NationStates Jolt Archive

you don't put mayo on your sandwiches???!!!!

@%$@#%@ heathen! Think of the children!!!Ban mayonnaise-less sandwiches! For the children's sake!

(Ok, was it just me, or did that sound INCREDIBLY STUPID? :))

Those Querosexuals will ruin the sanctity of marriage (spits). If we allow those Querosexuals to marry God will strike us all down (thumps bible). I for one will not allow those Querosexuals to devour my children for dinner (rubs gun).
I LOVE TACOS!!!

It's one thing if gays and lesbians are going to eat our children, but for GOD'S SAKE they better slather them with mayo!!

I just did a little research on the much touted field trip to a gay wedding. As usual the morality police are blowing something waaaay out of proportion. The 18 students from a charter school were accompanied by their parents on the 90 minute lunch time excursion to see their own teacher get married.

Kind of takes the air out of the whole force feeding a gay agenda on kids arguement.

Facts, schmacts.

"This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose."

It's one thing if gays and lesbians are going to eat our children, but for GOD'S SAKE they better slather them with mayo!!


NO If they are going to eat babies they should put gravy on them. So at least they taste good man i love gravy.

YEEEEEeeeee HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAWWWWW

Speaking of bathrooms, the dorms at my college had both sexes use the same bathrooms/showers. Wasn't a problem.

Yup, most of my college's dorms had unisex bathrooms as well. As do, y'know, most private homes. Somehow society has not yet collapsed. ;)

Tbh Gay marriage is kind of silly. Marriage's purpose is to produce children. In fact in many marriages an enulment can be obtained if no children are produced in seven years. So when two men, or two women marry each other they cannot produce children with each other. [Donor sperm/surrogate mothers do not in my mind count.]

The actual bible was indeed clear. It was not homophobic or hating of gays. "Those men and women who do not wish to have children, should serve society in other ways." ie as priests. Fact of the matter is, gay marriage is a bit of a farce. Marriage is for, specifically for raising children. That being said, the fact that gay people arent allowed to enter in to civic unions or hold commitment ceremonies that are binding and give some of the priviledges of marriages is disgusting. In canada, gay or straight after twelve months living together, one can apply for common law status [or have it forced on them] and gain all the benefits of marriage. The truth is the church and bible opposes gay marriage no matter what it is. Trying to force it on churches or people who are religious is as bad as homophobia. Expecting church weddings is ludicrous, but there is nothing wrong with gay people having commitment ceremonies..husband and husband and wife and wife however..should not apply.

I myself am getting married, and intend to have children in the next few years, I am straight and I understand what marriage is for. If i did not intend to have children with my fiance, i would not be getting married. As marriage would then, not be for me. Instead i would opt for a commitment ceremony, or common law. However in the USA people dont have that choice, and by all rights they should have a choice to be considered a real, loving couple under the law.

The actual bible was indeed clear. It was not homophobic or hating of gays. "Those men and women who do not wish to have children, should serve society in other ways." ie as priests.

Um. I'll get back to you on the rest of your post but what are you quoting?

A bible "translation" by a theologist who basically showed the bible as a free thinking left wing document if read properly, and espoused that jesus was indeed not the son of god. Lots of those things around, and i prefer looking through those to the real thing as many of the bibles are so screwed up by legions of fanatics over two thousand years..they no longer make sense or are relevent to the teachings of jesus.

This was just my two cents, a rational centrist viewpoint on gay marriage. Personally I dont care either way what people do or want to do, but if you want to be fair, you have to say things people dont like. I agree with gay civil unions and commitment ceremonies, but not marriage, in the same way i dont agree with straights who dont intend to have children to marry. It takes away from the meaning of marriage itself, whereas commitment ceremonies and common law take nothing away from loving couples of either sexual persuasion, who dont intend to have children.

A bible "translation" by a theologist who basically showed the bible as a free thinking left wing document if read properly, and espoused that jesus was indeed not the son of god. Lots of those things around, and i prefer looking through those to the real thing as many of the bibles are so screwed up by legions of fanatics over two thousand years..they no longer make sense or are relevent to the teachings of jesus.

Okey, dokey. Of what passage would that be the "correct" translation?

The actual bible was indeed clear.

You lost me.

Tbh Gay marriage is kind of silly. Marriage's purpose is to produce children. In fact in many marriages an enulment can be obtained if no children are produced in seven years. So when two men, or two women marry each other they cannot produce children with each other. [Donor sperm/surrogate mothers do not in my mind count.]

The actual bible was indeed clear. It was not homophobic or hating of gays. "Those men and women who do not wish to have children, should serve society in other ways." ie as priests. Fact of the matter is, gay marriage is a bit of a farce. Marriage is for, specifically for raising children. That being said, the fact that gay people arent allowed to enter in to civic unions or hold commitment ceremonies that are binding and give some of the priviledges of marriages is disgusting. In canada, gay or straight after twelve months living together, one can apply for common law status [or have it forced on them] and gain all the benefits of marriage. The truth is the church and bible opposes gay marriage no matter what it is. Trying to force it on churches or people who are religious is as bad as homophobia. Expecting church weddings is ludicrous, but there is nothing wrong with gay people having commitment ceremonies..husband and husband and wife and wife however..should not apply.

I myself am getting married, and intend to have children in the next few years, I am straight and I understand what marriage is for. If i did not intend to have children with my fiance, i would not be getting married. As marriage would then, not be for me. Instead i would opt for a commitment ceremony, or common law. However in the USA people dont have that choice, and by all rights they should have a choice to be considered a real, loving couple under the law.
so no woman over 50 should be allowed to marry either?

you should have to take a fertility test of some kind to make your marriage legitimate?

those who dont provide the world with children are miserable failures who dont deserve society's blessings in the form of marriage?

Never said they dont deserve societies blessing, its really easy to miss the point on common law and commitment ceremonies when one gloms on to the "OH NOEZ HE NO LIKE GAY MARRIAGE HE MUST BE BIBLE THUMPER" I am actually quite irreligious, in fact an agnostic if not an atheist. I am simply stating the truth of it. Marriage is one thing, a commitment ceremony and a pledge of love accepted by the law is an entirely different matter.

I live in canada, where gays or straights are considered common law [IDENTICAL to marriage] after living together a year, so i dont see the need for a church wedding for harry and frank when it spits in the face of the bible. As for exact quotes...I read it years ago, it just stuck as when i read it we were going through the "gay marriage" problem in canada. It was my grandmothers book, and it went on in great detail about jesus not being the son of god, more then anything else and espoused that what jesus said should be listened to, and everything else thrown out.

...snip

Marriage is for, specifically for raising children. That being said, the fact that gay people arent allowed to enter in to civic unions or hold commitment ceremonies that are binding and give some of the priviledges of marriages is disgusting. In canada, gay or straight after twelve months living together, one can apply for common law status [or have it forced on them] and gain all the benefits of marriage. The truth is the church and bible opposes gay marriage no matter what it is. Trying to force it on churches or people who are religious is as bad as homophobia. Expecting church weddings is ludicrous, but there is nothing wrong with gay people having commitment ceremonies..husband and husband and wife and wife however..should not apply.

snip...

a) Churches aren't being forced to marry gay couples.
b) Religious people can be in favor or gay marriage or gay themselves.
c) No one is being forced to get gay married. If you're against, then don't do it...
d) Calling marriage another name for gay couples is stupid. If it affords the same rights as marriage, then it should be the same damn thing. Separate but equal is bullshit.

I am simply stating the truth of it. Marriage is one thing, a commitment ceremony and a pledge of love accepted by the law is an entirely different matter.

Why are they different? Definitions expand and contract over time. Our concepts of morality, law, and liberty have changed and progressed both due to political pressure and natural change. The concept of marriage is in Western society at least is obviously not perceived as a requirement for procreation (and to have marriage to signify you want to procreate seems like a pointless ceremony to me...), so why do we keep lying to ourselves and keep saying marriage is an exclusively religious, Bible-based concept? Like it or not, things change and the concept of marriage has as well...and in my opinion, for the better. So what harm could possibly be done in allowing gay couples to do what any other couple can do?

Tbh Gay marriage is kind of silly. Marriage's purpose is to produce children. ...blah blah merciful <snip>.Got news for ya Binky... People been havin kids since the dawn of time without (heaven's no!) being married. And in case you haven't noticed religion doesn't hold any exclusive dominion over marraige (despite what the fundies try to convince you of), in fact even a church wedding still has to be sanctified with a marraige license. Funny thing though, my city hall wedding didn't need a priest to sign off on it to be legal.

Marraige in todays world carries with it certain benifits like tax breaks, right to survivorship and health and death benifits from one's spouse. These things have nothing to do with religion or childrearing. It is wrong to exclude any segment of the population from benifits and privliges extended to another.

You repeat yourself alot, so I'm not going to respond to every line.

Tbh Gay marriage is kind of silly.

And yet very serious to same-sex couples.

Marriage's purpose is to produce children.

No. It isn't. My marriage was valid and my spouse and I never planned on having children.

In fact in many marriages an enulment can be obtained if no children are produced in seven years.

No. You cannot obtain an anulment (at least in the U.S.) on that ground.

So when two men, or two women marry each other they cannot produce children with each other. [Donor sperm/surrogate mothers do not in my mind count.]

Why don't same-sex parents count?

That being said, the fact that gay people arent allowed to enter in to civic unions or hold commitment ceremonies that are binding and give some of the priviledges of marriages is disgusting.

Um. Exactly. And separate but equal is disgusting as well. Hence, same-sex marriage.

Trying to force it on churches or people who are religious is as bad as homophobia.

Who is trying to force same-sex marriage "on churches" or people who don't want to have a same-sex marriage?

Expecting church weddings is ludicrous,

Except that many churches do perform same-sex weddings.

Regardless, the question isn't the status of same-sex marriage to churches, but rather to governments.

However in the USA people dont have that choice, and by all rights they should have a choice to be considered a real, loving couple under the law.

:headbang:

Nope, because the fact is that marriage is not the same thing as a commitment of love. Marriage is done expressly to have children. Only in the last one hundred years as a marketing ploy have we pretended its about love. In the olden days, it was all arranged, or bought so seriously, thats not a good and valid point. As for not forcing them? Actually the Anglican church in canada split over the issue as some pastors and priests tried to force gay marriage on the ENTIRE constituency, and then it split as they had no choice but to.

Its not seperate but equal, because its not equal. You cannot impregnate a man, therefore its not marriage, its common law or commitment ceremony. This ceremony IN FACT has the same name for straights. Commitment ceremonies exist for straight couples as well, same name. I am not arguing any more in this thread, I have noticed lefties and righties are the same. Both an opposite end of the spectrum. They dont read an entire post and argue only minor points that they wish to jump on to, instead of actually seeing that the original post supported gay unions.

Regardless of not supporting gay church weddings, the issue was not about marriage but about government recognition, which commitment ceremonies and common law adequately address. Cant have your cake and eat it too. Stop crying about something that is going to be so heavily opposed you will never get your way, and will cause huge rifts and continued gay bashing for all eternity. Getting "Married" is so strongly opposed, even in canada it divided the country. However not a SINGLE person complained about common law or Civic unions or commitment ceremonies.

Living in America you have to deal with one of the largest fundamentalist populations in the world. Civic unions and Common law give you every last bit of recognition as a married couple, which in fact is why more and more straight couples choose that course. You cant beat the religious nuts, change it from marriage and you may get your way.

As for being forced, you guys need to read the whole post before responding. The Anglican church tried to force it, and split in half because of it. Thats forcing in my books. There is also no seperate but equal, as I said, straights opt for the same unions as gays are allowed. Also there are NO tax breaks unless you HAVE children. If you dont you COMBINE your incomes and have to pay MORE taxes.

As for repeating myself, its necessary on NSG. See ya later, enjoy your argument as I am done.

It seems to me like you're making a trivial, useless distinction in trying to classify marriage into something that it isn't, in practice. What's the point? Who cares?

Speaking of bathrooms, the dorms at my college had both sexes use the same bathrooms/showers. Wasn't a problem.

*high-fives* Slug alumni, unite!

(Not just both sexes, but homeless people, too!)

Marriage is done expressly to have children.
Source?

I mean get real or STFU. Prove that statement with a source that can't be shredded beyond recognition.

Tbh Gay marriage is kind of silly. Marriage's purpose is to produce children.

Um, no, no, it's really not. Marriage has had a lot of purposes throughout the millennia, of which producing children is only one in a long list - and not particularly near the top of that list, either.

In fact in many marriages an enulment can be obtained if no children are produced in seven years.

Source?

So when two men, or two women marry each other they cannot produce children with each other. [Donor sperm/surrogate mothers do not in my mind count.]

....wait, the children produced via sperm donors and surrogates don't count as having been produced? And this makes logical sense to you?

The actual bible was indeed clear.

Not especially, but regardless, what does the Bible have to do with law?

The truth is the church and bible opposes gay marriage no matter what it is.

"The" church? And here I thought there was more than one religion in the world! Silly me!

Trying to force it on churches or people who are religious is as bad as homophobia.

Agreed. I am adamantly opposed to forcing people to marry members of their own gender against their will.

Expecting church weddings is ludicrous,

The gay minister of the church I attended now and then in college and his partner are really going to be surprised to hear that.

I myself am getting married, and intend to have children in the next few years, I am straight and I understand what marriage is for. If i did not intend to have children with my fiance, i would not be getting married.

Here's hoping you and your spouse turn out to be fertile, so your marriage won't be a "farce." I also rather hope your fiance(e?) is aware that you don't particularly want to commit yourself to him/her, but to the product of his/her loins.

As marriage would then, not be for me. Instead i would opt for a commitment ceremony, or common law.

Isn't it nice for you that you have those options to choose from?

However in the USA people dont have that choice, and by all rights they should have a choice to be considered a real, loving couple under the law.

Agreed! I'm glad you recognize that gay couples should be treated exactly the same under the law as straight ones.

Nope, because the fact is that marriage is not the same thing as a commitment of love. Marriage is done expressly to have children. Only in the last one hundred years as a marketing ploy have we pretended its about love. In the olden days, it was all arranged, or bought so seriously, thats not a good and valid point. As for not forcing them? Actually the Anglican church in canada split over the issue as some pastors and priests tried to force gay marriage on the ENTIRE constituency, and then it split as they had no choice but to.

Its not seperate but equal, because its not equal. You cannot impregnate a man, therefore its not marriage, its common law or commitment ceremony. This ceremony IN FACT has the same name for straights. Commitment ceremonies exist for straight couples as well, same name. I am not arguing any more in this thread, I have noticed lefties and righties are the same. Both an opposite end of the spectrum. They dont read an entire post and argue only minor points that they wish to jump on to, instead of actually seeing that the original post supported gay unions.

Regardless of not supporting gay church weddings, the issue was not about marriage but about government recognition, which commitment ceremonies and common law adequately address. Cant have your cake and eat it too. Stop crying about something that is going to be so heavily opposed you will never get your way, and will cause huge rifts and continued gay bashing for all eternity. Getting "Married" is so strongly opposed, even in canada it divided the country. However not a SINGLE person complained about common law or Civic unions or commitment ceremonies.

Living in America you have to deal with one of the largest fundamentalist populations in the world. Civic unions and Common law give you every last bit of recognition as a married couple, which in fact is why more and more straight couples choose that course. You cant beat the religious nuts, change it from marriage and you may get your way.

As for being forced, you guys need to read the whole post before responding. The Anglican church tried to force it, and split in half because of it. Thats forcing in my books. There is also no seperate but equal, as I said, straights opt for the same unions as gays are allowed.

*sigh*

You appear to not understand the law of Canada or its evolution any better than you understand U.S. law.

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

Common law marriage is only recognized by a few states in the U.S. I'd have to look more closely, but I'm pretty sure it isn't available to same-sex couples.

Regardless, I wonder whether you would have given the same advice to interracial couples a few decades ago.

EDIT: With a little research, I know that common law marriage isn't available to same-sex couples in the United States.

Tbh Gay marriage is kind of silly. Marriage's purpose is to produce children. In fact in many marriages an enulment can be obtained if no children are produced in seven years. So when two men, or two women marry each other they cannot produce children with each other. [Donor sperm/surrogate mothers do not in my mind count.]

So that means you are okay with three-or-more partner relationships as long as it includes at least one man and one woman?

Honestly, marriage was not always used to produce children. Often, it was used to create political or economic unity or to improve someone's economic position.

The actual bible was indeed clear. It was not homophobic or hating of gays. "Those men and women who do not wish to have children, should serve society in other ways." ie as priests.

Nevermind the fact that priests are historically notorious for their love of having children, sometimes by multiple partners. I remember reading about a case where a priest was defrocked for having too many children.

Fact of the matter is, gay marriage is a bit of a farce.

Oh, this had better be the Gettysburg Address of reasonings.

Marriage is for, specifically for raising children.

Hmm... Nope! Not backed by the history of it, even under Christianity.

That being said, the fact that gay people arent allowed to enter in to civic unions or hold commitment ceremonies that are binding and give some of the priviledges of marriages is disgusting. In canada, gay or straight after twelve months living together, one can apply for common law status [or have it forced on them] and gain all the benefits of marriage.

What do you consider the privilages of marriage that gay couples should have?

The truth is the church and bible opposes gay marriage no matter what it is.

Find Bible quotes to back this. The Church opposes it, but the Church opposes a lot of sensible things (like contraceptives).

Trying to force it on churches or people who are religious is as bad as homophobia. Expecting church weddings is ludicrous, but there is nothing wrong with gay people having commitment ceremonies..husband and husband and wife and wife however..should not apply.

Except that we're not forcing it on churches. It's up to the ministers to agree or not, and some ministers happen to believe that gay marriage should be allowed in churches. Some don't.

I myself am getting married, and intend to have children in the next few years, I am straight and I understand what marriage is for. If i did not intend to have children with my fiance, i would not be getting married. As marriage would then, not be for me. Instead i would opt for a commitment ceremony, or common law. However in the USA people dont have that choice, and by all rights they should have a choice to be considered a real, loving couple under the law.

You do realize that common law is not actually recognized in most states and that those "commitment ceremonies" you're talking about are actually marriage ceremonies, right? Marriage within the U.S. can be done in front of a judge as easily as a priest. My parents were actually married in front of a judge.

But, still, you're on the right track with some of what you say.

A bible "translation" by a theologist who basically showed the bible as a free thinking left wing document if read properly, and espoused that jesus was indeed not the son of god. Lots of those things around, and i prefer looking through those to the real thing as many of the bibles are so screwed up by legions of fanatics over two thousand years..they no longer make sense or are relevent to the teachings of jesus.

He was probably translating one of the Gnostic Gospels. They were the Gospels not included in the Bible due to the politics of the period (believe it or not, but the New Testament was decided by a political meeting).

The most interesting Gospel is actually the Gospel of Judas. Give it a read sometime. It paints Judas in a more interesting light.

It takes away from the meaning of marriage itself, whereas commitment ceremonies and common law take nothing away from loving couples of either sexual persuasion, who dont intend to have children.

What about couples who are gay and intend to have children?

As for marriage: Study the actual history of it. You'll find a lot of the religious stuff around it was just people using religion as an excuse to play politics. Which is nothing new.

Thought I was done but to reiterate the point. If my fiance and i had agreed not to have children, and werent religious [as i am not] I would opt for the Civil union instead, as I DID INDEED say. I have commited to her for four years and never once considered leaving, or that she was only a baby factory. I was simply making a point about a choice, one that is very commonly made where I live. I fully intend to marry my Fiance because I love her, children is a part of that.

Also, children has ALWAYS been the primary motivator of marriage, ESPECIALLY in alliance marriages. After all your son and his daughter having children together TIES the kingdoms together, because of children. and a source for the seven years...its law where i come from. Also, I know the USA doesnt allow same sex common law, and I know that Canada DOES allow it. I do know the law, as I lived through it while it was being debated in commons.

This was just my two cents, a rational centrist viewpoint on gay marriage.

What was in anyway rational about it? You based it on religion and an idea of "what marriage is for" that gets consistently discredited every time someone tries the argument.

Marriage is done expressly to have children.

Prove this. And discussing how some ancient cultures may have regarded it is hardly proof of how or why it can be done today.


Its not seperate but equal, because its not equal. You cannot impregnate a man, therefore its not marriage, its common law or commitment ceremony.

By this reasoning, a marriage to an infertile man or women is also not marriage. That's quite bigoted.


This ceremony IN FACT has the same name for straights. Commitment ceremonies exist for straight couples as well, same name. I am not arguing any more in this thread, I have noticed lefties and righties are the same. Both an opposite end of the spectrum. They dont read an entire post and argue only minor points that they wish to jump on to, instead of actually seeing that the original post supported gay unions.

But not gay marriage, so you are giving them a lesser alternative because of who they are. Prejudice, a priori.


Regardless of not supporting gay church weddings, the issue was not about marriage but about government recognition, which commitment ceremonies and common law adequately address. Cant have your cake and eat it too.

Churches can choose not to marry gays, but there is such a thing as a civil marriage and some churches that would and do marry gays, distinct from commitment ceremonies and common law marriages. Denying that to gays
is discriminatory.


Stop crying about something that is going to be so heavily opposed you will never get your way, and will cause huge rifts and continued gay bashing for all eternity.

People once thought interracial marriages was so heavily opposed it would never happen. That's a lousy reason not to advocate civil rights ("cry" as you term it).


Getting "Married" is so strongly opposed, even in canada it divided the country. However not a SINGLE person complained about common law or Civic unions or commitment ceremonies.

Oh really? This is quite a categorical statement. Would you like an opportunity to retract it before I go check on its veracity?


Living in America you have to deal with one of the largest fundamentalist populations in the world. Civic unions and Common law give you every last bit of recognition as a married couple, which in fact is why more and more straight couples choose that course. You cant beat the religious nuts, change it from marriage and you may get your way.

As for being forced, you guys need to read the whole post before responding. The Anglican church tried to force it, and split in half because of it. Thats forcing in my books. There is also no seperate but equal, as I said, straights opt for the same unions as gays are allowed. Also there are NO tax breaks unless you HAVE children. If you dont you COMBINE your incomes and have to pay MORE taxes.

My wife and I pay less in the aggregate since we were married (which we did for reasons beyond simply having children).



As for repeating myself, its necessary on NSG. See ya later, enjoy your argument as I am done.

Your own argument has been heavily and systematically refuted by multiple people. I can see why you describe yourself as "done".

Thought I was done but to reiterate the point. If my fiance and i had agreed not to have children, and werent religious [as i am not] I would opt for the Civil union instead, as I DID INDEED say. I have commited to her for four years and never once considered leaving, or that she was only a baby factory. I was simply making a point about a choice, one that is very commonly made where I live. I fully intend to marry my Fiance because I love her, children is a part of that.

Again, it's nice that you have the option of making the choice of what sort of relationship status is right for the two of you (although I admit to being a little disturbed by your statement as to what you, singular, would have chosen - doesn't your fiancee get a say in your relationship status?). Gay people aren't being given that legal option - which would sorta make their treatment unequal, see?

By the way, I find your apparent absolute disregard for adopted or non-biological children rather repulsive. It's perfectly fine not to want to adopt yourself, but to declare that children who are not the biological offspring of both parents don't "count" is...well, put it this way: you might not want to say that where people can actually physically respond, because I'm pretty sure that some people with loving adoptive/step-/foster parents and those parents themselves might just want to kick you in your baby-making regions for such comments.

So that means you are okay with three-or-more partner relationships as long as it includes at least one man and one woman?

Honestly, marriage was not always used to produce children. Often, it was used to create political or economic unity or to improve someone's economic position.



Nevermind the fact that priests are historically notorious for their love of having children, sometimes by multiple partners. I remember reading about a case where a priest was defrocked for having too many children.



Oh, this had better be the Gettysburg Address of reasonings.



Hmm... Nope! Not backed by the history of it, even under Christianity.



What do you consider the privilages of marriage that gay couples should have?



Find Bible quotes to back this. The Church opposes it, but the Church opposes a lot of sensible things (like contraceptives).



Except that we're not forcing it on churches. It's up to the ministers to agree or not, and some ministers happen to believe that gay marriage should be allowed in churches. Some don't.



You do realize that common law is not actually recognized in most states and that those "commitment ceremonies" you're talking about are actually marriage ceremonies, right? Marriage within the U.S. can be done in front of a judge as easily as a priest. My parents were actually married in front of a judge.

But, still, you're on the right track with some of what you say.



He was probably translating one of the Gnostic Gospels. They were the Gospels not included in the Bible due to the politics of the period (believe it or not, but the New Testament was decided by a political meeting).

The most interesting Gospel is actually the Gospel of Judas. Give it a read sometime. It paints Judas in a more interesting light.



What about couples who are gay and intend to have children?

As for marriage: Study the actual history of it. You'll find a lot of the religious stuff around it was just people using religion as an excuse to play politics. Which is nothing new.



Dude if you dont know REAL histroy you shouldn't speak like you do. Through out the sands of time MARRIAGE WAS USED FOR ECONOMIC TIES THROUGH THEIR CHILDREN. Bonds kingdoms, creates stimulus for economy through babies. Tan is right if you even half read any of his posts >.>;

Vote all you want for Prop 8, truth is if the govt wants it gone they'll pull strings and it taken away. Personally, I don't think marriage for gays is all that wonderful, I mean if you love them does it matter whether you blow 25,000 dollars to hear "I now pronounce you man and man or wife and wife?"

BTW even tooting your horn all over the internets will not change religious freaks. Plus no one IRL pays attention to NS so if you wanna make a real difference stop blogging and go take some real action. Schizer!! :eek:

This was just my two cents, a rational centrist viewpoint on gay marriage.

"Centrist" in the way the 3/5ths compromise was 'centrist'...

Also, children has ALWAYS been the primary motivator of marriage, ESPECIALLY in alliance marriages.

Not necessarily. Quite often, the idea was to trade the bride for certain concessions. The bride herself was the deal. The whole issue about virginity and the like was to make sure that she was as pure and clean as possible. Kings of old tended to object quite a bit if their manhood fell off after having a bit of fun with the 14-year-old they just traded a nobility title for.

For children, the wife wasn't necessary, and there were more than a few times when a bastard child ended up with a throne. After all, if it's an acknowledged heir, who cares if you never observed the queen being pregnant?

After all your son and his daughter having children together TIES the kingdoms together, because of children.

And yet, quite often the kingdoms would go to war with each other within two or three generations.

Thought I was done but to reiterate the point. If my fiance and i had agreed not to have children, and werent religious [as i am not] I would opt for the Civil union instead, as I DID INDEED say.

That's your choice, reflecting your motivations. It should not and does not diminish the validity of people who have other motivations for marriage beyond the narrow one you believe in.


I have commited to her for four years and never once considered leaving, or that she was only a baby factory. I was simply making a point about a choice, one that is very commonly made where I live. I fully intend to marry my Fiance because I love her, children is a part of that.

You contradict yourself. You claimed children were the sole reason for marriage. You now say its for love, of which you say children are a subset.

However, since there are other aspects of love that are not about children, that you now include in your motivation, you recognize other, non-children based reasons. Yet earlier, you emphatically claimed it was only about children.


Also, children has ALWAYS been the primary motivator of marriage, ESPECIALLY in alliance marriages. After all your son and his daughter having children together TIES the kingdoms together, because of children.

So, if some small portion of some cultures had this as there reason, it somehow becomes the "primary" motivator for all cultures in perpetuity?

The past primary motivator of some does not equal the sole current motivator for all.

Once you recognize there are other motivations, your primary thesis "marriage is about children so gays shouldn't want marriage" falls apart.


and a source for the seven years...its law where i come from. Also, I know the USA doesnt allow same sex common law, and I know that Canada DOES allow it. I do know the law, as I lived through it while it was being debated in commons.

Post a link to the law, please, I'd like to have a look at it. Unless one party deliberately misrepresented the desire or capacity to have children and the other relied on this misrepresentation to their detriment, I'd be interested in seeing how you're interpreting this law.

And yet, quite often the kingdoms would go to war with each other within two or three generations.

Quite often in one generation.

Vote all you want for Prop 8, truth is if the govt wants it gone they'll pull strings and it taken away.

You might want to actually read the proposition before you make bizarre statements like these.

As said, Common law is the same as marriage and gays can have it in Canada. Do not argue with the Canadian about Canada.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp#common_law

Just above common law is how you can sponsor your same sex partner as a spouse.


Same rights, Same everything..no two thirds..civil union is the same as marriage, without the title..and your still husband and husband. And centrist, mightily so..after all there is no inherent gay bashing or anti gayness..also..Ancient greece only allowed gay marriage in one city state, the rest looked down on people that continued to have gay relationships past a certain age, unless of course they became bachelors in athens, who would teach young men. They too, would not get married.

If gay marriage wasnt kosher in ancient greece, the land of man boy love, then why should we have it here. Also our laws are based off the ten commandments, as much as you hate it, its true.

Dude if you dont know REAL histroy you shouldn't speak like you do. Through out the sands of time MARRIAGE WAS USED FOR ECONOMIC TIES THROUGH THEIR CHILDREN. Bonds kingdoms, creates stimulus for economy through babies. Tan is right if you even half read any of his posts >.>;

By this argument, for those people for whom children are not of economic benefit, they should be denied the right to marry. To limit our social institutions to medieval and anachronistic motivations and contexts would result in a definitely stagnant culture, and an abidingly (and definitively) unprogressive society. Some wish to grow beyond that.


Vote all you want for Prop 8, truth is if the govt wants it gone they'll pull strings and it taken away. Personally, I don't think marriage for gays is all that wonderful, I mean if you love them does it matter whether you blow 25,000 dollars to hear "I now pronounce you man and man or wife and wife?"

Why would this monetary argument not apply equally against straight marriage?


BTW even tooting your horn all over the internets will not change religious freaks. Plus no one IRL pays attention to NS so if you wanna make a real difference stop blogging and go take some real action. Schizer!! :eek:

The inconsistency of this statement is self-evident. Discussion of civil rights, even among two people, is a seed from which can germinate great things. Like cellular mitosis, it is negligible in the specific and world changing in the general.

As said, Common law is the same as marriage and gays can have it in Canada. Do not argue with the Canadian about Canada.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp#common_law

Just above common law is how you can sponsor your same sex partner as a spouse.

Please try to be careful with the egg, when it gets in your eyes it can sting mightily.

Same rights, Same everything..no two thirds..civil union is the same as marriage, without the title..and your still husband and husband.

You contradict yourself again. Cat-Tribes pointed out earlier that what you were advocating is essentially a mentality of "separate but equal". You claimed it wasn't equal. Now, you claim its "same everything".

If its the "same rights, same everything", then there is no reason not to recognize it as the same thing, full marriage.

As for egg, I notice that you haven't really responded directly to several critiques that starkly illustrate flaws in your argument. I guess you weren't as "done" as you claimed to be.

Also, I know the USA doesnt allow same sex common law, and I know that Canada DOES allow it.

1. If you know common law marriage generally isn't recognized in the US and isn't allowed for same-sex marriage, why did you suggest it was a reasonable alternative to same-sex marriage?

2. Canada allows common law same-sex marriage because "In 1999, after the court case M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada decided that same-sex partners would also be included in common-law relationships."

I do know the law, as I lived through it while it was being debated in commons.

Then you know the Civil Marriage Act provides for same-sex marriages in Canada that are the same as any other marriage.

Dude if you dont know REAL histroy you shouldn't speak like you do. Through out the sands of time MARRIAGE WAS USED FOR ECONOMIC TIES THROUGH THEIR CHILDREN. Bonds kingdoms, creates stimulus for economy through babies. Tan is right if you even half read any of his posts >.>;

Depends on which culture you're talking about, and what era. For example, most people don't know it, but the Romans actually had same-sex marriage as legal up until it was banned.

If you want an example of marriage used for politics, look at the end of the Thirty Years War, where a peace treaty involved the marriage of Louis XIV and Maria Teresa. It actually made Louis XIV one of the most prominant monarchs in region at the time.

Vote all you want for Prop 8, truth is if the govt wants it gone they'll pull strings and it taken away. Personally, I don't think marriage for gays is all that wonderful, I mean if you love them does it matter whether you blow 25,000 dollars to hear "I now pronounce you man and man or wife and wife?"

How about the fact it matters when you go to file your taxes, visit them at the hospital, and a lot of other things?

BTW even tooting your horn all over the internets will not change religious freaks. Plus no one IRL pays attention to NS so if you wanna make a real difference stop blogging and go take some real action. Schizer!! :eek:

And yet, you waste your time posting on here. Ever occur to you that some of us do our own thing and are capable of talking about it on here? Didn't think so.

However Hammurab, you are not discussing it with the american bible thumping majourity who staunchly oppose any form of gay marriage. As I said, call it gay union's, and you will see results like you did in Canada, which was still heavily divided on it and we do not have a great deal of ignorance. Instead we have alternatives to traditional marriage, as well as regular marriage which is available to gay couples.

The fact is that I support the right of civil unions and common law, but I am trying to say..that in America you will never..ever..NEVER win if you keep asking for gay marriage. Not seperate but equal. I dont care that gay people have things of their own, but i find it rather facetious when they demand things as they did of the anglican church. If you dont like the laws of america, laws which the gay people, a tiny minority rail against. Leave. The fact is its democracy. Tyranny of the majourity..what right do you have to choose for the hundreds of million americans who are religiously opposed to this. You dont..if you want marriage..come to canada because its a simply ridiculous notion that you could ever get gay marriage passed in the states. Look what happend to states that did. The federal government cut them off of funds.

Also dont think the Democrats would allow it either, they depend on those same religious votes..and most people who believe in the word dont like it. Remember, Democracy is as much a farce as communism ever was. The merchant princes who rule our lands need our support, and the religious right is the single strongest political force in the country.

As said, Common law is the same as marriage and gays can have it in Canada. Do not argue with the Canadian about Canada.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp#common_law

Just above common law is how you can sponsor your same sex partner as a spouse.


Same rights, Same everything..no two thirds..civil union is the same as marriage, without the title..and your still husband and husband. And centrist, mightily so..after all there is no inherent gay bashing or anti gayness..also..Ancient greece only allowed gay marriage in one city state, the rest looked down on people that continued to have gay relationships past a certain age, unless of course they became bachelors in athens, who would teach young men. They too, would not get married.

If gay marriage wasnt kosher in ancient greece, the land of man boy love, then why should we have it here. Also our laws are based off the ten commandments, as much as you hate it, its true.
Problem is sparky we're not talkin about Canada (I know you are) Prop 8 is specific to California which, as a lifetime long resident who co-habitated with the mother of my children for 14 years before finally 'making it legal', I can atest to as not recognizing common law marraige.

So that means you are okay with three-or-more partner relationships as long as it includes at least one man and one woman?

Honestly, marriage was not always used to produce children. Often, it was used to create political or economic unity or to improve someone's economic position.



Nevermind the fact that priests are historically notorious for their love of having children, sometimes by multiple partners. I remember reading about a case where a priest was defrocked for having too many children.



Oh, this had better be the Gettysburg Address of reasonings.



Hmm... Nope! Not backed by the history of it, even under Christianity.



What do you consider the privilages of marriage that gay couples should have?



Find Bible quotes to back this. The Church opposes it, but the Church opposes a lot of sensible things (like contraceptives).



Except that we're not forcing it on churches. It's up to the ministers to agree or not, and some ministers happen to believe that gay marriage should be allowed in churches. Some don't.



You do realize that common law is not actually recognized in most states and that those "commitment ceremonies" you're talking about are actually marriage ceremonies, right? Marriage within the U.S. can be done in front of a judge as easily as a priest. My parents were actually married in front of a judge.

But, still, you're on the right track with some of what you say.



He was probably translating one of the Gnostic Gospels. They were the Gospels not included in the Bible due to the politics of the period (believe it or not, but the New Testament was decided by a political meeting).

The most interesting Gospel is actually the Gospel of Judas. Give it a read sometime. It paints Judas in a more interesting light.



What about couples who are gay and intend to have children?

As for marriage: Study the actual history of it. You'll find a lot of the religious stuff around it was just people using religion as an excuse to play politics. Which is nothing new.

Depends on which culture you're talking about, and what era. For example, most people don't know it, but the Romans actually had same-sex marriage as legal up until it was banned.

If you want an example of marriage used for politics, look at the end of the Thirty Years War, where a peace treaty involved the marriage of Louis XIV and Maria Teresa. It actually made Louis XIV one of the most prominant monarchs in region at the time.



How about the fact it matters when you go to file your taxes, visit them at the hospital, and a lot of other things?



And yet, you waste your time posting on here. Ever occur to you that some of us do our own thing and are capable of talking about it on here? Didn't think so.

Obviously you're not Ter, cuz if you were capable of actually talking and not crying over everyone not having the same ideals as you be it on a giant scale or small tangent, it wouldn't turn to petty insults on the thread. ^^

However Hammurab, you are not discussing it with the american bible thumping majourity who staunchly oppose any form of gay marriage. As I said, call it gay union's, and you will see results like you did in Canada, which was still heavily divided on it and we do not have a great deal of ignorance. Instead we have alternatives to traditional marriage, as well as regular marriage which is available to gay couples.

So, you basically ignore where it was repeatedly demonstrated that you're contradicting yourself.

Please do not assume you know with whom I have discussed what; I have had ample chance to converse with the "bible thumping majority" and I am familiar with their views.

At one time, there was a "sheet wearing majority" that didn't want blacks to be able to marry whites. It was extremely divisive. By your logic, we should have just looked for some kind of renamed alternative. Many blacks (and whites) are glad that we didn't apply your mentality at that point in our history.

Telling one group that they must limit themselves to "alternatives", as "same" as you think they are, is the demonstrative definition of discrimination.

If gay marriage wasnt kosher in ancient greece, the land of man boy love, then why should we have it here. Also our laws are based off the ten commandments, as much as you hate it, its true.

Because the U.S. isn't Greece. I know it's tough to tell the two apart, but if you look closely you'll see the differences.

Our constitution is based on an awful lot of things, including the Iroquois confederacy. As far as I'm aware, they didn't have the ten commandments. And even if our laws were based on the ten commandments--which they aren't--that still wouldn't make an argument against same-sex marriage.

You're not a centrist, you're a conservative--keep it the way it is because that's the way it is.

As I said, call it gay union's, and you will see results like you did in Canada, which was still heavily divided on it and we do not have a great deal of ignorance.

They have you.

Obviously you're not Ter, cuz if you were capable of actually talking and not crying over everyone not having the same ideals as you be it on a giant scale or small tangent, it wouldn't turn to petty insults on the thread. ^^

Ahhh, it's a cute little troll. Careful what you feed it. :wink:

No its not equal morally, as the fact of the matter is this is indeed one thing that straight people still have. Trust me in "equal rights canada" they have Gay only apartments. If an apartment EVER refused a gay person for being gay..they would be hung out to try. Marriage itself in a church is for straight couples who wish to have children.

Now I NEVER said gays should have less rights, that they just shouldnt try to call it marriage. You miss the point. American gays...teency weency insignifigant minority. Right wing religious zealots. Huge vast majourity. Understand..its called..Democracy.

That was not trolling from mel mtor by the way..but a simple fact. We dont agree with your worldview 100% and even though we agree 95% you still try to shout us down. No wonder the gay movement has so few friends, if this is how you act towards people who are relatively ambiguous towards you. However this has started to change my mind about being for gay rights. Nothing like the left wings ability to turn the centrists to the right.

Also I would very much like to know how agreeing with gay civil unions and simply wanting to keep one thing for straight people is ignorant, but hey I guess if I am not at least bisexual then I must be ignorant,

At one time, there was a "sheet wearing majority" that didn't want blacks to be able to marry whites. It was extremely divisive. By your logic, we should have just looked for some kind of renamed alternative. Many blacks (and whites) are glad that we didn't apply your mentality at that point in our history.

Telling one group that they must limit themselves to "alternatives", as "same" as you think they are, is the demonstrative definition of discrimination.

How about the land-owning majority that didn't want blacks to be called "citizens"? What a mess that whole thing landed us in.

Ahhh, it's a cute little troll. Careful what you feed it. :wink:

cookies.

Obviously you're not Ter, cuz if you were capable of actually talking and not crying over everyone not having the same ideals as you be it on a giant scale or small tangent, it wouldn't turn to petty insults on the thread. ^^

Let me translate your post: "I got caught not knowing what I'm talking about and got proved wrong, so I'm going to attempt to troll and hope the other person takes it so no one notices."

Nice try, but I've seen better.

However Hammurab, you are not discussing it with the american bible thumping majourity who staunchly oppose any form of gay marriage. As I said, call it gay union's, and you will see results like you did in Canada, which was still heavily divided on it and we do not have a great deal of ignorance. Instead we have alternatives to traditional marriage, as well as regular marriage which is available to gay couples.

The fact is that I support the right of civil unions and common law, but I am trying to say..that in America you will never..ever..NEVER win if you keep asking for gay marriage. Not seperate but equal. I dont care that gay people have things of their own, but i find it rather facetious when they demand things as they did of the anglican church. If you dont like the laws of america, laws which the gay people, a tiny minority rail against. Leave. The fact is its democracy. Tyranny of the majourity..what right do you have to choose for the hundreds of million americans who are religiously opposed to this. You dont..if you want marriage..come to canada because its a simply ridiculous notion that you could ever get gay marriage passed in the states. Look what happend to states that did. The federal government cut them off of funds.

Also dont think the Democrats would allow it either, they depend on those same religious votes..and most people who believe in the word dont like it. Remember, Democracy is as much a farce as communism ever was. The merchant princes who rule our lands need our support, and the religious right is the single strongest political force in the country.

Okey, dokey.

1. We have both a U.S. Constitution and state constitutions--particularly bills of rights--precisely to limit the tyrrany of the majority.

2. WTF are you talking about re: federal government cutting off funds to states that have legalized same-sex marriage?

Okey, dokey.

1. We have both a U.S. Constitution and state constitutions--particularly bills of rights--precisely to limit the tyrrany of the majority.


Dont forget about the senate.

Aww how cute cat ^^ Cant come up with a real response? So sad. Maybe if you're argument made sense you wouldnt have to call people names? Next time you should take more than thirty seconds to say We're here We're Queer get used to it.

The fact is that I support the right of civil unions and common law, but I am trying to say..that in America you will never..ever..NEVER win if you keep asking for gay marriage.

Myself and other advocates of civil rights accept that challenge, and in many parts of the US, the voting majority has already proven you wrong.


Not seperate but equal. I dont care that gay people have things of their own, but i find it rather facetious when they demand things as they did of the anglican church. If you dont like the laws of america, laws which the gay people, a tiny minority rail against. Leave. The fact is its democracy. Tyranny of the majourity..what right do you have to choose for the hundreds of million americans who are religiously opposed to this.

In America, if we don't like the laws, we voice our dissent in public discourse and other lawful means. "Like it or leave" is a mentality far more tyrannical.

As for choosing for others, its those who want to BAN gay marriage that engage in that behaviour. If someone is religiously opposed to gay marriage, they shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. They are the ones trying to choose for others.


You dont..if you want marriage..come to canada because its a simply ridiculous notion that you could ever get gay marriage passed in the states. Look what happend to states that did. The federal government cut them off of funds.

Governments change and progress. I find your attempts at prescience to be narrow and inconsistent with present trends. Every decade, America becomes more accepting of gay marriage. At one time, it was a "ridiculous" notion that women would vote. Or blacks. Fortunately, not everyone is as easily deterred as you tell us to be.



Also dont think the Democrats would allow it either, they depend on those same religious votes..and most people who believe in the word dont like it. Remember, Democracy is as much a farce as communism ever was. The merchant princes who rule our lands need our support, and the religious right is the single strongest political force in the country.

If every man and woman in history was as unwilling to challenge the status quo as you seem to be, the religious and political people you claim to decry would have an even easier time of it. Your mentality accomodates them.

Also our laws are based off the ten commandments, as much as you hate it, its true.

Oh, really? Please point us to the laws against blasphemy, idol-worship, adultery, covetousness, Sabbath-breaking, being disrespectful to one's elders, and lying.

You can't, of course, because that is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. Exactly two of the things prohibited in the Ten Commandments are also prohibited by law, and I'd really love to see you try to find examples of ANY society, regardless of religious belief, that didn't kinda frown on those.

Do you not remember the threats in 05 over several states including Maine allowing Gay marriages. Also, Mel Mtor didnt get caught being wrong, Mel M'tor actually came up with probably the best argument I have seen. ITs true, If someone doesnt one hundred percent whole heartedly agree with your idealogy, you insult, brow beat and basically attempt to make people seem ignorant. Too bad I was able to prove you wrong today, and too bad your proving that the left wing is just as intolerant and zealous as the right wing. Only the Lefts god is "civil rights". Well your civil rights cause groups like the human rights commission to crop up, whose sole task to date has been CENSORSHIP of state magazines.

OF course in your perfect world, you would indeed censor any opinion that differed from yours, I on the other hand may disagree with everything you say, but would fight like hell for your right to say it. Also, check the laws of Ancient rome and greece and china as opposed to our own laws. We have laws, compassion based laws that are based off the ten commandments..and lets get this straight. Fifty years ago you could go to prison for adultery, and a hundred you could go to prison for worshiping someone who was not god. Remember freedom of religion in america ONLY extended to christian faiths until recently.

2. WTF are you talking about re: federal government cutting off funds to states that have legalized same-sex marriage?

He might be referring to the Defense of Marriage Act, which (IIRC) included provisions for that before they were cut from it by Congress.

Now I NEVER said gays should have less rights, that they just shouldnt try to call it marriage. You miss the point. American gays...teency weency insignifigant minority. Right wing religious zealots. Huge vast majourity. Understand..its called..Democracy. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

Hmmm... one of the founding principles of the US.

There's this concept called 'Tyranny by Majority', we try not to let it slip past disguising itself as 'democracy'.

Do you not remember the threats in 05 over several states including Maine allowing Gay marriages. Also, Mel Mtor didnt get caught being wrong, Mel M'tor actually came up with probably the best argument I have seen. ITs true, If someone doesnt one hundred percent whole heartedly agree with your idealogy, you insult, brow beat and basically attempt to make people seem ignorant. Too bad I was able to prove you wrong today, and too bad your proving that the left wing is just as intolerant and zealous as the right wing. Only the Lefts god is "civil rights". Well your civil rights cause groups like the human rights commission to crop up, whose sole task to date has been CENSORSHIP of state magazines.

OF course in your perfect world, you would indeed censor any opinion that differed from yours, I on the other hand may disagree with everything you say, but would fight like hell for your right to say it. Also, check the laws of Ancient rome and greece and china as opposed to our own laws. We have laws, compassion based laws that are based off the ten commandments..and lets get this straight. Fifty years ago you could go to prison for adultery, and a hundred you could go to prison for worshiping someone who was not god. Remember freedom of religion in america ONLY extended to christian faiths until recently.

It must be sad to have to make puppets to be your friends. :(

Marriage itself in a church is for straight couples who wish to have children.


I don't know of any church that requires a 'pledge' to have children or that invalidates marriages if the couple is infertile. Further, what of-just by way of example, the United Church of Christ, that supports and preforms same sex marriages? Are you proposing forcing your views on the types of marriage ceremonies they wish to preform and for who?

It must be sad to have to make puppets to be your friends. :(You caught that too....:tongue:

He might be referring to the Defense of Marriage Act, which (IIRC) included provisions for that before they were cut from it by Congress.

I don't recall any such provisions. Regardless, they never made it into law.

No its not equal morally, as the fact of the matter is this is indeed one thing that straight people still have. Trust me in "equal rights canada" they have Gay only apartments. If an apartment EVER refused a gay person for being gay..they would be hung out to try. Marriage itself in a church is for straight couples who wish to have children.

So, if I were to find some churches, temples, and/or other religious groups that have no problem marrying gays, and/or people who don't want to have children, that would remove the central premise of your argument.

Not all churches think as you do. There is no single "church", and some do accept some gays, infertile couples, older couples, and couples who just don't want children. Thus, the principle theme of your argument is unsound.


Now I NEVER said gays should have less rights, that they just shouldnt try to call it marriage. You miss the point. American gays...teency weency insignifigant minority. Right wing religious zealots. Huge vast majourity. Understand..its called..Democracy.

That was not trolling from mel mtor by the way..but a simple fact. We dont agree with your worldview 100% and even though we agree 95% you still try to shout us down. No wonder the gay movement has so few friends, if this is how you act towards people who are relatively ambiguous towards you. However this has started to change my mind about being for gay rights. Nothing like the left wings ability to turn the centrists to the right.

Also I would very much like to know how agreeing with gay civil unions and simply wanting to keep one thing for straight people is ignorant, but hey I guess if I am not at least bisexual then I must be ignorant,

So, the bolded part casts light on yet another of your self-contradictions.

As to the rest, protecting minorities from what you described as the "tyranny of the majority" is a primal impetus of civil rights as a concept. If you're going to lay down to every "zealotous" huge majority, it explains a great deal about you.

Of course, so does the premise that you think if we respond to you with replies that expose your contradictions, factual errors, and erroneous aspects, we are therefore somehow "shouting" you "down". People have the right to disagree with you. If you can't handle debate, you were "done" a while ago.

If all itakes to make you take your ball and go home to the "right" is a series of methodical rebuttals of your argument, you should go. You very much belong there.

I don't recall any such provisions. Regardless, they never made it into law.

It was one of the items they threatened in response to a certain state legalizing same-sex marriage. Well, the threat was hollow, as it turns out.

In any case, hopefully we can get DoMA repealed.

OF course in your perfect world, you would indeed censor any opinion that differed from yours, I on the other hand may disagree with everything you say, but would fight like hell for your right to say it.

Even though when people have disagreed with you here, you pejoratively call it "shouting you down".


Also, check the laws of Ancient rome and greece and china as opposed to our own laws. We have laws, compassion based laws that are based off the ten commandments..and lets get this straight. Fifty years ago you could go to prison for adultery, and a hundred you could go to prison for worshiping someone who was not god. Remember freedom of religion in america ONLY extended to christian faiths until recently.

Please post evidence and support for the underlined part.

I notice you weren't able to post any actual statutes before. Perhaps now you will, especially since you felt it was wrong for people to tell you, a Canadian, about Canadian law, yet you've repeatedly tried to tell other nationals about their country's laws (yet another contradiction from you).

In the meanwhile, I'm going to get on WestLaw and see how many of your claims about various laws are sound. Back later.

What, A puppet? Did you just accuse Mel M'tor of being my puppet. Now I know the argument has truly fallen apart, as you are now clutching at straws in an attempt to defeat this argument. Lost Planet, Ryadn I can assure you quite clearly that Mel Mtor is NOT a puppet nation. On the other hand, your idea about a tyranny of the majourity is quaint, so now then, does this mean that a tyranny of the Minority is in Order? Remember, many people trying to be left wing or progressive jump on this bandwagon as well.

Your Ideals, and my ideals are different. Except I am adult enough to say my ideals arent better then yours, or to accuse you of all being Cat's puppets. Just because Mel Mtor agree's more with me then you [and lets be clear mel mtor's arguments were not the same as mine] does not mean they have to automatically be a puppet. Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom you could reason that, since one person actually agree's with the anti gay marriage angle proposed by one other person, that person may indeed be a person.

Instead you immediately come to the conclusion that Mel Mtor is my puppet. LOL. I have several puppets, and if you would like i would happily list them. DVK Tannelorn, which is now defunct, The Black Fleet, also defunct and the Lions Claw..other then that I dont have enough Email adresses to make this assertion.

I RP with Mel Mtor in Eldire and in FT, if they chose to come in to this topic, on their own or to support me thats up to them, and not up to you to accuse them of being a puppet.

Your view point is NOT the only viewpoint in the world. I can also make my own arguments quite well without having to have any back up. Its appreciated yes, but not needed. Remember, so far I have actually linked you to the proof you asked for about canadian law on marriage. I know what I am talking about and I have a different Idea then you do.

I dont understand how when you people agree with each other, you pat each other on the back, but when people disagree with you, they are hate mongers, religious zealots, ignorant..or even puppets. If Mel was my Puppet, they would have espoused my views, not frankly far more right wing views then I myself possess. But hey guess what.

You lefties have changed the world, and for the better I must say. You have taken one person who supported your cause out of fairness and equality, and placed them firmly in the other camp as it were. Continue to press your cause in this way, and soon you will have nothing you wanted.

Enjoy your trek on westlaw, I am not going to be returning to this thread. After accusing someone of being a puppet for sharing similiar [not even the same] views to me I have decided you people are just as rabid of zealots as the right wingers you are trying to oppose. Neither of you deserve to win. I used to be hoping for Obama to win in america, but Now I am totally for Palin/Mcain 08. Another four years in Jesus land might do you good.

Being accused of being a hatemonger for supporting your cause is just too much to bear.

What, A puppet? Did you just accuse Mel M'tor of being my puppet. Now I know the argument has truly fallen apart, as you are now clutching at straws in an attempt to defeat this argument. Lost Planet, Ryadn I can assure you quite clearly that Mel Mtor is NOT a puppet nation. On the other hand, your idea about a tyranny of the majourity is quaint, so now then, does this mean that a tyranny of the Minority is in Order? Remember, many people trying to be left wing or progressive jump on this bandwagon as well.

Your Ideals, and my ideals are different. Except I am adult enough to say my ideals arent better then yours, or to accuse you of all being Cat's puppets. Just because Mel Mtor agree's more with me then you [and lets be clear mel mtor's arguments were not the same as mine] does not mean they have to automatically be a puppet. Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom you could reason that, since one person actually agree's with the anti gay marriage angle proposed by one other person, that person may indeed be a person.

Instead you immediately come to the conclusion that Mel Mtor is my puppet. LOL. I have several puppets, and if you would like i would happily list them. DVK Tannelorn, which is now defunct, The Black Fleet, also defunct and the Lions Claw..other then that I dont have enough Email adresses to make this assertion.

I RP with Mel Mtor in Eldire and in FT, if they chose to come in to this topic, on their own or to support me thats up to them, and not up to you to accuse them of being a puppet.

Your view point is NOT the only viewpoint in the world. I can also make my own arguments quite well without having to have any back up. Its appreciated yes, but not needed. Remember, so far I have actually linked you to the proof you asked for about canadian law on marriage. I know what I am talking about and I have a different Idea then you do.

I dont understand how when you people agree with each other, you pat each other on the back, but when people disagree with you, they are hate mongers, religious zealots, ignorant..or even puppets. If Mel was my Puppet, they would have espoused my views, not frankly far more right wing views then I myself possess. But hey guess what.

You lefties have changed the world, and for the better I must say. You have taken one person who supported your cause out of fairness and equality, and placed them firmly in the other camp as it were. Continue to press your cause in this way, and soon you will have nothing you wanted.

Enjoy your trek on westlaw, I am not going to be returning to this thread. After accusing someone of being a puppet for sharing similiar [not even the same] views to me I have decided you people are just as rabid of zealots as the right wingers you are trying to oppose. Neither of you deserve to win.

1. The accusation that Mel was your puppet may have been wrong and unfair, but no more that the poo you are flinging.

2. If you were truly being an adult about this, you would defend your views rather than throw a tantrum about how we are rabid and are forcing you into "the other camp" by disagreeing with you.

3. As for tyrrany of the majority:

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or equal protection under the law.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Mmm, I gotta agree that Mel isn't Tannelorn's puppet. Honestly, Mel types closer to my style than to Tannelorn's. For a moment when reading Mel's post, I almost thought I had typed it... until I noticed the lack of quotes and lack of argument.

Note that I am not defending Tannelorn's position. Just saying that I don't believe Mel to be his puppet.

I used to be hoping for Obama to win in america, but Now I am totally for Palin/Mcain 08. Another four years in Jesus land might do you good.

You expect us to believe you supported Obama until this internet discussion and, because we disagreed with you, you now support McCain/Palin? :eek:


Being accused of being a hatemonger for supporting your cause is just too much to bear.

I must have missed it. Where/when were you accused of being a hatemonger?

*sigh* Tyranny by Majority is not 'quaint' and it is not a concept myself, Hammurab or anyone esle on this forum came up with. It's prevention is a key concept of our constitution and one of the guiding tenets of our supreme court and is the core reason for many of their decisions reguarding civil rights.

Just beacuse a 'majority' of the people want it you can't infringe upon the inalienable rights of a minority.

Neither of you deserve to win. I used to be hoping for Obama to win in america, but Now I am totally for Palin/Mcain 08. Another four years in Jesus land might do you good.

...did you seriously just claim to have completely changed your mind on which candidate should win the election because some strangers on an internet forum were (not particularly) mean to you? Seriously? Wow. That may even beat out "he seems like the sort of guy you could have a beer with" and "he has nice hair" in the annals of Insanely Stupid Reasons To Support A Candidate. Congrats, I guess?

Being accused of being a hatemonger for supporting your cause is just too much to bear.

I'd ask you to show me where anyone called you a "hatemonger," but given that you still haven't substantiated any of the other claims I've asked you to source, it would probably be a waste of time.

Aww how cute cat ^^ Cant come up with a real response? So sad. Maybe if you're argument made sense you wouldnt have to call people names? Next time you should take more than thirty seconds to say We're here We're Queer get used to it.

LOL.

Tell you what, Mel, come up with an argument and I'll respond to it.

ACtually I did defend my points, over and over again but you havent read them. If you did read what I said..ANY of it you would have known i supported gay unions, that i didnt support gays marrying in church. But even that..That MINOR little point was enough to have you calling me ignorant and a hatemonger without even knowing what I said. I do not like when people try to argue with me but dont actually read what I said. For the most part, your not listening to the fact that I supported the right of gays to have civil unions in the states, but disagreed with gay marriages in churches.

For that I get called many names and called ignorant, and all I did was state the truth that the vast majourity do indeed feel. The majourity in a few small states does not make it the vast majourity of america. The vast majourity of rural america believes that gays should be thrown in mental institutes or killed..so feel lucky that they are no longer in control..like they were till the early seventies.

All of my posts have been in favour of the civil union, but opposed to the religious union. For this I am a hick, ignorant or a KKK member. Call me a child? Say its a tantrum, heh you havent seen a tantrum yet. However as I figured, perhaps bold facing important parts of the argument was the way to get your attention.

This issue is a matter of the heart, and therefore it is a contentious issue. The fact that many, many, many people disagree with you, and in fact many more agree with me [thats where the fifty percent split was, we dont mind civil unions but gay marriages were a tad much] as well as disagree, and would see my points as being Left wing propaganda. Just remember those are the people you need to convince, and if you keep acting like that, the moderates you already convinced..will get sick of the self righteousness..as we all have things in our lives that is unfair, every single person. There are things that are really important, like having a job, putting food on the table, and having a bit of rest and relaxation time.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and you people are indeed the few. Sorry to say it so bluntly but its the truth. Call me what you will, pat yourselves on the back for dealing with an "ignorant hick" but in the end, your still going to be praying the people of california dont vote on prop 8. Likely, they wont..but those who do vote will outweigh those who vote against it by a large margin. Its always the way with those things, that the elderly conservatives go to vote while the rest of the world goes to work.

Want to change minds, then change minds through action and deeds, not through name calling. Yes it did change my minds, because the left wing really is ridiculous as it looks on TV. Also, I did give you proof of canadian law.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp#common_law

here it is again for your viewing pleasure. Also, yes I do support Mccain now, I did before but realised that Palin was insane. But truthfully..she cant be as bad as the left wing has become in the last five years. Even though she did indeed recently get blessed against witchcraft <.<.

Also I do think Mccain is more qualified, just once again I did not like Palin. As its likely Palin will become president when mccain drops dead, I wouldnt vote mccain. But now, were I down there..I might go with my original choice knowing that left wing Tyranny exists everywhere. Hell up here we cant even ride bicycles without helmets anymore or smoke within three meters of a window thanks to left wing nannyism.

...did you seriously just claim to have completely changed your mind on which candidate should win the election because some strangers on an internet forum were (not particularly) mean to you? Seriously? Wow. That may even beat out "he seems like the sort of guy you could have a beer with" and "he has nice hair" in the annals of Insanely Stupid Reasons To Support A Candidate. Congrats, I guess?

Sorry. I claimed that title back in 1996... even though I wasn't old enough to vote at the time.

If gay marriage wasnt kosher in ancient greece, the land of man boy love, then why should we have it here.

Does Ancient Rome cut it for you? "The bearded Callistratus married the rugged Afer/Under the same law by which a woman takes a husband./Torches were carried before him, a bridal veil covered his face." (http://www.newsweek.com/id/139423)

Also our laws are based off the ten commandments, as much as you hate it, its true.

And examples of laws based on the commandments in bold would be . . .?

1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me..."

For purposes of this discussion we'll leave out recent evidence that that the Jews were not slaves in ancient Egypt.

2. "Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

3. "Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."


4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"

The only reason I'm letting you slide on this is so called "blue laws" that prevent the sale of alcohol, or cars, or what have you on a Sunday.

5. "Honor your father and your mother..."

6. "Do not murder"

Is part of our law, but was also the law in every society - even ones who had never heard of the ten commandments.

7. "Do not commit adultery."

8. "Do not steal."

See 6.

9. "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor"

Letting you get away with this one due to libel, slander, and perjury. Although those laws were again probably inspired by common sense.


10. "Do not covet your neighbor's wife"

You lefties have changed the world, and for the better I must say. You have taken one person who supported your cause out of fairness and equality, and placed them firmly in the other camp as it were. Continue to press your cause in this way, and soon you will have nothing you wanted.
What? Dude, that's not how it works-we're not your kids trying to talk you into going to the good ice cream place until you tell them "Fine, you don't get any ice cream at all." You were for the proposition to begin with, so in what way has anything really changed? "Agree with me or I'll become even more intractable, that'll learn ya!" is not really an argument, now is it?

Enjoy your trek on westlaw, I am not going to be returning to this thread. After accusing someone of being a puppet for sharing similiar [not even the same] views to me I have decided you people are just as rabid of zealots as the right wingers you are trying to oppose. Neither of you deserve to win. I used to be hoping for Obama to win in america, but Now I am totally for Palin/Mcain 08. Another four years in Jesus land might do you good.

Being accused of being a hatemonger for supporting your cause is just too much to bear.
What is it with Canadians that are so easy to sway on this subject? Someone on the internet, real or imagined, is a meany head and all of a sudden you're 'pulling for the other side?' Are you guys like a walking nerve ending or something? (not all Canadians, just the ones that are so easily swayed...)

calling me ignorant and a hatemonger without even knowing what I said.

For this I am a hick, ignorant or a KKK member.

Again, with the possible exception of ignorant, where/when were you called these awful names?

As to the rest of your schtick, you are kind of all over the place. So let's make this simple: do you support Prop. 8 or do you support same-sex marriage? No one is talking about forcing churches to perform same-sex marriage in California. The issue is the legal recognition of same-sex couples as having the same union as opposite-sex couples.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and you people are indeed the few.

Who are "you people"? Those that believe in fundamental rights and equal protection under the law?

Or are you assuming we are all homosexuals?

ACtually I did defend my points, over and over again but you havent read them. If you did read what I said..ANY of it you would have known i supported gay unions, that i didnt support gays marrying in church. But even that..That MINOR little point was enough to have you calling me ignorant and a hatemonger without even knowing what I said. I do not like when people try to argue with me but dont actually read what I said. For the most part, your not listening to the fact that I supported the right of gays to have civil unions in the states, but disagreed with gay marriages in churches.

For that I get called many names and called ignorant, and all I did was state the truth that the vast majourity do indeed feel. The majourity in a few small states does not make it the vast majourity of america. The vast majourity of rural america believes that gays should be thrown in mental institutes or killed..so feel lucky that they are no longer in control..like they were till the early seventies.

All of my posts have been in favour of the civil union, but opposed to the religious union. For this I am a hick, ignorant or a KKK member. Call me a child? Say its a tantrum, heh you havent seen a tantrum yet. However as I figured, perhaps bold facing important parts of the argument was the way to get your attention.

This issue is a matter of the heart, and therefore it is a contentious issue. The fact that many, many, many people disagree with you, and in fact many more agree with me [thats where the fifty percent split was, we dont mind civil unions but gay marriages were a tad much] as well as disagree, and would see my points as being Left wing propaganda. Just remember those are the people you need to convince, and if you keep acting like that, the moderates you already convinced..will get sick of the self righteousness..as we all have things in our lives that is unfair, every single person. There are things that are really important, like having a job, putting food on the table, and having a bit of rest and relaxation time.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and you people are indeed the few. Sorry to say it so bluntly but its the truth. Call me what you will, pat yourselves on the back for dealing with an "ignorant hick" but in the end, your still going to be praying the people of california dont vote on prop 8. Likely, they wont..but those who do vote will outweigh those who vote against it by a large margin. Its always the way with those things, that the elderly conservatives go to vote while the rest of the world goes to work.

Want to change minds, then change minds through action and deeds, not through name calling.You've argued your assertion that marrige is for childrearing but failed to provide any actual supporting evidence. You've repeatedly claimed your support of 'civil unions' or common law marraige but repeatedly failed to address the fact that these are not applicable or recognized in the jurisdiction where the proposition that is the subject of this thread is on the ballot. You just tried to cloak 'tyranny by majority' in an ill fitting 'greater-good' suit. You've become petulant and sanctimonious and cast yourself as victim. Give it up and sulk away, we're not buying it.

TCT, you're about to see me annoyed. Not at you, though.

ACtually I did defend my points, over and over again but you havent read them.

You have? Proof, please ^^

If you did read what I said..ANY of it you would have known i supported gay unions, that i didnt support gays marrying in church. But even that..That MINOR little point was enough to have you calling me ignorant and a hatemonger without even knowing what I said.

Proof that we called you a hatemonger please ^^

I do not like when people try to argue with me but dont actually read what I said. For the most part, your not listening to the fact that I supported the right of gays to have civil unions in the states, but disagreed with gay marriages in churches.

Yes, we are. And we're disagreeing with your reasoning for it.

For that I get called many names and called ignorant, and all I did was state the truth that the vast majourity do indeed feel.

Proof, please ^^

The majourity in a few small states does not make it the vast majourity of america.

The people who oppose gay marriage are a majority in a few small states. Hmm...

The vast majourity of rural america believes that gays should be thrown in mental institutes or killed..so feel lucky that they are no longer in control..like they were till the early seventies.

Um... You do know that the majority of Americans live in suburban communities, right?

Also, proof of your claim, please ^^

All of my posts have been in favour of the civil union, but opposed to the religious union. For this I am a hick, ignorant or a KKK member. Call me a child? Say its a tantrum, heh you havent seen a tantrum yet. However as I figured, perhaps bold facing important parts of the argument was the way to get your attention.

Prove that we called your viewpoint being a hick, please ^^

This issue is a matter of the heart, and therefore it is a contentious issue. The fact that many, many, many people disagree with you, and in fact many more agree with me [thats where the fifty percent split was, we dont mind civil unions but gay marriages were a tad much] as well as disagree, and would see my points as being Left wing propaganda.

Proof of this claim, please ^^

Just remember those are the people you need to convince, and if you keep acting like that, the moderates you already convinced..will get sick of the self righteousness..as we all have things in our lives that is unfair, every single person. There are things that are really important, like having a job, putting food on the table, and having a bit of rest and relaxation time.

Proof of the claims in this section, please ^^

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and you people are indeed the few.

Prove this, please ^^

Sorry to say it so bluntly but its the truth.

Prove this, please ^^

Call me what you will, pat yourselves on the back for dealing with an "ignorant hick" but in the end, your still going to be praying the people of california dont vote on prop 8. Likely, they wont..but those who do vote will outweigh those who vote against it by a large margin. Its always the way with those things, that the elderly conservatives go to vote while the rest of the world goes to work.

Prove this, please ^^

Want to change minds, then change minds through action and deeds, not through name calling.

Prove we used name-calling, please ^^

Remember, so far I have actually linked you to the proof you asked for about canadian law on marriage. I know what I am talking about and I have a different Idea then you do.

You made several broad assertions about American law (after saying that members of one nation shouldn't tell another about their laws, but that was absurd to begin with, so I don't blame you for not following your own advice).
You never linked to them.


I dont understand how when you people agree with each other, you pat each other on the back, but when people disagree with you, they are hate mongers, religious zealots, ignorant..or even puppets. If Mel was my Puppet, they would have espoused my views, not frankly far more right wing views then I myself possess. But hey guess what.

Let's go back and see who referred to the American right as "religious zealouts"...ah, there. It was you. You've called them zealouts, bible thumpers, etc. Of course, you now protest that anybody would call you that...what's that, about five major contradictions, none of which you've been able to resolve...


You lefties have changed the world, and for the better I must say. You have taken one person who supported your cause out of fairness and equality, and placed them firmly in the other camp as it were. Continue to press your cause in this way, and soon you will have nothing you wanted.


So, some people on an internet board disagree with you, so you're going to change your beliefs and go "firmly in the camp" even if your own prior reasoning lead you elsewhere. Politics by puerile spite...yes, you're already on the American Right.


Enjoy your trek on westlaw, I am not going to be returning to this thread. After accusing someone of being a puppet for sharing similiar [not even the same] views to me I have decided you people are just as rabid of zealots as the right wingers you are trying to oppose. Neither of you deserve to win. I used to be hoping for Obama to win in america, but Now I am totally for Palin/Mcain 08. Another four years in Jesus land might do you good.

Being accused of being a hatemonger for supporting your cause is just too much to bear.


Again, you blatantly and utterly contradict yourself, within the same very paragraph. Neither side deserves to win, you say, but you will support the opposite side of where your own convictions led you, because you don't like being disagreed with here.

So, by your logic, you are now supporting a side that, by your own declarations, a) don't deserve to win AND b) is opposite to where your own person beliefs had led you.

Do you see why nobody would really want you on their side?

ACtually I did defend my points, over and over again but you havent read them. If you did read what I said..ANY of it you would have known i supported gay unions, that i didnt support gays marrying in church. But even that..That MINOR little point was enough to have you calling me ignorant and a hatemonger without even knowing what I said. I do not like when people try to argue with me but dont actually read what I said. For the most part, your not listening to the fact that I supported the right of gays to have civil unions in the states, but disagreed with gay marriages in churches.

We have all read what you said. Please stop accusing people of ignoring you because they disagree with you, especially given that people have specifically and repeatedly addressed the "separate but equal" issue in response to your suggestion that gay people should have not-marriage-but-legally-equivalent unions.

For that I get called many names

...if only by yourself...

all I did was state the truth that the vast majourity do indeed feel.

Two responses:

1. I'd love to see a source for your allegation that the majority (of US citizens, presumably?) agree with you that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation. Care to do something different and actually provide one for once?
2. Why on earth should how the majority "feels" have any impact on the legal status of minorities?

The vast majourity of rural america believes that gays should be thrown in mental institutes or killed..

You cannot expect to be taken seriously when you make over-the-top allegations like this and then refuse to source them. Either show us a poll saying that the "vast majority" of rural Americans want to kill gay people, or stop saying such silly things. (By the way - I happen to be a rural American, so you'd think I would have met one or two of these gay-killin' folks at some point...)

All of my posts have been in favour of the civil union, but opposed to the religious union. For this I am a hick, ignorant or a KKK member.

If you say so. No one else is saying those things, but if you get off on insulting yourself, well, have fun!

Call me a child? Say its a tantrum, heh you havent seen a tantrum yet.

I rather think we have. How many times now have you declared that we're all horrible leftists who keep insulting you and ignoring you, and that you're "done"?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and you people are indeed the few. Sorry to say it so bluntly but its the truth.

I do not think you understand quite how civil rights work. I'm also a bit puzzled as to how the many "need" an absence of gay people getting hitched.

Call me what you will, pat yourselves on the back for dealing with an "ignorant hick" but in the end, your still going to be praying the people of california dont vote on prop 8.

You really do like heaping insults on yourself, don't you?

Likely, they wont..but those who do vote will outweigh those who vote against it by a large margin. Its always the way with those things, that the elderly conservatives go to vote while the rest of the world goes to work.

Always? Ah, blanket statements...

Want to change minds, then change minds through action and deeds, not through name calling.

I fully support your plan to stop making up new names to call yourself and start trying to change minds.

ACtually I did defend my points, over and over again but you havent read them. If you did read what I said..ANY of it you would have known i supported gay unions, that i didnt support gays marrying in church. But even that..That MINOR little point was enough to have you calling me ignorant and a hatemonger without even knowing what I said. I do not like when people try to argue with me but dont actually read what I said. For the most part, your not listening to the fact that I supported the right of gays to have civil unions in the states, but disagreed with gay marriages in churches.

We did read that, and if you had practiced what you preached and read our responsed, you'd have noticed it was repeatedly explained that many churches can, have, and do choose to marry gays, and infertile couples, and couples not wanting children. Your point was addressed, many times, and refuted.


For that I get called many names and called ignorant, and all I did was state the truth that the vast majourity do indeed feel. The majourity in a few small states does not make it the vast majourity of america. The vast majourity of rural america believes that gays should be thrown in mental institutes or killed..so feel lucky that they are no longer in control..like they were till the early seventies.

The beliefs of the majority are not the most meaningful correlation of what is "truth". Your broad, generalized claims (like your earlier one that "not one person complained about civil unions") don't seem well supported by any actual evidence.


All of my posts have been in favour of the civil union, but opposed to the religious union. For this I am a hick, ignorant or a KKK member. Call me a child? Say its a tantrum, heh you havent seen a tantrum yet. However as I figured, perhaps bold facing important parts of the argument was the way to get your attention.

Nobody called you a KKK member. You claimed we should automatically defer to the "bible thumping majourity", and I pointed out that at one point, the majority wore sheets. Bowing to the ostensible majority, just because you assume the issue is intractable, would have left us in that situation indefinitely.


This issue is a matter of the heart, and therefore it is a contentious issue. The fact that many, many, many people disagree with you, and in fact many more agree with me [thats where the fifty percent split was, we dont mind civil unions but gay marriages were a tad much] as well as disagree, and would see my points as being Left wing propaganda. Just remember those are the people you need to convince, and if you keep acting like that, the moderates you already convinced..will get sick of the self righteousness..as we all have things in our lives that is unfair, every single person. There are things that are really important, like having a job, putting food on the table, and having a bit of rest and relaxation time.

If you are so sorely aggrieved by something as relatively civil as this discourse, you would have little potency in real civil rights struggle. You've repeatedly advocated refraining from certain actions solely because "the vast majority" would supposedly never allow it. Thus, one of your mentality is already withdrawn from the front lines of civil rights, by your own exhortation.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and you people are indeed the few. Sorry to say it so bluntly but its the truth. Call me what you will, pat yourselves on the back for dealing with an "ignorant hick" but in the end, your still going to be praying the people of california dont vote on prop 8. Likely, they wont..but those who do vote will outweigh those who vote against it by a large margin. Its always the way with those things, that the elderly conservatives go to vote while the rest of the world goes to work.

The many hardly "need" gays to be given lesser title to their unions, so no needs are being balanced here.

As to the rest, anybody who wants can go back and count the number of times somebody called you an "ignorant hick" and compare it to the number of times you've complained about being called an "ignorant hick". Depending on how the ratio is rendered, its likely it will be mathematically undefined.


Want to change minds, then change minds through action and deeds, not through name calling. Yes it did change my minds, because the left wing really is ridiculous as it looks on TV. Also, I did give you proof of canadian law.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/spouse-apply-who.asp#common_law

here it is again for your viewing pleasure. Also, yes I do support Mccain now, I did before but realised that Palin was insane. But truthfully..she cant be as bad as the left wing has become in the last five years. Even though she did indeed recently get blessed against witchcraft <.<.

Also I do think Mccain is more qualified, just once again I did not like Palin. As its likely Palin will become president when mccain drops dead, I wouldnt vote mccain. But now, were I down there..I might go with my original choice knowing that left wing Tyranny exists everywhere. Hell up here we cant even ride bicycles without helmets anymore or smoke within three meters of a window thanks to left wing nannyism.

Again, you made several more claims about various laws, concerning annulment, federal funding, adultery, failure to worship "god". Nobody denied Canada had some recognition of gay partnerships. Its all the rest you repeatedly failed to back up.

...this is CH, isn't it? Why didn't I see that before? Well, that was entertaining for a few minutes, at least.

What, A puppet? Did you just accuse Mel M'tor of being my puppet. Now I know the argument has truly fallen apart, as you are now clutching at straws in an attempt to defeat this argument. Lost Planet, Ryadn I can assure you quite clearly that Mel Mtor is NOT a puppet nation. On the other hand, your idea about a tyranny of the majourity is quaint, so now then, does this mean that a tyranny of the Minority is in Order? Remember, many people trying to be left wing or progressive jump on this bandwagon as well.

2000 U.S. presidential election. There is your tyrrany of the minority.

Your Ideals, and my ideals are different. Except I am adult enough to say my ideals arent better then yours, or to accuse you of all being Cat's puppets. Just because Mel Mtor agree's more with me then you [and lets be clear mel mtor's arguments were not the same as mine] does not mean they have to automatically be a puppet. Perhaps, in your infinite wisdom you could reason that, since one person actually agree's with the anti gay marriage angle proposed by one other person, that person may indeed be a person.

Your view point is NOT the only viewpoint in the world. I can also make my own arguments quite well without having to have any back up. Its appreciated yes, but not needed. Remember, so far I have actually linked you to the proof you asked for about canadian law on marriage. I know what I am talking about and I have a different Idea then you do.

You can't use well my idea is different argument to back up your opinions. You have the right to your opinion, and I wont try to take that away from you. Sure every one has the right to their opinion, however that alone does not justify their opinion. Facts and reason justify opinions not rights.

I dont understand how when you people agree with each other, you pat each other on the back, but when people disagree with you, they are hate mongers, religious zealots, ignorant..or even puppets. If Mel was my Puppet, they would have espoused my views, not frankly far more right wing views then I myself possess. But hey guess what.

You lefties have changed the world, and for the better I must say. You have taken one person who supported your cause out of fairness and equality, and placed them firmly in the other camp as it were. Continue to press your cause in this way, and soon you will have nothing you wanted.

How is one supposed to press their cause through innaction and fantasy perhaps??


Enjoy your trek on westlaw, I am not going to be returning to this thread. After accusing someone of being a puppet for sharing similiar [not even the same] views to me I have decided you people are just as rabid of zealots as the right wingers you are trying to oppose. Neither of you deserve to win. I used to be hoping for Obama to win in america, but Now I am totally for Palin/Mcain 08. Another four years in Jesus land might do you good.

Being accused of being a hatemonger for supporting your cause is just too much to bear.

Another four years in "Jesus land" might see the world economy collapse which will effect you up there. Also what do I care what you hope for. I will vote for whomever I please(Obama). You keep saying you were done posting on here when is that actually going to come to fruition.

**snip**

Poli, I know you and I have disagreed in the past, but there is no reason for you to have called me a mullet-sporting shit bird or a mulatto's mustard fart of a antidisestablishmentarianist.

Please try just talking to me, and not calling me an under-gestated space herpe.



Seriously, now, stop it. Calling me a porn publishing whore of the gun lobby is not productive.


Okay, Poli, if you can't have a real discussion without all this namecalling, I'm done. I wont' be back in this thread.



You bitch.

Poli, I know you and I have disagreed in the past, but there is no reason for you to have called me a mullet-sporting shit bird or a mulatto's mustard fart of a antidisestablishmentarianist.

Please try just talking to me, and not calling me an under-gestated space herpe.



Seriously, now, stop it. Calling me a porn publishing whore of the gun lobby is not productive.


Okay, Poli, if you can't have a real discussion without all this namecalling, I'm done. I wont' be back in this thread.



You bitch.

Pfft, you know you like it, you lily-livered walrus-licking nincompoop. ;)

Pfft, you know you like it, you lily-livered walrus-licking nincompoop. ;)

He never licked me once, I swear!

Prove this. And discussing how some ancient cultures may have regarded it is hardly proof of how or why it can be done today.

I haven't caught up with the thread yet, but just a point fyi:

Unlike our friend, I have read history, and I am confident in saying that no ancient cultures regarded marriage as necessary for the production of children. In fact, I am confident in claiming that the vast majority of people who have ever been born in the world since the origin of homo sapiens, were born without benefit of wedlock. I am also confident in saying that the real purpose of marriage was to draw lines around property (land, stuff, money, people) and tell the rest of the world, "This is mine/ours; you keep your filthy mitts off." Children were not needed at all unless the married couple were rich enough that they had enough stuff and/or enough power that they felt motivated to pick who got it after they died. And if kings and such had no children of their own, they'd pick some lucky person to fill in. Producing children = not really a necessary part of marriage.

At least not until the rise of the religious right in the US.

Not necessarily. Quite often, the idea was to trade the bride for certain concessions. The bride herself was the deal. The whole issue about virginity and the like was to make sure that she was as pure and clean as possible. Kings of old tended to object quite a bit if their manhood fell off after having a bit of fun with the 14-year-old they just traded a nobility title for.

For children, the wife wasn't necessary, and there were more than a few times when a bastard child ended up with a throne. After all, if it's an acknowledged heir, who cares if you never observed the queen being pregnant?



And yet, quite often the kingdoms would go to war with each other within two or three generations.
Oh, a shitload sooner than that very often. Marriage was just a formality to acknowledge a treaty. It in no way sealed or enforced it.

He never licked me once, I swear!

That's what YOU think. I hear he's been sneaking into your bedroom while you're asleep... :tongue:

ACtually I did defend my points, over and over again but you havent read them. If you did read what I said..ANY of it you would have known i supported gay unions, that i didnt support gays marrying in church. But even that..That MINOR little point was enough to have you calling me ignorant and a hatemonger without even knowing what I said. I do not like when people try to argue with me but dont actually read what I said. For the most part, your not listening to the fact that I supported the right of gays to have civil unions in the states, but disagreed with gay marriages in churches.

NO one ever called you a hate monger they simply challenged your opinion, and here you are flipping out because people told you your opinion was unsubstantiated.

For that I get called many names and called ignorant, and all I did was state the truth that the vast majourity do indeed feel. The majourity in a few small states does not make it the vast majourity of america. The vast majourity of rural america believes that gays should be thrown in mental institutes or killed..so feel lucky that they are no longer in control..like they were till the early seventies.

Actually no Even the people who oppose gay marriage for the most part oppose it is because they are uncomfortable and feel akward about the idea not because they want to kill them. Rural Americans where not in control of America up untill the late seventies what are you talking about. Ever hear of FDR.

All of my posts have been in favour of the civil union, but opposed to the religious union. For this I am a hick, ignorant or a KKK member. Call me a child? Say its a tantrum, heh you havent seen a tantrum yet. However as I figured, perhaps bold facing important parts of the argument was the way to get your attention.

No one called you any of those things. Important facts have been laid against you this entire thread you have not responded to them merely reacted in this way because your opinion was challenged.

here it is again for your viewing pleasure. Also, yes I do support Mccain now, I did before but realised that Palin was insane. But truthfully..she cant be as bad as the left wing has become in the last five years. Even though she did indeed recently get blessed against witchcraft <.<.


Who cares who you support you cant vote here. It seems to me like you had a problem with the left in general before this ever happened either that or you get upset when people dispute your opinions ever.

That's what YOU think. I hear he's been sneaking into your bedroom while you're asleep... :tongue:

Well, that explains the moistness...

Depends on which culture you're talking about, and what era. For example, most people don't know it, but the Romans actually had same-sex marriage as legal up until it was banned.

If you want an example of marriage used for politics, look at the end of the Thirty Years War, where a peace treaty involved the marriage of Louis XIV and Maria Teresa. It actually made Louis XIV one of the most prominant monarchs in region at the time.

Or my personal favorite -- Lucrezia Borgia. She was married off so many times, it made the poor woman's head spin. Every time her dad wanted to make a new and better business deal, he'd just assassinate whatever husband he'd sold her to so he could marry her off to someone else. At least, until her dad became the Pope. Then he just annulled her marriages.

Wait, can somebody explain again how religious marraige is?

Or my personal favorite -- Lucrezia Borgia. She was married off so many times, it made the poor woman's head spin. Every time her dad wanted to make a new and better business deal, he'd just assassinate whatever husband he'd sold her to so he could marry her off to someone else. At least, until her dad became the Pope. Then he just annulled her marriages.

Wait, can somebody explain again how religious marraige is?

That poor woman... Still, could have been worse. She could have ended up married to Henry the 8th.

That's what YOU think. I hear he's been sneaking into your bedroom while you're asleep... :tongue:

POLI!!! EWWW!! *imagines Ham licking a sleeping walrus* *dies*

I haven't caught up with the thread yet, but just a point fyi:

Unlike our friend, I have read history, and I am confident in saying that no ancient cultures regarded marriage as necessary for the production of children.

I think he was claiming that getting married was only necessitated for the purposes of having children. He later backpedaled and said he was getting married for love, and children were part of that. As if gays (or people not planning on having children) could haven't love.

To solve his problem, I think we should just make sure gays have equal and full adoption rights. Then they can be parents and fulfill what he thinks is the "primary" purpose of marriage.


In fact, I am confident in claiming that the vast majority of people who have ever been born in the world since the origin of homo sapiens, were born without benefit of wedlock. I am also confident in saying that the real purpose of marriage was to draw lines around property (land, stuff, money, people) and tell the rest of the world, "This is mine/ours; you keep your filthy mitts off." Children were not needed at all unless the married couple were rich enough that they had enough stuff and/or enough power that they felt motivated to pick who got it after they died. And if kings and such had no children of their own, they'd pick some lucky person to fill in. Producing children = not really a necessary part of marriage.

At least not until the rise of the religious right in the US.

He never really explained why having children was supposedly the only reason for marriage, absent the fact that the "vast majority" that he himself described as "bible thumpers" and "zealots" viewed it that way, and some political powers in the past used marriage and children for political reasons.

Of course, he also claims to now support a side that he admits doesn't deserve to win, and that he previously had rejected, but apparently only because of their VP choice, but now he's supporting them regardless, even though he has no vote in the election being discussed, because a few people disagreed with him here.

He'll be a fine asset to the right, that's for sure.

You bitch.

POLI!!! EWWW!! *imagines Ham licking a sleeping walrus* *dies*

You know how, in high school, the basketball coach would give us that huge, meter wide ball to bounce around and try to pass, on the hypothesis that when you again returned to the regulation sized ball, it would somehow feel small and easy to wield?

So, I've been wanting to give my wife better tongue service, and I saw this walrus...








I'm sorry, mods.

POLI!!! EWWW!! *imagines Ham licking a sleeping walrus* *dies*

Don't you just love the turns NSG threads take? Only here could a discussion of California law turn into marine mammal molestation. :D

I think he was claiming that getting married was only necessitated for the purposes of having children. He later backpedaled and said he was getting married for love, and children were part of that. As if gays (or people not planning on having children) could haven't love.

To solve his problem, I think we should just make sure gays have equal and full adoption rights. Then they can be parents and fulfill what he thinks is the "primary" purpose of marriage.



He never really explained why having children was supposedly the only reason for marriage, absent the fact that the "vast majority" that he himself described as "bible thumpers" and "zealots" viewed it that way, and some political powers in the past used marriage and children for political reasons.

Of course, he also claims to now support a side that he admits doesn't deserve to win, and that he previously had rejected, but apparently only because of their VP choice, but now he's supporting them regardless, even though he has no vote in the election being discussed, because a few people disagreed with him here.

He'll be a fine asset to the right, that's for sure.

You bitch.
Yah, I got caught up eventually. I wrote him off as high-function troll. So ridiculous.

You scum.

Don't you just love the turns NSG threads take? Only here could a discussion of California law turn into marine mammal molestation. :D
It's why I stick around. On the other hand -- ugh! I have too vivid an imagination... blech.

You know how, in high school, the basketball coach would give us that huge, meter wide ball to bounce around and try to pass, on the hypothesis that when you again returned to the regulation sized ball, it would somehow feel small and easy to wield?

So, I've been wanting to give my wife better tongue service, and I saw this walrus...








I'm sorry, mods.
The mods don't have to worry. You have created a conflict within me in which saying that you've just turned me off what you're talking about for life would be both the truth and a lie at the same time. This conflict can only be resolved by your death. Get over here, bastard. I'm gonna settle your shit right now.

The mods don't have to worry. You have created a conflict within me in which saying that you've just turned me off what you're talking about for life would be both the truth and a lie at the same time. This conflict can only be resolved by your death. Get over here, bastard. I'm gonna settle your shit right now.

**Walks over, assumes combat stance (fetal position with arms crossed over face) and shouts battle cry!***


Not the face! NOT THE FACE!

**Walks over, assumes combat stance (fetal position with arms crossed over face) and shouts battle cry!***


Not the face! NOT THE FACE!
*moves face up on list of things to hit*

*moves face up on list of things to hit*

I just wanted to pleasure the walrus....

I just wanted to pleasure the walrus....
Well...alright, but don't look me in the eyes, it's creepy...

Well...alright, but don't look me in the eyes, it's creepy...

How else am I supposed to get real-time feedback?

Not a fucking telepath, nom-de-non, and this tugging-on-my-ears bullshit is about as useful as an ash-tray on a respirator.

If you want more to the left, say "left". My tongue is occupied, not yours.






Dick.

How else am I supposed to get real-time feedback?

Not a fucking telepath, nom-de-non, and this tugging-on-my-ears bullshit is about as useful as an ash-tray on a respirator.

If you want more to the left, say "left". My tongue is occupied, not yours.






Dick.
*Shoots* There. There now.

And seriously, you ass, who needs an ashtray more than someone on a respirator? Think about it. For a change.

I am going to vote no on it; state's rights are hypocritical when they deny basic human rights, we learned that in the American Civil War.