupation:
village lunatic

Sorry for getting riled up about the whole thing. You made good points. Really, I wasn't showing how legal gay marriage would practically impact heterosexuals, but rather how it would affect homosexuals and basically give them the legal, secular validation that they're quite justly asking for. Believe me, I was just as childish as you were in my reply.

The sad thing about living in a Democratic Republic (which is what America actually is), is that though they say the power rests in the hands of the people, that isn't true. The power rests in the hands of people that the citizens select to hold power for them. In a true Democracy, every issue and law is voted on by every citizen. As a Democratic Republic, the American people vote Congressmen and the President into office, trusting that they will make decisions based on the interests of the people that elected them. What this boils down to is that it doesn't matter what I think, what you think, or what Mr. Jones down the street thinks. All that matters is what the politicians want, unless it comes up on a Refferendum. True, they may not serve a second term for a decision that they make, but that will not undo the damage that they cause, or the good that they do. Another person that we entrust with our power has to attempt to undo that.

If Congress and Bush really want to illegalize gay marraige, then they will do so. They may all be left unemployed when the election comes around, but they will still have illegalized gay marraige, and it will take more effort to overturn that decision than it did to make it.

I personally am a big fan of that lesser known clause of the constitution:

If the government ceases to cater to the needs of the people, then those people have the right, nay, the responsibility, to revolt against that government and establish a new one in its place.

If the government fucks up too bad, then I'm starting a commune somewhere in the Appalachian Mountains and sending Washington my own Declaration of Independance, and I trust that many of you will join me.

As for my opinion on gay marraiges, you already know that if you have read my posts. I see no reason to not allow it if you insist on having a religious ceremony have legal backing. Anyone who is economically conservative should have the same opinion, as economical conservatism is all about how to make our economy better.

The only people who are truly against gay marraige are those that are clinging to old social traditions that are being eroded day by day. It is people like that who lived in the colonies and refused to fight the British. It is people like that who wanted Rosa Parks to move. People like that say that children have no mind and know, feel, and think only what their parents tell them to until they are 19 years old. People like that sat idly by while the Inquisitions killed their neighbors.

Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean that it has to stay a tradition. Sometimes, old traditions need to be thrown out so that new traditions that suite society better can be established. Remember that the earliest form of Christianity believed that Satan inhabited the water so they refused to bathe, swim, or drink water. I'm sure most modern Christians would agree that particular tradition is better off dead. It once was a tradition to sacrifice your best cow to God every week, but that tradition is now dead. Hundreds of traditions have died to make way for new ways of life that worked better with a changing society and culture than the old ways did.

America is a nation based on change, the minority being loud and saying "I'm here!" Perhaps gay marraige is just the next step. America claims to be socially progressive, yet holds onto social mores since discarded by European nations that are supposedly "behind the times." Wake up and smell the coffee. We are behind the times, both socially and scientifically. We need to catch up.

This only works if you say that the minority does not have to pay any taxes or provide the majority with anything at all. Otherwise, the majority is responsible for acknowledging the rights of the minority. If they do not, then the laws can step in and make them do so.

Equal taxation should mean equal representation, sort of thing?

Think about it, if marriage and all the perks relating to it were restricted to Christians, why should Jews, Muslims or anyone else be expected to pay equal taxes, when these taxes are going to go to go, in part, to subsidising marriage.

The economic argument seems to have been completely overlooked by any serious entity. Are they afraid that it will look cheap, or is there prevailing doubt on the rate of gay uptake of marriage? Or is it simply because the net effect would be pretty minimal?

But then, after googling the issue, one finds this: http://www.dynamist.com/articles-speeches/opeds/gaymarriagetax.html

An increase in up to $1.3 billion, if gay marriage were legalised throughout the US. Add into that the fancy reception and such, gay marriage makes some economic sense.

Looking over that, I seem to have confused myself along the way, but basically, there's no economic argument against it that I can find, nor can surveys of top US business execs: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/mar2004/nf2004034_8234_db038.htm

So we come back to the civil rights argument(Scroll up) and the religious argument, which can be twisted by anyone with a brain and a twisted mind(See my previous few posts). That and the ickiness, but heterosexuality is way ickier: type bukkake into a Google image search.