NationStates Jolt Archive

Get government out of the business of defining relationships altogether. Each church can decide for itself what it wants to recognize as a marriage for its own purposes. The legal notion of "marriage", however, should be abolished; instead, people can just sign a contract like any other, with whatever terms are agreeable to all parties involved, and have it enforced like any other. Any benefits granted by marriage that cannot be taken care of under a contract either should not be granted in the first place or there is no real reason to limit them to married couples.

Get government out of the business of defining relationships altogether. Each church can decide for itself what it wants to recognize as a marriage for its own purposes. The legal notion of "marriage", however, should be abolished; instead, people can just sign a contract like any other, with whatever terms are agreeable to all parties involved, and have it enforced like any other. Any benefits granted by marriage that cannot be taken care of under a contract either should not be granted in the first place or there is no real reason to limit them to married couples.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! What prizes do we have for him?

Well, Ice Hockey Players, we have a year's supply of n00ks and a stockpile of ammo for an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon! A prize package worth $2,783,572,189,787,096,184,928,774,390.78!

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! What prizes do we have for him?

Well, Ice Hockey Players, we have a year's supply of n00ks and a stockpile of ammo for an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon! A prize package worth $2,783,572,189,787,096,184,928,774,390.78!

Am I to take this as an IC post? Because it'd really help my nation if it were :D

If i had that much money, that many n00ks, and that much ammo for an I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon, don't you think I would be threatening some puny Third World Nations with it? Besides, Ice Hockey Players is a peace-loving nation that fights wars merely for defensive purposes, and as good as our economy is, we would be stealing the vast majority of that from the United Nations trust box.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition.
And what is this "sanctity" you speak of? Keep your "sanctity" to yourself and let others decide for themselves. You have no right to decide what is right to and for others, in my opinion.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...

And then we can go back to the good old days. The golden times, back when wemen folk were our propety, right? No more of this "job" bullshit-they can stay in the house barefoot and pregnant, and LIKE it!

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....
What's wrong with three way marriages? They're all consenting.
Animals aren't granted the same rights as people.
Parents can arrange marriages, but I doubt they'd let it go to that extent.

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...
And yep, let's keep abusive husbands beating on their wives, that'll show them.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...

Ya, now that Bush has been re-elected and the whole "defend traditional marriage" thing now looks like it's going to remain part of our political reality my brother has had to schedule a trip to Dowayoland so that he can marry his table lamp. Of course it won't be valid in the rest of Camaroon, much less the United States, but it's the principle involved. He really loves that lamp. Of course, even Dowayoland doesn't practice polygamy so he can't marry both his table lamp and his endless string of BLT sandwiches, which he also loves, but some sacrifices must be made for love.

And what is this "sanctity" you speak of? Keep your "sanctity" to yourself and let others decide for themselves. You have no right to decide what is right to and for others, in my opinion.

The guy had a bit of a point, though - there needs to be some regulation. Restrict the whole aforementioned contract process to two consenting adults. As was also stated, the churches can decided what they want to recognize.

Marriage is a contract, which is why you have to go to court to get it dissloved. Marriage has always been a contract, and in the U.S. is thrid in the amount of laws and legal fees (after business and taxes).

There is a separation of church and state, supposedly, so what the church says on the matter is irrealivant. These people co-habit and pay taxes and vote just like other couples.

Therefore it is a human rights violation not to allow same sex marriages, esp since same sex adoptions are legal.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...

Yeah, minors cant sign contracts. Your saying that parents would be able to legally force them into a marriage is like saying the same parent could legally force the child into a sexual relationship. Any such contract is automatically invalid, because it requires the consent of the minor, who is not legally allowed to make such decisions.

Traditional relationship depends on where you come from, in many cultures poligamy is perfectly fine and "traditional" to boot. If three individuals wish to enter a relationship and they are all fine with it, who else should care.

If a church wishes to recognize a same sex marriage, doesnt it violate the freedom of religion, for the government to say that the relationship is illegal?

A marriage should be determined by the two(+) consenting adults getting married and the church willing to recognize that relationship.

IMHO the government should just have civil unions for tax purposes, a civil union could be declared by any couple or group who share their income for housing, utilities, etc. Everyone from married couples, to roommates could qualify.

Reason and Reality, your name is well-deserved. I had this same idea myself, and I can't see any problems with it except how to accomodate adoption laws and other family services. But I'm sure that could all be worked out if someone were to take this idea seriously.

(Oh, and your idea would have the added advantage of making divorce a litigable offense -- breach of contract, right?)

Can't we go on letting individuals decide what's sacred, without needing the supposedly seperate government to tell us?

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...
. . .and while we're at it, we'll declare Catholocism to be the official state religion of the U.S. Then we'll burn the heretics, then we'll convert others by the sword, then. . .




You get my point?

Goverment involvement is critical. America is getting out of control on stupid stuff like this. None of this stuff would fly forty-fifty years ago.

Call me old school or whatever you want, America was at it's greatest during/after WW2 till pre-Vietnam. We need to go back to that.

We have great wars coming upon us, and we won't be able to fight them effectively if we are so seperated.

Without laws controlling marriage you have... people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....


Whoo-HOO!

Right on fellow babies, right on...people marrying simulacra, too. And geographical outcroppings. Industrial equipment. Whole species of insects... individual colours, or select bands of the light spectrum, tonal frequencies...food. Mirrors. Video games. Corporations. Hey, there's an idea: A corporation could have a group marriage with its' employees, thus enabling them all for marital benefits...no, somehow that's just too weird.

How about marrying a plant? That'd be a low-maintenance relationship. And if it was an annual, a short duration one at that.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...

If the state doesn't recognize marriages, then no contracts can be signed by parents for their kids, and religious organizations can go declaring people this and that and it still doesn't mean a damn thing. Governments need to stop recognizing any marriages...period. Read my lips: No new nuptials. Legal ones, anyway.

This way, religious organizations can recognize marriages, but otherwise, people can't be discriminated against based on marital status, because there will be no such thing as marital status. This also means no legal messy divorces, which may appear to cause some problems, but any problem that this would cause can be pretty much refuted without too much trouble.

Yeah, minors cant sign contracts. Your saying that parents would be able to legally force them into a marriage is like saying the same parent could legally force the child into a sexual relationship. Any such contract is automatically invalid, because it requires the consent of the minor, who is not legally allowed to make such decisions.

Traditional relationship depends on where you come from, in many cultures poligamy is perfectly fine and "traditional" to boot. If three individuals wish to enter a relationship and they are all fine with it, who else should care.

If a church wishes to recognize a same sex marriage, doesnt it violate the freedom of religion, for the government to say that the relationship is illegal?

A marriage should be determined by the two(+) consenting adults getting married and the church willing to recognize that relationship.

IMHO the government should just have civil unions for tax purposes, a civil union could be declared by any couple or group who share their income for housing, utilities, etc. Everyone from married couples, to roommates could qualify.

My dad threw that same Idea by me no less than a week ago. It really sounds the most open and fair idea I've heard, actually.

Goverment involvement is critical. America is getting out of control on stupid stuff like this. None of this stuff would fly forty-fifty years ago.

Call me old school or whatever you want, America was at it's greatest during/after WW2 till pre-Vietnam. We need to go back to that.

We have great wars coming upon us, and we won't be able to fight them effectively if we are so seperated.

You've got a point. This country actually was at its high point when minority groups weren't allowed to vote because of their skin color, or when they had to use the less suitable services, or send their kids to schools that weren't quite up to par.

Yeah, that's America at it's greatest. :rolleyes:

If a church wishes to recognize a same sex marriage, doesnt it violate the freedom of religion, for the government to say that the relationship is illegal?


Well, if you are going by the constitution stating that we have freedom of religion you also have to be argued to the point that same sex marriage wasn't an issue back then, they assumed such a monstrouscity would never happen. Yet it has, so one would assume the writers of the constitution would also ban gay marriage.

You've got a point. This country actually was at its high point when minority groups weren't allowed to vote because of their skin color, or when they had to use the less suitable services, or send their kids to schools that weren't quite up to par.

Yeah, that's America at it's greatest. :rolleyes:

America was at it's greatest, America still had schools that were ABOVE the international average, there wasn't as many bureaucracies. Interest Groups had less power. Great Leaders were emerging from every corner. Minority groups were given full rights during this time. The nation has only declined since.

...Minority groups were given full rights during this time. The nation has only declined since.

So let's blame the minorities? I'm not trying to take this out of context, and if I am, feel free to stop me, but it seems as though you're saying that The nation has only declinced since minorities have been given rights and are treated by people.

You know what I really like about 40 years ago? The Hippy movement. If there weren't hippies, my dad wouldn't have been born, and I wouldn't be here today to laugh at this. If we really are on the decline, you should go do something about it instead of staying up all night and complaining about it to a bunch of kids playing video games.

Listen.. having the definition of marriage between a man and a woman simply said is how our society has decided to fortify our social structure.. the social structure we live on is based around the way marriage is conducted.. despite the rate of divorse.. studies still show that children in two parent homes with a mother and a father produce better adults then otherwise.. And this is not to say that a gay couple cannot be good parents.. Last I checked this nation was still built on majority rule.. the core of democracy. And in a nation whose base is vaastly religious.. you cannot expect something so radical as gay marriage to be pushed through the court system overriding the voice of the people. Personally i belive gay marriage enorsed by the government is wrong completely.. the term marriage to me is a religious one with a spiritual meaning.. by the government mixing this term with what could only otherwise be understood as a civil union (because it is a union made by the state) you damage what people understand to be marriage.. and marriage is already in a crisis as we face 50% divorce rate (primarly because of economic reasons which makes little sense.. some how a divorce solves ur economic condition..)

The solution is a simple one... marriages made in courts sanctioned by the state should be deemed civil union reguarless of sex.. and the rights given accordingly.. marriages should remain where they belong.. in the house of god (whatever that is to your religion) This way the rights gays deserve are given, and the idea of marriage which is so important to the majority of religious belivers is preserved. Why it is politicans today cannot see this solution is beyond me.

If gay marriage isnt wrong.. why is poligamy (excuse my spelling) wrong ?
if gay marriage is just about rights.. then they should be fighting for civil unions with equal rights.. the gay movement has done themeslves great harm by trying to side step the publics voice through the courts (as reflected in the elections)

So let's blame the minorities? I'm not trying to take this out of context, and if I am, feel free to stop me, but it seems as though you're saying that The nation has only declinced since minorities have been given rights and are treated by people.

You know what I really like about 40 years ago? The Hippy movement. If there weren't hippies, my dad wouldn't have been born, and I wouldn't be here today to laugh at this. If we really are on the decline, you should go do something about it instead of staying up all night and complaining about it to a bunch of kids playing video games.

No, you mixed those up. I'm not tying any connection between minorities and the decline of the nation.

I will draw a connection between the decline of the nation and the hippy movement though. Vietnam was an important war, we shouldn't have lost. Our nation was too stubborn at the time to realize it's importance in the big picture.

Goverment involvement is critical. America is getting out of control on stupid stuff like this. None of this stuff would fly forty-fifty years ago.

- There've been leaps and bounds in what or will not fly in the interim. Blame the aerospace industry. Or the orbital mind-control lasers, whichever you prefer.

Call me old school or whatever you want, America was at it's greatest during/after WW2 till pre-Vietnam. We need to go back to that.

- Ugh. Must I call you 'old school'? Really? I can think of far more effective things to call you. Well, it's a brave idea - rather than adapting to meet the challenges of the 21st century, you're advocating that an entire society should regress to some illusory 'good old days' - like 'Leave It To Beaver'... America as never was, circa 1950s. That's interesting. You know someone who had the exact same idea, and was actually successful in pulling it off?

Ayatollah Khomeini. He yearned for the good old days of the 14th century. And those poor bastards in Iran got it.

We have great wars coming upon us, and we won't be able to fight them effectively if we are so seperated.

- This is just the sort of thing that I see tacked on to the end of many posts advocating intolerance of some sort. The 'you say I'm wrong, but I know I'm right' message, with the rejoinder 'Oh, even if you disagree, now's not the time to bring it up. Just do as I say and things'll work out great'.

No, you mixed those up. I'm not tying any connection between minorities and the decline of the nation.

I will draw a connection between the decline of the nation and the hippy movement though. Vietnam was an important war, we shouldn't have lost. Our nation was too stubborn at the time to realize it's importance in the big picture.

The fact still remains that we lost, and stresses even further how we should not have been there. Not only did we lose lives, but they were lost needlessly and in vain.

I've got this strange feeling that you're somewhat frightened of new ideas and social progression, but this could just be me.

You know what I really like about 40 years ago? The Hippy movement. If there weren't hippies, my dad wouldn't have been born, and I wouldn't be here today to laugh at this. If we really are on the decline, you should go do something about it instead of staying up all night and complaining about it to a bunch of kids playing video games.

Hippys, canabis, decline.

No wonder its called funny stuff, your nation(and mine) has lost the plot in

some ways because of this stuff.

The sixties ushered in wide spread drug usage, mostly marijuana and acid, at

the same time western society started to decline in morality, and crazy ideas

started to be looked apon as more acceptable than proven traditional ones.

We have lost our way, because of drugs.

Well, it's a brave idea - rather than adapting to meet the challenges of the 21st century

It's better then meeting the challenges of the 21st century wasting so much time and money suing everyone over every little action or event.


- This is just the sort of thing that I see tacked on to the end of many posts advocating intolerance of some sort. The 'you say I'm wrong, but I know I'm right' message, with the rejoinder 'Oh, even if you disagree, now's not the time to bring it up. Just do as I say and things'll work out great'.

Face it, we are at war. We will be at war for another some odd years. It's dumb to see the goverment wasting time and money on such an issue as gay marriage. Do you guys actually think you deserve priority over national security??

Congratulations. You've discovered Libertarianism. No matter what the government does, it imposes a bias on society. Our answer is to strip down the government to the point that it does as little meddling as possible.

For those who believe that the sanctity of marriage must be maintained, you can go to a country where church and state are NOT separate, like Iran. Isn't that a pleasant thought?

Face it, we are at war. We will be at war for another some odd years. It's dumb to see the goverment wasting time and money on such an issue as gay marriage. Do you guys actually think you deserve priority over national security??

What, the government's too busy fighting a unilateral war against the people in another country it claims it's trying to liberate from tyranny and oppression to do stupid things like govern the country it was just re-elected to do? What, should they outsource the act of governing? So they can concentrate on their 'hit lists'?

The fact still remains that we lost, and stresses even further how we should not have been there. Not only did we lose lives, but they were lost needlessly and in vain.

I've got this strange feeling that you're somewhat frightened of new ideas and social progression, but this could just be me.

While I do not fully believe we should have been there, that war was in full intent of protecting our nation and it's freedoms.

Vietnam war was more then just about communism and democracy, it was most imporantly about oil. If we WON the war in Vietnam, we would have never faced the giant oil crisis in the early 80's... We would be more powerful and stable country.

The US realized Oil was going to run the world some day and now it does.

While, I do not endorse we should have used nuclear weapons ( Possible consequences from the Soviet Union ), we should have used them as leverage to stop the invasion.

Face it, we are at war. We will be at war for another some odd years. It's dumb to see the goverment wasting time and money on such an issue as gay marriage. Do you guys actually think you deserve priority over national security??

Yeah... don't waste money on your own people. It's not like, you know, they're the reason you need to defend your country in the first place. You need to care about the people in your country because they're going to be the ones fighting the wars outside your country.

Cause and effect my friend, cause and effect.

you dont belive church and state are truely seporated do u ? that was only meant for the impostion of any one religion on someone.. but religion as a force in our government has existed since the time of the foudning fathers.. you but need to look at the core structures of our government to see this (currency, supreme court, white house, congress) to say the government cannot force any single religion on someone is not the same as saying it cannot recognize the existance of religion in general...

If you belive this seporation should be complete.. perhaps you are the one who should move to a state which meant to have that idea.. ie france

For those who believe that the sanctity of marriage must be maintained, you can go to a country where church and state are NOT separate, like Iran. Isn't that a pleasant thought?

Well, since the people who endorse gay marriage are the minority, ( I recall 11 states banned gay marriage and many more are moving to ban it ), maybe we should send you to your private island....

I heard New Zealand just passed some gay marriage laws, wouldn't that be a nice place for ya?

Well, since the people who endorse gay marriage are the minority, ( I recall 11 states banned gay marriage and many more are moving to ban it ), maybe we should send you to your private island....

I heard New Zealand just passed some gay marriage laws, wouldn't that be a nice place for ya?

So did Canada. Don't forget Canada.

Goverment involvement is critical. America is getting out of control on stupid stuff like this. None of this stuff would fly forty-fifty years ago.

Call me old school or whatever you want, America was at it's greatest during/after WW2 till pre-Vietnam. We need to go back to that.

We have great wars coming upon us, and we won't be able to fight them effectively if we are so seperated.

I suppose you posit that 40 or 50 years ago, when the issue that "wouldn't fly" was equal civil rights for blacks? Please, I'm so tired of this fictitious "golden era" that social conservatives always harp on. Yes, let's go back there...there are fewer liberties mucking up what the government wants done.

Government should not be enforcing morality. Period.

It is only a few select religions that believe that gay marriage should be banned. Thus, the separation of church and state applies, according to your own words. And, as was mentioned in another thread recently, the founding fathers were, for the most part, non-religious. Really. It was never meant to be a part of this country.

New Zealand (and Canada just passed those laws as well) and France are both nice countries. They treat people with respect (usually).

Get government out of the business of defining relationships altogether. Each church can decide for itself what it wants to recognize as a marriage for its own purposes. The legal notion of "marriage", however, should be abolished; instead, people can just sign a contract like any other, with whatever terms are agreeable to all parties involved, and have it enforced like any other. Any benefits granted by marriage that cannot be taken care of under a contract either should not be granted in the first place or there is no real reason to limit them to married couples.

Yes, that would be completely in line with the First Amendment.

Churches define marriage. Period.

So did Canada. Don't forget Canada.

Gotta love those Canucks. Hey, you can have free healthcare up there to!

It's a win win situation....

Maybe US-Canada needs to set up a relocation program for mentally unstable and gay people.

Well, since the people who endorse gay marriage are the minority, ( I recall 11 states banned gay marriage and many more are moving to ban it ), maybe we should send you to your private island....

I heard New Zealand just passed some gay marriage laws, wouldn't that be a nice place for ya?

Yeah, that's because the extreme right mobilized people with the threat of the "Gay Menace" that would somehow dissolve their marriages. Kind of like the way Hitler told people the Jews were going to take their houses.

He has a point - you and your ilk who support government enforced morality are cut from the same cloth as the radicalist governments with whom you plan to go to "great wars."

Well, if you are going by the constitution stating that we have freedom of religion you also have to be argued to the point that same sex marriage wasn't an issue back then, they assumed such a monstrouscity would never happen. Yet it has, so one would assume the writers of the constitution would also ban gay marriage.

Honestly I fail to see how your argument is valid, as it is based on assumption with no evidence. Maybe it didn't occur to the writers of the constitution that such a thing as same-sex marriage would come up, but that's true of a lot of things. It probably didn't occur to a lot of them that there would ever be a push to abolish slavery, but thankfully it happened. The language of the constitution described all men as equals, and therefore it was constitutionally (as well as morally) sound to get rid of slavery and begin the process of promoting equality. The constitution does two other things that are important to note here. 1) it guarantees the separation of church and state and 2) the pursuit of happiness. Since the argument against same-sex marriage seems to be based primarily on religious beliefs and since same-sex unions would help a lot of people in their pursuit of happiness we can see that it would be unconstitutional to side with some churches (‘some’ because not all churches oppose same-sex marriages) and against citizens pursuing their right to happiness.
Furthermore, I fail to see how same-sex unions hurt anyone. Two people of the same sex getting married doesn’t somehow hurt your marriage or anyone else’s. It doesn’t make other marriages less loving or less sacred. No one is forcing anyone else to marry someone of the same sex. I wouldn’t want to marry someone of my sex, but that doesn’t mean I think other people shouldn’t be allowed to. If they want to get married and be happy, that’s cool by me. Happy people in love are not monstrosities.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...

Last time I checked, animals can't enter into legal contracts. *eyeballs spin around*. ANd aren't there organizations in place to prevent the exploitation and abuse of children?

Whoo-HOO!

Right on fellow babies, right on...people marrying simulacra, too. And geographical outcroppings. Industrial equipment. Whole species of insects... individual colours, or select bands of the light spectrum, tonal frequencies...food. Mirrors. Video games. Corporations. Hey, there's an idea: A corporation could have a group marriage with its' employees, thus enabling them all for marital benefits...no, somehow that's just too weird.

How about marrying a plant? That'd be a low-maintenance relationship. And if it was an annual, a short duration one at that.

YAY! :D

Maybe US-Canada needs to set up a relocation program for mentally unstable and gay people.

Let me know when you've relocated, then. Butch.

Well, if you are going by the constitution stating that we have freedom of religion you also have to be argued to the point that same sex marriage wasn't an issue back then, they assumed such a monstrouscity would never happen. Yet it has, so one would assume the writers of the constitution would also ban gay marriage.

Gee, what a narrow-minded, self-serving conclusion. Did it ever occur to you that the founding fathers never would have thought of such a thing? They didn't mention inter-racial marriage either, but lo an behold, that issue seems to be dead now. I guess those who fear change like to bury their mistakes before moving on to the next "abomination."

Don't worry, I'm sure you;re right this time...gay marriage is going to tear the country apart! :rolleyes:

Gotta love those Canucks. Hey, you can have free healthcare up there to!

It's a win win situation....

Maybe US-Canada needs to set up a relocation program for mentally unstable and gay people.

What bothers me the most is how someone like you can boast your pride and love for this country, and then go against everything it stands for and say gays shouldn't have the same rights as everybody else.

I love this country too, and that's why it's only American to allow them to live their lives as they see fit. America, the land of the free.... right? If you're going to brag of our liberties and freedoms, you should do what you can to uphold them.

Yeah, that's because the extreme right mobilized people with the threat of the "Gay Menace" that would somehow dissolve their marriages. Kind of like the way Hitler told people the Jews were going to take their houses.

He has a point - you and your ilk who support government enforced morality are cut from the same cloth as the radicalist governments with whom you plan to go to "great wars."

I'm planning for great wars, because I believe in the future existance of this nation, and I believe in the heritage, tradition and history of this nation. Our fore fathers gave their blood, sweat and tears for this nation, I won't let some homosexual degrade what he fought for.

I've taken a NROTC Scholarship, I'm going to fulfill my duty to my nation and my fore fathers, you should do the same.

I've taken a NROTC Scholarship, I'm going to fulfill my duty to my nation and my fore fathers, you should do the same.
Ha. I'm waiting to be drafted so that I can march straight to jail and free a violent criminal.

I'm planning for great wars, because I believe in the future existance of this nation, and I believe in the heritage, tradition and history of this nation. Our fore fathers gave their blood, sweat and tears for this nation, I won't let some homosexual degrade what he fought for.

I've taken a NROTC Scholarship, I'm going to fulfill my duty to my nation and my fore fathers, you should do the same.

Homosexual, Heterosexual, Bisexual... they're all sexual, so does it matter? As long as everyone is having a good time, we won't have to worry about spending money on keeping them happy.

I fulfill my duty to my nation every day, except for Sundays and Mondays, when I've got the day off.

Listen.. having the definition of marriage between a man and a woman simply said is how our society has decided to fortify our social structure.. the social structure we live on is based around the way marriage is conducted.. despite the rate of divorse.. studies still show that children in two parent homes with a mother and a father produce better adults then otherwise..

No, they don't. Cite something or put this tired, factless argument to bed.

Last I checked this nation was still built on majority rule.. the core of democracy.

Yes, with checks and balances to prevent tyranny by majority. Funny how they included that, but it's always scoffed at when it's actually put to use.

And in a nation whose base is vaastly religious.. you cannot expect something so radical as gay marriage to be pushed through the court system overriding the voice of the people.

SInce it's not a religious issue, but a governmental one, people ought to be intelligent enough to leave their beliefs where they belong, in the house of god (whichever that may be, as this is not a nation of a single religion). But, I seem to be giving more credit to people as a whole than I know they ought to get.

Personally i belive gay marriage enorsed by the government is wrong completely.. the term marriage to me is a religious one with a spiritual meaning..

Yeah, to you. Once the government officially took it out of the churches by way of justices of the peace able to perform it, it ceased to be a religious issue (outside of people who drag their religions into it).

by the government mixing this term with what could only otherwise be understood as a civil union (because it is a union made by the state) you damage what people understand to be marriage..

Then lobby for the government to get out of marriages and only perform civil unions. Funny, I haven't seen too many picket lines for this...

and marriage is already in a crisis as we face 50% divorce rate (primarly because of economic reasons which makes little sense.. some how a divorce solves ur economic condition..)

Yeah, that divorce rate...which is at 50% due to heterosexuals abusing the priviledge, and primarily in those glorious, God-fearing red states. How ironic.

The solution is a simple one... marriages made in courts sanctioned by the state should be deemed civil union reguarless of sex.. and the rights given accordingly.. marriages should remain where they belong.. in the house of god (whatever that is to your religion) This way the rights gays deserve are given, and the idea of marriage which is so important to the majority of religious belivers is preserved. Why it is politicans today cannot see this solution is beyond me.

Because a lot of their religious contributors don't want civil unions recognized, either. That's a "mockery of marriage," a "sham." Such arguments really show what's important here...not letting those damned Sodomites have an inch!

If gay marriage isnt wrong.. why is poligamy (excuse my spelling) wrong ?

I don't know, I see nothing wrong with it. Why don;t you tell me?

if gay marriage is just about rights.. then they should be fighting for civil unions with equal rights.. the gay movement has done themeslves great harm by trying to side step the publics voice through the courts (as reflected in the elections)

That's what the issue is.

It's people such as yourself which caused this to be such a ridiculous mess. No one is trying to force churches to perform gay marriages, and no one ever has. Why some thick voters can't get that through their heads is beyond me.

And damn those uppity courts for doing their jobs and impartially overturning unconstitutional laws!

I'm planning for great wars, because I believe in the future existance of this nation, and I believe in the heritage, tradition and history of this nation. Our fore fathers gave their blood, sweat and tears for this nation, I won't let some homosexual degrade what he fought for.

I've taken a NROTC Scholarship, I'm going to fulfill my duty to my nation and my fore fathers, you should do the same.

YOur forefathers also thought that only rich white male landowners should have the right to vote.

But most importantly, they fought for our freedom. It's a very infections thing, freedom. When a bunch of people start jumping up and down shouting, 'We're free! Equality for all!" The other people watching start wondering, "What are we, chopped liver?" So eventually, women got it. Then minorities got it. But the infection our forefathers began still spreads. Some people actually believe we should all have the right to worship how we choose just like our forefathers wanted and that includes marriage. *GASP!* That's almost as unexpected as womenfolk voting!

But that's the problem with freedom. Sooner or later, your neighbor wants it too.

YOur forefathers also thought that only rich white male landowners should have the right to vote.

But most importantly, they fought for our freedom. It's a very infections thing, freedom. When a bunch of people start jumping up and down shouting, 'We're free! Equality for all!" The other people watching start wondering, "What are we, chopped liver?" So eventually, women got it. Then minorities got it. But the infection our forefathers began still spreads. Some people actually believe we should all have the right to worship how we choose just like our forefathers wanted and that includes marriage. *GASP!* That's almost as unexpected as womenfolk voting!

But that's the problem with freedom. Sooner or later, your neighbor wants it too.

Bravo, Bravo :D

I'm planning for great wars, because I believe in the future existance of this nation, and I believe in the heritage, tradition and history of this nation. Our fore fathers gave their blood, sweat and tears for this nation, I won't let some homosexual degrade what he fought for.

I've taken a NROTC Scholarship, I'm going to fulfill my duty to my nation and my fore fathers, you should do the same.

Ah, same old prejudice, different minority. Why don't you tell me just what those homosexuals are going to do that degrade this nation - and no circular logic. I can just see the argument now...

"We cant let them marry!"

Why?

"They'll degrade our great nation!"

How?

"By marrying!"

I love this type of "patriot"...let me know when you're actually defending American rights, rather than just performing military maneuvers for someone's foreign agenda. Then maybe I'll join the effort, til then I think you have enough nationalism for us both.

I contend that prejudicial fools degrade what the founding fathers worked for. They worked for a free nation, with equal rights for all people, and people like you seek to restrict that. But, whoever said you needed to understand why it was you signed on to hold that gun?

Face it, we are at war. We will be at war for another some odd years. It's dumb to see the goverment wasting time and money on such an issue as gay marriage. Do you guys actually think you deserve priority over national security??

I don't see how war somehow eclipses civil rights issues. A country must continue to deal with internal issues in wartime. Furthermore, from what I've seen in the news, it's those who are opposed to gay marriage who are putting lots of time and money into the gay marriage issue in an effort to ban it. I'd also like to point out that you, yourself have devoted quite a bit of time and energy to this issue, as you've been quite active on this message board. That seems to be in conflict with your previous statement. If you think its a waste of time to discuss this issue, why spend so much time discussing it?
Obviously both sides agree its an important enough issue to discuss, so statements to the contrary are counter-productive.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...



you imbecile, don't you see? Illegalize lesbianism. You see, when men have sex with other men, and date other men, and marry other men, it eliminates competition. Lesbianism eliminates choices, so it's wrong. The less men there are, the more choices we have. Make gay marriage legal, but not lesbian marriage. THAT should solve the problem... or somesuch.

Hippys, canabis, decline.

No wonder its called funny stuff, your nation(and mine) has lost the plot in

some ways because of this stuff.

The sixties ushered in wide spread drug usage, mostly marijuana and acid, at

the same time western society started to decline in morality, and crazy ideas

started to be looked apon as more acceptable than proven traditional ones.

We have lost our way, because of drugs.


LOL what you call decline may not mean the same to everyone. I wouldnt consider it decline for the most part. While I dont support drug use, to each his own. But as far as where we are today, it can also be called progress.

And damn those uppity courts for doing their jobs and impartially overturning unconstitutional laws!
Impartial? Ha! Courts are made of judges. Judges are but men. (A few women too.) Men are not impartial. Consider...

Plessy v. Ferguson v. Brown v. Board
Bowers v. Hardwick v. Lawrence v. Texas
Betts v. Brady v. Gideon v. Wainwright

Any time SCOTUS overturns itself, it must admit that it has made an incorrect and unjust ruling. Why then should we believe that its current opinions are "impartial?" (Not to take a side in the gay marriage debate, but judicial activism in general makes my blood boil.)

LOL what you call decline may not mean the same to everyone. I wouldnt consider it decline for the most part. While I dont support drug use, to each his own. But as far as where we are today, it can also be called progress.

It's a "decline" because it's the reduction of his morals in society. Why is it a decline? Because his morals are losing their hold in America. Thusly, America is in a decline, because this certainly coldn't be a good thing.

Unless, of course, you're not him.

It's better then meeting the challenges of the 21st century wasting so much time and money suing everyone over every little action or event.




Face it, we are at war. We will be at war for another some odd years. It's dumb to see the goverment wasting time and money on such an issue as gay marriage. Do you guys actually think you deserve priority over national security??

The reason so much of an issue has been made of this is due to our wonderful president who wanted to solidify his religious backing to win the election. So dont blame anyone but him for throwing this in the public's face. This has been fought for YEARS and has never been a big of a deal as it has this election year. As for your comment about our fore fathers and homosexuals ruining their work. I dont remember anywhere in history class seeing any of them quote "we left europe to start a new nation free of homosexuals" which would lead me to believe it would be a bit more difficult that just being gay to affect what they came here for.

It's a "decline" because it's the reduction of his morals in society. Why is it a decline? Because his morals are losing their hold in America. Thusly, America is in a decline, because this certainly coldn't be a good thing.
Unless, of course, you're not him.

You mean them.

This view point of mine as you call it, is shared by many.

LOL what you call decline may not mean the same to everyone. I wouldnt consider it decline for the most part. While I dont support drug use, to each his own. But as far as where we are today, it can also be called progress.

You must watch the news sometime.

Impartial? Ha! Courts are made of judges. Judges are but men. (A few women too.) Men are not impartial. Consider...

Plessy v. Ferguson v. Brown v. Board
Bowers v. Hardwick v. Lawrence v. Texas
Betts v. Brady v. Gideon v. Wainwright

Any time SCOTUS overturns itself, it must admit that it has made an incorrect and unjust ruling. Why then should we believe that its current opinions are "impartial?" (Not to take a side in the gay marriage debate, but judicial activism in general makes my blood boil.)

An impartial ruling is one which does exactly what it is supposed to - in this case, strike down laws which are disciminatory and thusly unconstitutional. When you can prove that the ruling was influenced by personal opinion, rather than an understanding of that basic tenet of the Constitution, then you can start talking about how this was not an impartial verdict.

I've never claimed that the legal system was perfect, so take your strawman elsewhere. Judicial activism is just another one of those cutesy buzzwords the neocons made up to scare people, knowing they'd just buy into it, regardless of the fact that the courts are doing exactly what they've always done. Do point out one case of legislating from the bench, or any of the other things the neocons mention in their inflamatory rhetoric.

You mean them.

This view point of mine as you call it, is shared by many.

No, I'm speaking of one person. I know that you are often not able to differentiate one person from a group, but some of us can, and I chose to speak about him as the poster.

Do point out one case of legislating from the bench, or any of the other things the neocons mention in their inflamatory rhetoric.
Two words: Dred Scott. BOO-YAH!

Two words: Dred Scott. BOO-YAH!

Um, was that recent? We're talking about the modern court system regarding the current issue. Once again (try to follow), my argument is not that the legal system is perfect, but that in this case they've done the right thing and I explained why.

No, I'm speaking of one person. I know that you are often not able to differentiate one person from a group, but some of us can, and I chose to speak about him as the poster.

That really doesnt make much sense.

You shouldnt hold one person soley accountable for a view you dont agree

with.

Um, was that recent? We're talking about the modern court system regarding the current issue. Once again (try to follow), my argument is not that the legal system is perfect, but that in this case they've done the right thing and I explained why.
Hm... it only now occurs to me to ask, which the hell case are you referring to? The court hears a lot of 'em.

I'm going to throw my two cents on the table, because I feel this is an important issue.

In my opinion, there should be no bans on marriage as far as two consenting adults. I really can't see a good reason why gays having equal rights would hurt anyone. I really doubt that the homosexuals of the US are going to all stop being so just because they cant get married. Now lets pretend there was gay marriage in the US for a second. Now who would that hurt? Anyone? If you feel hurt by it, you're retarded. Lets go the other way with this once, banning all gay marriage. I think all the gays are still going to be gay, and the ones who want to get married are going to be unable to do so.

Gay marriage does not take rights away from anyone.

You must watch the news sometime.


There is a price to pay for everything. And with true freedom comes choice. With choice comes human error. Do I think the world is perfect? Far from it. I also do not wish to live in a society where I am told who I can chose to love, or where I can work, or what I can do for a living. I firmly believe if it does not hurt another living being in any way, there is no reason for anyone to oppose it.

That really doesnt make much sense.

You shouldnt hold one person soley accountable for a view you dont agree

with.

How can he hold others accountable? He's one person speaking with one person.

It's refreshing, actually to debate another person who recognizes his opinions for what they are; his opinions.

That really doesnt make much sense.

You shouldnt hold one person soley accountable for a view you dont agree

with.

He is the owner of his views, so citing him as an example of a person who holds those views makes plenty of sense. I don't need sweeping, ignorant generalizations to make a point. ;)

Hm... it only now occurs to me to ask, which the hell case are you referring to? The court hears a lot of 'em.

Good, then it should be easy for you to cite one. So, do it. Show me some "judicial activism." It's obviously rampant, so you should have no problem showing me a case pertaining to gay marriage (because we all know that's what the term was coined to address).

There is a price to pay for everything. And with true freedom comes choice. With choice comes human error. Do I think the world is perfect? Far from it. I also do not wish to live in a society where I am told who I can chose to love, or where I can work, or what I can do for a living. I firmly believe if it does not hurt another living being in any way, there is no reason for anyone to oppose it.

I think the price is becoming a bit high, ever had someone OD from heroin in

your arms?

[QUOTE=Lunatic Goofballs]How can he hold others accountable? He's one person speaking with one person.

Its a view, or an opinion Im talking about here, not someones action, which

only he/she can be held accountable for.

However an opinion or view depending on its nature, is usually shared by

other similar minded people.

'No man is an Island' as the saying goes.

[QUOTE]

Its a view, or an opinion Im talking about here, not someones action, which

only he/she can be held accountable for, where as an opinion or view

depending on its nature, is usually shared by similar minded people, 'no man is

an Island' as the saying goes.

I am. :D

I think the price is becoming a bit high, ever had someone OD from heroin in

your arms?


None the less the choice was made. So because one person OD'd on heroin gays shouldnt be allowed to marry? That is what this thread started as right? I hardly see the link.

He is the owner of his views, so citing him as an example of a person who holds those views makes plenty of sense. I don't need sweeping, ignorant generalizations to make a point. ;)

Well your've just made an ignorant observation here then :)

Yes you are the owner of your views, in as you are free to think them, and

hopefully express them intelligently.

However you are not the sole owner of those views, they are usually shared

to certain degrees by many others.

Pyschopathic people are an exception to this, their views are shared by very

few.

Hey! Psychopathic?!? I prefer the term, 'misunderstood'.

I am. :D

Ah the lone wolf, romantic self centered idealism at first, later on, pure

boredom.

Well your've just made an ignorant observation here then :)

Yes you are the owner of your views, in as you are free to think them, and

hopefully express them intelligently.

However you are not the sole owner of those views, they are usually shared

to certain degrees by many others.

Pyschopathic people are an exception to this, their views are shared by very

few.

What the hell are you on about? Oh yes, I forget it probably doesn't occur to you that just because a person believes something that you needn't make a sweeping generalization about others who beleives anyhting remotely similar. It's implicit that my statement would carry for anyone else with the exact same viewpoint - that goes without saying. It's rare that any two people hold the exact same beliefs in substance, severity, and basis. As such, I don't make baseless generalizations about vaguely defined groups of people.

Ah the lone wolf, romantic self centered idealism at first, later on, pure

boredom.

I'm more of a lone skunk.

Actually, I have a wife and child.

So I'm the paternal skunk in a small family of skunks.

:)

[QUOTE=Christs Love]None the less the choice was made.

The choice was made, as was the materials readily available.


So because one person OD'd on heroin gays shouldnt be allowed to marry?

This was a side issue to gays marrying.

I am. :D

Yeah, you're different, just like everybody else.

What the hell are you on about? Oh yes, I forget it probably doesn't occur to you that just because a person believes something that you needn't make a sweeping generalization about others who beleives anyhting remotely similar. It's implicit that my statement would carry for anyone else with the exact same viewpoint - that goes without saying. It's rare that any two people hold the exact same beliefs in substance, severity, and basis. As such, I don't make baseless generalizations about vaguely defined groups of people.

If everyone had completely different view points, no one would agree.

People tend to agree on something usually that binds them to each other,

whether they disagree on other stuff or not.

I dont know why your pulling out buzz words like 'sweeping generalisations'

etc.

I'm more of a lone skunk.

Actually, I have a wife and child.

So I'm the paternal skunk in a small family of skunks.

:)

Congratulations stinky ;)

I'm planning for great wars, because I believe in the future existance of this nation, and I believe in the heritage, tradition and history of this nation. Our fore fathers gave their blood, sweat and tears for this nation, I won't let some homosexual degrade what he fought for.

I've taken a NROTC Scholarship, I'm going to fulfill my duty to my nation and my fore fathers, you should do the same.
let me tell you buddy that you r nothing to your country, you r just a cancer. if you r talking about that period that goes between 1946 to 1964, not even a generation, the US lost a war, they had the maccarthenism and april 17 1961, while the minorities (well, that's not true, anctually the whites are a minority) fought their way with the help of the governament, or should i remind you of the Little Rock (or black rock, can't remember now) incident? still, i hear people talking about a period of social strife and economical decadence as a Golden Era, just because they don't have other better examples. America is a great nation because there is people who fight to increase the FREEDOMS, not the nukes or an Army that still won only the WWW2, not even starting it from the beginning, all the other wars utterly lost. America is great because there is people who looks forward, to the future, not that tries to go back to the abnomality that is Christianity in the US (and thrust me, try to go where Christianity was born, people died in torture so that now you can boast that Christ gives you the right to kill people...maybe you'll lear something about it)... and besides that.. i don't see you fulfilling your "duties" to america, maybe in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or some South America country... don't make me calling you a cowdard for that, will ya?

[QUOTE]

The choice was made, as was the materials readily available.




This was a side issue to gays marrying.


Better get rid of those derned scientists... always creating some new chemical. While we are at it better get rid of books, they inspire far too many ideas. Probably should get rid of guns, knives, cars, fire... rocks... sticks... God only knows what we are capable of with these!

People are responsible for their own choices. The outcome of those choices isnt always going to be good.

If everyone had completely different view points, no one would agree.

People tend to agree on something usually that binds them to each other,

whether they disagree on other stuff or not.

I dont know why your pulling out buzz words like 'sweeping generalisations'

etc.

Yes, because agreement only means a recognition of completely homogenous beliefs. I use such words because they aptly describe the ignorant assumptions made by people like yourself. You assume that if people hold remotely similar beliefs, you can speak of one as all. Not so at all.

I'm finished defending why I didn't generalize, since I feel that I'm wasting my time when I could be out teaching my pig to sing.

[QUOTE=Christs Love]Better get rid of those derned scientists... always creating some new chemical. While we are at it better get rid of books, they inspire far too many ideas. Probably should get rid of guns, knives, cars, fire... rocks... sticks... God only knows what we are capable of with these!

Why not just keep all these and get rid of all hard drugs in our society, or do

you think theres a connection between having nice cars, chemicals, books,

guns, knives etc and hard drugs.

Can we keep the rest and just get rid of the drugs?

Or do you see having them as a vital important part of life?

People are responsible for their own choices. The outcome of those choices
isnt always going to be good.

These choices(heroin) can affect alot of people, do they have the right then

to harm society?

[QUOTE=Anbar]Yes, because agreement only means a recognition of completely homogenous beliefs. I use such words because they aptly describe the ignorant assumptions made by people like yourself. You assume that if people hold remotely similar beliefs, you can speak of one as all. Not so at all.

Yes so actually.

Were talking about opinions and beliefs, not actions, do you know what the

difference is?

[QUOTE]

Yes so actually.

Were talking about opinions and beliefs, not actions, do you know what the

difference is?

You have no idea what you're even arguing about, do you? Action hasn't even entered into this, and this is about the third post I've answered in which you've been so far off the mark that I've had to go back to see just what it was you were responding to. Let me know when you have a grasp of the argument at hand. I'm not so gracious as the saints who dealt with you over 147 pages in the "Opinion Poll: Gay Marriage" thread.

You have no idea what you're even arguing about, do you? Action hasn't even entered into this, and this is about the third post I've answered in which you've been so far off the mark that I've had to go back to see just what it was you were responding to. Let me know when you have a grasp of the argument at hand.

I do actually, you on the other hand...

To begin again for Anbars benefit.

Thoughts, views, opinions are usually shared to some degree by similar

minded people, oui?

Actions, however, are not.

They are soley your own.

And only on them, can you ( and should be) be judged by.

Come back on this when you have a clue.

Good, then it should be easy for you to cite one. So, do it. Show me some "judicial activism." It's obviously rampant, so you should have no problem showing me a case pertaining to gay marriage (because we all know that's what the term was coined to address).
Calm down, Lefty.

1) The term was not invented to address gay marriage. It is older than you think and older than you are. It describes a judicial philosophy that places the spirit of the Declaration over the letter of the Constitution. I detest it not because it promotes freedom or equality, but because it sometimes contradicts the plain text of the Const'n in order to do so. (e.g. church/state cases misreading "Congress" in the 1st Amendment as "any government entity" and "make no law" as "not do anything")

2) Why are you asking me? You cited the phantom case well before I did. But ANY ruling that makes gay marriage a national issue must ignore the simple text of our charter. The 14th Amendment, upon which such a case would likely be based, demands only that states "not deny... the equal protection of the laws." It does not say that the laws themselves need be equal, and in fact every law discriminates to some extent. Income tax by class, affirmative action by race, Social Security by age or disability, etc. (Of course, this would mean that all those beloved civil rights cases are just as incorrect, but I digress.)

To put a spin on an old phrase: what is constitutional is not always right, and what is right is not always constitutional.

I do actually, you on the other hand...

To begin again for Anbars benefit.

Thoughts, views, opinions are usually shared to some degree by similar

minded people, oui?

Actions, however, are not.

They are soley your own.

And only on them, can you ( and should be) be judged by.

Come back on this when you have a clue.

Because people share agree upon a central belief does not necessarily mean they hold the same belief, nor any associated beliefs. Quite frankly, that's my last word on the matter, because I shan't explain it a fourth time.

Calm down, Lefty.

Oh look, ignorant partisan labeling, how cute. You can always tell the caliber of the argument you're about to read when they try to open with such an insult.

1) The term was not invented to address gay marriage. It is older than you think and older than you are. It describes a judicial philosophy that places the spirit of the Declaration over the letter of the Constitution. I detest it not because it promotes freedom or equality, but because it sometimes contradicts the plain text of the Const'n in order to do so. (e.g. church/state cases misreading "Congress" in the 1st Amendment as "any government entity" and "make no law" as "not do anything")

Really? Cite its use in the past then. Not cases you disagree with - the concept with or without that name itself in historical writings. Otherwise, it seems to be a term which you conveniently affix to judicial cases you disagree with, and you seem to be utterly unable to address the actual issue, which was my explanation of why the courts did precisely what they were supposed to here. Courts interpret - they do now, as they have in the past. Now that it's you they're ruling against, of course, the system must be rotten..."judicial activism!"

2) Why are you asking me? You cited the phantom case well before I did. But ANY ruling that makes gay marriage a national issue must ignore the simple text of our charter. The 14th Amendment, upon which such a case would likely be based, demands only that states "not deny... the equal protection of the laws." It does not say that the laws themselves need be equal, and in fact every law discriminates to some extent. Income tax by class, affirmative action by race, Social Security by age or disability, etc. (Of course, this would mean that all those beloved civil rights cases are just as incorrect, but I digress.)

Which phantom case was that, now? I've said that you can't cite a modern example of this judicial activism that you claim abounds, and surprise, surprise, you;ve not done so.

Oh, so laws needn't be equal now. Well, since I got mine, I suppose I ought to be content with that, huh? Yup, that's what this country was founded on...and what a noble aspiration. :rolleyes:

I think the price is becoming a bit high, ever had someone OD from heroin in

your arms?

Yes. Luckily someone at the house knew enough CPR to be able to keep him breathing. The guy should have gone to the hospital, but no one would take him (or allow anyone to call an ambulance) and after the guy was awake enough he said he would have rather died than been saved - because of the legal and social ramifications. Do you ever hear of dumbasses who almost die of alcohol poisoning say shit like this?

The reason the guy almost died - the bag he got was a lot stronger than what he had used previously. See street dealers don't have to mark thing with labels like 50 or 80 proof.

OD wasn't a big problem before prohibiton of opiates - or other drugs. OD isn't a big problem with opiate maintenance programs -including the programs some countries have tried using herion maintenance in addition to things like methadone (which is more addictive than heroin itself). On the other hand, deaths and medical problems from the actual consumption of alcohol rose sharply during prohibition. Prohibition removes any legal recourse, any safety regulations, any education on proper usage, and deters those who do run into trouble from seeking help. The one thing prohibiton has yet to do is keep any substance away from those who would us it. All it does is punish users for doing something considered 'immoral.' And while it is doing that official funds are diverted from actual crimes making even those of us who choose not to use substances less safe while we are paying more in taxes.

The price of prohibition based on 'morals' is way too high.

Last I checked this nation was still built on majority rule.. the core of democracy.

No it isnt, we call ourselves a democracy, but the actual term for our form of government is a constitutional republic.

With a constitution, citizens are gaurenteed rights, this prevents a majority from being able to oppress inocent minority groups.

Majority rule is the kind of "justice" represented by lynch mobs and rioters, it hardly ever establishes a system that has fair treatment for all. My favorite example is ancient Athens where, in a fully democratic process, Socrates was SENTANCED TO DEATH for his unpopular philisophical ideas. No crime was commited, no one was hurt, they just didnt like him, so they thought that warrented a death sentance.

No it isnt, we call ourselves a democracy, but the actual term for our form of government is a constitutional republic.

With a constitution, citizens are gaurenteed rights, this prevents a majority from being able to oppress inocent minority groups.

Majority rule is the kind of "justice" represented by lynch mobs and rioters, it hardly ever establishes a system that has fair treatment for all. My favorite example is ancient Athens where, in a fully democratic process, Socrates was SENTANCED TO DEATH for his unpopular philisophical ideas. No crime was commited, no one was hurt, they just didnt like him, so they thought that warrented a death sentance.

Well, not neccisarily.

The practice then was for the accused to name his own punishment-that way it would usually be in the form of cash payed, so people got their monies.

When asked what should happen to him, Socrates said that people should be paying HIM. That's why Socrates has the biggest balls ofa any philosopher, and why he died.

Oh, and furthermore, Socrates killed himself. Some people tried to break him out, but he told them not to-he was going to stay and carry out what he felt he had to.

Oh look, ignorant partisan labeling, how cute. You can always tell the caliber of the argument you're about to read when they try to open with such an insult.
You consider Lefty an insult? So you're self-conscious about your liberalism. No wonder you're so bitter. I suggest you seek therapy.

You consider Lefty an insult? So you're self-conscious about your liberalism. No wonder you're so bitter. I suggest you seek therapy.
i think he, rightfully, identified that it was intended as an insult. since it was a gross oversimplification and a means of trying to thrust him into a narrow group (and thus diminish or "discredit" what he was saying), i think he was correct in that assumption. i also agree with his assessment that anybody who uses such pitiful tactics is clearly fumbling because of their lack of other means of argument. if you think Anbar needs therapy because he is perceptive and honest then i shudder to think what your definition of sanity might entail.

You consider Lefty an insult? So you're self-conscious about your liberalism. No wonder you're so bitter. I suggest you seek therapy.

You know damn well the context such terminology has, and quite frankly, it's more the idiotic kneejerk generalization that bothers me. What Bottle so perceptively points out above is completely right.

Pathetic...try addressing an issue. Using juvenile insults and condescending behavior in place of an argument may cut it on AM radio, but here it just shows how little intelligence you have. You know nothing about me, except that I disagree with you...I must be a leftist!

How stupid.

And then we can go back to the good old days. The golden times, back when wemen folk were our propety, right? No more of this "job" bullshit-they can stay in the house barefoot and pregnant, and LIKE it!


i am NOT going barefoot! ;)


i was thinking the other day, if its so horrible for gay people to marry, and its immoral and such a dastardly sin and blah blah blah, then why is it ok for them to adopt children.? obviously they are worthy to adopt children and raise them in a loving home. thats being a family. and when we marry, we become a family. if gay people can share their love with children, and have legal papers stating that they are together as a family, then whats wrong with letting them get married? thats just stupid. i dunno. i think one day it will be legal.

you're right, if the government didn't bother getting its hands dirty with marriage, we wouldn't A.) have to listen to the religious right decry gay marriage because there wouldn't be any talk about the government legalizing it and B.) less gay pride parades since they get to do what they like with marriage. Everybody wins!

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5,
Nope...remember, parents do not own their children--any agreements the parents make for them the child can get out of upon reaching the age of majority. Also, the notion of a "marriage contract" isn't really what I was getting at--right now the whole point of the legal notion of marriage, other than certain benefits which either shouldn't exist or shouldn't be limited to married couples anyway, is to settle property disposition should the relationship break up. That's the whole point of the contract.
you have people marrying animals,
So? No one's saying you have to recognize it.
and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....
Yes--if three people decide they want to own property together and they want to set the terms of its disposition should they split up, what's the problem?

Congratulations. You've discovered Libertarianism.

No, that happened years ago--as did my above-described conclusion. I just posted it the other day in response to all the other threads on the same topic.

Well, not neccisarily.

The practice then was for the accused to name his own punishment-that way it would usually be in the form of cash payed, so people got their monies.
Not exactly--once convicted (and Socrates was convicted by an exceptionally narrow margin--30 out of 501) the individual on trial would SUGGEST a punishment, but he didn't actually NAME his punishment.

Oh, and furthermore, Socrates killed himself.
Only in the same sense that a person sentenced to lethal injection is handed the needle by the executioner and told to stick himself kills himself.

Two disturbing trends I've noticed here while catching up after my day's absence:

1) People talking about "giving" or "taking away" rights, as though the existence (or non-existence) of rights was due to government fiat. That is not correct. The existence of rights is due merely to our own existence--thus, each human possesses the EXACT SAME SET of rights. The only variable is the extent to which governments allow the exercise of those rights.

2) The implication that the US is governed by majority rule, or that majority rule is even a proper and just form of government. This speaks for itself.

Gay marriage does not take rights away from anyone.

Except the right of zealots to throw their beliefs in other peoples' faces! How WILL we be able to force our moralistic agenda on others when we have such a TERRIBLE abomination like homosexual marriage?!

Emancipation was once called an abomination. When it was enforced, nothing terrible happened in the long run.

Women's suffrage was once called an abomination. When it was enforced, nothing terrible happened in the long run.

Civil rights was once called an abomination. When it was enforced, nothing terrible happened in the long run.

Inter-racial marriage was once called an abomination. When it was enforced, nothing terrible happened in the long run.

Gay marriage is being called an abomination. I think I'm seeing a pattern here...

Because people share agree upon a central belief does not necessarily mean they hold the same belief, nor any associated beliefs. Quite frankly, that's my last word on the matter, because I shan't explain it a fourth time.

N0OOOO!

Dont you get it????

That central belief is enough to tie them together, regardless of how many

derivatives there are, if the single issue is big enough it will always bring

them together as a team.

Their actions are however, their own to be judged on.

The price of prohibition based on 'morals' is way too high.

I disagree, without morals, we become a mindless mass of people, led around

in a police state, and easily led at that.

Only in the same sense that a person sentenced to lethal injection is handed the needle by the executioner and told to stick himself kills himself.

In a sense he killed himself, because he was offered the chance to escape and refused it.

I see that less as suicide and more of just being hardcore and awesome, though :p


I disagree, without morals, we become a mindless mass of people, led around

in a police state, and easily led at that.
Unless the police work in the name of "morals..."

Unless the police work in the name of "morals..."

Well if they did, it would be a beautiful and uncorrupt society

*sighs deep and long*

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....


so?

so?

Anything goesssssssssssssss! :rolleyes:

Get government out of the business of defining relationships altogether. Each church can decide for itself what it wants to recognize as a marriage for its own purposes. The legal notion of "marriage", however, should be abolished; instead, people can just sign a contract like any other, with whatever terms are agreeable to all parties involved, and have it enforced like any other. Any benefits granted by marriage that cannot be taken care of under a contract either should not be granted in the first place or there is no real reason to limit them to married couples.

This is a very good point...

(If a church wishes to recognize a same sex marriage, doesnt it violate the freedom of religion, for the government to say that the relationship is illegal?)


The church does not decide religion. If a couple of same sex atheists wanted to get married, they wouldn't go to the atheist church would they? no, they would go to a church that accepts same sex marriage, which has nothing to do with religion, just the will of the people in charge. Furthormore, if a church is really a church, they would not accept same sex marriages because it is against the Bible, as in 1 Corinthians.

That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of.... Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5, you have people marrying animals, and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....

Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman, the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition. If a ban on gay marriage ever comes to my state, I'm voting to ban it. They also need to implement a tax on divorce so it is much more expensive to get a divorce, and make it harder to get a marriage in the first place...

Wow, I've never seen so much Anti-American dia-tribe condensed into one place. Fucking red-coats are still hanging around!

Well if they did, it would be a beautiful and uncorrupt society

*sighs deep and long*

And you call OTHERS naive?

Without laws controlling marriage you have parents signing marraige contracts for their kids at age 5

There's really nothing preventing parents from arranging marriages for their five-year-olds right now.

you have people marrying animals

For what purpose? It's not like they get a tax break.

and the way you make it sound with "all parties involved" that you can have 3-way marriages....[quote]

If you can find a minister who'll do it, yeah.

[quote]Marriage needs to stay between a man and a woman

Ideally, yes, I believe it should. I'm not going to vote for a ban so that men with guns can enforce my definition, though.

the goverment needs to step in and keep the sanctity and tradition.

Why is this a legitimate purpose of government?

Well, not neccisarily.

The practice then was for the accused to name his own punishment-that way it would usually be in the form of cash payed, so people got their monies.

When asked what should happen to him, Socrates said that people should be paying HIM. That's why Socrates has the biggest balls ofa any philosopher, and why he died.

Oh, and furthermore, Socrates killed himself. Some people tried to break him out, but he told them not to-he was going to stay and carry out what he felt he had to.

More specifically, Socrates believed that to avoid a punishment decided upon by the jury would be an injustice, and that it was better to suffer an injustice to commit one.

And you call OTHERS naive?

I didnt say it was possible, just the end to alot of problems in society, crime

only flourishes whens theres alot of corruption.