NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's be honest; if homosexuals and their ilk would just disappear there really wouldn't be an issue.

If bigots and their ilk would just disappear, there really wouldn't be an issue either.

If bigots and their ilk would just disappear, there really wouldn't be an issue either.

Well, if homosexuals just disappeared then "bigots" wouldn't go after them.

If bigots and their ilk would just disappear, there really wouldn't be an issue either.You fetch the rope, I'll fetch the pitchforks :p

Nah, we're better than that. OK, I'm not, but I know you are.

Marriage is religious and defined: One man and one woman.
Civil Union is the governments marriage.

Since most (all?) religions think being gay is a sin, then why would the legal definition of marriage be changed to appease a few while angering many? Take Civil Union and shut up.

That's a really dumb way to enter the debate.

No, it isn't. All marriage is the "government's marriage" and it is not religious. No matter what the religion, it still has to qualify for its marriage ceremonies to be recognized as legal by local governments. Depending on the country, some religions may have an easier time getting that qualification than others, but regardless -- although most governments will recognize church/temple marriages, you are actually legally married only if your local government says you are, no matter what your church might say.

In case you didn't get that, Serejai: Mura is saying you are wrong.

There isn't much room for "ought to"s or "I think" there. You made a direct statement which was wrong, and you have been told why.

You might want to check the law before getting married. God isn't going to help you get out of that legal contract, and if you turn to God for legal advice (say perhaps things don't go just the way you've been told, and your marriage ends in court) ... I don't think the court will recognize your legal counsel if you try to bring God into the courtroom.

Yeah, that's the way to get people to agree with you. Whatever.

That is about the most polite way imaginable of putting it.

Serenjai, you're pretty much done. But things get worse, because of your poor choice of words. Telling people to shut up in your very first post gets you extra treatment. You get told twice.

Similization is pretty deadly on this subject. I'm snipping the content out but leaving the post so you're sure which post I'm talking about.

Try to read it all. There are a few passages in it which you might think are deliberately insulting your religion or you, but they aren't really. It is just very forceful. Also, it's stuff you ought to know ... and you asked for it.

"Shut up" means "tell me that very clearly and at length, please." At least, it does here.

*snip, respectfully*

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

Now, THIS is the way to enter the debate. Ask to be invited in and beg not to be hurt too much. ;)

I have a huge list of thoughts on this, being a Christian conservative, so I won't post those unless you guys want me to, but I think the issue here is people think Christians especially think that gay people are the ones we speak out against, but really, it's their actions... so yeah, I know that's not much, but some people might prefer me to be out of this debate ;)

Some people might, but if you're the only person putting the Christian conservative position, be brave and do your duty. :)

I'd say that a person's sexuality is not an "action" in the way driving a truck is an action, or standing for public office is an action. It can't be defined entirely by it's effect or by its appearance ... because it is a part of a living person. Just a thought.

That seems to me to be a bit like saying someone that has murdered someone else doesn't deserve to go to jail because since he did not murder me, it does not affect me... No one is discriminating gays, but in a way they are discriminating straight marriage... I wish I could word my thoughts a little better right now though.

You might be a bit afraid.
That is understandable, but if you stay polite you won't get what Serejai got.

Why care about homosexuality? Because Big Brother belongs in your bedroom.

Prove me wrong.

Why care about homosexuality? Because Big Brother belongs in your bedroom.

Prove me wrong.

I don't have a bedroom. Thanks for playing.

Why care about homosexuality? Because Big Brother belongs in your bedroom.

That's incest, which is another topic altogether.

Let's be honest; if homosexuals and their ilk would just disappear there really wouldn't be an issue.
I heard that the Gay Agenda was working on a cloaking device back in the 60's, but the project was abandoned when the research team ran out of chaps and mustache protectors.

That's incest, which is another topic altogether.

LOL!

I don't have a bedroom. Thanks for playing.That is fine, Big Brother is happy to monitor any room you sleep/have sex in. He's cool like that.

Gay Marriage is an Oxymoron. Marriage is the mostly religious and completely symbolic union between a man and woman. There are no issues of "rights" regarding this, because Marriage is not a right. If I owned a small computer software company, would I have the right to merger myself with Microsoft? Would it be some violation of my rights if Microsoft declined my attempts to merge with them? Even if I were a large company, and Microsoft wanted to merge with me, is this solely my right and none of the FTC's business? No... in these cases, it is not a "right" that I have, and I can't claim one, therefore, no right is violated. The same is true with gay people who want to marry, there is no "right" to marry, other than the right of a woman and man to decide to enter into union together. Gay people have this same opportunity, just as straight people, as far as I know.

Now, before you flame me, I would like to add, I am in favor of Civil Unions. I think this could be used in a multitude of ways, and should be taken out of context of gay marriage completely. If two spinster sisters want to enter into a Civil Union for tax reasons, beneficiaries, power of attorney, or whatever... what's the harm in it? If a Father and Son want to have a Civil Union because they share a home together, why not? AND, if some gay couple wants to pretend to play house and be "married" to each other, they could use Civil Union to give them all the financial and economic benefits of traditional married couples. The ONLY aspect they are missing, is the opportunity to tarnish religious sanctity and traditions. Last I checked, we still have freedom of religion in this country, and shouldn't adopt laws for the express purpose of smearing religion.

I can marry a member of the opposite gender and so can gays.
I am not allowed to marry a person of the same gender as myself and neither can gays.

Fair, or superfair?

I can marry a member of the opposite gender and so can gays.

Can you marry someone you would be in love with?

Can a homosexual?

Can you marry someone you would be in love with?

Can a homosexual?

Depends on their gender.

psst...I was being sarcastic(if thats what it would be called) in order to make dixieanna's reasoning seem ridiculous.

Can you marry someone you would be in love with?

Can a homosexual?

Let's make it even more simple, exclude the complex idea of love.

A straight person can marry the person they want to.

A gay person can't.

Gay Marriage is an Oxymoron. Marriage is the mostly religious and completely symbolic union between a man and woman. There are no issues of "rights" regarding this, because Marriage is not a right.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

Well...fuck.

The ONLY aspect they are missing, is the opportunity to tarnish religious sanctity and traditions. Last I checked, we still have freedom of religion in this country, and shouldn't adopt laws for the express purpose of smearing religion.

Do you have any idea how american law actually works? Any idea what-so-fucking ever?

Depends on their gender.

psst...I was being sarcastic(if thats what it would be called) in order to make dixieanna's reasoning seem ridiculous.

well yeah, I mean, when it's two women..that's just hot

fair enough, my fault from reading bottom up

well yeah, I mean, when it's two women..that's just hot

fair enough, my fault from reading bottom up

Which would be hard for me to accomplish. Being male and all...male-ish...yea

no problem

i like girls.
being a guy, i want to marry a girl eventaully.

i think it would be unfair of me to say that anyone else isnt allowed to like girls as well.

same goes for the ladies.
if you are a girl, an you like guys, then isnt it unfait to say that guys arent allowed to like guys?


when we deny the right to love a girl or a guy, just because of the persons gender, we are being sexist.

yes.
i am saying that people who dissagree with homosexual rights are sexist.

We don't though.
We deny other rights.

i like girls.
being a guy, i want to marry a girl eventaully.

i think it would be unfair of me to say that anyone else isnt allowed to like girls as well.

same goes for the ladies.
if you are a girl, an you like guys, then isnt it unfait to say that guys arent allowed to like guys?


when we deny the right to love a girl or a guy, just because of the persons gender, we are being sexist.

yes.
i am saying that people who dissagree with homosexual rights are sexist.

We don't though.
We deny other rights.


the right to marry?
shouldnt any two people who love each other be able to marry?

the same concept applies:
if you are going to marry someone,
it is unfair to tell someone else that they cannot marry a person of the gender that you want to marry.

the right to marry?


Yes, that is denied.
shouldnt any two people who love each other be able to marry?
Sure.
the same concept applies:
if you are going to marry someone,
it is unfair to tell someone else that they cannot marry a person of the gender that you want to marry
Yes, it is.

Yes, that is denied.

Sure.

Yes, it is.

you arent suposed to agree with me!
:P

where is a religion fanatic with an opposing argument when you need one?

but thanks for supporting, anyways!
:)

you arent suposed to agree with me!
:P

where is a religion fanatic with an opposing argument when you need one?

Top of the page.
but thanks for supporting, anyways!
:)
Your welcome.

I get what you meant. My post was more of a, "Look what New Limacon knew on Jeopardy" moment, nothing really useful.

:D:D:D Cool.

well yeah, I mean, when it's two women..that's just hot

fair enough, my fault from reading bottom up


i know of many girls who think guy-on-guy stuff is hot, and that seems weird to us guys.

why is it that a homosexual female couple will make guys drool, while a guy couple is weird?

i know of many girls who think guy-on-guy stuff is hot, and that seems weird to us guys.

why is it that a homosexual female couple will make guys drool, while a guy couple is weird?

"Two for you" and/or the possibility of watching hot members of the favoured gender without any awkward jiggly/wobbly/etc. bits of one's own gender-type to confuse the issue?

I have a huge list of thoughts on this, being a Christian conservative, so I won't post those unless you guys want me to, but I think the issue here is people think Christians especially think that gay people are the ones we speak out against, but really, it's their actions... so yeah, I know that's not much, but some people might prefer me to be out of this debate ;)
No, please, stay...as long as you realize we are attacking your statements and not your person.

Speaking of which, I really hate that line of rhetoric -- "we're against the actions, not the people." What bull! What you are against -- daring to speak out against, as others dare to support/enact laws against -- are things that are vital to the lives of those people, AND, more important, none of your damned business in the first place.

Gay rights would not be a controversial issue at all if bigots would learn to mind their own freaking business instead of sitting around obsessively imagining other people's sex lives.

That seems to me to be a bit like saying someone that has murdered someone else doesn't deserve to go to jail because since he did not murder me, it does not affect me... No one is discriminating gays, but in a way they are discriminating straight marriage... I wish I could word my thoughts a little better right now though.
OK, and the mere fact that you are comparing (in your example) homosexuality to murder shows your overwhelming bias -- a bias apparently so strong that it causes you to say something so patently ridiculous that it will damage your credibility in general.

Also, please explain how homosexuals are discriminating against hetero marriage. I'll wait.

<snipping a bunch of stuff that is just factually wrong and has already been addressed; btw, Reading The Thread is a fun activity>

Last I checked, we still have freedom of religion in this country, and shouldn't adopt laws for the express purpose of smearing religion.

Freedom of religion does not mean that everyone has to live according to the rules of your religion.

Freedom of religion also guarantees the rights of churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. They exist, no matter how much you might like to pretend they don't so you can slap your religious label onto something it doesn't belong on.

People who manifest themselves against gays so much are doing so because they wish they had the nerve to come out of the closet.

End of story.

Can you marry someone you would be in love with?

Can a homosexual?

I'm in love with Carmen Electra, but I can't marry her! Quick, let's pass a law to keep my rights from being violated here!

No one has EVER proposed that gay people didn't have the right to be in love, or even, the right to perform some superficial ceremony on a flower-covered hill in the country with their hippie 'minister' ...or buy a wedding album and plan a honeymoon! As far as I know, there is no law on the books anywhere, which prohibits this from happening, or bans 'gay love' in any way. The ONLY thing that is not allowed, is state licensing of marriage, which IS NOT A RIGHT for ANYONE!

People who manifest themselves against gays so much are doing so because they wish they had the nerve to come out of the closet.

End of story.

Yeah, that's it... I'm gay! So... here I stand, a gay man opposed to same-sex marriage! That's pretty bad when gays themselves can't condone it! And apparently, going by your statement, there are a bunch of us closet gays who totally oppose gay marriage, so it's not just an isolated thing. I think, since so many of us gays are opposed to it, we should just forget about it and move on!

It's interesting, this red herring of a point you present... I have heard it before, and it always smacks of prejudice toward gays! It's as if you wish to insult me by insinuating I am gay, as if that would be the ultimate bad thing you could do to me! Oooo... he said I was gay... what a put-down! Okay, I'm going back in the closet now, because I like it there so much, I don't have to deal with bigots making anti-gay comments.

I'm in love with Carmen Electra, but I can't marry her! Quick, let's pass a law to keep my rights from being violated here!



technically, you can marry carmen electra.....
however unlikely it may seem....

shure, mariage may not be a right, but there are some rights that you only get if you are married. for example, homosexual couples may not adopt children if they are not "married."

you cant say we dont have rights to have children, which is impossible for homosexuals without adoption.

Freedom of religion does not mean that everyone has to live according to the rules of your religion.

Freedom of religion also guarantees the rights of churches that do recognize and perform same-sex marriages. They exist, no matter how much you might like to pretend they don't so you can slap your religious label onto something it doesn't belong on.

No one has ever said that anyone has to live by any religious rule. If there is some off-the-wall religion which condones and sanctions gay marriage, that is their right and freedom, I don't begrudge them that. The state is not obligated to follow the tenants of some wacko religion, is it? The overwhelming and vast majority of religions in the world, recognize marriage as the union between a man and woman, it is a religious ceremony, mostly performed in churches by ministers ordained by the church.

You couldn't pass a law ordering every church to allow snakes to be brought in... even though, there are some churches which condone snake handling. You couldn't pass a law ordering churches to allow homeless people to feast on their crackers and wine used for communion. And you can't tell a church they have to perform a ceremony for people who are openly violating their religious beliefs and principles, it is a violation of their right to free religion.

technically, you can marry carmen electra.....
however unlikely it may seem....

shure, mariage may not be a right, but there are some rights that you only get if you are married. for example, homosexual couples may not adopt children if they are not "married."

you cant say we dont have rights to have children, which is impossible for homosexuals without adoption.

No, technically I can't. That is the point! My rights are being violated.

Civil Unions would give gay couples the right to adopt, buy a home, open a joint savings account, buy life insurance, or whatever else traditional couples do, so why do they want the right to marry? It is because, this is not about "rights" as much as it is about counter-culture and sticking it to religion and the religious beliefs of others. You just shouldn't have that "right" in my opinion.

No one has ever said that anyone has to live by any religious rule <Snip>A marriage is a contract defined, organised and enforced by the state. Whether or not your cult has thought up odd little rituals, in an attempt to embed your cult in the state, is the very definition of "besides the fucking point".

That marriage in the US and most other places, today are defined by states as "between man and woman" is because of cults like your own. Apart from forcing everyone to live by your cult's rules, there's no reason to define marriage as "between man and woman".

Your cult isn't forced to perform it's silly little rituals for anyone. When it does so, it is because it chooses to do so, not because it is forced. When another silly little cult is prevented from performing its silly little rituals for a gay couple, or for a would be bride with 3 grooms, it is because you and your cultists are a fucking horde and have, by mob rule, forced them to abide by your cult's rules.

If you're afraid to lose your freedom of religion, don't deny freedom of and from religion to everyone outside your own silly little cult. The state shouldn't force you to violate your religious bollox, of course, but neither should you use the state to violate the religious and non-religious bollox of others.

It's not about giving anyone special treatment or special privileges, it's about stopping mad cultists from ruining the lives people who don't share your particular superstitions. It's about equality for all, not equality for you and yours, and "conform or fuck off" for the rest of us.

And you can't tell a church they have to perform a ceremony for people who are openly violating their religious beliefs and principles, it is a violation of their right to free religion.

No one is talking about religious marriage. No one demands that churches be forced to offer religious marriages to same-sex couples. Rather, it is argued that CIVIL marriage, currently exclusive to opposite-sex couples, should be extended to same-sex couples.

the state shouldn't force you to violate your religious bollox, of course...<snip>

Which is exactly my point. Gosh, I don't recall saying that I was the member of any silly little cult, is this something you assumed from my position? For the record, I am not religious and don't belong to any organized religious group. I am a spiritualist, and my own personal beliefs have little to do with this issue.

To read the animosity in your retort, is all we need to know about what is fueling this whole gay marriage movement. This is not about any rights, or justice for gay people, it is about the seething anti-religious hatred that continues to permeate our society and erode morality. You don't support gay marriage because you want gays to have equality, you support it to throw feces at religion, which you revile. Anything you and your anti-religious bunch can do to thwart religion, and rub their noses in their own principles, you will attempt to do it, even if you have to lie about the reasons.

I'm not a religious nutcase, I know plenty of them, but I am not down with it all. I just believe in standing up for principle, and if that means defending religious people and their practices, that is what it means. Marriage is a largely religious ceremony... has been for centuries... between a MAN and WOMAN... nothing else... you can't marry dogs, cats, horses, pigs, or the same sex human, it is not what marriage is! You want the same privileges as married couples... CIVIL UNIONS! You just want to throw feces at religion and deny them the right to the religious freedoms they are entitled to.... GAY MARRIAGE!

No, technically I can't. That is the point! My rights are being violated.

Civil Unions would give gay couples the right to adopt, buy a home, open a joint savings account, buy life insurance, or whatever else traditional couples do, so why do they want the right to marry? It is because, this is not about "rights" as much as it is about counter-culture and sticking it to religion and the religious beliefs of others. You just shouldn't have that "right" in my opinion.


and why not?

anyways, the mariage title is not just used to wave a mariage licence piece of paper in front of a conservative christian and say "naa-naa-na-na-naaaa"
it is the principal of the thing. they dont want to be pushed aside with technical words that dodge the dreaded m-word.
they want to be accepted equally, and that means using the same terminology.

No one is talking about religious marriage. No one demands that churches be forced to offer religious marriages to same-sex couples. Rather, it is argued that CIVIL marriage, currently exclusive to opposite-sex couples, should be extended to same-sex couples.

Marriage is marriage according to the state. No one demands that churches do this because it is not yet ordained and sanctioned by the state, once it becomes law, you will see a multitude of civil suits against churches to force them to comply with the laws.

As I said before, I am in favor of Civil Union legislation, giving gay couples every single right a straight couple has in marriage. The only thing I am opposed to, is state sanctioning of gay marriage, and this is because of what marriage is. Being a largely religious ceremony, historically understood to be the union of a man and woman, there is no compelling reason to change this.

I'm not even opposed to gay people having a wedding ceremony, if they can find a minister to do the honors, fine! Go ask ANY married couple, gay or straight, if that little piece of paper they get from the state, has anything to do with LOVE?

and why not?

anyways, the mariage title is not just used to wave a mariage licence piece of paper in front of a conservative christian and say "naa-naa-na-na-naaaa"
it is the principal of the thing. they dont want to be pushed aside with technical words that dodge the dreaded m-word.
they want to be accepted equally, and that means using the same terminology.

Why can't I marry Carmen? Well... I think my wife would object, for one... and I'm not sure, but I think Carmen's hubby may have a problem with it... besides her not knowing me from Adam, and probably not being interested in me... I think it is fairly impossible for me to marry Carmen. BUT... I DO LOVE HER!

Yes, that is exactly what this is about... waving the marriage license in the face of Christian conservatives and saying "naa-naa-na-na-naaaa"! It has nothing to do with principles or being pushed aside... the only ones who are being pushed aside and having their principles violated are the religious people who vehemently oppose gay marriage!

Same terminology has nothing to do with the issue. Blacks won equality in 1964, they didn't win the "right" to call themselves "Caucasian" did they?

Yes, that is exactly what this is about... waving the marriage license in the face of Christian conservatives and saying "naa-naa-na-na-naaaa"! It has nothing to do with principles or being pushed aside... the only ones who are being pushed aside and having their principles violated are the religious people who vehemently oppose gay marriage!


No, this has nothing to do with Christians, or Conservatives. Gay Marriage isnt about "getting one over" on them christians.
It's about allowing a person to have the same rights as anyone else, and not being descriminated against for whom they choose to love.

For once, the damn christians need to realize its not always about them.

YOUR principles arent being violated, unless YOU violate them yourself.
All any christian has to do to tolerate gay marriage, is mind thier own damn business.
Apparently, not sticking one's collective nose into other peoples business is far too much to ask from most of them.

Its Ironic how fast a Christian will howl if someone were to actually attempt to opress them for thier religious beliefs, but as soon as one gay person wants the same rights afforded to every straight person in the country, the christian-right howls about how "the moral fabric" is in some kind of jeopardy, or that if allowed those same rights, "the next thing you know, people will be marrying sheep!!"

This is the same kind of mentality that started Crusades, and Inquisitions.
Its nothing more than intolerance, and hatred of anyone different than themselves.

I find it sad, and appalling that this kind of rediculous, and unwarranted bigotry still exists in America today. Is it any wonder that church attendance is at an all-time low in this country, and those that do attend, are moving towards "mega-churches?"

One recent report I heard said that if the current trend away from specific denominations continues, certain denominations like Presbyterianism will be dead within 50 years.

Maybe its high time.

Marriage is marriage according to the state.

Civil marriage. Not religious marriage.

Orthodox and Conservative Jewish rabbis won't perform wedding ceremonies for intermarried couples, yet those couples still have civil marriage rights. (So do atheist couples.) Some churches marry same-sex couples, yet they still lack civil marriage rights.

once it becomes law, you will see a multitude of civil suits against churches to force them to comply with the laws.

No, you won't, because the laws don't force the churches to do anything.

We're talking about CIVIL marriage. Not RELIGIOUS marriage. They're not the same, though often they coincide.

Blacks won equality in 1964, they didn't win the "right" to call themselves "Caucasian" did they?

No, and gays aren't asking for the right to call themselves straight.

Stop being disingenuous.

Personally, I think it's bad, wrong, incorrect and should be banned, but I really don't care as long as you keep it to yourself. I'm sick and tired of both sideso f the fence acting like jerks. "DEATH TO FAGS!" vs. "WEEEEE PRETTY COLORS!" The main reason I don't like homosexuals is the gay pride parades and stuff. They can have their protests for equal rights, but does it really have to be cross-dressing colored wigs? On the other side, would you put your bogeyman's preachings to use and fix the suffering of the world as good ole Jesus supposedly plead?

It's pretty much worth it now to define marriage as one man and one woman and allowing civil unions for homosexuals just to shut everyone up so they can protest something else. It will make a nice compromise that should satisfy both sides. I don't want to see men kissing, but I don't really want to see a man and woman kissing either...

Yeah, so that's about it. I at least plan not to take part in the coming homosexual debate. It's not worth it. My opinions are all in theory and are hard for my unarticulated self to defend adequately.

Okay...
By openly saying that you have no interest in men kissing nor men and women kissing, admitting your opinions are all in theory, being ignorant in assuming all homosexuals are men, you really haven't put your point across in the best way.

Before I even argue with you...
Do you know any gay people?

No, this has nothing to do with Christians, or Conservatives. Gay Marriage isnt about "getting one over" on them christians.

Yes, it certainly is. We know this because of intellectual honesty. If you objectively examine the argument, you can see clearly, it is only about subverting christian morality and tradition. Otherwise, there would be no problem in adopting civil unions and putting the issue to rest.

It's about allowing a person to have the same rights as anyone else, and not being descriminated against for whom they choose to love.

You seriously need to read what is posted. There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry! There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the opposite sex. Whom you chose to love, has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or discrimination, and no one has ever denied gays the right to love whom they choose.

For once, the damn christians need to realize its not always about them.

Well, when it comes to the sanctity of one of their most important rituals, it is hard to see how it isn't about them. If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

YOUR principles arent being violated, unless YOU violate them yourself.
All any christian has to do to tolerate gay marriage, is mind thier own damn business.
Apparently, not sticking one's collective nose into other peoples business is far too much to ask from most of them.

Ah, but YES, religious principles would be violated. Marriage is a religious principle, it is the union of a man and a woman, for the religiously express purpose of procreation, if you want to get technical about it. That is what it has been for over 8000 years, and it has never included members of the same sex, or anything other than a man and a woman. So, being that we are debating an expressly religious ceremony, ordained by expressly religious people, how in the hell is this "none of their business"? Seems to me, it is ONLY their business, and you are the one sticking your collective anti-religious nose in it.

Its Ironic how fast a Christian will howl if someone were to actually attempt to opress them for thier religious beliefs, but as soon as one gay person wants the same rights afforded to every straight person in the country, the christian-right howls about how "the moral fabric" is in some kind of jeopardy, or that if allowed those same rights, "the next thing you know, people will be marrying sheep!!"

Oh my! You continue to use the word "Christian" here, when I have clearly stated I am not a member of a religious group. My howling comes from my sense of right and wrong, and defiant protection of religious freedoms for all. As far as I know, no gay person has been denied anything afforded to a straight person. They can marry the opposite sex just as I can, no difference. In fact, I will bet you $1,000,000 that if you held a Gay Wedding on top of a flower-laden hillside in the country, no one would prohibit it, no one would stop it, and no one would be arrested for it. So, gay people are not denied the "right" to do whatever they like, with regard to ceremony.

Making the state grant a license of marriage to gay couples, is a direct slap in the face of religion, religious beliefs, sanctity of religious beliefs, and freedom to worship without persecution or restraint. You are intruding on religious tradition and sanctity, with a non-existent claim of "rights" by a group of people largely shunned by religious groups for their sexual behavior, which violates most interpretations of religiously moral beliefs. As much as you want to scream you are having something forced onto you, that is exactly what you propose to do to religious people, who DO have the right to practice their religion (which includes the matrimonial ceremony) freely.

This is the same kind of mentality that started Crusades, and Inquisitions.
Its nothing more than intolerance, and hatred of anyone different than themselves.

So far as I know, Pat Robertson hasn't called for gays to be rounded up and broght before the council of Christians, so no... it's not the same kind of mentality, and you really need to study history more if you think so.

It seems to me, the intolerance is coming from Gay Rights advocates, who aren't willing to settle for Civil Unions, and want to force their 'immoral' behavior on those who practice religion, particularly the Christian variety. I mean, call me crazy, but isn't that exactly what is being done here? Who has hatred for whom? I see a lot of bitter and disrespectful banter about Christians and people of religion here, is that just pure acceptance of something different from you? Doesn't seem like it, does it?

I find it sad, and appalling that this kind of rediculous, and unwarranted bigotry still exists in America today.

And I find it appalling to hear this is what you think, in spite of what has been said here. I have reiterated the point, I don't hate gay people, I don't deny gay people the same rights as everyone else, I don't even care if gay people have a wedding and adopt children, all of these things can be done through Civil Unions, and the religiously-based ceremony of marriage, can remain respected, as we should do with all religious rituals. Bigotry is when you believe your idea is the only correct view, and everyone else is just plain wrong... isn't that how you feel about the views I have presented?

[
Yes, it certainly is. We know this because of intellectual honesty.

I find it unbelievable that you would claim any such thing, given your intolerant views.



You seriously need to read what is posted. There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry! There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the opposite sex. Whom you chose to love, has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or discrimination, and no one has ever denied gays the right to love whom they choose.

Your tactic is the oldest, and most tired of any to appear on forums such as this. Insinuating that someone "hasnt read what was posted" beucase they disagree with you, is a charactaristic of the poor debater.


Well, when it comes to the sanctity of one of their most important rituals, it is hard to see how it isn't about them. If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

The christian's religious freedoms end at thier church door. It would be a violation of such freedom if a court forced that church to perform a gay wedding inside thier church. No such ceremony is being required of them.


Ah, but YES, religious principles would be violated. Marriage is a religious principle, it is the union of a man and a woman,

Incorrect, and arrogant.
Marriage is not purely a religious ceremony, is has never been exclusively so, and will never be exclusively so. If that were the case, the law would require a clergyman of any sort to perform such a marriage, and in most states, it certainly does not. One of my very good friends has performed 4 weddings, and is certainly not a religious leader of any kind.




for the religiously express purpose of procreation, if you want to get technical about it. That is what it has been for over 8000 years,

Your knowledge of history is laughable, Im afraid.




As far as I know, no gay person has been denied anything afforded to a straight person.

Except the right to marry whomever they please.




Making the state grant a license of marriage to gay couples, is a direct slap in the face of religion, religious beliefs, sanctity of religious beliefs, and freedom to worship without persecution or restraint

"Without persecution or restraint" does not entail "especially where it impedes the happiness of others."





.You are intruding on religious tradition and sanctity, with a non-existent claim of "rights" by a group of people largely shunned by religious groups for their sexual behavior, which violates most interpretations of religiously moral beliefs.

Only where it directly involves your church or religion. As previously stated. NO GAY PERSON is likely to insist such a ceremony take place inside your (whomever) church.
IF this were the case, and only then, would you have a legitimnate arguement about your religious rights being interfered with.


As much as you want to scream you are having something forced onto you, that is exactly what you propose to do to religious people, who DO have the right to practice their religion (which includes the matrimonial ceremony) freely.

1. I'm not gay.
2. once again, if it doesnt take place within your church..your rights are in no danger, and you have no arguement as such.


So far as I know, Pat Robertson hasn't called for gays to be rounded up and broght before the council of Christians, so no... it's not the same kind of mentality, and you really need to study history more if you think so.

No, but he has made such outreageous claims as Hurricane Katrina being divine punishment against gays. I cant believe you would attempt to use his name in any rational debate.



It seems to me, the intolerance is coming from Gay Rights advocates, who aren't willing to settle for Civil Unions, and want to force their 'immoral' behavior on those who practice religion, particularly the Christian variety. I mean, call me crazy...

OK....your crazy.



but isn't that exactly what is being done here? Who has hatred for whom? I see a lot of bitter and disrespectful banter about Christians and people of religion here, is that just pure acceptance of something different from you? Doesn't seem like it, does it?

Only if a gay couple were insisting to be married in a christian cermony within your church. If that were the case, then you would be right.
Its not...and you arent.

You seriously need to read what is posted. There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry!

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Having read through Dixieanna's posts, I was going to compose a length response, but I realized there was really only one main question I needed to ask. So let's just cut right to it, first off:

Given that Dixieanna's stated beliefs are fundamentally identical to the anti-miscegenation views that were thrown out in the previous century, is there any reason we should do anything other than point and laugh at such nonsense?

Yes, it certainly is. We know this because of intellectual honesty. If you objectively examine the argument, you can see clearly, it is only about subverting christian morality and tradition. Otherwise, there would be no problem in adopting civil unions and putting the issue to rest.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

That quote is from Judge Leon Bazile, as he handed down prison sentences to a white man and a non-white woman who had dared to marry one another. You see, it also has been a Christian tradition to deny people of different ethnicities the right to intermarry.

Racists made precisely the same argument you make, by pointing out that blacks had the same rights as whites: the right to marry only within their own ethnic group.

There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry! There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the opposite sex.
But the Supreme Court of the United States rejected this idea in 1967, because that white man and non-white woman, Richard and Mildred Loving, were not willing to give up their rights. They took their case to the highest court in the land.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
-Loving v. Virgina, 1967.



Well, when it comes to the sanctity of one of their most important rituals, it is hard to see how it isn't about them. If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

If you'd like to TG me, I can pass along to you the phone number for my parents' home. They are atheists who were married in 1976. Their wedding was not religious. Their marriage is not religious. They have been happily married for over 30 years.

Welcome to the 21st century.


It seems to me, the intolerance is coming from Gay Rights advocates, who aren't willing to settle for Civil Unions, and want to force their 'immoral' behavior on those who practice religion, particularly the Christian variety.
I assume you also believe that interracial couples should be content to settle for "civil unions," then, right? And you naturally would deny atheists the right to marry, seeing as how they obviously won't be participating in the religious traditions of marriage.

But hey, it's not YOU who's the bigot. No, it's the gays and atheists and people of religions other than yours, those bigoted meanies, who think they should have the right to get married. They're bigots because it hurts your feelings for them to have rights and stuff.

Zegt de ene homo tegen de andere:

"Wanneer is uw boy vriendje jarig?"

Zegt de andere homo tegen de ene:

"Weet het niet juist, maar ik denk van achter in mei"

No, this has nothing to do with Christians, or Conservatives. Gay Marriage isnt about "getting one over" on them christians.

Yes, it certainly is. We know this because of intellectual honesty. If you objectively examine the argument, you can see clearly, it is only about subverting christian morality and tradition. Otherwise, there would be no problem in adopting civil unions and putting the issue to rest.

It's about allowing a person to have the same rights as anyone else, and not being descriminated against for whom they choose to love.

You seriously need to read what is posted. There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry! There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the opposite sex. Whom you chose to love, has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or discrimination, and no one has ever denied gays the right to love whom they choose.

For once, the damn christians need to realize its not always about them.

Well, when it comes to the sanctity of one of their most important rituals, it is hard to see how it isn't about them. If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

YOUR principles arent being violated, unless YOU violate them yourself.
All any christian has to do to tolerate gay marriage, is mind thier own damn business.
Apparently, not sticking one's collective nose into other peoples business is far too much to ask from most of them.

Ah, but YES, religious principles would be violated. Marriage is a religious principle, it is the union of a man and a woman, for the religiously express purpose of procreation, if you want to get technical about it. That is what it has been for over 8000 years, and it has never included members of the same sex, or anything other than a man and a woman. So, being that we are debating an expressly religious ceremony, ordained by expressly religious people, how in the hell is this "none of their business"? Seems to me, it is ONLY their business, and you are the one sticking your collective anti-religious nose in it.

Its Ironic how fast a Christian will howl if someone were to actually attempt to opress them for thier religious beliefs, but as soon as one gay person wants the same rights afforded to every straight person in the country, the christian-right howls about how "the moral fabric" is in some kind of jeopardy, or that if allowed those same rights, "the next thing you know, people will be marrying sheep!!"

Oh my! You continue to use the word "Christian" here, when I have clearly stated I am not a member of a religious group. My howling comes from my sense of right and wrong, and defiant protection of religious freedoms for all. As far as I know, no gay person has been denied anything afforded to a straight person. They can marry the opposite sex just as I can, no difference. In fact, I will bet you $1,000,000 that if you held a Gay Wedding on top of a flower-laden hillside in the country, no one would prohibit it, no one would stop it, and no one would be arrested for it. So, gay people are not denied the "right" to do whatever they like, with regard to ceremony.

Making the state grant a license of marriage to gay couples, is a direct slap in the face of religion, religious beliefs, sanctity of religious beliefs, and freedom to worship without persecution or restraint. You are intruding on religious tradition and sanctity, with a non-existent claim of "rights" by a group of people largely shunned by religious groups for their sexual behavior, which violates most interpretations of religiously moral beliefs. As much as you want to scream you are having something forced onto you, that is exactly what you propose to do to religious people, who DO have the right to practice their religion (which includes the matrimonial ceremony) freely.

This is the same kind of mentality that started Crusades, and Inquisitions.
Its nothing more than intolerance, and hatred of anyone different than themselves.

So far as I know, Pat Robertson hasn't called for gays to be rounded up and broght before the council of Christians, so no... it's not the same kind of mentality, and you really need to study history more if you think so.

It seems to me, the intolerance is coming from Gay Rights advocates, who aren't willing to settle for Civil Unions, and want to force their 'immoral' behavior on those who practice religion, particularly the Christian variety. I mean, call me crazy, but isn't that exactly what is being done here? Who has hatred for whom? I see a lot of bitter and disrespectful banter about Christians and people of religion here, is that just pure acceptance of something different from you? Doesn't seem like it, does it?

I find it sad, and appalling that this kind of rediculous, and unwarranted bigotry still exists in America today.

And I find it appalling to hear this is what you think, in spite of what has been said here. I have reiterated the point, I don't hate gay people, I don't deny gay people the same rights as everyone else, I don't even care if gay people have a wedding and adopt children, all of these things can be done through Civil Unions, and the religiously-based ceremony of marriage, can remain respected, as we should do with all religious rituals. Bigotry is when you believe your idea is the only correct view, and everyone else is just plain wrong... isn't that how you feel about the views I have presented?

Wow! wot a crock of shit.

Why are we even debating this?

Dixie may think whatever inanity he wishes about the reasons, the fact is that gays WILL eventually get marriage, and there's nothing he or the neocons that want to FORCE their religion on US (no, Dixie, not the opposite, regardless of your insane allegations) can do about that.

And we don't CARE about the CHURCHES calling gay marriage "marriage", we want the GOVERNMENT, NOT THE CHURCHES, calling it "marriage". Get that through your thick and empty skull.

I'm in love with Carmen Electra, but I can't marry her! Quick, let's pass a law to keep my rights from being violated here!

If you both consented to a marriage and were not already married, then yes, that'd be perfectly legal. Unfortunately, you can't force somebody to sign a contract if they do not want to. Furthermore, attempting to marry again would be a violation of the agreement you made when you entered into the current marriage you are in-- and you don't have the right to violate contracts.

No one has EVER proposed that gay people didn't have the right to be in love, or even, the right to perform some superficial ceremony on a flower-covered hill in the country with their hippie 'minister' ...or buy a wedding album and plan a honeymoon! As far as I know, there is no law on the books anywhere, which prohibits this from happening, or bans 'gay love' in any way. The ONLY thing that is not allowed, is state licensing of marriage, which IS NOT A RIGHT for ANYONE!
Why do you intentionally ignore the Supreme Court case posted earlier that expressly says that marriage is a right? It was just reposted by Bottle, so good luck ignoring it again. Intentionally ignoring sources is extremely intellectually dishonest.
No one has ever said that anyone has to live by any religious rule. If there is some off-the-wall religion which condones and sanctions gay marriage, that is their right and freedom, I don't begrudge them that. The state is not obligated to follow the tenants of some wacko religion, is it? The overwhelming and vast majority of religions in the world, recognize marriage as the union between a man and woman, it is a religious ceremony, mostly performed in churches by ministers ordained by the church.

You couldn't pass a law ordering every church to allow snakes to be brought in... even though, there are some churches which condone snake handling. You couldn't pass a law ordering churches to allow homeless people to feast on their crackers and wine used for communion. And you can't tell a church they have to perform a ceremony for people who are openly violating their religious beliefs and principles, it is a violation of their right to free religion.
You idiot. GAY MARRIAGE WOULD NOT FORCE CHURCHES TO SANCTIFY MARRIAGES THAT THEY DO NOT APPROVE OF. Churches already don't have to perform marriages that they don't approve of. Plenty of rabbis refuse to do interfaith marriages, for example. The state doesn't force them to, despite the fact that interfaith marriage is legal. Oops. That destroys that argument rather well, doesn't it?
No, technically I can't. That is the point! My rights are being violated.

Civil Unions would give gay couples the right to adopt, buy a home, open a joint savings account, buy life insurance, or whatever else traditional couples do, so why do they want the right to marry? It is because, this is not about "rights" as much as it is about counter-culture and sticking it to religion and the religious beliefs of others. You just shouldn't have that "right" in my opinion.
Civil unions are separate but equal from marriage, then?
No, this has nothing to do with Christians, or Conservatives. Gay Marriage isnt about "getting one over" on them christians.

Yes, it certainly is. We know this because of intellectual honesty. If you objectively examine the argument, you can see clearly, it is only about subverting christian morality and tradition. Otherwise, there would be no problem in adopting civil unions and putting the issue to rest.

"If you objectively examine the argument [for interracial marriage], you can see clearly, it is only about subverting christian morality and tradition. Otherwise, there would be no problem in adopting civil unions [for mixed race couples] and putting the issue to rest."
Ouch. That doesn't sound so good now, does it? And yes, it used to be Christian tradition to deny interracial marriages, just as much as it is to deny gay marriage now. There isn't really any difference between the two cases.

It's about allowing a person to have the same rights as anyone else, and not being descriminated against for whom they choose to love.

You seriously need to read what is posted. There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry! There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the opposite sex. Whom you chose to love, has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or discrimination, and no one has ever denied gays the right to love whom they choose.

"Everybody has freedom of religion, as long as they choose Scientology."
See how that same argument works for other rights, such as freedom of religion?

For once, the damn christians need to realize its not always about them.

Well, when it comes to the sanctity of one of their most important rituals, it is hard to see how it isn't about them. If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

Christians aren't the only ones with marriage. Hell, the fact that atheists can get married disproves your claim that marriage is only a religious matter, as atheists have no religion by definition.


YOUR principles arent being violated, unless YOU violate them yourself.
All any christian has to do to tolerate gay marriage, is mind thier own damn business.
Apparently, not sticking one's collective nose into other peoples business is far too much to ask from most of them.

Ah, but YES, religious principles would be violated. Marriage is a religious principle, it is the union of a man and a woman, for the religiously express purpose of procreation, if you want to get technical about it. That is what it has been for over 8000 years, and it has never included members of the same sex, or anything other than a man and a woman. So, being that we are debating an expressly religious ceremony, ordained by expressly religious people, how in the hell is this "none of their business"? Seems to me, it is ONLY their business, and you are the one sticking your collective anti-religious nose in it.

It is NOT a religious ceremony, but a civil one, that we discuss. Now, if certain churches choose not to recognize gay marriages, that's fine, just like that can choose not to recognize interfaith marriages or interracial marriages.

Its Ironic how fast a Christian will howl if someone were to actually attempt to opress them for thier religious beliefs, but as soon as one gay person wants the same rights afforded to every straight person in the country, the christian-right howls about how "the moral fabric" is in some kind of jeopardy, or that if allowed those same rights, "the next thing you know, people will be marrying sheep!!"

Making the state grant a license of marriage to gay couples, is a direct slap in the face of religion, religious beliefs, sanctity of religious beliefs, and freedom to worship without persecution or restraint. You are intruding on religious tradition and sanctity, with a non-existent claim of "rights" by a group of people largely shunned by religious groups for their sexual behavior, which violates most interpretations of religiously moral beliefs. As much as you want to scream you are having something forced onto you, that is exactly what you propose to do to religious people, who DO have the right to practice their religion (which includes the matrimonial ceremony) freely.

You keep insisting that religious institutions are having their rights violated, but this has been refuted quite enough times.

This is the same kind of mentality that started Crusades, and Inquisitions.
Its nothing more than intolerance, and hatred of anyone different than themselves.

So far as I know, Pat Robertson hasn't called for gays to be rounded up and broght before the council of Christians, so no... it's not the same kind of mentality, and you really need to study history more if you think so.

It seems to me, the intolerance is coming from Gay Rights advocates, who aren't willing to settle for Civil Unions, and want to force their 'immoral' behavior on those who practice religion, particularly the Christian variety. I mean, call me crazy, but isn't that exactly what is being done here? Who has hatred for whom? I see a lot of bitter and disrespectful banter about Christians and people of religion here, is that just pure acceptance of something different from you? Doesn't seem like it, does it?

Should black people have "settled" for separate but equal movie theaters and water fountains? After all, they were "equal," right?

I find it sad, and appalling that this kind of rediculous, and unwarranted bigotry still exists in America today.

And I find it appalling to hear this is what you think, in spite of what has been said here. I have reiterated the point, I don't hate gay people, I don't deny gay people the same rights as everyone else, I don't even care if gay people have a wedding and adopt children, all of these things can be done through Civil Unions, and the religiously-based ceremony of marriage, can remain respected, as we should do with all religious rituals. Bigotry is when you believe your idea is the only correct view, and everyone else is just plain wrong... isn't that how you feel about the views I have presented?

You do, however, seek to deny religions who are fine with gay marriage their right to condone it. Just because a majority are bigots doesn't mean that we should deny gays the right to marry each other. Majority rule, but minority protection. When the majority of Christians were against interracial marriage, it was still wrong for interracial marriage to be illegal.

THIS IS NO DIFFERENT. You are simply blinded by your bigotry, whatever you claim-- there is no other reason to deny people rights.

Having read through Dixieanna's posts, I was going to compose a length response, but I realized there was really only one main question I needed to ask. So let's just cut right to it, first off:

Given that Dixieanna's stated beliefs are fundamentally identical to the anti-miscegenation views that were thrown out in the previous century, is there any reason we should do anything other than point and laugh at such nonsense?

Now that I've gone and looked up what that word means, No. There is nothing else to be done but point and laugh.

Now that I've gone and looked up what that word means, No. There is nothing else to be done but point and laugh.
I think I was in middle school when a teacher first introduced me to the quote, "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

At the time, I thought it was lame as hell. Teacher just wanted me to study my history. I didn't need to know the year of the Bus Strike to know that black people and white people were equals. So what the hell was Teacher talking about?

It's only as I've grown older that I've realized how amazingly true that quote really is. There honestly is not a single major debate going on today that hasn't already been had in one form or another. Anti-gay marriage is just this generation's anti-interracial marriage. Second verse, same as the first.

I think the people that ask "why don't they shut up and take civil unions" are the same ones that, were it still socially acceptable, would ask "why don't they shut up and accept having separate bathrooms" regarding segregation laws.

Marriage is marriage according to the state. No one demands that churches do this because it is not yet ordained and sanctioned by the state, once it becomes law, you will see a multitude of civil suits against churches to force them to comply with the laws.

No, you won't, because that isn't how the law works. Churches already can and do deny religious marriage to people on whatever basis they choose. They do this even if those people can be or are civilly married. If a church decided that they would only perform a religious wedding ceremony for blonde, blue-eyed people born on a Tuesday, that would be the right of that church. But it wouldn't stop the rest of us from getting a civil marriage license.

As I said before, I am in favor of Civil Union legislation, giving gay couples every single right a straight couple has in marriage.

That is a legal impossibility. Separate but equal isn't equal and, even if it could be, it wouldn't be in this case, as civil marriage in one country often carries over into other countries as well - but a "civil union" may not.

The only thing I am opposed to, is state sanctioning of gay marriage, and this is because of what marriage is.

Correction: It is because of what you personally have decided marriage is. Why should your views be forced upon everyone?

Being a largely religious ceremony, historically understood to be the union of a man and woman, there is no compelling reason to change this.

Yes, there is. It's called equality under the law.

I'm not even opposed to gay people having a wedding ceremony, if they can find a minister to do the honors, fine! Go ask ANY married couple, gay or straight, if that little piece of paper they get from the state, has anything to do with LOVE?

The reason my husband and I got the paper has everything to do with love. Because we love each other, we chose to spend the rest of our lives together. Because of that choice, we chose to get the legal protections that the state extends to couples in our situation.

But my homosexual friends cannot do the same. How is that equality under the law?

Yes, that is exactly what this is about... waving the marriage license in the face of Christian conservatives and saying "naa-naa-na-na-naaaa"! It has nothing to do with principles or being pushed aside... the only ones who are being pushed aside and having their principles violated are the religious people who vehemently oppose gay marriage!

They aren't being asked to enter into gay marriages, to perform them, or to like them. How are their principles being violated? Do you really think you violate someone else's rights by telling them that they cannot control the lives of others?


No, this has nothing to do with Christians, or Conservatives. Gay Marriage isnt about "getting one over" on them christians.
It's about allowing a person to have the same rights as anyone else, and not being descriminated against for whom they choose to love.

Indeed. I *am* a Christian and I also support equality for homosexuals - including the right to enter into civil marriage. It's certainly news to me that I can only support such a notion if I want to stick it to myself, or something like that.

Yes, it certainly is. We know this because of intellectual honesty. If you objectively examine the argument, you can see clearly, it is only about subverting christian morality and tradition.

I don't see where, "Let everyone follow their own morality and tradition while receiving equal protection under the law," subverts any particular morality.

Once again, we're back to the ridiculous idea that keeping those who hold to such morality from enforcing it on other people is somehow harming them. "We're so oppressed because you won't let us oppress others!"

Otherwise, there would be no problem in adopting civil unions and putting the issue to rest.

...except for that whole concept of, you know, equality under the law.

You seriously need to read what is posted. There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry!

Incorrect. According to both various global statements of human rights and the US Supreme Court, there most definitely is a right to marry.

There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the opposite sex.

...sort of like how it wasn't discrimination when everyone was allowed to marry someone of the same race?

Seriously, bigotry uses the same arguments over and over and over again, no matter what the group they wish to oppress is, don't they?

Whom you chose to love, has absolutely nothing to do with marriage or discrimination, and no one has ever denied gays the right to love whom they choose.

No, just the protections that go along with choosing to spend their lives with that person.

Well, when it comes to the sanctity of one of their most important rituals, it is hard to see how it isn't about them.

And those who have a problem with same-sex marriage can continue to sanctify their rituals in whatever way they see fit. A change in the law surrounding civil marriage won't change that.

If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

Patently and completely incorrect. Civil marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and can be obtained without any religious ceremony or backing whatsoever. Civil marriage has (mostly) to do with legal recognition of familial ties and asset distribution. It takes two people who have decided to live their lives as a single legal entity and recognizes them as such. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Ah, but YES, religious principles would be violated. Marriage is a religious principle, it is the union of a man and a woman, for the religiously express purpose of procreation, if you want to get technical about it.

Religious marriage may meet this description (depending on the religion), but civil marriage does not.

That is what it has been for over 8000 years, and it has never included members of the same sex, or anything other than a man and a woman.

Depends on what religion you're looking at. Same-sex unions have been recognized, both historically and currently, by numerous religions.

So, being that we are debating an expressly religious ceremony, ordained by expressly religious people, how in the hell is this "none of their business"? Seems to me, it is ONLY their business, and you are the one sticking your collective anti-religious nose in it.

We're not debating any such thing. We're debating an expressly legal union, regulated by the state. Neither religion nor any religious leadership has anything to do with it.

And there you go again with your ridiculous assertion that someone must be "anti-religious" to support same-sex marriage.

Oh my! You continue to use the word "Christian" here, when I have clearly stated I am not a member of a religious group. My howling comes from my sense of right and wrong, and defiant protection of religious freedoms for all.

...except for homosexuals and anyone else who thinks they should have equal rights, apparently. Those of us who don't agree with whatever religion you have decided to put up on a pedestal are apparently supposed to submit to having our laws based on a religious view that is not our own....

Making the state grant a license of marriage to gay couples, is a direct slap in the face of religion, religious beliefs, sanctity of religious beliefs, and freedom to worship without persecution or restraint.

In other words, you think a particular religious viewpoint should control the government, and allowing the government to be religion-neutral is a "slap in the face" of that viewpoint.

It seems to me, the intolerance is coming from Gay Rights advocates, who aren't willing to settle for Civil Unions, and want to force their 'immoral' behavior on those who practice religion, particularly the Christian variety. I mean, call me crazy, but isn't that exactly what is being done here? Who has hatred for whom? I see a lot of bitter and disrespectful banter about Christians and people of religion here, is that just pure acceptance of something different from you? Doesn't seem like it, does it?

And back to the ridiculous claim that anyone who supports full equality under the law for homosexuals is anti-Christian. It really comes as a shock to me, you know, being a Christian and all.

I for one will not rest until every Church on this continent performs a dozen gay marriages per day! I will keep fighting to push my immoral beliefs that two men or two women can fall in love until every good God-fearing Christian has been forced into marrying someone of the same sex and consummate that marriage forcibly! I will oppose the heterosexual-based family unit until there is nothing left but social chaos and anarchy! I will destroy everything good and sacred there is about marriage!



...



:rolleyes:

Not really. I just wanna marry whomever the fuck I feel like spending my life with.

I for one will not rest until every Church on this continent performs a dozen gay marriages per day! I will keep fighting to push my immoral beliefs that two men or two women can fall in love until every good God-fearing Christian has been forced into marrying someone of the same sex and consummate that marriage forcibly! I will oppose the heterosexual-based family unit until there is nothing left but social chaos and anarchy! I will destroy everything good and sacred there is about marriage!

:rolleyes:

Not really. I just wanna marry whomever the fuck I feel like spending my life with.

Heheeh very funny.

There was some sort of uproar here while back with new laws about gay couples having the same rights to adopt as straight couples. The Churches, and church based adoption agensys all got het up about it and the adoption people told them basicly that if they didn't comply with the new laws then they would shut down any Christain based agency that didn't.

I was actualy fuming, and ready to rant endlessly about the hypocricy of the Christian Church, when my wife, a far far more senisble person than me said;

'That's just stupid, I mean how many gay Christian couples do you know? They ain't exactly welcome in churches are they, and anyway wouldn't gay couples go to gay friendly adoption agencies?'

Gosh wot a woman.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=1925340

:p

'That's just stupid, I mean how many gay Christian couples do you know? They ain't exactly welcome in churches are they, and anyway wouldn't gay couples go to gay friendly adoption agencies?'

Gosh wot a woman.

I can think of several who'd do it just to piss 'em off.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=1925340

:p


Oh. My. Gawd.

I believe I might just have to start up a new religion with this Lewis Black as the head prophet.

I can think of several who'd do it just to piss 'em off.

Ahhh yes, me too.

Civil union is an awesome idea, but being an atheist, I hold no false reverence to the church, and being an embittered man I hold no false reverence to any of mankind at this point. Listen, they are gay, not lepers. you cant just remove something from society just because you don't like it. and if that were true, would you be here right now? learn this philosophy, If i don't wake up next to them, I don't care. at least indifference is a little less hate driven. then again, perhaps you shouldn't be indifferent, you should support them. Counting as you sub-consciously demand self-validation for being straight (i.e. wanting to quarantine gay people, stressing on the word people). Or perhaps i am looking to deeply into this.

I can think of several who'd do it just to piss 'em off.

And why wouldn't they? We got to make it very clear to those fundamentalists that their bigotry is neither justified, justifiable, acceptable nor tolerable.

These are the guys who go on TV and say the most outrageous things like "Homosexuals bring nothing to society", as if the only contribution one could do was to breed indiscriminately.

So yeah, if I ever have a chance to rub it in their face, you bet your sweet ass I will. "An eye for an eye", as they say, and the kharmic irony of it all is delicious.

And why wouldn't they? We got to make it very clear to those fundamentalists that their bigotry is neither justified, justifiable, acceptable nor tolerable.

These are the guys who go on TV and say the most outrageous things like "Homosexuals bring nothing to society", as if the only contribution one could do was to breed indiscriminately.

So yeah, if I ever have a chance to rub it in their face, you bet your sweet ass I will. "An eye for an eye", as they say, and the kharmic irony of it all is delicious.

Sort of understandable, sort of petty also.

I mean it's like going to an Apple shop and telling the shop assistant that you wish to buy a PC, whats the point in doing that? Antagonism for the sake of it?

Sort of understandable, sort of petty also.

I mean it's like going to an Apple shop and telling the shop assistant that you wish to buy a PC, whats the point in doing that? Antagonism for the sake of it?

Hey, what do you know? Turns out a couple of centuries of prejudice, hatred, and persecution gets us to show our worst side.

Petty? Maybe. But they earned every moment of it, and are still earning it now. It's not as if me or any other gay was out to get them, taking our petty revenge after they'd recognized their errors and said they were sorry.

I'm not antagonist to all people religious; just the retards who still think it's acceptable for them to spit on who I am, and who still believe gays will just sit down, shut up, and take the abuse.

Well, those guys have got something coming for them.

Truly told, if Apple had spent the last decades telling me how much inferior I was because I used a PC, and how I didn't deserve neither the same respect nor rights because of it, yeah, I might very well go jeer at them in their very store.

Sort of understandable, sort of petty also.

I mean it's like going to an Apple shop and telling the shop assistant that you wish to buy a PC, whats the point in doing that? Antagonism for the sake of it?

Am I the only one a little disturbed by the use of brand names and purchasing to parallel adoption?

*snip*

Your premises have been shown to be false ad naseum, so I won't re-tread that ground.

I do find it interesting, however, that at the same time your are going on about the religious sanctity of marriage you are trivializing marriage by comparing it to such things as a business merger or your love of Carmen Electra. Either marriage isn't all that important or you are being intellectually dishonest.

Similarly, your "gays should accept civil unions because they are the same thing" argument trips over itself. If a civil union is really the equivalent of a marriage, why should gays be allowed to have the one but not the other? Hmm?

Finally, your argument about religious freedom is just absurd. No one can force any church to perform a marriage ceremony. The issue is purely what legal arrangements between couples are recognized by the state.

I'm with the pretty colours on this one. :)

I dunno... I've always mistrusted yellow... it's so bright and cheerful... makes me wonder what it's plotting.

Your premises have been shown to be false ad naseum, so I won't re-tread that ground.

I do find it interesting, however, that at the same time your are going on about the religious sanctity of marriage you are trivializing marriage by comparing it to such things as a business merger or your love of Carmen Electra. Either marriage isn't all that important or you are being intellectually dishonest.

Similarly, your "gays should accept civil unions because they are the same thing" argument trips over itself. If a civil union is really the equivalent of a marriage, why should gays be allowed to have the one but not the other? Hmm?

Finally, your argument about religious freedom is just absurd. No one can force any church to perform a marriage ceremony. The issue is purely what legal arrangements between couples are recognized by the state.

You know, it never fails to amaze me when religionists try to claim that they're being discriminated against if they can't force everybody to follow their religious morals. That'd be like if white people complained that we're discriminated against because minorities can get married, too.

What the deuce? This thread is still going?

I read through all of Dixieanna's posts, and it strikes me what a good example this is of what I said earlier, about how bigots always try to somehow outlaw, or otherwise disallow in some way, the very existence of whoever it is they don't like. It's like they just can't tolerate the idea that the Other is sharing the planet with them.

Through all those (totally erroneous) rants about what marriage is and what gays will do to religion if they're allowed to marry, and how anyone who supports gay rights is against religion, there is a constant undertone of fear and loathing against gays, as well as obsessive worry over whatever it is Dixieanna thinks gays do, which he seems to think is some kind of contagion or contaminant just waiting to be dumped into the world's holy water supply.

Although he goes on and on with fantastical notions about marriage, his argument really is just 100% against gayness itself.

It is this, precisely, that led the Supreme Court to conclude that "separate but equal" is not equal, because in practice, those words are really just a fig leaf laid over a desire to push the target population out of society altogether.

What the deuce? This thread is still going?
The OP must be very frustrated.

I'm in love with Carmen Electra, but I can't marry her! Quick, let's pass a law to keep my rights from being violated here!

No one has EVER proposed that gay people didn't have the right to be in love, or even, the right to perform some superficial ceremony on a flower-covered hill in the country with their hippie 'minister' ...or buy a wedding album and plan a honeymoon! As far as I know, there is no law on the books anywhere, which prohibits this from happening, or bans 'gay love' in any way. The ONLY thing that is not allowed, is state licensing of marriage, which IS NOT A RIGHT for ANYONE!Ya know, every "reason" why same-sex marraige is wrong, has, in some permutation, been used in the arguement about inter racial marraige. And it's the same sad shit both ways.

"Y'all are icky and so shouldn't be treated like humans. I've gotten too civilized to advocated burning folks who are different at the stake, so let's just more subtly tell them they aren't really human."

And why, oh why, does everytime someone use an obviously Southern moniker online do they make Neanderthals look progressive? I'm a Southerner. Progressive Southerner is not an oxymoron!

Having read through Dixieanna's posts, I was going to compose a length response, but I realized there was really only one main question I needed to ask. So let's just cut right to it, first off:

Given that Dixieanna's stated beliefs are fundamentally identical to the anti-miscegenation views that were thrown out in the previous century, is there any reason we should do anything other than point and laugh at such nonsense?
Goddammnit, Bottle. STFU! I hate when you beat me to shit.

Ya know, every "reason" why same-sex marraige is wrong, has, in some permutation, been used in the arguement about inter racial marraige. And it's the same sad shit both ways.

"Y'all are icky and so shouldn't be treated like humans. I've gotten too civilized to advocated burning folks who are different at the stake, so let's just more subtly tell them they aren't really human."

And why, oh why, does everytime someone use an obviously Southern moniker online do they make Neanderthals look progressive? I'm a Southerner. Progressive Southerner is not an oxymoron!
At least you have me. :) I know the truth, that the American Progressive movement started in the South. Don't quite know where you all went so horribly wrong, but hey, this yank knows you've got it in ya! ;)

The OP must be very frustrated.

Probably getting all worked up over it. ;)

You guys can mischaracterize what I have said all you like, it's what you do best. I have never stated that I was "against gays" or didn't want gay people to have same rights as their straight counterparts, nor have I endorsed religion or presented an argument on basis of my personal religious views.

This is not the same thing as the old interracial marriage issue, because that dealt with race and this does not. There is nothing bigoted about wanting to keep marriage defined as it has been for centuries, there is nothing bigoted about suggesting Civil Unions would solve the problems claimed by gays. There IS something bigoted about not accepting anyones opinion except your own, which is what continues to be stated here by many.

I have not stated that I oppose gay marriage because gays are different, or I don't like gays, or any of the other supposed reasons you guys continue to post, and I honestly don't know where you get this stuff, except from within your own bigoted minds. I actually like most gay people I've met, and have several dear friends who are gay... (one of them is actually 'married' and I went to their wedding ceremony!) But... if it suits you to think like bigots and pretend that I am a bigot redneck religious freak, go right ahead, I can't stop you. I just wanted to set the record straight, I am not opposed to gays, don't want to keep them from being in love, don't even care if they want to have symbolic ceremonies and call it marriage, I just don't want to change the laws of the state to endorse something that intentionally defies religious morality and freedom.

You guys can mischaracterize what I have said all you like, it's what you do best. I have never stated that I was "against gays" or didn't want gay people to have same rights as their straight counterparts, nor have I endorsed religion or presented an argument on basis of my personal religious views.

This is not the same thing as the old interracial marriage issue, because that dealt with race and this does not. There is nothing bigoted about wanting to keep marriage defined as it has been for centuries, there is nothing bigoted about suggesting Civil Unions would solve the problems claimed by gays. There IS something bigoted about not accepting anyones opinion except your own, which is what continues to be stated here by many.

I have not stated that I oppose gay marriage because gays are different, or I don't like gays, or any of the other supposed reasons you guys continue to post, and I honestly don't know where you get this stuff, except from within your own bigoted minds. I actually like most gay people I've met, and have several dear friends who are gay... (one of them is actually 'married' and I went to their wedding ceremony!) But... if it suits you to think like bigots and pretend that I am a bigot redneck religious freak, go right ahead, I can't stop you. I just wanted to set the record straight, I am not opposed to gays, don't want to keep them from being in love, don't even care if they want to have symbolic ceremonies and call it marriage, I just don't want to change the laws of the state to endorse something that intentionally defies religious morality and freedom.

Let's see. Gays can have marriage ceremonies, have civil unions with all of the same bells and whistles as marriage, and can call what they have marriage.

But if the state provides equal protection under the law and guarantees the fundamental right to marriage by calling a gay civil union a marriage that "intentionally defies religious morality and freedom."

Go figure.

EDIT: Nice job, BTW, on avoiding answering the many responses to your arguments and just relying on strawmen.

This is not the same thing as the old interracial marriage issue, because that dealt with race and this does not.

You got one thing right: the difference between this and the interracial marriage issue is that dealt with race and this deals with gender.

If that is enough to help you sleep at night, so be it.

There is nothing bigoted about wanting to keep marriage defined as it has been for centuries

They said the same thing about interracial marriage.


there is nothing bigoted about suggesting Civil Unions would solve the problems claimed by gays.

They said the same thing about black only bathrooms. It's not only bigoted to suggest civil unions would "solve the problems claimed by gays" it is stupid, ignorant, and highly misinformed because it entirely ignores, either intentionally or ignorantly, one of the main arguments against civil unions as opposed to marriage, which are the same arguments against "colored" facilities. Seperate but equal inherently is not.

There IS something bigoted about not accepting anyones opinion except your own, which is what continues to be stated here by many.

What the fuck? I'm supposed to "accept your opinion?" Why the FUCK should I be expected to accept your opinion, when I think your opinion is fundamentally wrong. I don't have to accept your opinion. I accept your right to have that opinion, but are you honestly and truly claiming that we're bigoted because we decline to agree with you?

Perhaps you phrased that poorly, but I didn't think even you would be THAT foolish.

I just don't want to change the laws of the state to endorse something that intentionally defies religious morality and freedom.

The reason you are called ignorant is that you are fundamentally ignorant as to how the laws of the united states work, and make presumptions based on that ignorance. As such, you assume what would happen, however make radically and fundamentally wrong assumptions, based on the aforementioned ignorance as to how the law works.

Because the presumption that any church or religious group would be required to do anything is, frankly, fundamentally ignorant. That's not "my opinion", that's not a disagreement, that's not me being rude. That's simply me pointing out the absolute fact that you, quite frankly, are wrong. And when someone believes something to be untrue, one can be said to be ignorant on the subject.

So yes, you are ignorant about american law, in that you make assumptions that are frankly untrue.

You guys can mischaracterize what I have said all you like, it's what you do best. I have never stated that I was "against gays" or didn't want gay people to have same rights as their straight counterparts, nor have I endorsed religion or presented an argument on basis of my personal religious views.

Yes, you have endorsed religion. You have specifically stated, over and over and over again, that the laws of the land should be based in specific religious viewpoints and that failing to base the law on those religious viewpoints is somehow restricting freedom of religion.

I'm not sure how you could honestly get basic logic so turned around in your head that you think enforcing religion = freedom of religion and not enforcing religion = restricting religion freedom.

This is not the same thing as the old interracial marriage issue, because that dealt with race and this does not.

LOL

And making sure that women had the right to vote wasn't anything at all like making sure black people had the right to vote. I mean, one involved sex and the other involved ethnicity! Obviously, the important issue wasn't voting rights. It was what particular human trait was involved!

There is nothing bigoted about wanting to keep marriage defined as it has been for centuries,

(a) Yes, there is. It is a statement that you don't think homosexuals should be equally protected under the law.

(b) There is no such thing as "marriage as it has been defined for centuries." Marriage, throughout history, has been a changing institution. Different societies and different religions viewed it very differently. In many societies, for centuries, it was essentially a transfer of property - a woman was transferred from her father to her husband. In some religions and cultures, same-sex marriages were recognized. In others, they were not. Up until a few decades ago, interracial marriage was either looked down upon or outright outlawed in many places.

there is nothing bigoted about suggesting Civil Unions would solve the problems claimed by gays.

Yes, there is. It is a "solution" that relegates them to second-class citizenship, making it clear that they aren't worthy of real civil marriages and must be given a separate institution of their own to keep them separated.

There IS something bigoted about not accepting anyones opinion except your own, which is what continues to be stated here by many.

You can have your opinion all you want. You simply can't put it into law where it negatively impacts other people.

I have not stated that I oppose gay marriage because gays are different, or I don't like gays, or any of the other supposed reasons you guys continue to post, and I honestly don't know where you get this stuff, except from within your own bigoted minds. I actually like most gay people I've met, and have several dear friends who are gay... (one of them is actually 'married' and I went to their wedding ceremony!)

"I can't possibly be homophobic, I have gay friends! I just think they shouldn't be treated equally under the law because I think certain religious viewpoints should be encoded into law, that's all!"

But... if it suits you to think like bigots and pretend that I am a bigot redneck religious freak, go right ahead, I can't stop you. I just wanted to set the record straight, I am not opposed to gays, don't want to keep them from being in love, don't even care if they want to have symbolic ceremonies and call it marriage, I just don't want to change the laws of the state to endorse something that intentionally defies religious morality and freedom.

You can't possibly really think that the purpose of equality under the law is to "defy religious morality and freedom." You can't possibly really think that keeping certain religious viewpoints from being enforced on everyone else by the government "defies religious freedom."

Let me make it absolutely clear to you: Religious freedom requires freedom from having any particular religion imposed upon you and well as the freedom to practice your own. Homosexuals (and those of us who actually support them, instead of pretending to) do not currently have religious freedom in this country. The law imposes a particular religious viewpoint - that they are immoral and thus undeserving of marriage protection - upon them. Why should the law include an inherent statement that homosexuals are somehow lesser citizens when compared to heterosexuals?

Not to mention that it makes it clear that the government values the religious opinions of others above those of my own. Why should my government tell me that my religion is wrong?

Your premises have been shown to be false ad naseum, so I won't re-tread that ground.

I do find it interesting, however, that at the same time your are going on about the religious sanctity of marriage you are trivializing marriage by comparing it to such things as a business merger or your love of Carmen Electra. Either marriage isn't all that important or you are being intellectually dishonest.

Similarly, your "gays should accept civil unions because they are the same thing" argument trips over itself. If a civil union is really the equivalent of a marriage, why should gays be allowed to have the one but not the other? Hmm?

Finally, your argument about religious freedom is just absurd. No one can force any church to perform a marriage ceremony. The issue is purely what legal arrangements between couples are recognized by the state.

I honestly don't know what "premises" you are speaking of, and I don't see anything being "proven" or "disproved" here, by me or anyone else, so nothing has been "shown to be false". We are trying to have a grown up conversation about a topic, and yes, I have made some comparative statements along the way, which is what people do when they discuss things. Thanks for your input, but you've really said very little, just a bunch of typical liberal smokescreen phrases to throw up amongst the prejudiced and bigoted comments of others here. It makes a nice and pretty liberal backdrop, but really doesn't contribute to the adult conversation. But, nice effort!

Civil Unions are not equivalent to marriage, but marriage is something that transpires between a man and a woman. Gay people can't get married to each other, unless they are male and female. Civil Unions would give gay couples every "right" enjoyed by every married couple, and in that regard, it is comparable to marriage, has the same effect as marriage, gives them the same things as marriage would, if they could marry.

OK, let's make this very simple.

marriage is something that transpires between a man and a woman.

Says who?

OK, let's make this very simple.



Says who?

Merriam Webster, History, and basically very major religion known to man. You can't just say something is something else because you want to. If I made motorcycles and wanted to market them as automobiles, it wouldn't matter what I said to you about my product or what I claimed it was, it isn't a car if it's a motorcycle.

Merriam Webster, History, and basically very major religion known to man. You can't just say something is something else because you want to. If I made motorcycles and wanted to market them as automobiles, it wouldn't matter what I said to you about my product or what I claimed it was, it isn't a car if it's a motorcycle.

Why don't you just say God?:p

Makes it so much 'easier' to refute.

Merriam Webster, History, and basically very major religion known to man.

In essence? Really?

Perhaps dictionaries might have referred to a union of a man and a woman, but only because that is how it was done... not because marriage is opposite-sex intrinsically or essentially.

Indeed, the very fact that opponents of same-sex marriage advance this argument is telling. It shows that even when they protest loudly that they have no problem with gays, they don't really accept that same-sex couples can have the same kind of stability, love, commitment, and complementarity that might actually be legitimately included within the concept of "marriage."

(Not, of course, that "marriage" as a historical matter necessarily had much to do with those things, or even is really necessarily relevant to the modern significance of the institution.)

Merriam Webster, History, and basically very major religion known to man.

History has said some aberrent things in the past, such as blacks being worth 3/5 of a white man, and women not having the emotional sensibility to vote. History is hardly a good source of proper morality.

The 1st amendment prevents the government from really having to give a shit about how religioun defines anything.

Since neither of those therefore are any valid argument, is your whole premise that the government needs to avoid offending Merriam Webster? None of those are binding on the government?

You can't just say something is something else because you want to.

The government can, as long as it is consistant with the constitution, define anything in pretty much any way it wants.

Why don't you just say God?:p

Makes it so much 'easier' to refute.

To be completely and intellectually honest about it, yes, it is 'God'. Marriage is a purely religious ceremony ordained by God for the express purpose of human procreation. If it weren't for this mandate from God, marriage would not exist and would have no fundamental reason to exist. It's what it is, what it has always been and what it will always be. You can't change it because you want to, just as you can't make air into water or water into air because you want it to be that. It is what it is.

I'll give anyone a million dollars if they show to me how homosexuals hurt society

not because marriage is opposite-sex intrinsically or essentially.

Oh, but it IS. Essentially, you can't have a marriage of anything other than a man and woman, because that is how it is defined, and what marriage is. You can have Civil Unions, you can create some new word for gays who join together in matrimony, but marriage is already defined as something, and you can't just change the definition to suit your libreal views.

To be completely and intellectually honest about it, yes, it is 'God'. Marriage is a purely religious ceremony ordained by God for the express purpose of human procreation. If it weren't for this mandate from God, marriage would not exist and would have no fundamental reason to exist. It's what it is, what it has always been and what it will always be. You can't change it because you want to, just as you can't make air into water or water into air because you want it to be that. It is what it is.

We can take water out of the air, and put it into the air.

Both of which are irrelevant to civil rights legislation....
Just as God is irrelevant to the legal system. Whether I believe in him or not.

not because marriage is opposite-sex intrinsically or essentially.

Oh, but it IS. Essentially, you can't have a marriage of anything other than a man and woman, because that is how it is defined, and what marriage is. You can have Civil Unions, you can create some new word for gays who join together in matrimony, but marriage is already defined as something, and you can't just change the definition to suit your libreal views.

So wait... you have been arguing semantics?

I'll give anyone a million dollars if they show to me how homosexuals hurt society

Who said homosexuals hurt society? Where did this get brought into the debate? Is that why you think I am opposed to gay marriage? if so, you need to learn how to read.

So wait... you have been arguing semantics?


Well, since I have clearly advocated Civil Unions legislation that would give gay couples every intrinsic right known to married couples, YES, I think it IS a semantics argument. It's an important semantics argument though, because the vast majority of religion does not approve of changing the meaning of marriage.

Marriage is a purely religious ceremony

So civil marriage doesn't exist?

ordained by God for the express purpose of human procreation.

Wrong. Re-read your Bible. (Or read it for the first time.)

Genesis 2:18: "And the LORD God said: 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.'"

Read the whole section. There's no mention of procreation being a purpose, just of God creating a woman because none of the animals were suitable companions for the man.

If it weren't for this mandate from God, marriage would not exist

Why are you ignoring the manifold civil reasons for marriage that have been given in this thread?

It's what it is, what it has always been and what it will always be.

First, civil marriage doesn't exist... and now same-sex marriage doesn't.

You sure about that?

Oh, but it IS. Essentially, you can't have a marriage of anything other than a man and woman, because that is how it is defined

That is not an explanation.

What is it about marriage that necessitates its opposite-sex character?

We can take water out of the air, and put it into the air.

Both of which are irrelevant to civil rights legislation....
Just as God is irrelevant to the legal system. Whether I believe in him or not.

It's amusing, because if you were to look at air right this second, in most of the (non-desert-covered) world, you'd invariably see water vapor in varying concentrations.

Similarly, looking in just about any water source that hasn't been overly purified and distilled, you'd invariably find air dissolved into the water.

So not only does this guy not know anything about the history of the concept of marriage, he also doesn't know something about basic reality. Joy.

That is not an explanation.

What is it about marriage that necessitates its opposite-sex character?

The definition. Circular reasoning?

Though the definition comes from common usage and meaning/use within a society.

That is not an explanation.

What is it about marriage that necessitates its opposite-sex character?

What is it about water that necessitates it be liquid? Marriage is defined a certain way, it has always been defined that way, and it has always been a religious ceremony ordained by religious groups. These things don't just change because you feel some need to bestow rights that don't exist.

Oh, but it IS. Essentially, you can't have a marriage of anything other than a man and woman, because that is how it is defined, and what marriage is.

Again, says who? Please give me one binding authority on the government that defines it as such.

What is it about water that necessitates it be liquid?

The fact that water (a substance defined as a molecule made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom) exists as water is a factor of the temperature and pressure it is in. There is nothing about water that necessitates it be liquid.

It's amusing, because if you were to look at air right this second, in most of the (non-desert-covered) world, you'd invariably see water vapor in varying concentrations.

Similarly, looking in just about any water source that hasn't been overly purified and distilled, you'd invariably find air dissolved into the water.

So not only does this guy not know anything about the history of the concept of marriage, he also doesn't know something about basic reality. Joy.
*looks at the air*
*squints*
*chuckles merrily*

That slipped my mind. I humbly apologize to the Creator and the Laws of Nature.

What is it about water that necessitates it be liquid?

Nothing.

Marriage is defined a certain way

Yes, yes, so you've insisted. But its significance, what it truly means to be married, has nothing at all to do with the opposite-sex status (or lack of such) of the couple. At least not anymore, now that it has been removed from the explicit context of reproduction.

The fact that water (a substance defined as a molecule made up of two hydrogen and one oxygen atom) exists as water is a factor of the temperature and pressure it is in. There is nothing about water that necessitates it be liquid.

Again, water (as defined as H2O) isn't even always liquid. It can be solid, though this is colloquiolly referred to as "ice," it can be liquid, though this is often referred to as "liquid water" or just "water," or it can be a gas, though this is often referred to as "water vapor."

The labeling of H2O at a temperature between 0 degrees Celsius and 100 degrees Celsius as liquid results from a predefined criteria for determining "liquidity." It has certain specific properties that fit the criteria of being liquid, and it is therefore labeled liquid.

Similarly, if we define an unequal right as a right given to the people that applies inconsistently over any given demographic (whether this is race, religious affiliation, gender, or sexual preference), we now have a criteria to determine whether or not a given right is unequal, or the opposite "equal."

So if we look at something like marriage, as it is defined presently, we see that marriage applies inconsistently over a particular demographic (namely sexual preference) and that it is therefore an unequal right.

It's amusing, because if you were to look at air right this second, in most of the (non-desert-covered) world, you'd invariably see water vapor in varying concentrations.

Similarly, looking in just about any water source that hasn't been overly purified and distilled, you'd invariably find air dissolved into the water.

So not only does this guy not know anything about the history of the concept of marriage, he also doesn't know something about basic reality. Joy.

Still, water and air are two completely different things with different defining characteristics. You can't make one the other, they are not exclusively interchangable, no matter how much you wish they were or want to make them the same. It's not a chemistry project, it's an example. I can give another... Apples and Oranges... both are fruits, both taste good, both have vitamins and minerals, but they are two different things, and you can't say an Apple is an Orange because you want Apples to have the same consideration as Oranges, or because you think Apples are being discriminated against. Apples are Apples and Oranges are Oranges.

Merriam Webster,
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

History,
Which is why same-sex marriages were routinely performed in medieval Europe. And North America prior to Columbus. And pretty much everywhere.

and basically very major religion known to man.
Except not.

What is it about water that necessitates it be liquid?
Nothing. It's called water vapor and ice.

*looks at the air*
*squints*
*chuckles merrily*

That slipped my mind. I humbly apologize to the Creator and the Laws of Nature.

Hehe. I'm sure he's fine with it. It's not like you're advocating denial of a right to an entire group of people or anything.

Nothing. It's called water vapor and ice.

Water vapor and ice are not the same as liquid water. let's please stop trying to entangle the debate with these silly side arguments, okay? If you don't understand what I am saying, just tell me you have a comprehension problem, but don't continue to be cute with your lame counterpoints.

Though the definition comes from common usage and meaning/use within a society.

I know what the common usage of "I" is. But I can still get lost in arguments about personal identity.

Definitions are not as clear-cut as looking something up in a dictionary. If they were, anyway, we could just change the dictionaries and allow same-sex marriage.

The real question is what the significance of marriage is... and whether it can be fulfilled by same-sex couples. Opponents of same-sex marriage demonstrate their bigotry by refusing to accept that the relationship of a same-sex couple can embody that significance... by believing that somehow such relationships are "lesser."

Still, water and air are two completely different things with different defining characteristics. You can't make one the other, they are not exclusively interchangable, no matter how much you wish they were or want to make them the same. It's not a chemistry project, it's an example. I can give another... Apples and Oranges... both are fruits, both taste good, both have vitamins and minerals, but they are two different things, and you can't say an Apple is an Orange because you want Apples to have the same consideration as Oranges, or because you think Apples are being discriminated against. Apples are Apples and Oranges are Oranges.

That wraps up in how you define air and water. After all, air is a fairly nebulous term that's generally colloquiolly applied to a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and several hundred trace elements, among which you'll find water vapor.

So as you can see, Air is, by definition, part water.

Your analogy then breaks down.

Hehe. I'm sure he's fine with it. It's not like you're advocating denial of a right to an entire group of people or anything.

Phew... thank God.

If this is purely a matter of "definitions", why do you care?

So a word gets redefined. Big deal. If it makes some people happy, if it grants them the equal social recognition they deserve, shouldn't you support it for so trivial a cost?

Water vapor and ice are not the same as liquid water. let's please stop trying to entangle the debate with these silly side arguments, okay? If you don't understand what I am saying, just tell me you have a comprehension problem, but don't continue to be cute with your lame counterpoints.

Ah, yet you never said liquid water earlier.

You merely asked how we determine water to be liquid, which was explained to you by several people.

If you are now suggesting you meant to ask "why do we define liquid water as liquid." then I hope to the almighty god Flying Spaghetti Monster that you realize just how inane that sounds.

If this is purely a matter of "definitions", why do you care?

So a word gets redefined. Big deal. If it makes some people happy, if it grants them the equal social recognition they deserve, shouldn't you support it for so trivial a cost?

I think he believes it will cause great harm to the people that won't like the 'new' 'definition'.

But its significance, what it truly means to be married, has nothing at all to do with the opposite-sex status (or lack of such) of the couple. At least not anymore, now that it has been removed from the explicit context of reproduction.

Well, according to the definition of marriage, it has everything to do with opposite sex status, because it can't occur between anything other than human men and women. It has not been removed, by any religious group I know of, from the context of reproduction, it is what marriage was invented for.

I think he believes it will cause great harm to the people that won't like the 'new' 'definition'.

Why do they care? After all, it's just a word, right?

Ah, yet you never said liquid water earlier.

You merely asked how we determine water to be liquid, which was explained to you by several people.

If you are now suggesting you meant to ask "why do we define liquid water as liquid." then I hope to the almighty god Flying Spaghetti Monster that you realize just how inane that sounds.

I posed a rhetorical question in response to a similar question about marriage. Water and air are not the same, you can't call water air, or air water, though you liberals have given it a good shot!

It has not been removed, by any religious group I know of, from the context of reproduction, it is what marriage was invented for.

I provided a citation from the Bible indicating the purpose for marriage. It wasn't procreation.

So even if the Bible is nothing more than a very old document indicating the mythology, practices, and political propaganda of a given people, we see a concept of "marriage" that is distinct from a reproductive purpose.

Well, according to the definition of marriage, it has everything to do with opposite sex status, because it can't occur between anything other than human men and women. It has not been removed, by any religious group I know of, from the context of reproduction, it is what marriage was invented for.

An arbitrary prescribed definition, rather than an intrinsic property.

The very fact that in Roman times same-sex marriage was common (and was called marriage), that in pre-Columbian North America same-sex marriage was common (and was called the literal equivalent of marriage) and a dozen other examples counteracts your argument utterly.

I posed a rhetorical question in response to a similar question about marriage. Water and air are not the same, you can't call water air, or air water, though you liberals have given it a good shot!

And you failed, utterly and miserably, because your attempt at a rhetorical question turned out to have a loophole so wide I could fly the new Airbus through it.

We not only debunked the idea we put forward, we apparently did so so thoroughly that you're now forced to backtrack and call it "rhetorical," lest you be forced to admit you argued yourself into a corner.

But its significance, what it truly means to be married, has nothing at all to do with the opposite-sex status (or lack of such) of the couple. At least not anymore, now that it has been removed from the explicit context of reproduction.

Well, according to the definition of marriage, it has everything to do with opposite sex status, because it can't occur between anything other than human men and women. It has not been removed, by any religious group I know of, from the context of reproduction, it is what marriage was invented for.

Marriage invented for reproduction? Odd, I always thought people managed to reproduce without being married.

here I thought marriage was a relatively recent invention which had more to do with property rights than marriage. Gee, could it be your entire presumption is false?

nahhhh, couldn't be.

Why do they care? After all, it's just a word, right?

Ask the Devil, not the...uh... Satanist?

As I said, your premises have been proven false ad naseum. But we can re-tread that ground if you insist.

Gay Marriage is an Oxymoron. Marriage is the mostly religious and completely symbolic union between a man and woman. There are no issues of "rights" regarding this, because Marriage is not a right.

False. Marriage is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

If I owned a small computer software company, would I have the right to merger myself with Microsoft? Would it be some violation of my rights if Microsoft declined my attempts to merge with them?

Are you really saying same-sex marriage is analogous to forcing someone to marry someone they don't want to marry?

I'm in love with Carmen Electra, but I can't marry her! Quick, let's pass a law to keep my rights from being violated here!

Again, this is a dismissal example. If Carmen Electra wished to marry you, it wouldn't be illegal for her to divorce her husband and marry you.

As far as I know, there is no law on the books anywhere, which prohibits this from happening, or bans 'gay love' in any way. The ONLY thing that is not allowed, is state licensing of marriage, which IS NOT A RIGHT for ANYONE!

Again, marriage IS A RIGHT FOR EVERYONE.

Marriage is marriage according to the state.

Curious, you vacillate between saying this and saying marriage is defined by religion. Which is it?

No one demands that churches do this because it is not yet ordained and sanctioned by the state, once it becomes law, you will see a multitude of civil suits against churches to force them to comply with the laws.

Absurd. This has not happened where same-sex marriage has been legalized nor did anything similar happen when it was made illegal to ban interracial marriage.

The only thing I am opposed to, is state sanctioning of gay marriage, and this is because of what marriage is. Being a largely religious ceremony, historically understood to be the union of a man and woman, there is no compelling reason to change this.

The overwhelming and vast majority of religions in the world, recognize marriage as the union between a man and woman, it is a religious ceremony, mostly performed in churches by ministers ordained by the church.

Largely and mostly don't equal "is."

And you can't tell a church they have to perform a ceremony for people who are openly violating their religious beliefs and principles, it is a violation of their right to free religion.

Complete strawman. No one is talking about forcing churches to do anything.


You seriously need to read what is posted. There is no violation of rights because there is no right to marry!

You need to read what others have posted. There is a right to marry, according to the US Supreme Court and the Declaration of Human Rights.

There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the opposite sex.

Does the following sentence work for you: There is no discrimination, when everyone is allowed to do the same thing, marry someone of the same race.

If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

1. Not true.

2. What happened to largely and mostly?

Marriage is a religious principle, it is the union of a man and a woman, for the religiously express purpose of procreation, if you want to get technical about it. That is what it has been for over 8000 years, and it has never included members of the same sex, or anything other than a man and a woman.

False. Marriage has a much more varied history than you admit.

So, being that we are debating an expressly religious ceremony, ordained by expressly religious people, how in the hell is this "none of their business"? Seems to me, it is ONLY their business, and you are the one sticking your collective anti-religious nose in it.

1. As you've pointed out below the only thing being denied same-sex couples is the legal status -- that isn't awarded by churches.

2. Again, what happened to largely and mostly?

As far as I know, no gay person has been denied anything afforded to a straight person. They can marry the opposite sex just as I can, no difference. In fact, I will bet you $1,000,000 that if you held a Gay Wedding on top of a flower-laden hillside in the country, no one would prohibit it, no one would stop it, and no one would be arrested for it. So, gay people are not denied the "right" to do whatever they like, with regard to ceremony.

Same-sex couples are denied the legal status of marriage. You make a convincing argument that none of the accutrements of marriage should be denied a same-sex couple. Why then should the legal status be denied?

EDIT: I knew if I took the time to do this the conversation would move on and past me. Darn it.

To be completely and intellectually honest about it, yes, it is 'God'. Marriage is a purely religious ceremony ordained by God for the express purpose of human procreation. If it weren't for this mandate from God, marriage would not exist and would have no fundamental reason to exist. It's what it is, what it has always been and what it will always be. You can't change it because you want to, just as you can't make air into water or water into air because you want it to be that. It is what it is.

From where, may I ask did you get this very narrow-minded view of marriage, and life in general?

Your problem seems not to be one of raw bigoty, if, as you claim, you have a horde of gay friends, and even attended a wedding of such, all of wich I highly doubt, as nearly every racist or homophobve on this site always claims to have scores of friends of the very group they despise.

How many times must you be told that "God" has fuck all to do with marriage, unless, (listen very closely, this seems to be the bit you get stuck on), the people getting married are expressly religious in nature.
If your arguement were actually worth anything, Athiests would not, or could not, get married.
Since I'm assuming you know better than that, obviously you have a biased, narrow-minded approach as to what marriage really means for anyone not "spiritual" as you claim to be.

Your opinion is just that...your own. It is most certainly not fact of any kind.
Whatever you believe about it, may mean nothing to anyone else, and that perspective is just as valid to them, as yours is to you.

It just so happens, yours is one of narrow-minded religious dogma, suitable only for the last century.

Also, the tired trick of accusing the accusers of the very bigotry they label you with, simply shows that you ultimately, have no legitimate arguements.
I for one, am done with you.

No one demands that churches do this because it is not yet ordained and sanctioned by the state,

ORLY (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/18/sjc_gay_marriage_legal_in_mass/)?

once it becomes law, you will see a multitude of civil suits against churches to force them to comply with the laws.

In about a week and a half, gay marriage would have been legal in Massachusetts for 4 years now. Do you know how many civil suits there have been?

0.

Allow me to solve this years-old, ridiculous, child-like debate.

Step 1.) Remove from ALL priests of EVERY religion the ability to legally join two people.
Step 2.) Require a civil union for ALL couples who wish to be legally 'married'.
Step 3.) ???
Step 4.) Profit!

This way a 'wedding' or its equivalent ceremony becomes completely optional and no pressure is put on any priest(ess) who wishes to obey what s/he perceives as a commandment from their god/ess/s/es to prevent two members of the same gender from having intercourse.

Also, a 'wedding' or its equivalent ceremony can then be legally performed by -anyone-, so any couple could be wed by their mutual friend or whatever. Because the wedding or equivalent will then have no legal meaning.

To be completely and intellectually honest about it, yes, it is 'God'.

Then it is irrelevant to the civil definition of marriage in any society which seeks to uphold freedom of religion.

I don't care what your version of God says, or what anyone else's says. As far as I can tell, God has no problem with homosexuals or with them entering into the same unions as heterosexuals. That is my religious view, and the government has no business elevating another religious view above my own. Some people believe that God does not even exist, and the government has no business elevating the belief in God's existence above the lack of said belief.

As such, your argument has no place here. We are discussing the law, not religion.

What is it about water that necessitates it be liquid?

Nothing, actually. Water can exist as solid, liquid, or vapor.

Marriage is defined a certain way,

Indeed. In fact, marriage is defined in many different ways. Various religions define it as they see fit and various governments define it as they see fit. The two are rarely the same.

And, just as that definition has been changed in the past, it can be changed now.

it has always been defined that way,

Patently incorrect.

and it has always been a religious ceremony ordained by religious groups.

Patently incorrect.

These things don't just change because you feel some need to bestow rights that don't exist.

The right to be treated equally under the law doesn't exist? *quietly erases the 14th Amendment from the US Constitution*

In about a week and a half, gay marriage would have been legal in Massachusetts for 4 years now. Do you know how many civil suits there have been?

0.

What is the estimate on un-civil ones?;)

It has not been removed, by any religious group I know of, from the context of reproduction, it is what marriage was invented for.

The UCC, the Episcopalians, and the Unitarians would disagree with you, to name three.

Dixieanna, you have made several statements and assertions of fact, utterly without supporting evidence of any kind. You have also used language that is clearly prejudicial in favor of a particular kind of religious view and against gays and gay rights. You have also made some dismissive prejudicial remarks about liberal views.

Yet you claim you have never said any of these things. Well, let's review. If you can't see how we came to the conclusions that we did about your arguments, then let me lay it out for you. Following are the particular remarks from your original posts that made me think your position is based on religion and prejudice, despite your denials:

Gay Marriage is an Oxymoron. Marriage is the mostly religious and completely symbolic union between a man and woman. <snip the part where you made an erroneous comparison between marriage and business - erroneous because you were wrong about the legal concepts of "contract" and "right">

Now, before you flame me, I would like to add, I am in favor of Civil Unions. <snip> AND, if some gay couple wants to pretend to play house and be "married" to each other, they could use Civil Union to give them all the financial and economic benefits of traditional married couples. The ONLY aspect they are missing, is the opportunity to tarnish religious sanctity and traditions. Last I checked, we still have freedom of religion in this country, and shouldn't adopt laws for the express purpose of smearing religion.
Here you speak derisively of the nature of homosexual relationships, and you claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would tarnish religion. Both sentiments are negative to the point of hostility. You then claim that freedom of religion means that homosexuals should not be allowed to do something your religion might be against, and claim that the only reason gays might want to marry is "for the express purpose of smearing religion." The hostility and prejudice of this remark must be obvious even to you. It also creates the impression of a paranoid kind of prejudice that seems to think gays are basing their entire lives around you and your beliefs.

<snip>
No one has EVER proposed that gay people didn't have the right to be in love, or even, the right to perform some superficial ceremony on a flower-covered hill in the country with their hippie 'minister' ...or buy a wedding album and plan a honeymoon! <snip>
Another insultingly derisive characterization of gay life and gay relationships. And I note the quotes around the word minister, too, as if doubting the religious authority of a minister of a church or religion that does not believe as you do. We shall see this is the first hint of your prejudice against people who support gay rights. You say it a little more clearly below.

No one has ever said that anyone has to live by any religious rule. If there is some off-the-wall religion which condones and sanctions gay marriage, that is their right and freedom, I don't begrudge them that. The state is not obligated to follow the tenants of some wacko religion, is it? The overwhelming and vast majority of religions in the world, recognize marriage as the union between a man and woman, it is a religious ceremony, mostly performed in churches by ministers ordained by the church.
Here you openly insult religions that are different from your own. One of the "wacko religions" you refer to, by the way, and just as an example, is the United Church of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ

The United Church of Christ (UCC) is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination principally in the United States, generally considered within the Reformed tradition, and formed in 1957 by the union of two denominations, the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the Congregational Christian Churches. [NOTE: UCC dates from 1957, the Evangelical and Reformed Church from the 1930s, and the Congregationalist Church is nearly 300 years old.--M]

According to the 2006 yearbook, the United Church of Christ has approximately 1.2 million members and is composed of approximately 5,633 local congregations.

Normally, I don't like Wiki articles as sources, but you can also look them up here:

http://www.adherents.com/Na/i_u.html
(alphabetical list, scroll down to United Church of Christ and click on the name)

http://ucc.org/low.html
(their own site)

You couldn't pass a law ordering every church to allow snakes to be brought in... even though, there are some churches which condone snake handling. You couldn't pass a law ordering churches to allow homeless people to feast on their crackers and wine used for communion. And you can't tell a church they have to perform a ceremony for people who are openly violating their religious beliefs and principles, it is a violation of their right to free religion.
And here you launch your strawman argument that anyone is proposing to force churches to do anything that is against their beliefs. That is just plain not true. In other words, it is a lie. And it is an obvious lie, because everyone is talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. The fact that you continued to promote this untruth, suggests that you are either (a) deliberately lying about it, or (b) thinking that the mere fact that gays could be married by anyone, under any circumstances, in any way, is an attack on your religion. Considering that you have repeatedly and erroneously (I hate using that word over and over, but you are just so damned wrong all the time) claimed that marriage itself is religious in nature, I believe it is the latter. You just think that the very existence of gay marriage is an affront to your religion, and you believe that gays should not be allowed to do for the sake of your religion. In other words, you believe that other people should be forced by law to live according to the rules of your religion, even though you denied this earlier.

<snip>
Civil Unions would give gay couples the right to adopt, buy a home, open a joint savings account, buy life insurance, or whatever else traditional couples do, so why do they want the right to marry? It is because, this is not about "rights" as much as it is about counter-culture and sticking it to religion and the religious beliefs of others. You just shouldn't have that "right" in my opinion.
Here again, you express a prejudiced attitude against gays and a totally unfounded assumption that they are motivated to "stick it to religion" -- specifically, your religion, since not all religions agree with you.

And I enjoy the way you claim that people should not have the right to do that, even though no one is proposing to force you to live their way, but you are proposing to force others to live your way.

<snip>

Which is exactly my point. Gosh, I don't recall saying that I was the member of any silly little cult, is this something you assumed from my position? For the record, I am not religious and don't belong to any organized religious group. I am a spiritualist, and my own personal beliefs have little to do with this issue.
Another derisive comment about beliefs other than your own.

To read the animosity in your retort, is all we need to know about what is fueling this whole gay marriage movement. This is not about any rights, or justice for gay people, it is about the seething anti-religious hatred that continues to permeate our society and erode morality. You don't support gay marriage because you want gays to have equality, you support it to throw feces at religion, which you revile. Anything you and your anti-religious bunch can do to thwart religion, and rub their noses in their own principles, you will attempt to do it, even if you have to lie about the reasons.

I'm not a religious nutcase, I know plenty of them, but I am not down with it all. I just believe in standing up for principle, and if that means defending religious people and their practices, that is what it means. Marriage is a largely religious ceremony... has been for centuries... between a MAN and WOMAN... nothing else... you can't marry dogs, cats, horses, pigs, or the same sex human, it is not what marriage is! You want the same privileges as married couples... CIVIL UNIONS! You just want to throw feces at religion and deny them the right to the religious freedoms they are entitled to.... GAY MARRIAGE!
And this is just a paranoid rant. You even resort to "yelling" in solid caps. Clearly, you think gays are out to get you somehow, and this is the basis of your opposition to gay marriage rights. It has little to do with marriage per se, and everything to do with your "seething hatred" of gays.

Marriage is marriage according to the state. No one demands that churches do this because it is not yet ordained and sanctioned by the state, once it becomes law, you will see a multitude of civil suits against churches to force them to comply with the laws.<snip>
Our friend the Strawman again. You have had the difference between religious ceremony marriage and civil marriage explained to you countless times, yet you refuse to give up this lie, which serves no purpose but as propaganda for your other "gays are throwing feces at us" rants.

<snip>

Yes, that is exactly what this is about... waving the marriage license in the face of Christian conservatives and saying "naa-naa-na-na-naaaa"! It has nothing to do with principles or being pushed aside... the only ones who are being pushed aside and having their principles violated are the religious people who vehemently oppose gay marriage!

Same terminology has nothing to do with the issue. Blacks won equality in 1964, they didn't win the "right" to call themselves "Caucasian" did they?

No, this has nothing to do with Christians, or Conservatives. Gay Marriage isnt about "getting one over" on them christians.

Yes, it certainly is. We know this because of intellectual honesty. If you objectively examine the argument, you can see clearly, it is only about subverting christian morality and tradition. Otherwise, there would be no problem in adopting civil unions and putting the issue to rest.
<snip>
And more paranoia. Do you really think that the only thing gays have to do all day long is think about you?

Well, when it comes to the sanctity of one of their most important rituals, it is hard to see how it isn't about them. If it were not for religion, there would be no need or purpose for marriage to begin with. It is a religious ceremony, just like a Baptism or Barmitzvah.

<snip>
Ah, but YES, religious principles would be violated. Marriage is a religious principle, it is the union of a man and a woman, for the religiously express purpose of procreation, if you want to get technical about it. That is what it has been for over 8000 years, and it has never included members of the same sex, or anything other than a man and a woman. So, being that we are debating an expressly religious ceremony, ordained by expressly religious people, how in the hell is this "none of their business"? Seems to me, it is ONLY their business, and you are the one sticking your collective anti-religious nose in it.
And here is an example of your factual errors. Civil marriage is not about religion at all, so account for the existence of that, if marriage is a religious ceremony only. And if marriage has a "need or purpose" that is exclusively religious, I would very much like to know what it is.

The fact is that marriage pre-exists all the religions in the world today, and its "need and purpose" is about delineating units of wealth and property, i.e. the creation of households. You say otherwise. You say it's only for procreation. Then what about married couples who have no children? Are they "sticking it to religion"? You claim a timeline of 8000 years. You make a whole bunch of other little claims. Yet you show us no sources or data to defend your assertions when they are challenged. I say you are just dressing up your opinions as fact, and I challenge you to show me otherwise.

<snip?

Making the state grant a license of marriage to gay couples, is a direct slap in the face of religion, religious beliefs, sanctity of religious beliefs, and freedom to worship without persecution or restraint. You are intruding on religious tradition and sanctity, with a non-existent claim of "rights" by a group of people largely shunned by religious groups for their sexual behavior, which violates most interpretations of religiously moral beliefs. As much as you want to scream you are having something forced onto you, that is exactly what you propose to do to religious people, who DO have the right to practice their religion (which includes the matrimonial ceremony) freely.
Here you accuse gays of persecuting and restraining you from practicing your religious beliefs merely by their attempts to get equal protection under civil law. Not religious doctrine. Civil law. You declare that if a government does something that does not agree with your religion, that amounts to violating your rights and persecuting you. Yet you also claim you do not want other people to have to live according to your religious beliefs. It is impossible for you reconcile this contradiction, but I can see why you will not give it up. It is fueled by your paranoid fear of gays.

<snip>

It seems to me, the intolerance is coming from Gay Rights advocates, who aren't willing to settle for Civil Unions, and want to force their 'immoral' behavior on those who practice religion, particularly the Christian variety. I mean, call me crazy, but isn't that exactly what is being done here? Who has hatred for whom? I see a lot of bitter and disrespectful banter about Christians and people of religion here, is that just pure acceptance of something different from you? Doesn't seem like it, does it?
<snip>
There is a lot of bitter and resentful banter in this thread, but most of it is coming from you lately.

<snip> Bigotry is when you believe your idea is the only correct view, and everyone else is just plain wrong... isn't that how you feel about the views I have presented?
You would be the expert on bigotry.

<snip>There IS something bigoted about not accepting anyones opinion except your own, which is what continues to be stated here by many.
But mostly by you.

<snip> I just don't want to change the laws of the state to endorse something that intentionally defies religious morality and freedom.

<snip> Thanks for your input, but you've really said very little, just a bunch of typical liberal smokescreen phrases to throw up amongst the prejudiced and bigoted comments of others here. It makes a nice and pretty liberal backdrop, but really doesn't contribute to the adult conversation. But, nice effort!

<snip>

To be completely and intellectually honest about it, yes, it is 'God'. Marriage is a purely religious ceremony ordained by God for the express purpose of human procreation. If it weren't for this mandate from God, marriage would not exist and would have no fundamental reason to exist. It's what it is, what it has always been and what it will always be. You can't change it because you want to, just as you can't make air into water or water into air because you want it to be that. It is what it is.

<snip>

Oh, but it IS. Essentially, you can't have a marriage of anything other than a man and woman, because that is how it is defined, and what marriage is. You can have Civil Unions, you can create some new word for gays who join together in matrimony, but marriage is already defined as something, and you can't just change the definition to suit your libreal views.
And finally, you give your entirely religious explanation of what you think marriage is, despite the fact that you have consistently denied that you are promoting a religion's viewpoint.

Also, you have taken to dismissing our views as "liberal." Yet it seems your views are at least as biased, so why should we give your views any more credence than you give ours?

Again, this is a dismissal example. If Carmen Electra wished to marry you, it wouldn't be illegal for her to divorce her husband and marry you.

And, of course, while that union would be recognized by the state, it would not be recognized by some religions. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, would not recognize the two as being married, because they hold that one cannot divorce and remarry. I wonder how many people have sued the RCC because of this restriction? At last check, I think it was probably 0.

Allow me to solve this years-old, ridiculous, child-like debate.

Step 1.) Remove from ALL priests of EVERY religion the ability to legally join two people.
Step 2.) Require a civil union for ALL couples who wish to be legally 'married'.
Step 3.) ???
Step 4.) Profit!

This way a 'wedding' or its equivalent ceremony becomes completely optional and no pressure is put on any priest(ess) who wishes to obey what s/he perceives as a commandment from their god/ess/s/es to prevent two members of the same gender from having intercourse.

Also, a 'wedding' or its equivalent ceremony can then be legally performed by -anyone-, so any couple could be wed by their mutual friend or whatever. Because the wedding or equivalent will then have no legal meaning.
*Steps up and signs onto this plan.* :) I've been saying this for years.

*Steps up and signs onto this plan.* :) I've been saying this for years.

Meh, personally, I liked the convenience of having it all done at once. I don't see why that convenience should be removed simply because some people can't understand the distinction between "Sure, you already legally qualified for this, so we'll allow your minister to sign off on it," and "Your minister has the power to determine who can be legally married."

Meh, personally, I liked the convenience of having it all done at once. I don't see why that convenience should be removed simply because some people can't understand the distinction between "Sure, you already legally qualified for this, so we'll allow your minister to sign off on it," and "Your minister has the power to determine who can be legally married."

Well...you said it yourself: Some people can't understand that distinction. And there are two separate issues (actually three) in this debate:

1.) From the gay side: "We can't be legally married." This is an infringement on their rights as human beings and as citizens.
2.) From the conservative moralist (supposedly independant of religion) side: "This breaks tradition upheld by our country." Which is true. But so did guerrila warfare and women's rights.
3.) From the religious advocates' side: "The word 'marriage' describes a religious ceremony." Which is also true. But it also describes a legal status - same word, different definition.

And it is that definition that is the major hangup. So you either have to come up with a different term for something which grants you that same legal status, or you need to remove the government-granted privilege of joining two people in a -legal- sense.

A civil union won't do for the same reason a 'blacks entrance' won't do. Just because both doors let you into the building doesn't mean it's acceptable to segregate two groups of people due to your personal bias.

Well, since I have clearly advocated Civil Unions legislation that would give gay couples every intrinsic right known to married couples, YES, I think it IS a semantics argument. It's an important semantics argument though, because the vast majority of religion does not approve of changing the meaning of marriage.
So, we should deny the minority of religions their religious freedom because the majority disapproves? Then what the hell is the 1st amendment for?

Also, I quote this at you:
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.


Which is why same-sex marriages were routinely performed in medieval Europe. And North America prior to Columbus. And pretty much everywhere.


Except not.

But its significance, what it truly means to be married, has nothing at all to do with the opposite-sex status (or lack of such) of the couple. At least not anymore, now that it has been removed from the explicit context of reproduction.

Well, according to the definition of marriage, it has everything to do with opposite sex status, because it can't occur between anything other than human men and women. It has not been removed, by any religious group I know of, from the context of reproduction, it is what marriage was invented for.

Again, I quote:
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.


Which is why same-sex marriages were routinely performed in medieval Europe. And North America prior to Columbus. And pretty much everywhere.


Except not.

Because every time people try to inform you of this, you intentionally ignore it. That leaves only one possible conclusion: the reason you are against same-sex marriage truly IS bigotry, and that's why you ignore counter-points. Were it for the reasons you claim, you'd see the evidence presented and admit that you were previously incorrect and be glad you'd learned something new today.
An arbitrary prescribed definition, rather than an intrinsic property.

The very fact that in Roman times same-sex marriage was common (and was called marriage), that in pre-Columbian North America same-sex marriage was common (and was called the literal equivalent of marriage) and a dozen other examples counteracts your argument utterly.
Don't let your facts get in the way of a good argument! Go with your gut! Did you know the gut has more nerve endings than the brain?! :D
ORLY (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/18/sjc_gay_marriage_legal_in_mass/)?



In about a week and a half, gay marriage would have been legal in Massachusetts for 4 years now. Do you know how many civil suits there have been?

0.

How much you wanna bet he totally ignores this?

I agree completely with Endis.

To all practical intents and purposes, civil marraige IS civil union, so the only reason to use separate terms IS to segregate gays from mainstream society.

On the other hand, religious factions are so invested in owning the word "marriage," that I really believe it would be the most pragmatic solution for the state to give up the word "marriage" and call everthing it does in this respect "civil union."

I further think that, to be legally married, you should have to get your union or marriage recognized by the state. Some states may choose to recognize religious marriages as equivalent to civil unions. Other states may choose not to, and this would require all couples who want the privileges of marriage that come from the state (tax status, estates, etc.) to get a civil union. The religious ceremony would then be an optional extra. Getting a civil union does not need to be an expensive or time consuming project -- just make an appointment to appear with some witnesses before a judge, sign the papers, swear as to "free act and deed" or whatever, pay your $15, and bing! You've got your union and all that comes with it.

As a heterosexual woman, I would be only too happy to give up the word marriage. I would only just love to create a civil union with the man of my heart, and also seek the blessings of our gods upon our union. Two separate things.

And it is that definition that is the major hangup. So you either have to come up with a different term for something which grants you that same legal status, or you need to remove the government-granted privilege of joining two people in a -legal- sense.

Of course, there's a problem with using a different term - it removes some of the protections afforded marriage. Both because of treaties and because of general diplomatic policy, nations often recognize the civil marriages of other nations - both for those who travel in that country and those who choose to stay there. There is no such protection - stated or implicit - for "civil unions".

A civil union won't do for the same reason a 'blacks entrance' won't do. Just because both doors let you into the building doesn't mean it's acceptable to segregate two groups of people due to your personal bias.

Indeed, but I'm not sure what this has to do with your contention - which appears to be that *all* civil marriages should be termed "civil unions" instead.


And, of course, the name change was not what I was talking about in the post you replied to. I was talking about removing the convenience of getting religiously and civilly married all at once, rather than having to do it in two separate ceremonies.

I have to say, I'm pleased to see two very different viewpoints from two people both of a religious/christian nature. One of wich arguing for it.
To me that just goes to show that its most certainly not an issue of the christian majority howling against it, but rather a small minorty of them howling the loudest.

I often get accused of being anti-religion, or specifically anti-christian.
Thats really not the truth. To be far more accurate, I hate that particular minority who exemplify everything I despise about them, in vivid context every single day.

I believe the majority of Americans more or less agree that gay marriage wouldnt hurt anyone, and most importantly, the government doesnt belong in the bedroom.
Yet, it is those particular Right-Wing Conservative Christians, who are making the most noise against this issue are the ones we all see, every day.
It is that very sort of mentality, that makes me absolutely crazy.

This is why its nice to hear from the normal people of christian faiths, who may not agree with it, but also realize that its not just about them, or thier faiths, but rather simple equality.

Good work folks.

*starts a slow clap*

<snip; this part is relevant but see below>
Indeed, but I'm not sure what this has to do with your contention - which appears to be that *all* civil marriages should be termed "civil unions" instead.
Nono, I don't propose a name change; I was saying that those telling gay people to just settle for a civil union should quiet down - because that's segregation. Unwarranted segregation, even.
It should remain as it is: Civil marriage. Two people who were married will still be 'married', not 'united' or 'joined'. This is something that should be available for EVERYONE, as it is a constitutional right.
But I did say everyone should be required to get a civil union, didn't I? My mistake - I wasn't sure if "civil marriage" would have been the appropriate term given the context (I'm still not - is it?). In essence what I mean is that the state should be required to bestow the legal status of marriage, rather than allowing a religious figure to bestow it.

And, of course, the name change was not what I was talking about in the post you replied to. I was talking about removing the convenience of getting religiously and civilly married all at once, rather than having to do it in two separate ceremonies.

I have nothing to say against that. Convenient things are, well, convenient, after all. But...so far I've not encountered a more viable (and more importantly, fair) solution to this problem, and I've debated it with various people. It's my proposal, and it might be a slight inconvenience, but I'm more than happy to give up a little convenience in favour of *real* equality.

Dixie, cut your losses. You've already been humiliated enough. Just cut your losses and stop trying to disguise your fear of homosexuals (or, maybe, fear that you might be one) behind "tradition" and "the Government should cater to MY religion". It doesn't work that way and it's making you look sillier and sillier. If you have nothing to add to the debate but these inanities, don't.

Dixie, cut your losses. You've already been humiliated enough. Just cut your losses and stop trying to disguise your fear of homosexuals (or, maybe, fear that you might be one) behind "tradition" and "the Government should cater to MY religion". It doesn't work that way and it's making you look sillier and sillier. If you have nothing to add to the debate but these inanities, don't.

It seems he has folded his tent and slipped off into the night. But on the off chance he returns:

My religion allows marriage between any combination of people of any sex. Probably any age too. And maybe even some inanimate objects. I mock the tattered remains of your 'marriage can only be between a man and a woman cos religion says so' arguement, and will ponder other ways to desecrate it's remains.

...and will ponder other ways to desecrate it's remains.
By marrying it, obviously.

By marrying it, obviously.

But marrying it to what exactly? Fass, perhaps?

By marrying it, obviously.

....and then fuckin' it up the arse!

But marrying it to what exactly? Fass, perhaps?
Anyone.

If marraige 'should' only be between a man and a women, then marrying an argument is an abomination unto the Lord.

....and then fuckin' it up the arse!
Eloquent as always, Peep. :p

But its significance, what it truly means to be married, has nothing at all to do with the opposite-sex status (or lack of such) of the couple. At least not anymore, now that it has been removed from the explicit context of reproduction.

Well, according to the definition of marriage, it has everything to do with opposite sex status, because it can't occur between anything other than human men and women. It has not been removed, by any religious group I know of, from the context of reproduction, it is what marriage was invented for.
If marriage is for reproduction, why are infertile couples allowed to wed? Why are women who have passed menopause allowed to wed? Why are couples who openly state that they do not intend to produce biological children allowed to wed?

Do you advocate forcing infertile couples to have their marriages demoted "civil union" status?

Anyone.

If marraige 'should' only be between a man and a women, then marrying an argument is an abomination unto the Lord.
Excellent. I'll get my funny hat.
*looks around*
Does anyone have a CRT monitor that they're not using?

Anyone.

If marraige 'should' only be between a man and a women, then marrying an argument is an abomination unto the Lord.


Eloquent as always, Peep. :p

Heh umm yeah sorry for the language everybody, sometimes I forget myself...

It seems he has folded his tent and slipped off into the night. But on the off chance he returns:

My religion allows marriage between any combination of people of any sex. Probably any age too. And maybe even some inanimate objects. I mock the tattered remains of your 'marriage can only be between a man and a woman cos religion says so' arguement, and will ponder other ways to desecrate it's remains.

Interesting. Openly admitting that the reason you want to change 'marriage' is because you are attacking the traditional cultural/religious institution of marriage itself... At least you're honest.

Interesting. Openly admitting that the reason you want to change 'marriage' is because you are attacking the traditional cultural/religious institution of marriage itself... At least you're honest.
Add my name to that list.

Marriage, in the West, is a pretty rotten tradition all around. For centuries it was nothing more than human trafficking. It is only very, very recently that marriage has become more centered on the idea of romantic partnership, and that has only come to pass because of people who attacked the traditional cultural and religious institution of marriage. Pretty much every single good thing about marriage as we know it today is thanks to the people who have relentlessly attacked traditional marriage. :D

Add my name to that list.

Marriage, in the West, is a pretty rotten tradition all around. For centuries it was nothing more than human trafficking. It is only very, very recently that marriage has become more centered on the idea of romantic partnership, and that has only come to pass because of people who attacked the traditional cultural and religious institution of marriage. Pretty much every single good thing about marriage as we know it today is thanks to the people who have relentlessly attacked traditional marriage. :D

Why does you post remind me of a certain song from a certain musical?

Any guesses?

Interesting. Openly admitting that the reason you want to change 'marriage' is because you are attacking the traditional cultural/religious institution of marriage itself... At least you're honest.

ANOTHER closeted one attacking gay marriage due to fear of "teh gheyz"? Don't these people have caretakers?

If marriage is for reproduction, why are infertile couples allowed to wed? Why are women who have passed menopause allowed to wed? Why are couples who openly state that they do not intend to produce biological children allowed to wed?

Do you advocate forcing infertile couples to have their marriages demoted "civil union" status?

Marriage could be considered an institution that was assigned the responsibility of defining heritage rights to the offspring of the participants. If not, why did children of unmarried parents have a particular name that differentiated them from children of married parents? And this difference had a legal effect as well, removing the child/offspring from their parents responsibility. An offspring of non-married parents had decreased (if not eliminated entirely) any rights or claims to title or estate inheritance of property etc., obviously ‘marriage’ laws and children/offspring go hand in hand.

I’m not saying marriage is for reproduction only though, I’m just pointing out that your argument seems to have gone too far in removing children from the institution and it’s reason for existence.

Interesting. Openly admitting that the reason you want to change 'marriage' is because you are attacking the traditional cultural/religious institution of marriage itself... At least you're honest.
On top of what Bottle rightly said, why would one (unlesss one was small-'c' conservative in all areas of life) think that attacking a traditional insttution was a necessarily bad thing?

Interesting. Openly admitting that the reason you want to change 'marriage' is because you are attacking the traditional cultural/religious institution of marriage itself... At least you're honest.

Yes, but I only do that and any other Discordian shit I may do for the lulz. If we're talking serious business, then I want to change marriage so that any consenting adults can have one, and the benefits aren't limited to people of certain religious beliefs.

Marriage could be considered an institution that was assigned the responsibility of defining heritage rights to the offspring of the participants. If not, why did children of unmarried parents have a particular name that differentiated them from children of married parents? And this difference had a legal effect as well, removing the child/offspring from their parents responsibility. An offspring of non-married parents had decreased (if not eliminated entirely) any rights or claims to title or estate inheritance of property etc., obviously ‘marriage’ laws and children/offspring go hand in hand.

I’m not saying marriage is for reproduction only though, I’m just pointing out that your argument seems to have gone too far in removing children from the institution and it’s reason for existence.
As I'm sure you gathered from my earlier post, I am of the opinion that 99% of what marriage was originally designed for is rotten.

You're quite right that marriage was originally about property rights, more than anything else. It was about identifying which female belonged to which male, so that her male owner would know which offspring also belonged to him, and therefore would know which offspring to expend his resources upon.

As somebody who is not partial to the ownership of some humans by other humans, I'm delighted to live in a time and place where this original design has become obsolete.

On top of what Bottle rightly said, why would one (unlesss one was small-'c' conservative in all areas of life) think that attacking a traditional insttution was a necessarily bad thing?

Why does the libertarian argument, if you don't want a [insert thing here], then simply don't get one, apply in other things but not here?

Things to be inserted:
abortion
education
child
drug use
marriage
etc.

If you don't want a traditional marriage, then don't get one.

Why does the libertarian argument, if you don't want a [insert thing here], then simply don't get one, apply in other things but not here?

Things to be inserted:
abortion
education
child
drug use
marriage
etc.

If you don't want a traditional marriage, then don't get one.

Mainly because it's traditional marriage or GTFO.

As I'm sure you gathered from my earlier post, I am of the opinion that 99% of what marriage was originally designed for is rotten.

You're quite right that marriage was originally about property rights, more than anything else. It was about identifying which female belonged to which male, so that her male owner would know which offspring also belonged to him, and therefore would know which offspring to expend his resources upon.

As somebody who is not partial to the ownership of some humans by other humans, I'm delighted to live in a time and place where this original design has become obsolete.

Simple enough to argue from truth then. Instead of trying to pretend that marriage wasn't about having children like you were doing before when I quoted you...

Why does you post remind me of a certain song from a certain musical?
gay much? :D



. . i'm sorry, i couldn't help myself!

First post on your silly, strident forums, eff me!

If you don't want a traditional marriage, then don't get one.

So you agree that the government SHOULD provide for people wanting to marry outside the "traditional" definitions? Good.

Why does the libertarian argument, if you don't want a [insert thing here], then simply don't get one, apply in other things but not here?

It does. Hence, why we say "If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one."


Things to be inserted:
abortion
education
child
drug use
marriage
etc.

If you don't want a traditional marriage, then don't get one.
If you don't want a non-traditional marriage, don't get one. I'm not trying to make it impossible for somebody else to CHOOSE to have a traditional marriage.

Kind of like how I fight to make sure everybody has the option to CHOOSE not to have an abortion, instead of supporting a system where nobody has a choice in the matter.

Simple enough to argue from truth then. Instead of trying to pretend that marriage wasn't about having children like you were doing before when I quoted you...
Please don't lie. It's a very boring tactic that takes the fun out of this discussion.

...
As somebody who is not partial to the ownership of some humans by other humans, I'm delighted to live in a time and place where this original design has become obsolete.

Then you shouldn't get married at all but you can't remove the aspect from the institution of marriage even if marriage laws are changed about who can enter into the agreements. Because marriage has always been about ownership rights and always will be.

I know you meant to say that once upon a time women and children were the property of the men, but I submit that the man (especially today and even historically to a lesser degree) were the property of the wife and children just as well. A legal offspring had right's that the man or parent could no deny, the power of the courts will bear down on a reluctant parent (father or mother) and force them. Marriage rights are all about property and ownership claims, regardless if it’s same-sex marriage or heterosexual/traditional marriage.

Why does the libertarian argument, if you don't want a [insert thing here], then simply don't get one, apply in other things but not here?
I presume you mean by 'libertarian argument' the argument that, for example, if one is offended by pornography, one shouldn't view pornography.

If so, two points:

Firstly, not unnecessarily engaging in an activity one finds distasteful doesn't mean one can't attack said activity. using the above example, if I didn't like watching pornography for moral reasons, I shouldn't watch pornography, but I shoulddn't stop making arguments against pornography.

Secondly, I have a choice not to watch pornography, take drugs, watch Brass Eye, etc. I don't have a choice, if I were a gay man or woman in the US, to have the legal benifits of a marraige if marraige is strictly defined (and enforced) as between a man and a woman.

Please don't lie. It's a very boring tactic that takes the fun out of this discussion.

I wasn't trying to lie. It seemed to me when I read your post, this one: If marriage is for reproduction, why are infertile couples allowed to wed? Why are women who have passed menopause allowed to wed? Why are couples who openly state that they do not intend to produce biological children allowed to wed?

Do you advocate forcing infertile couples to have their marriages demoted "civil union" status? That you were saying that 'children' and offspring had nothing to do with marriage. If you meant something different, then I didn't see it, my bad.

My intention was to point out that marriage laws and children/offspring do go hand in hand, and you agreed and pointed out that property rights and marriage laws do go hand in hand (and you showed your disdain for the institution), but for the facts of the issue you and I seem to agree.

Then you shouldn't get married at all but you can't remove the aspect from the institution of marriage even if marriage laws are changed about who can enter into the agreements. Because marriage has always been about ownership rights and always will be.

You can stamp your little libertarian foot all you like, but marriage HAS been changed, and will continue to change.



I know you meant to say that once upon a time women and children were the property of the men, but I submit that the man (especially today and even historically to a lesser degree) were the property of the wife and children just as well.

And I submit that the man was actually the property of the monster living under the bed. Also, unicorns.


A legal offspring had right's that the man or parent could no deny, the power of the courts will bear down on a reluctant parent (father or mother) and force them.

Boo hoo hoo child support payments! It's men who are the real oppressed class! Boo hoo hoo!


Marriage rights are all about property and ownership claims, regardless if it’s same-sex marriage or heterosexual/traditional marriage.
Aside from being factually incorrect (seeing as how many of the legal rights associated with marriage are not property-related), you're also making the mistake of assuming that everybody shares your opinion. They don't.

You can stamp your little libertarian foot all you like, but marriage HAS been changed, and will continue to change.

And I submit that the man was actually the property of the monster living under the bed. Also, unicorns.

Boo hoo hoo child support payments! It's men who are the real oppressed class! Boo hoo hoo!

Wow, an awful lot of nothing but non-topic related attacks there. Disappointing, to say the least.

Aside from being factually incorrect (seeing as how many of the legal rights associated with marriage are not property-related), you're also making the mistake of assuming that everybody shares your opinion. They don't.

Factually incorrect? Rights associated with marriage are all about property rights. In this case, property is not simply material things, but material sustenance need (for past, present or future needs to be met), rights to behavior expectations from the participants etc., rights to intimate privacy with your spouse (example: hospital visitation and any other 'family' only right) rights to legal recourse if any of you property rights are denied... If marriage laws aren’t about property rights why would same-sex partners want the right to get married?

Why does the libertarian argument, if you don't want a [insert thing here], then simply don't get one, apply in other things but not here?

Things to be inserted:

Let's see, then.

abortion

If you don't want an abortion, then don't get one. Wow, that was easy.

education

If you don't want an education, don't get one. You don't *have* to go to college, do you? Granted, you can't drop out of school before a certain age, but that's because you're not of age to make responsible decisions about your future. But we don't ban education because some people think education is the way of the devil.

child

If you don't want a child, then don't have one. We don't ban childbirth because some people don't like kids.

drug use

To a certain extent, actually, I do make this argument. If you don't want to take drugs, then don't take them. Now, we certainly should restrict people from doing certain things while high: driving, for example. Though there is a decent argument that with certain drugs, the state has a vested interest in banning or restricting access to them. I'm fairly open on which drugs this might be; I simply do not have enough information to say.

marriage

If you don't want to be married, don't get married. We aren't banning marriage because some people don't want marriage, are we?

etc.

If you don't want a traditional marriage, then don't get one.

Nobody is suggesting we get rid of traditional marriage in favor of gay marriage. The suggestion is that we have both available.

So, you don't want a gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up.
See how that was JUST LIKE the other ones?

Wow, an awful lot of nothing but non-topic related attacks there. Disappointing, to say the least.



Factually incorrect? Rights associated with marriage are all about property rights. In this case, property is not simply material things, but material sustenance need (for past, present or future needs to be met), rights to behavior expectations from the participants etc., rights to intimate privacy with your spouse (example: hospital visitation and any other 'family' only right) rights to legal recourse if any of you property rights are denied... If marriage laws aren’t about property rights why would same-sex partners want the right to get married?

So they're only property rights under a special definition of the word property. I see. Under a similarly random definition, the right to free speech is a property right.

I wasn't trying to lie. It seemed to me when I read your post, this one: If marriage is for reproduction, why are infertile couples allowed to wed? Why are women who have passed menopause allowed to wed? Why are couples who openly state that they do not intend to produce biological children allowed to wed?

Do you advocate forcing infertile couples to have their marriages demoted "civil union" status? That you were saying that 'children' and offspring had nothing to do with marriage. If you meant something different, then I didn't see it, my bad.

Read my post again, and show where it says that "children and offspring had nothing to do with marriage."

Hint: it doesn't.

Children can have a lot to do with marriage. I simply pointed out that the production of biological offspring is not a requirement for marriage. The fact that you dishonestly attempt to equate these concepts is lame.


My intention was to point out that marriage laws and children/offspring do go hand in hand, and you agreed and pointed out that property rights and marriage laws do go hand in hand (and you showed your disdain for the institution), but for the facts of the issue you and I seem to agree.
1) "Marriage laws and children go hand in hand" =/= "Property rights and marriage laws go hand in hand." Keep in mind that adoption happened even way back in the day, and so did marriages between infertile individuals. Sometimes obtaining a new piece of woman-property was a means of securing property agreements or political affiliations even if children would not result from the union. So even back when marriage was a relatively new institution, production of biological offspring by the married partners STILL wasn't a requirement.

2) Marriage laws and children don't go hand in hand today. They haven't for decades. Nearly half the children born in America are born out of wedlock, after all, and it's certainly nothing new for a married couple to choose not to have children.

Wow, an awful lot of nothing but non-topic related attacks there. Disappointing, to say the least.

Woe is me. I am woe.

If you want serious responses, make some serious points.


Factually incorrect? Rights associated with marriage are all about property rights.

Protip: Stating something as fact will not always cause it to become fact.


In this case, property is not simply material things, but material sustenance need (for past, present or future needs to be met), rights to behavior expectations from the participants etc., rights to intimate privacy with your spouse (example: hospital visitation and any other 'family' only right) rights to legal recourse if any of you property rights are denied...

Ah, I see. Marriage rights are all about property, because "property" means "all rights, including the ones that don't have to do with property."

Gotcha.


If marriage laws aren’t about property rights why would same-sex partners want the right to get married?
If you can't be bothered to read the thread, why should anybody be bothered to answer you?

Protip

Er...what does that mean? I've seen a few other posters use that word and I can't seem to figure out what it means.

Oops, nerd alert...

It's a gamer thing. A protip is just what the name suggests: a tip from a "pro" on how to play better.

For instance, "Protip: Your UberNerd self-buff can stack with UberNerd potion buffs!"

Ah. Grazie.

Yeah the only game where that might come up that I've played would be WoW, and I don't recall them calling them Protips.

Learn something every day.

Er...what does that mean? I've seen a few other posters use that word and I can't seem to figure out what it means.

The clue is in the last 3 letters.

Er...what does that mean? I've seen a few other posters use that word and I can't seem to figure out what it means.
Oops, nerd alert...

It's a gamer thing. A protip is just what the name suggests: a tip from a "pro" on how to play better.

For instance, "Protip: Your UberNerd self-buff can stack with UberNerd potion buffs!"

...[sniped stuff that agreed with premise]...

...Nobody is suggesting we get rid of traditional marriage in favor of gay marriage. The suggestion is that we have both available.

So, you don't want a gay marriage? Then don't get one and shut the fuck up.
See how that was JUST LIKE the other ones?

Actually the discussion at that post was about why should they attack traditional marriage.

Actually the discussion at that post was about why should they attack traditional marriage.

Except, of course, that nobody -- NOBODY -- is attacking traditional marriage.

OK, yes, some people have negative views of it, BUT NOBODY is proposing to stop other people from doing it, the way the anti-gay-marriage crowd wants to stop gays from getting the same legal and social status as heteros in this regard.

The "they're attacking traditional marriage" thing is a strawman, and it's been beaten down so many times, it has very few straws left it in. Give it up, already.

Actually the discussion at that post was about why should they attack traditional marriage.

Hijacking threads is bad, don't do it.

Why does the libertarian argument, if you don't want a [insert thing here], then simply don't get one, apply in other things but not here?

Things to be inserted:
abortion
education
child
drug use
marriage
etc.

If you don't want a traditional marriage, then don't get one.

....

This has to be the WORST argument I have EVER seen

Except, of course, that nobody -- NOBODY -- is attacking traditional marriage.

OK, yes, some people have negative views of it, BUT NOBODY is proposing to stop other people from doing it, the way the anti-gay-marriage crowd wants to stop gays from getting the same legal and social status as heteros in this regard.

The "they're attacking traditional marriage" thing is a strawman, and it's been beaten down so many times, it has very few straws left it in. Give it up, already.

Umm, yes they did and are… Maybe not you, but others. I'll show some...

Add my name to that list.

Marriage, in the West, is a pretty rotten tradition all around. For centuries it was nothing more than human trafficking. It is only very, very recently that marriage has become more centered on the idea of romantic partnership, and that has only come to pass because of people who attacked the traditional cultural and religious institution of marriage. Pretty much every single good thing about marriage as we know it today is thanks to the people who have relentlessly attacked traditional marriage. :D
Yes, but I only do that and any other Discordian shit I may do for the lulz. If we're talking serious business, then I want to change marriage so that any consenting adults can have one, and the benefits aren't limited to people of certain religious beliefs.
On top of what Bottle rightly said, why would one (unlesss one was small-'c' conservative in all areas of life) think that attacking a traditional insttution was a necessarily bad thing?

You seem to have missed those arguments… their arguments seems to be that the traditional marriage institution is sooo bad that it deserves to be attacked regardless if it is expanded or not.

Hijacking threads is bad, don't do it.

Wow, of all people, wasn't it your post that started the attack on traditional marriage as a cause in and of itself?

My religion allows marriage between any combination of people of any sex. Probably any age too. And maybe even some inanimate objects. I mock the tattered remains of your 'marriage can only be between a man and a woman cos religion says so' arguement, and will ponder other ways to desecrate it's remains.

Why, yes, yes it was. And now you attack me for thread hijack? Bad form that.

You seem to have missed those arguments… their arguments seems to be that the traditional marriage institution is sooo bad that it deserves to be attacked regardless if it is expanded or not.
You seem not to know the difference between 'attack' and 'change'



Wow, of all people, wasn't it your post that started the attack on traditional marriage as a cause in and of itself?



Why, yes, yes it was. And now you attack me for thread hijack? Bad form that.

See, that's not an attack on the traditional marriage. That's pointing out that 'marriage can only be between a man and a woman cos religion says so' is a shitty arguement. Which I continue to think it is.

And you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13199000&postcount=655) were the one who brought traditional marriage into things, so you can get down off your cross.

Snip.

Question: Do you agree with me that gays should be allowed to marry?

You seem not to know the difference between 'attack' and 'change'


To some, there is no difference, as any attempt to change something fundamentally becomes an attack upon it.

Umm, yes they did and are… Maybe not you, but others. I'll show some...





You seem to have missed those arguments… their arguments seems to be that the traditional marriage institution is sooo bad that it deserves to be attacked regardless if it is expanded or not.
No, I didn't miss them. Those are called negative opinions. Remember, I mentioned such things in my post.

Now you show me those same posters advocating denying you the right to have a traditional marriage, the way the anti-gay-marriage crowd wants to deny gays the rights to have same-sex marriage, and then we can talk.

To some, there is no difference, as any attempt to change something fundamentally becomes an attack upon it.

Hmmmmmm, true.

Question: Do you agree with me that gays should be allowed to marry?

I agree that 'society' determines what is marriage and what is not marriage. IF it's polygamy in Saudi Arabia or Mormons a hundred years ago, or traditional arranged marriages in Asia or historical Europe, or if it's romantic love and family in America, or one on one any gender will do Scandinavian style, today.

The society will determine what marriage is, marriage seems to be pretty fluid, but it's always about responsibilities and property rights regardless of it’s form.

No, I didn't miss them. Those are called negative opinions. Remember, I mentioned such things in my post.

Now you show me those same posters advocating denying you the right to have a traditional marriage, the way the anti-gay-marriage crowd wants to deny gays the rights to have same-sex marriage, and then we can talk.

Denying someone a right =/= only way of attacking that right.

I agree that 'society' determines what is marriage and what is not marriage. IF it's polygamy in Saudi Arabia or Mormons a hundred years ago, or traditional arranged marriages in Asia or historical Europe, or if it's romantic love and family in America, or one on one any gender will do Scandinavian style, today.

The society will determine what marriage is, marriage seems to be pretty fluid, but it's always about responsibilities and property rights regardless of it’s form.
So then, if society gets to decide, and if society decides to change it by expanding it to include more kinds of households, then how can you legitimately claim that social advocates for such change are "attacking" traditional marriage? If marriage is whatever society says it is, then marriage is always up for review and change, and no criticism or proposed change -- even to the extent of abolition, if anyone wanted to go that far -- would be an "attack," since all is fair game.

I agree that 'society' determines what is marriage and what is not marriage. IF it's polygamy in Saudi Arabia or Mormons a hundred years ago, or traditional arranged marriages in Asia or historical Europe, or if it's romantic love and family in America, or one on one any gender will do Scandinavian style, today.

The society will determine what marriage is, marriage seems to be pretty fluid, but it's always about responsibilities and property rights regardless of it’s form.
Where in this post do you answer the question?
Denying someone a right =/= only way of attacking that right.

Demonstrate that your right to marry someone of the opposite sex is being attacked by poeple striving for the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Denying someone a right =/= only way of attacking that right.

actually...yes, it is. I may attack how you use that right. I may disagree with the way you enjoy that right. I may find issue with what you do with that right.

But that's not attacking the right. The only way to really attack a right is to try and deny that right. A right is a yes/no situation, it's not an amorphous concept. To attack it one must seek to deny it. To do anything else is not an attack on that right. It may be an attack on the person for the way he uses that right, but it's not an attack on the right itself.

So then, if society gets to decide, and if society decides to change it by expanding it to include more kinds of households, then how can you legitimately claim that social advocates for such change are "attacking" traditional marriage? If marriage is whatever society says it is, then marriage is always up for review and change, and no criticism or proposed change -- even to the extent of abolition, if anyone wanted to go that far -- would be an "attack," since all is fair game.

Of course it's fair game. Attacking something one thinks is wrong is fine. Admitting publicly that one is attacking it was what I showed surprise at, because it’s usually denied that attacking traditional marriage is a goal.

gay much? :D



. . i'm sorry, i couldn't help myself!

First post on your silly, strident forums, eff me!

Heh you know you wouldn't believe the problems I have convincing people that a straight man can enjoy musicals!

First post ohh welcome.

Denying someone a right =/= only way of attacking that right.
This is Bullshit of Types: False Comparison & Fuzzy Language. First, you are conflating two different ideas of "attack" -- verbal and legal/political; they are not equivalent. Second, you are taking those two dissimilar terms and acting as if they have the same effect in reality; they do not.

Verbal "attacks" are a device of debating. They have no affect on the way people live their lives.

The fight over gay marriage rights is not verbal. It is legal and political. It DOES affect the way people -- gay people -- live their lives.

The verbal attacks of negative opinions expressed in a debate forum cannot be considered attacks against an institution such as marriage, because they can have no impact on that institution.

Legal and political attacks against gay marriage rights do have a negative affect on gay marriage, however, because they seek to deny gays the rights to marry. Likewise, legal and political attacks against hetero marriage would have a negative affect on hetero marriage because they would be seeking to deny heteros the right to marry.

So the mere fact that no one here has argued in favor of denying heteros the right to marry is proof that no one is attacking the institution of "traditional" marriage. No one is doing anything that could possibly harm it, and no one is encouraging anyone to do anything that could possibly harm it. They are just saying they don't like it, and some are saying that in rather strong terms, but their opinion should mean nothing to you, as it can have no effect upon you.

Of course it's fair game. Attacking something one thinks is wrong is fine. Admitting publicly that one is attacking it was what I showed surprise at, because it’s usually denied that attacking traditional marriage is a goal.

Surely you can't be arguing that attempting to expand a right is attacking it.

Of course it's fair game. Attacking something one thinks is wrong is fine. Admitting publicly that one is attacking it was what I showed surprise at, because it’s usually denied that attacking traditional marriage is a goal.

Poking fun at X for the lulz =/= attacking X

actually...yes, it is. I may attack how you use that right. I may disagree with the way you enjoy that right. I may find issue with what you do with that right.

But that's not attacking the right. The only way to really attack a right is to try and deny that right. A right is a yes/no situation, it's not an amorphous concept. To attack it one must seek to deny it. To do anything else is not an attack on that right. It may be an attack on the person for the way he uses that right, but it's not an attack on the right itself.
And this is where another important distinction comes in:

I absolutely do attack traditional marriage, as a concept, because traditional marriage (in my culture) includes the belief that female human beings are not full human persons, and do not deserve the same fundamental respect and dignity as male persons. Traditional marriage includes a belief in gendered hierarchy which is pure and unadulterated bunk. I absolutely attack bunk, in all its many forms.

But to say that I attack traditional marriage as a concept does not mean the same thing as to say I attack the RIGHT to traditional marriage. I don't want to make it legally impossible for somebody to enter a traditional marriage if that is what they choose. I don't want to infringe on somebody's RIGHT to have a traditional marriage. What I attack is the concept, the idea, the same way I attack ideas like racism or homophobia or flat-Earth theory. But I DO NOT attack the RIGHT to hold these ideas.

Where in this post do you answer the question?


Demonstrate that your right to marry someone of the opposite sex is being attacked by poeple striving for the right to marry someone of the same sex.

I can attack the choice people make when they drive SUV's. I can attack the choice, show how it's stupid, show that the people that do it must be idiots, but I can equally do that without ever once trying to outlaw or change SUVs. Additionally, I can also attack SUV AND try to outlaw them. Both ways are attacks.

Traditional Marriage can be attacked without trying to outlaw it, it is still attacked, of course.

In the same way that a person can defend or endorse traditional marriage as an institution WITHOUT attacking or denying the right to same-sex marriage and polygamy choices. Trying to ban a choice is not the only way of attacking it.

Of course it's fair game. Attacking something one thinks is wrong is fine. Admitting publicly that one is attacking it was what I showed surprise at, because it’s usually denied that attacking traditional marriage is a goal.
Ok, now that you've backed away somewhat gracelessly from your attempt to launch an issue victimhood argument, you may take a tea break.

Poking fun at X for the lulz =/= attacking X

Poking fun at X (which you like, like a friend or oneself) =/= attacking X. I agree.

Poking fun at X (which you despise and have publicly stated you despise) = attacking X.

I can attack the choice people make when they drive SUV's. I can attack the choice, show how it's stupid, show that the people that do it must be idiots, but I can equally do that without ever once trying to outlaw or change SUVs. Additionally, I can also attack SUV AND try to outlaw them. Both ways are attacks.

Traditional Marriage can be attacked without trying to outlaw it, it is still attacked, of course.
Still carrying that strawman like some kind of security blanket?

In the same way that a person can defend or endorse traditional marriage as an institution WITHOUT attacking or denying the right to same-sex marriage and polygamy choices. Trying to ban a choice is not the only way of attacking it.
Only it's a false argument. Traditional marraige does not need to be defended or endorsed because it is not under attack. No change to the law regarding gay marriage will ever have any effect of any kind on traditional marriage. Period. So stepping up to "defend" traditional marriage has only one effect -- to create a contrast between traditional marriage and gay marriage that makes gay marriage look like a negative.

If those who prefer traditional marriage were really being honest that their only concern is the form of traditional marriage, they would be mostly silent on the issue of gay marriage because it does not affect them.

Instead, what happens is people who oppose gay marriage rights step up and claim that traditional marriage must be defended and that's why gays should not be allowed to marry. Now explain to me how that is not using traditional marriage to attack gay marriage?

Ok, now that you've backed away somewhat gracelessly from your attempt to launch an issue victimhood argument, you may take a tea break.

I never made a victimhood argument. Look and see if I did.

Bottle attacked what I said as IF I made a victimhood argument. I ignored those attacks because they had no merit. I only pointed out that the attacks had been made.

Poking fun at X (which you like, like a friend or oneself) =/= attacking X. I agree.

Poking fun at X (which you despise and have publicly stated you despise) = attacking X.
No, it doesn't for the reasons I stated in my earlier post to you.

I never made a victimhood argument. Look and see if I did.

Bottle attacked what I said as IF I made a victimhood argument. I ignored those attacks because they had no merit. I only pointed out that the attacks had been made.
Really? Claiming that people are attacking traditional marriage in any way comparable to the legal/political attacks against gay marraige is not an attempt to cast traditional marriage as a victim? Well, you can say that if you like. I assess your argument differently, but leave it to others to decide for themselves.

How schizophrenic. And no, I will not shut up. Your ilk will never be able to shut us up ever again. We will be in your bigoted little face until you die. And our cause will outlive you.

How unfortunate.

...
Instead, what happens is people who oppose gay marriage rights step up and claim that traditional marriage must be defended and that's why gays should not be allowed to marry. Now explain to me how that is not using traditional marriage to attack gay marriage?

Actually, I don't think I need to defend an argument that is not mine. I think Bottle's post about how to attack something without trying to outlaw or ban it is more than sufficient, it’s eloquent and worthy of being quoted.

I absolutely do attack traditional marriage, as a concept…

But to say that I attack traditional marriage as a concept does not mean the same thing as to say I attack the RIGHT to traditional marriage. I don't want to make it legally impossible for somebody to enter a traditional marriage if that is what they choose. I don't want to infringe on somebody's RIGHT to have a traditional marriage. What I attack is the concept, the idea, the same way I attack ideas like racism or homophobia or flat-Earth theory. But I DO NOT attack the RIGHT to hold these ideas.

Something can be attacked without trying to ban it.

I can attack the choice people make when they drive SUV's. I can attack the choice, show how it's stupid, show that the people that do it must be idiots, but I can equally do that without ever once trying to outlaw or change SUVs. Additionally, I can also attack SUV AND try to outlaw them. Both ways are attacks.

Actually by your own words, the first example is not an attack on the right to drive SUVs, the first example is an attack on the choice people make to drive SUVs. By your own admission. One is attacking the right to own it, the other is attacking the choices owners make iwth that right.

Very different things.

You seem to have missed those arguments… their arguments seems to be that the traditional marriage institution is sooo bad that it deserves to be attacked regardless if it is expanded or not.
You’ll find, if you read my post, I said nothing of the sort.

I mas merely asking why questioning and arguing against traditional institutions and practices was a necessarily bad thing, or to put it another way, why are traditional institutions and practices a necessarily good thing?

So, not only have you mischaracterised my position (intentionally or not), you have failed, up to this post, to answer my question.

Actually, I don't think I need to defend an argument that is not mine. I think Bottle's post about how to attack something without trying to outlaw or ban it is more than sufficient, it’s eloquent and worthy of being quoted.

I absolutely do attack traditional marriage, as a concept…

But to say that I attack traditional marriage as a concept does not mean the same thing as to say I attack the RIGHT to traditional marriage. I don't want to make it legally impossible for somebody to enter a traditional marriage if that is what they choose. I don't want to infringe on somebody's RIGHT to have a traditional marriage. What I attack is the concept, the idea, the same way I attack ideas like racism or homophobia or flat-Earth theory. But I DO NOT attack the RIGHT to hold these ideas.

Something can be attacked without trying to ban it.
No shit. Then why did you even bother to complain at all that people here were attacking traditional marriage? You just enjoy wasting time?

No shit. Then why did you even bother to complain at all that people here were attacking traditional marriage? You just enjoy wasting time?
Well, it works doesn't it?

I mean, we go and spend a couple pages having to clarify and address this kind of bunk. Sure, it's a petty little annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but when you add up all the times that anti-rights people use this tactic you can start to appreciate how effective it is at delaying and handicapping efforts to ensure full legal equality for all.

Well, it works doesn't it?

I mean, we go and spend a couple pages having to clarify and address this kind of bunk. Sure, it's a petty little annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but when you add up all the times that anti-rights people use this tactic you can start to appreciate how effective it is at delaying and handicapping efforts to ensure full legal equality for all.
Absolutely. A low and despicable tactic.

No shit.
Well at least now you admit that something can be attacked and/or defended without it automatically being assumed that they want to ban it. Good, that's improvement over your previous stance.


Then why did you even bother to complain at all that people here were attacking traditional marriage? You just enjoy wasting time?
I didn't complain, I pointed out that it's refreshing to see people admit they are attacking it openly because USUALLY the argument people make is the one that you mistakenly used, where they pretend that the concept of traditional marriage is NOT being attacked, when it is.

And it's nice that it's in the open and we could continue the debate from that point forward. If you think it’s a waste of time to debate the issue instead of just having everyone pat each other on the back in agreement than I misunderstood the point of the forum and a thread within it.

Well, it works doesn't it?

I mean, we go and spend a couple pages having to clarify and address this kind of bunk. Sure, it's a petty little annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but when you add up all the times that anti-rights people use this tactic you can start to appreciate how effective it is at delaying and handicapping efforts to ensure full legal equality for all.

Clarify to whom? When did I say that something had to be banned to be attacked? I've said the opposite right along with you. Now you pretend that it was I who was wasting time and needing clarification?

Typical :rolleyes:

Actually by your own words, the first example is not an attack on the right to drive SUVs, the first example is an attack on the choice people make to drive SUVs. By your own admission. One is attacking the right to own it, the other is attacking the choices owners make iwth that right.

Very different things.

The objective is, less SUV's. The goal is achieved by making less people choose SUV's. The attack was on SUV's.

I didn’t complain, I pointed out that it’s refreshing to see people admit they are attacking it openly because USUALLY the argument people make is the one that you mistakenly used, where they pretend that the concept of traditional marriage is NOT being attacked, when it is.
Problem is, when anti-gay marriage advocates talk about the ‘attack’ on marriage, their hyperbole does suggest that their opponents are trying to ban marriage.

Or make it all sticky or something.

Well at least now you admit that something can be attacked and/or defended without it automatically being assumed that they want to ban it. Good, that's improvement over your previous stance.
Silly child. I was saying that from the beginning. It WAS my previous stance, and it continues to be my stance. In fact, you probably heard it first from me.

I didn't complain, I pointed out that it's refreshing to see people admit they are attacking it openly because USUALLY the argument people make is the one that you mistakenly used, where they pretend that the concept of traditional marriage is NOT being attacked, when it is.

And it's nice that it's in the open and we could continue the debate from that point forward. If you think it’s a waste of time to debate the issue instead of just having everyone pat each other on the back in agreement than I misunderstood the point of the forum and a thread within it.
Typical Balderdash balderdash. I'm not going to keep wasting this thread's time explaining you to you. Your posts are in the thread for all to read. Let anyone who cares go judge for themselves whether you were complaining about attacks on traditional marriage or not. I say you were, and that you were being intellectually dishonest about it, and that you backpedaled from it, and that you are now trying to claim that your backpedal was your original position. And I stand by those assessments. I have nothing further to add to the subject of you.

Oh, by the way, traditional marriage is not under attack. Period.

Clarify to whom? When did I say that something had to be banned to be attacked? I've said the opposite right along with you. Now you pretend that it was I who was wasting time and needing clarification?

Typical :rolleyes:
Sucks to be called out, I know, but what do you expect? There's a lot of us around this forum who have been here so long that we've seen these tactics over and over and over and over again.

Nono, I don't propose a name change; I was saying that those telling gay people to just settle for a civil union should quiet down - because that's segregation. Unwarranted segregation, even.
It should remain as it is: Civil marriage. Two people who were married will still be 'married', not 'united' or 'joined'. This is something that should be available for EVERYONE, as it is a constitutional right.
But I did say everyone should be required to get a civil union, didn't I? My mistake - I wasn't sure if "civil marriage" would have been the appropriate term given the context (I'm still not - is it?). In essence what I mean is that the state should be required to bestow the legal status of marriage, rather than allowing a religious figure to bestow it.

Ah, I misunderstood you. I do think that "civil marriage" is an appropriate term. By the law, it would just be "marriage", but we need a way when discussing marriage as a whole to delineate the legal construct from the multitude of religious ones.

I have nothing to say against that. Convenient things are, well, convenient, after all. But...so far I've not encountered a more viable (and more importantly, fair) solution to this problem, and I've debated it with various people. It's my proposal, and it might be a slight inconvenience, but I'm more than happy to give up a little convenience in favour of *real* equality.

Well, I certainly wouldn't scream that it was ruining marriage or anything like that. I just don't tend to like solutions that cause more problems (however small) for the rest of us because a few people can't understand basic distinctions.

=(

Sucks to be called out, I know, but what do you expect? There's a lot of us around this forum who have been here so long that we've seen these tactics over and over and over and over again.

Called out on what?

Called out on what?Sorry, dude. But I have to agree your stance seemed inconsistent. Perhaps what you said wasn't what you meant. But the whole "clarifying" thing, while perhaps necessary, is really boring.

Sorry, dude. But I have to agree your stance seemed inconsistent.

I suspect it is because people are 'assuming' that I'm going to say something I have not, or they are assigning to me postions that other people have had. Reading between the lines can lead down the wrong road from time to time.


Perhaps what you said wasn't what you meant. But the whole "clarifying" thing, while perhaps necessary, is really boring.

I totally agree. It's extremely boring and off topic. But people like Muravyets keep saying that I've made arguments that I haven't made, or that I'm trying to ban something I haven't tried to ban, by defending something else.

Now it seems to be a bandwagon thing, instead of defending the proposition or position anymore, it's a, lets just just attack Balderdash. It's sad really.

Surely you can't be arguing that attempting to expand a right is attacking it.

Sadly, many people do think this, and it's hardly a new phenomenon.

...
Oh, by the way, traditional marriage is not under attack. Period.

Fine, call Bottle a liar to her face. :headbang:

I suspect it is because people are 'assuming' that I'm going to say something I have not, or they are assigning to me postions that other people have had. Reading between the lines can lead down the wrong road from time to time.



I totally agree. It's extremely boring and off topic. But people like Muravyets keep saying that I've made arguments that I haven't made, or that I'm trying to ban something I haven't tried to ban, by defending something else.

Now it seems to be a bandwagon thing, instead of defending the proposition or position anymore, it's a, lets just just attack Balderdash. It's sad really.
Defending what proposition or position? The topic is gay rights, but we don't need to defend our positions in response to you, because you have not attacked our positions on gay rights. Instead, you invented a set of attacks and tried to accuse others of making them. We do not feel the need to defend our positions, but we are defending ourselves. And of course, the best defense is a good offense, so we defend ourselves by tearing your arguments down.

If anyone took this off topic, it was you. If you have anything to say about gay rights, or any response to any of our statements about gay rights, please post it, and we will respond to that instead of to you. Really, we would much prefer it.

Surely you can't be arguing that attempting to expand a right is attacking it.

I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until someone else quoted it...

But yes, I think you can attack something by attempting to dilute it. You can attack, for example, the harm a poison is doing by diluting it in a very great amount of water. If you think the concept of traditional marriage centered around raising children is doing harm you could attack it by diluting the meaning of marriage and family. You could attempt to end the concept of marriage as a one man one woman institution and thus reduce the number of people in the next generation that think the marriage institution has anything to do with raising children.

Fine, call Bottle a liar to her face. :headbang:
Bottle is not a dissembling, disingenuous word-twister like you. I am confident that Bottle can keep track of this thread and does not need to be reminded that I already posted a detailed explanation of the difference between the concepts of verbal attacks and legal/political attacks. I am confident that she does need to be reminded of that because she herself posted the same explanation in one of her own posts to you. You can continue to try to conflate the two ideas all you like. You fail because other people have good reading comprehension. No one is being taken in by your little performance. Now discuss the topic of gay rights, or stop wasting our time making this thread be all about you, thank you.

Bottle is not a dissembling, disingenuous word-twister like you. I am confident that Bottle can keep track of this thread and does not need to be reminded that I already posted a detailed explanation of the difference between the concepts of verbal attacks and legal/political attacks. I am confident that she does need to be reminded of that because she herself posted the same explanation in one of her own posts to you. You can continue to try to conflate the two ideas all you like. You fail because other people have good reading comprehension. No one is being taken in by your little performance. Now discuss the topic of gay rights, or stop wasting our time making this thread be all about you, thank you.

Perhaps you should just put me on ignore, you seem to ignore what I say and assign your own words for me anyway, why bother reading what I actually write at all.

Perhaps you should just put me on ignore, you seem to ignore what I say and assign your own words for me anyway, why bother reading what I actually write at all.
A) I did not assign arguments to you. I responded directly to what you posted, and only to that.

B) Putting people on ignore is a cheap cheat. However, I will be only too happy to stop responding to you as long as you continue to be off topic. You may consider yourself ignored until you decide to be relevant. I will thank you to return the courtesy and stop naming me as your excuse for making your ridiculous arguments.

I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until someone else quoted it...

But yes, I think you can attack something by attempting to dilute it. You can attack, for example, the harm a poison is doing by diluting it in a very great amount of water. If you think the concept of traditional marriage centered around raising children is doing harm you could attack it by diluting the meaning of marriage and family. You could attempt to end the concept of marriage as a one man one woman institution and thus reduce the number of people in the next generation that think the marriage institution has anything to do with raising children.

I take back what I said earlier.

THIS is the worst argument I have ever seen.

Hi everyone, I'm pages 44 through 49 of this thread.

Please stop raping the dictionary and either talk about something relevant or stop posting. You're making me look like a frat party.

Thank you.

- The Thread

I take back what I said earlier.

THIS is the worst argument I have ever seen.

Heheh 3 or 4 pages on the meaning of the word marriage? really? The anti gay brigade are on to a loser here, people who love each can, if they wish, get married.

That is what marriage is about, that's it folx, thread over, move along, nothing to see here, move along please.

But yes, I think you can attack something by attempting to dilute it. You can attack, for example, the harm a poison is doing by diluting it in a very great amount of water. If you think the concept of traditional marriage centered around raising children is doing harm you could attack it by diluting the meaning of marriage and family. You could attempt to end the concept of marriage as a one man one woman institution and thus reduce the number of people in the next generation that think the marriage institution has anything to do with raising children.

Hi ho moron! AWAY!

Basically, it comes down to this: Gay people have the right to marry, and there is no constitutional basis for denying them same-sex marriages. There is no reason for, in any part of the US, a legal ruling denying a same-sex couple the status of marriage so long as they are both consenting adults.

Arguments against this that I have seen all amount to homophobic drivel. I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage grounded in law, or even logic. I challenge anyone and everyone to prove me wrong on this simple fact: There is no basis to deny same-sex couples their right to marry.

Are we still talking about what we shouldn't talk about?

Basically, it comes down to this: Gay people have the right to marry, and there is no constitutional basis for denying them same-sex marriages. There is no reason for, in any part of the US, a legal ruling denying a same-sex couple the status of marriage so long as they are both consenting adults.

Arguments against this that I have seen all amount to homophobic drivel. I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage grounded in law, or even logic. I challenge anyone and everyone to prove me wrong on this simple fact: There is no basis to deny same-sex couples their right to marry.

Constitutional basis? Well, aren't there twenty something states with constitutional amendments that either ban same sex marriages or ban same-sex unions? That seems like a 'constitutional' basis to deny same-sex marriage rights, in those states anyway.

As to federal governments reasons, we’ll have to wait and see what the court says, or maybe they will pas a federal amendment to clarify it one way or the other. Currently they have the Defense of Marriage Act that says States don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages, but I don’t think it’s been challenged in the SCOTUS yet, so we’ll have to wait and see.

Its going to be fun to see if the courts think that the FFCC applies to same-sex marriages the same way it applies to different-sex marriage. if it does the DoMA is unconstitutional.

Constitutional basis? Well, aren't there twenty something states with constitutional amendments that either ban same sex marriages or ban same-sex unions? That seems like a 'constitutional' basis to deny same-sex marriage rights, in those states anyway.


However, a state constitutional amendment can not pre-empt the federal constitutional amendment. As for DOMA, as you point out, it has never been challenged, and there are numerous constitutional scholars and lawyers, including myself, that argue that it is, in fact, an unconstitutional law.

Basically, it comes down to this: Gay people have the right to marry, and there is no constitutional basis for denying them same-sex marriages. There is no reason for, in any part of the US, a legal ruling denying a same-sex couple the status of marriage so long as they are both consenting adults.

Arguments against this that I have seen all amount to homophobic drivel. I have yet to see an argument against gay marriage grounded in law, or even logic. I challenge anyone and everyone to prove me wrong on this simple fact: There is no basis to deny same-sex couples their right to marry.


See, here is the problem... Someone like myself presents a perfectly valid and legitimate argument, and liberals come out of the woodwork to proclaim me a bigot and homophobe for my views. Here in this forum, the mods see this and chuckle as the liberals slap themselves on the back for putting the 'redneck' in his place, and if I say anything remotely similar in nature, I am banned from the forum for breaking the rules. So, we get a very biased and slanted presentation of ideas. Being you are a liberal who hangs out here a lot, you have become used to this, and think that your opinions are the most popular and the only ones with relevance. The nasty cycle perpetuates itself, as you bask in the glory of putting down another 'religious nut' or whatever, and never even stop to realize how closed-minded you have been.

The Constitutional basis for not allowing same sex marriage would be, no such thing exists. It's like allowing Apple Juice made from Oranges, it doesn't exist, so you can't allow what doesn't exist, it defies logic. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, meaning, it is a religious ceremony ordained by the church and sanctioned by the state in form of a marriage licence. Marriage is not a right, no one is "entitled" to get married, gay or straight, and they certainly aren't entitled to alter the meaning of the word to fit their needs.

The current Gay Marriage issue is the result of Socialist thinking, which seeks to tear down any and all religiously-based morality within the society. Godless Socialism is so much easier to achieve without God getting in the way. You and your liberal friends have unfortunately been brainwashed into thinking this is about Civil Rights or Human Rights, and it is not. I have proven this. Civil Union legislation would remove any and all barriers to homosexual couples, and give them every single right of straight couples. As we can see by the responses, this is not acceptable... WHY? A lot of banter is thrown out here, but the bottom line is, it doesn't destroy the religiously-based morality present in current law. THAT is the goal and objective, it has nothing to do with "rights" either human or civil.

The same thing can be seen in movements to remove "God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and school prayer. It is all part of a greater Socialist plan, and it's working brilliantly because touchy-feely liberal morons are too stupid to realize it, and have become useful idiots for the Socialists. It is now in vogue to bash Christians. I have been bashed in this very thread for my views, even though I have repeated several times, I am not a Christian and do not belong to any organized religion. I do, however, hold the Constitution of the US in great regard, and believe it should always protect the freedom of religion. Gay Marriage is a most direct persecution of religious views, and violates the Constitution in that regard.

If you want to propose we ban the state licence requirements for Marriage, I would tend to agree with this, as Marriage is a religious ritual and the state has no business involving itself with it. If you want to classify Marriage as Civil Unions, and allow gay and straight people to obtain a licence for "Civil Union" instead of Marriage licences, I have no problem with that. It is the subversion of the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony, being torn down by Socialists, that I am opposed to. Now... some pinhead will undoubtedly turn my words into 'homophobic bigotry' and proclaim me wrong, but I think my view is about as damn moderate as it gets. If I were a homophobic bigot, I would simply say that Gay Marriage shouldn't be legalized because we shouldn't legislate sexually deviant behavior. Have I made that statement or presented that argument? No, I have been more than cordial in allowing something to guarantee gay people have the same rights as straight people, so we can all get along and still respect religious freedom. Of course, this is not good enough for the "non-bigoted" people out there.

Gays may creep me out, but civil unions? thats in the same league as rascism, plain and simple. seriously, everybody against gay marriges is just against it cause they are different, and nothing else. I mean, gays don't throw that kind of crap out at us and say we can't get married.

It is the subversion of the religiously-based tradition of holy matrimony...
So you'd have a problem with non-religious marriage?

:fluffle:Civil Unions are not even a option, i think theres a constituional amendment that says you can't do that, plus gays just want equal rights, mariiage means nothing anymore a lot of straight people married hate each other, plus with all the divorces marriages faces means mariage has become almost meaningless. PLUS gay supporters are not gay so were do they fit in pretty colors vs. death to gays :fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

So you'd have a problem with non-religious marriage?


From my perspective, Marriage is a union between a man and woman, where they make vows to God, so I don't understand what "non-religious" marriage is. Maybe it's like a Civil Union? Huh?

From my perspective, Marriage is a union between a man and woman, where they make vows to God, so I don't understand what "non-religious" marriage is. Maybe it's like a Civil Union? Huh?
nope. it is a marriage that just doesn't mention god. most often held in courthouses rather than churches.


still marriage even though your invisible friend isnt invited.

The Constitutional basis for not allowing same sex marriage would be, no such thing exists. It's like allowing Apple Juice made from Oranges, it doesn't exist, so you can't allow what doesn't exist, it defies logic. Marriage is the union of a man and woman in holy matrimony, meaning, it is a religious ceremony ordained by the church and sanctioned by the state in form of a marriage licence. Marriage is not a right, no one is "entitled" to get married, gay or straight, and they certainly aren't entitled to alter the meaning of the word to fit their needs.


If you want to argue what the constitution basis for something is, you should take effort to learn constitutional law. I suggest starting with Loving v. Virginia which, as mentioned, makes it quite clear that marriage is a right, no matter how many times you try to plug your ears and say it isn't.

The idea that marriage is a right has been a settled issue of constitutional jurisprudence for 40 years now

Civil Union legislation would remove any and all barriers to homosexual couples, and give them every single right of straight couples. As we can see by the responses, this is not acceptable... WHY?

Because "seperate but equal" is an afront to personal dignity and basic human decency.

I do, however, hold the Constitution of the US in great regard, and believe it should always protect the freedom of religion.

No, you don't. If you actually cared what the constitution really said you'd take efforts to learn what it says, not what you think it says. You have had two bar certified, practicing attorneys that have told you, straight out, that your interpretation of the law is incorrect.

Not that we disagree with your opinion, ont that we argue with your position, not that we have a conflict of beliefs, but that your legal arguments are simply, factually incorrect. That you are just straight out wrong. We cited case law to support that

You ignored that

We have even demonstrated that through real world positions by pointing out that there have been no civil suits brought against churchs in Massachusetts, a state that has had legal gay marriage for four years.

You ignored that too.

You don't care what the actual constitution says. Someone who actually cared about what the constitution said would take efforts to educate himself about it. But you haven't, so you don't care about what the actual constitution says.

You care about what you think it says, your highly erronious belief in what you think it says.


If you want to classify Marriage as Civil Unions, and allow gay and straight people to obtain a licence for "Civil Union" instead of Marriage licences, I have no problem with that.

Many people would prefer just that, myself included. However you are in favor of allowing straight people to have a 100% non religious ceremony and still call it marriage, but not afford the same rights to homosexual partners. Which means you support the premise of seperate but equal. Which does make you a bigot. No matter how you try to support it, or argue it, or fight against it, you support seperate but equal.

There's really nothing further that needs to be said about that.


some pinhead will undoubtedly turn my words into 'homophobic bigotry' and proclaim me wrong

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

, but I think my view is about as damn moderate as it gets.

Most bigots think their position as perfectly reasonable. However supporting seperate but equal is that and nothing more.