NationStates Jolt Archive

On the contrary, I really enjoy when racist, mysogenist, xenophobic people come around with poorly-spelt rants about how we all need to breed more or the dirty minorities will take over the world. Honestly, I really do enjoy it. It usually ends up being extremely entertaining.
Well not what I was going for, but I don't know about you but I don't want to be under Shia law, and also I am mixed, part Native American, part Russian, German, Irish, etc. So kinda hard for me to hate minorities, I just think playing the race card is a joke, and that all things that issue out on race need to be kept out of public as it promotes bigotry. And its not a rant, URL For the Population thing is here.

OH WOW ALOT, so yes I am just ranting and no I never read newspapers or news week. Yep, stupid has no proof :P

http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/2002/nr2002126.asp

http://www.fathersforlife.org/families/work_life.htm

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5358255&no_na_tran=1 Yep no proof at all for me. Yes the Economist lies too, liberals are right always.

Unlike some I DO Read and I DO have FACTS to back me up if others don't agree thats thier Preogertive.

Neat little side artical, http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/working/empty_nursery.htm

Well not what I was going for, but I don't know about you but I don't want to be under Shia law, and also I am mixed, part Native American, part Russian, German, Irish, etc. So kinda hard for me to hate minorities, I just think playing the race card is a joke, and that all things that issue out on race need to be kept out of public as it promotes bigotry. And its not a rant, URL For the Population thing is here.

I always love that argument. I am X so the racist, xenophobic argument can't be racist and xenophobic. If you have to offer up your race as evidence, hint, that's a bad sign.

OH WOW ALOT, so yes I am just ranting and no I never read newspapers or news week. Yep, stupid has no proof :P

http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/2002/nr2002126.asp

http://www.fathersforlife.org/families/work_life.htm

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5358255&no_na_tran=1 Yep no proof at all for me. Yes the Economist lies too, liberals are right always.

Unlike some I DO Read and I DO have FACTS to back me up if others don't agree thats thier Preogertive.

Neat little side artical, http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/working/empty_nursery.htm

We've had whole threads debunking these myths. You'll notice that even your sources are talking about declining growth. Not an actual decline.

Meanwhile, you've not established a connection between homosexual marriage and birthrates. There is no evidence that homosexuality is responsible for any decline in growth.

Meanwhile, you've not established a connection between homosexual marriage and birthrates. There is no evidence that homosexuality is responsible for any decline in growth.
Well, to be fair, he also appears to blame the feminists, and feminism most certainly IS responsible for declining birthrates. See, feminists promote the idea that women should have the right to choose how many children they want to produce, and women should be allowed to have lives that involve more than breeding. Time after time, research has established that, when women are educated and allowed to choose, women will choose to limit their family size to smaller numbers.

Moral: don't let women make choices, because they might not choose to crank out enough new soldiers for The Fatherland.

Well, to be fair, he also appears to blame the feminists, and feminism most certainly IS responsible for declining birthrates. See, feminists promote the idea that women should have the right to choose how many children they want to produce, and women should be allowed to have lives that involve more than breeding. Time after time, research has established that, when women are educated and allowed to choose, women will choose to limit their family size to smaller numbers.

Moral: don't let women make choices, because they might not choose to crank out enough new soldiers for The Fatherland.

The amusing part is that there is still not a population decline. The population growth has just slowed. There is no evidence that the trend will continue until mankind becomes endangered. There are 6 billion people and we continue to grow. I'd love to see the population stabilize. I simply can't understand why people would be frightened of a population stabilization? Are we preparing for an alien invasion and have to ensure there are enough soldiers? How does a rapidly increasing population benefit us?

Oh, wait, he wants a rapid increase of the 'right' kind of people. I left that part out.

I have an idea.... how about if we want to ensure there are more people we stop killing them? You know, one way to make sure people survive to breed is to NOT BLOW THEM UP.

The amusing part is that there is still not a population decline. The population growth has just slowed. There is no evidence that the trend will continue until mankind becomes endangered. There are 6 billion people and we continue to grow. I'd love to see the population stabilize. I simply can't understand why people would be frightened of a population stabilization? Are we preparing for an alien invasion and have to ensure there are enough soldiers? How does a rapidly increasing population benefit us?

Oh, wait, he wants a rapid increase of the 'right' kind of people. I left that part out.

I have an idea.... how about if we want to ensure there are more people we stop killing them? You know, one way to make sure people survive to breed is to NOT BLOW THEM UP.

But if we aren't blowing people up, who will we blame AIDS and Climate Change on?

But if we aren't blowing people up, who will we blame AIDS and Climate Change on?

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. "We're concerned about the decline in population growth but let's not teach people how to avoid getting deadly diseases. In fact, we'll fund programs that can only get the funding if they leave that out." It's funny because it's generally the same people who are trying to outlaw homosexuality and outlaw education on how to avoid contracting deadly diseases. Hilarious.

I still like how all these munchkins have decided they had a right to decide who gets to "breed," who gets to marry, and that all married women must have children else they have no right to marry.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. I know I won't, but it doesn't mean I should tell someone else, "I don't like apple pie, so no one in the world can have it either! BAN APPLES!!!!"

:rolleyes:

I still like how all these munchkins have decided they had a right to decide who gets to "breed," who gets to marry, and that all married women must have children else they have no right to marry.

The funny thing is that these folks probably aren't going to get many women to sign up for their plan anyhow, because chicks today tend to be turned off by jerks who insist on keeping them perpetually pregnant. That's why they need to hate on feminism...they know that no woman would choose to participate in their world vision, so they've got to reduce women to subhuman incubators.

The funny thing is that these folks probably aren't going to get many women to sign up for their plan anyhow, because chicks today tend to be turned off by jerks who insist on keeping them perpetually pregnant. That's why they need to hate on feminism...they know that no woman would choose to participate in their world vision, so they've got to reduce women to subhuman incubators.

I guess I'm lucky that my fiance is equally as "selfish" as I in not wanting to be tied down with our own kids, and glad we've got nieces and nephews to love -- no pressure for grandkids, plenty of time for travel and just enjoying each other's company without being interupted by "MAAAAAA! He's LOOKING at me!!!!!" "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD, She Started!!!!"

The funny thing is that these folks probably aren't going to get many women to sign up for their plan anyhow, because chicks today tend to be turned off by jerks who insist on keeping them perpetually pregnant. That's why they need to hate on feminism...they know that no woman would choose to participate in their world vision, so they've got to reduce women to subhuman incubators.

I wish what you are saying was true, but many women are turned into exactly that by their parents and whatnot even while they have the choice to do otherwise.

I'm sorry, but gay marriage is wrong. True, in our society it is a stigma that leaves a lasting impression on homosexuals and ultimately negates them equal rights and stigmatizes them as outcasts. I am a devout Evangelical Presbyterian. The Bible does not say that being a homosexual is wrong. However, it does not condone acts of homosexuality in any shape or form and therefore casts homosexual intercourse and marriage as sin. Marriage is a sanctified Christian act. Why is gay marriage wrong then? Well for starters, marriage takes place in a church ( or in our society Vegas). Second, the line you may kiss your bride refers strictly as a male kissing a female and sealing her as his own. True, most Christians judge and we all are hypocrites. But gay marriage is wrong. In almost every society on earth, pagan, Jewish, Christian, etc., it is considered sociologically incorrect. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals because they cannot help the way they feel, but acting on those feelings by entering into union with a member of the same sex is completely incorrect and that is why only two states allow this union to take place.

I'm sorry, but gay marriage is wrong. True, in our society it is a stigma that leaves a lasting impression on homosexuals and ultimately negates them equal rights and stigmatizes them as outcasts. I am a devout Evangelical Presbyterian. The Bible does not say that being a homosexual is wrong. However, it does not condone acts of homosexuality in any shape or form and therefore casts homosexual intercourse and marriage as sin. Marriage is a sanctified Christian act. Why is gay marriage wrong then? Well for starters, marriage takes place in a church ( or in our society Vegas). Second, the line you may kiss your bride refers strictly as a male kissing a female and sealing her as his own. True, most Christians judge and we all are hypocrites. But gay marriage is wrong. In almost every society on earth, pagan, Jewish, Christian, etc., it is considered sociologically incorrect. There is nothing wrong with homosexuals because they cannot help the way they feel, but acting on those feelings by entering into union with a member of the same sex is completely incorrect and that is why only two states allow this union to take place.

You might find this surprising, but your erroneous description of what God wants is not an argument that holds any sway in a religiously free culture. Unless you're willing to subject yourself to the laws of God according to Muslims or Jews. Are you?

One I view it as a crime to humanity, human progression, and the survivle and domination of our Race. I view it on both sides(Unlike some so called "Christians" Who like the women part) And Bisexuality as being wrong.


Crime against humanity. Dramatic phrase. There are a list of 11 areas of acitivity which constitute one of these, according to the Rome Statute of the International Court, a ruling of the United Nations, the only body on Earth which has even a shadow of authority to make such a ruling.

So you're comparing "refusing to breed" or "refusing to uphold the domination of humanity" (over, I presume, the rest of the animal kingdom) to things like " widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination
(c) Enslavement
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population [btw, you sound like a fan of La Pen or Zhironvski (sp) pay attention to that one]
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law
(f) Torture
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds [legal defintion of those]
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

(btw, psychologists would agree that refusing to allow someone to seek out a long term relationship or to have sex would be considered a violation under [k] ... )

It is interesting that your first and ONLY suggestion as to the 'problem' of low poopulation growth is to ban same sex behaviour. There are many ways this 'problem' could be coped with, for example, requiring every childless adult to pay $41K in a long term debt to the government, since the cost of paying existing families to have one more child is calcuated at $37K/child. Which would be less cruel ? (1.1x37K =approx 41K)

Of course, in this scheme, lots of people would be paying money for "compensatory reproduction incentives" like say, the taxpayers of areas which had a poor health care system. (Because a high death rate requires a high reproduction rate to compensate.) Or jurisdictions which did NOT provide child care. Or did not provide adequate welfare to those disabled by accidents rather than genetic conditions. Or which did not do enough to enable single mothers to gain more affluence so that they could successfully compete for mates.

I'm not endorsing such a plan. I'm not endorsing this priority. But you don't seem to realize that the world as you know it would be turned upside down by insisting that maintaining the population level was one of the most important tasks of society.

How do you reconcile that the only designated representitives of the race as a whole do not agree with you that not sharing this prioirty is not a crime agianst humanity in any way, shape or form ?


As it defeats the primary biological reasons and traditional ones for reproduction, and over time presents a risk to human survivle.


First, your idea of a "risk" is exagerated. Roughly 3% of women and 6% of males are homosexual; another 2-6% of the general population is bisexual, but only about 1/3 of those end up in same sex long term relationships. So, the maximum extent of "non breeding individuals" in the population is about 6% of the population overall. (Probably somewhat less because about 1/3 of same sex couples have children.)

The population growth of earth, on avearge, in the next 50 years is 1.4% Remember, at 1% population growth the population _double_ every 72 years (roughly). Even in highly developed countries, there is still a net reproduction rate of .2% This is -after- the effects of homosexuality and bisexuality upon reproduction. Same-sex inclined people are _not_ creating a population crisis.





Though liberals discourage marriage (and feminist) I can see why

[spurious reason for this alleged attitude]

Funny, I never heard of a democratic or socialist political candidate condemn marriage. Can you provide references



My 2nd reason is, I don't like most liberal Policies that accept this and are making an attempt of making it mainstream and common.

[long set of statistics about economic doom befalling developed countries because of aging populations]

You are aware the the father of population studies, Thomas Malthus, was proven _dead_ wrong, and he spent a lifetime trying to prove that _increasing_ population would eventually consume all wealth and enforce a deplorable standard of poverty on the whole world in time.

_Profesional economists_ following in his footsteps have learned not to underestimate the human race's ability to adapt to unusual conditions. Yes it is unusual to see a demographic contraction. But these have happened before. In point of fact, the Black Death was a _good_ thing because it increased the power of labor relative to capital and was one of the foundation stones of the Industiral Revolution.

I have read articles in the Economist, hardly a "liberal" source, which are saying things like "Japan has the worst population contraction on the horizon, but it won't necessarily be as bad as everyone says, and in fact, will offer many incentives for economic reforms that are long overdue.".

You're taking the line "stressful economic event = disaster", but professionals in the field believe "Stressful economic event = incentive to correct imbalance in economic incentives".

We haven't even touched on the idea that the current population level is the best one. Which it probably isn't, at least in many countries. Any city with more than 2.5 million people, for example, every addition person provides a net _minus_ to the benefits of living in that city. That's in a developed country city. It's a lower number in places in the developing world. How many cities over 2.5 million are there in Europe and the USA ? We're at the very least brushing up against the edges of "too much"


Unless the thrid world Arabs take over , or the Chinese do it, its unlikely those area's will last long in terms of population, or exsistance.


Hrm. interesting theory. Demographic decline results in military conquest or demographic assimliation. Yet during the Black Death, no one moved in to do this to the areas where 50% of the people were now +dead+ (and there were plenty of areas only marginally affected, even within Europe. Czarist Russia or Poland or the Ottomans didn't take advantage of this...wonder why...) During other contractions, the same has failed to happen.



Experts predict that Russia's population by 2010 will go from 145 million to 111 million, and given Russia's border nations I would worry.


Most of that contraction owes to the plummeting health care and the spike in death rates from the deterioration of other infrastructure and lack of civil order. Wouldn't that mean that you would be in favor of trying Putin and all the other veterans of the fire-sale of state assets built up in the Soviet era at first sale prices ? Yet you laud him for taking mostly futile measures to correct a situation he was one of the architects of!


the women must have at least two children per family. And don't srug this off, and maybe take a look at your goverments Agenda, theres far many more rich Liberals than there are Cons.


The government of the USA or Canada has never expressed an agenda of discouraging marriage and childraising. Provide proof for such an assertation. I am historian of these two nations, and you are inaccurate.

Wealth _does_ lower the reproduction rates. But wealth correlates _more_ strongly with conservativism than liberalism. Yes, the very very richest people tend to be "liberal"...but they are far less numerous than the "rich". (Or as someone put it, billionaires for Kerry, millionaires for Bush, during the last US general election)

So the people you say will "save us" from the "evils" of underpopulation...have already voted with their genitals _not_ to practice what you preach. Interesting.

And wealth will also eventually depress the population growth of the developing countries you view as "the enemy". There are already signs of this.

The point is: you are saying underpopulation is the greatest crisis facing humanity. Yet by their actions, the rest of humanity shows that _they disagree_. The race is always in a state of change, always heading towards a new equilibrium. You are taking an abysmall short term view despite claiming you are concerned about the long term.

The only equilibrium that works is the one that human are not coerced to by force of arms (thus, the State). You are advocating an _unnatural_ state of affairs by presuming to dictate what the new equilibrium has to be.


Personnally I think the only reason its gained acceaptance is out of the bullshit we call political Correctness, and Politics.


See post 239 regarding why we accept same sex rights. Contest that. It's far more plausible than "a liberal conspiracy". Esp given that there are plenty of "conservative" people who are homosexual and bisexual.


I Don't care if your gay, but I don't want to

[see you or see any sign of you]

What you want is against the modern theory of liberty, which is the root of conservative and liberal thought _alike_. "The freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose". Showing you something you don't like is not touching your nose. Just like I just grin sardonically and shake my head at Pentacostal demonstrations against queerfolk. Everyone has the right to do what does not harm the property or person of another. It's just the best way things work.

(shakes head) I simply cannot understand what most of the second to last paragraph means. Could you slow down and restate that perhaps ? You are very emphatic but not clear at all.


"The chief part of human happiness arises fron the consciouness of being beloved" Next time you vote or think, stop and look ahead to the future, not day to day always, its good to stay in the here and now, but remember, you and your parents won't always be around. Least you want to live forever.

(1) So where's the sense of being beloved when you say in your vision of a perfect world, every homosexual or bisexual person should feel like they are flawed as a human being (that's a reasonable inference of demanding "don't you dare do it in public, it's just pointless perversion") ?

(2) Look to the future. Actually, I do that all the time, as do most "liberals" you castigate. You claim you have a flawless vision of the future but demonstrate absolute ignorance of how so many of the matters you discuss work.

(3) Actually, clinical immortality (or at the very least, _extreme_ lifespan extension) will be within our grasp long before the human race could conceivably be in danger from dying out from population contraction. Aging is a cellular process, and within our level of understanding of biology, we can conceive of being able to control it, eventually.

And _that_ will be a social change to make "underpopulation" pale in comparison.

The "traditional" view of marriage is all about need and dependence. These are people who can't handle the thought that maybe men and women (or men and men, or women and women) should only get together when they WANT to. This may be due to insecurity; maybe they don't think any woman would choose to be with them. Maybe they think that if women don't NEED men then no woman will ever WANT a man. Maybe they think that if men don't NEED a woman then men will never WANT to spend time with women.


Good on you, Bottle. That is exactly one of the main sources of internal crises in modern humans, sociologically,immo. Before, we were like children under our ruling elites. Everything was set out like a recipe in a cookbook. You didn't do it, someone smacked you down hard, maybe they killed you.

Now, it's like we're teenagers who have moved out...and we're not (collectively) comfortable with the freedom. Many humans aren't even comfortable much less adept at _asking_ questions like "what is necessary" versus "what am I being ordered to do"....

Sadly, we collectively discovered that "letting the kids move out" (well, once we changed to an Industrial economy; this wouldn't have been possible beforehand, so the analogy isn't perfect) would make everyone rich, but now everyone feels insecure and some folks are getting more than a bit tetchy over the stress.

Maybe one day, humans will finish growing up.....it will be an interesting trip but I think I will be glad to be dead during it. (sardonic look)

It is heartening to see people like you who aren't scared of the rough ride ahead.

I wish what you are saying was true, but many women are turned into exactly that by their parents and whatnot even while they have the choice to do otherwise.
Well a percentage of them anyways … same with religion and a lot of other strong views. A good percentage will go on to follow in their parents footsteps

Lets just hope that percentage is below replacement numbers

Maybe it's not just the religous aspect but also political. After all the neo conservatives want to curry favour from the religous anti-gay crowd.

My biggest problem with gay marriage, whether it be two gay men or two lesbian women is this:

Do I bring flowers or beer? :confused:

I'm sorry, but gay marriage is wrong.

For what purpose, Pot ?


True, in our society it is a stigma that leaves a lasting impression on homosexuals and ultimately negates them equal rights and stigmatizes them as outcasts.


Good to see you at least admit that queerfolk have had to put up with a lot of harsh sh*t.


I am a devout Evangelical Presbyterian. The Bible does not say that being a homosexual is wrong. However, it does not condone acts of homosexuality in any shape or form and therefore casts homosexual intercourse and marriage as sin.


Excuse me ? What is not condoned is a sin ? What Christian theological doctrine is _this_ ? I was raised Catholic and I've studied Christianity a fair bit. Please provide some referencesl

I'm sure that Jesus would be fascinated, given the beatitudes, the sermon on the mount, and many other parables and sayings attributed to him which in fact emphasize that what God wants of humans is relatively simple in principle and a matter of compassion for your fellow humans backed by regular mutual aid and persevering in restraining your urges to hurt others.

The Internet Monks summarize's Paul's overall message. This is important, because Paul provides far more of the traditional Church's day to day theology than Jesus :)

" I hear Christians being told to live quiet, peaceful, honest, generous lives adorned with integrity and love. Christians are told to be devoted to their families, to love fellow believers, and to live in such a way that outsiders cannot accuse or criticize. If they suffer for being a Christian, it should not be because they provoked a response through simply living the life Jesus taught."

Not a lot about this perspective that "what is not condoned is a sin" which would imply the sort of self examination and recrimination that Mao advocated during The Cultural Revolution in China.




Marriage is a sanctified Christian act. Why is gay marriage wrong then? Well for starters, marriage takes place in a church ( or in our society Vegas).


Actually, marriage takes place on a ship, before a civil magistrate in a designated gov't building, or in a church. The State has decided that there is more involved here than the sociological needs of any single group of people.


Second, the line you may kiss your bride refers strictly as a male kissing a female and sealing her as his own.


So by this thinking, any thing that we do in modern times which is now a fact of life that was not when the Bible was written...does not have God's seal of approval.

For example, God is silent about genetic engineering. If he says anything, by giving humans dominion over all life on earth, he includes their own. And some fruits of genetic engineering (like cures or prevention of viruses based on recombinant DNA processes) are _used without sanction_ by the faithful.

Also, there are things that historically had a different social meaning at the time than they do now, and which Christians have _already endorsed_ from the top of any Church down to the individual worshipper.

Things like
--> Allowing the payment of interest. At first, this was "usury" and reflected that ancient moneylending was akin to loan sharking and that people's ignorance made them victims waiting to happen, and that "good people didn't do this sort of thing". But without interest, no one would extend credit, and without credit, our modern economy would be much poorer, and everyone has voted (by their actions) that it is _not_ immoral or sinful to maximize human weatlh as long as ethical precepts are not violated as an innate part of this.

--> The end of obligatory dress code for men and women. In the times of the Old Testament, sexuality and gender norms were "gang colors". The Jews were a tiny exceptionalist community surrounded by dozens of "brands" of "urban polytheism". To maintain their identity required that every aspect of life that reflected their culture and norms be regimented, to mitigate against assimilation by the economically and culturally expansive neighbours

Now, in modernity, dress codes are about the _type of activity_ you're in, because we have problems differentiating when we are allowed to engage in one activity verus another. So we have business formal, public event formal, sporting, clubbing, casual, etc. We see no moral end at all served by dictated distinctions between dress codes for the genders.




But gay marriage is wrong. In almost every society on earth, pagan, Jewish, Christian, etc., it is considered sociologically incorrect.


By what criteria ? Btw, I don't know a portion of any modern pagan community in any of the cities _I've_ seen (and I've seen pagans in about a dozen American and Canadian cities) (I'm not one, I'm actually in the process of converting to Judaism, but I respect modern Pagans in principle) which expressed norms of "homosexuality or bisexuality is wrong".


There is nothing wrong with homosexuals because they cannot help the way they feel, but acting on those feelings by entering into union with a member of the same sex is completely incorrect and that is why only two states allow this union to take place.

So objective "correctness" is demonstrated by opinion poll ? So the fact that the majority of Nero's contemporaries felt he was essentially correct in punishing Christians publically by the atrocities in the Colleseum was justifiable ? Or (to use a more fair example) that laws for eugenics passed in the 30's (which matter the bible is again _silent_ on) were defensible because most people found them "self evidently and scientifically correct" ?

Please, do respond

My biggest problem with gay marriage, whether it be two gay men or two lesbian women is this:

Do I bring flowers or beer? :confused:


(laughs)

If I get married, bring both. My friends are HUGE fans of Guiness, and I like flowers. Pretty purple and blue ones with small blossoms. :)

Oh, and bring _weed_ please, as well or in place of, as long as it's comparable to British Columbia yield. That's _really_ popular. Bonus points if you make it into brownies cause I don't smoke anything :)

Ok, explain the logic of how conferring the same benefits regarding property, medical benefits, childcare benefits to gay coupels _dilutes or diminishes_ those same rights confered to _heterosexual couples_?

How does gay marriage make straight marriage pointless ? It's all still marriage, the same ground rules are supposed to apply.

MA: First of all, l wanted to thank you for taking so much time to respond to my "bluster". I can't imagine that you have all the time in the world, so I'd prefer to assume that, in taking time to respond, you obviously saw something of merit.

Secondly, I must apologize to you for not making myself clear, as your responses clearly do not address my argument. They do address various anti-gay-marriage arguments I have heard, but do not speak to the specific points I was attempting to make.

Firstly, judging from the fact that you inquired as to how I could find straight marriage "pointless" if gays were allowed to marry, I am forced to conclude that you merely saw the word "pointless" in my post and assumed that was the conclusion I was making. Not so. Rather, I was wishing someone to clarify for me the great multitude of economic benefits that would be conferred to gays (that are not already available through the legal recognition of civil unions) if they were allowed to sign a marriage license. In my state, for example, the answer would be "not many." In short, the state has found a way to confer the same rights to gay couples as married couples via state civil unions sans the label of "marriage."

That said, and assuming that as a result of this whole issue, we streamline the civil union process, allowing gay "committed" couples (or whatever the criteria is) to share the same economic benefits as straight, married couples, does there remain a point in this absolute NEED for the label "marriage"?

How can you argue "well, if only a _few_ rights are denied to queer couples, why is that so bad ? why do we have to change and grant _full_ equality?" Because the denial of rights that have been proven to be "safe" to confer to others is against the mechanism of governance we follow. [as I have just argued and supported at length.]

Again, what rights are you talking about here? I have no issues with having a civil union process that is exactly the same in legal/economic benefits as the effect of a legal marriage. What's left? After all the argument's I've heard to the effect that marriage is nothing more than the union of two people who love/are committed to each other, how is this different from a civil union where, indeed, two comitted people are being united and recognized under the law?

The one (and thus far) only answer I can seem to get out of this is that even those that belittle the current institution of marriage, still see some intangible worth to it (as you yourself alluded to with the "psychological distinction" comment later on) that carries with it something other than just the economic/legal benefits and the accompanying title. If marriage was indeed a pointless legal institution, I wouldn't see how we could be having this debate. Would someone care to elaborate upon this?

There is respect associated with the "label" of marriage. To say this respect is not owing to marriages between man and man or woman and woman is to make subtle but emphatic imprecation that something is wrong or lacking in these relationships.

Is there really? I would argue that, with the advent of no fault divorces, the label of marriage means very little, if anything, now. It can be granted in a heartbeat and dissolved in another. Put another way: Marriage is an illusion of commitment. You need it to sign the paper, but after that, you're free to end that "bond" whenever you please. Like it or hate it, that's the way it currently is.

Put another way, if marriage is just a label, _why do you care_ if same sex relationships have it affixed to them ? Queerfolk have a reason to care; it's about respect. What's your reason ?

And if it is just a label, why such a great need for it? Is a label a "right"? I've always wanted to be a blonde, but I'm not. However, seeing as how it's nothing more than a label that confers no legal/economic rights any different from the ones I have now, I'm probably not going to spend the rest of my life arguing over the fact.

Following that thought, I really can't understand where you're coming from with the marriage=respect argument. I haven't seen respect factor into ANY relationship merely because of the label placed on it. You recieve respect in your relationships through the way you act, and how you conduct yourself as a person, not through the legal label you place on it.

Marriage _already_ has meaning. It is an evolving institution, but is _an institution_. It is part of the passages of life and the important public rituals that mark adulthood. Just because there are no legal distinctions between a "civil partnership" and "marriage" does not mean there is no _social_ or _psychological_ distinction.

So is getting a driver's licensewhen you turn 16. I'm not seeing the difference. "Passages of life?" Does that mean if I remain single, I'm not an adult?
As for "psychological distinctions", I'm quite sure one can be psychologically content without being married. I've managed for 20 years.

Adam and Eve.
Not Adam and Steve.
Nor is it Madam and Eve.
And Hokan...All alone.

Excellent point. If you are not Adam or Eve, you are clearly not supposed to reproduce. Otherwise God would have created humans with every possible name.

Why is gay marriage wrong then? Well for starters, marriage takes place in a church
Not only in Vegas, but also in any courthouse in the nation. You cannot therefore call marriage a strictly religious term. SOME marriages are religious; others are not. Some religions allow homosexual marriage. Are you going to deny them that right? think carefully; if you deny another religion the right to officiate as they please, you open the door to them telling you how you may or may not worship.

Second, the line you may kiss your bride refers strictly as a male kissing a female and sealing her as his own.
This is a holdover from a patriarchal society. No one is ever told they may kiss their husband. I prefer the more neutral, "Lay one on your spouse!!" ;)

True, most Christians judge and we all are hypocrites. But gay marriage is wrong. In almost every society on earth, pagan, Jewish, Christian, etc., it is considered sociologically incorrect.
Source please? The Greeks considered it to be ok, so that blows your 'pagans find it wrong' argument out of the water. T

There are Christian churches that have performed them (http://www.cnn.com/US/9803/12/homosexual.marriage/) and others considering whether to allow them (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0701/p02s01-ussc.html), so that blows the major part of your Christian argument out of the water as well.

What do you know: here is a Jewish group that supports them... (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/01/16/jewish_group_oks_same_sex_marriage/).

So, you were saying...?

My biggest problem with gay marriage, whether it be two gay men or two lesbian women is this:

Do I bring flowers or beer? :confused:

;) Both will never fail you.

Jesus himself divided religion and government. The goals of government are sometimes against those of religion yet Jesus said to honor government.

In the US the goal of government has traditionally been to give more freedom. The only time the government tried to constitutionally restrict freedom it was a failure. The religion of the "Christian" Pharasees that now have political power believes in restricting freedom. If they were truely Christian they would not try to thwart the traditional goals of government. They would use their power of persuassion to bring people to the beliefs of Christianity. Jesus never once said anything about bringing his ideas to the people through the government. In fact those who received the greatest criticism from Jesus were those that used religion to gain political and social power. The current "Christian" Right is doing as those Jesus said had killed all of the prophets and would kill him also. The "Christian" Right kills the teaching of God every day in order to gain political and social power. Mat 7:19-23

Excellent point. If you are not Adam or Eve, you are clearly not supposed to reproduce. Otherwise God would have created humans with every possible name.
Yup

Its Adam and Eve not Hokan and Eve

<snip>

I made no particular statement about who should have access to which kind of partnership, so that'd be a no to both (although I'm particularly baffled by how you came up with option B...).
I think the social recognition of sexual/romantic/intimate comitment should be available to any informed and consenting adults, but things like joint medical coverage, or next of kin status, or financial dependant status in a household for tax purposes, these things aren't sexual/romantic/intimate issues, and should be equally available to anyone for whom they apply; long-term roomates, trusted friends, chosen family, etc.
I shouldn't have to pretend I'm fucking my friend Vini so that our marriage will be aproved in the eyes of immigration. The practical aspect is the same, I'm still financially responsible for him for three years, we're still commiting to the immigration board that I will cover his medical expenses, help him find work, and put him through school. But I should be allowed to make those promises as his friend, why does sharing a bed when the immigration officers make a surprise inspection make that promise - which is already legal, already binding, would still be binding if as a wedded couple we fell out of love and divorced - more valid?
So then, you're going with option A. Fine.

As for where I got option B, pretend someone else wrote your original statement and place it side by side with the anti-gay marraige posts in this thread, and I think you might see how the misunderstanding was possible.

P.S. People have obviously been misinterpreting my sarcastic illustration of how a homophobic argument is generally laid out, so to clarify: I am a flaming-liberal politico faggot from the hippie west coast of Canada. I'm a staunch agnostic, the happy baby of a ridiculously extensive chosen family, and I'm very sorry I caused confusion on this point. Usually I don't have to add provisos to my sarcasm since I'm fairly flamboyant, and no one alive would mistake me for a right wing anything, least of all homophobe. But I'm still getting used to this whole "internet" whackyness, sorry darlings.
Happy to meet you. Welcome to the party.

Hint: Tell people when you're being sarcastic. I know it's lame, but as is often pointed out, tone of voice and facial expressions don't carry over the internet. And when you read some of what gets posted around here, you'll see how valuable a little dumbing-down can be. For instance, there a people who post exactly what you said -- only they aren't joking. :eek:

I'm sorry, but gay marriage is wrong. True, in our society it is a stigma that leaves a lasting impression on homosexuals and ultimately negates them equal rights and stigmatizes them as outcasts. I am a devout Evangelical Presbyterian. The Bible does not say that being a homosexual is wrong. However, it does not condone acts of homosexuality in any shape or form and therefore casts homosexual intercourse and marriage as sin. Marriage is a sanctified Christian act. <snip>
Are you under the impression that there is only one religion in the US?

So then, you're going with option A. Fine.
Not precisely since I want to desexualise legal partnerships, so it's no longer available to "both gays and straights" anymore than car insurance is available to "both theists and atheists." I mean.. it is, but it's a distinction which superimposes certain false assumptions about what aspect of the subject's rôle is pertinent to the appelation. It also establishes an instant binary which isn't always valid, since there is a statement by omission that this arbitrary (and in many cases invalid) distinction between people is a single division of the entire population.
Option A inherantly both sexes and sexualises the exact thing which I was arguing for the desexualisation of.
And anyway I wasn't talking about either A or B in the original message, so no A isn't an accurate summation of my thesis.

*cough* I've been spending a lot of time with my gender-studies dyke friends. I think I'm starting to channel them to a bizzare degree...

As for where I got option B, pretend someone else wrote your original statement and place it side by side with the anti-gay marraige posts in this thread, and I think you might see how the misunderstanding was possible.
Okay? It just seemed like an awful lot of leaps (since I hadn't even been talking about who should be allowed marriage) for the paraphrasement to be such a specific scenario of bigotry.

Happy to meet you. Welcome to the party.

Hint: Tell people when you're being sarcastic. I know it's lame, but as is often pointed out, tone of voice and facial expressions don't carry over the internet. And when you read some of what gets posted around here, you'll see how valuable a little dumbing-down can be. For instance, there a people who post exactly what you said -- only they aren't joking. :eek:
So I'm gathering!
I don't have a lot of internet experience, so I'm still learning, and thanks so much for being patient with me. It's not that I consciously think people can read my mannerisms, it's just that explaining that I'm not a redneck really never comes up as a concept when I'm wearing a feather boa.

many people say:
Gays getting married... that's un-natural!

I say:
If one human makes a decision, this decision is natural for all humen on the world.

MA: First of all, l wanted to thank you

(abbreviating aggressively to curb sprawl in this reply)
You're welcome, though actually, I'm disabled. This is the verdict of a government employment program job coach, a psychologist they hired to do a psycho/vocational assessment, the regional head of welfare in my district _and_ my doctor. (I state the extensive endorsement because many people consider disability for psychological issues to be hoaxes foisted on government by people "abusing the system" and it's the reaction of about 1/3 of all people I meet so I like to get that out early now)

My time is very very cheap right now. In fact, I welcome anything that can stir feelings and excite activity. One day, I will be capable of working, but many months or years of dedicated therapy are between me and then....so till then, I can be a full time gadfly :)


Secondly, I must apologize to you for not making myself clear, as your responses clearly do not address my argument.


Ok, so if I am following you, it's less (or not) that you're saying "gay people neither need nor deserve rights regarding marriage, and it's foolish that they think so " (which in short is my impression of your original post)



Rather, I was wishing someone to clarify for me the great multitude of economic benefits that would be conferred to gays (that are not already available through the legal recognition of civil unions) if they were allowed to sign a marriage license.


Alright, so if I _am_ following you now, you're saying that it is a silly measure to put any energy or agitation against, to secure a hollow title that does not augment existing rights ?

And perhaps implicitly, that you are railing against the culture of "politicial correctness" (as if there is a convenient central authority that monitors this, rather than a thousand little back and forth struggles along similar lines) and a general unwarranted (in your opinion) b*tchiness in people, whining about things that don't really matter ?

My provisional reply is this:

First, when people talk about gay marriage in a state-level political fight, they generally lead with demanding this, and then settle for civil unions. Civil unions that _are_ fully equivalent to marriage exist in Vermont and...where else ? The fight for marital rights is far from done. And the point is, there's no point in trying to be delicate about sensibilities. It's a battle cry that makes clear queerfolk want _every_ right heteroseuxals enjoy and _equal_ respect from the state for their marriages. Perhaps they won't always get it. It's about direct and clear communication and the most concise but accurate shorthand for debate.

It is true that in the states that _do_ have this status, continuing to agitate may seem pointless to an outsider. But I'll get to _that_ part farther down.



Again, what rights are you talking about here?
...
The one (and thus far) only answer I can seem to get out of this is that even those that belittle the current institution of marriage, still see some intangible worth to it (as you yourself alluded to with the "psychological distinction" comment later on) that carries with it something other than just the economic/legal benefits and the accompanying title.


AF, I am disturbed by your statement "those that belittle the current institution of marriage....(as _you yourself_ alluded to....) [emphasis added]

I'm not sure how anyone else is reading it, but that sounds you're saying that _I_ belittle marriage. In fact, it sounds like you're saying that _anyone_ who is for gay marriage is belittling it.

We can discuss this further if my interpretation is correct.

But even beyond that potential argument, you're kind of dancing around. Just because _you_ are unmarried and _you_ see marriage as equivalent to getting a driver's license in terms of emotional important to an individual...does not make you typical of opinion on this.

You seem to be harboring bitterness that marriage _might_ have meant something, once, but no longer does, and if so I am curious how you see that transition has occurred ?

It seems clear to me that almost everyone does regard marriage as a ritual that is not empty and in fact carries great significance. Admittedly, yes, a lot of this is about throwing a hell of a party to celebrate getting laid regularly now.....but even for people who barely understand the underlying importance of rituals, there is a sense that marriage is special.

Where does this special quality reside ?

It has to be in the connotations of the ritual, and the societal dynamics we have muted but not ended.

Specifically, "do you pledge to keep the statue XXXX regarding so and so" does NOT have the same emotional power as "to have and to hold, to cherish in sickness and in health" or the various OTHER religious rituals humans have to mark this event.

Yes, you can have a religious ceremony and then a civil one, but that is propaganda by deed from the government that what you have in a same sex couple's commitment to live together _isn't_ the same thing as "the marriage that their parents had". To you, the distinction seems trivial. That anyone secure enough to be out and proud and get hitched shouldn't be annoyed by this message from on high.

Well, you're ignoring the fact that most people DO want the full blessing of authority for the things they do which traditionally they are lauded for. A partial blessing is simply not the same. To deny that this is a social reality for so many people....is to say their feelings don't matter.

Basically, you have no grounds to say that the full blessing of the state should not be extended to same sex couples. They want it, their desire harms no one, diminishes no one else's rights, and satisfies strong needs in them. Even if you do not share or understand those needs, you have no business standing in the way of them out of pure contrariness or lack of respect for their "irrationality".

You don't seem to give any weight to the "also, this serves the purpose of helping to fight discrimination" angle I have previously broached. But it is demonstrable that the war of ideas is a nuanced one and that small distinctions matter. Look at the near civil wars in England's history over orthodox practice in the Anglican church, over tiny tiny issues, many of them purely ritual. Look at the importance of the sweeping but basically meaningless (in a legal sense) "right to the pursuit of happiness" in the American revolution.

You should at least be open to the proposition that people are motivated differently from yourself. As long as what they demand is consistent legally with how other minorities have fared in seeking redress for state sanctioned use of force against them, by the Mills doctrine of liberty which underlies the structure of rights and its benefits for society, you should get out of their way.

You are of course entitled to express puzzlement why it matters.

The best answer I can give there is this:
Even up to right now, queerfolk are the ONLY identifiable grouping in society that significant minority of citizens feel not only entitled to abuse but OBLIGATED to abuse. Surveys have shown that racists acknowledge that society thinks their beliefs are wrong. Homophobes do not even acknowledge this much. And in their surety, they help make the struggle to reform their anti-civil sentiments harder.

And queerfolk grow up with the mostly accurate feeling that most heterosexual society doesn't really care about this ongoing abuse. Yes, it is obvious that most people no longer hate queerfolk, and many will be absolutely egalitarian in their sentiments towards them.

But it is an egalitarianism born out of apathy and fatigue, more than conviction, for the most part. So imagine subjectively you are in a crowd where the silent majority is kinda sympathetic to your plight, but really doesn't emotionally _care_ and certainly as a rule doesn't understand you or consider you fully "sane". (Most people just seem to shrug "damn that's weird, but not worth getting excited over". This is an improvement, but it's not exactly the most principled position.)

And that in this crowd you get shoved and kicked and given regular verbal abuse and that some of the people in the shops around the crowd won't serve you or spit in your drink or stuff like that. Occasionally you might get beaten. And the chances of someone intervening to help you, with conviction and the true spirit of civic fellowship, is very low. Depending on where you live, it can easily be zero.

Even if the crowd where _you_ live isn't this bad, you know that this is because of regional peculiarities, and not because people are any more committed to your enjoyment of your rights and the protection from the use of force by others by the State.

And when you do confront the homophobes, they make it clear that they hate you with unremitting and burning passion. And their assertations are not contested or disputed by the rest of the world. Even if you have a robust self esteem, growing up being treated as the vilest thing in the world with little countervailing message has an effect on your view of life.

You may be safe most of the time, and have the prospect of getting most things in life that heterosexual folk take for granted (at least by the expedient of moving to a "queer safe" state if nothing else). But this memory of others _with the passive sanction of the state_ constantly attacking your self esteem and your sense of entitlement to safety and liberty....is something every queerfolk carries in them.

A tiny number of them just have it roll off their back like water off a duck's. But most of them don't. And so, when it comes to the current round of the culture wars, when legally this quiet majority is now saying "hey good on you, you're ok" the gut reaction is "oh yah? f*cking prove it. Put the smackdown on these homophobes who made my life harder than it had to be and who make the queerkids growing up now suffer unnecessarily ?" Yes, there is gratitude, but there is still great anger that tolerance is extended out of mercy and magnamity rather than principle.

So we fight tooth and nail for every scrap of respect and for every degree of censure against homophobia that we can get. It may seem pointless to you, but statistically we're smarter (queerfolk are 1 standard deviation to the right on the bell curve for cognitive ability scales, significant though not earth shattering) and more of us see the big picture and want to do anything we can to making the future a place where no one has to grow up feeling the hot breath of someone else's hatred in their face the whole time they are developing.

I guess that rambled a bit, but you seem to be so hard headed and rationalistic, that I figured an extended and concrete example was needed to communicate my meaning. If I still have not made sense, I guess all I can do is shrug and say "it has meaning because the theories of sociological struggle say it does, you may disagree with those theories, but most of us don't since we've been living as guinea pigs in the ongoing experiment in society about the matter".


Is there really [any meaning to marriage the ceremony and title]? I would argue that, with the advent of no fault divorces, the label of marriage means very little, if anything, now. It can be granted in a heartbeat and dissolved in another. Put another way: Marriage is an illusion of commitment. You need it to sign the paper, but after that, you're free to end that "bond" whenever you please. Like it or hate it, that's the way it currently is.


Ah, I think I see your resentment now. That gay marriage is just another step on the inexorable continuum of denuding marriage of any normative purpose.

The picture is just way more complex than that. I will adress that soon, but my teaser is: you are quite wrong, and your apparent bitterness about the issue is blinding you to the degree and manner which the institution still has emotional and sociological significance.

(Though this will have to be in another post)


And if it is just a label, why such a great need for it? Is a label a "right"? I've always wanted to be a blonde, but I'm not.


Being a blonde is a fact. We'll ignore that you can dye your hair. Calling yourself blonde if you're not is a delusion. Being married is also a fact, and when you're in a state that is within the parameters of marriage, and not calling it a marriage is like being blonde and not allowed to call yourself such.
Your subtext here argues that for gays to call themselves married is also a delusion. That is not only disrepectful but not factural.


However, seeing as how it's nothing more than a label that confers no legal/economic rights any different from the ones I have now, I'm probably not going to spend the rest of my life arguing over the fact.


What you're going to spend your lifetime arguing about is the admissibility of "evidence" to the argument that you consider invalid by it's nature (emotional feelings, aspects of sociological protracted struggles, non-binding normative content to institutions, etc)

It sounds to me like you're upset that humans don't live by the rules that they say they wish to. I share that vexation. But if you truly want to be pragmatic, and encourage the world to be one where they are _more_ inclined to live by those rules, the first step is NOT to treat those rules as hypocritical pieties of no relevance or significance.


Following that thought, I really can't understand where you're coming from with the marriage=respect argument. I haven't seen respect factor into ANY relationship merely because of the label placed on it. You recieve respect in your relationships through the way you act, and how you conduct yourself as a person, not through the legal label you place on it.


Ah, but mythology, ethical beliefs, and hopes, though intangible and far from a firm and constant influence on human behaviour _do_ influence it. Yes, the conduct day to day and the commitment to create respect by deed is the paramount consideration. But that's the picture. The frame does affect how you see the picture. The choice of medium (oil,watercolor, pencil) affects how you see what is represented.

Maybe most people never consciously think about the institution of marriage once they are hitched. Maybe for some it is as you say and is TOTALLY irrelevant. But I've seen a number of marriages close up and to denigate and refuse to account for it's minor and signficant influence is not supported by my experience, at any rate. And probably not shared by most people given the high feelings on both sides of the debate. Some of it is just gang-color clashing inspired frenzy, but it's not that simple.



As for "psychological distinctions", I'm quite sure one can be psychologically content without being married. I've managed for 20 years.

Yes, you can be. Many people cannot. By what justification do you presume to deprive them of an influence, however marginal, which they are affected by and which does matter to them ?

many people say:
Gays getting married... that's un-natural!

I say:
If one human makes a decision, this decision is natural for all humen on the world.

I'll give you the cliff notes version of the counter-argument you will _rarely_ see but which can occasionally sway people, so you need to be ready to skewer them on it :)

There is a concept called natural law. It's the idea that some aspects of morality (perhaps all of them) are inherent to humanity, either by gift of god or evolutionary programming. That the reason there are universal prohibitions against killing, for example, is because we are meant to feel that way.

There is something to this. And thus, homophobes can say "heterosexuality is the dominant norm in all cultures everywhere because that was intended; and conversely, homosexuality is a "deviance".

They can even point out that the genetic influence on homosexuality seems to be similiar to redhairedness. That it's a threadbare spot in the human genome where a mutuation that is of "more or less" degree happens frequently. But which is NOT the result of evolutionary pressures. (Though it is neat that while red heads are more sickly, they do have higher pain tolerances. So pay attention you sadists :) )

Well, the reply you make to this is two fold.

First, point out that many many norms have been claimed to be intrinsic and "natural" and then suddenly in a revolutionary moment, they are overthrown, sometimes in one place, sometimes in EVERY place or nearly everyplace. That the most common abuse of authority has been to claim that "this is the way the universe meant things to be" when the issue has not been settled.

To prove something as profound and deep seated as "universal intent" is NOT a casual task. And to assume that everything you believe is a result of natural law _actually is_....well, that's unwarranted. Too many people have eaten crow over it. You can say that you suspect that's the way it is, but if someone can offer credible arguments, you can't just smack them down with this appeal to authority. It's intellectually dishonest.

Bascially, natural law, to the degree it exists, is still largely unknown, and partly unknowable (because some issues we simply do not have telepathy to measure feelings and thoughts and souls and KNOW some things beyond a shadow of a doubt).

Secondly, you point out that just because something is "intended" by "the universe" doesn't always have strong moral content. Maybe people were meant to love coffee. Is that implying that non coffee drinkers are weirdoes and inferences should be made about their character ? If there are moral certainties created by the universe, there can also be moral indifferences created by it too :)

But good on you. :)

When I say, being gay is natural, than I don't say, being hetero is not natural... you see, if you believe it or not, I'm hetero myself :D

Well, what I just wanted to say in my former post was, that humen are a product of nature. So, everything what humen do, is natural, too - for my opinion.
Other people say, humen are products of god - and there were Adam and Eva, not Eva and Eva. So being gay isn't right.
But just because they have a completelly other opinion I can't say they're wrong - 'cause, like you already said, "natural law" is largely unknown.

*Extremely large snip*
Perhaps one of the longest posts I've seen in General, well done.

I took the time to read all of it, and you make some valid points. I'm just a bit tired to process all the information.

Because marriage's origins lie in religions of all types, I think government should not be involved in marriage at all. You should not have to get a state-issued marriage license in order to marry. That's violating separation of church and state. Consequently, government should remove all marriage-related privileges, such as tax cuts. It's unfair that my taxes are higher than my best friend's taxes just because she's been lucky in love and I haven't. If it's important to you religiously, then you can go to a church, synagogue, etc., and have a religious ceremony binding you to one other person for life. But I don't think the actual government-regulated state of marriage is what should be important. I think it's more important that two people love and cherish each other. If you have a happy home together, do you really need the marriage if you're not a member of a religion that calls for one?

I wish what you are saying was true, but many women are turned into exactly that by their parents and whatnot even while they have the choice to do otherwise.
But that was my whole point; they have to brainwash women and degrade women in order to get their system to work. They require the dehumanization of 51% of the human population in order to impose their vision. The only way they can get their "values" to work is if they take away women's rights, freedoms, and education. This doesn't have to be accomplished only with laws; it's quite easy for parents to take away their children's futures, and to strip their daughters of basic human dignity.

Marriage is a sanctified Christian act.

That's going to come as quite a shock to my (atheist) parents, who celebrate 30 years of marriage this summer.


Why is gay marriage wrong then? Well for starters, marriage takes place in a church ( or in our society Vegas).

Again, my parents will be surprised to learn that they were married in a church. They are under the misapprehension that it occured in a rented hall. Clearly, the wedding photos have been altered to further this deception.


Second, the line you may kiss your bride refers strictly as a male kissing a female and sealing her as his own.

Yes, do let's continue the tradition of using marriage as an exchange of property from one man to another. Nothing is more romantic than when a man claims ownership of another human being.


True, most Christians judge and we all are hypocrites. But gay marriage is wrong.

And then his head exploded in a puff of irony...


In almost every society on earth, pagan, Jewish, Christian, etc., it is considered sociologically incorrect.

It would be too much to ask for sources, wouldn't it?


There is nothing wrong with homosexuals because they cannot help the way they feel, but acting on those feelings by entering into union with a member of the same sex is completely incorrect and that is why only two states allow this union to take place.
Are you aware that your arguments precisely echo the sentiments of the anti-miscegenationists of yesteryear?

Not to label myself throgh my words (which invariably happens in such discussions), but I'm become puzzled by the repeated arguments that cite the forbidding of gays to marry as a 'denial of civil liberties.'

Because it is a denial of "civil liberty".


Now, granted, as a lawyer, I've heard the various arguments (legal) on both sides, and still can't reconcile with this statemnent. Simply put: We, as a society have laws. As we all know, the laws both permit and prohibit certain things. Sometimes, these prohibitions and permitations apply to certain "classes" of people (key word). The effect of these laws in many instances, is that they focus on a group of people and apply regulations to that group. Such regulations can be enacted through popular vote, or through judicial or legislative creation.

You're argument indicates that you are a lawyer with very little understanding of the law. US Laws PROHIBIT only, because the root system of law is common-law based. The only time things are allowed through enumeration is to specify the scope of the prohibition, or times where you have mis-interpreted prohibitions against government as a "permit" to the people.


One such example is underage drinking. Singles out a class of people (under 21 individuals) and applys a regulation. And while you could make the argument that these individuals are being denied a certain "right" by being prohibited from partaking in an activity granted to the rest of the nation, it is widely understood that such regulations exist as a part of the very foundation of society.

Not understood by me, they are adults by the definition of the law...


Now, if you GO to that foundation, you are left with the inescapable conclusion that our society is based on certain principles. Like it or not, its a give fact. The US still subscribes to overwhelmingly Christian-based principles on some of its most fundamental decisions. These principles both shape the opinions AND the vote of the people. How does this translate? Basically, we see the workings of these values through our enacted laws. Hence, children under 21 cannot legally drink alcohol, because the United States (as a societal whole) does not wish to endorse the behavior.

"children Under 21" and you call yourself a lawyer?

The Foundation is not Christian... It is the Common-Law, which can be seen in part through constitutional enumerations.


Similarily, (and I'm not making an exact comparison here), the traditional (and yes, largely Christian-based) principles underlying the US Constitution as well as its various laws speak to an understanding that society has not wished to condone the homosexual lifestyle as being equally as acceptable as that of the heterosexual one. Like it or not, that's the way things work.

"Christian Based Principles underlying the US Constitution"? There are none, unless you mean the singular Christian principle of forbearance (which in this case would not apply, as opposition to the exercize of ones rights is not forbearance).


In conclusion, although I have my personal beliefs on the matter, I wanted to shed a bit of light on why the US often makes the decisions it does. Rather than looking at is as a bunch of bigots trying to suppress individual rights, look at it as a culture, based on some very fundamental (Christian-based) values, that have an effect on the laws of the nation.

IOW, don't look at us a bigots, look at us as a whole nation of bigots.


What would be the effect then, of giving a legal 'nod' to gay marriage? The effect would be that the enacted law would begin to conflict with the underlying framework. The subtle but immediate effect would be to create an unrest. This would seem to make sense, as unrest would be a natural consequence of a conflict between the values of a society and its laws. When it comes to that point, either one or the other will have to give. The two cannot live at odds, and I think it will be then that we will either see a return to the 'traditional' US values, or a radical move towards a re-defining of some of the most basic understandings about both the laws of the country as well as the nature of the person themselves.

The effect of giving the legal nod to gay-marriage, would be the effect of the United States, as a society acting in parrellel with her root principles as a country.

Unfortuneatly we're stuck with people like you, who think these base princples are Christian Morality....And preach this lie to others who agree with you... None of it is true....

The basic principle is the liberty of the individual... All things work outward from this principle.

The basic principle is the liberty of the individual... All things work outward from this principle.

Right on :)

It is appalling how many people have embraced the un American position that the people are the property of the State and that the primary function of government is to regulate its property. In _both_ dominant parties.

Killer tag line.

Are you in law or....? I'm just a passionately motivated amateur political scientist/sociologist (I have a little formal education in this regard, but freely admit I have gaps in my understanding and stand ready to have them corrected...as long as proof is offered)

I am a devout Evangelical Presbyterian. The Bible does not say that being a homosexual is wrong. However, it does not condone acts of homosexuality in any shape or form and therefore casts homosexual intercourse and marriage as sin.

Then according to you USING THE INTERNET TO POST ON A FORUM IS A SIN.

Do you people have no brain?

Marriage is a sanctified Christian act.

Actually most religions have their own forms of uniting 2 souls. Do some research.

Why is gay marriage wrong then? Well for starters, marriage takes place in a church ( or in our society Vegas).

Point being?

Second, the line you may kiss your bride refers strictly as a male kissing a female and sealing her as his own.

And the true colors of mysogenistic america show.

True, most Christians judge and we all are hypocrites. But gay marriage is wrong.

Cue the guy from scanners.

In almost every society on earth, pagan, Jewish, Christian, etc., it is considered sociologically incorrect.

According to science, it isnt. And pagans had orgies in temples which included gay sex.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals because they cannot help the way they feel, but acting on those feelings by entering into union with a member of the same sex is completely incorrect and that is why only two states allow this union to take place.

So you cannot help but feel you are in love with a man (assuming you are a man as well), but its wrong to act on it? So in other words, you are telling gay people to live a life of unhappiness and struggle to love a member of the opposite sex which it is physically impossible for them to do?

You are a cruel son of a bitch.

No, then he'd get all kinds of death threats and radio stations would stop playing his songs.

:D
*thinks*

Owned!:cool:

its simple people just like to make a big deal out of things like that personally i dont care its what the people want to do let them do it