NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are gay, know someone that is, or just sympathetic, sign this (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards).

Then tell everyone you know to sign it. Then tell everyone they know to sign it.

This discrimination has got to stop. Everytime i hear some religious nut talk about how gays are somehow destroying marriage or the family or whatever it is that they feel is being threatened this week, I want to grab a machine gun and unload.

The constitution above all places is no place for this discrimination. And considering this amendment is largely based on religion, it is an obvious violation of first amendment rights. Marriage is not a priviledge for straight jews/christians, it is an american right, no matter who you are.

Please, action needs to be taken right now. Tell assholes like Rick "everyone will start fucking dogs" Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people" Fallwell to shut the fuck up and step off. America has zero tolerance for their bullshit.

If you agree, feel free to post points on why congress should vote no on this horrendous amendment. If you disagree, I will be happy to debate you on the subject.

Thank you.

This discrimination has got to stop. Everytime i hear some religious nut talk about how gays are somehow destroying marriage or the family or whatever it is that they feel is being threatened this week, I want to grab a machine gun and unload.

So you're motivated to respond to people's opinions with murder...

How can I sign against this?

I'm sympathetic to homosexuals and I just signed it. Will the world end if homosexuals get married? I don't think so.

If you are gay, know someone that is, or just sympathetic, sign this (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards).

Then tell everyone you know to sign it. Then tell everyone they know to sign it.

This discrimination has got to stop. Everytime i hear some religious nut talk about how gays are somehow destroying marriage or the family or whatever it is that they feel is being threatened this week, I want to grab a machine gun and unload.

The constitution above all places is no place for this discrimination. And considering this amendment is largely based on religion, it is an obvious violation of first amendment rights. Marriage is not a priviledge for straight jews/christians, it is an american right, no matter who you are.

Please, action needs to be taken right now. Tell assholes like Rick "everyone will start fucking dogs" Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people" Fallwell to shut the fuck up and step off. America has zero tolerance for their bullshit.

If you agree, feel free to post points on why congress should vote no on this horrendous amendment. If you disagree, I will be happy to debate you on the subject.

Thank you.

No. This is a move in the wrong direction. The government should regulate fewer marriages (i.e. none of them), not more.

I'm sympathetic to homosexuals and I just signed it. Will the world end if homosexuals get married? I don't think so.

They've been doing it for a while up here, and last I checked I still had to go to work each goddamn morning. Seems the world is continuing on just fine.

Please, action needs to be taken right now. Tell assholes like Rick "everyone will start fucking dogs" Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people" Fallwell to shut the fuck up and step off. America has zero tolerance for their bullshit.




That is wrong, america has a lot of tolerance for those people. One is an elected official and the other has become very rich through his popularity.

So you're motivated to respond to people's opinions with murder...

How can I sign against this?

The revolutionaries responded to the English's opinions with war.

If it should ever come to that, yeah, I'm motivated.

I prefer to not care about internal US affairs. Up to them to make their country even shittier, if that's what they want.

I prefer to not care about internal US affairs. Up to them to make their country even shittier, if that's what they want.

If you didn't care, then why do you always reply? :p

Signed.

If you are gay, know someone that is, or just sympathetic, sign this (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards).

Then tell everyone you know to sign it. Then tell everyone they know to sign it.

This discrimination has got to stop. Everytime i hear some religious nut talk about how gays are somehow destroying marriage or the family or whatever it is that they feel is being threatened this week, I want to grab a machine gun and unload.

The constitution above all places is no place for this discrimination. And considering this amendment is largely based on religion, it is an obvious violation of first amendment rights. Marriage is not a priviledge for straight jews/christians, it is an american right, no matter who you are.

Please, action needs to be taken right now. Tell assholes like Rick "everyone will start fucking dogs" Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people" Fallwell to shut the fuck up and step off. America has zero tolerance for their bullshit.

If you agree, feel free to post points on why congress should vote no on this horrendous amendment. If you disagree, I will be happy to debate you on the subject.

Thank you.


Listen..."Just because you want to do something, Doesn't mean you have a Right to do it"

"Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people"

Well on the most part that it a true statment, musilms and crazy groups attack america and hate it because of the image it shows, gays getting married, sex on tv, the imoralness of the nation etc. and they take that as Christianity.

"America has zero tolerance for their bullshit." well..thats kind of contradiction ,I would say that Americ has zero tolernance for your type of movement.Seeing how most of the nation regects same sex marriage.

" I want to grab a machine gun and unload."
Is this how you solve your problems?I thought your suppose to love everyone without religion?

"Marriage is not a priviledge for straight jews/christians, it is an american right, no matter who you are."
I'd like to let you know that alot of non-christians and non-jews get married. Marriage is simply this:
"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Thats what Marriage is, it is not the legal Union between two people of the same sex.

I feel that if people want to be together to one of the same sex, then they should move into gether or whatever you people do?Cause if they really love eachother why do they need a Christian/Jewish tradition? Put same sex marriage is not marriage no matter how many Laws you change, it will never happen.

Also if they don't want anything else to do with Christianity or Jewish tradition ever befor, then why should we hand over Marriage?

I think that homosexuals are a bit selfish and shallow do they really need christian tradition? isn't being gay good enough for them?

Sorry if I've offended anyone by my post, it's not a given.

Be Blessed.

also..lol is there anyway we can sign against it?

If you agree, feel free to post points on why congress should vote no on this horrendous amendment. If you disagree, I will be happy to debate you on the subject.

Thank you.


Not going to worry about it.

It's not a "slamdunk" issue. It was more of an election ploy to get the Religious vote out.

Thats what Marriage is, it is not the legal Union between two people of the same sex.

I feel that if people want to be together to one of the same sex, then they should move into gether or whatever you people do?Cause if they really love eachother why do they need a Christian/Jewish tradition? Put same sex marriage is not marriage no matter how many Laws you change, it will never happen.

Also if they don't want anything else to do with Christianity or Jewish tradition ever befor, then why should we hand over Marriage?

I think that homosexuals are a bit selfish and shallow do they really need christian tradition? isn't being gay good enough for them?

Sorry if I've offended anyone by my post, it's not a given.

Be Blessed.

also..lol is there anyway we can sign against it?marriage is, in western culture, primarily a legal contract. It is also in no way restricted to Christians and Jews, nor is it universally restricted to only male/female, or even only two people. Polygyny is practiced in more cultures than monogamy.

marriage is, in western culture, primarily a legal contract. It is also in no way restricted to Christians and Jews, nor is it universally restricted to only male/female, or even only two people. Polygyny is practiced in more cultures than monogamy.

A coworkers wife if from Nepal and she once said women can have multiple husbands. She said it of course to try and tweak him. He just shruged and said "As long as he has a job and gives money to the house." :)

So you're motivated to respond to people's opinions with murder...

How can I sign against this?
Psh, machine gun? How un... attached. Garrote with piano string rather.

No. This is a move in the wrong direction. The government should regulate fewer marriages (i.e. none of them), not more.
You are correct, but your belief is unreasonable. This government will never back down from marriage so we must work to extend it to as many people as possible.

You know, here's my whole stance on this. There is some truth of the idea that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. That is the technical definition of it.

It is MY belief, personally, that the institution of marriage does have some religious connotation and it is beyond the 1st amendment to require "gay marriage".

I just oppose that use of the word in law.

Instead law should be only about civil unions. I believe personally that all mentions of the word "marriage" in any state or federal law, statutue, regulation or code should be stricken, and replaced with unionized. If we accept that the word "marriage" has some religious connotations, then legally regulating marriage is not the job of the government.

Instead, all the privlidges of civil unions should be given to any of those who have performed the necessary LEGAL requirements, which can be done with a religious figure, just as soon as they could be done with a justice of the peace. And if they want to do it consistant with their religious traditions as well, so be it, and if their religion doesn't acknowledge gay marriage, so be it.

However civil unions should be available to any pair of consenting adults. Period.

That being said, the word marriage does exist in our laws, and therefore I must support gay "marriage" in and as far as the word has taken to mean a legally binding arrangement, and not just the social and religious one I believe it should have.

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Thats what Marriage is, it is not the legal Union between two people of the same sex.

As defined by whom?

You can tell it's an election year. Time for all god-fearing (??) politicians to spread the word about the evil queers! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

As defined by whom?

Right thanks i forgot to put that in i found it on Dictionary.com and also "Thorndike Barnhart World Book Dictionary L-Z" that dictionary stats that marriage is "The act or fact of living together as husband and wife;relation between husband and wife."

Sorry should have put that in.

As defined by whom?

The government. The government is the root of all evil. Any bain in your life can be traced back to the government. Truly.

If you didn't care, then why do you always reply? :p

Newsflash: That thing before you, a keyboard. And that other thing, a monitor. On it is displayed an Internet forum. On Internet forums, people voice their opinions. Shocking revelation, no?

Right thanks i forgot to put that in i found it on Dictionary.com and also "Thorndike Barnhart World Book Dictionary L-Z" that dictionary stats that marriage is "The act or fact of living together as husband and wife;relation between husband and wife."

Sorry should have put that in.


http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=marriage

2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b

If you're going to use something as feeble as dictionaries to support your claims, you should know others can easily render them moot.

As defined by whom?


Oh also i forgot the most important source..GOD!

Oh also i forgot the most important source..GOD!

Are you sure He's real? I have my doubts, you know.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=marriage

2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b

If you're going to use something as feeble as dictionaries to support your claims, you should know others can easily render them moot.

pfft, thats not the true and traditonal meaning, it was just put in there because gays want to satisfy their every want, Changing the modern meaning of the word doesn't change the long and standing meaning. Nor does it change what marriage is.

If you are gay, know someone that is, or just sympathetic, sign this (http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/fma_postcards).

Then tell everyone you know to sign it. Then tell everyone they know to sign it.

This discrimination has got to stop. Everytime i hear some religious nut talk about how gays are somehow destroying marriage or the family or whatever it is that they feel is being threatened this week, I want to grab a machine gun and unload.

The constitution above all places is no place for this discrimination. And considering this amendment is largely based on religion, it is an obvious violation of first amendment rights. Marriage is not a priviledge for straight jews/christians, it is an american right, no matter who you are.

Please, action needs to be taken right now. Tell assholes like Rick "everyone will start fucking dogs" Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people" Fallwell to shut the fuck up and step off. America has zero tolerance for their bullshit.

If you agree, feel free to post points on why congress should vote no on this horrendous amendment. If you disagree, I will be happy to debate you on the subject.

Thank you.
I say we make a deal with the lawmakers who want to ban gay marriage: YOu can ban it only after you fix the budget deficit, rebuild New Orleans, establish a sensible energy policy, enact lobbying reform, sign the Kyoto Accords, fix Iraq, and stop cutting taxes for the rich fucks.

Are you sure He's real? I have my doubts, you know.

Yep :)

Newsflash: That thing before you, a keyboard. And that other thing, a monitor. On it is displayed an Internet forum. On Internet forums, people voice their opinions. Shocking revelation, no?

:D

pfft, thats not the true and traditonal meaning, it was just put in there because gays want to satisfy their every want, Changing the modern meaning of the word doesn't change the long and standing meaning. Nor does it change what marriage is.

Translation: "Waaah! The dictionary doesn't support my antiquated views, which I for some reason think are the only "true" ones because I say they are! Damn those liberals for not using the word in the way I demand they use it."

Face it: Your attempt to use a dictionary to support your troglodytic assertion was laughable. Marriage is not "defined" as "man + woman" at all. It is defined in any way we wish to define it. And the way you want to define it is, fortunately, going the way of the dodo, just like the racist way of defining it did.

I say we make a deal with the lawmakers who want to ban gay marriage: YOu can ban it only after you fix the budget deficit, rebuild New Orleans, establish a sensible energy policy, enact lobbying reform, sign the Kyoto Accords, fix Iraq, and stop cutting taxes for the rich fucks.

lol I think it should be the other way around, to get gay marriage to be legit and be legal they first have to:fix the budget deficit, rebuild New Orleans, establish a sensible energy policy, enact lobbying reform, sign the Kyoto Accords, fix Iraq, and stop cutting taxes for the rich people,fix poverty, win the war on racism and drugs then it can be legal.

This kind of stuff, like abortion, should not be federally enforced but rather left up to the states to decide.

pfft, thats not the true and traditonal meaning, it was just put in there because gays want to satisfy their every want, Changing the modern meaning of the word doesn't change the long and standing meaning. Nor does it change what marriage is.

Yeah how dare those homos want to do something like get married? next thing you know white men will be wanting to marry black women! After all such a thing was illegal in this country for almost 200 years, why sould we change that?

This kind of stuff, like abortion, should not be federally enforced but rather left up to the states to decide.

The civil rights movement showed that doesn't work too well.

Translation: "Waaah! The dictionary doesn't support my antiquated views, which I for some reason think are the only "true" ones because I say they are! Damn those liberals for not using the word in the way I demand they use it."

Face it: Your attempt to use a dictionary to support your troglodytic assertion was laughable. Marriage is not "defined" as "man + woman" at all. It is defined in any way we wish to define it. And the way you want to define it is, fortunately, going the way of the dodo, just like the racist way of defining it did.


alright i know what your trying to say, so it's not a word at all if you can change it anyway you want then marriage can mean:printer, when you change the word the way you want it to, your making more problems then solving. You can not justify same sex marriage by changing the meaning on marriage, how about if i want to change the meaning of the word government to:who ever wants something to change, who ever has control, does that do anything? no, so the same is taken with the word marriage.

This kind of stuff, like abortion, should not be federally enforced but rather left up to the states to decide.

Yeah, states should be able to oppress people in any way they want! To hell with that constitution of yours, that you seem to value so, otherwise... :rolleyes:

Why must we have these problems here in the states? can we not just give them their fucking freedoms and then let everyone get along..Jesus Christ.

Yeah how dare those homos want to do something like get married? next thing you know white men will be wanting to marry black women! After all such a thing was illegal in this country for almost 200 years, why sould we change that?


what are you talking about? are you rasict or something? Allowing people of the same sex to marry is much different then whites marring blacks, the whites and blacks issue has to do with racism, while on the other hand allowing people of the same sex to marry is not racism.

what are you talking about? are you rasict or something?

He's being sarcastic, Mr. God-believing man.

Free marriage for all! Yay Canada...

alright i know what your trying to say, so it's not a word at all if you can change it anyway you want then marriage can mean:printer, when you change the word the way you want it to, your making more problems then solving. You can not justify same sex marriage by changing the meaning on marriage, how about if i want to change the meaning of the word government to:who ever wants something to change, who ever has control, does that do anything? no, so the same is taken with the word marriage.

This post of yours is unintelligible. Try again.

And, by the by, marriage already is "man + man, woman + woman, man + woman" in several places. Marriage is apparently not "defined" the way you want to define it at all. It is defined the way "we," as a society, decide to define it.

This kind of stuff, like abortion, should not be federally enforced but rather left up to the states to decide.

Not far enough. The right to marry should be federally protected.

I feel that if people want to be together to one of the same sex, then they should move into gether or whatever you people do?Cause if they really love eachother why do they need a Christian/Jewish tradition? Put same sex marriage is not marriage no matter how many Laws you change, it will never happen.

I think that homosexuals are a bit selfish and shallow do they really need christian tradition? isn't being gay good enough for them?



So straight people should be allowed to get married and have all the benefits, and have their union recognised, and celebrate their love and their religion, but if gay people want the same thing they are selfish and shallow?

If straight people really love eachother do they really need a christian/jewish tradition?

He's being sarcastic, Mr. God-believing man.

Free marriage for all! Yay Canada...

I'm Canadian, GO HARPER GOVERNMENT. It's funny a few days befor the 2005 election the homosexuals were on the run, rushing to get married befor the Haper Government Outlaws it (if they do, which they probably will later on)

So straight people should be allowed to get married and have all the benefits, and have their union recognised, and celebrate their love and their religion, but if gay people want the same thing they are selfish and shallow?

If straight people really love eachother do they really need a christian/jewish tradition?

Yes. With the religion point. OP, Church and state are seperate now. It may have begun as a 'Christian' tradition, however, marriage is now a part of society as a whole. The binding two people through a FEDERAL document is what occurs. Whether you are married in a Church or courthouse, the marriage is being recognized by the state.

And that is that.

So straight people should be allowed to get married and have all the benefits, and have their union recognised, and celebrate their love and their religion, but if gay people want the same thing they are selfish and shallow?

If straight people really love eachother do they really need a christian/jewish tradition?

um..yes? what are you trying to say, try again.

I'm Canadian, GO HARPER GOVERNMENT. It's funny a few days befor the 2005 election the homosexuals were on the run, rushing to get married befor the Haper Government Outlaws it (if they do, which they probably will later on)

I'm an Albertan, and I have nothing against Harper. However, take a look at the polls. Canada will not allow for Harper to take back what Martin instigated. I agree with Harper in many ways, but not this one.

um..yes? what are you trying to say, try again.

The answer is 'no'.

I asked a question before and you ignored it, though I admit I was being somewhat sarcastic and snide so lemme ask again, directly.

For a significant portion of our nation's history it was perfectly permissable to have laws that prevented an inter-racial couple from marrying. That wasn't declared unconstitutional until 1967 in a case called Loving v. Virgina

If the societal view at the time was that it was OK for a white man to be prevented from marrying a black woman, did that make it ok?

In other words, if you define marriage as "a union of man and woman", it was defined in society for VERY long time as "a union of man and woman of the same race".

If, as you state, there is no need to move from traditional definitions of the word, then would you support the truly traditional meaning, being that a white man and a black woman should not be allowed to get married?

That was the cultural view for a VERY long time, by the way

I asked a question before and you ignored it, though I admit I was being somewhat sarcastic and snide so lemme ask again, directly.

For a significant portion of our nation's history it was perfectly permissable to have laws that prevented an inter-racial couple from marrying. That wasn't declared unconstitutional until 1967 in a case called Loving v. Virgina

If the societal view at the time was that it was OK for a white man to be prevented from marrying a black woman, did that make it ok?

In other words, if you define marriage as "a union of man and woman", it was defined in society for VERY long time as "a union of man and woman of the same race".

If, as you state, there is no need to move from traditional definitions of the word, then would you support the truly traditional meaning, being that a white man and a black woman should not be allowed to get married?

That was the cultural view for a VERY long time, by the way

I understood!

And agree, no doubt.

I asked a question before and you ignored it, though I admit I was being somewhat sarcastic and snide so lemme ask again, directly.

For a significant portion of our nation's history it was perfectly permissable to have laws that prevented an inter-racial couple from marrying. That wasn't declared unconstitutional until 1967 in a case called Loving v. Virgina

If the societal view at the time was that it was OK for a white man to be prevented from marrying a black woman, did that make it ok?

In other words, if you define marriage as "a union of man and woman", it was defined in society for VERY long time as "a union of man and woman of the same race".

If, as you state, there is no need to move from traditional definitions of the word, then would you support the truly traditional meaning, being that a white man and a black woman should not be allowed to get married?

That was the cultural view for a VERY long time, by the way

In the matters of Law, things change. There was never an issue of gay marriage because back then you kind of didn't want people to know. The fact that they had laws against interacial was more about not wanting the "undesirables" to want to stay here. For example, in California, the Chinese and Japanese.

It was ok to have slaves once, now it's not.

The same goes for gay marriage. It was not ok, but then it could change.

Straight people are not going to stop marrying and having children because a few gays want to be married.

There are plenty of heterosexual people who aren't religious and don't get married in churches. They just go to a court house or get married outside or something with a judge. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to get married? That's all we are asking for when we ask for same sex marriages or same sex civil unions. There is a separation of church and state for a reason, and i don't think churches or other religious institutions should be forced to marry gay people. If it were legalized, they would simply be legal under the law, no one says religions would have to accept them.

I'm as straight as they come and if i ever got married, it certainly wouldn't be in a church presided over by a holy man or woman.

In the matters of Law, things change. There was never an issue of gay marriage because back then you kind of didn't want people to know. The fact that they had laws against interacial was more about not wanting the "undesirables" to want to stay here. For example, in California, the Chinese and Japanese.

It was ok to have slaves once, now it's not.

The same goes for gay marriage. It was not ok, but then it could change.

Straight people are not going to stop marrying and having children because a few gays want to be married.

It was argued in this post that the social definition of marriage has been between a man and woman, and that we shouldn't change that definition because "teh gays" want it.

I replied that it used to be the social definition of marriage used to be that marriage was between only those of the same race. Then I posed the question, since we reverse that now, and return to a definition of marriage that we now find abhorent because people used to think that way?

Right thanks i forgot to put that in i found it on Dictionary.com and also "Thorndike Barnhart World Book Dictionary L-Z" that dictionary stats that marriage is "The act or fact of living together as husband and wife;relation between husband and wife."


And the definitions of words have never changed in all of the history of mankind?

Oh also i forgot the most important source..GOD!

"God has no place in legislation" -- First Amendment (paraphrased)

And the definitions of words have never changed in all of the history of mankind?



"God has no place in legislation" -- First Amendment (paraphrased)


LMAO:D

I'd like to let you know that alot of non-christians and non-jews get married. Marriage is simply this:
"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Thats what Marriage is, it is not the legal Union between two people of the same sex.

I feel that if people want to be together to one of the same sex, then they should move into gether or whatever you people do?Cause if they really love eachother why do they need a Christian/Jewish tradition? Put same sex marriage is not marriage no matter how many Laws you change, it will never happen.

Also if they don't want anything else to do with Christianity or Jewish tradition ever befor, then why should we hand over Marriage?

Because marriage gives alot of rights to couples. If you cant get married, you are not a couple in the eyes of the government. you do not receive ANY benefits that married couples do.

Marriage is not religious at all in america, people do it for legal reasons. If I was gay, and I had to go to the hospital, they wouldnt let my partner in because he is not considered family.

Come to think of it, marriage being a legal contract is a breach of separation of church and state in itself. If people want a legally binding contract, it shouldnt be a religious sacrament. If the couple feels their union needs to be recognized by god, then they should have a marriage ceremony.

And the law shouldnt be that its exclusive to one man and one woman. If two people love each other, which is the reason you (should) be getting married, what does it matter who the people being married are?

"God has no place in legislation" -- First Amendment (paraphrased)
Which, as anyone well versed in law knows, you can't do if you expect to have any validity to your argument.


Now as to the topic. As it is highly doubtful that 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the states via their legislature or own constituional conventions would vote for the FMA, especially as the ERA almost managed to pass in the 70's, I refuse to sign a stupid online petition made by a bunch of chicken littles.

what are you talking about? are you rasict or something? Allowing people of the same sex to marry is much different then whites marring blacks, the whites and blacks issue has to do with racism, while on the other hand allowing people of the same sex to marry is not racism.

So on the one hand it has to do with discrimination of a group of people, and on the other hand it has to do with discrimination of a group of people.

See? No difference at all.

If an amendment to define marriage is added, I will officially declare the constitution dead. If it is used to define something as unimportant and irrelevant to government as marriage, the constitution has lost all relevancy and becomes nothing more than a tool for political leverage.

If an amendment to define marriage is added, I will officially declare the constitution dead. If it is used to define something as unimportant and irrelevant to government as marriage, the constitution has lost all relevancy and becomes nothing more than a tool for political leverage.


We have bigger problems with our constitution's mortality, like "presidential signing statements" which literally dictate the law.

I love how people conveniently ignore the fact that marriage, or similar institutions, predate the Bible. And marriage, up till a few hundred years ago, was all about monetary and political gain, not love. The truth is, there is no logical reason gays should not be allowed to get married. Any argument against it is basically a result of homophobia. And doesn't the 14th amendment kind of already decide this issue? After all, since straight people have the right to marry each other, doesn't this mean that gays have to be given that right too, because of that amendment?

Why is this even a religious issue? The Bible isn't the supreme law in this country, the Constitution is. This isn't a religious issue, it's a civil rights issue. Period. Thus there is no reason to be against it, other than hating gays, whether you want to admit it or not. This is also why states' rights is a bad idea in this case. Civil rights are non-negotiable, and can't be left up to the states to decide.

Gays are people too, why do they not deserve equal rights? They're basically being treated like second-class citizens. I'm not attracted to men at all, and I consider the thought of gay sex to be "gross", "icky", whatever. But this doesn't lead me to say gays are inferior or undeserving of rights. And don't even bring up the "Well, it's a lifestyle choice" bullshit, as science is proving that wrong more and more.

And as far as tradition goes, well, fuck tradition. If we made all our decisions based on tradition, no positive changes would be made. Slavery? Well, it's tradition, so we better keep it. Interracial marriages? Traditionally, they were illegal. America being a British colony? Sorry, it's tradition. Tradition is the worst possible reason to do anything, as it's basically saying "This is good/bad because I've been told it's good/bad for years."

To those of you who are anti-gay marriage, just please, think about this: If gays are allowed to get married, what negative effect is it going to have on society? Who is going to get hurt because of it? And what right do we have to deny them their right to happiness?

Allowing people of the same sex to marry is much different then whites marring blacks, the whites and blacks issue has to do with racism, while on the other hand allowing people of the same sex to marry is not racism.

Correct. It is homophobia.

Now, other than replacing "black" with "gay", please explain to me the substantive difference between the two?

If you believe that the definition of marriage should stay what it always has been, then prior to the last 40ish years marriage was defined as "marriage between a man and woman of the same race". By YOUR definition, we should define marriage as the way it should always have been defined.

In other words...you're the racist, not me.

I love how people conveniently ignore the fact that marriage, or similar institutions, predate the Bible. And marriage, up till a few hundred years ago, was all about monetary and political gain, not love. The truth is, there is no logical reason gays should not be allowed to get married. Any argument against it is basically a result of homophobia. And doesn't the 14th amendment kind of already decide this issue? After all, since straight people have the right to marry each other, doesn't this mean that gays have to be given that right too, because of that amendment?

The problem is the 14th amendment has two aspects, equal protection and substantive due process.

On the issue of equal protection, all the court has said was that the law can not discriminate in its purpose, and doesn't. In other words the logic goes like this "a straight man has the right to marry a woman, if a law said a gay man can't marry a woman, that would be a violation of law, however nothing is stopping a gay man from marrying a woman".

In other words, a gay man has the same rights as a straight man does...to marry a woman. Likewise no man gay or straight has the right to marry a man (and the converse is true for women). Therefore they all have the same rights, to marry someone of the opposite sex.

As for substantive due process, the supreme court has as of yet not defined the right to marry a person of the same sex as fundamental, therefore a rational basis reason to restrict it is sufficient. Only one state has decided that issue, Massachussets. However one state does not compel national policy.

The short answer is, as of now the rights for gays to marry has not been deemed fundamental.

Signed

signed.

Who are we to say that two people that love eachother cant get married, even if they are the same sex. Its not like you choose to be gay, and if you bring up that argument you are an idiot, and therefore i will not even bother responding to you.
Anyway, if you're in love with someone, what right does anyone have to tell you that you cant be married? And to those that say "isnt just living with them enough?" well no, its not. see, marriage is a holy thing that binds two people together, or it was supposed to be anyway. a civil union doesnt quite do it for most people. I say let them get married, it doesnt affect me in any way. its not like non-married gays wont have sex or anything...the only thing they want is the legal right to sign a document that says they're married, and to be able to have a ceremony like any other couple. That's all they want. How does that affect anyone else?

Intolerant people really bother me...we're all human, and unless we can all come together and celebrate our differences instead of start wars over them, humanity is doomed.

pfft, thats not the true and traditonal meaning,...

Wrong. Same sex marrage predates the so called Christian version of marrage both in the old world and in the Americas. Many Native American cultures allowed and even encouraged same sex unions. And as this all happened before your version of marrage, it is the truly traditional meaning of marrage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

"Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

In the United States during the 19th century, there was recognition of the relationship of two women making a long-term commitment to each other and cohabitating, referred to at the time as a Boston marriage; however, the general public at the time likely assumed that sexual activities were not part of the relationship."

and...

"There has been a history of same-sex unions in the Western world. Some early Western societies integrated, and even celebrated, same-sex relationships. Evidence of same-sex marriage in antiquity is plentiful. The practice was outlawed in 342 CE, though it is believed to have continued until the late Middle Ages."

I feel that if people want to be together to one of the same sex, then they should move into gether or whatever you people do?Cause if they really love eachother why do they need a Christian/Jewish tradition?

As has already been stated, it's not a Christian tradition but a legal document. And simply moving in together does not provide the 1400+ legal protections/benifits to our families (and yes, many of us have children as being gay doesn't make us sterile) that marrage does.

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

Here is some more on gay culture/marrage among Native Americans...

"All tribes were aware of the existence of two-spirit people, and each still has a name for them. The Dinéh (Navaho) refer to them as nàdleehé one who is ‘transformed’, the Lakota (Sioux) as winkte, the Mohave as alyha, the Zuni as lhamana, the Omaha as mexoga, the Aleut and Kodiak as achnucek, the Zapotec as ira’ muxe, the Cheyenne as he man eh. [5] This abundance of terms testifies to the familiarity of Native Americans with gender-variant people. For proof of the sacred role they held, and hold, in Native society we again turn to Native sources. Terry Calling Eagle, a Lakota man, recounts: “Winktes have to be born that way. People know that a person is going to become a winkte very early in his life. At about age twelve parents will take him to a ceremony to communicate with past winktes who had power, to verify if it is just a phase or a permanent thing for his lifetime. If the proper vision takes place, and communication with a past winkte is established, then everybody accepts him as a winkte.” [6]

Claire R. Farrer, an anthropologist who has “gone native” in the best sense of the term, reports on the present situation among the Mescalero Apache: “Multigendered adult people at Mescalero are usually presumed to be people of power. Because they have both maleness and femaleness totally entwined in one body, they are known to be able to ‘see’ with the eyes of both proper men and proper women. They are often called upon to be healers, or mediators, or interpreters of dreams, or expected to become singers or others whose lives are devoted to the welfare of the group. If they do extraordinary things in any aspect of life, it is assumed that they have the license and power to do so and, therefore, they are not questioned.” [7]

In everyday life the two-spirit male typically would wear women’s clothes and do women’s work. He would be accepted as “one of the girls.” He might take a husband from among the men of the tribe, or might have affairs with several, or both. Generally two-spirit males were not expected to have sexual relations with women. None of these “rules” however were ironbound."

From http://www.androphile.org/preview/Culture/NativeAmerica/amerindian.htm

*sigh* Those truly were the good old days. ;)

*SNIP*In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

The one example I will always remember; a "good" christian family. Has a gay son. He tells them and is disowned.

He moved out, met a gay man and lived with him for many happy years. Something happened and he died.

Now the man did well in life and made money. The family who disowned him swooped in like vultures and claimed everything they could.

The one example I will always remember; a "good" christian family. Has a gay son. He tells them and is disowned.

He moved out, met a gay man and lived with him for many happy years. Something happened and he died.

Now the man did well in life and made money. The family who disowned him swooped in like vultures and claimed everything they could.

Yes. That is the kind of hypocrisy often associated with extremely homophobic people. They just figure that, since their son's partner isn't a real human being, but rather a "dirty evil sodomite" he shouldn't get their son's money. It's not their fault their son chose to be an evil dirty sodomite; they tried to make him change his mind, so they might as well take his money for themselves.

This reeks of the typical double-standards of religious "holier-than-thou" fundamentalists. Thank [insert random deity] not all christians are such assholes.

The one example I will always remember; a "good" christian family. Has a gay son. He tells them and is disowned.

He moved out, met a gay man and lived with him for many happy years. Something happened and he died.

Now the man did well in life and made money. The family who disowned him swooped in like vultures and claimed everything they could.

This is a similar situation from a while back about hospital visitation.

"The story of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski, a lesbian couple who lived together in St. Cloud, MN is illustrative. In 1983, Karen received a call late one November afternoon telling her that had been in a terrible car accident. Karen rushed to the hospital, arriving well before any of Sharon's other family members, who lived much further away. She asked the nurse about Sharon's condition. The nurse refused any information because Karen was not a family member. She continued to track down doctors and other administrators to simply find out whether Sharon was dead or alive. No one would give her even that level of basic information. Hours passed. It was not until Sharon's parent's arrived that Karen learned that her loved one was still alive, but would be severely disabled due to a near fatal close-head injury. As Sharon started the slow path to recovery, her parents got a court order excluding Karen from visiting or in any way continuing contact with her partner since they had no legal relationship. After a costly eight year court battle, Karen won the right to maintain her relationship with Sharon and they were reunited. Now, 10 years later, Karen provides daily care to Sharon who cannot walk, speak, eat or dress on her own, or carry on many of life's functions. Karen has done all of this without any of the social or legal benefits that are there to assist other families in coping with such a tragedy."

Even though this happened during the '80s, it is still fairly common. Many hospitals to this day only allow "family" visitation/information rights. If your "real" family disapproves of your signifigant other, they can have you banned from seeing him/her in the hospital or from having any contact with him/her again if they become mentally impared.

This is a similar situation from a while back about hospital visitation.

"The story of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski, a lesbian couple who lived together in St. Cloud, MN is illustrative. In 1983, Karen received a call late one November afternoon telling her that had been in a terrible car accident. Karen rushed to the hospital, arriving well before any of Sharon's other family members, who lived much further away. She asked the nurse about Sharon's condition. The nurse refused any information because Karen was not a family member. She continued to track down doctors and other administrators to simply find out whether Sharon was dead or alive. No one would give her even that level of basic information. Hours passed. It was not until Sharon's parent's arrived that Karen learned that her loved one was still alive, but would be severely disabled due to a near fatal close-head injury. As Sharon started the slow path to recovery, her parents got a court order excluding Karen from visiting or in any way continuing contact with her partner since they had no legal relationship. After a costly eight year court battle, Karen won the right to maintain her relationship with Sharon and they were reunited. Now, 10 years later, Karen provides daily care to Sharon who cannot walk, speak, eat or dress on her own, or carry on many of life's functions. Karen has done all of this without any of the social or legal benefits that are there to assist other families in coping with such a tragedy."

Even though this happened during the '80s, it is still fairly common. Many hospitals to this day only allow "family" visitation/information rights. If your "real" family disapproves of your signifigant other, they can have you banned from seeing him/her in the hospital or from having any contact with him/her again if they become mentally impared.


HOLY FUCK I am from St. Cloud Minnesota (am there right now) I was born in that hospital

And I was born in january 1983! Fucking scary (and I did not even know about this story)

HOLY FUCK I am from St. Cloud Minnesota (am there right now) I was born in that hospital

And I was born in january 1983! Fucking scary (and I did not even know about this story)

Most people don't. It didn't get much coverage outside of the gay media.

I've been through St Cloud several times myself (usually on my way to Bemidji/Itasca when I lived in St Paul).

Most people don't. It didn't get much coverage outside of the gay media.

I've been through St Cloud several times myself (usually on my way to Bemidji/Itasca when I lived in St Paul).
Cool ... good thoughts is from Bemidji :) I am from just outside of town here lol (St. Joseph)

Most people don't. It didn't get much coverage outside of the gay media.

I've been through St Cloud several times myself (usually on my way to Bemidji/Itasca when I lived in St Paul).
Sad fact is nobody in the media cares if a couple of fags or dykes have their lives broken because of unequal rights.

It's not like we're complete human beings like the rest of them, now, are we? Probably more like 3/5 of a human being...

Cool ... good thoughts is from Bemidji :) I am from just outside of town here lol (St. Joseph)

All the good people are from up there. :p Minnesota is my favorite part of the country. Especially along the upper Mississippi and Lake Superior. I plan on moving back in about two years.

All the good people are from up there. :p Minnesota is my favorite part of the country. Especially along the upper Mississippi and Lake Superior. I plan on moving back in about two years.
Cool Look me up when ya get back :) Ill probably be down in maple grove working by that time lol.

Sad fact is nobody in the media cares if a couple of fags or dykes have their lives broken because of unequal rights.

It's not like we're complete human beings like the rest of them, now, are we? Probably more like 3/5 of a human being...
Yeah no shit ... imagine this sort of shit happened to a strait couple ... it would be all over the news

Yeah no shit ... imagine this sort of shit happened to a strait couple ... it would be all over the news
Yeah. Sucks to be us.

And if we ever rise the subject, we get labeled attention whores. Because, you know, since we're gay, we should just shut up and take this sort of abuse up our collective ass without complaining.

And yes, the pun was intended.

Yeah. Sucks to be us.

And if we ever rise the subject, we get labeled attention whores. Because, you know, since we're gay, we should just shut up and take this sort of abuse up our collective ass without complaining.

And yes, the pun was intended.
No shit ... yet when we try to do something as simple as hold our bf's hands we get shit chucked at us and dirty looks wherever we go. And they call us even more atention whores for doing it

Sad fact is nobody in the media cares if a couple of fags or dykes have their lives broken because of unequal rights.

True. Though it is getting better. Back in the '80s a friend of mine was killed in a gay bashing and it barely even made the local media. But now things like that make national news (think Mathew Shepard). Now if only we can get it to disappear from the media again. But because it no longer happens instead of from indifference.

Cool Look me up when ya get back :) Ill probably be down in maple grove working by that time lol.

Can do. Maple Grove is just a quick hop across the metro from St Paul.

No shit ... yet when we try to do something as simple as hold our bf's hands we get shit chucked at us and dirty looks wherever we go. And they call us even more atention whores for doing it
Yeah. Because every heterosexual out there holding his girlfriend's hand is doing it not because he loves her, but because he wants to scream at everyone to look at him!

I fucking hate double standards. *grumbles*

True. Though it is getting better. Back in the '80s a friend of mine was killed in a gay bashing and it barely even made the local media. But now things like that make national news (think Mathew Shepard). Now if only we can get it to disappear from the media again. But because it no longer happens instead of from indifference.
Amen.

Oh also i forgot the most important source..GOD!

1. Prove it. And I don't want no secondhand sources (nothing written by Leviticus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Mohammed or Crazy Mel the Asteroid Cult Leader). I want an audiotape of the Big Gal's voice itself, or maybe a personal phone call.

2. God can say what She wants. Omnipotent beings can do that. HOWEVER, there's this nifty little "separation" between what She says and how we're supposed to govern ourselves. So any references to deity are not so much valid as they are legally moot. You can use them to govern your OWN life as you see fit (I'm sure as hell not gonna stop you; that would be as bad as you trying to stop someone from legally binding themselves to the person of their choice... and I'd like to think I'm better than that), but our government shouldn't. You wanna live in a strict theocracy? I can name a few that might interest you, although you might have to change denominations... so either start packing your bags or accept the fact that we have a secular government and MOVE THE FOCK ON TO A NEW TOPIC.

3. Last I checked, gay people aren't walking around with uzis, forcing straight people to marry same-sex partners. My housemate is a lesbian and has never ONCE tried to force me into an arranged marriage. Come to think of it, most conversion-by-the-sword and forced marriages have been motivated by religion, not same-sex relationships.

Please, action needs to be taken right now. Tell assholes like Rick "everyone will start fucking dogs" Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people" Fallwell to shut the fuck up and step off. America has zero tolerance for their bullshit.
Thank you.

Sounds to me like you would like to stop the freedom of speech of anyone who opposes your viewpoint. I cant really support Santorum, Falwell , you, or any other fanatic hell bent on oppressing people and further eroding rights because "it's the right thing to do".

This is reminiscent of Willie Brown in Sacramento saying "Damn the (california) Constitution! We have to do what's right!"

Sounds to me like you would like to stop the freedom of speech of anyone who opposes your viewpoint. I cant really support Santorum, Falwell , you, or any other fanatic hell bent on oppressing people and further eroding rights because "it's the right thing to do".

This is reminiscent of Willie Brown in Sacramento saying "Damn the (california) Constitution! We have to do what's right!"
Using your freedom of speech to tell others to "shut the fuck up" does not equal trying to take their freedom of speech away.

Where did he say he wanted to get rid of their rights?

It's ironic how strongly the 'small government party' is acting against states rights.

Definition of marriage is clearly and absolutely a matter afforded to the states by the Constitution.

And frankly, even the states shouldn't be defining what is or is not marriage. Marriage is a contract between individuals, and a matter for one's own personal feelings and one's own personal beliefs.

Churches like the UCC that realize there's nothing wrong with being gay should continue to marry gay couples whether or not the government approves of it.

--

Also, one comment..

Didn't Jesus say 'Blessed are those persecuted in the name of virtuousness, they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven'?

HAVE THE REPUBLICANS EVEN READ THE BIBLE?!

Yeah. Because every heterosexual out there holding his girlfriend's hand is doing it not because he loves her, but because he wants to scream at everyone to look at him!

I fucking hate double standards. *grumbles*
Agreed

You can tell it's an election year. Time for all god-fearing (??) politicians to spread the word about the evil queers! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
I know.


THEY'RE DOING THE SAME ****ING TACTIC THAT THEY USED IN 2004!

THEY'RE
"SAVING THE WORLD FROM THE EBIL GAYS!!!111!!!


And the false religious people take the bait, How I hate this ****ing government.

I'm waiting for the inevitable collapse of the system once the country goes Bankrupt from Repbulican Tax breaks and overspending and they start selling states to the Oil Companies and try and bring back the Serf\Lord system.

THEY'RE DOING THE SAME ****ING TACTIC THAT THEY USED IN 2004!

Yep. Though this time they are focusing more on gay adoption as many states have already passed a constitutional ban on gay marrage/civil unions. It's a slow but steady stripping of our rights in an effort to retain power. At this point, it's the only way they can get elected. But at some point it will go too far for even "conservatives" and backfire. And sooner rather than later I hope.

Using your freedom of speech to tell others to "shut the fuck up" does not equal trying to take their freedom of speech away.

Where did he say he wanted to get rid of their rights?


" I want to grab a machine gun and unload. "

I believe there are rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Machinegunning people is hard on these rights



HTH

From the government's point of view, why recognize or restrict any marriages at all? Love in a relationship has nothing to do with it.

Governments stamp approval over registered intimacies for what reason? If Same-sex relationships, and everything other type as well qualify, then, well, governments recognize marriages for no particular reason at all. The Governments of the world would then simply be articulating their society’s approval and recognize the expressions of love and commitment between the individuals involved because, um, well I don’t know.

Why would the government’s of the world give a rat’s ass about who and who cares for each other or has an exclusive sexual relationship with each other? It wouldn’t be any of their damned business as a matter of fact! Marriage would then be merely an individual’s expressive conduct shared with their partner, and there would be no self-evident reason to think that some people’s expression of should hurt another person’s expressions of love, gay or otherwise.

In truth though, there is a world view that disagrees with that shortsighted definition of Marriage. In this other view, marriage is the elementary institution (a cross-cultural institution bridging the male-female segregation) so that children might have a more permanent parentage of committed mothers and fathers. Marriage would be mandated by the community as inherently normative, for the sake of the offspring, not the parents or marriage partners. When there are children involved, marriage isn’t just another battleground for separating the angry adults after a failed romantic relationship. The legal benefits granted to the partners of a marriage have been shared broadly for the sake of the offspring, not the parents. The children require the governments attention, not the parents. The individual government’s laws do not create marriage, but in societies ruled by law they help trace the boundaries of beneficial child rearing and sustain the public’s meanings of child production, nothing else.

" I want to grab a machine gun and unload. "

I believe there are rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Machinegunning people is hard on these rights



HTH
I can see how you might think so if you did not relize it was just an over exagerated expresion of anger rather then a real wish

I can see how you might think so if you did not relize it was just an over exagerated expresion of anger rather then a real wish


I am only able to read his words not his mind.

Stop bothering to sign, I doubt it'll be even any use.
What did protesters do in the past when they were against something...
They got out there, they got attention, Public attention, They got off their butts and did something. What does this generation do? Sit at home and sign an online Petition. Which will be ignored and\or laughed over. We're out of sight and out of Mind. :(

I am only able to read his words not his mind.
Hardly have to with a statement like that unless you automaticaly assume the worst in all humanity

Same reason when people say "there was like a million of them" I apply common sense and dont assume there was really a million of them

I could always be wrong but the liklyhood of such ...

Stop bothering to sign, it will do nothing, trust me.
What did protesters do in the past when they were against something...
They got out there, they got attention, Public attention, They got off their butts and did something. What does this generation do? Sit at home and sign an online Petition. Which will be ignored and\or laughed over. We're out of sight and out of Mind. :(
I dont know I see plenty of both out there ... both acting as an online presence and protesting. I have seen a few localy, and participated in a few as well (and I am from small town minnesota)

No way I'm putting my bid in to stop it. I want the republican party destroyed.

You realize that online petitions have no real clout, right?

If people are so worked up over use of the tem "marriage" to describe homosexual unions, then "civil union" is fine, but only if that title offers all the same legal rights as a hetrosexual marriage, otherwise, it's still discrimination. Frankly, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. I have some gay friends, and if one of them gets married, I'll attend the wedding and buy them a toaster.

Why is it okay to insist that it's called something else when gay people marry/unionize/whatever? It's not like straight people have a monopoly on the use of the word "marriage". Allowing gays to marry but insisting that they can't call it "marriage" is almost more insulting than simply saying they can't.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]Hardly have to with a statement like that unless you automaticaly assume the worst in all humanity

QUOTE]

So now you can not only read his mind but also mine?

And it is understandable or even good that he says he wants to gun people down. Yet if I have a problem with it I am just not being sensitive enough to his anger and real meaning?

Back on track

I stand by my original post stating that he is a fanatic just like Falwell and the rest.

Furthermore he uses incendiary language and points toward his "obvious" truth in the same way that the fanatics opposing gay marriage use their "obvious" truth in order to try to make his point of view seen as the one-true-way. The main differences I see are in effectiveness and not in tactics.

I dont care for hateful fanatics on either side of this or really any issue. Fall in with the lunatic fringe as you will. I wont.

Nope, won't sign it. If you don't understand the basic reason the "state" (government) even has a hand in marriage then you will never understand why government has nothing to gain by approving same sex marriage. Do your homework and explore why Government even has a hand in marriage instead of deciding it is all about poor gays being discriminated against. That is not why it is being denied, the denial is based in economics.

Go have a service count yourself married in your eyes and leave the government out of it. Just as two people who live together and decide not to make it legal, they love each other. Government sanctioned marriage is not about love it is about economics and it will never pass. It is not an emotional issue.

I am not anti-gay in the least, though some of you will draw that silly conclusion. I am anti-governmental policy being based in emotion.

No way I'm putting my bid in to stop it. I want the republican party destroyed.
Hear hear - quicker than the job they're already doing to themselves.

Nope, won't sign it. If you don't understand the basic reason the "state" (government) even has a hand in marriage then you will never understand why government has nothing to gain by approving same sex marriage. Do your homework and explore why Government even has a hand in marriage instead of deciding it is all about poor gays being discriminated against. That is not why it is being denied, the denial is based in economics.

Go have a service count yourself married in your eyes and leave the government out of it. Just as two people who live together and decide not to make it legal, they love each other. Government sanctioned marriage is not about love it is about economics and it will never pass. It is not an emotional issue.

I am not anti-gay in the least, though some of you will draw that silly conclusion. I am anti-governmental policy being based in emotion.


What abou government policy based on civil rights?

What abou government policy based on civil rights?

Government policy based on civil rights has to do with equality of people, not their emotional or behavioral characteristics. This is not a race issue, nor even a gender issue it is an issue based in emotion with gays claiming it is about love. Government sanctioned marriage is not about love in the least. Comparing gay marriage rights to civil rights as in race relations is not remotely related.

As General Colin Powell put it: “Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound
of human behavioral characteristics.
Comparison of the two is a convenient
but invalid argument.”

When looking at whether or not something should be a government-protected right, I think there are two questions to ask:

1. Is it socially impractical to ensure this right?

2. Does the exercise of this right infringe upon the rights and liberties of any group or individual?

If the answer to both is no, then the government is out of line in restricting that right. If you feel my assessment is inaccurate, please correct me.

When looking at whether or not something should be a government-protected right, I think there are two questions to ask:

1. Is it socially impractical to ensure this right?

2. Does the exercise of this right infringe upon the rights and liberties of any group or individual?

If the answer to both is no, then the government is out of line in restricting that right. If you feel my assessment is inaccurate, please correct me.

I know of no short way to explain that the answer to your first question is yes. I am new to these boards so I don't know if there is a limit on how much I can paste in here, but I would like to share a post from another forum that I think you may understand. Not necessarily agree with but understand why marriage is sanctioned by the government.

As far as question 2, there are no rights and liberties alotted to a couple who does not meet the requirements of heterosexual marriage. So how can they be beign infringed upon? First you have to understand why marriage is sanctioned at all.

The poster who was trying to explain why marriage is sanctioned hit it on the nail.

Peeti wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gay people don't qualify for marriage. Not as marriage is defined. And not with regards to the purpose that marriage serves (reducing the state burden with regards to production of children).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How does popping out children reduce the state burden? If anything, it makes the burden worse. More kids, more schools. If there aren't enough schools, cram more kids into the existing ones, resulting in a lower aggregate level of education. Those dumber kids turn into dumber adults, who pay fewer taxes and tend to soak up a larger share of the money given to programs like unemployment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I didn't say that. In fact, I said the opposite. Popping out children does increase the state burden. On that, you are absolutely correct. So. In order to combat this burden, a state might create a legal status for heterosexual couples in order to maximize the number of children born to two parents joined in an economic unit. If they do this, then they reduce that burden.

Get it? No marriage means all children born to single mothers, which in turn means massive burden on the state. Creation of a status of marriage create economic units consisting of the two people responsible for production of said child and reduces the burden on the state. So much so, that it's benefitial for the state to profide incentives for heterosexual couples to form into these economic units *prior* to having children, and still worthwhile to maintain that status even for heterosexual couples who choose not to or cannot produce children.

But there is *no* logic within that structure for gay marriage. It simply does not make any sense. There is no need for the state to expend resources providing incentives for gay couples to marry, since the state gains no benefit in return. It's simply a cost. We'd be providing benefits to a segment of society for no reason other then that we can.

By that logic, why not just give those benefits to any two people who ask for them whether they're "married" or not? If it's just about helping people live better lives, why restrict it at all? Once you open the gay marriage genie, you automatically validate any other form of marriage because you no longer have any logical reason to continue to restrict it.

The primary disagreement is over whether the state should provide benefits to people based on whether the people need and/or want them, or whether the benefits themselves generate a benefit to the state in return. Liberals will tend to lean towards providing benefits based on people's needs and wants. Conservatives will tend to lean towards only providing benefits to people based on the return benefit to the state (ie: more money saved by not having to care directly for children then is spent providing the benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples). It has nothing to do with whether you "like gays" or "hate gays". It has everything to do with a political ideology that says that every expense by the government should have a purpose beyond just "we can afford it and it would be nice".


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd think that the state would love gay marriage. They work, they pay their taxes, collect their healthcare/etc. benefits, and then they die. And there's absolutely no chance of a gay married couple spitting out fifteen odd kids that they have no way to support, and who will drain the government coffers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Heh. Again. That's exactly the reason why there's no reason to provide marriage benefits to gay couples. Gay couples aren't going to generate a burden on the state whether they're married or not. Thus, there's no reason for the state to grant a status of marriage. Certainly, the state has no reason to discurage gay relationships, but there's a wide gap between allowing something and subsidizing it. Marriage status essentially subsidizes the relationship and there's no reason to do that. It's not like the lack of gay marriage benefits from the state will make gay couples go out and have hetero sex and produce children that need state assistance...


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose that marriage serves is to legally confer benefits on the two people as one entity. It may be historically defined as "man and woman," but if we're going to base all our future actions as a society on religious dogma, then I'd like to see marriage return to its former biblical glory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ignore the bible. Ask yourself "why would the state provide benefits for two people to form into one economic entity?". Remember. We're not talking about a religious sacrament. Nor are we talking about a simple social contract. We're talking about state recognized marriage, which carries with it a host of tax benefits, health care benefits, inheritance, guardianship, power of attorney and a zillion other minor things, every single one of which is incredibly useful for a couple that produces children, but is more or less totally unecessary for one that doesn't.



Oh. And to whoever piped in with the oh-so-original "but not every heterosexual couple will or can produce children". Been there done that. Got the t-shirt.

How exactly will the state determine if any givern heterosexual couple can or will produce children? It can't. Not without requiring significant tests prior to marriage or witholding benefits until children are born. Both cases are negative to the purpose of the state in this case though. If you require tests, that will make it more of a hassle to marry. We're already having a problem with hetero couples producing children outside of marriage (up from 3% to 35% over the last 60 years). Adding an extra hurdle to jump before getting a marriage license isn't likely to help. And witholding benefits puts us right back where we started. We need an incentive for couples to marry *before* having children. Providing them only when they do means that many people wont consider marriage until they do, which means many more wont bother (since they can often get better benefits directly by not marrying instead).


The point is that there's no cheap and easy way to subdivide heterosexual couples in order to only allow marriage for those that can/will produce children. We simply can't blanketly divide that group in any rational fashion. We can, however, state with absolute certainty that it's impossible for a gay couple to produce a child together. Thus, it's entirely reasonable and "cheap" (remember, this is about reducing cost to the state) to deny marriage to gay couples on this ground. It's not reasonable to require heterosexual couples to prove that they can or will produce children. It's just not practical...
(end)

Oh. And to whoever piped in with the oh-so-original "but not every heterosexual couple will or can produce children". Been there done that. Got the t-shirt.

How exactly will the state determine if any givern heterosexual couple can or will produce children? It can't.

Well.. if the couple in question consists of two 80 year olds or at least one sterilised partner, chances of childbirth are slim. So we can forbid them to marry under statelegislature. I assume you have no objections ?

In addition I wonder why a homosexual couple would not be able to raise children. Adoptable orphans exist in ample supply; and every orphan raised by moneyearning gays does not need to be paid for by the state.

The government's economic interests do not and should not determine what rights the government is bound to protect.

All that means is that it doesn't help the government in any way. It doesn't make banning gay marriage any less wrong.

All that means is that it doesn't help the government in any way.

No, it doesn't. The staterecognition of marriage has other reasons besides the childissue; like e.g. determining power of attorney. Arguing that one aspect of the reasons for recognition does not apply does not mean that the others do not apply either.

The government's economic interests do not and should not determine what rights the government is bound to protect.

But marriage is not a right, it is an economic unit by governing standards. I realize that you feel it is a right. By the same token would it be a right for a brother to marry his sister? A pet owner to marry his pet? Should it be a right for polygamists to have multiple husbands or wives? All of these examples could also be considered a right, but they aren't. Just because someone wants something does not make it a right.

My point was simply to explain why I will never support gay marriage. It is not that I don't support that they love each other, I certainly believe they do. But love is not a right granted by the government nor to be dictated by it. The government is not saying you are not free to love each other, they are saying there is no vested interest in it for the government to sanction it. For my personal part of this, I don't believe we should hand out entitlements just because we can. Which in reality the shape our budget is in we really can't afford to do anyway.

But marriage is not a right, it is an economic unit by governing standards.

No, it is several things including an economic unit by governing standards.

No, it is several things including an economic unit by governing standards.

Such as?

But marriage is not a right, it is an economic unit by governing standards. I realize that you feel it is a right. By the same token would it be a right for a brother to marry his sister? A pet owner to marry his pet? Should it be a right for polygamists to have multiple husbands or wives? All of these examples could also be considered a right, but they aren't. Just because someone wants something does not make it a right. Ah, but you managed to list something that absolutely doesn't fit in. Pets by definition are incapable of consenting to sex, let alone marriage, so the comparison is rather silly. Now I agree that those things you listed aren't right, but you have to give reasons for this that justify being against it. Sound reasons apart from "I don't like it". Incest is very dangerous due to the problems similar genes of the parents present. Beastiality is abuse of animals that are incapable of giving consent anyway. Polygamy encourages a social structure centered around one sex, and to be honest, there aren't really enough women around for every man to have several.

Just because someone does not like something doesn't keep it from being a right.

Ah, but you managed to list something that absolutely doesn't fit in. Pets by definition are incapable of consenting to sex, let alone marriage, so the comparison is rather silly. Now I agree that those things you listed aren't right, but you have to give reasons for this that justify being against it. Sound reasons apart from "I don't like it". Incest is very dangerous due to the problems similar genes of the parents present. Beastiality is abuse of animals that are incapable of giving consent anyway. Polygamy encourages a social structure centered around one sex, and to be honest, there aren't really enough women around for every man to have several.

Just because someone does not like something doesn't keep it from being a right.

Of course the examples are silly, the point was not about sexual relations but regarding the government having a reason to sanction any of it. The only reason any of the examples aren't sanctioned by the government is the economic unit (though that can be argued in the sibling marriage, not smart but can be argued, and the case of the polygamist) and none of the above are socially sanctioned in this country. At this point in time the government doesn't sanction gay marriage for economic reasons, and society as a majority so far hasn't sanctioned it either. Until both those thoughts come together in some kind of harmony it won't happen.

When looking at whether or not something should be a government-protected right, I think there are two questions to ask:

1. Is it socially impractical to ensure this right?

2. Does the exercise of this right infringe upon the rights and liberties of any group or individual?

If the answer to both is no, then the government is out of line in restricting that right. If you feel my assessment is inaccurate, please correct me.


You assune that something is a right before that right is granted. Not all things which are allowed are rights.

In regards to your first question
Once a right is granted, and only after a right is granted it is the government's duty to ensure the right whether it is impractical or not,

Your second question is exactly why care must be taken when granting rights.

But marriage is not a right, it is an economic unit by governing standards. I realize that you feel it is a right. By the same token would it be a right for a brother to marry his sister?

If one views state sanctioned marriages purely as an economic and judicial contract - why not ? It is still a great guarantee for banks to know who to charge for the mortgage, tells the hospital who has the primary right to decide if they should operate or not if one is incapacitated, gives the two some security knowing the other can not just walk out of joint projects without having to go through the legal mill etc. etc. Hopefully no children will result from this union; but the benefits for the state to recognise it are numerous.

A pet owner to marry his pet?
If the pet is intelligent enough to sign the contract and the union offers benefits to the state... sure. I have no idea what those benefits could be; nor do I think it likely that a pet can do that; but since I am not the one wishing to marry my cat that is not my problem.

Should it be a right for polygamists to have multiple husbands or wives?
Actually I see HUGE benefits for the government to recognise groupmarriages, provided they are well set up. More people clumped together can make a more stable economic unit - one of the reasons whole families used to live together (and still do in many places).

Sidenote: I still do not see why the economic unit of two gays could not relieve the burden of the state by adopting children.

If one views state sanctioned marriages purely as an economic and judicial contract - why not ? It is still a great guarantee for banks to know who to charge for the mortgage, tells the hospital who has the primary right to decide if they should operate or not if one is incapacitated, gives the two some security knowing the other can not just walk out of joint projects without having to go through the legal mill etc. etc. Hopefully no children will result from this union; but the benefits for the state to recognise it are numerous.

First none of these examples provide any benefit for the state and that is who does the sanctioning. Second marriage is not required for people to co-own property. Marriage is also not required for a POA or a medical POA. Third, we know that a piece of paper does not tie the binds any tighter.


If the pet is intelligent enough to sign the contract and the union offers benefits to the state... sure. I have no idea what those benefits could be; nor do I think it likely that a pet can do that; but since I am not the one wishing to marry my cat that is not my problem.

Agreed. The point was there are no benefits to the state.


Actually I see HUGE benefits for the government to recognise groupmarriages, provided they are well set up. More people clumped together can make a more stable economic unit - one of the reasons whole families used to live together (and still do in many places).

Actually alot of people agree with you on this. I don't personally but I know several who do, in fact I know several situations where two are married and a third co-habitates with the couple. Many of those who practice this are waiting to see the gay marriage issue outcome in hopes they can also have their situation sanctioned on the same grounds. As far as families living together, yes many still do, but each unit is still treated as a seperate and whole unit alone.

Sidenote: I still do not see why the economic unit of two gays could not relieve the burden of the state by adopting children.

This drives to a completely seperate issue of gay couples adopting children. Relevant yes but with a whole side bar of issues attached. The state has an obligation to try to find the best possible home for a child. That home being recognized as both a mother and father to rear a child, as dictated by psychologists and sociologists. At this point in time sanctioning gay couples to adopt is in essence waging a social experiment with children as the guinea pigs per se. Something the government can't do simply because NOT trying to provide them with a balance home is not the goal. In other words, if I child were given to a gay couple, should a heterosexual couple then come along would the state have actually served the child in it's best interest by allowing it to be adopted by a gay couple? It is unknown, but what is known is a child's best environment is with a father and a mother. The fight will then ensue regarding homosexuals feeling they are being discriminated against because a heterosexual couple would be given preference. Do you see the problems? I see some good to the idea, but I see more problems overall.

lol I think it should be the other way around, to get gay marriage to be legit and be legal they first have to:fix the budget deficit, rebuild New Orleans, establish a sensible energy policy, enact lobbying reform, sign the Kyoto Accords, fix Iraq, and stop cutting taxes for the rich people,fix poverty, win the war on racism and drugs then it can be legal.

War on drugs is easy to fix, legalize and regulate, pardon all drug prisoners (except for those with other charges against them as well...) and then use the savings to rebuild New Orleans?

Government policy based on civil rights has to do with equality of people, not their emotional or behavioral characteristics.

First: Prove to me right now this instant that being gay is merely a behavioral or emotional characteristic. More scientific proof is being made that points in the direction of it being something that cant be helped. If it is something that a person has no control over, then it can be just as bad as racism.

Second: So then we should limit the rights of people who choose to eat different foods? Maybe people who wear different clothing? Limit the rights of Republicans maybe?

Regardless of whether its a choice or something that cannot be controlled, the government has no right to discriminate against this.

I can see how you might think so if you did not relize it was just an over exagerated expresion of anger rather then a real wish

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING AN IOTA OF INTELLIGENCE TO THIS THREAD.

War on drugs is easy to fix, legalize and regulate, pardon all drug prisoners (except for those with other charges against them as well...) and then use the savings to rebuild New Orleans?

Nah. It gets in the way of the goverment making money on the side for "special" projects. Remember Iran-Contra?

First: Prove to me right now this instant that being gay is merely a behavioral or emotional characteristic. More scientific proof is being made that points in the direction of it being something that cant be helped. If it is something that a person has no control over, then it can be just as bad as racism.

Second: So then we should limit the rights of people who choose to eat different foods? Maybe people who wear different clothing? Limit the rights of Republicans maybe?

Regardless of whether its a choice or something that cannot be controlled, the government has no right to discriminate against this.






This is a good point. The government could stand to benefit by regulating a LOT of "behavioral traits". Not many people would support banning dissident speech on the grounds that allowing it does not benefit the state. Personally, I couldn't give less of a damn about what benefits the state in this matter. The only question that concerns me is, "Is it right to deny gay couples the same rights that straight couples are entitled to?", and in my mind, the answer is a resounding "no".

This drives to a completely seperate issue of gay couples adopting children. Relevant yes but with a whole side bar of issues attached. The state has an obligation to try to find the best possible home for a child. That home being recognized as both a mother and father to rear a child, as dictated by psychologists and sociologists. At this point in time sanctioning gay couples to adopt is in essence waging a social experiment with children as the guinea pigs per se. Something the government can't do simply because NOT trying to provide them with a balance home is not the goal. In other words, if I child were given to a gay couple, should a heterosexual couple then come along would the state have actually served the child in it's best interest by allowing it to be adopted by a gay couple? It is unknown, but what is known is a child's best environment is with a father and a mother. The fight will then ensue regarding homosexuals feeling they are being discriminated against because a heterosexual couple would be given preference. Do you see the problems? I see some good to the idea, but I see more problems overall.

Problem being children are parishable goods, do we let a large group sit and rot in orphanages and in foster care while waiting for the suposedly fractionaly better household.

...
This drives to a completely seperate issue of gay couples adopting children. Relevant yes but with a whole side bar of issues attached. The state has an obligation to try to find the best possible home for a child. That home being recognized as both a mother and father to rear a child, as dictated by psychologists and sociologists. At this point in time sanctioning gay couples to adopt is in essence waging a social experiment with children as the guinea pigs per se. Something the government can't do simply because NOT trying to provide them with a balance home is not the goal. In other words, if I child were given to a gay couple, should a heterosexual couple then come along would the state have actually served the child in it's best interest by allowing it to be adopted by a gay couple? It is unknown, but what is known is a child's best environment is with a father and a mother. The fight will then ensue regarding homosexuals feeling they are being discriminated against because a heterosexual couple would be given preference. Do you see the problems? I see some good to the idea, but I see more problems overall.

I would really like to see the reports of these "psychologists and sociologists". The fact is that children today ALREADY live with same-sex parents, and studies have shown that they are doing just as well as any other kids.

In the end, which is better: 2 loving parents in a secure home, or rotting away in a foster home? Honestly, which would you choose?

I would really like to see the reports of these "psychologists and sociologists". The fact is that children today ALREADY live with same-sex parents, and studies have shown that they are doing just as well as any other kids.

In the end, which is better: 2 loving parents in a secure home, or rotting away in a foster home? Honestly, which would you choose?

I'd vote for 2 loving queer parents in a secure home over rotting away in a foster home. And no doubts about it - even ONE gay parent is preferable over the little hells where children are institutionalised.


Having said that, I still think that the original threadmaker + supporters should start to realise what democracy is all about: all people having a say in decision-makers, and not just you and your mates. If the sovereign people democratically decide to outlaw gay marriage, so be it. If you don't like majority decisions when they don't go your way, you ain't a democratic person.

I'd vote for 2 loving queer parents in a secure home over rotting away in a foster home. And no doubts about it - even ONE gay parent is preferable over the little hells where children are institutionalised.


Having said that, I still think that the original threadmaker + supporters should start to realise what democracy is all about: all people having a say in decision-makers, and not just you and your mates. If the sovereign people democratically decide to outlaw gay marriage, so be it. If you don't like majority decisions when they don't go your way, you ain't a democratic person.

So what you are saying is that its okay to democratically vote against the foundations of this country and the ideals set forth in the constitution?

"All men are created equal" should not be something you can democratically vote against. Ever.

So what you are saying is that its okay to democratically vote against the foundations of this country and the ideals set forth in the constitution?

"All men are created equal" should not be something you can democratically vote against. Ever.


Yup. Either the People are sovereign, or they are not.

Ideals of a century ago can be overturned in favour of ideals of now.

If you oppose voting against something democratically, it plain means that you oppose Democracy if it don't go your way. Shame on you!

I'd vote for 2 loving queer parents in a secure home over rotting away in a foster home. And no doubts about it - even ONE gay parent is preferable over the little hells where children are institutionalised.


Having said that, I still think that the original threadmaker + supporters should start to realise what democracy is all about: all people having a say in decision-makers, and not just you and your mates. If the sovereign people democratically decide to outlaw gay marriage, so be it. If you don't like majority decisions when they don't go your way, you ain't a democratic person.
Thank god we dont live in a total democracy, the creators of the usa were too smart for that.

Rights and equality should never be decided based on a popularity contest.

I don't oppose gay marriage.

But whether you're for or against it, how can any American in his or her right mind think that this has any place in the Bill of Rights?

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit Government! It is an extraordinary and posibly unique document that details those protections we have against local, state and federal government violation our basic rights. The idea of a amendment that limits the rights of certain citizens is an antithesis to the most important docment in the country.

Anybody who values the ideals of the country should be against this amendment regardless of how one feels about gay marriage.

I don't oppose gay marriage.

But whether you're for or against it, how can any American in his or her right mind think that this has any place in the Bill of Rights?

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit Government! It is an extraordinary and posibly unique document that details those protections we have against local, state and federal government violation our basic rights. The idea of a amendment that limits the rights of certain citizens is an antithesis to the most important docment in the country.

Anybody who values the ideals of the country should be against this amendment regardless of how one feels about gay marriage.
Too bad so many people will let the ick factor overwhelm their judgement

Thank god we dont live in a total democracy, the creators of the usa were too smart for that.

Rights and equality should never be decided based on a popularity contest.

Damn right. Ive noticed that in america in particular, people think that democracy means they can discriminate against minorities and its ok. Just because the majority support something doesnt necessarily mean its right. The is right and wrong, and whether the majority agrees is irrelevant. How dare people vote for legislation denying other peoples rights? Its nothing to do with anyone else whether gay people get married.

If you oppose voting against something democratically, it plain means that you oppose Democracy if it don't go your way.

Or that for instance your country has a constitution.

Nay, your basis for opposing this is wrong.

Marriage is religious by nature.
It is not right under the US Constitution. If it was, then whoever you proposed to would be banned from saying no. That would violate freedom of choice.
You are not talking about an "American" right. You are talking about a global human right.
What this deals with the right to freedom of association which would cover things like marriage.
As I've stated before, government should not be involved in sanctioning marriages period. It's bad enough the government requires you to get its permission just to enter a straight marriage. I am of the view that requirements for couples to get government marriage licenses is itself unconstitutional.

If I was President, I would abolish the government's interference in the institution of marriage altogether.

Oh also i forgot the most important source..GOD!
Really? Because I was having a few beers with him the other day and he told me we should promote gay marriage and ban straight marriages.

what are you talking about? are you rasict or something? Allowing people of the same sex to marry is much different then whites marring blacks, the whites and blacks issue has to do with racism, while on the other hand allowing people of the same sex to marry is not racism.
It's heterosexism. It's discrimination based on whether or not a person's brain is wired to be gay. It's just like racism, and that makes you just as bad as a racist.

Really? Because I was having a few beers with him the other day and he told me we should promote gay marriage and ban straight marriages.


I agree with him! Pass me a beer!

The hetros haven't done a good job at marriage anyway! Time for somebody else to give it a try.

Translation: "Waaah! The dictionary doesn't support my antiquated views, which I for some reason think are the only "true" ones because I say they are! Damn those liberals for not using the word in the way I demand they use it."

Face it: Your attempt to use a dictionary to support your troglodytic assertion was laughable. Marriage is not "defined" as "man + woman" at all. It is defined in any way we wish to define it. And the way you want to define it is, fortunately, going the way of the dodo, just like the racist way of defining it did.

actually, you should probably replace all of you 'define' in that second sentence with 'connote', as it is your own personal understanding, and by the way, to the original meaning, since the marriage we see in America was of Judeo-Christian origin, that would be the real source to go to first, and the Bible makes no providence for practicing homosexuals to follow righteousness (dont get me wrong, practicing hetero's who are not married are equally in sin, I do not hate gay people, but rather recognise its sinful nature, as I would the sinful nature in my self on other issues)

It's heterosexism. It's discrimination based on whether or not a person's brain is wired to be gay. It's just like racism, and that makes you just as bad as a racist.

its not proven that homosexuality is 'pre-wired', sorry but I am an adherent to 'nurture', not 'nature'

Nope, won't sign it. If you don't understand the basic reason the "state" (government) even has a hand in marriage then you will never understand why government has nothing to gain by approving same sex marriage. Do your homework and explore why Government even has a hand in marriage instead of deciding it is all about poor gays being discriminated against. That is not why it is being denied, the denial is based in economics.

Go have a service count yourself married in your eyes and leave the government out of it. Just as two people who live together and decide not to make it legal, they love each other. Government sanctioned marriage is not about love it is about economics and it will never pass. It is not an emotional issue.

I am not anti-gay in the least, though some of you will draw that silly conclusion. I am anti-governmental policy being based in emotion.
Married couples have rights that unmarried couples don't. Why should government deny those rights to people based on whether or not they're gay?

Government policy based on civil rights has to do with equality of people, not their emotional or behavioral characteristics. This is not a race issue, nor even a gender issue it is an issue based in emotion with gays claiming it is about love. Government sanctioned marriage is not about love in the least. Comparing gay marriage rights to civil rights as in race relations is not remotely related.

As General Colin Powell put it: “Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual
orientation is perhaps the most profound
of human behavioral characteristics.
Comparison of the two is a convenient
but invalid argument.”
It's valid in that one can't change either their skin color or sexual orientation. Basically you're in favor of denying people rights based on the way they were born. The analogy with racism does work.

its not proven that homosexuality is 'pre-wired', sorry but I am an adherent to 'nurture', not 'nature'

And its not proven to be nurture either. In addition, the more studies done, the more it points to nature. So continue living in your bubble.

Married couples have rights that unmarried couples don't. Why should government deny those rights to people based on whether or not they're gay?

what rights are these? the only one I can think of is 'the right to have gov't say that there is an official connection'

as you could easily have any homosexual partner listed as 'next-of-kin' or leave them a will, I am missing what secret and special rights married hetero's get

what rights are these? the only one I can think of is 'the right to have gov't say that there is an official connection'

as you could easily have any homosexual partner listed as 'next-of-kin' or leave them a will, I am missing what secret and special rights married hetero's get
There are over a thousand rights associated with marrige? why the fuck should we make people go through the act of claiming each and every one seperatly just because we are squeemish about the government treating people equaly?

But marriage is not a right, it is an economic unit by governing standards. I realize that you feel it is a right. By the same token would it be a right for a brother to marry his sister? A pet owner to marry his pet? Should it be a right for polygamists to have multiple husbands or wives? All of these examples could also be considered a right, but they aren't. Just because someone wants something does not make it a right.

My point was simply to explain why I will never support gay marriage. It is not that I don't support that they love each other, I certainly believe they do. But love is not a right granted by the government nor to be dictated by it. The government is not saying you are not free to love each other, they are saying there is no vested interest in it for the government to sanction it. For my personal part of this, I don't believe we should hand out entitlements just because we can. Which in reality the shape our budget is in we really can't afford to do anyway.


Certain rights are given to married couples that aren't given to other types of couples. Those include the right to make medical decisions if the other partner is incapacitated, and often the right to adopt. By not allowing gays to marry you deprive them of those rights.

Also you asked in earlier posts what benefit to the government is there for gays to marry. Well, gay couples can adopt kids that otherwise are a burden on the taxpayer.

Now as for your ridiculous examples in this post, like a man marrying his dog; that won't happen. Marriage is a contract. Animals can't enter into contracts. Siblings cannot wed because the offspring would be prone to suffer genetic problems. There is absolutely no reason to ban polygamy though.

And its not proven to be nurture either. In addition, the more studies done, the more it points to nature. So continue living in your bubble.

well, to be fair I never claimed my opinion on this matter as fact, and I 'apologized' as to let you know, and any 'point' for 'nature' can just as easily be put to 'nurture'

for example, homosexuals react to pheromones produced by... wait for it... members of the same sex! (that one seemed pretty obvious, whoever paid to have that study done wasted money), the 'nature' folks tried using this as some amount of evidence until people said 'hey! you can 'learn' to be attracted to pheromones, either to change your taste, or in the instance of only wanting to be attracted to one person, focusing your tastes'

so that point really amounts to nothing, and as yet I have heard little other actual evidence for nature that discludes nurture

its not proven that homosexuality is 'pre-wired', sorry but I am an adherent to 'nurture', not 'nature'
Yeah, but as with adherents to creationism the evidence is piling up against you.

what rights are these? the only one I can think of is 'the right to have gov't say that there is an official connection'

as you could easily have any homosexual partner listed as 'next-of-kin' or leave them a will, I am missing what secret and special rights married hetero's get
Adoption, the right to make decisions for you if you're incapacitated, the right to visit you in the hospital ICU (they often only let in spouses and blood relatives) and probably many other rights that I'm forgetting are denied to gays.

There are over a thousand rights associated with marrige? why the fuck should we make people go through the act of claiming each and every one seperatly just because we are squeemish about the government treating people equaly?

well, if 'we are squemish' (naturally inferring the American populace in general) then that is the reason exactly, welcome to Republican Deomocracy, the people choose, right? wrong? doesnt matter, it is about the will of the people (or representatives in most cases, who are indeed elected by the people)

and if you could actually list any of the 'thousands of rights' that you mentioned there are, but of course did not actually give any example whatsoever, that might actually, you know, make it harder to ignore your point completely

well, to be fair I never claimed my opinion on this matter as fact, and I 'apologized' as to let you know, and any 'point' for 'nature' can just as easily be put to 'nurture'

for example, homosexuals react to pheromones produced by... wait for it... members of the same sex! (that one seemed pretty obvious, whoever paid to have that study done wasted money), the 'nature' folks tried using this as some amount of evidence until people said 'hey! you can 'learn' to be attracted to pheromones, either to change your taste, or in the instance of only wanting to be attracted to one person, focusing your tastes'

so that point really amounts to nothing, and as yet I have heard little other actual evidence for nature that discludes nurture

I eat a piece of chicken. It tastes good.

All of a sudden people say its an abomination to eat chicken, and I have to choose not to eat it.

Can I just change my tastes accordingly to think chicken tastes bad? If you think you can, I would like to know how.

its not proven that homosexuality is 'pre-wired', sorry but I am an adherent to 'nurture', not 'nature'

PWNed!!! (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Now kindly reverse your position on the subject.

well, to be fair I never claimed my opinion on this matter as fact, and I 'apologized' as to let you know, and any 'point' for 'nature' can just as easily be put to 'nurture'

for example, homosexuals react to pheromones produced by... wait for it... members of the same sex! (that one seemed pretty obvious, whoever paid to have that study done wasted money), the 'nature' folks tried using this as some amount of evidence until people said 'hey! you can 'learn' to be attracted to pheromones, either to change your taste, or in the instance of only wanting to be attracted to one person, focusing your tastes'

so that point really amounts to nothing, and as yet I have heard little other actual evidence for nature that discludes nurture
No, that's simply not true.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f97/projects97/Newman.html

Homosexuality is linked to the mother's family tree. Different generations of a given family tree don't share the same environments, only some of the same genes.

Adoption, the right to make decisions for you if you're incapacitated, the right to visit you in the hospital ICU (they often only let in spouses and blood relatives) and probably many other rights that I'm forgetting are denied to gays.

gays can, and frequently do adopt, I have seen nothing that has ever said that adoption is available ONLY to married couples consisting of one man, and one woman, nice try though.... not really

and your next point, med desicions, and ICU, did I not already list 'next-of-kin' that is the status conferred naturally by marriage that ypu can easily confer to any one persona that you choose, in, or outside of marriage (I said one assuming that you cannot have more than one 'next-of-kin' am I wrong?)

PWNed!!! (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Now kindly reverse your position on the subject.

Damn, I was beaten to the punch.

I eat a piece of chicken. It tastes good.

All of a sudden people say its an abomination to eat chicken, and I have to choose not to eat it.

Can I just change my tastes accordingly to think chicken tastes bad? If you think you can, I would like to know how.

well, food might be a littel different, although nice example, if I may supply my own...

after three years of being with the girl who was my ex-fiancee, i was completely enamored with her beauty, she was the most beautiful girl I could ever imagine... now, was she a supermodel? ummm, no, in fact many hve said she wasnt very attractive, or even ugly, yet I was enamored... but not immediately it was after being together for years, and our subsequent seperation that I thought she was completely gorgeous, that is my body changing its tastes so that she fits perfectly, now of course my body has changed once again, and probably through the result of the situation alone, I do not find her attractive

also, if you absolutely hate peas, but eat them every day, soon, you will probably not only not hate them, but even grow to like them (Assuming you dont eat them absolutely every emal, in which case they will have no taste to you)

You are correct, but your belief is unreasonable. This government will never back down from marriage so we must work to extend it to as many people as possible.

Wrong.

If we leave it restrictive, it will lose it's appeal even to those to whom it applies. Fewer and fewer people will get married, and eventually we won't have legal marriage, not because the law changed, but because no one bothers to do it.

Thinking about people my age (around 30), I know one couple that is legally married. The rest have all simply declined to do the paperwork.

We were winning the fight to deregulate marriage, but then the gay rights people came along and gave the institution of marriage extra legitimacy by making it more inclusive.

You've set us back decades.

PWNed!!! (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Now kindly reverse your position on the subject.

That's far from conclusive evidence. They only measured adult lesbians. Post-nurture lesbains. If their neurological development was affected by their upbringing, you'd only see the results here, not the cause.

gays can, and frequently do adopt, I have seen nothing that has ever said that adoption is available ONLY to married couples consisting of one man, and one woman, nice try though.... not really

and your next point, med desicions, and ICU, did I not already list 'next-of-kin' that is the status conferred naturally by marriage that ypu can easily confer to any one persona that you choose, in, or outside of marriage (I said one assuming that you cannot have more than one 'next-of-kin' am I wrong?)
Even assuming you're right, a gay couple who lives together for years as a married couple would and then needs to split up for some reason has no legal recourse to divorce to split property and assign custody of children. This deprives them of equal protection under the law.

But of course you're not right. If you would have bothered to read through the thread you would have found several incidents where gay partners lost out on inheritances, and were unable to visit incapacitated partners or make decisions for them.

PWNed!!! (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060508170309990008&ncid=NWS00010000000001)

Now kindly reverse your position on the subject.

umm, did you bother to even read the title of said article?
"Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains"

now, I will take a scientific 'suggestion' as indisputable, pwnable proof, when it has any reason to be, and also, one must realise that brains may develop differently according to our circumstnaces, no, I did not read the article, I was so blown away by the fact that the title makes your 'pwnage' completely void

and please, evidence and proof are different, evidence merely meas 'support for an issue' (If you would like to argue that, you can argue with my philosophy professor), and of course proof is... well, proof, irrefutable

I hate to upset people here, but "Civil Union's" have been legal in the UK since the beginning of this year, with all the same rights as a "marriage"

well, if 'we are squemish' (naturally inferring the American populace in general) then that is the reason exactly, welcome to Republican Deomocracy, the people choose, right? wrong? doesnt matter, it is about the will of the people (or representatives in most cases, who are indeed elected by the people)

and if you could actually list any of the 'thousands of rights' that you mentioned there are, but of course did not actually give any example whatsoever, that might actually, you know, make it harder to ignore your point completely
There are 1,138 to be exact, if you feel like being an ass have fun reading
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf there are some of them

Even assuming you're right, a gay couple who lives together for years as a married couple would and then needs to split up for some reason has no legal recourse to divorce to split property and assign custody of children. This deprives them of equal protection under the law.

But of course you're not right. If you would have bothered to read through the thread you would have found several incidents where gay partners lost out on inheritances, and were unable to visit incapacitated partners or make decisions for them.

I would conced to your point, but it sint correct either, as some widows have either lost, or almost lost inheritances (legally married) because they might have been 'gold-diggers' it happens, so...anything else? or can you just keep providing me with points that I can easily refute?

well, food might be a littel different, although nice example, if I may supply my own...

after three years of being with the girl who was my ex-fiancee, i was completely enamored with her beauty, she was the most beautiful girl I could ever imagine... now, was she a supermodel? ummm, no, in fact many hve said she wasnt very attractive, or even ugly, yet I was enamored... but not immediately it was after being together for years, and our subsequent seperation that I thought she was completely gorgeous, that is my body changing its tastes so that she fits perfectly, now of course my body has changed once again, and probably through the result of the situation alone, I do not find her attractive

also, if you absolutely hate peas, but eat them every day, soon, you will probably not only not hate them, but even grow to like them (Assuming you dont eat them absolutely every emal, in which case they will have no taste to you)


Bad example. Love for a person easily surpasses their physical beauty, or lack thereof. If you are truly in love with someone, you ignore physical characteristics. Seeing a hot babe might arouse you sexually, but any woman regardless of looks can stimulate you emotionally.

Can I just will myself to think chicken tastes bad? Can I eventually like the smell of shit? No, I dont think so.

Your last argument basically defines "acquired taste." The thing is, our perception of our senses does not change. Peas will always taste the same, shit will always smell the same. If they didnt, our senses would be useless. If shit smells different to us the next day, we wont know its shit.

I hate to upset people here, but "Civil Union's" have been legal in the UK since the beginning of this year, with all the same rights as a "marriage"

Civil Unions here in America do not offer all the rights that marriage does.

umm, did you bother to even read the title of said article?
"Study Suggests Difference in Lesbians' Brains"

now, I will take a scientific 'suggestion' as indisputable, pwnable proof, when it has any reason to be, and also, one must realise that brains may develop differently according to our circumstnaces, no, I did not read the article, I was so blown away by the fact that the title makes your 'pwnage' completely void

and please, evidence and proof are different, evidence merely meas 'support for an issue' (If you would like to argue that, you can argue with my philosophy professor), and of course proof is... well, proof, irrefutable

If you're doing philosophy then you should know that a thing can only be irrefutably proved via mathematics so evidence is the best you can realistically get when the real world is involved.

Lesbians' brains react differently to sex hormones than those of heterosexual women, new research indicates.

That's in line with an earlier study that had indicated gay men's brain responses were different from straight men - though the difference for men was more pronounced than has now been found in women.

Lesbians' brains reacted somewhat, though not completely, like those of heterosexual men, a team of Swedish researchers said in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A year ago, the same group reported findings for gay men that showed their brain response to hormones was similar to that of heterosexual women.

In both cases the findings add weight to the idea that homosexuality has a physical basis and is not learned behavior.

I have never seen any research claiming that brain structure is affected to this extent by upbringing, please present it if you have it.

I would conced to your point, but it sint correct either, as some widows have either lost, or almost lost inheritances (legally married) because they might have been 'gold-diggers' it happens, so...anything else? or can you just keep providing me with points that I can easily refute?
You didn't comment on, much less refute, the statement about division of property and custody of children after a long gay relationship when they can't divorce.

Also, can you give a reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? Something other than "the imaginary man in the sky thinks it's gross" please.

I summon to the bench... The Riddler!

Riddle me this.
What's the difference between inter-racial and same-sex marriage, given that in both cases there's a kind of discrimination of willing, consenting adults?

Riddle me that.
If God wants to interfere with government so much, why does He not inform us?

Riddle me this.
If you take upon the "task" of representing God in this matter, what makes you think you're not guilty of Pride, being that He didn't ask you to speak on his behalf?

Riddle me that.
If you favor applying church opinions on government issues, do you favor them taxing your church as well?

Riddle me this.
Would you like to live under the rule of a sikh state, or a buddhist one?

Riddle me that.
If you wouldn't, why do you try to force everyone else to live under a Christian one, being that one of the teachings is "do unto others what we'd like done unto ourselves"?

Riddle me this.
Regardless, what would make a state that doesn't separate itself from the church different from the Taliban regime?

Riddle me that.
Isn't Christianity a religion of love?

Riddle me this.
Since it is, why do you profess hate through discrimination in its name?

Riddle me that.
Do you have any point that's not religious or pseudo-economical against gay marriage?

Riddle me this.
Even if you do, don't you think the advancement in civil rights outweights these worries?

Riddle me that.
If they don't to you, why not?

Riddle me this.
If it's because it'll "destroy marriage", is it worth it to keep such a fragile institution?

Riddle me that.
Even assuming it is, wouldn't said institution have been destroyed by the inter-racial marriage, thus making it way stronger than you present it to be and voiding your point?

Finally, riddle me this:

Thus, do you have ANY point at all that doesn't boil down to "gays are icky people and I'm an evil zealot that wants to prevent people different from me from ever achieving happiness", do you?

Ladies and gentlemen, Edward Nygma, the Riddler!

snip

Win.

Win.

Oh. Oh, no. I didn't win. It was the imaginary fiction character that spoke through me! You know, like the zealots believe, only with a more recent figure. So there! Kyahahahahahaha! :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/RiddlerGA.JPG

Oh. Oh, no. I didn't win. It was the imaginary fiction character that spoke through me! You know, like the zealots believe, only with a more recent figure. So there! Kyahahahahahaha! :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/RiddlerGA.JPG

Thats exactly why you win

Thats exactly why you win

I know. ;)

I have never seen any research claiming that brain structure is affected to this extent by upbringing, please present it if you have it.

Nor have I seen any research that claims brain structure is unaffected by upbringing.

In the absence of information, the only reasonable position is on the fence.

Nor have I seen any research that claims brain structure is unaffected by upbringing.

In the absence of information, the only reasonable position is on the fence.

Again, it shouldnt matter. Upbringing or not, its factors that the individual him/herself cannot control.

Nor have I seen any research that claims brain structure is unaffected by upbringing.

In the absence of information, the only reasonable position is on the fence.
I posted a link that showed that if you trace a gay man's mother's family tree you will find a disproportionate number of gays. Since different generations of an extended family and different branches of a familiy tree don't share the same environment or child rearing practices genes are the likely cause of homosexuality.

It doesn't MATTER. It could be a friggin' lifestyle choice, religious zealots should NOT HAVE ANY SAY IN ALLOWING IT OR NOT!

what rights are these? the only one I can think of is 'the right to have gov't say that there is an official connection'

as you could easily have any homosexual partner listed as 'next-of-kin' or leave them a will, I am missing what secret and special rights married hetero's get

You clearly haven't read the entire thread. I posted those rights on post #66. But I'll post them again here for those who can't be botherd to read the entire thread. Please note that many of these rights can't be done through a simple legal contract. They can only be given through legal marrage.

From post #66.....

As has already been stated, it's not a Christian tradition but a legal document. And simply moving in together does not provide the 1400+ legal protections/benifits to our families (and yes, many of us have children as being gay doesn't make us sterile) that marrage does.

from http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

Why is my government wasting its time on marriage?! The government should not be in any way involved in this bullshit, especially not considering the gazillion more important things that need to be taken care of.

When every single child in my country has enough to eat,
When every citizen has access to health care and education,
When polution has been completely eliminated,
When every citizen has a job they enjoy,
When the legal equality of all persons has been secured,
When everyone has a home,
When world peace has been achieved,
When domestic violence is a distant myth from our far-off past,
When no child is every abused, neglected, or abandoned,
When rape never occurs,
When corruption in government has been irradicated completely,
When our budget is balanced and our debt/deficit are gone,

MAYBE, when all of those things have been accomplished, maybe then it might be appropriate for the government to begin considering thinking about potentially looking into have a role in some kind of thing that might be marriage in some vague sort of way.

But probably not.

Thus, do you have ANY point at all that doesn't boil down to "gays are icky people and I'm an evil zealot that wants to prevent people different from me from ever achieving happiness", do you?[/size]

Ladies and gentlemen, Edward Nygma, the Riddler!
Yes! They're clinically proven to cause cancer! Smoking one of them, or being exposed to second-hand smoke, can have dire repercussions upon your health! A little man in a green hat told me so it must be true!



[Damn, now I feel so dirty. :(]

Question asked to see the responses: If marriage is redefined as gender neutral, whose to say that it can't be extended to include polygamy and incest (and as for the genetic childbirth reasons, what about gay brothers/sisters?)

Oh. Oh, no. I didn't win. It was the imaginary fiction character that spoke through me! You know, like the zealots believe, only with a more recent figure. So there! Kyahahahahahaha! :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/RiddlerGA.JPG


Is it creepy that that picture turned me on a little?:eek:

I love how people conveniently ignore the fact that marriage, or similar institutions, predate the Bible. And marriage, up till a few hundred years ago, was all about monetary and political gain, not love. The truth is, there is no logical reason gays should not be allowed to get married. Any argument against it is basically a result of homophobia. And doesn't the 14th amendment kind of already decide this issue? After all, since straight people have the right to marry each other, doesn't this mean that gays have to be given that right too, because of that amendment?

Why is this even a religious issue? The Bible isn't the supreme law in this country, the Constitution is. This isn't a religious issue, it's a civil rights issue. Period. Thus there is no reason to be against it, other than hating gays, whether you want to admit it or not. This is also why states' rights is a bad idea in this case. Civil rights are non-negotiable, and can't be left up to the states to decide.

Gays are people too, why do they not deserve equal rights? They're basically being treated like second-class citizens. I'm not attracted to men at all, and I consider the thought of gay sex to be "gross", "icky", whatever. But this doesn't lead me to say gays are inferior or undeserving of rights. And don't even bring up the "Well, it's a lifestyle choice" bullshit, as science is proving that wrong more and more.

And as far as tradition goes, well, fuck tradition. If we made all our decisions based on tradition, no positive changes would be made. Slavery? Well, it's tradition, so we better keep it. Interracial marriages? Traditionally, they were illegal. America being a British colony? Sorry, it's tradition. Tradition is the worst possible reason to do anything, as it's basically saying "This is good/bad because I've been told it's good/bad for years."

To those of you who are anti-gay marriage, just please, think about this: If gays are allowed to get married, what negative effect is it going to have on society? Who is going to get hurt because of it? And what right do we have to deny them their right to happiness?

no need to say anything more....I totaly agree

Question asked to see the responses: If marriage is redefined as gender neutral, whose to say that it can't be extended to include polygamy and incest (and as for the genetic childbirth reasons, what about gay brothers/sisters?)

In the case of polygamy, as long as all involved are adults and consent to it, I see no problem with it. Incest is a bit trickier. I would want to see some safe guards put in place (such as psych counciling to make sure there is no abuse/manipulation issues compelling one partner to consent against their will, some sort of guarentee against procreation if they are close relatives, etc.), but if they are adults and consent, it's their right to do so.

Question asked to see the responses: If marriage is redefined as gender neutral, whose to say that it can't be extended to include polygamy and incest (and as for the genetic childbirth reasons, what about gay brothers/sisters?)
Polygamy is a case where A is married to B and C, but B and C are not married to one another. That would be pretty different from our current system; a closer match would be polyamory, in which A, B, and C are all married to one another. Regardless, I don't see any reason why consenting adults shouldn't be able to enter into whatever unions they see fit.

Incest, provided it is occuring between consenting adults, is pretty much the same. I, personally, find it pretty fucked up for a pair of siblings to want to have a sexual or romantic relationship, but I also find it fucked up when a person wants to get married to a KKK member. I don't think my feelings of "EEEEEEWWW!" should be used to determine what legal rights can be exercised by my fellow citizens.

Might not be such a bad thing if it passes. The next step would be to challenge it in court at which time it could be held as unconstitutional thus ending the debate once and for all. If they pass it, they have to realize they could shoot themselves in the foot the same way they did with the v-chip.

Might not be such a bad thing if it passes. The next step would be to challenge it in court at which time it could be held as unconstitutional thus ending the debate once and for all. If they pass it, they have to realize they could shoot themselves in the foot the same way they did with the v-chip.

I don't think our currect supreme court would rule it unconstitutional, especially with people like Scalia and Alito.

Everytime i hear some religious nut talk about how gays are somehow destroying marriage or the family or whatever it is that they feel is being threatened this week, I want to grab a machine gun and unload.

America has zero tolerance for their bullshit.



So let me make sure we are on the same page... You want everyone to have 100% tolerance and acceptance of your beliefs, but you feel America has zero tolerance for anything that is NOT your beliefs? So much so that you are brought to thoughts of violence... hmmmmmmmmm

doesnt seem to be a very good way to present a proper argument for anything.

Might not be such a bad thing if it passes. The next step would be to challenge it in court at which time it could be held as unconstitutional thus ending the debate once and for all. If they pass it, they have to realize they could shoot themselves in the foot the same way they did with the v-chip.

This is a proposed constitutional ammendment. That means it will be part of the constitution if it passes. Thus it cannot be declared unconstitutional by the courts. So if it passes, the only way to get rid of it is to pass another constitutional ammendment nullifing the previous one like happened with prohibition.

So let me make sure we are on the same page... You want everyone to have 100% tolerance and acceptance of your beliefs, but you feel America has zero tolerance for anything that is NOT your beliefs? So much so that you are brought to thoughts of violence... hmmmmmmmmm

doesnt seem to be a very good way to present a proper argument for anything.

So let me get this straight, youre an idiot? I dont remember saying anything about 100% tolerance.

Tolerance would be both parties acknowledging the others existence and rights. You have the right to disagree with gays, but they have a right to partake in marriage.

Thank god we dont live in a total democracy, the creators of the usa were too smart for that.

Rights and equality should never be decided based on a popularity contest.


In other words, they should be based on your infallible judgement?

You're saying that democracy is a popularity contest.
Once again: shame on you!

So let me make sure we are on the same page... You want everyone to have 100% tolerance and acceptance of your beliefs, but you feel America has zero tolerance for anything that is NOT your beliefs? So much so that you are brought to thoughts of violence... hmmmmmmmmm

doesnt seem to be a very good way to present a proper argument for anything.
100% tolerance is bullshit, and everybody knows it. Ain't nobody arguing for 100% tolerance.

Where I live, we don't tolerate people who talk about raping little kiddies for fun. We don't tolerate some asshole rambling about how this country sucks on a count of all the niggers and spicks. We don't tolerate people who think that Jews oughta get the gas. We don't tolerate people who feel like telling us all their various crackpot reasons for wanting to reverse women's suffrage.

Sure, we tolerate the existence of people who hold these beliefs, but we don't have a wink of "tolerance" for what they are saying. We tell them, in no uncertain terms, that they're bugfuck insane and need to get a life instead of spending so much time making an ass of themselves.

Why the fuck should we be tolerant of intolerance? If some jackass wants to tell me that he believes I should not have my legal rights recognized, I'd say that constitutes his waiver of his right to be "tolerated" by me.

In other words, they should be based on your infallible judgement?

Or, you know, the law. Either way.


You're saying that democracy is a popularity contest.
Once again: shame on you!
Actually, he was saying precisely the opposite. One of the most important principles in the US system of government is the idea of preventing tyranny of the majority, by outlining certain rights that cannot be erased by majority rule. Nominally, our system of law says that the majority does not get to vote to take away the rights of the minority. The Founders went way the hell out of their way to put in a gazillion safeguards against that kind of crap.

100% tolerance is bullshit, and everybody knows it. Ain't nobody arguing for 100% tolerance.

Where I live, we don't tolerate people who talk about raping little kiddies for fun. We don't tolerate some asshole rambling about how this country sucks on a count of all the niggers and spicks. We don't tolerate people who think that Jews oughta get the gas. We don't tolerate people who feel like telling us all their various crackpot reasons for wanting to reverse women's suffrage.

Sure, we tolerate the existence of people who hold these beliefs, but we don't have a wink of "tolerance" for what they are saying. We tell them, in no uncertain terms, that they're bugfuck insane and need to get a life instead of spending so much time making an ass of themselves.

Why the fuck should we be tolerant of intolerance? If some jackass wants to tell me that he believes I should not have my legal rights recognized, I'd say that constitutes his waiver of his right to be "tolerated" by me.

While I don't know what side you're coming from (haven't read enough) what you said is completely true. The concept of complete tolerance is stupid.

While I don't know what side you're coming from (haven't read enough) what you said is completely true. The concept of complete tolerance is stupid.
Particularly when somebody is whining that gays are being intolerant when they object to homophobia.

Dude, if somebody comes up and punches you in the face a couple of times, are you supposed to just stand there and "tolerate his opinions"? Or should you, maybe, say something like, "What the fuck is wrong with you?! Stop hitting me, you jackass!"

Homophobes say, "Gays are icky bad no-good sinful, and the legal rights of gay citizens should not be recognized by the state."
Gays say, "Christ, you people are jerks. Just let us have our damn equal rights, and we can agree to ignore each other."

Whereupon there are always at least ten people who feel that it's important to yell at the nasty fags who viciously called homophobes "jerks." Naughty, naughty! That's "intolerant" of you! When somebody calls you a deviant and advocates denying you equality under the law, the proper response is to shake his hand like a gentleman and agree to disagree while he continues explaining all the reasons why he should have rights and you shouldn't.

Not for nothin', but the concept of "tolerance" is at least partially based on the idea of "legitimate opinion."

"Oh, but are all opnions legitimate? After all, an opinion is just a personal thought!"

No. No they are not. If I had the opinion that the sun revolves around the Earth, nobody would hesitate to tell me I was wrong, becuase that opinion is uninformed and therefore ignorant. Homophobia is along the same lines. It is, in a word, wrong. There's no way to sugar coat it, hating a person becuase they want to kiss (and/or marry) somebody of their own gender is reminiscent of hating a person because of the color of their skin, or the lean of their religion. Time to hang up the falsified religious bullshit, and start giving people their rights.

A note: the whole Bible argument? Hogwash. The passages that allegedly speak against being gay are sandwhiched in there with passages okaying abuse to women (stoning for adultery, anyone?) and slavery. Aside, of course, from the fact that the scriptures of any demonination has no place in law. That's aside from the fact that the [metaphoric] texts appear more to speaking against kiddie touching, rape, and decadance.

And that's my two cents.

Not for nothin', but the concept of "tolerance" is at least partially based on the idea of "legitimate opinion."

"Oh, but are all opnions legitimate? After all, an opinion is just a personal thought!"

No. No they are not. If I had the opinion that the sun revolves around the Earth, nobody would hesitate to tell me I was wrong, becuase that opinion is uninformed and therefore ignorant. Homophobia is along the same lines. It is, in a word, wrong.

Well, it's perfectly fine to say, "I don't like gay people." That's your opinion, and it's as legit as anybody else's opinion on the subject of liking gay people.

However, if you say, "I don't like gay people because XYZ," then you've openned up the debate to include a critical evaluation of XYZ. For instance, if you say, "I don't like gays because they have purple skin and smell of cabbage," then other people could pretty easily prove you're a crackpot by demonstrating that homosexuals are not, in fact, any more likely to have purple skin and an odor of cabbage than heterosexuals are.

Also, if you state, "I don't like homosexuality, and therefore I should be allowed to do XYZ to homosexuals," people are free to point out that no, in fact, the laws do not give you the right to do XYZ. They are free to point out that your claims regarding the liberties you may take are incorrect.



There's no way to sugar coat it, hating a person becuase they want to kiss (and/or marry) somebody of their own gender is reminiscent of hating a person because of the color of their skin, or the lean of their religion. Time to hang up the falsified religious bullshit, and start giving people their rights.

Hate is an emotion, and I believe all people should be allowed to FEEL however they want.

At the same time, personal dislike of homosexuals counts for exactly zero when it comes to our system of law.

You don't get to claim you're being oppressed when other citizens are granted equal rights. You don't get to claim your religious freedom is violated just because gay people aren't being burnt at the stake. And if you are dumb enough to argue that your personal feelings, religiously-rooted or not, are sufficient justification for the violation of the rights of others, then it is certainly not "intolerant" of other people to correct your misconception. :)

Hate is an emotion, and I believe all people should be allowed to FEEL however they want.


Good point. I bow to your ability to point out logical wording problems I created. And your ability to make a solid argument.

I suppose I should clarify: I didn't mean feeling things, I had meant acting on those feelings to the detirment of others. Letting homophobia decide to keep gays out of marriage, for instance. Probably should have made that a little clearer in my original post.

Thanks for pointing it all out. :)

Yes! They're clinically proven to cause cancer! Smoking one of them, or being exposed to second-hand smoke, can have dire repercussions upon your health! A little man in a green hat told me so it must be true!



[Damn, now I feel so dirty. :(]

Uhm... I don't get your point... o_o

And in case ANYONE was wondering, I don't believe the Riddler exists. :-P

Is it creepy that that picture turned me on a little?:eek:

Well, if you like thin guys in green with a poise that indicates intelligence, who am I to question you? o_O

Go right ahead, I didn't make, nor worship the image. :p

The idea that something is "sinful" is not an opinion, it is a belief on fact.

Example:

That rose is pretty. This is a statement of opinion, it expresses a believe in the beauty of a rose which can not be objectivly proven, nor has any base in universal faxt.


That rose is red. Statement of fact. Red is defined as a particular wavelenght of photonic emissions. That rose is either red, or it is not. Someone may have an incorrect definition of red, and believe that a red rose is, in fact green. Or he may have some genetic color blindness which prevents him from ascertaining whether it is or is not red. However, the FACT that it is red does not change based on whether someone believes it to be or not. In short, a red rose is red, whether or not someone thinks it is.

The construction is as follows:

1) red is defined as a certain wavelength of light
2) roses give off light
3) the wavelength of light given off by the rose is consistant with the wavelength of red

If those statements are true, the rose is red. If any of them are false, the rose is not red. Wether we believe it to be red or not does not change whether it is, or not.

Likewise the statement "homosexuality is sin" is a statement of fact (please do NOT presume I AGREE, I'm only saying that this is a factual claim, not an opinion claim). It is predicated by a series of assumptions:

1) there is a god
2) that god has laid down certain rules to follow
3) not engaging in homosexual activites is one of those rules (or, engaging in homosexual activites violates one of those rules)
4) violation of those rules is a sin

If all 4 assumption are true, homosexuality is a sin. If one of them is untrue, then it is not a sin. Whether we believe it, or we do not, the fact exists that those 4 presumptions are either true, or one or more of them is not. Since we can not PROVE that all 4 claims are true, the statement "homosexuality is sin" is an unproven statement of fact.

And the law should never base itself on unproven and assumed facts.

The idea that something is "sinful" is not an opinion, it is a belief on fact.

1) there is a god
2) that god has laid down certain rules to follow
3) not engaging in homosexual activites is one of those rules (or, engaging in homosexual activites violates one of those rules)
4) violation of those rules is a sin

If all 4 assumption are true, homosexuality is a sin. If one of them is untrue, then it is not a sin. Whether we believe it, or we do not, the fact exists that those 4 presumptions are either true, or one or more of them is not. Since we can not PROVE that all 4 claims are true, the statement "homosexuality is sin" is an unproven statement of fact.

You seem to be confused about the word "fact". Here are the OPINIONS from your post:
1) There is a god
2) That god has laid down certain rules to follow.

This is not logic, this is believing something because someone told you so. Furthermore, you seem to be confused about the seperation of church and state. Even if jesus astroprojected and told every person in the united states that the bible says sodomy is a sin, it wouldn't be enough to put it into the law books. Why? Because the bible is christian, christianity is a religion, and religion has no place in science or law.

You seem to be confused about the word "fact". Here are the OPINIONS from your post:
1) There is a god
2) That god has laid down certain rules to follow.

This is not logic, this is believing something because someone told you so. Furthermore, you seem to be confused about the seperation of church and state. Even if jesus astroprojected and told every person in the united states that the bible says sodomy is a sin, it wouldn't be enough to put it into the law books. Why? Because the bible is christian, christianity is a religion, and religion has no place in science or law.

Did you even bother to read the post you were replying to?

Meanwhile, neither "there is a God' or "that God has laid down certain rules..." are opinions by the definitions the post was using. They are either objectively true or false. They have the appearance of subjectivity only because we cannot know whether or not they are true.

If we restrict the word "opinion" to statements which have no objective basis for determination (as I think we should - otherwise the word is rather useless), then, "There is a God" is not an opinion. It is a statement that is either objectively true or false, just like "There is no God," is a statement that is either objectively true or false.

You seem to be confused about the word "fact". Here are the OPINIONS from your post:
1) There is a god
2) That god has laid down certain rules to follow.

This is not logic, this is believing something because someone told you so. Furthermore, you seem to be confused about the seperation of church and state. Even if jesus astroprojected and told every person in the united states that the bible says sodomy is a sin, it wouldn't be enough to put it into the law books. Why? Because the bible is christian, christianity is a religion, and religion has no place in science or law.

You absolutly and totally missed my point. Please don't tell me about seperation of church and state...I have a legal degree, I'm well aware of constitutional law. Please note, I stated quite clearly do NOT presume I BELIEVE it. I do not. Moreover please note at the bottom of my post I stated that

Let me make it quite clearer. I did not say homsexuality is sin is fact. I said that saying "homsexuality is a sin" is a STATEMENT OF FACT. Those are two entirely different things.

"there is a god" is a statement of fact. I do not say that this IS a fact. I state that a fact is something that either is, or is not.

Their either IS a god, or there is NOT a god. This is FACT. HOW we believe is irrelevant to that. If there IS a god, someone's disbelief will not negate god's existance. If there IS NOT a god, someone's belief will not create god's existance. People may be of different opinion as to whether "there is god" is a fact, however their IS or there IS NOT, and nothing we believe one way or the other will change the reality, whatever it may be.

For the statement "homosexuality is a sin" to be true as we define sin, these 4 things must be true: there is a god, god gave us rules, homosexuality violates those rules, violating the rules is a sin. If all four of those statement are true, then it is a sin, regardless of whether we believe it or not.

If one or more of those statements is false, then it is NOT a sin, regardless of wether we believe it or not.

Therefore "homosexuality is sin" is a STATEMENT OF A FACT. It either is, or is not. Just as the rose is either red, or it is not, regardless of whether we believe it is or isn't.

It is a statement that can not be proven, nor can it be disproven. As such, it is disputed fact. And the law should NEVER be based on disputed facts.

is a statement that is either objectively true or false,

Exactly. And a statement that is either objectively true or false, is, by definition, a statement of fact. It does not suggest that the statement is factually TRUE or not, merely that it is a statement of fact.

Did you even bother to read the post you were replying to?

Meanwhile, neither "there is a God' or "that God has laid down certain rules..." are opinions by the definitions the post was using. They are either objectively true or false. They have the appearance of subjectivity only because we cannot know whether or not they are true.

If we restrict the word "opinion" to statements which have no objective basis for determination (as I think we should - otherwise the word is rather useless), then, "There is a God" is not an opinion. It is a statement that is either objectively true or false, just like "There is no God," is a statement that is either objectively true or false.

That's a little better, but there's a problem with this too. You can't make "objective statements" that aren't falsifiable. They are, as "truth" or "objective" statements, completely and utterly useless and devoid of any meaning or relevancy. You seem pretty smart and well-read, so I'll use an example from physics. The information cone (plotted time vs. space in three dimensions) of our point of reference is always increasing, as older and older light eventually reaches us from further and further away in the universe. However, as there are massive portions of the universe that are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light, we are never going to be able to measure these sections of the universe at all (even gravity is not instantaneous). So I could say that these sections of the universe are made entirely out of pink marshmallow. It would be "objective" in the sense that there's no "I think" in there, but in the sense that it is either true or false. Why? Because it's impossible to determine! The uncertainty principal is much the same way. We can't say that a photon is both traveling through a certain slit AND has complete nonparticulate properties at the same time. So we say it does both! I honestly wouldn't expect even the biggest of suckers to believe the train of logic that states:
1) Everything outside our information cone is pink marshmallow
2) This marshmallow has feelings
3) Therefore, we can't cook marshmallows before eating them unless we're willing to hurt it's feelings.

So I could say that these sections of the universe are made entirely out of pink marshmallow. It would be "objective" in the sense that there's no "I think" in there, but in the sense that it is either true or false. Why? Because it's impossible to determine! The uncertainty principal is much the same way. We can't say that a photon is both traveling through a certain slit AND has complete nonparticulate properties at the same time. So we say it does both! I honestly wouldn't expect even the biggest of suckers to believe the train of logic that states:
1) Everything outside our information cone is pink marshmallow
2) This marshmallow has feelings
3) Therefore, we can't cook marshmallows before eating them unless we're willing to hurt it's feelings.

Absolutly, that is correct as my above statement.

And if you had bothered to read the last line of my original post you would have seen that I stated that law should not be based on unprovable statements of fact. Which does imply that the law should never recognize the statement of "homosexuality is sin" as a reason to do anything.

In fact I ABSOLUTLY agree with you, but please take the time to read my WHOLE post before stating that I said something I did not.

That's a little better, but there's a problem with this too. You can't make "objective statements" that aren't falsifiable.

No, but you can make "objective statements" that aren't falsifiable by human beings or within the universe.

It would be rather arrogant to think that all of that which exists hinges on what human beings can and cannot do, wouldn't you think?

They are, as "truth" or "objective" statements, completely and utterly useless and devoid of any meaning or relevancy. You seem pretty smart and well-read, so I'll use an example from physics. The information cone (plotted time vs. space in three dimensions) of our point of reference is always increasing, as older and older light eventually reaches us from further and further away in the universe. However, as there are massive portions of the universe that are moving away from us at faster than the speed of light, we are never going to be able to measure these sections of the universe at all (even gravity is not instantaneous). So I could say that these sections of the universe are made entirely out of pink marshmallow. It would be "objective" in the sense that there's no "I think" in there, but in the sense that it is either true or false. Why? Because it's impossible to determine!

There's a problem there. You make the assumption that (a) The Universe is expanding at a constant rate and always will be and (b) We will never find a way to move faster than the speed of light.

There is nothing in the universe that we absolutely cannot measure or study, although there is quite a bit that limits what we can and cannot study now - and said limitations may always keep us from certain knowledge.

Of course, that has little bearing on the discussion at hand. If you said that portions of the universe were made completely out of pink marshmallow, that would be an objective statement - a statement of fact. It is either objectively true or untrue. Your inability to confirm it doesn't change that.

You may be of the opinion that anything which cannot be empirically verified is therefore useless, but not everyone agrees with you.

I honestly wouldn't expect even the biggest of suckers to believe the train of logic that states:
1) Everything outside our information cone is pink marshmallow
2) This marshmallow has feelings
3) Therefore, we can't cook marshmallows before eating them unless we're willing to hurt it's feelings.

No, you probably wouldn't find someone who believes it. However, it is still a train of logic. Of course, it isn't a very good one, since #2 only states that the marshmallow outside our information cone has feelings. Thus, #3 does not follow from #2, as there is no statement that all marshmallows have feelings.

I suppose the logical problems with that statement can be rectified by changing #3 to #4 and adding the following:

3) eatting marshmellows without cooking them hurts the giant pink marshmellow's feelings.

actually we would have to add another logical caveat, namely that the giant pink marshmellow with feelings is aware, or is capable of being aware, of events that transpire on earth, though we are incapable of being aware of it.

Otherwise it would never know said uncooked marshmellow's are being consumed.

There's a problem there. You make the assumption that (a) The Universe is expanding at a constant rate and always will be and (b) We will never find a way to move faster than the speed of light.

There is nothing in the universe that we absolutely cannot measure or study, although there is quite a bit that limits what we can and cannot study now - and said limitations may always keep us from certain knowledge.

Of course, that has little bearing on the discussion at hand. If you said that portions of the universe were made completely out of pink marshmallow, that would be an objective statement - a statement of fact. It is either objectively true or untrue. Your inability to confirm it doesn't change that.

You may be of the opinion that anything which cannot be empirically verified is therefore useless, but not everyone agrees with you.


First of all, science is not magical. It's all well and good to be optimistic about our proceedings - but really, faster than the speed of light? In order for something as small as an electron (or anything with mass, for that matter), it would require an infinite amount of energy to continue it's accelleration into the speed of light. Even if you managed to bypass that little bit, there's the problem of E=(delta)m*c^2. As the energy used in movement goes to infinity, so does it's mass! This isn't just stuff that I'm pulling out of nowhere - you can find it in many of Stephan Hawking's public-oriented books. If you want BETTER proof that there is plenty that we can't "measure", just read over the heisenburg uncertainty principal in all of it's different forms. They all basically say the same thing in different applications: It is impossible to know any particle's location and movement at the same time.

As for the marshmallows, of course there are going to be plenty of other beings who will be in that portion of the universe. Problem is, they will never recieve any information about us and we will never recieve any information about them (information here is used in it's strictest scientific sense). That's precisely because the universe is not expanding at a constant rate. The universe is actually expanding faster and faster!

Finally, you would be right that it is my opinion that things that are not verifiable (or even measureable!) are useless. Why? Because you can't use them for anything! They aren't applicable to anything!

First of all, science is not magical.

No, it isn't.

It's all well and good to be optimistic about our proceedings - but really, faster than the speed of light?

I didn't say we would be able to do it. I said that we cannot assume that we will not.

If you want BETTER proof

Science never provides proof. To do so, it would almost have to be magic. Science provides evidence for a hypothesis. With enough evidence, said hypothesis can become a theory. But every theory is still under question, and is either rejected or altered if any bit of evidence that contradicts it is discovered.

that there is plenty that we can't "measure", just read over the heisenburg uncertainty principal in all of it's different forms. They all basically say the same thing in different applications: It is impossible to know any particle's location and movement at the same time.

Yes, because the act of measuring it, in every way we know how, alters the other. However, we can measure both, just not at the same time. And, if we could figure out a way to measure that wouldn't alter the other, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be out the window.

Finally, you would be right that it is my opinion that things that are not verifiable (or even measureable!) are useless. Why? Because you can't use them for anything! They aren't applicable to anything!

I would beg to differ. I think my religion is very applicable to my own thoughts and life.

religion has no place in science or law.

And actually, I disagree with that statement somewhat. Religions are a set of beliefs and practices, many of which have evolved over thousands of years, and examining how they have influenced, and been influenced by certain political, cultural, economic and social pressures can teach us something about humanity, and as such does have some philosophical, sociological, anthropological value. These are all things that should be considered when passing legislation, and religion as a source of study that reveals something about us as a people and a species is valid.

As for science...science is based on the idea of taking hypotheses and conducting tests and observations that either validate, or invalidate those hypotheses. Religion makes several scientific hypotheses, and as such is a perfectly legitimate source of claims about the nature of the universe to be either proven, or disproven.

Religion, however, should never COMPEL either. But it certainly has uses to both.

It would be impractical to say that humanity will ever move faster than light.

It may however be practical to say that at some point humanity may find a way to go from point A to point B in less time than it takes light to.

The differences between those two claims is, for the purposes of this discussion about "finding out about stuff that we don't know about now" is negligable.

Finally, you would be right that it is my opinion that things that are not verifiable (or even measureable!) are useless. Why? Because you can't use them for anything! They aren't applicable to anything!

Most social sciences neither verify nor measure anything, but philosophical and sociological inquiry is always valuabe.

I didn't say we would be able to do it. I said that we cannot assume that we will not.

Yes, we can predict that we will not. That is the only evidence we currently have. Now, it may be easy to say just say "but in the future" with much finger waving and flourish, but when every shred of evidence we've collected over the past 60 years points to a universe governed by the laws of relativity, that's not something to scoff at.

Science never provides proof. To do so, it would almost have to be magic. Science provides evidence for a hypothesis. With enough evidence, said hypothesis can become a theory. But every theory is still under question, and is either rejected or altered if any bit of evidence that contradicts it is discovered.

"Theory" in science means something quite different in science than it does in popular usage. Heck, even in mathematics, things that we can objectively prove are still called "theorems".

Yes, because the act of measuring it, in every way we know how, alters the other. However, we can measure both, just not at the same time. And, if we could figure out a way to measure that wouldn't alter the other, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would be out the window.

That's the whole point of the heisenberg uncertainty principal is that you can't. If there was even a single case, then you're right, it would be out the window. But again, finger waving is not enough to debunk it or doubt it's reliability, not with all the evidence we've accumulated. So far, it's rate of successful prediction has been 100%! That's good enough for me, especially considering that in order to make any measurement at all, we by definition have to interact in some way with the particle.

I would beg to differ. I think my religion is very applicable to my own thoughts and life.

The only part that's applicable is your own belief. If god cannot be measured in any way, then there is a 0% chance of being effected by it. However, your own belief probably has a profound effect on the way you carry yourself and treat others. It is not, however, objective, factual, or scientific. It is faith.

Most social sciences neither verify nor measure anything, but philosophical and sociological inquiry is always valuabe.

It is actually very seldomly valuable when it strays from the scientific process. Much of sociology (and even more so for psychology) has been historically quite destructive.

And actually, I disagree with that statement somewhat. Religions are a set of beliefs and practices, many of which have evolved over thousands of years, and examining how they have influenced, and been influenced by certain political, cultural, economic and social pressures can teach us something about humanity, and as such does have some philosophical, sociological, anthropological value. These are all things that should be considered when passing legislation, and religion as a source of study that reveals something about us as a people and a species is valid.

As for science...science is based on the idea of taking hypotheses and conducting tests and observations that either validate, or invalidate those hypotheses. Religion makes several scientific hypotheses, and as such is a perfectly legitimate source of claims about the nature of the universe to be either proven, or disproven.

Religion, however, should never COMPEL either. But it certainly has uses to both.

Mythology and folklore can tell you all these things as well, and while it is interesting to examine, it is not necessary to read mother goose before drafting legislation.

If a religion wants to make scientific arguments, by all means, they can do so, but they will be judged as scientists, not as priests. Considering that most religions don't follow the scientific process at all, there's plenty of room for error. Religion has no place in science. Scientists belong in science.

It is actually very seldomly valuable when it strays from the scientific process. Much of sociology (and even more so for psychology) has been historically quite destructive.

I could argue that so is science....nuclear bombs and drug resistant super viruses anyone?

Inquiry, be it scientific, social, or philosophical is never destructive. What people DO with it on the other hand is, and those goes for science, religion, economics, or just about anything that has the capacity to inspire or allow one person to fek over another.

Mythology and folklore can tell you all these things as well, and while it is interesting to examine, it is not necessary to read mother goose before drafting legislation.

If a religion wants to make scientific arguments, by all means, they can do so, but they will be judged as scientists, not as priests. Considering that most religions don't follow the scientific process at all, there's plenty of room for error. Religion has no place in science. Scientists belong in science.

Mother Goose does not tell us much about the nature of humanity. Observing how religion has spred, evolved, and responded to social concerns over thousands of years does. It is important to examine the impact any law may have on society, and the way to examine anything, even from the pure scientific perspective, is to exame the results of the past, and like it or not religion has played a MAJOR part in our collective histories. Failing to see how religion has impacted and been impacted by forces of our history society and culture is to say that history society and culture are irrelevant to proper governance, and they most certainly are NOT.

As for science. The fundamental purpose of science is to answer questions and test presumptions. Religion is as valid a source of questions and presumptions as any other. To say that science should not bother to answer the inquiries posed by religion is to betray the very fundamental purpose of science, to answer all questions, no matter how small or seemingly absurd. And religion poses some doosies of questions.

Mother Goose does not tell us much about the nature of humanity. Observing how religion has spred, evolved, and responded to social concerns over thousands of years does. It is important to examine the impact any law may have on society, and the way to examine anything, even from the pure scientific perspective, is to exame the results of the past, and like it or not religion has played a MAJOR part in our collective histories. Failing to see how religion has impacted and been impacted by forces of our history society and culture is to say that history society and culture are irrelevant to proper governance, and they most certainly are NOT.

As for science. The fundamental purpose of science is to answer questions and test presumptions. Religion is as valid a source of questions and presumptions as any other. To say that science should not bother to answer the inquiries posed by religion is to betray the very fundamental purpose of science, to answer all questions, no matter how small or seemingly absurd. And religion poses some doosies of questions.


But the proposition of a non falcafiable god is outside the realm of what is observable and testable. There are things outside the bounds of science, it betrays itself then not us.

This is a proposed constitutional ammendment. That means it will be part of the constitution if it passes. Thus it cannot be declared unconstitutional by the courts. So if it passes, the only way to get rid of it is to pass another constitutional ammendment nullifing the previous one like happened with prohibition.
Oh. Yeah, you're right.

I wouldn't worry about it all, then. It will never get ratified by all 50 states or get 2/3rds of Congress. This is just election year posturing for rural districts in the bible belt who still think homosexuality is a threat to our country and who don't have time to think about much else like, oh, wars and energy problems and immigration issues and nuclear proliferation and... and ... and ...

These guys just know that Betty Sue and Jim Bob will vote them back into the house if they can say, "I really tried to stick it to them queers but the war for America goes on!"

But the proposition of a non falcafiable god is outside the realm of what is observable and testable. There are things outside the bounds of science, it betrays itself then not us.

Well of course those parts that science can't validate or invalidate can not be dealt with is science. But to state with blanket authority that religion can play NO role in government or science betrays the purpose of both

"Theory" in science means something quite different in science than it does in popular usage.

Indeed it does. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that is backed by enough evidence that we can begin to assume, for many purposes, that it is true.

However, the method of science cannot prove anything. It can either disprove a hypothesis, or support it with evidence. It can never absolutely prove anything.

And people need to realize that every theory in science is still under question, even those that we really wouldn't. Any theory can be disproven, if the evidence comes up that does so.

Heck, even in mathematics, things that we can objectively prove are still called "theorems".

Mathematics is a separate discipline. And yes, things can be proven in mathematics, as the system is such that it can.

That's the whole point of the heisenberg uncertainty principal is that you can't.

Indeed. But that doesn't absolutely mean that it can't be done. Like every theory in science, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is open to being disproven.

And this is a good thing - it is the strength of science. Science is self-correcting, and never ceases to question even its own observations.

If there was even a single case, then you're right, it would be out the window. But again, finger waving is not enough to debunk it or doubt it's reliability, not with all the evidence we've accumulated. So far, it's rate of successful prediction has been 100%! That's good enough for me, especially considering that in order to make any measurement at all, we by definition have to interact in some way with the particle.

It is good enough for me, as well. I simply don't see it as some absolute that cannot be questioned.

The only part that's applicable is your own belief. If god cannot be measured in any way, then there is a 0% chance of being effected by it.

Not true. A lack of measurement does not mean one cannot be affected by it - it means that one cannot empirically demonstrate that the effect comes from God.

However, your own belief probably has a profound effect on the way you carry yourself and treat others. It is not, however, objective, factual, or scientific. It is faith.

I never claimed it was objective or scientific, nor would I. As a scientist, my religion is kept separate from my work - as it should be. I simply don't think that something has to be objective or scientific to matter to me personally.

As for "factual", by the definitions used here, any assertions I make about my religion are statements of fact. They may or may not be true.


As for science. The fundamental purpose of science is to answer questions and test presumptions. Religion is as valid a source of questions and presumptions as any other. To say that science should not bother to answer the inquiries posed by religion is to betray the very fundamental purpose of science, to answer all questions, no matter how small or seemingly absurd. And religion poses some doosies of questions.

Most of the questions posed by religion cannot be answered by science, as they are outside its realm of use. Anything dealing with the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science, as the methods of science can only be used within the natural - within the universe.

Did some entity create the universe? Perhaps. I believe it is so. But science cannot answer that question, as any creator is necessarily outside the universe, and thus outside the realm of science.

Well of course those parts that science can't validate or invalidate can not be dealt with is science. But to state with blanket authority that religion can play NO role in government or science betrays the purpose of both
How about the statement that government and science (not to mention human society in general) will be vastly improved as religion is removed?

Good point. I bow to your ability to point out logical wording problems I created. And your ability to make a solid argument.

I suppose I should clarify: I didn't mean feeling things, I had meant acting on those feelings to the detirment of others. Letting homophobia decide to keep gays out of marriage, for instance. Probably should have made that a little clearer in my original post.

Thanks for pointing it all out. :)
I hope I didn't come off as a total ass for being picky about the wording, I just think it's a really important distinction. I strongly believe that all people should have the right to think and feel whatever they choose, even if I happen to find those thoughts stupid or mean or immoral, and I think it's necessary to keep repeating that over and over. Otherwise the homophobes assume I'm as much of a jackass as they are, and that I want to oppress people as much as they do. :P

Awww, nobody answers to my friend, Eddie Nygma? That's too bad, I'll have to assume the homophobes of the thread have nothing to use against that, which would be very, very embarassing, now wouldn't it? ;)

How about the statement that government and science (not to mention human society in general) will be vastly improved as religion is removed?

I see no logical basis for that statement. =)

Religion shouldn't dictate the laws perse. After all, the laws of men and the laws of God are pointed out as seperate in most holy texts, as far as I know (and that means of any religion, by the way. I'm trying to speak generally here). However, to say that religion has no effect would be wrong, and I'm glad I haven't really seen that here. Religion has a huge effect on governments, and I feel like a look into history confirms that immediately. Crusades, fall of the original Roman Empire, or Holy Roman Empire, anyone? And that's just three moments...

As for the science/religion, there's really no good debate there. Every time religion gets involved in science, it mucks up, and whenever science gets involved in religion, it mucks up. Science is perfect for the "how" sort of question (as in, "How does my arm work?"), and religion for the sorts of "who" stuff ("Who caused the big bang?"). Mind you, those are not mutually exclusive in any way, I just didn't want to confuse my sentence any further by getting into the obvious crossover details.

Oh, and Bottle: no worries, your wording didn't come off as harsh at all. I just think that voiced opinions need research of some sort and a logical basis for themselves before being voiced. It doesn't take long to point out how bad things can get if that happens.

On the other hand...

How about the statement that government and science (not to mention human society in general) will be vastly improved as religion is removed?

I wouldn't agree with that, at all. Getting rid of religion is actually sort of a bad idea, as it's a binding force. Ignore for a moment the conflicts of intersts in beliefs, as I want to focus on the social aspect. Namely: it's incredibly social. I'm a former Catholic (left for personal reasons. Also, the pastor at my church was an ass), and I have seen alot of people do alot of good because they felt a sense of community with each other and with the people they were helping. The Sisters of Mercy come to mind, as they run alot of schools (I went to one) for alot of kids. Mother Theresa and Mahatma Ghandi were both deeply religious, and I'd be hard pressed to say that religious beliefs hurt them.

Interesting to notice Ghandi was religious, and fought for political freedom for India. Hm...

So, yeah. Religion = not bad. What is bad are all of the jackasses out there who pervert religions for their own uses. The fundamentalists who ban Darwin from schools, the killers who start wars on fake pretensions and twisted words, and (more pertinent to this thread) the homophobes who want to use out-of-context Bible sentences to ban gays.

Religion shouldn't be removed. Stupidity should.

The role of government is to make society stable, not moral.

Listen..."Just because you want to do something, Doesn't mean you have a Right to do it"

"Santorum and Jerry "9/11 happened because you like gay people"

Well on the most part that it a true statment, musilms and crazy groups attack america and hate it because of the image it shows, gays getting married, sex on tv, the imoralness of the nation etc. and they take that as Christianity.

"America has zero tolerance for their bullshit." well..thats kind of contradiction ,I would say that Americ has zero tolernance for your type of movement.Seeing how most of the nation regects same sex marriage.

" I want to grab a machine gun and unload."
Is this how you solve your problems?I thought your suppose to love everyone without religion?

"Marriage is not a priviledge for straight jews/christians, it is an american right, no matter who you are."
I'd like to let you know that alot of non-christians and non-jews get married. Marriage is simply this:
"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Thats what Marriage is, it is not the legal Union between two people of the same sex.

I feel that if people want to be together to one of the same sex, then they should move into gether or whatever you people do?Cause if they really love eachother why do they need a Christian/Jewish tradition? Put same sex marriage is not marriage no matter how many Laws you change, it will never happen.

Also if they don't want anything else to do with Christianity or Jewish tradition ever befor, then why should we hand over Marriage?

I think that homosexuals are a bit selfish and shallow do they really need christian tradition? isn't being gay good enough for them?

Sorry if I've offended anyone by my post, it's not a given.

Be Blessed.

also..lol is there anyway we can sign against it?

What about loving all men, regardless of their faults? Christian my ass. Go learn what it means to be a real 'christian'

As for gays being the reason the Iraqis hate us, you definately havent been to Iraq, or heard from people that have been. Iraqi males are quite more openly homosexual than you would think. I've heard first hand accounts from friends 'in the shit' in Iraq about the overwhelming population of Iraq being openly bisexual/homosexual.

I summon to the bench... The Riddler!

Riddle me this.
What's the difference between inter-racial and same-sex marriage, given that in both cases there's a kind of discrimination of willing, consenting adults?

Riddle me that.
If God wants to interfere with government so much, why does He not inform us?

Riddle me this.
If you take upon the "task" of representing God in this matter, what makes you think you're not guilty of Pride, being that He didn't ask you to speak on his behalf?

Riddle me that.
If you favor applying church opinions on government issues, do you favor them taxing your church as well?

Riddle me this.
Would you like to live under the rule of a sikh state, or a buddhist one?

Riddle me that.
If you wouldn't, why do you try to force everyone else to live under a Christian one, being that one of the teachings is "do unto others what we'd like done unto ourselves"?

Riddle me this.
Regardless, what would make a state that doesn't separate itself from the church different from the Taliban regime?

Riddle me that.
Isn't Christianity a religion of love?

Riddle me this.
Since it is, why do you profess hate through discrimination in its name?

Riddle me that.
Do you have any point that's not religious or pseudo-economical against gay marriage?

Riddle me this.
Even if you do, don't you think the advancement in civil rights outweights these worries?

Riddle me that.
If they don't to you, why not?

Riddle me this.
If it's because it'll "destroy marriage", is it worth it to keep such a fragile institution?

Riddle me that.
Even assuming it is, wouldn't said institution have been destroyed by the inter-racial marriage, thus making it way stronger than you present it to be and voiding your point?

Finally, riddle me this:

Thus, do you have ANY point at all that doesn't boil down to "gays are icky people and I'm an evil zealot that wants to prevent people different from me from ever achieving happiness", do you?

Ladies and gentlemen, Edward Nygma, the Riddler!

Nobody answered these questions in any way that would refute the points. I've given it time, so it's not the issue here. What IS the issue is that no one answered them because nobody had any points AGAINST them. Homophobes, you LOST. You LOST THIS DEBATE. Accept it. I beat you toroughly.

Riddle me this.
If you take upon the "task" of representing God in this matter, what makes you think you're not guilty of Pride, being that He didn't ask you to speak on his behalf?

And Pride is considered one of the most heinous of sins (allegedly, it was Pride that led to Lucifer's uprising against the throne, and his subsequent banishment to Hell).

Riddle me this.
Would you like to live under the rule of a sikh state, or a buddhist one?

Riddle me that.
If you wouldn't, why do you try to force everyone else to live under a Christian one, being that one of the teachings is "do unto others what we'd like done unto ourselves"?

I dunno, man..those Buddhists are pretty peaceful looking...:p

Yeah....alot of people have kind of screwed up on that whole Golden Rule thing. Sad, really, since they tend to do the screwing up (ironically) in the name of God. Not to point fingers or anything, of course. Bush.

Riddle me this.
Regardless, what would make a state that doesn't separate itself from the church different from the Taliban regime?

Ooo....that's a bit of a loaded gun question now, isn't it? Let's face facts, it's not the lack of separation that's the problem as much as it is the people that run things. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seperation, but there are alot of spiritual leaders of varying religions and beliefs around the world who have doubled as political leaders for nations (Indhira Ghandi, the Dali Lama, et cetera), and have done so quite peacefully and for the betterment of humankind.

What would seperate a Christian theocracy from the Taliban is, in a word, tolerance. That simple, really. Tolerance, promotion of peace, welcoming all peoples of all faiths and persuations with open arms, instead of the Taliban's habit of brutal oppression and illegal acts of war. Fortunately, the United States is not an official theocracy (thank you fore-fathers and the First Amendment), becuase I fear it would be like the Taliban. It already sits dangerously close on a number of issues.

I basically agree with you on this stuff, just wanted to point out the slightly askew aim in that last statement I quoted. Don't attack a religion of peace, attack the fools who flaunt it for their own oppressive agendas.

NOTE: Before anyone gets uppity and freaks out at me, allow me to show you something.


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.

Note the piece I bolded for you. It does not specifically state to seperate gov't and religion, but watch the wording there. The obvious implication is that a combination of the two is illegal, as it would favor a specific religion. So, keep religion and gov't seperate, no one in particular is favored, and everyone wins.

Wait a second! Doesn't that mean that when creating a law about gay marriage, citing the Bible as a reason why not to is, in reality, coming dangerously close to breaking a law?! By jove, I think we've got it! The Bible, the Koran, and any other holy text has no place within these laws. Therefore, you can only argue economically and socially. Well...there are only economic benefits for gays to marry...and socially, until they're allowed, they're not actually on equal legal footing. Now are they?

To all homophobes and Bible thumpers: thanks for playing "Who Wants To Oppress Gay People?" But, the curtain's drawn, game's over. You lost. Time to go home. Goodnight.

~Alhailtome Out~

I see no logical basis for that statement. =)
I think there are logical arguments for both sides of that statement, frankly. I think it's naive to pretend that there is no logical basis for such a statement, even though I personally don't think things can be so neatly reduced. I was just throwing it out there as an alternative. :P

I wouldn't agree with that, at all. Getting rid of religion is actually sort of a bad idea, as it's a binding force. Ignore for a moment the conflicts of intersts in beliefs, as I want to focus on the social aspect. Namely: it's incredibly social. I'm a former Catholic (left for personal reasons. Also, the pastor at my church was an ass), and I have seen alot of people do alot of good because they felt a sense of community with each other and with the people they were helping. The Sisters of Mercy come to mind, as they run alot of schools (I went to one) for alot of kids. Mother Theresa and Mahatma Ghandi were both deeply religious, and I'd be hard pressed to say that religious beliefs hurt them.

Interesting to notice Ghandi was religious, and fought for political freedom for India. Hm...

So, yeah. Religion = not bad. What is bad are all of the jackasses out there who pervert religions for their own uses. The fundamentalists who ban Darwin from schools, the killers who start wars on fake pretensions and twisted words, and (more pertinent to this thread) the homophobes who want to use out-of-context Bible sentences to ban gays.

Religion shouldn't be removed. Stupidity should.
I agree, sort of.

I think it is perfectly possible to have a world in which all the social and "moral" functions of religion are fulfilled by 100% non-religious means. I also think such a world would be vastly and overwhelmingly preferable to a world that relies on religion to provide for these needs.

However.

I don't think there's any way to jump from point A to point B. Trying to ban religion sure as hell will NEVER accomplish anything, any more than banning drug use is a way to address harmful types of self-medication.

The problem with religion is that, right now, it is the only area of discussion where our public discourse is forbidden to be honest and critical. People can get away with believing and saying and thinking whatever sloppy, cruel, irrational, or flat-out crazy things they like, as long as they chalk it up to "faith." We are supposed to "respect" beliefs not only in spite of the fact that they are irrational, but, indeed, we are expected to show MORE respect for beliefs that are completely without concrete or rational basis!

Superstitious religions require that the individual set aside critical thinking in favor of feelings and "faith," and this is the core of the problem. This is why religion is such a fertile ground for irrational hatred, irrational bigotry, and irrational persecution. If it were possible to reap the benefits of current religious social structures without having the religion part in there (and I believe this is quite possible), then that would be a terrific improvement.

You're right, the key is to attack "stupidity" rather than religion itself. Attack the very notion of suppressing discussion. Attack the notion that rational thought is inferior to superstitious "gut feelings." Attack the idea that ignorance is a virtue and unsupported "faith" is praise-worthy. Much superstition is just a byproduct of ignorance, and will die out as ignorance does.