NationStates Jolt Archive

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.

Not really, gays make up a substantial part of the population, estimated from 2% to 11%, so they're a big minority, unlike other such groups that want an admendment passed.

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.

It's been legal here for some years now, and we don't have father-daughter marriages...

Uhh...No...

Oh please, do you truly believe it would go from two consenting (non-related) adults, to people marrying their kin, and/or pets, and/or topiary? There's certain paths i don't think that it would EVER go down, yes, there may be that historical slippery slope, but i don't think it passes through Egypt, Maine ((reference to a book which has serious inbreeding and such in it))

Not really, gays make up a substantial part of the population, estimated from 2% to 11%, so they're a big minority, unlike other such groups that want an admendment passed.


Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.

I really don't think these two examples are the same. Same sex couples believe they should have the same rights as a married man and woman. They are just as commited to their relationship so why not? The father-daughter scenario is simply incest which is illegal and will remain so forever. Even if some fringe group wanted it there would be full backlash. People shudder just thinking about cousins marrying. No Woody Allen situation will become mainstream!!!!!!!

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.

Thats a tricky thing, because who can say its right or wrong, just like how can we condem father-daughter relationships? Who says that those are right or wrong? It's out of the norm, as is being gay [NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT NORMAL I'm just saying that the majority of people are heterosexual so dont jump down my throat].

Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?

.02 * 280,000,000 = 5.6 million people

plus, that's a really low number, it's probably more like 7 or 8%.

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.

*sigh* You are a Christian aren't you?

No.

Gay Marriage will not lead to marrying your sheep, dog, cat, horse, pig, pet, whatever animal.

Gay Marriage will not allow marriage between an adult and a child.

Gay marriage will not make everybody go gay.

Gay marriage will not end humanity by not having children(I love that argument as people seem to forget that 2 hetros were involved).

Gay marriage will not make the polar caps melt, asteroids start targeting earth on purpose or Volcanos expload(Hey Mt. St Helens is trying to erupt so maybe its a message from god).

Gay marriage will not make siblings and or parents marry? Do they have gay marriage laws in Kentucky? ;)

The gay marriage fight is nothing more then a red herring to rally the Christian faithful to the Republican camp and it draws attention away from the important issues of the day.

I really don't think these two examples are the same. Same sex couples believe they should have the same rights as a married man and woman. They are just as commited to their relationship so why not? The father-daughter scenario is simply incest which is illegal and will remain so forever. Even if some fringe group wanted it there would be full backlash. People shudder just thinking about cousins marrying. No Woody Allen situation will become mainstream!!!!!!!

Some people shudder at the thought of gay marriage too

Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?

If it is about 1% that means a population of at least 3 million. From the statistics I've seen it's at least 5% so it gives you some sort of an idea.

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.

we had that already before gay marriage came up. Woody Allen and his step daughter.

seriously though, there are still laws against incest. At least I hope there are.

1. Gays are still people. Sexual preference in our country is A)Irrelevant; the argument against is religiously founded, which is thus constitutionally untenable, given separation of church and state. B)As natural as heterosexuality is. What is the difference between liking a woman's breasts, or a man's dick? Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean you have the right to intervene. That's the same premise that the Bill of Rights is founded on; that freedom to do something means both doing and not being prevented from doing. Simple Harm Principle.

2. Empathy. How would you feel if "normal" heterosexuality was the minority in our country?

3. Slippery-slope fallacy. If you are going to say that this is the next step in "desanctifying" marriage, then you need to lay down the functional similarities between scenarios that prevent an "apples and oranges" comparison.

4. If you insist on using the slippery-slope logic anyway, think of this. If we ban gay marriages, who's next? Blacks? Immigrants? Democrats?

5. Marriage exists between consenting adults, which narrows the legal boundaries to persons over 18 in unforced and untainted contract with each other. Anything you hear about marrying dogs is an appeal to emotion, considering that fact gets in the way.

6. If the law were repealed, let me ask you one more question. Why should I prevent your dumb ass from ruining your life by marrying a dog, or a blow-up doll? It's your freedom, do with it what you please. Don't go crying to the government or anyone else for your fuck-up.

I don't think legalizing gay marriage would open Pandora's Box. I think denying it would be opening Pandora's Box, because by denying gay's the right to legally union with the person of their choice, the American population is condoning intolerance and prejudice against a cornerstone of its melting pot. That, I believe with all my heart and soul, should be prevented without a doubt by everyone in our country.

Isn't marriage a religious union? All religions as far as I know are against gay marriage. How can they become legal if churches are against it to begin with?

Isn't marriage a religious union? All religions as far as I know are against gay marriage. How can they become legal if churches are against it to begin with?

How can Atheists get married?

Unlike fathers who want to marry their daughters and stuff, homosexuality is natural. You know. Like all those homo-fags in the animal kingdom!

Isn't marriage a religious union? All religions as far as I know are against gay marriage. How can they become legal if churches are against it to begin with?

Um, seperation of church and state?

How can Atheists get married?

I suppose I forgot judges can marry people.

Um, seperation of church and state?

How can there be legitamacy if religion is against it? Would be funny if judges will marry them but priests won't.

Would legalizing gay marriage be like opening Pandora's box?
Only if you a dyke and she agrees. ;)

So, indoctrinated officials are more apt to make fair judgments about it than impartial civil servants? Not likely.

Also, how does marriage being the creation of religion legitimize it? Attile the Hun was the inventor of mass murder with flair, but that doesn't make it so. Existence precedes essence.

In any case, I'm a full-blown secularist. I think that the government should have marriage, but without religious ties (Essentially, Civil Unions for all instead of marriage for some). Extend all of the rights of marriage to civil unions, then disconnect marriage from the government.

Isn't marriage a religious union? All religions as far as I know are against gay marriage. How can they become legal if churches are against it to begin with?
1st question: It doesn't have to be

2nd: not all of them are.

How can there be legitamacy if religion is against it? Would be funny if judges will marry them but priests won't.
The legitimacy that homosexuals are looking for is the tax break that normal married couples get...

Countries from around the world have varying age of consent laws from 12 years old to 20 years old they can legally have sex.

Homosexuals around the world have laws passed to protect them and their rights, this is acknowledging homosexuality as a legal sexuality, therefore why not allow homosexual couples to marry?

its because of religion, although they say religion shouldnt be part of law it has been a basis on many laws.
there is no problem for the rest of the community if homosexual couples marry, all it does is provide a legal contract between the two giving certain rights, such as access to wills after their partner dies.
If someone who has a legal sexuality and loves a person and is willing to comit to a marriage, then why not make it legal ?
BECAUSE gay people are frowned upon by religion.

123 countries/states make it legal for same sex 54%
72 countries/states make it illegal for same sex 31%
32 have no laws, or is unknown. 14%

I suggest you check out these sites for more information:

Homosexual Rights (http://www.forplu.com/community/life&style/feature/homorights.htm)

EARLY MARRIAGE: WHOSE RIGHT TO CHOOSE? (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:DwmD2h2RP78C:www.crin.org/docs/resources/publications/WhoseRighttoChoose.pdf+%2Bcambodia+%2B%22age+of+consent%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)

Country Age Of Consent (http://ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm)

Family Vales (http://logicalreality.com/p2/2FamilyValues1.htm)

BTW i'm BI, i have the best of both worlds [i prefer girls more :p] and yet its stupid how this world acts towards differences..

thats my 2c

Unlike fathers who want to marry their daughters and stuff, homosexuality is natural. You know. Like all those homo-fags in the animal kingdom!

So is pedaphilia.

Back to the original question

Would legalizing gay marriage be like opening Pandora's box?

It has the potential if the courts decide.

If the legislature decide, no it won't.

Of course, the courts can't make the government issue marriage licenses, even if they deem it unconstitutional, the government can simply choose not to provide funds for them, in which case the ruling would become inconsequential.

BTW i'm BI, i have the best of both worlds [i prefer girls more :p] and yet its stupid how this world acts towards differences..


Bi Pride. I myself don't care, though I can't find guys here because the gay/bi populations is fairly low. And I agree on that intolerance to difference. But anyway, I think it should be legal. Homosexuality is perfectly natural, and legally we should have the right to marry legally. If it's against the religion to marry gays, then the religion doesn't have to marry them, but they should be able to be married by a judge.

Gay marriage would only resemble the opening of Pandora's Box in that it would ultimately lead to the emergence of hope.

The legitimacy that homosexuals are looking for is the tax break that normal married couples get...
Also to be viewed as legitimately commited. Marriage is a heavily loaded term, and none of the attached connotations can in good conscience be denied to homosexuals, not just the legal ones.

First of all i'd like to say, many of you bring up valid points to this debate.....except those taking it from a religious point of view. though i am an atheist, i believe that people have to right to believe what they want. but in saying that, those who believe in gods and what have you must also be open to others beliefs and way of life. many books about religions go on and on about respecting your fellow man/woman and whatnot, but then people these days decide only to follow that when the people are the same as themselves. marrige is no longer bound to god or buda or other that people believe on. marrige is the joining of two individuals who love one another and are wanting to commit themselves to a life together.
So in conclusion, you take rights as being a citizen in your country and benifit from all the freedom they give you. gays, lesbians and bisexuals are indeed humans aswell and are intitled to every right a straight man/woman deserves. So embrace your differences and allow other their right to be themselves in a safe and equal environment. thankyou for reading my rant

"http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm"

Logical fallicy. Try again.

I think it's very simple: let the people decide! You see, there's this thing in America called democracy. Around 70% of Americans are against gay marriage, but somehow we ended up with 9 wacky judges legislating from the bench. They INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION! It's up to the congress to pass laws, and it's up to the people to let their representatives know what they want. So really the problem isn't gays, it's that people have grown overconfident and don't worry about protecting their freedoms.

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.

All else aside, The Constitution and its Amendments garentee equality for all. That doesn't mean that straights get to be more equal than others.

I suppose I forgot judges can marry people.

dont forget to add captains at sea and star ship captains while not in stardock.

If .02%(approx. 5.6 million) of the population can get a law passed, then why can't the 14 million drug users get a law passed? and gay marriage is wrong because if God wanted men to marry he would have given them lubricated assholes. :sniper:

Homosexuality is as natural as Downs syndrome, schizophrenia, and cancer. Why do all you fools celebrate a disease?

I think it's very simple: let the people decide! You see, there's this thing in America called democracy. Around 70% of Americans are against gay marriage, but somehow we ended up with 9 wacky judges legislating from the bench. They INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION! It's up to the congress to pass laws, and it's up to the people to let their representatives know what they want. So really the problem isn't gays, it's that people have grown overconfident and don't worry about protecting their freedoms.
Numbwit, that is what a judge is supposed to do. Protect the minority against the majority.

If .02%(approx. 5.6 million) of the population can get a law passed, then why can't the 14 million drug users get a law passed? and gay marriage is wrong because if God wanted men to marry he would have given them lubricated assholes. :sniper:

drink the water in Mexico or India, you will have all the "lubrication" you need.

Be sure to change the sheets after, or not if your into that sort of thing

=TheGreatChinesePeople]
Not really, gays make up a substantial part of the population, estimated from 2% to 11%, so they're a big minority, unlike other such groups that want an admendment passed.

=Jessica Hines]Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?

:rolleyes:

Only if you a dyke and she agrees. ;)

Pretty much everyone who opposes gay marriage is either a religious zealot or a homophobe.

I would argue about all this, but that quote too god damned funny. lol

Gays are people, there relationships matter and letting them marry does not hurt society. Here in Canada we're had gay marriage for quite sometime now. It's been great, there are a lot of happy newlyweds here. Those who compare gay marrage to beastiality and incest, please, open your eyes. These are humans, and marriage is a Human right.

Gays are people, there relationships matter and letting them marry does not hurt society. Here in Canada we're had gay marriage for quite sometime now. It's been great, there are a lot of happy newlyweds here. Those who compare gay marrage to beastiality and incest, please, open your eyes. These are humans, and marriage is a Human right.

If the state just wouldn't recognize marriage as a bond between 2 people and would allow people to arrange this piece of private life in.... private... then we wouldn't have all this kind of BS.

Wanna marry with your 9 year old son? Good luck. Do so. Whatever it means for you. But don't have sex with minors. (That law can still stay and nothing really changes except that the gov doesn't recognize the status and let people deal with it themselves).

It makes much more sense, it gives every human freedom, and churches / other religions are still able to dictate whatever they want on religious followers. Its just not enforcable by the state anymore.. :)

The legitimacy that homosexuals are looking for is the tax break that normal married couples get...

Not only that. Imagine that your life partner has been estranged from his/her parents for years. Now, they end up in the hospital.

If you are married to them, you become their advocate and can decide on their course of treatment if they are not able.

If you are not married to them, relatives who perhaps have not had contact with them for years and do not respect the wishes of your loved one now have COMPLETE control over their course of treatment (if any).

Then there is the matter of inheritance -- unless there is a properly executed will, your life partner has no right to any of your belongings and they will be distributed among your blood-kin... even if there is a will, there have been cases where the family have managed to have it nullified.

I believe that civil unions should be made universal, and that secularly speaking, same gender couples should be able to commit legally and enjoy the same protections and benefits under the law as their hetero counterparts. Whether CHURCHES choose to sanctify the union is a different matter altogether.

Numbwit, that is what a judge is supposed to do. Protect the minority against the majority.

Umm, no, that's not what a judge is supposed to do, a judge is supposed to rule on strict legality/constitutionality, not allow personal views to cloud it.

The Bill of Rights was never intended as individual rights, it was intended as a document of due process, what the government can't do, not what you can do, hence why it's writer stated "But then who will define the rights of the people?" when asked to write it. It's only judicial activism that has created something unintended.

It's the point of having a representative republic which America is as opposed to a democracy which America isn't that is meant to protect the rights of the minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

It's Civil Rights Acts passed by said legislature that signify the civil rights movement, not judicial activism anyhow. If you had to be relying on the courts, you wouldn't be far out of the 50's at those first desegregation in schooling ruling.

Wanna marry with your 9 year old son? Good luck. Do so. Whatever it means for you. But don't have sex with minors. (That law can still stay and nothing really changes except that the gov doesn't recognize the status and let people deal with it themselves).

Uh, that isn't right. If you could legally marry your 9 year old son, you could legally have sex with him. That's how marriage works. Of course, gay marriage would not lead to some "slippery slope" that would allow people to marry their 9 year old sons, so there really isn't anything to worry about.

Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?
0.6% of the population of the United States has AIDS and look at all the attention they get...

4.2% of the population of the United States is Asian and they don't get discriminated against...

2% of the population of the United States is Jewish. Is that substantial?

Not only that. Imagine that your life partner has been estranged from his/her parents for years. Now, they end up in the hospital.

If you are married to them, you become their advocate and can decide on their course of treatment if they are not able.

If you are not married to them, relatives who perhaps have not had contact with them for years and do not respect the wishes of your loved one now have COMPLETE control over their course of treatment (if any).

Then there is the matter of inheritance -- unless there is a properly executed will, your life partner has no right to any of your belongings and they will be distributed among your blood-kin... even if there is a will, there have been cases where the family have managed to have it nullified.

I believe that civil unions should be made universal, and that secularly speaking, same gender couples should be able to commit legally and enjoy the same protections and benefits under the law as their hetero counterparts. Whether CHURCHES choose to sanctify the union is a different matter altogether.

You know, I didn't read this post, but when you started with "Not only that" I knew immediately I left out a whole lot of stuff. Thank you for fixing my error.

Homosexuality is as natural as Downs syndrome, schizophrenia, and cancer. Why do all you fools celebrate a disease?
Homosexuality has not been considered a disease by the American Psychiatric Association since the 1970's. It is a nonpathological lifestyle choice and your attempt to compare it with these serious diseases is offensive and sad.

Uh, that isn't right. If you could legally marry your 9 year old son, you could legally have sex with him. That's how marriage works. Of course, gay marriage would not lead to some "slippery slope" that would allow people to marry their 9 year old sons, so there really isn't anything to worry about.

If it's the courts and not the legislature that rule on it.

And uphold the 1 man and 1 woman is wrong, and that love and being old enough to decide matters, then it opens the door to polygamy or adult incest.

"Uh, that isn't right. If you could legally marry your 9 year old son, you could legally have sex with him. That's how marriage works."

Read up, the point is that you CANNOT legally marry. Because the government does not recognize the status 'marriage'. So you can walk to your boss and say: "i'm married with children" and it just doesn't matter. Because everyone is free to add weight to that status, or not.

The law that you may not have sex with children just becomes a seperate law or something. That ain't an issue.

Heck, Katganistan describes it similar as that and its actually as simple as that. Apply Kantian ethics and any sane individial sees the flaw. Its so funny, its not even worth to argue about, except that the real issue indeed is about power, money, influence as well as fear [for gay/bi-sexuality].

Homosexuality has not been considered a disease by the American Psychiatric Association since the 1970's. It is a nonpathological lifestyle choice and your attempt to compare it with these serious diseases is offensive and sad.
Of course...you don't have a PhD, so you're in no position to say it is or is not a mental disease. There were a lot of pressures put on doctors to remove it from the list of mental diseases...but just because it's not on the list doesn't mean it's not a mental disease, and by the same token, just because it's on the list, doesn't mean it is a mental disease.

Homosexuality is as natural as Downs syndrome, schizophrenia, and cancer. Why do all you fools celebrate a disease?
The three things you just compared homosexuality to aren't even similar to each other, much less homosexuality. Downs syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, which even you can't claim homosexuality is. Schizophrenia is a psychological disorder, and homosexuality was removed from that list by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973. Cancer is a disease that results from cell division malfunctions, and spreads to choke out one's vital organs. None of these things are legitimately comparable to homosexuality.

Besides, it feels good. So I'll keep on :fluffle:ing girls, if you don't mind. Or if you do, I really don't care.

The way the laws in most state constitutions are written, marriage is a union for men and women. It does not state the number of men/women or if it is between a man and a woman . This is what most gay rights advocates are focusing on, hoping that others view their interpretation of the law. Some sarcastic people have suggested that if you choose to interpret the law as such, then you could become married to a goat.

I am an MD and I can tell you now it's not a mental disease nor of pathological decent. Gay People were born gay and it is said to be due to certain hormaonal unbalances and parts of the brain being slightly larger in size than str8 people. I won't go into medical terms but I'm just making a point.

All else aside, The Constitution and its Amendments garentee equality for all. That doesn't mean that straights get to be more equal than others.



http://www.whitworth.edu/Academic/Department/PoliticsHistory/DepartmentSpotlight/StronksOpEd_JudiciaryRole.htm

I think this is a very coherent explanation....

Ok....I have a question for you people....If you all say that we anti-homosexual marriage individuals are stamping on your "RIGHT" to have a union....then what makes you think you all are any better!?!....
If a homosexual marriage amendment passes it will open up the gate way to silence churches that speak out against such atrocious acts!!! So what makes you all think your not stamping on "OUR RIGHTS" as anti-gay marriage people!?!....
Just think people.....First will come legislation allowing gay marriage, then that accursed Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act proposed in 2003 by that disgrace for a human Senator Kennedy and the other disgrace Senator Specter, will be passed....(by the way this is highly unconstitutional because it will basically silence outspoken people against gay marriage)....aaaand then will come the actual fining of churches who dont want to marry and sanction such vile unions....SO....I dont know about anyone else but THAT DOESNT sound like everyone is equal!!!....
And if you think I have nothing to back it up......I have one word for you....CANADA!!!....IT HAPPENED THERE MY FRIEND it can happen here!!!....And I can tell you...I will continue to fight against homosexual marriage until my dieing day...AND NO CURSED LIBERAL JUDGE IS GOING TO SILENCE ME BECAUSE OF IT!!!....
you people can live together...I cant change that...BUT QUIT TRYING TO PERSUADE THE REST OF US AND PUT YOUR VILE BELIEFS ON THE REST OF SOCIETY!!!...No one is harming you....I DONT BELIEVE WHAT YOUR DOING IS RIGHT....but Im not silencing you to speak your mind...BUT YOU ARE.....you people think your always the ones getting the brunt of attacks!!!.....BUT YOUR NOT....leave marriage alone and quit trying to be on the front cover of the news all the time!!!.....

Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?

10% of the population is gay. 5% are lesbian.
That's one in six people who are homosexual.

You people are so incredibly ignorant.

I am an MD and I can tell you now it's not a mental disease nor of pathological decent. Gay People were born gay and it is said to be due to certain hormaonal unbalances and parts of the brain being slightly larger in size than str8 people. I won't go into medical terms but I'm just making a point.
Would you be willing to email a scanned image of your diplomas as well as your driver's license so I can believe you? I won't go into technical terms about the Internet; I'm just making a point.

10% of the population is gay. 5% are lesbian.
That's one in six people who are homosexual.

You people are so incredibly ignorant.
What the hell?
1) There are more homosexual males than females? Surprising and impressive.

2) 15% =! 1/6

Ok....I have a question for you people....If you all say that we anti-homosexual marriage individuals are stamping on your "RIGHT" to have a union....then what makes you think you all are any better!?!....
If a homosexual marriage amendment passes it will open up the gate way to silence churches that speak out against such atrocious acts!!! So what makes you all think your not stamping on "OUR RIGHTS" as anti-gay marriage people!?!....
Just think people.....First will come legislation allowing gay marriage, then that accursed Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act proposed in 2003 by that disgrace for a human Senator Kennedy and the other disgrace Senator Specter, will be passed....(by the way this is highly unconstitutional because it will basically silence outspoken people against gay marriage)....aaaand then will come the actual fining of churches who dont want to marry and sanction such vile unions....SO....I dont know about anyone else but THAT DOESNT sound like everyone is equal!!!....
And if you think I have nothing to back it up......I have one word for you....CANADA!!!....IT HAPPENED THERE MY FRIEND it can happen here!!!....And I can tell you...I will continue to fight against homosexual marriage until my dieing day...AND NO CURSED LIBERAL JUDGE IS GOING TO SILENCE ME BECAUSE OF IT!!!....
you people can live together...I cant change that...BUT QUIT TRYING TO PERSUADE THE REST OF US AND PUT YOUR VILE BELIEFS ON THE REST OF SOCIETY!!!...No one is harming you....I DONT BELIEVE WHAT YOUR DOING IS RIGHT....but Im not silencing you to speak your mind...BUT YOU ARE.....you people think your always the ones getting the brunt of attacks!!!.....BUT YOUR NOT....leave marriage alone and quit trying to be on the front cover of the news all the time!!!.....

Aw. A deluded nazi wants his rights. You have the right to be an enraged and delusional Christian nutjob. But homosexuals have the right to benefit from marriage as much as straight people, just like they have EVERY SINGLE other right.
Or maybe we liberals overstepped our bounds when we demanded an end to slavery? Oh, I know, you're going to spout about how abolitionists represent how Christians can do intelligent and socially progressive things. Even though that might be true, it's the Christians who don't believe in depriving homosexuals of rights who make up the next generation of socially aware and sympathetic Christians... not you.
You'd probably be whining about losing your slaves, quoting passages about Japheth as some sort of "logical" (as if anything such as logic could coexist with religion) reason for your intolerence if you were around a century and a half ago.

What the hell?
1) There are more homosexual males than females? Surprising and impressive.

2) 15% =! 1/6

Ya, I don't quite understand it either. I'd like to think there was some sort of psychological reasoning behind it, but since it's purely genetic, I can't really give a valid reason for it.

And yes, I rounded up because the poll (1999, I think?), of course, only counted openly homosexual people.

I'm not going to tolerate the "it's purely genetic" argument. What kind of MD says "str8"? The fact of the matter is, I highly doubt that any real research has been done because of the pressures the LGBT community puts on.

Ok....I have a question for you people....

Ok.

If you all say that we anti-homosexual marriage individuals are stamping on your "RIGHT" to have a union....then what makes you think you all are any better!?!....

Basically we want an environment which doesn't discriminate. Your opinion, be it moral, religious, or whatever is still allowed, but at least it doesn't count as rule. Our opinion doesn't discriminate. It is anti-discrimination.

Simple. Got that? Thanks.

If a homosexual marriage amendment passes it will open up the gate way to silence churches that speak out against such atrocious acts!!!

Just like Pandora's box theory, nowhere this is proven.

So what makes you all think your not stamping on "OUR RIGHTS" as anti-gay marriage people!?!....

You still have the right to be entitled to your opinion. You have the right not to speak to a gay person, to disallow them to enter your house, to not go to a gay-only dance party. Its just really the legal status only...

Just think people.....First will come legislation allowing gay marriage, then that accursed Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act proposed in 2003 by that disgrace for a human Senator Kennedy and the other disgrace Senator Specter, will be passed....(by the way this is highly unconstitutional because it will basically silence outspoken people against gay marriage)....aaaand then will come the actual fining of churches who dont want to marry and sanction such vile unions....SO....I dont know about anyone else but THAT DOESNT sound like everyone is equal!!!....

You really have some kind of paranoia humpa bumpa in your head with a conpiracy theory like this .Where is it proven this will be the (likely) result? Nowhere. Pure xenofobia from you.

And if you think I have nothing to back it up......I have one word for you....CANADA!!!....IT HAPPENED THERE MY FRIEND it can happen here!!!....And I can tell you...I will continue to fight against homosexual marriage until my dieing day...AND NO CURSED LIBERAL JUDGE IS GOING TO SILENCE ME BECAUSE OF IT!!!....

Really? It happened there? Source please? Oh and btw i live in the Netherlands, we have gay marriage (fully, with tax cut. Some gays even marry before church) and none of your theories or the other one posted happened. No, really.

you people can live together...I cant change that...BUT QUIT TRYING TO PERSUADE THE REST OF US AND PUT YOUR VILE BELIEFS ON THE REST OF SOCIETY!!!...No one is harming you....I DONT BELIEVE WHAT YOUR DOING IS RIGHT....but Im not silencing you to speak your mind...BUT YOU ARE.....you people think your always the ones getting the brunt of attacks!!!.....BUT YOUR NOT....leave marriage alone and quit trying to be on the front cover of the news all the time!!!.....

They do get attacked because they're not equal to non-heterosexuals right now.

(Using capitals doesn't make your arguments stronger. It only shows how you're deeply emotional attached to the discussion and somehow i feel feelings are not really important in a discussion like this ;))

Or maybe we liberals overstepped our bounds when we demanded an end to slavery?

The abolition of slavery came about 100 years before you modern Liberals, and was the work of the Republican party. It was the Democrat party who argued that slavery was legitimate.

Alas I doubt many of you can see the consistency in if all human life from conception deserves to be protected becoming the property of another individual, could equate to the reasons behind the abolition of slavery.

The abolition of slavery came about 100 years before you modern Liberals, and was the work of the Republican party. It was the Democrat party who argued that slavery was legitimate.
Republican party =! Conservative.
They don't necessarily go hand in hand.

IIRC...marriage is seen more as a legal agreement in the US than as a religious one by the government. Only in populous circles it is seen as a religious institution. Of course, politicians will argue it in that manner because it stirs the pot more vigorously.

Regarding equal rights. They already exist. As a straight (and already married) male, I have no extra rights over any gay person. I cannot marry a gay man either...so what extra rights do I have? Whether I love that person is irrelevant in the context of marriage as a legal institution.

All of that being said...and me going ahead and admitting being a christian also (ducks!)...I think we may as well allow gay marriage or at least some sort of civil union agreement to be legalized (but I do not think it rises to the level of constitutionality for other reasons that were well stated elsewhere in this thread when the Bill of Rights was discussed).

The reason for this is the impact that Gay couples already have on insurance rates for large corporations. My wife works for a one and when the upper management decided to extend health benefits to gay partners (but not to straight boyfriends or girlfriends...so there may be a case here that gays actually have *extra* rights?) of employees, the carriers raised the rates due to the risks associated with the lifestyles. I assume that it was associated, but not limited, to certain STD's and AIDS that accompany the lifestyle. While I realize that this is a relatively rare occurance per capita, even so, it is exorbitatantly expensive on a case by case basis as well as the risk of discrimination lawsuits that often happen as a result of any potential mishandling of these situations.

My point being...if these insurance companies and the employing corporations are going to treat these employees and their chosen partners as spouses and convey those rights; why shouldn't our government do the same and apply some accountability to the process as well? This makes the 'hasty breakup' decision tougher and reduces over all promiscuity for the employee within the company and can potentially provide long-term savings for the company as well. It also resolves an issue that the Gay community would like to see resolved.

The gay community that I have interacted with in business locally is rather affluent and contributes well to our local economy and culture. All subcultures have their less palatable elements and they are no exception, much like Trekkies and People who hate Owls. :p Yet, Overall, I see no reason that we should not put this issue to rest. Ultimately, my insurance rates have already been raised so I can see no other damage that can be done to me. I do not see how it could hurt anyone else if two men; or two women for that matter; were to get married.

Well, I do want to take that back. When I saw the pictures of Rosie O'donell and her partner going through their ceremony...my visions of two playboy playmates being the quintessential lesbians was ruined forever. I guess its a good thing that I am getting too old for wet dreams anyway.

Ewww...now all i need to do is imagine Janet Reno heading to San Francisco with Madeline Albright. :eek:

I'm not going to tolerate the "it's purely genetic" argument. What kind of MD says "str8"? The fact of the matter is, I highly doubt that any real research has been done because of the pressures the LGBT community puts on.

No behavior is "purely genetic". The fact of the matter is there is no single 'gene' which specifically determines heterosexuality either and no, it/they have not been found or decoded. When we refer to genes in Mendelian terms (recessive/dominant) we are only considering the variable 1% of the human genome leaving out 99% of the rest forming the species "infrastructure" such as basic morphology and inate/instinctual behavior patterns such as sexuality.

No behavior is "purely genetic". The fact of the matter is there is no single 'gene' which specifically determines heterosexuality either and no, it/they have not been found or decoded. When we refer to genes in Mendelian terms (recessive/dominant) we are only considering the variable 1% of the human genome leaving out 99% of the rest forming the species "infrastructure" such as basic morphology and inate/instinctual behavior patterns such as sexuality.
I can buy into "some people are genetically more likely to be homosexual than other people," but I think that's about as specific as you can possibly state that...and even at that...it doesn't mean it's not a mental disease (not that I'm saying it is). Mental diseases can be genetic too.

Main Entry: dis·ease
Pronunciation: diz-'Ez
Function: noun
: an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors : SICKNESS, ILLNESS called also morbus; —compare HEALTH 1 —dis·eased /-'Ezd/ adjective

Since homosexuality is not an "impairment of the normal state of the living animal" I don't see how it could be classified as any sort of disease, genetic or otherwise.

10% of the population is gay. 5% are lesbian.
That's one in six people who are homosexual.

You people are so incredibly ignorant.
If by gay you mean male homosexual, then it's 10% of the male population (duhh, obviously) which is (10% 0f 50%) 5% of the total population.
If 5% of the female population are lesbian, this is (5% of 50%) 2.5% of the total population.
So total, it's 7.5% of the TOTAL population, not 15% (which isn't 1/6 incidently). Women can't be male homosexuals and men can't be Lesbians! (though I have tried to tell dykes I am a Lesbian trapped in a man's body and asked if they could help - preferably a lesbian couple - to educate me in the ways of sapphic love. No luck so far)

And you have the audacity to tell others they're ignorant!

(And I know that the male/female population ratio is more like 48/52, not 50/50, but I was trying to keep it simple for the less able minded).

I can buy into "some people are genetically more likely to be homosexual than other people," but I think that's about as specific as you can possibly state that...and even at that...it doesn't mean it's not a mental disease (not that I'm saying it is). Mental diseases can be genetic too.
to clarify: all the evidence we have so far indicatest that there is SOME genetic component to homosexuality; studies of identical twins who were reared appart show higher correlation than studies of non-indentical twins or siblings, demonstrating that the identical DNA does increase the LIKELIHOOD that they will show the same sexual orientation. however, if homosexuality were 100% genetic then you would see 100% correlation between sexual orientation of identical twins...and you don't. this effectively proves that homosexuality cannot be entirely genetic, and must have some environmental roots as well.

but you are quite correct in the fact that this entire line is irrelevant to the real debate on homosexuality. many things that humans are naturally disposed to are considered evil, or diseases, and we praise many unnatural mental states as virtues.

Would banning gay marriage open Pandora's box?

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.
They said the same thing about black people having rights.

Isn't marriage a religious union? All religions as far as I know are against gay marriage. How can they become legal if churches are against it to begin with?
Firstly marraige is a social not a religious union/institution. Secondly many religico/magico systems incorporate/incourage, require, allow, or remain neutral with regards to homosexuality.

If a homosexual marriage amendment passes it will open up the gate way to silence churches that speak out against such atrocious acts!!!
In what way would two men or two women being able to marry interfere with the freedom of speech of other individuals? The passing of one law should not be prevented on the offchance that some other law might get passed afterwards...

If we legalize it in America won't every other group use it against us to get their amendment passed? Before you know it we may have father-daughter marriages.
Yes. Every person with even average senses sees it leads to father-daughter marriages.

I'll repeat, if we ban gay marriage, what's to stop us from banning interracial marriage, or marriage outside of monetary income, or marriage with non-Americans, etc.

Stuff your "Pandora's Box"/Slippery Slope argument back up your ass.

I'll repeat, if we ban gay marriage, what's to stop us from banning interracial marriage, or marriage outside of monetary income, or marriage with non-Americans, etc.

Stuff your "Pandora's Box"/Slippery Slope argument back up your ass.

what's this banning gay marriage you speak of?

Isn't the argument of those against to leave the laws as is (or make them clearer) to prevent judicial activism ?

Homosexuals have never been able to get married, how are they changing the laws in a way to create a slippery slope?

Really if it goes to the courts, what it's probably going to come down to is gender discrimination.

Ergo, if I were a woman I could marry this man, but because I'm a man and not a woman, I can't.

here is my opinion no gay marriages shold not be legalized
because I dont believe that marriage shold be a state matter. Marriage is a bond originally performed by a religious leader to combine two people togther with hopes of creating a family and living together and so on.

If you want to marry a guy and your a guy go for it just dont expect to do it in my church.

as for legal rights lets see I believe that any two people who agree to a union male-female male-male female-female should get all the same tax and legal benefits.. however it should not be called marriage. Marriage is a churches and group perogative. and should of never been a state matter to begin with.

oh yes many consider me a right wing conservative nut but I'm not.

I'll repeat, if we ban gay marriage, what's to stop us from banning interracial marriage, or marriage outside of monetary income, or marriage with non-Americans, etc.

Stuff your "Pandora's Box"/Slippery Slope argument back up your ass.
Civil Rights Act protects minorities but not sexual identity thus the lopphole allows Bush to try to stop Homosexual Marriage. And the laws currently allow marriage with non-Americans to gain new members so that wouldn't happen.

But Marriage outside of monetary income... hmm never thought about that... does that happen often?

here is my opinion no gay marriages shold not be legalized
because I dont believe that marriage shold be a state matter. Marriage is a bond originally performed by a religious leader to combine two people togther with hopes of creating a family and living together and so on.

If you want to marry a guy and your a guy go for it just dont expect to do it in my church.

as for legal rights lets see I believe that any two people who agree to a union male-female male-male female-female should get all the same tax and legal benefits.. however it should not be called marriage. Marriage is a churches and group perogative. and should of never been a state matter to begin with.

oh yes many consider me a right wing conservative nut but I'm not.

I agree Civil Unions should be legal, but not gay marriage so same belief as Kerry.
So you are becoming more a Democratic Conservative hehe.

Gay marriages should be dealt with in the states I think. If the states want to ban them that is their choice. Givernment should stay out of amending constitution.
Once a state legalizes it and it firces itself upon another state then maybe but not till there is a reasonable threat.

i can see where legalizing gay marriage might lead to the eventual legalization of polygamy.

there would have to be significant numbers of those wanting to marry more than one person at a time willing to push the issue.

i dont have a problem with it as long as everyone involved has their full marriage rights, is an adult at the time of the wedding, and is in no way coerced into the marriage or forced to stay in it if they find it unacceptable.

i doubt there are that many people in this country who want it enough to go through what gay people and their familes are going through to work on getting gay marriage legalized.

Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?

Compared to the people who want to marry their parents? It's substantial. And the best estimates actually put homosexuals nearer to 10%. That's as large as many of the racial minorities.

Thats a tricky thing, because who can say its right or wrong, just like how can we condem father-daughter relationships? Who says that those are right or wrong? It's out of the norm, as is being gay [NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT NORMAL I'm just saying that the majority of people are heterosexual so dont jump down my throat].

There is a difference here. The reason that incest is illegal (which it wasn't for much of world history) is that children produced by incestuous relationships are far, Far, FAR more likely to have genetic disorders--serious ones. Read up on the Spanish Hapsburgs sometimes or the end of the Russian Royal Family.

Since homosexuals produce no offspring, there is not this risk.

Therefore, there is a significant public health reason for keeping incest illegal (besides the fact that most are cases of abuse/rape) while there isn't one for homosexual unions.

Isn't marriage a religious union? All religions as far as I know are against gay marriage. How can they become legal if churches are against it to begin with?

Not all religions are against them. And using the term "churches" shows that you are only considering the major christian groups (and indeed not all of them are opposed). There are Methodist ministers who perform gay marriages. The same goes for some Episcopals. There are some Jewish temples that do it too. Native American culture blesses those unions in some instances (in fact wasn't there a court case about that because we are supposed to respect their unions?). And then there are the Unitarian Univeralists who celebrate all love. Wiccans don't care either.

How can there be legitamacy if religion is against it? Would be funny if judges will marry them but priests won't.

There are couples now that judges will marry but ministers won't. Bear in mind not all of us have priets.

Religious groups have the option now of denying a marriage. Justices of the peace do not, provided that they meet the legal (note that word legal) requirements for marriage.

what's this banning gay marriage you speak of?

Isn't the argument of those against to leave the laws as is (or make them clearer) to prevent judicial activism ?

Homosexuals have never been able to get married, how are they changing the laws in a way to create a slippery slope?

The same tired arguments were used against interracial marriage.

And what's this "judicial activism"? Far as I can see, judges are simply beginning to realize that a certain law is unconstitutional, just as they realized segregation was unconstitutional.

The legitimacy that homosexuals are looking for is the tax break that normal married couples get...

It's not just a tax break. It's the right to joint custody and property. To not be able to be barred from your partner's hospital room because his family he hasn't seen in years doens't like you. There are over 800 rights granted to married couples that homosexuals cannot get. Let me assure you, tax write offs is just one of the small rights we want.

And what does it really come down to? Fair and equal treatment because we too are human beings.

I think it's very simple: let the people decide! You see, there's this thing in America called democracy. Around 70% of Americans are against gay marriage, but somehow we ended up with 9 wacky judges legislating from the bench. They INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION! It's up to the congress to pass laws, and it's up to the people to let their representatives know what they want. So really the problem isn't gays, it's that people have grown overconfident and don't worry about protecting their freedoms.

Actually, you will find that America is NOT a democracy. We are a Republic, a representational democracy at best. And the Founders and Framers put those courts in place for a reason. They are the reason we have civil rights today.

If .02%(approx. 5.6 million) of the population can get a law passed, then why can't the 14 million drug users get a law passed? and gay marriage is wrong because if God wanted men to marry he would have given them lubricated assholes. :sniper:

Did you know the anal canal is capable of producing secretions similiar to those of hte vagina?

...Gay marriage will not make the polar caps melt, asteroids start targeting earth on purpose or Volcanos expload(Hey Mt. St Helens is trying to erupt so maybe its a message from god).
hehe asteroids targeting earth on purpose.


And if you think I have nothing to back it up......I have one word for you....CANADA!!!....IT HAPPENED THERE MY FRIEND it can happen here!!!....And I can tell you...I will continue to fight against homosexual marriage until my dieing day...AND NO CURSED LIBERAL JUDGE IS GOING TO SILENCE ME BECAUSE OF IT!!!....
wait, i'm confused. what happened in Canada? we bought some submarines, we got some flu shots, a plane crashed in Halifax... none of those things are related to gay marriage. unless you can find some relation in there, i don't get why you're using canada to back up what you said. please explain

Originally Posted by Big Als Burundi

If .02%(approx. 5.6 million) of the population can get a law passed, then why can't the 14 million drug users get a law passed? and gay marriage is wrong because if God wanted men to marry he would have given them lubricated assholes.

The gay population is closer to 30 million. The drug user population is closer to 100 million (and that's just people who've tried marijuana).

Anyways, I guess you're equally disgusted by guy-on-girl anal sex...right?

You're also against blowjobs too correct?

Guys can do everything with other guys that they can do with girls.

Ok....I have a question for you people....If you all say that we anti-homosexual marriage individuals are stamping on your "RIGHT" to have a union....then what makes you think you all are any better!?!....
If a homosexual marriage amendment passes it will open up the gate way to silence churches that speak out against such atrocious acts!!! So what makes you all think your not stamping on "OUR RIGHTS" as anti-gay marriage people!?!....


Learn American Government. It will not silence churches. They will not be forced to perform gay marriages. Just like today, ministers will still be able to refuse to perform any marriage they don't want to. Hence the reason Catholic priets don't have to bless marriages outside the denomination.


Just think people.....First will come legislation allowing gay marriage, then that accursed Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act proposed in 2003 by that disgrace for a human Senator Kennedy and the other disgrace Senator Specter, will be passed....(by the way this is highly unconstitutional because it will basically silence outspoken people against gay marriage)....aaaand then will come the actual fining of churches who dont want to marry and sanction such vile unions....SO....I dont know about anyone else but THAT DOESNT sound like everyone is equal!!!....

And if you think I have nothing to back it up......I have one word for you....CANADA!!!....IT HAPPENED THERE MY FRIEND it can happen here!!!....And I can tell you...I will continue to fight against homosexual marriage until my dieing day...AND NO CURSED LIBERAL JUDGE IS GOING TO SILENCE ME BECAUSE OF IT!!!....
you people can live together...I cant change that...BUT QUIT TRYING TO PERSUADE THE REST OF US AND PUT YOUR VILE BELIEFS ON THE REST OF SOCIETY!!!...No one is harming you....I DONT BELIEVE WHAT YOUR DOING IS RIGHT....but Im not silencing you to speak your mind...BUT YOU ARE.....you people think your always the ones getting the brunt of attacks!!!.....BUT YOUR NOT....leave marriage alone and quit trying to be on the front cover of the news all the time!!!.....

I was actually gonna say more, but after reading this again, I realize there is no point in responding to a ten year old still in their concrete operational phase.

I'm not going to tolerate the "it's purely genetic" argument. What kind of MD says "str8"? The fact of the matter is, I highly doubt that any real research has been done because of the pressures the LGBT community puts on.

LOTS of research has been done. CNN ran an article on it earlier this week. It's in Medical and Psychological journals. Several gene linkages have been identified (most notably one on the X chromosomes). Most scientists believe homosexuality to be a combination of genetics, psychology, and early life experiences.

Read before you speak.

Uhm... people fail to realize that there were actually 0 studies done in the pursuit of determing whether homosexuality was a disease when it was removed from the mental disease list by the APA, who bowed to the pressure from gay groups.

not that it matters if it is a disease, should Down's syndrome sufferers not be allowed to marry eachother? What about a man with multiple wives, since polygamy is far more natural than monogamy(I suport this). I personally feel that as long as marriage is an institution of the government, that the US gov. should give gays the right to marry(I am personally very against this, but I understand unlike most people here that our government should let them marry).

here is my opinion no gay marriages shold not be legalized
because I dont believe that marriage shold be a state matter. Marriage is a bond originally performed by a religious leader to combine two people togther with hopes of creating a family and living together and so on.

If you want to marry a guy and your a guy go for it just dont expect to do it in my church.

as for legal rights lets see I believe that any two people who agree to a union male-female male-male female-female should get all the same tax and legal benefits.. however it should not be called marriage. Marriage is a churches and group perogative. and should of never been a state matter to begin with.

oh yes many consider me a right wing conservative nut but I'm not.

You've made the same point many, many gay people have made before. I myself have said it--we should only have civil unions for EVERYONE as far as the government is concerned. And don't worry, no gay person is going to try to force a church to marry them. We might ask, but you can say no and that's the end to that matter. The government won't interefere

Marriage is a bond originally performed by a religious leader to combine two people togther with hopes of creating a family and living together and so on.
Marraige has known many forms throughout human history. It often intersects with religico/magio beliefs, but so have/do other institutions. Take justice through trials. In some times and places that meant putting a red-hot poker on someone's tongue and then seeing if the tongue blistered. If it did the person was guilty. The whole point was that God would determine guilt...in short justice as a religious institution...I personally think that we currently have more effective means of administering justice, than religiously. I also think that we have more effective means of administering social institutions such as marraige, than through religious means. After all who's religico/magica system would we pick and why, and how would that not be in breach of fundamental premises such as the seperation of states and churches?

here is my opinion no gay marriages shold not be legalized
If you want to marry a guy and your a guy go for it just dont expect to do it in my church.
The law is seperate from your church. Just because your church does not care to marry two people or recognise their union, that does not mean that the law should uphold your churches preferences above those of the most effected parties.

as for legal rights lets see I believe that any two people who agree to a union male-female male-male female-female should get all the same tax and legal benefits.. however it should not be called marriage. Marriage is a churches and group perogative. and should of never been a state matter to begin with.
Marraige is generally agreed (by those who actually have bothered to find out the facts) to be ubiquitous thoughout human societies, particular forms of marraige are not. You like many others seem to be somewhat ignorant about the variety of marraige forms that have existed throughout human history. Marriage is a social institution not a religious one. The fact that marraige is often framed within religico/magico contexts is no more relevent than the fact that marraige is and often has been framed in politico/class contexts. Marraige is not inherently religious/magic anymore than it is inherently political. The fact that religico/magico practises/beliefs often intersect with marraige, is no more defining of marraige than the similar intersection between marraige and politics and social classes.

Uhm... people fail to realize that there were actually 0 studies done in the pursuit of determing whether homosexuality was a disease when it was removed from the mental disease list by the APA, who bowed to the pressure from gay groups.

not that it matters if it is a disease, should Down's syndrome sufferers not be allowed to marry eachother? What about a man with multiple wives, since polygamy is far more natural than monogamy(I suport this). I personally feel that as long as marriage is an institution of the government, that the US gov. should give gays the right to marry(I am personally very against this, but I understand unlike most people here that our government should let them marry).

The reason homosexuality was removed from the list at the APA was that they realized that the studies done whiel it was on the list were skewed. The only experience they had with homosexuals were those who HAD a mental disorder and were being treated. Since mental disorders often run in groups and if your study population already has one, its a reasonable conclusion.

In the 70s members of the APA began to realize that there was a much larger majority of the gay population WITHOUT mental disorders. And they realized that being homosexual does not hinder your life (a major criterium for mental diseases--I meet most of the criteria for OCD but it doesn't affect my life, therefore I don't actually have a disease). Hence, the reason it was realized that homosexuality was not indeed a disease but a natural variation in the population.

Some people shudder at the thought of gay marriage too
You have to wonder why. It's not like anyone is saying they have to be involved. If gay marriage turns out to be the smashing success that traditional hetero marriage is over 50% will wind up dissolved and in 99% of the cases there will be virtually no sex after the 15th anniversary.

If anything they'll have to come up with a new name. Homosexual without the sex isn't very sexual.

Gay? PUH - LEEZE!

I propose GEWGIM - Grouchy Extremely Well Groomed Indifferent Men.

Any other suggestions?

How can there be legitamacy if religion is against it? Would be funny if judges will marry them but priests won't.
Is that Cincinatti, OH, USA, Earth or a different Cincinatti?

i think i might just be crazy, but i swear there was some crazy man who married a swan. the whole point, whether i am crazy or not, is people could be wanting to marry hella lot crazier things.
and there would be absolutely no basis for marrying a swan. i must just be crazy.

The legitimacy that homosexuals are looking for is the tax break that normal married couples get...
Yep, you sure nailed it! It's all about filing a joint return!

Pun unintended.

bump

The legitimacy that homosexuals are looking for is the tax break that normal married couples get...
Yep, you sure nailed it! It's all about filing a joint return!
:rolleyes:

Pun unintended.

"http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm"

Logical fallicy. Try again.
(iii) If I make an exception for you then I have to make an exception for everyone.

This may be a logical fallacy, but it is a legal reality. Logically therefore, it is not a fallacy.

I think it's very simple: let the people decide! You see, there's this thing in America called democracy. Around 70% of Americans are against gay marriage, but somehow we ended up with 9 wacky judges legislating from the bench. They INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION! It's up to the congress to pass laws, and it's up to the people to let their representatives know what they want. So really the problem isn't gays, it's that people have grown overconfident and don't worry about protecting their freedoms.
Using that argument women, those who do not own land, blacks and other minorities shouldn't vote and segregation is a legitimate force for the good of all.

If .02%(approx. 5.6 million) of the population can get a law passed, then why can't the 14 million drug users get a law passed? and gay marriage is wrong because if God wanted men to marry he would have given them lubricated assholes. :sniper:
Speaking of lubricated assholes . . .

Homosexuality is as natural as Downs syndrome, schizophrenia, and cancer. Why do all you fools celebrate a disease?
QUESTION: What do you call someone who thinks he holds the immutable, eternal truth and all other humans must adhere to his rule?


ANSWER: The DSM-IV lists it somewhere between Mania and Schizophrenia.

Hey lookie there! My real signature!

you'd have to find comparable groups in which couples actually voluntarily want to marry.

that would rule out any minors who are legally unable to make such a decision.

It also rules out necrophilia and bestiality.

Isn't it better for you to have a stable committed relationship than to be forced (because of lack of alternatives) into a "swinging" lifestyle that will propbably end up with you dying of AIDS?

Not only that. Imagine that your life partner has been estranged from his/her parents for years. Now, they end up in the hospital.

If you are married to them, you become their advocate and can decide on their course of treatment if they are not able.

If you are not married to them, relatives who perhaps have not had contact with them for years and do not respect the wishes of your loved one now have COMPLETE control over their course of treatment (if any).

Then there is the matter of inheritance -- unless there is a properly executed will, your life partner has no right to any of your belongings and they will be distributed among your blood-kin... even if there is a will, there have been cases where the family have managed to have it nullified.

I believe that civil unions should be made universal, and that secularly speaking, same gender couples should be able to commit legally and enjoy the same protections and benefits under the law as their hetero counterparts. Whether CHURCHES choose to sanctify the union is a different matter altogether.


In short; the liberty of two consenting adults to enter into an inviolable union.

The abolition of slavery came about 100 years before you modern Liberals, and was the work of the Republican party. It was the Democrat party who argued that slavery was legitimate.

Alas I doubt many of you can see the consistency in if all human life from conception deserves to be protected becoming the property of another individual, could equate to the reasons behind the abolition of slavery.
Not a history buff I see. Read up on your American history regarding the role reversal taken by the respective parties over the years and then come back.

CLUE: Focus in on the post WWII to present.

I really don't think these two examples are the same. Same sex couples believe they should have the same rights as a married man and woman. They are just as commited to their relationship so why not? The father-daughter scenario is simply incest which is illegal and will remain so forever. Even if some fringe group wanted it there would be full backlash. People shudder just thinking about cousins marrying. No Woody Allen situation will become mainstream!!!!!!!

People used to marry their cousins all the time, what are you getting so worked up for? If i was Freud i'd say i sense a repressed sexuality here.

I agree Civil Unions should be legal, but not gay marriage so same belief as Kerry.
So you are becoming more a Democratic Conservative hehe.

Gay marriages should be dealt with in the states I think. If the states want to ban them that is their choice. Givernment should stay out of amending constitution.
Once a state legalizes it and it firces itself upon another state then maybe but not till there is a reasonable threat.
The assumption appears to be that it is either a federal matter or a states rights issue. Let's take a brief look at that assumption via the Bill of Rights..

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

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The religious arguments are not germane. Nobody is suggesting that religious groups be forced to marry gays or be prohibited from holding that it is not a sanctioned state. They are entitled to their views within their congregations. Neither The Congress or the states are allowed to make their religious views a matter of public policy.

By states involving themselves in civil unions/marriages it can be held that a public interest is served as it memorializes the union of two people into a separate legally inviolate state that grants specific rights and privlediges to that union. Since the states have established laws limiting the ability of emancipated people to enter into that union it must show just cause as to what public interest is being served by limiting the rights naturally resting on the emancipated individuals under the Tenth Amendment.

If no real public interest is served, then the states must modify or erase their exceptions to the individuals natural rights as stated above. Such a determination is within the competance of the federal courts.

This gay marriage issue is certainly a tough cookie. If gay marriage is legalised, then it's clear and obvious that we'd have to legalise things like incest, bestiality, and so forth. But I think that's a pretty small price to pay, since if we make homosexual marriage illegal, it's clear and obvious that we also have to ban heterosexual marriage, and nobody wants that.

This gay marriage issue is certainly a tough cookie. If gay marriage is legalised, then it's clear and obvious that we'd have to legalise things like incest, bestiality, and so forth. But I think that's a pretty small price to pay, since if we make homosexual marriage illegal, it's clear and obvious that we also have to ban heterosexual marriage, and nobody wants that.

I fail to see the "clear and obvious". Beastiality is not consensual, nor is pedophelia, necrophelia, or whatever else you want to dig up. If incest is consensual, I'm all for it. Same with polygamy. None of the government's business to regulate it. When consensual people decide to have sex...who are we to say they are deviant?

I fail to see the "clear and obvious". Beastiality is not consensual, nor is pedophelia, necrophelia, or whatever else you want to dig up. If incest is consensual, I'm all for it. Same with polygamy. None of the government's business to regulate it. When consensual people decide to have sex...who are we to say they are deviant?

No, no! It was satire!

Or I thought it was? Maybe I'm just very bad at satire.

No, no! It was satire!

Or I thought it was? Maybe I'm just very bad at satire.
Naw, I caught it. But maybe a groaner type smiley :rolleyes: would ensure it's being taken by those in the throes of serious and ernstwhile thought. ;)

here is my opinion no gay marriages shold not be legalized
because I dont believe that marriage shold be a state matter. Marriage is a bond originally performed by a religious leader to combine two people togther with hopes of creating a family and living together and so on.

If you want to marry a guy and your a guy go for it just dont expect to do it in my church.

as for legal rights lets see I believe that any two people who agree to a union male-female male-male female-female should get all the same tax and legal benefits.. however it should not be called marriage. Marriage is a churches and group perogative. and should of never been a state matter to begin with.

oh yes many consider me a right wing conservative nut but I'm not.

Well, I consider myself to be about as liberal as you can get without being a revolutionary (which would be really exhausting) and, for the most part, I agree, the state has no business interceding in religious affairs. In fact I'll go one better.
I think that the distinction between religious marriage and state marriage should be strengthend. Look at catholicism. If two catholics get divorced the church considers them to still be married. The government won't force the catholic church to perform another wedding for them to marry someone else, but if you hear the Church tell it "divorce=polygamy."

We should distinguish completly between civic and religious marriage. The government should let any two consenting adults enter into an agreement of mutual perpetual power of attorney and become a single financial entity. Then they can hire a judge/priest/minister/poet/captain of a ship etc. to MC a party in honor of the event. Problem solved.

Well, I consider myself to be about as liberal as you can get without being a revolutionary (which would be really exhausting) and, for the most part, I agree, the state has no business interceding in religious affairs. In fact I'll go one better.
I think that the distinction between religious marriage and state marriage should be strengthend. Look at catholicism. If two catholics get divorced the church considers them to still be married. The government won't force the catholic church to perform another wedding for them to marry someone else, but if you hear the Church tell it "divorce=polygamy."

We should distinguish completly between civic and religious marriage. The government should let any two consenting adults enter into an agreement of mutual perpetual power of attorney and become a single financial entity. Then they can hire a judge/priest/minister/poet/captain of a ship etc. to MC a party in honor of the event. Problem solved.
Rather than "let" I feel it is more a matter that the government should simply stand aside. I like your legalistic approach. A simple notary witnessing the matter is sufficient.

No, no! It was satire!

Or I thought it was? Maybe I'm just very bad at satire.

Well, I was almost certain that a few posts in here were satire, meant to mock the intelligence of the gaybashers...and then they kept arguing. :(

Your satire is good. I am tired and and it went right over me. :p


And yes...get the government out of religion!

This gay marriage issue is certainly a tough cookie. If gay marriage is legalised, then it's clear and obvious that we'd have to legalise things like incest, bestiality, and so forth. But I think that's a pretty small price to pay, since if we make homosexual marriage illegal, it's clear and obvious that we also have to ban heterosexual marriage, and nobody wants that.

Clear and obvious how? Incest should remain illegal because of the pain is causes to offspring--that's WHY its illegal though most don't remember that fact.

In bestiality there is a little issue of consent--animals cannot give it.

<EDITORIAL ADDITION>
Just read the rest of your posts on this. I too missed the satire. . .but its 5AM and I'm not really all that conscious. I'm awake enough to take on the bashers, 'phobes, and those hiding behind religion though.

Some people shudder at the thought of gay marriage too
Out of interest - why?

Clear and obvious how? Incest should remain illegal because of the pain is causes to offspring--that's WHY its illegal though most don't remember that fact.

actually, a woman past 35 has a greater chance of producing a child with birth defects than two first cousins have. incest is only dangerous when continued over generations, with no new genetic material being introduced. incest is illegal because of social taboo, and the biological reasoning has been added on top to give the illusion of modern thinking.

Since when is 2% a substantial about of the population?

2% of the population is actually quite a few people, like, 7 million I think.

just wondering, are you allowed to say no to a couple if they come to you to get married, Especially for a reason?

cause i guess its alright if gays marry, but i dont think they should make churches do it... since its against their beliefs in christian(and a fair few other religions i would wager...

just wondering, are you allowed to say no to a couple if they come to you to get married, Especially for a reason?

cause i guess its alright if gays marry, but i dont think they should make churches do it... since its against their beliefs in christian(and a fair few other religions i would wager...
any religious leader is free to turn down a couple that comes to them for a marriage ceremony. a state-employed official can do so as well, but they have more strict guidelines for showing the reasons they did so.

just so you know, there is NOBODY proposing that churches or other religious institutions be FORCED to marry gay people. this debate is about the legal rights of marrital unions, not about forcing religions to abandon their individual value systems.