Great! New challenge already to the Cali same sex marriage laws

[SUBMAN1]

Now on the chopping block, since gay marriage is allowed, why not Incest marriage and why not Polygamists?

Lets see how this one plays out. Using the same argument of the Cali Supreme Court, there is no way you can deny Incest relationships or Polygamists.

The argument the court used - any and all loving relationships. Guess cows and sheep can be married next.

Funny how the alarmists on this one 'under estimated' the impact this will have.

-S

[mookiemookie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)

[SUBMAN1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)Sure. And this is coming from a state where their courts sent little girls back to a Polygamist camp saying they weren't in danger! You are a funny guy!

-S

[Hitman]

Guess cows and sheep can be married next.


No. Speaking as a jurist, I must point out that a cow or a sheep can't give his agreement to being married. Free agreement from both parts and consciousness of what they are doing is essential to any contract or institution, and also to the marriage. No animal can therefore give the legally necessary agreement, since they are not able to understand what it is about.

[SUBMAN1]

Guess cows and sheep can be married next.

No. Speaking as a jurist, I must point out that a cow or a sheep can't give his agreement to being married. Free agreement from both parts and consciousness of what they are doing is essential to any contract or institution, and also to the marriage. No animal can therefore give the legally necessary agreement, since they are not able to understand what it is about.I detect a bit of discrimination in your post! :D How dare you? A simple Baah definitely warrants consensual partnership! You should be stoned in the street for your intolerance!!!!!! :yep:

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

The state should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever, including "traditional" marriages. This includes marriage licensing and taxation.

[Ducimus]

>>Great! New challenge already to the Cali same sex marriage laws


Eh, you mean the special interest groups are just now getting around to challenging it? If so, im surprised its taken them this long. I honestly don't see same sex marriage lasting for very long, as said special interest groups don't ever stop tell they get their way.

[Ishmael]

The state should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever, including "traditional" marriages. This includes marriage licensing and taxation.

To me it's an equal protection under the law issue. A marriage is a contract between two people. For me the solution would be to only recognize civil marriage under law and use Religious marriage rites for those who wish a religious sanction to civil marriage. The problem with restricting the state from marriage is the consequences of divorce. On the other hand, I've read reports that the overall divorce rate is down in Massachusetts since gay marriage was adopted there.

[mrbeast]

Why does gay marriage bother you so much Subman?

[EDIT: just noticed, 1000th post!]

[trekchu]

Why does gay marriage bother you so much Subman?

[EDIT: just noticed, 1000th post!]
I second that question. Over here Gay MArriage is allowed for some time now and except for some rumblings in ultra conservative circles in Bavaria nobody really cares.

[Sailor Steve]

The state should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever, including "traditional" marriages. This includes marriage licensing and taxation.

To me it's an equal protection under the law issue. A marriage is a contract between two people. For me the solution would be to only recognize civil marriage under law and use Religious marriage rites for those who wish a religious sanction to civil marriage. The problem with restricting the state from marriage is the consequences of divorce. On the other hand, I've read reports that the overall divorce rate is down in Massachusetts since gay marriage was adopted there.
It goes both ways. Civil because, as you say, marriage is a binding legal contract. Religious because it's considered to be done "in the eyes of God". This holds true whatever god you happen to believe in.

Part of the problem is the question of how marriage came about in the first place. If it was instituted "by God", then the government should stay out of it altogether, and gay marriage becomes a moot point. But it could also be argued that marriage exists solely because of the social need to have two parents of opposite sex to raise the children for twenty years. In other words, it exists simply to force the father to stick around and provide for the family. If that's the case then religion becomes irrelevant, since the need for marriage is a social one. It also means that "benefits" from a job or the government are purely for the sake of raising children, so gay marriage becomes a joke, purely within that context. But if a corporation agrees to pay benefits to a gay partner, that's their business.

If we agree that marriage is for the security of the children, it may exclude gay marriage, but it also excludes the religious, since the civil reasons are obvious. But if that's the case, the religious have nothing to complain about, since their arguments are strictly of a moral nature. On the other hand, if marriage is for religious reasons, then you can hardly have religious freedom while excluding some because their beliefs are different from yours.

Of course the religious don't want to allow gay marriage, because it seems to them to be an acceptance of something they see as morally wrong. But to actively ban such a thing means applying restrictions on a purely moral basis.

I don't like the idea either, but I always have to fall back on my bottom line: Either you have freedom or you don't.

[SUBMAN1]

The state should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever, including "traditional" marriages. This includes marriage licensing and taxation.
To me it's an equal protection under the law issue. A marriage is a contract between two people. For me the solution would be to only recognize civil marriage under law and use Religious marriage rites for those who wish a religious sanction to civil marriage. The problem with restricting the state from marriage is the consequences of divorce. On the other hand, I've read reports that the overall divorce rate is down in Massachusetts since gay marriage was adopted there.There is your problem - reducing marriage to nothing more than a legal contract.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

There is your problem - reducing marriage to nothing more than a legal contract.

-S


Good point. Marriage is a religious or personal institution and should not involve the state. If it does you have state-sanctioned religous or personal ceremonies. Should the state regulate your baptism or kegger? Hell no!!

[SUBMAN1]

Why does gay marriage bother you so much Subman?

[EDIT: just noticed, 1000th post!] I second that question. Over here Gay MArriage is allowed for some time now and except for some rumblings in ultra conservative circles in Bavaria nobody really cares.Because it is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing punishment on people that don't agree with it.

Just some examples:

Religious Freedom

Private Property rights


Why is it that when a Methodist retreat center recently refused to marry two lesbians that New Jersey punished them by removing their tax exempt status?

After marriage laws in Kalifornia, Catholic charities are now forced by the state to accept homo's as possible candidates for child adoption?

Are you seeing how this goes against peoples beliefs? This is forced by the state!

Kalifornia public schools now must be gay friendly! Of course this won't stop at 'public' schools either. Imagine Catholic gay friendly schools? Quebec even recently forced a school to provide curriculum about how gay lifestyles are a valid way of life!

Where does it stop? These special rights? These crazy thoughts? The thought police are coming down hard on you - you must conform! BS!

If you speak out these days against homo's marriage, you can get fired! Worse, one lady named Crystal Dixon wrote a peice about support of traditional marriages recently - just an opinion column, and the U. of Toledo fired her for it because it didn't include gays! That's the craziest thing I've ever heard!

ANyway, you guys can jump back on your PC bandwagon and travel down a path to your eventual demise, but I'll get off here thank you very much.

-S

PS. Lets list some more:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Association

All under threat.

[Ishmael]

Why does gay marriage bother you so much Subman?

[EDIT: just noticed, 1000th post!] I second that question. Over here Gay MArriage is allowed for some time now and except for some rumblings in ultra conservative circles in Bavaria nobody really cares.Because it is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing punishment on people that don't agree with it.

Just some examples:

Religious Freedom

Private Property rights


Why is it that when a Methodist retreat center recently refused to marry two lesbians that New Jersey punished them by removing their tax exempt status?

After marriage laws in Kalifornia, Catholic charities are now forced by the state to accept homo's as possible candidates for child adoption?

Are you seeing how this goes against peoples beliefs? This is forced by the state!

Kalifornia public schools now must be gay friendly! Of course this won't stop at 'public' schools either. Imagine Catholic gay friendly schools? Quebec even recently forced a school to provide curriculum about how gay lifestyles are a valid way of life!

Where does it stop? These special rights? These crazy thoughts? The thought police are coming down hard on you - you must conform! BS!

If you speak out these days against homo's marriage, you can get fired! Worse, one lady named Crystal Dixon wrote a peice about support of traditional marriages recently - just an opinion column, and the U. of Toledo fired her for it because it didn't include gays! That's the craziest thing I've ever heard!

ANyway, you guys can jump back on your PC bandwagon and travel down a path to your eventual demise, but I'll get off here thank you very much.

-S

PS. Lets list some more:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Association

All under threat.

Fine. Let's take it in the opposite direction. Only religious marriages are real. Then we can abolish civil marriage altogether and end marriage and dependant tax exemptions so everyone would be single and abolish all divorce and family courts as the government should have no standing in any divorce or custody battle. Any inheritance rights would have to be specifically spelled out in a will and if you die without one, everything reverts to the state.

[August]

Fine. Let's take it in the opposite direction. Only religious marriages are real. Then we can abolish civil marriage altogether and end marriage and dependant tax exemptions so everyone would be single and abolish all divorce and family courts as the government should have no standing in any divorce or custody battle. Any inheritance rights would have to be specifically spelled out in a will and if you die without one, everything reverts to the state.

Actually that sounds pretty good to me. Can anyone point to a downside?

[SUBMAN1]

Fine. Let's take it in the opposite direction. Only religious marriages are real. Then we can abolish civil marriage altogether and end marriage and dependant tax exemptions so everyone would be single and abolish all divorce and family courts as the government should have no standing in any divorce or custody battle. Any inheritance rights would have to be specifically spelled out in a will and if you die without one, everything reverts to the state.
Actually that sounds pretty good to me. Can anyone point to a downside?I can't see any! Lets do it!

-S

[Ducimus]

There is your problem - reducing marriage to nothing more than a legal contract.

-S


It's been this way for quite some time. I guess you've never seen, quite literally, contract marriages. The only reason they occur, is so the particpants get more money in their paycheck.

The victorian ideal of marriage died years ago. Very few people are married "tell death do us part" It's not uncommon for people to be on ther 2nd, 3rd, maybe even 4th marriage.
So this whole concept of gays somehow defiling marriage to me is a load of bunk. The definition of marriage changed years ago. The fact that most marriages occur in a church, is mostly a formality. Las vegas is a great (albiet extreme) example of this with their drive through chapel's and such.

edit: To say nothing of prenuptial agreements. If that doesnt spell out contract, nothing does. It's how things are.

[Sea Demon]

Fine. Let's take it in the opposite direction. Only religious marriages are real. Then we can abolish civil marriage altogether and end marriage and dependant tax exemptions so everyone would be single and abolish all divorce and family courts as the government should have no standing in any divorce or custody battle. Any inheritance rights would have to be specifically spelled out in a will and if you die without one, everything reverts to the state.
If we simply define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, this scenario of yours is pure pie-in-the-sky fantasy. None of it is necessary with the historical precepts of what marriage is defined as. The mentally warped/misguided from this era are the people that are trying to redefine things that are already very well defined. The sane people in society are just saying no thanks. This whole issue is bogus to begin with.

[Sea Demon]

The definition of marriage changed years ago.

No it hasn't. ;)

[SUBMAN1]

It's been this way for quite some time. I guess you've never seen, quite literally, contract marriages. The only reason they occur, is so the particpants get more money in their paycheck.

The victorian ideal of marriage died years ago. Very few people are married "tell death do us part" It's not uncommon for people to be on ther 2nd, 3rd, maybe even 4th marriage.
So this whole concept of gays somehow defiling marriage to me is a load of bunk. The definition of marriage changed years ago. The fact that most marriages occur in a church, is mostly a formality. Las vegas is a great (albiet extreme) example of this with their drive through chapel's and such.

edit: To say nothing of prenuptial agreements. If that doesnt spell out contract, nothing does. It's how things are.
But thats not really being married now is it?

Look up Princeton Professor Robert George. He wrote a book about that. Matrimonial Law he says reflects a moral judgment. Marriage is inherently heterosexual, monogamous, & permanent. A union of one Man & one Woman. It is not only based on biblical, but on natural law as well. A communion of two to one and is consummated and actualized sexually. Organic unity.

And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?

-S

PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T! :D

[Mikhayl]

Lots of people wish it hasn't.

[Sea Demon]

but on natural law as well.

Natural Law or common sense will never stop a liberal dem from doing the nutty stuff they do. :lol:


.... Is that the business of government?

To a liberal....everything is the business of government. This is why, on this issue, we voters in the state of California have assured the final say will be the voters. We had to make it our business because these homosexual activists feel that government should be the final arbiter. We've said no. We are not leaving it to looney judges on the bench with an insane outlook of society and it's institutions.

[Sailor Steve]

Because it is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing punishment on people that don't agree with it.
You seem to like to reverse arguments. You want to force punishment (i.e. unequal status) on people who don't agree with your moral judgements.

Why is it that when a Methodist retreat center recently refused to marry two lesbians that New Jersey punished them by removing their tax exempt status?
Why is it that churches have tax-exempt status in the first place?

After marriage laws in Kalifornia, Catholic charities are now forced by the state to accept homo's as possible candidates for child adoption?
I might agree, but when children are parentless and being held for adoption, who is anyone to judge who is the better parent. Lot's of both-gender parents are pretty bad ones.

Are you seeing how this goes against peoples beliefs? This is forced by the state!
I see: the state forcing a lifestyle is okay as long as it's one you agree with, but not any others.

Where does it stop? These special rights? These crazy thoughts? The thought police are coming down hard on you - you must conform! BS!
Same thing as above. You want to use the law to force people to conform to your way of thinking, but if someone's ideas disagree with yours, they're robbing your freedom.

And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?
And yet again you want to use the government to enforce the lifestyle you say everyone should have, but when someone else demands equal rights you're suddenly up in arms.


You also seem to like making lists of freedoms you would deny others, but crying that you're losing yours. You can't have it both ways.

[SUBMAN1]

Because it is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing punishment on people that don't agree with it. You seem to like to reverse arguments. You want to force punishment (i.e. unequal status) on people who don't agree with your moral judgements.

Why is it that when a Methodist retreat center recently refused to marry two lesbians that New Jersey punished them by removing their tax exempt status? Why is it that churches have tax-exempt status in the first place?

After marriage laws in Kalifornia, Catholic charities are now forced by the state to accept homo's as possible candidates for child adoption? I might agree, but when children are parentless and being held for adoption, who is anyone to judge who is the better parent. Lot's of both-gender parents are pretty bad ones.

Are you seeing how this goes against peoples beliefs? This is forced by the state! I see: the state forcing a lifestyle is okay as long as it's one you agree with, but not any others.

Where does it stop? These special rights? These crazy thoughts? The thought police are coming down hard on you - you must conform! BS! Same thing as above. You want to use the law to force people to conform to your way of thinking, but if someone's ideas disagree with yours, they're robbing your freedom.

And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government? And yet again you want to use the government to enforce the lifestyle you say everyone should have, but when someone else demands equal rights you're suddenly up in arms.


You also seem to like making lists of freedoms you would deny others, but crying that you're losing yours. You can't have it both ways.
All of it right over your head, or your gay, one of the two. From Non-profits not being taxed to showing punishment where there is - you missed the whole lot! Your arguments don't hold water since they are all personal attacks against my comments, not talking about the issue directly. Nice.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Because it is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing punishment on people that don't agree with it. You seem to like to reverse arguments. You want to force punishment (i.e. unequal status) on people who don't agree with your moral judgements.

Why is it that when a Methodist retreat center recently refused to marry two lesbians that New Jersey punished them by removing their tax exempt status? Why is it that churches have tax-exempt status in the first place?

After marriage laws in Kalifornia, Catholic charities are now forced by the state to accept homo's as possible candidates for child adoption? I might agree, but when children are parentless and being held for adoption, who is anyone to judge who is the better parent. Lot's of both-gender parents are pretty bad ones.

Are you seeing how this goes against peoples beliefs? This is forced by the state! I see: the state forcing a lifestyle is okay as long as it's one you agree with, but not any others.

Where does it stop? These special rights? These crazy thoughts? The thought police are coming down hard on you - you must conform! BS! Same thing as above. You want to use the law to force people to conform to your way of thinking, but if someone's ideas disagree with yours, they're robbing your freedom.

And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government? And yet again you want to use the government to enforce the lifestyle you say everyone should have, but when someone else demands equal rights you're suddenly up in arms.


You also seem to like making lists of freedoms you would deny others, but crying that you're losing yours. You can't have it both ways.
All of it right over your head, or your gay, one of the two. From Non-profits not being taxed to showing punishment where there is - you missed the whole lot! Your arguments don't hold water since they are all personal attacks, not talking about the issue. Nice.

-S
Ahh...classic. Your logic fails. You insist the person just isn't intelligent enough to understand your flawed logic. And accuse the other person of personal attacks in the same breath of calling the person stupid or homosexual. Nice.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Ahh...classic. Your logic fails. You insist the person just isn't intelligent enough to understand your flawed logic. And accuse the other person of personal attacks in the same breath of calling the person stupid or homosexual. Nice.

PDRead again - he attacks my ideas, not the issue. He is not talking about the issue, but about me and my ideas alone. Bring up the competiting side why not? But no - I got none of it.

But I expected you to take his back on this one too - again after me, not the issue from you too.

That's classic.

-S

[Mikhayl]

That's classic.

-S

Indeed :)

[mrbeast]

Ahh...classic. Your logic fails. You insist the person just isn't intelligent enough to understand your flawed logic. And accuse the other person of personal attacks in the same breath of calling the person stupid or homosexual. Nice.

PDRead again - he attacks my ideas, not the issue. He is not talking about the issue, but about me and my ideas alone. Bring up the competiting side why not? But no - I got none of it.

But I expected you to take his back on this one too - again after me, not the issue from you too.

That's classic.

-S

Come off it Subman, you do this thread after thread after thread. Someone questions your logic or puts forward a counter argument, which you enevitably don't agree with so you attempt to insult or discredit your opponents intelligence.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Read again - he attacks my ideas, not the issue.
I agree he attacks your ideas. That's how argument tends to work on forums. OP puts forth an issue and his views on that issue. Other posters agree with, or attack those ideas. Those attacks can be made based on the OP posting bad data; or, as in this case, flawed logic, etc.

And you can't see the irony of you calling Steve gay or not intelligent and then accusing him of personal attacks?

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Read again - he attacks my ideas, not the issue. I agree he attacks your ideas. That's how argument tends to work on forums. OP puts forth an issue and his views on that issue. Other posters agree with, or attack those ideas. Those attacks can be made based on the OP posting bad data; or, as in this case, flawed logic, etc. No - I want outside support! I'm not after 'opinions' in this sense, especially opinions that attack me personally.

The kind of logic I am dealing with is that it is OK to selectively make an organization taxable when the refuse to follow soemthing against their beliefs? Come on! He said that - as an argument! How did this not go over his head? Give me a break!

He saying I want to use the force of law because I'm some crazy person - How so? I'm trying to get these damn special rights out of law!

And how about this - this is classic! You seem to like to reverse arguments. You want to force punishment (i.e. unequal status) on people who don't agree with your moral judgements. Talk about the biggest revers of an argument in history - yet I'm the one being accused here! Hahahahahahaha! That is some funny you know what!

I never said anything like this:

I see: the state forcing a lifestyle is okay as long as it's one you agree with, but not any others.

I'm being personally accused of things here and that's BS.

And you can't see the irony of you calling Steve gay or not intelligent and then accusing him of personal attacks? I never said he wasn't intelligent. I said he either missed the point, or has a vested interest more or less. :p

And you - as well.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Come off it Subman, you do this thread after thread after thread. Someone questions your logic or puts forward a counter argument, which you enevitably don't agree with so you attempt to insult or discredit your opponents intelligence.Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

I never said anything like this:

I see: the state forcing a lifestyle is okay as long as it's one you agree with, but not any others.
I'm being personally accused of things here and that's BS. Okay.

What's happening here is Steve is using logic. He is not personally attacking you. If I understand him, he is arguing that you seem to believe the state should nullify this gay marriage ruling. Making gay marriage illegal essentially, right? What Steve is saying that you seem to think it's OK to use the state to force your marriage beliefs on other people. But not okay to use the state to force a belief you don't agree with (taxing a religious institution).

I think what Steve is saying is "You can't have it both ways." Hardly a personal attack.

PD

Sorry if I butchered what you were trying to say Steve.

[Stealth Hunter]

Fine. Let's take it in the opposite direction. Only religious marriages are real. Then we can abolish civil marriage altogether and end marriage and dependant tax exemptions so everyone would be single and abolish all divorce and family courts as the government should have no standing in any divorce or custody battle. Any inheritance rights would have to be specifically spelled out in a will and if you die without one, everything reverts to the state.
If we simply define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, this scenario of yours is pure pie-in-the-sky fantasy. None of it is necessary with the historical precepts of what marriage is defined as. The mentally warped/misguided from this era are the people that are trying to redefine things that are already very well defined. The sane people in society are just saying no thanks. This whole issue is bogus to begin with.

*cough*Sub's Christian*cough*

:shifty:

[mrbeast]

Come off it Subman, you do this thread after thread after thread. Someone questions your logic or puts forward a counter argument, which you enevitably don't agree with so you attempt to insult or discredit your opponents intelligence.Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

-S

Subman, the posts are there for all to see on this forum.

[SUBMAN1]

I never said anything like this:

I see: the state forcing a lifestyle is okay as long as it's one you agree with, but not any others.
I'm being personally accused of things here and that's BS. Okay.

What's happening here is Steve is using logic. He is not personally attacking you. If I understand him, he is arguing that you seem to believe the state should nullify this gay marriage ruling. Making gay marriage illegal essentially, right? What Steve is saying that you seem to think it's OK to use the state to force your marriage beliefs on other people. But not okay to use the state to force a belief you don't agree with (taxing a religious institution).

I think what Steve is saying is "You can't have it both ways." Hardly a personal attack.

PD

Sorry if I butchered what you were trying to say Steve.You butchered what I was trying to say. To start making laws that allow people to marry goats, or same sex marriages, polygamy, or incest is not the states business - period. All of those listed are along the same lines. You don't see male bears humping other male bears in the woods! How backwards have both of you become?

And to add further insult to injury, the people don't want it! Period! The people voted it down! :down: Some activist judge comes along and over-turns the will of the people? Hello?

This is a case of the few saying that the will of the people doesn't matter. Period.

You guys can sit here and spin it anyway you want, but thats the simple facts.

And quit cherry picking only one part. Deal with it as a whole or let Steve deal with it. Why are you speaking for him?

-S

PS. Everyone of those judges should be impeached for willful disregard of the constitution.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, the posts are there for all to see on this forum.Exactly Mr. Pot. How many should we pull up in an advanced search with your name on it?

-S

[mrbeast]

Subman, the posts are there for all to see on this forum.Exactly Mr. Pot. How many should we pull up in an advanced search with your name on it?

-S

Be my guest, lets start with this one:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=889822&postcount=44

[PeriscopeDepth]

Well, since I'm here...
You butchered what I was trying to say. To start making laws that allow people to marry goats, or same sex marriages, polygamy, or incest is not the states business - period. But it's the state's business to define marriage as between a man and a woman?
All of those listed are along the same lines. You don't see male bears humping other male bears in the woods! How backwards have both of you become? We are to make our laws based on what bears do? And show me a gay bear study! :)
And to add further insult to injury, the people don't want it! Period! The people voted it down! :down: When? I was under the impression it hadn't happened yet.
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2008/07/01/will-californias-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-pass.htm

This is a case of the few saying that the will of the people doesn't matter. Period. Come on. That is the function of the courts sometimes, like it or not. Say Southern courts in the 1840s had said a slave should have rights. Would that be a "case of the few saying that the will of the people doesn't matter"? Or would it have been the right thing for the court to do?

PD

[Sea Demon]

*cough*Sub's Christian*cough*

:shifty:

So what if Subman's a Christian. What an absolute lame comment. Do you suppose only Christian's oppose homosexual "marriage"? If so, I don't think you get out much. BTW, how do they treat homosexual's in that backwards country you came from? How do the Mullah's treat homosexuals there? I got news for you, homosexuals, even without marriage here, live in heaven compared to that place I see you defend so heartily and quite often.

[Sea Demon]

But it's the state's business to define marriage as between a man and a woman?


It's existence precedes the state, and all the insane redefining of it's core. Marriage is what it';s always been....between a man and a woman. No BS redefining will change that. Nor will force of the state bring universal acceptance.

[SUBMAN1]

Subman, the posts are there for all to see on this forum.Exactly Mr. Pot. How many should we pull up in an advanced search with your name on it?

-S
Be my guest, lets start with this one:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=889822&postcount=44

Please don't take things out of context. Include it all.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

But it's the state's business to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

It's existence precedes the state, and all the insane redefining of it's core. Marriage is what it';s always been....between a man and a woman. No BS redefining will change that. Nor will force of the state bring universal acceptance.Thanks. You saved me from having to answer another twisted question.

Its as old as time.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

But it's the state's business to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

It's existence precedes the state, and all the insane redefining of it's core. Marriage is what it';s always been....between a man and a woman. No BS redefining will change that. Nor will force of the state bring universal acceptance.
I understand that its defining long preceded the state. But just because there is a historical precedence for something doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be changed.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

...When? I was under the impression it hadn't happened yet.
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/2008/07/01/will-californias-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-pass.htm

This is a case of the few saying that the will of the people doesn't matter. Period. Come on. That is the function of the courts sometimes, like it or not. Say Southern courts in the 1840s had said a slave should have rights. Would that be a "case of the few saying that the will of the people doesn't matter"? Or would it have been the right thing for the court to do?

PDSince all your questions have already beed answered for you, I'll answer your final one:

California’s 2000 ballot initiative Proposition 22 (or Prop 22) prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

But it's the state's business to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

It's existence precedes the state, and all the insane redefining of it's core. Marriage is what it';s always been....between a man and a woman. No BS redefining will change that. Nor will force of the state bring universal acceptance. I understand that its defining long preceded the state. But just because there is a historical precedence for something doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be changed.

PDchanged to someone perverted way of perceiving things? Are you serious? Why have any laws at all at that point? That what you are saying.

-S

[Mikhayl]

What's wrong exactly with gay marriage ?
I can understand religious people have a fixed idea of what marriage is/should be, but AFAIK homosexuals don't ask for the right to religious marriage, but only "legal" marriage, so what business is it of religious people ?
Btw I'm having a hard time seeing that comparing two adults consentant persons willing to marry each other with "people marrying a goat" is even tolerated here.

[Ishmael]

But it's the state's business to define marriage as between a man and a woman?


It's existence precedes the state, and all the insane redefining of it's core. Marriage is what it';s always been....between a man and a woman. No BS redefining will change that. Nor will force of the state bring universal acceptance.

By who's definition? Either marriage is a religious institution the state should have no dealings in whatsoever making marriage moot, or it's a civil institution and such a definition is unconstitutional due to the violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It's one or the other, those are your choices. If the state sanctions religious marriage ceremonies it violates the separation of church and state elevating religion to "State Religion". Therefore, you only have the above two conditions to choose from IN LAW. of course, that begs the following question:
Can heterosexual atheists marry under such a regime?

If civil marriage and the edifice of divorce/family courts are abolished, religions can still marry whoever they want to according to their respective doctrines. It merely makes the state marriage-blind and offers no state incentives for marriage in any form.

Lest we also forget, arranged marriages were the rule rather than the exception for most of our history. Modern marriage as we know it is a relatively recent phenomenon.

As far as acceptance goes, I remember there used to be laws against interracial marriage called miscegenation that were deemed to be just as inviolate as the current controversy. Most see that, in hindsight, these were bad, evil laws that deserved to be and were overturned with enlightened attitudes.

For my part, I see no problem with letting any two adults who have been lucky enough to find love in their lives make that committment to each other. Lord knows there is little enough of it in the world today.

On an unrelated note. As a fourth-generation native Californian, I just want to inform all you outlanders that NO ONE from California calls it Cali, ever, under any circumstances. All the term does for us is allow us to heap abuse and ridicule on the user and laugh at them either behind their back or in front of them for being the hopeless provincials we deem them to be.

[Sea Demon]

What's wrong exactly with gay marriage ?
I can understand religious people have a fixed idea of what marriage is/should be, but AFAIK homosexuals don't ask for the right to religious marriage, but only "legal" marriage, so what business is it of religious people ?
Btw I'm having a hard time seeing that comparing two adults consentant persons willing to marry each other with "people marrying a goat" is even tolerated here.

Because 1 man and 1 man is not marriage. Nor is 1 woman 1 woman. Never has been. Never will be. Gee some people are dense. The people "marrying a goat" "marrying two transvestites" or "marrying children" should not be denied their rights....should they? Don't get into consent, that's just a minor point. A man and two transvetites can consent. So why not allow that in your looney world? I find it almost ludicrous that the homosexual "marriage" activists scoff at polygamist relationships....which is more normal than homosexual unions of any kind in regards to natural law. There is no logic, rhyme, or reason to compel societies sane people to accept this redefining of marriage. It need not be done. Nor will it compel acceptance at large. And all because lefty, feely, liberal types have an almost obsessive compulsive urge to feel "tolerant". Where are the rights being denied gay people? They have the right to get married same as me. But just like me, they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Equal protection under the law there. The same law applies to all equally.

[Sea Demon]

Can heterosexual atheists marry under such a regime?

Sure. If they are one man and one woman. This is alot easier than most of you are looking at it.

For my part, I see no problem with letting any two adults who have been lucky enough to find love in their lives make that committment to each other. Lord knows there is little enough of it in the world today.

Good for you. Nobody is stopping two men from "making a committment to each other". They are simply unqualified to be married however as they are not opposite sex partners. Your need to feel tolerant simply cannot redefine this institution. And simply bears no resemblance to interracial marriage laws, slavery or anything else that is used to argue the point.

[SUBMAN1]

Because 1 man and 1 man is not marriage. Nor is 1 woman 1 woman. Never has been. Never will be. Gee some people are dense. The people "marrying a goat" "marrying two transvestites" or "marrying children" should not be denied their rights....should they? Don't get into consent, that's just a minor point. A man and two transvetites can consent. So why not allow that in your looney world? I find it almost ludicrous that the homosexual "marriage" activists scoff at polygamist relationships....which is more normal than homosexual unions of any kind in regards to natural law. There is no logic, rhyme, or reason to compel societies sane people to accept this redefining of marriage. It need not be done. Nor will it compel acceptance at large. And all because lefty, feely, liberal types have an almost obsessive compulsive urge to feel "tolerant". Where are the rights being denied gay people? They have the right to get married same as me. But just like me, they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Equal protection under the law there. The same law applies to all equally.Well said man! :up:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Can heterosexual atheists marry under such a regime?
Sure. If they are one man and one woman. This is alot easier than most of you are looking at it.

For my part, I see no problem with letting any two adults who have been lucky enough to find love in their lives make that committment to each other. Lord knows there is little enough of it in the world today.
Good for you. Nobody is stopping two men from "making a committment to each other". They are simply unqualified to be married however as they are not opposite sex partners. Your need to feel tolerant simply cannot redefine this institution. And simply bears no resemblance to interracial marriage laws, slavery or anything else that is used to argue the point.

Way to show how political correctness is screwing up everything!

-S

[Ishmael]

What's wrong exactly with gay marriage ?
I can understand religious people have a fixed idea of what marriage is/should be, but AFAIK homosexuals don't ask for the right to religious marriage, but only "legal" marriage, so what business is it of religious people ?
Btw I'm having a hard time seeing that comparing two adults consentant persons willing to marry each other with "people marrying a goat" is even tolerated here.

Because 1 man and 1 man is not marriage. Nor is 1 woman 1 woman. Never has been. Never will be. Gee some people are dense. The people "marrying a goat" "marrying two transvestites" or "marrying children" should not be denied their rights....should they? Don't get into consent, that's just a minor point. A man and two transvetites can consent. So why not allow that in your looney world? I find it almost ludicrous that the homosexual "marriage" activists scoff at polygamist relationships....which is more normal than homosexual unions of any kind in regards to natural law. There is no logic, rhyme, or reason to compel societies sane people to accept this redefining of marriage. It need not be done. Nor will it compel acceptance at large. And all because lefty, feely, liberal types have an almost obsessive compulsive urge to feel "tolerant". Where are the rights being denied gay people? They have the right to get married same as me. But just like me, they have to marry someone of the opposite sex. Equal protection under the law there. The same law applies to all equally.

Fine. Then get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Abolish divorce and family courts and end all marriage-based tax exemptions. They are just another violation of the equal protection clause. If I were single, I would probably sue to end those anyway as they are blatant discrimination against single people. As far as your definition of marriage as always being strictly heterosexual, you might look here for historical examples of same-sex marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

[SUBMAN1]

Fine. Then get the state out of the marriage business altogether. Abolish divorce and family courts and end all marriage-based tax exemptions. They are just another violation of the equal protection clause. If I were single, I would probably sue to end those anyway as they are blatant discrimination against single people.Please do! I am tired of getting taxed more for being married than single people do! Marriage tax penalty needs to go!

Some info on what you get taxed 'more' on for marriage:

http://marriage.about.com/od/finances/a/marriagepenalty.htm

-S

PS. The state has a vested interest in marriage, so good luck!

[Ishmael]

PS. The state has a vested interest in marriage, so good luck!

So, by your own admission, you posit the state's vested interest in marriage. However the state also has a responsibility to provide equal protection under the law for ALL it's citizens. So, if we recognize the validity of civil marriage, we must also recognize the state's responsibility to allow marriages for any two adult citizens regardless of race, sex, color or sexual orientation. Either there is equal protection under the law or there's not. So any definition of marriage as heterosexual-only violates that clause and is unconstitutional in that it grants "Special Rights" to heterosexuals.

[Ducimus]

[
And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?


And what buisness is it to you, me, or anyone else for that matter? You see , thats my thing. I personally, do not give a damn what gays do. It's NOT a lifestyle i find particuarlly appealing, but as far as im concerned, "It's your life, do what you want, just leave me out of it".

And so long as they're not treading upon the inalieable rights of others (life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) or inflicting some form of bodily harm on other citizens, who's buisness is it of ANYBODY to dictate what they can and cannot do with their lives?


By the way, i thought this was halarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FspHU8hOxhY
Very true, and right on the money! (pun intended :rotfl: )

[Enigma]

The amount of bigotry in this thread is astounding, and apparently acceptable to our MODS. But, you'd be amazed what happens to a thread when someone points out that the fact of the matter is, Subman is simply a bigot, a closed minded buffoon, and a drama queen, and almost everyone knows it. Those of you attempting, albeit admirably, to argue against his case need not waste your time. We all know Subman's bait and insult tactics. It's old hat, from the old decaying guard.

Have a nice day.
:sunny:

[Ishmael]

The amount of bigotry in this thread is astounding, and apparently acceptable to our MODS. But, you'd be amazed what happens to a thread when someone points out that the fact of the matter is, Subman is simply a bigot, a closed minded buffoon, and a drama queen, and almost everyone knows it. Those of you attempting, albeit admirably, to argue against his case need not waste your time. We all know Subman's bait and insult tactics. It's old hat, from the old decaying guard.

Have a nice day.
:sunny:

Oh, that's all right. One of the advantages of a precision-guided weaponry background is the ability to not sweat the small stuff. Besides, I believe in the Boddhisatva's Creed:

I resolve to remain in the world until I have helped bring enlightnement to all sentient beings

I will not address Subman's apparent homophobia other than to state that he will probably be reincarnated as gay in his next life to face the issues of compassion and intolerance he failed to face in this one.

I, personally, agree with the late George Carlin's take on homosexuality:

More P***y for ME!

[SUBMAN1]

Well, since I'm the minority in this thread, who is the bigot? :D :p The gays who are attacking me, or the one or two here that stand up for the way things are?

-S

[darius359au]

Well, since I'm the minority in this thread, who is the bigot? :D :p The gays who are attacking me, or the one or two here that stand up for the way things are?

-S

Might tell you something ,being in the minority should tell you something about your bigotry - most people are prepared to let others live as the choose.

gotta love the childish dig though , If you disagree with me you must be gay:nope:

[SUBMAN1]

Might tell you something ,being in the minority should tell you something about your bigotry - most people are prepared to let others live as the choose.

gotta love the childish dig though , If you disagree with me you must be gay:nope:

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots? Yes... just like those who would like to silence me in this thread. Thanks for pointing that out Darius.

Nice.

-S

[MothBalls]

Might tell you something ,being in the minority should tell you something about your bigotry - most people are prepared to let others live as the choose.

gotta love the childish dig though , If you disagree with me you must be gay:nope:

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots? Yes... just like those who would like to silence me in this thread. Thanks for pointing that out Darius.

Nice.

-S

The majority of who?

Newsflash: Scientists have discovered there are people and geography outside of the US. Although many US citizens are still in denial, science has proven this fact to be true.


Nobody is trying to silence you. I hope they never do. I used to love watching All in the Family. Without my weekly dose of Archie Bunker there's been a void in my life. Your posts fill that void.

[SUBMAN1]

Might tell you something ,being in the minority should tell you something about your bigotry - most people are prepared to let others live as the choose.

gotta love the childish dig though , If you disagree with me you must be gay:nope:
Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots? Yes... just like those who would like to silence me in this thread. Thanks for pointing that out Darius.

Nice.

-S
The majority of who?

Newsflash: Scientists have discovered there are people and geography outside of the US. Although many US citizens are still in denial, science has proven this fact to be true.


Nobody is trying to silence you. I hope they never do. I used to love watching All in the Family. Without my weekly dose of Archie Bunker there's been a void in my life. Your posts fill that void.Glad I could help. For the rest, read up on American history. You will find your answers.

Next?

-S

[Ishmael]

Might tell you something ,being in the minority should tell you something about your bigotry - most people are prepared to let others live as the choose.

gotta love the childish dig though , If you disagree with me you must be gay:nope:

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots? Yes... just like those who would like to silence me in this thread. Thanks for pointing that out Darius.

Nice.

-S

So, Dude! Who exactly is trying to silence you and/or are gay? Certainly not me. If I were gay I'd probably have better fashion sense than I do. And all I have done is point out the logical fallacies of the law overturned by the Calif. Supreme Court and why they did what they did IN LAW. By your own admission, you stated the state's desire to support marriage. I only pointed out that the Court's CORRECT interpretation of the Constitution held that the DOM law violated the Equal Protection clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional and discriminatory. I define the ruling as a strict constructionist view of the Constitution and applicable law. As far as segregation goes, it was wrong then and it's wrong now. Just like the Defense of Marriage Acts in that it promotes intolerance and bigotry. So why shouldn't gay couples have the opportunity to be just as miserable as us straight married folk?

[MothBalls]

Here's an American history lesson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dKpHtc9F9M&feature=related

I never knew England was a "Fagdom".

[Sailor Steve]

Well, in one sense PD did cover my actual attitude pretty well. Arguing against what someone says is not a personal attack - would you rather have me ignore what you say and call you names? I'm saying that your logic is flawed because you use the reverse of how the law works (at least to my mind). An example:

You butchered what I was trying to say. To start making laws that allow people to marry goats, or same sex marriages, polygamy, or incest is not the states business - period.
We create laws to protect us from each other, not to determine lifestyles. You say it's not the state's business to make laws ALLOWING people to do what they want. The reality is that we have had laws FORBIDDING people to make their own choices. You say it's not the state's business to allow freedom, and then you post lists of the freedoms we have. I say all freedom is to the people; you are the one who wants to deny them if they don't agree with your specific moral code.

Goats: animals can't speak, they can't express desire or displeasure in moral realms, so no, cross-species marriage is impossible.

Same-sex: no, I'm not gay. I find the very idea of anal sex repugnant. That said, what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business, nor yours. If they want to partake in the same social contract that others enjoy, who are you to deny them?

Polygamy: That problem is being tested more and more. Who knows where it will end? I like Mark Twain's observation: When asked to quote a scripture forbidding polygamy, Twain replied "Certainly - No man can serve two masters."

Incest: where do you draw the line? Some societies allow first cousins to marry; others do not. The true taboo seems to stem from early observations of deformaties and brain problems. So, is the taboo on incest because it's morally wrong or because it produces physical problems? I don't pretend to know the answer to that one.

All of those listed are along the same lines. You don't see male bears humping other male bears in the woods!
Actually, you do. That kind of behaviour has been observed in most species of mammals. I've seen cats do it. It's there, it's real.

How backwards have both of you become?
Hard to tell. I used to be a devout believer, but I've become more of a skeptic lately. And no, I'm not an athiest. Not even sure I could call myself agnostic. Deist?

And to add further insult to injury, the people don't want it! Period! The people voted it down! :down: Some activist judge comes along and over-turns the will of the people? Hello?

This is a case of the few saying that the will of the people doesn't matter. Period.
That's a reasonable argument, but the Declaration and the Bill of Rights guarantee everyone the same freedoms. You talk about constitutionalism, but you still insist on denying freedom to those who disagree. If they took a vote tomorrow and found that the majority wanted to get rid of the Second Amendment, would you agree?

And quit cherry picking only one part.
Sorry, but you cover a lot of different points. It's impossible to affirm or deny them as a whole. Each one has to be taken on its own merits.

[Stealth Hunter]

*cough*Sub's Christian*cough*

:shifty:

So what if Subman's a Christian. What an absolute lame comment. Do you suppose only Christian's oppose homosexual "marriage"? If so, I don't think you get out much. BTW, how do they treat homosexual's in that backwards country you came from? How do the Mullah's treat homosexuals there? I got news for you, homosexuals, even without marriage here, live in heaven compared to that place

In the United States, Christians are typically the ones who view homosexuals as the enemy and deny them their rights. That's my point. Some Christians like them, but not many do.

My nephew goes to a church in a small Missouri town, the First Baptist Church to be exact. The pastor there commonly gets riled when it comes to the topic of homosexuals, and he has even had entire sermons about homosexuality. He says that they are all unclean and are enemies of God, which is justification for why they should be denied their rights and why they should be destroyed.

Now with that said, neither one of our countries seems to be much different. That's how it started with Iran and their killings of homosexuals and it's turning out much the same way for the United States (although the US government hasn't allowed citizens to kill homosexuals wherever they may be found).

...I see you defend so heartily and quite often.

Well what do you expect? I lived there for well over 30 years, more than half my life and put my life on the line for the country against the Iraqis. I'm not suddenly going to disown it and asking me to is just going to make me tell you to feck off. Iran is going through a period much like the United States was during the 1950s and 1960s, when it was perfectly legal to have segregation and when whites killing a black person were typically just given a slap on the wrist whilst blacks killing a white person were given either life in prison or the death sentence.

Your government, just 40 years ago, let police dogs maul protesters and sprayed them with powerful jets of water from fire hoses. Your government enforced segregation in the population and often denied black children the right to a fair education.

And come 40 years from now, when I'm probably dead and buried, Iran will hopefully have changed. The government and mullahs are the ones who dislike gays, Jews, and such, but the people themselves typically don't mind them.

Nobody can be certain what Iran's future will hold, but I have faith in the country and in the hearts of the people. I hope the future will bring better for her because I don't want to find out someday that the things I did for my homeland as did many other Iranians were all in vain. If it was in vain... then I won't go on living. The disappointment of it would be titanically extreme, not only in myself but in my people. So much... and all for nothing...

[Sea Demon]

In the United States, Christians are typically the ones who view homosexuals as the enemy and deny them their rights. That's my point. Some Christians like them, but not many do.

What absolute hogwash. I think it's the other way around. Homosexual's and their fellow activists are intolerant bigots to society at large and view anybody who disagrees with their agenda in complete disdain. Wishing to keep societal norms and working to those ends is denying nobody any rights. Homosexuals can marry, but only people of the opposite sex. Also, the right to marriage doesn't exist at all. But marriage is a well defined institution. I don't think many of the people of this thread can see the distinction. Nor do they want to.


My nephew goes to a church in a small Missouri town, the First Baptist Church to be exact. The pastor there commonly gets riled when it comes to the topic of homosexuals, and he has even had entire sermons about homosexuality. He says that they are all unclean and are enemies of God, which is justification for why they should be denied their rights and why they should be destroyed.

Actually, sounds like the backwards country from where you came from. As a matter of fact, they stone gays to death there. We all know that. There is nothing like that in America at all other than fringe groups of many designs. Not just fanatical "Christians". Your bigotry is duly noted. And your blindness to the evil from the country you came from is noted as well.

Now with that said, neither one of our countries seems to be much different.

Then I challenge you to go home from where you came from. There is actually a world of difference between Iran and the USA. And most people know it.

Well what do you expect? I lived there for well over 30 years, more than half my life and put my life on the line for the country against the Iraqis. I'm not suddenly going to disown it and asking me to is just going to make me tell you to feck off.

My family disowned the place from where they came from. They came here to become Americans. Of course you are free to hold on to whatever you're holding on to.

Iran is going through a period much like the United States was during the 1950s and 1960s,

Nonsense. There are many differences. America had civil turmoil during these times. But nothing to the levels of stoning women in the streets for minor offenses all sanctioned by the government court system. There weren't law on the books sanctioning the lynching of innocent black men in the South. It's government sanctioned in Iran. And we fixed our abuses. Iran's regime doesn't seem likely to go in a similar direction. The Mullah's won't allow it.

Nobody can be certain what Iran's future will hold,

Iran is doomed. And it's their own government's fault.

[Sea Demon]

I only pointed out that the Court's CORRECT interpretation of the Constitution held that the DOM law violated the Equal Protection clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married. But there are rules. You have to marry someone from the opposite sex. If it makes you feel any better, I don't have the right to marry another man myself. Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court. Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules. And society has a right to define those rules. As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I think the gays would save themselves a lot of trouble if they said they were going for "civil union", not "marriage". Comments?

PD

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married.
Just not with the people that they like. Yes, I know that loveless "marriages" (such as the "arranged" or "political" variety) has long and "glorious" history, but I'll be courageous and assume that most consider the increased importance of love in marriage to be an improvement on the term despite its uprise being correlated to a higher rate of divorce...
But there are rules.
Defined by whom. Were they right to begin with?
You have to marry someone from the opposite sex.
Justify this. And don't throw out "natural law". It sounds cool but what people call "natural law" is actually a very human creation. The fact they are hardly as natural as some like to think can be seen from our past and from certain parts of the world that we might call "barbaric".
If something is a real natural law, you don't have to worry about anyone violating it. They just won't be able to do so. For example, real natural law insists that when you jump out of a building, you fall. Further, It is too big to really care about humans or gays.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't have the right to marry another man myself.
That's cold comfort considering that you don't have an interest. It is easy to support a restriction of a freedom that you don't want and don't want others to have.
Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court. Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules. And society has a right to define those rules. As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.
So, if German 1930s-40s society defined the rules for Equal Protection as not being a Jew, will that in anyway make the Holocaust any more palatable?

[McBeck]

Hi guys....just checking in....please keep the discussion clean :)

[Safe-Keeper]

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married.http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/EqualLegalRights.jpg

Religious people in the USSR had freedom of religion - they had just as much a right to be an atheist as everyone else.
"You can have any car colour you want in Russia, as long as it's black."
The citizens under Saddam all had equal voting rights - no one was barred from voting Saddam Hussein.

:shifty:.

Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court.Why? Universal suffrage, too, came about through activism, as did, as a matter of fact, most civil rights throughout history.

Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules.Right. Just like Afro-American woman could ride buses as long as they followed the rules and sat in the back, as tradition demanded?

And society has a right to define those rules.And unlike what's being parroted by the many right-wingers out there, the majority of Californians support gay marriage (http://www.google.no/search?hl=nn&q=majority+of+californians+support+gay+marriage&btnG=Google-s%C3%B8k&meta=).

As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is. A ridiculous argument that I've never understood. Everything changes. Democracy, marriage, cars, countries, the Internet, illnesses, everything. To pick one word or "institution" and declare it set in stone is naive and ignorant. It's like me saying "women can try all they want to get voting rights, but democracy is and will always be for men only. Allowing women would change the definition of voting rights, and we can't have that".

I think the gays would save themselves a lot of trouble if they said they were going for "civil union", not "marriage". Comments?Yup, they certainly would. The problem is that a civil union doesn't grant them the privilegues of a marriage, so it's still discrimination. It's far better than nothing, but still not quite there.

What absolute hogwash. I think it's the other way around. Homosexual's and their fellow activists are intolerant bigots to society at large and view anybody who disagrees with their agenda in complete disdain.The difference, of course, being that it's the homosexuals that are oppressed, and the Christian fundies (and the other anti-gays) who do the oppressing.

I'm repeatedly astounded by the ability of "certain people" forcing their religion down other peoples' throats to perceive themselves as the ones being attacked when things don't go their way. "No mandatory prayer to the Christian God before lunch for all elementary school students in Norway, regardless of their religious convictions? Why do you hate Christianity?!". Ridiculous.

Wishing to keep societal norms and working to those ends is denying nobody any rights.Can you give me a shred of evidence that gay marriage is having negative effects on society, without invoking the correlation equals causation fallacy or just going "it's obvious!"? And why do you want to "keep societal norms"? Which norms? Don't you want your society progressing? And which norms do you think gay marriage will damage?

Also, the right to marriage doesn't exist at all.What's it matter whether or not it's a right or a privilegue? Voting is a right, it's still denied to certain people (such as those who aren't citizens). And people far, far less qualified than gays to raise families, procreate, and form the "traditional family"(TM) are allowed to marry without you guys giving a hoot, which makes it fairly clear to me that this whole "sanctity of marriage" deal is just an excuse.

You can't start a family when you have two months left to live. Yet the terminally ill can marry.
Child molesters aren't exactly model parents. Yet pedophiles can marry.
The sterile won't ever procreate. They can still marry.
People with horrific genetic defects shouldn't have sex and procreate. They are still allowed to marry.
Heck, even Rush freaking Lindbaugh is allowed to marry, and he's been divorced, what, three times?

So why can't gays marry? Simple, tradition. That's all it boils down to - not making sure all the families there are happy, but making sure they stay as they currently are, just because change is viewed as hostile to those who want to "uphold the sanctity of marriage".

But marriage is a well defined institution. I don't think many of the people of this thread can see the distinction. Nor do they want to.Explained earlier in my post.

All of those listed are along the same lines. You don't see male bears humping other male bears in the woods! "If we were meant to fly, we'd have been born with wings!" What is it with fundies and the appeal to nature fallacy? And this is oftentimes the same kind of people who get outraged whenever some "Darwinist" (heh) comes about and says humans are animals.

Oh, and homosexuality is an observed trait in over half a hundred species throughout the entire animal kingdom (http://youtube.com/results?search_query=homosexuality+in+animals&search_type=). This is a well-established fact. I know that the instant I say this, everyone will backpedal and pretend they're not the ones who brought up the natural/unnatural question to begin with and ask me why the **** it matters, but there you have it.

But oh well, appeal to nature is a fallacy, so it's an irrelevant point anyhow.

[Safe-Keeper]

Didn't the majority believe in segregation at one time? Were they bigots?Indeed. The majority of the US people made it clear they wanted society to remain as it was, but the activist Afro-Americans demonstrated in the streets until activist judges forced their will on the US population and society was turned upside down. Same with the women - the institution of democracy has always been one man, one vote, but those stupid feminists had to wreck the institution by brainless activism.

Damned Negroes and women don't know their place.

:p

The people "marrying a goat" "marrying two transvestites" or "marrying children" should not be denied their rights....should they?Right, if men are allowed to marry each others, they should be able to marry kids, too, despite the two being totally freaking unrelated. Just like how...

...If we allow praying in class, we'll also have to allow burning smelly incense, ritual chanting, speaking in tongues while rolling on the floor, and ritual sacrifices of cows and even humans.
...If we afford women the right to vote, we'll also have to afford the right to children and animals, and people will have to get the right to vote for two candidates at once. And after all, voting rights have always been for men only, for thousands of years, and democracy is a pillar of society, hence, allowing women to vote will wreck a pillar of society and cause catastrophe.
...If we allow Negroes into our school, we'll have to allow animals and children in too.

By your reasoning.
Seriously, can you guys using this argument hear yourselves?

[Sailor Steve]

I only pointed out that the Court's CORRECT interpretation of the Constitution held that the DOM law violated the Equal Protection clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Ahh. But you're wrong. Gay's can get married. But there are rules. You have to marry someone from the opposite sex. If it makes you feel any better, I don't have the right to marry another man myself. Equal Protection in this case is misread because it comes from an activist court. Nobody is being denied marriage. But you have to follow the rules. And society has a right to define those rules. As I said before, your fanatical desires to show your "tolerance" cannot change the definiton of marriage. It is what it is.
Also, the right to marriage doesn't exist at all.
You seem to have a strange perception of "rights". "Society", like "government", has no rights whatsoever. People have rights, period. Other people use society and government to deny rights to people they don't like, but that doesn't mean that they are correct to do so. If we create a set of rules for our benefit, but then deny those same rights to others, we are oppressing them, not the other way around.

The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Ninth Amendment to the Constution: "The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How exactly does upholding those principles make a court "activist"?

[Sea Demon]

You seem to have a strange perception of "rights". "Society", like "government", has no rights whatsoever. People have rights, period. Other people use society and government to deny rights to people they don't like, but that doesn't mean that they are correct to do so. If we create a set of rules for our benefit, but then deny those same rights to others, we are oppressing them, not the other way around.

The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Ninth Amendment to the Constution: "The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

How exactly does upholding those principles make a court "activist"?

So, anything goes Steve, huh? Are we infringing the rights of Polygamists by making laws to prevent their unions? How about some other stuff.....like should we allow somebody to snort coke across the street from a school? He's not actually hurting anybody but himself after all. Wouldn't that be infringing on his "pursuit of happiness"? Why have rules or laws preventing a sex offender from moving into a house across the street from a school? He's not hurting anybody (yet), and only trying to have a home. Do the voters of the area have a say in the matter? Or do we just hand over absolute power to a judge as final arbiter? Heck, why even have "sex offenders" at all. Those people are just pursuing their Liberty and happiness. Public sex????? Why not? They're only pursuing their freedoms. Does society have the freedom as a whole to keep rules of it's institutions intact. Does society have the right to set laws on behavior at all? Or does society have to bend at the will of every freak who wants to change every institution to bend to their weird practices? Why even have laws or follow rules Steve? I'm sorry, but the framers did not intend what you suggest. I don't think the framers thought that someday society would herald the insane. I'm sure they could have never foreseen that, despite their wisdom.

And as I've said before....nobody is stopping gays from marrying. They have to follow the rules like the rest of us. You have to marry someone from the opposite sex. Quite simple really. Those are the rules. There are single heterosexuals who never marry because they never find a match. Rules and laws need to be followed. Rules and laws are the basis of a stable society. And a free society has the right to determine what those rules are. And in this case, nobody is being denied anything. They fail to follow the rules. That's the problem.

[Schroeder]

Why have rules or laws preventing a sex offender from moving into a house across the street from a school? He's not hurting anybody (yet), and only trying to have a home. Do the voters of the area have a say in the matter? Or do we just hand over absolute power to a judge as final arbiter? Heck, why even have "sex offenders" at all. Those people are just pursuing their Liberty and happiness.
Because this guys have hurt others and are likely to do so again. I really can't see how gays did hurt you nor why you are comparing them to people who have FORCED other to have sex with them. Noone is forced to become gay.
You are acting as if gays would threaten your life.

[Sea Demon]

Because this guys have hurt others and are likely to do so again. I really can't see how gays did hurt you nor why you are comparing them to people who have FORCED other to have sex with them. Noone is forced to become gay.
You are acting as if gays would threaten your life.
Nope. They served their time. Why discriminate? Why allow homeowners in the area to decide? Shouldn't a judge rule that society is infringing on his right to live where he wants? Now, what about someone who shoots up heroine in the center of the mall? Why don't we allow that? What about their right to pursue happiness? Should we as society even have the freedom to have a say in the matter? They are not infringing other people's rights by shooting up heroine. Why is there no equal outcry for Polygamists? Which is more normal than homosexual unions in regards to natural law. Why can't a grown man marry a 14 year old girl if she wants. Who's to judge that the age of consent should be more than 14 years? We may be infringing on the rights of two people here. Age is after all just a number. Why did our society choose 18, and is that valid? According to so many here, the public has no right to arbitrate what the rules to institutions should be. To some, it should be left to a single activist in a black robe(judiciary). Hey, why don't we allow public fornication between two consenting adults? Why do we infringe on their rights, when they're not hurting anybody else?

And no, Gays do not threaten my life, nor do I hate them. But they have to follow the rules just like everybody else. Despite the fanatical urges by some here to appear lovingly tolerant, gays are not above the rules, nor can they bend laws to their liking. The law already applies to everyone equally in this case.

[mrbeast]

Anymore spurious arguments you want to spew up Sea Demon?

I find it disturbing that you consistantly associate homosexuality with anything that is regarded as perverse or bad. For someone who claims not to hate gays you give quite the oppoite impression at times.

[Enigma]

I find it disturbing that you consistantly associate homosexuality with anything that is regarded as perverse or bad. For someone who claims not to hate gays you give quite the oppoite impression at times.


Biiiiiin- go.

[Platapus]

As with the last thread where homosexuality was discussed, I want to say, please be considerate to the gay men and women that share this forum with us. Let's consider their feelings in our discussions.

It is ok to disagree, it is ok to voice your opinions about homosexuality. But let's keep it friendly. We are all here because we like to sink ships!

To misquote Barry Goldwater: you don't have to be straight to fire a torpedo straight :up:

[Sea Demon]

Anymore spurious arguments you want to spew up Sea Demon?

I find it disturbing that you consistantly associate homosexuality with anything that is regarded as perverse or bad. For someone who claims not to hate gays you give quite the oppoite impression at times.

Absolutely not mr. beast. I guess my point went over your head. And others it looks like. Either society has a right to set rules and laws.....or it doesn't. Either society has a right to defend institutions, and determine what the rules to those institutions are.....or they don't. At that point, you have chaos, or you have someone in the judiciary given supreme power to determine the outcomes of things that already are. That is tyranny. And that is the dissolution of self governance. Nobody is being denied the right to marriage here. But you must play by the rules. You have to marry someone of the opposite sex. I cannot marry someone from the same sex as well. It's beyond simple to understand.

But you can play the "you're a bigot" game all you want. That's all you guys really have left. And in this day and age, that's becoming a largely tired accusation, and an ineffective way to argue any point.

[Enigma]

Black people should have played by the rules and remained as slaves. Changing the rules for the better of our citizens regardless of sexula orientation, or race, for example, would be a terrible idea. We should have defended the instituations of our forefathers who owned slaves. If we let black people live as free and equal citizens we will have tyranny and chaos. Noone is denying people to live as free and equal, they just have to play by the rules. So, if your black, too bad.

:doh:

Right, Demon?

[mrbeast]

I have to agree with Enigma.

Slavery was an ingrained and central institution in the US, UK and most of Europe. It was backed up by notions of 'natural law', ie the idea that blacks were racially inferior to whites and also biblical jusifications for the institution of slavery.

Was it tyranny that ended slavery?

[Sea Demon]

Black people should have played by the rules and remained as slaves. Changing the rules for the better of our citizens regardless of sexula orientation, or race, for example, would be a terrible idea. We should have defended the instituations of our forefathers who owned slaves. If we let black people live as free and equal citizens we will have tyranny and chaos. Noone is denying people to live as free and equal, they just have to play by the rules. So, if your black, too bad.

:doh:

Right, Demon?

Nope. The analogy doesn't fit as human beings were held against their will, forced into horrendous labor without compensation, and were regarded by law as 3/5th's of a person. Gay marriage is not even close to being an analogy to the plight of black slaves in early America. If I were a black person, I would be revolted by your comparison to homosexual marriage. It has nothing to do with whether or not supposed grown adults choose to live by the rules or not. Still, gay people are not being denied anything. If they don't play by the rules however, they cannot get married. If they do...they can. Same as me, you, and everyone else.

[VipertheSniper]

Black people should have played by the rules and remained as slaves. Changing the rules for the better of our citizens regardless of sexula orientation, or race, for example, would be a terrible idea. We should have defended the instituations of our forefathers who owned slaves. If we let black people live as free and equal citizens we will have tyranny and chaos. Noone is denying people to live as free and equal, they just have to play by the rules. So, if your black, too bad.

:doh:

Right, Demon?


that polemic gets right to the point, being gay isn't something you choose, so if you're not a hetero tough luck, Sea Demon? Is that your idea of equal rights? Tough luck if you didn't choose what you are, I guess women and afro-americans would also have been a group of lefty loonies if they would've had to fight their fight in this day and age in the USA.

[Sea Demon]

that polemic gets right to the point, being gay isn't something you choose, so if you're not a hetero tough luck, Sea Demon? Is that your idea of equal rights? Tough luck if you didn't choose what you are, I guess women and afro-americans would also have been a group of lefty loonies if they would've had to fight their fight in this day and age in the USA.

Nobody is being denied anything. But I'll play this stupid game with you if necessary. What about heterosexuals who can't find a mate to marry? Tough luck? Should we force someone to marry them? Is someone who doesn't get married for any reason automatically a second class citizen? Is it possible to be regarded as an equal without a marriage certificate? Looks alot like spoiled brats who can't get society to bend to their narrow will, and choose to dissolve the societies ability to self govern. Tyranny at the hand of the slight minority fringe group.

[Mikhayl]

I think it's at the point where you should stop digging.

[Sailor Steve]

So, anything goes Steve, huh? Are we infringing the rights of Polygamists by making laws to prevent their unions?
I've already addressed that. Did you miss it? Choose to ignore it?

How about some other stuff.....like should we allow somebody to snort coke across the street from a school? He's not actually hurting anybody but himself after all. Wouldn't that be infringing on his "pursuit of happiness"? Why have rules or laws preventing a sex offender from moving into a house across the street from a school? He's not hurting anybody (yet), and only trying to have a home. Do the voters of the area have a say in the matter? Or do we just hand over absolute power to a judge as final arbiter? Heck, why even have "sex offenders" at all. Those people are just pursuing their Liberty and happiness. Public sex????? Why not? They're only pursuing their freedoms.
As I said, we create laws to protect ourselves from others. When you ask about "snorting coke across the street from a school", do you mean in the open or in his own home? If the former, then he would fall under the rules of public intoxication, the same as if he was getting drunk openly. If the latter, then we once again fall into the purview of privacy. Should most drugs be legalized? That's a subject for it's own debate, but to answer that question, yes, if he's in his own home and not hurting anyone else, it's his business. As for the sex-offender, he's already proven himself a danger to our children. Of course we have the right to protect ourselves from him.


Does society have the freedom as a whole to keep rules of it's institutions intact. Does society have the right to set laws on behavior at all?
On behaviour? No, not on private behaviour. What we are exposed to in public falls under the category of "protecting ourselves".

Or does society have to bend at the will of every freak who wants to change every institution to bend to their weird practices? Why even have laws or follow rules Steve? I'm sorry, but the framers did not intend what you suggest. I don't think the framers thought that someday society would herald the insane. I'm sure they could have never foreseen that, despite their wisdom.
You keep using catch-words like "insane". It's only insane to your limited viewpoint.

And as I've said before....nobody is stopping gays from marrying. They have to follow the rules like the rest of us. You have to marry someone from the opposite sex. Quite simple really. Those are the rules. There are single heterosexuals who never marry because they never find a match. Rules and laws need to be followed. Rules and laws are the basis of a stable society. And a free society has the right to determine what those rules are. And in this case, nobody is being denied anything. They fail to follow the rules. That's the problem.
Those are artificial rules, made by people who want to force others to live by their 'standards'. You make rules that force others to your will, and then say that they must be obeyed simply because they are 'the rules'.

Yes, you are denying someone an equal chance at happiness because you find his behaviour offensive. That's the long and the short of it.

[VipertheSniper]

that polemic gets right to the point, being gay isn't something you choose, so if you're not a hetero tough luck, Sea Demon? Is that your idea of equal rights? Tough luck if you didn't choose what you are, I guess women and afro-americans would also have been a group of lefty loonies if they would've had to fight their fight in this day and age in the USA.

Nobody is being denied anything. But I'll play this stupid game with you if necessary. What about heterosexuals who can't find a mate to marry? Tough luck? Should we force someone to marry them? Is someone who doesn't get married for any reason automatically a second class citizen? Is it possible to be regarded as an equal without a marriage certificate? Looks alot like spoiled brats who can't get society to bend to their narrow will, and choose to dissolve the societies ability to self govern. Tyranny at the hand of the slight minority fringe group.

As far as I know this isn't about the voluntary nature of marriage. And yes in the eyes of some laws partners who are not married are second class citizens. This isn't about single men who can't find the right one, it's about gay couples who have found their match and want to marry with all the rights and duties that come with marriage. I mean an 83 year old (I think she was 83) lesbian married her partner the day the law was in effect. They want to be able to marry who they love, just like probably almost everybody wants to do that.

I'll give you an example why it doesn't matter what "the society" wants when it's about laws for minorities. In Austria, Carinthia to be precise, lives a Slovenian minority, by our constitution they have the right to have village signs in both German and Slovenian and the letters have to be equal in size, they are denied that right by the Carinthian governor Jörg Haider, who is, like you might know, a nationalist. He wants to give them their two language signs if all Carinthians ("the society") agree to it. Firstly this would be a vote by the majority over the minority, and secondly they've got the constitutional right to get them so it doesn't matter anyway.
There have been numerous processes that got to the constitutional court and they still haven't got their village signs. Well they've got it at one point, but were ordered to be replaced by German only signs by the Carinthian governor. He does what probably the majority wants, after all they voted him, because he's a nationalist, but is it the right thing to do? No.

[Platapus]

Still, gay people are not being denied anything.

But they are. You are correct in that they are not being denied the chance to marry, but what you are not understanding is that they are being denied the chance to marry whom they wish.

The issue here is an adult being able to marry another consenting adult.

How is this different from the laws we used to have in this country that prohibited blacks from marrying whites? Similar terms such as "unnatural" and "against god" were bantered about to justify these laws.

Would your argument be that Blacks were not denied anything as they were free to marry within their own race? Do you agree that Blacks should not be allowed to marry whites?

If not, then why not?

[Safe-Keeper]

Would your argument be that Blacks were not denied anything as they were free to marry within their own race? Do you agree that Blacks should not be allowed to marry whites?

If not, then why not?Seeing that exactly the same nonsense arguments can be applied, and were applied, to inter-racial marriage, this is a very good question.

"Marriage has traditionally been between couples of the same race!"
"Children need to grow up with parents of the same race or they'll be confused and bullied to death on the playground!"
"It's against God's will"
"It's unnatural!"
"If we allow blacks to marry whites, why not whites to horses? Why not polygamy? I mean, we're fighting for peoples' rights to marry whoever they want, right? So if we allow perverts to walk down the aisle with their Negro girlfriend, we must by consequence also allow other perverts to walk down the aisle with their dogs!"
"It increases divorce rates as marriage becomes watered out and less important!"
"It makes a mockery of democracy by imposing a tiny fringe minority's will upon the majority!"
"The n**** lovers have full rights! They can marry within your race as much as anyone else!"
"It's PC gone mad!"

Etc. etc. etc. In fact, I'd challenge you to find one argument in this thread that can't also be applied to inter-racial marriage.

So, anything goes Steve, huh? Are we infringing the rights of Polygamists by making laws to prevent their unions?Er, yes. Just like we're infringing on minor's rights to vote when we say kids can't vote. Or that chimpanzees can't be given citizenship. Or that billionaires can't receive MediCare handouts. Not giving someone a right = Infringing on that right.

Why is it so important to you anti-gays to appear like you're not keeping someone from doing something? It's dishonest, it's unrealistic, and to be frank, it's irresponsible.

How about some other stuff.....like should we allow somebody to snort coke across the street from a school? He's not actually hurting anybody but himself after all. Wouldn't that be infringing on his "pursuit of happiness"? Why have rules or laws preventing a sex offender from moving into a house across the street from a school? He's not hurting anybody (yet), and only trying to have a home. Do the voters of the area have a say in the matter? Or do we just hand over absolute power to a judge as final arbiter? Heck, why even have "sex offenders" at all. Those people are just pursuing their Liberty and happiness. Public sex????? Why not? They're only pursuing their freedoms. I used to hate this kind of strawman non-sequitur ranting, but lately I've actually come to cherish it as it so well demonstrates the utter desperation of the anti-gay crowd. It's like fighting a battle and seeing the enemy mount a last, desperate hopeless attack before they give it up and cut their losses and run.

At least, that's what I'm trying to convince myself of - that it's desperation. That the people making such bizarre equivocations don't actually think they're being rational and fielding serious arguments. Call it generosity.

And as I've said before....nobody is stopping gays from marrying. They have to follow the rules like the rest of us. You have to marry someone from the opposite sex. Quite simple really. Those are the rules. There are single heterosexuals who never marry because they never find a match. Rules and laws need to be followed. Rules and laws are the basis of a stable society. And a free society has the right to determine what those rules are. And in this case, nobody is being denied anything. They fail to follow the rules. That's the problem. Now you're just being stubborn. We've addressed this plenty of times, in this and other threads, and you've apparently simply decided you'll stop listening, ignore us, and pretend you didn't hear the counter-arguments by repeatedly stating your own over and over again.

[August]

Woah, you guys are accusing anti-gay marriage folks of making straw man arguments when you just finished making your own racial straw man?

[Iceman]

Aside from the fact that most States have voted against it ..why?...not because they are trying to keep gays from marrying for some sinister plot but because they are making a statement...the statement is...we don't like it...we don't want it ...and we voted on it ...get over it...and if you don't like it...hit the road....

You can call it discrimination all you want...yes I discriminate against what "I" consider blatant immoral behavior...I am not alone.

God himself will not "Kill" any soul he has created but this does not mean "He" has to live with said creation....a place has been prepared for anyone who "Chooses" not to follow "His" set,declared,in stone and by his prophets from the begining of mans recorded time....period...live with your choice.

No soul will stand before God and claim the defence...."I did not know right from wrong"...it is written in a mans heart...no bible,scroll,preacher, or whatever is needed....you need not even believe in the Big green flying ,invisible monsterhttp://www.assassinsalliance.com/aaphpBB3/images/smilies/tongue2.gif...right and wrong is a choice and a matter of perception...in this country also by the majority....when the majority says being gay is acceptable..and I sprung from an ape...I disagree...and will say so.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Happy Independence Day!http://www.assassinsalliance.com/aaphpBB3/images/smilies/azz.gifhttp://www.assassinsalliance.com/aaphpBB3/images/smilies/mat.gifhttp://www.assassinsalliance.com/aaphpBB3/images/smilies/brave.gif (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Us_declaration_independence.jpg)

[SUBMAN1]

Just so some people don't lose focus here - F*cking someone up the *ss is a perverse behavior! Quit trying to spin it as normal! Maybe some of you do it frequently so its normal to you, but for the massive majority - far and above 95% to 98% of us - do not take it up the *ss!

Get over it already!

Crap, if you like goats, than great! Just don't ask me if its OK to marry the damn thing!

Do any of you gay people realize what you are asking me to sanction? Crap! literally! :D

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Aside from the fact that most States have voted against it ..why?...not because they are trying to keep gays from marrying for some sinister plot but because they are making a statement...the statement is...we don't like it...we don't want it ...and we voted on it ...get over it...and if you don't like it...hit the road....

You can call it discrimination all you want...yes I discriminate against what "I" consider blatant immoral behavior...I am not alone.
So you proudly quote the defining clause of the Declaration of Independence, but when someone else complains that you would deny them the same freedoms in the name of your morality, your answer is "hit the road"? You don't believe in liberty for others, only yourselfand the other 'right people'?

[SUBMAN1]

So you proudly quote the defining clause of the Declaration of Independence, but when someone else complains that you would deny them the same freedoms in the name of your morality, your answer is "hit the road"? You don't believe in liberty for others, only yourselfand the other 'right people'?You must have missed my above post. Read it again.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Just so some people don't lose focus here - F*cking someone up the *ss is a perverse behavior! Quit trying to spin it as normal! Maybe some of you do it frequently so its normal to you, but for the massive majority - far and above 95% to 98% of us - do not take it up the *ss! 98% of people don't play submarine simulations either. Certainly nothing "normal" about spending hours staring at a waterfall screen and a dot stack and thinking it's fun, I know a good many people who'd call me perverse for that. I suppose it'd be okay to make that against the law as well.

PD

[August]

Certainly nothing "normal" about spending hours staring at a waterfall screen and a dot stack and thinking it's fun, I know a good many people who'd call me perverse for that. I suppose it'd be okay to make that against the law as well.

PD

Only if you try marrying the thing i guess...

[PeriscopeDepth]

Certainly nothing "normal" about spending hours staring at a waterfall screen and a dot stack and thinking it's fun, I know a good many people who'd call me perverse for that. I suppose it'd be okay to make that against the law as well.

PD
Only if you try marrying the thing i guess... If my PC could cook, was a newer quad core, oh! And could consent. :p

PD

[Sailor Steve]

You must have missed my above post. Read it again.
I was addressing Iceman - your post got in between.

As to your post, I've said I consider it perverse behaviour myself. What you're missing is that your and my definition is irrelevant. People do that sort of thing all the time, and as I've said before, as long as it's in the privacy of their own home it's none of our business. And no one is asking you to sanction anything, just mind your own business and stop claiming that your morality should govern the private lives of others. Safe-Keeper's comparison to inter-racial marriage is apt - not because it's comparable but because the same exact arguments used to be used against it, and used by people who sounded just like you.

As for being in the majority, whenever someone suggests direct elections it's always the hardcore conservatives who are the first to decry "tyranny of the masses"; so majority rule is also only called upon when it suits them.

It can't be said enough times, so I'll gladly say it again: either you have freedom or you don't. If you want freedom for some but not for others, then you don't really want freedom.

[August]

Certainly nothing "normal" about spending hours staring at a waterfall screen and a dot stack and thinking it's fun, I know a good many people who'd call me perverse for that. I suppose it'd be okay to make that against the law as well.

PD
Only if you try marrying the thing i guess... If my PC could cook, was a newer quad core, oh! And could consent. :p

PD

My PC says yes to me all the time:

"Yes you can play another mission"
"Yes you can stay up late and post on forums"

[PeriscopeDepth]

Certainly nothing "normal" about spending hours staring at a waterfall screen and a dot stack and thinking it's fun, I know a good many people who'd call me perverse for that. I suppose it'd be okay to make that against the law as well.

PD
Only if you try marrying the thing i guess... If my PC could cook, was a newer quad core, oh! And could consent. :p

PD
My PC says yes to me all the time:

"Yes you can play another mission"
"Yes you can stay up late and post on forums"
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
No kidding. My PC will never second guess my compulsion to waste my free time.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

...It can't be said enough times, so I'll gladly say it again: either you have freedom or you don't. If you want freedom for some but not for others, then you don't really want freedom.

All of what you say is irrelevant. You are either a murderer, or you are not. With your type of logic, where is it you draw the line? Is murder OK, or is it not? A serial killer doesn't see anything wrong with it, and enjoys it! Or maybe he sees something wrong but ignores it? Just like a gay sees something wrong and ignores it?

We are hardly talking about freedom here, so get off that rocker already. It doesn't hold one ounch of salt! :nope:

-S

[Sea Demon]

I've already addressed that. Did you miss it? Choose to ignore it?

Well Steve. No offense, but quoting Mark Twain and a very short paragraph really didn't cover it for me. Maybe you addressed it in another thread. Sorry, but I don't have time to visit every thread in this forum. If the paragraph from a couple pages back is what you got, and I misunderstood what you were saying, you'll have to forgive me.

As I said, we create laws to protect ourselves from others. When you ask about "snorting coke across the street from a school", do you mean in the open or in his own home? If the former, then he would fall under the rules of public intoxication, the same as if he was getting drunk openly. If the latter, then we once again fall into the purview of privacy. Should most drugs be legalized? That's a subject for it's own debate, but to answer that question, yes, if he's in his own home and not hurting anyone else, it's his business. As for the sex-offender, he's already proven himself a danger to our children. Of course we have the right to protect ourselves from him.

Why not allow public intoxication? Could easily be defined as someone's pursuit of happiness. What about if he's not hurting anybody else? But as you know, we have laws that forbid it. Facts are, we have laws to determine the defining aspects of our institutions and other legal matters with regard to how society feels things should be run. Zoning laws for adult bookstores, prostitution, etc. are other examples where one could strongly claim "freedom to pursue happiness" and "nobody is getting hurt". What about their rights? Well, you know the answer. Society has the right to be the final arbiter of these matters. And that includes the definition of marriage. Just the way it is. I strongly disagree with you. Society has a right to define what the rules of the game are. And will continue to do so regardless.


On behaviour? No, not on private behaviour. What we are exposed to in public falls under the category of "protecting ourselves".

I don't think anybody here is arguing against what goes on in the privacy of ones home. While I'm not exactly thrilled with gay sex, I agree, that's their business. None of our business at all. But when you bring yourself to the public square, you have rules to follow. The rules of marriage are one man and one woman=equals marriage. Period. Has nothing to do with protecting ourselves. Has everything to do with society protecting it's laws and institutions.

You keep using catch-words like "insane". It's only insane to your limited viewpoint.

Limited viewpoint, or different opinion than your own? And yes, it is my opinion that the people that are actively pursuing this agenda are insane or at least has no sense. I'm not talking about those that merely support it.

Those are artificial rules,

But they still need to be followed. Otherwise we get chaos. I would have loved to tell your kids this when they were growing up. Unless of course your household had no rules. 'Just follow the rules you like everybody', and to hell with everyone and everything else.

made by people who want to force others to live by their 'standards'. You make rules that force others to your will, and then say that they must be obeyed simply because they are 'the rules'.

Yes, you are denying someone an equal chance at happiness because you find his behaviour offensive. That's the long and the short of it.

No Steve. I'm not actively trying to make anybody "live by my standards". I'm not saying "stop being gay" or "no more rump-ranging allowed". I'm merely saying that marriage is between 2 people of the opposite sex. If you want to get married, you have to find an opposite sex partner. If you can't or won't, then you are not eligible for marriage. Very simple. That's all there is to it. Do you feel there should be no rules or no laws? Pick only the ones you want to follow, and screw the rest? And if anybody points out there are rules or laws, claim they're "denying you happiness"?

[Sea Demon]

But they are. You are correct in that they are not being denied the chance to marry, but what you are not understanding is that they are being denied the chance to marry whom they wish.


They are not denied being with the one they want to be with for the rest of their lives. Nor are they denied their behavior within their homosexual relationship. But you correctly point out that they cannot be married. Yes. That is correct. According to the rules and the laws. But still, the law applies equally regardless of the emotional twist you put into it. Because if they were to show up with someone of the opposite sex at the recorders office...nothing would be denied the individual in question. The recorders office, nor the law is discriminating on any personal factor. They are merely following the criteria to issue the certificate. Established by law and society. I don't think you understood one of my first statements on the issue a few pages back. Marriage is not a right in the first place.

[Sailor Steve]

...It can't be said enough times, so I'll gladly say it again: either you have freedom or you don't. If you want freedom for some but not for others, then you don't really want freedom.

All of what you say is irrelevant. You are either a murderer, or you are not. With your type of logic, where is it you draw the line? Is murder OK, or is it not? A serial killer doesn't see anything wrong with it, and enjoys it! Or maybe he sees something wrong but ignores it? Just like a gay sees something wrong and ignores it?

We are hardly talking about freedom here, so get off that rocker already. It doesn't hold one ounch of salt! :nope:

-S
How many times have I said "We create laws to protect ourselves from others"? Murder directly affects the lives of the victim and his loved ones. Homosexual marriage affects no one except the parties involved. Yes, we are talking directly about the freedom to act as we choose, as long as it harms no one else. You would deny freedom to others you claim for yourself, and then protest that they are robbing you while doing it.

[SUBMAN1]

How many times have I said "We create laws to protect ourselves from others"? Murder directly affects the lives of the victim and his loved ones. Homosexual marriage affects no one except the parties involved. Yes, we are talking directly about the freedom to act as we choose, as long as it harms no one else. You would deny freedom to others you claim for yourself, and then protest that they are robbing you while doing it.Excuse me? Screwing up someones mind with anal sex is not hurting someone? i guess taking drugs and offering or selling to your buddies is not hurting someone? Anything that attacks the institution of a strong healthy society hurts - so quit trying to make people think its OK!!!!

-S

[Sailor Steve]

Excuse me? Screwing up someones mind with anal sex is not hurting someone? i guess taking drugs and offering or selling to your buddies is not hurting someone? Anything that attacks the institution of a strong healthy society hurts - so quit trying to make people think its OK!!!!
There have been Christian thinkers have argued that all sex corrupts, and hurts people. Claiming that anal sex is equal to murder and "screws up someones mind" is a great insult to some great writers, poets, artists and musicians I agree taking drugs is indeed harmful. Alcohol is one of the most destructive and dangerous of all the psychoactive drugs. Should we make it illegal again? Would you rail against it if it were?

I'm not trying to argue that it's okay, safe, moral or even normal. Unfortunately those are all definitions applied based on personal judgements. I'm just saying the only judgement that should govern legality is that of whether it is harmful to others.

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his own enemy against oppression."
-Thomas Paine

[Sea Demon]

I'm not trying to argue that it's okay, safe, moral or even normal. Unfortunately those are all definitions applied based on personal judgements. I'm just saying the only judgement that should govern legality is that of whether it is harmful to others.



Yeah, but in some of my examples above, many of those people could make many strong arguments that they are not harming anybody. But there are rules still. Society can self-govern just fine Steve. You are trying to deny society it's most basic freedom to establish law, principle, or institutional foundations as they see fit. Most places (by a wide margin) that the people have voted on this issue, they have been clear. One man/One woman. Everyone over the age of consent can get married. But the requirements are clear as well.

[Sailor Steve]

I've already addressed that. Did you miss it? Choose to ignore it?

Well Steve. No offense, but quoting Mark Twain and a very short paragraph really didn't cover it for me. Maybe you addressed it in another thread. Sorry, but I don't have time to visit every thread in this forum. If the paragraph from a couple pages back is what you got, and I misunderstood what you were saying, you'll have to forgive me.
No, I'll be the one to beg forgiveness. The "very short paragraph" didn't truly convey my meaning, which was that polygamy is still an open question. I don't like it (as I don't like a lot of things), but I don't have an answer to that question. "Should it be legal" is for me actually a legal question, not a moral one. The Twain quote was just a brief attempt at levity.

Why not allow public intoxication? Could easily be defined as someone's pursuit of happiness. What about if he's not hurting anybody else? But as you know, we have laws that forbid it. Facts are, we have laws to determine the defining aspects of our institutions and other legal matters with regard to how society feels things should be run. Zoning laws for adult bookstores, prostitution, etc. are other examples where one could strongly claim "freedom to pursue happiness" and "nobody is getting hurt". What about their rights? Well, you know the answer. Society has the right to be the final arbiter of these matters. And that includes the definition of marriage. Just the way it is. I strongly disagree with you. Society has a right to define what the rules of the game are. And will continue to do so regardless.
Public intoxication is only a misdemeanor. Causing physical injury, whether intoxicated or not, is a felony. The bookstore and prostitution examples come under the heading of protecting our children from being exposed at close hand. Society has defined rules and redefined them on many matters, and in some cases have made rules that they have later changed or thrown out altogether. 'Society', like language, is actually constantly in flux, and rules of both usually define what is currently accepted, not what is unchanging and unchangeable. As has been pointed out already Slavery, subordination of women, religious intolerance and a great many other things have been considered 'normal' and justified by the fact that they were 'the rules.'

I don't think anybody here is arguing against what goes on in the privacy of ones home. As perverse as gay sex is, I agree, that's their business. None of our business at all. But when you bring yourself to the public square, you have rules to follow.
And if they were engaging in that behaviour in the public square I would agree - it is harmful. But they are not. They are simply asking for the same right as anyone else - to be able to have their relationships formalized. I don't like it any more than you do, as a moral principle, but I recognize that my morals are not everyone's, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to govern other people's lives.

The rules of marriage are one man and one woman=equals marriage. Period. Has nothing to do with protecting ourselves. Has everything to do with society protecting it's laws and institutions.
Period? I think it's open to much questioning. Is it actually law? If so, is it mentioned in the Constitution? That is a test applied to many questions by the right. "Society protecting its laws and institutions". Laws are written by men, and when those laws hurt people they need to be changed.

Limited viewpoint, or different opinion than your own? And yes, it is my opinion that the people that are actively pursuing this agenda are insane or at least has no sense. I'm not talking about those that merely support it.
Limited in that it is indeed only an opinion. You would have your opinion be law.

Those are artificial rules,

But they still need to be followed. Otherwise we get chaos. I would have loved to tell your kids this when they were growing up. Unless of course your household had no rules. 'Just follow the rules you like everybody', and to hell with everyone and everything else.
No, we have rules for our children because they are too young to understand and form accurate judgements on their own. Adults are able to make their own judgements, whether we like them or not. When my daughter was eight, it was "Can I spend the night at Amy's house?" When she was eighteen it was "I'm going to a party; don't wait up!"

If your rules are wrong, they need to be changed, not adhered to simply because they are "The rules. Period." Whether they are right or wrong is a matter of opinion, and your opinion shouldn't bind me except where it directly affects you. The same goes the other way as well. And this issue, as much as you might protest, doesn't directly affect you, only your sensibilities.

made by people who want to force others to live by their 'standards'. You make rules that force others to your will, and then say that they must be obeyed simply because they are 'the rules'.

[quote]No Steve. I'm not actively trying to make anybody "live by my standards". I'm not saying "stop being gay" or "no more rump-ranging allowed". I'm merely saying that marriage is between 2 people of the opposite sex. If you want to get married, you have to find an opposite sex partner. If you can't or won't, then you are not eligible for marriage. Very simple. That's all there is to it. Do you feel there should be no rules or no laws? Pick only the ones you want to follow, and screw the rest? And if anybody points out there are rules or laws, claim they're "denying you happiness"?
Yes, you are forcing them to live by a different law. You use 'the rules' as a de facto argument. But why do these rules exist? Just because they do? That's not a good enough reason. They exist because you don't like the idea of certain people enjoying certain benefits and equalities. And they not only deny the pursuit of happiness, they deny true equality, solely on the basis of not holding the same opinion. And that is why the judges were correct to strike them down. If you make different rules for different people strictly on moral grounds, then you are wrong. Period.

[Sea Demon]

Yes, you are forcing them to live by a different law. You use 'the rules' as a de facto argument. But why do these rules exist? Just because they do? That's not a good enough reason. They exist because you don't like the idea of certain people enjoying certain benefits and equalities. And they not only deny the pursuit of happiness, they deny true equality, solely on the basis of not holding the same opinion. And that is why the judges were correct to strike them down. If you make different rules for different people strictly on moral grounds, then you are wrong. Period.

No. Not at all. I have to follow the laws of marriage exactly the same way as they do. You'll never be able to adequately argue around that at all. You're not just denying the ability for society to make laws, or maintain institutional foundations......you're also assuming that people who do not meet eligibility for marriage for whatever reason are automatically relegated to a second class status. That's absolute hogwash. In this regard, many people who cannot bend the laws to suit their lifestyle can easily just claim "discrimination". I know the gay activists don't like to hear it, but it includes polygamists, age of consent dissenters, and any schmuck who wants to marry any weird number of combinations.

The bookstore and prostitution examples come under the heading of protecting our children from being exposed at close hand.

How can that be?!? These people are not directly harming children in any way? Prostitutes and adult bookstore owners could easily make that case. If we allow your arguments to stand, I guess society is wrong to zone against these private business's. Why are you forcing them to live by your standards, Steve? They are only pursuing their freedoms. But you and I both know that society does have the right to do this. And society also has the right to enact laws that define it's institutions. And society will continue to do so.

Society has defined rules and redefined them on many matters, and in some cases have made rules that they have later changed or thrown out altogether. 'Society', like language, is actually constantly in flux, and rules of both usually define what is currently accepted, not what is unchanging and unchangeable. As has been pointed out already Slavery, subordination of women, religious intolerance and a great many other things have been considered 'normal' and justified by the fact that they were 'the rules.'

Agreed. But society's marriage laws cannot be even remotely compared to slavery, gross religious intolerance such as from the Muslim world, or subjugation of women. Gays enjoy rights granted to everybody. Nobody is taking away their "right" to be gay, or live accordingly to that lifestyle. And they too can get married, if they follow the rules. I intentionally will always sound like the proverbial broken record on that point. And both you and I will have to disagree on friendly terms.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

No. Not at all. I have to follow the laws of marriage exactly the same way as they do.
But the restriction the law brings is meaningless to you.
Consider this analogy from the "separate but 'equal'" era:
1) Rule: Whites go into "White" traincars, colored into the "colored" traincar.
2) You are a White.
3) The White traincar is, despite the theory of equality, in reality 10 times better. Not to mention that there are 3 of them for every 1 colored traincar.
Would that rule bother you at all? Nice of you to be able to say that you follow the law, while getting all the good stuff of life, no? While all the poor blacks (which includes a 1/8th "black") will be imprisoned for trying to actually get the "equal" part.
You'll never be able to adequately argue around that at all. You're not just denying the ability for society to make laws, or maintain institutional foundations......you're also assuming that people who do not meet eligibility for marriage for whatever reason are automatically relegated to a second class status.
Given all the privileges (which are not all necessarily legally based) accorded to a married couple ... effectively yes. Besides, the grass is always greener on the other side. Perhaps if you legalize gay marriage, after the initial hype goes down, the gays will recognize the less green sides of marriage and fewer gays will marry, leaving marriage a male-female thing all over again.
That's absolute hogwash. In this regard, many people who cannot bend the laws to suit their lifestyle can easily just claim "discrimination". I know the gay activists don't like to hear it, but it includes polygamists, age of consent dissenters, and any schmuck who wants to marry any weird number of combinations.
And that is their right. A law or custom which just so happens to inordinately affect a particular segment of the population is discriminatory.
A discriminatory law does not have to be thrown out, if it can be substantiated with massive benefits. Take age-of-consent, which is certainly a form of ageism and is certainly discriminatory towards humans under 18. But it can still be substantiated by the (on average) inferior judgment of the average person in these age groups. The small amount of freedom lost is counterbalanced by the huge increase in security for these young ones. Or so goes the theory.
But one should still recognize its discriminatory nature, and such laws should be re-examined as often as feasible. If benefits are found to be marginal or worse, the discrimination loses its substantiation and should be abolished ... immediately.
How can that be?!? These people are not directly harming children in any way? Prostitutes and adult bookstore owners could easily make that case. If we allow your arguments to stand, I guess society is wrong to zone against these private business's. Why are you forcing them to live by your standards, Steve? They are only pursuing their freedoms. But you and I both know that society does have the right to do this. And society also has the right to enact laws that define it's institutions. And society will continue to do so.
You will note that Steve substantiated his decision on the utilitarian basis of harm.
It follows that if harm cannot be substantiated, then the restriction is improper.

[Mikhayl]

Finally, the more I read the "heterosexual marriage only" defenders, the more I agree with them that it would be totally backward for homosexuals to be allowed to marry. I mean, the "hetero marriage" die-hards are displaying such a shamefull behaviour, bending on so-called principles, going as far as insulting millions of people when these "principles" are questionned; I clearly wouldn't want to have anything to do with that kind of outdated "institution" they depict.
Let's first rename marriage (civil) in something else to clearly distantiate it from the religious bigotry about marriage. Then grant homosexuals the right to that "civil union" like any other consentant adult human, with the according social advantages that are refused to them at the moment.

[Sailor Steve]

Agreed. But society's marriage laws cannot be even remotely compared to slavery, gross religious intolerance such as from the Muslim world, or subjugation of women. Gays enjoy rights granted to everybody. Nobody is taking away their "right" to be gay, or live accordingly to that lifestyle. And they too can get married, if they follow the rules.
But the rules do prevent them from enjoying certain benefits that apply to others. It's a double standard. If the law is a bad one it needs to be changed.

I intentionally will always sound like the proverbial broken record on that point.
As will I on the concept of absolute freedom - "Your freedom ends where my nose begins".

And both you and I will have to disagree on friendly terms.
Now that I can live with. Fighting makes me tired.

[Iceman]

Aside from the fact that most States have voted against it ..why?...not because they are trying to keep gays from marrying for some sinister plot but because they are making a statement...the statement is...we don't like it...we don't want it ...and we voted on it ...get over it...and if you don't like it...hit the road....

You can call it discrimination all you want...yes I discriminate against what "I" consider blatant immoral behavior...I am not alone.
So you proudly quote the defining clause of the Declaration of Independence, but when someone else complains that you would deny them the same freedoms in the name of your morality, your answer is "hit the road"? You don't believe in liberty for others, only yourselfand the other 'right people'?

Liberty ...with wisdom ...hey if it passes as law in a state...then it is law...it still does not neccessarly make it right in my opinion which is the exact argument you make or others..it is silly...

On a side note it is preposterous claim by some here that the majority who "Choose" this lifestyle are somehow born Gay...this is an absurd arguement.

Life is full of nothing but choice and all this is ...in my opinion...is for people who "Choose" this lifestyle to have it validated and condoned to make they're own conscience clear....it does not work that way.

I did not need a certificate from any institution to validate my marriage...it was a "Choice" to be together with my wife between her,me and our God....I could care less what man thinks...and theres the rub.

Yet my belief does say to respect the law of the land...which in most states at this time outlaw this behavior and choice.

Maybe this is how new countrys do start and revolutions take place....maybe the new country will be run by Gays and we'll call it Soddom...maybe I'll move to Canada or Mexico then.

Reap!

[McBeck]

Life is full of nothing but choice and all this is ...in my opinion...is for people who "Choose" this lifestyle to have it validated and condoned to make they're own conscience clear....it does not work that way. And you are free to have that opinion, but you have to respect that others may have another one. Respect theirs if you want others to respect yours.

Thinking that the color blue is nicer than the color red is not right or wrong - its an opinion. You cant argue it....

In my opinion gay people do not choose anymore than I choose to be with women rather than men. Its just what I like the best :)

[Skybird]

A few weeks ago it was published that the Karolinska institute in Sweden was able to show that when the subject smelled male sweat the brain of gay men activates the same regions in comparable activation patterns like heterosexual male's brain react when smelling the skin odour of a female. The same was found for lesbian women as well: they too react to the smell of another female like heterosexual women react to the smell of a male's skin/body. this is a strong clue that these deviating sexual orientations are no choice that is being made, or just a psychological deformation caused by some trauma in the far away past, but have a solid material, genetic basis. However: it also does not mean that these two factors could not play a role, to varying degree.

Homosexuality is to be found amongst many mammal species.

But this does not change two main points:

First, homosexuality is not an evolutionary survival strategy, and it is not an "intended" strategy chosen by evolution. It is an exception to the rule, a signal that something went wrong with that individual unit's prgramming or/and hardwiring, it is - said as a mattrer of fact - an "accident" not representative for the evolutionary design (a homosexual species would not even start to exist as long as nature does not equip the first generation's brains with a complete set of knowledge about genetics, artificial fartilisation and cloning). So when heterosexuality is the rule, then homosexuality must be seen as the exception to the rule, for nature's history on this planet shows that no other strategy than heterosexuality makes sure the gene pool of a species is mixed and mixed again and again so thoroughly like if two sexes need to find together to procreate a new generation: it is a principle proven by success, at least for mammals, but for many other species as well, a majority of botanic and zoological species on our planet. All mammal's procreation and a mammal specie's survival is designed to base on this principle: two different sexes. that makes homosexuality a deviation in a fact-oriented understanding. It is not the statistical norm, nor is it the norm in the understanding of nature's "intention".

Second, I said that already in another thread some weeks ago, the idea of a marriage is basing on the principle of a man and a woman living together, and eventually having children and thus: forming a self-created family. Modern laws in several nations, including Germany, put the institution of a family - and thus a man and a women living together (for this constellation always holds the potential to produce offsprings, even if not wanted) - under the explicit protection of the law, and the state, in Germany this is anchored in the German constitution. Off course, practise, compared to theory, leaves much to be desired, but in principle this is it: a marriage has a clearly defined status, for a clearly defined purpose, and is defined as a form of formalised living together of heterosexual couples. In South Africa, some weeks ago they had a struggle over some compensation laws for black African, regarding the Apartheid regime. the Chinese living there were not covered by that law, and the solution was demanded of declaring that the Chinese people are black people. Well, that is the most ridiculous way of solving that issue, of course Chinese are not black people, since the Han race never has been black, is not black, and never will be black, but will remain to be what it is: Han. But in S-Africa, Chinese now are officially "black people". the same folly seems to be tried for legalising the institution of marriage for homosexuals. It is a contradiction in itself.

Two conclusions:

First, understanding that homosexuality is a deviation in an natural meaning, does not make the fact that it is widespread amongst mammals obsolete. We can nevertheless chose for not discriminating against homosexual people, like we also are expected not to discriminate for example people who have lost a limb and statistically also are not "normal" in the meaning of that they do not represent the norm, but an exception from the rule when comparing to the fact that most people living in our societies have two arms and two legs. so, we are free to tolerate homosexuality - but I insist on that this is okay only as long as homosexuality is not trying to establish itself as a second definition of "normality" in our societies with demands to be seen as of equal value and substance for our societies like heterosexual couples raising kids and forming families. Because:

second: it is the family our societies depend on. Couples producing babies are thee most essential social unit in our civilisation. I bitterly defend with determination against any attempt to compromise the importance of the family and the special status they have (at least they should have) by making their privileges available for social constructions that in no way compare to the nature or the importance of families that have been created out of themselves. That homosexual people can adopt children, does not make them an equivalent to a heterosexual couple producing children by its own will and natural potential. A homosexual society cannot survive by it's own potential. A heterosexual does survive by it'S own - bringing it to a point, this is the ultimate difference. and please, do not talk of artificial fertilisation and such thing snow. there is a reason why it is called "artificial" and not "natural", and from a psychological perspective I must point out that the data on longterm perspectives for the mental development of children living in truly gay or lesbian families are far from from being clearly stating it makes no difference - the data is heavily debated and bitterly fought over by psychologists and sociologists from different theoretical schools, and the usual group of political most correct suspects. Man and woman are differenmt, and it is self-explaantory, I would say, that if the one or the other is missing in education, it finds a correlate in the children future way . Wer do know that education by divorced couples, or education by a mother or father being alone (partner has died), do make psychological differences in longterm social behavior of the kids.

I know that there are people who abuse tax systems to their advantage, but these are violation of the original intentions, and are not representing the meaning behind these rules - else they would not be a legal or ethical violation. In principle the financial reliefs the state offers for married heterosexual couples (=potential families) and families is in acceptance of the special status of these social institution that do not compare to gay or lesbian couples (these have no special meaning for society that make them worth enough to grant them special protection by the state). I want financial reliefs and special status for heterosexual couples and families, and i do not want these rights for other models of adults forming strong bonds of living together - it would relativise the status and protection of families, and families are already under massive stress and direct fire from being let down, and stress from the realities of job world. this is regarding tax savings, but however: I am against estate duties (=Erbschaftssteuer), which I consider to be a double-taxation, being illegal in principle, and being a violation of our civilisation's principle to base on the right to own private property and ruling about it as long as one does not use out to damage the society. So I think gay couples should have the right to shift their property to their partner in case of their death, at the same (not worse, not better) conditions like married heterosexual partners, families/children) - and like I would demand it to be allowed for even single persons as well who are not shifting their property to a close relative at all: in Germany, by the new upcoming laws you would loose almost half of your estate when not moving it to somebody not being a close family member: to me that is legalised robbery conducted by the state, excused by unconvincing phrases about social responsibility and anonymous solidarity: what it really is about is pleasing a crowd that is driven with greed.

Sum of it all: leave homosexuals alone, let them be what they are as long as they do not try to shove it down your throat, and do not mismatch the special status of families and their social importance for the community with homosexual couple-forming. that way, it should be possible to live peacefully side by side without even a need to become aware of what the other is: homo or hetero, and it should not be a problem for anybody but active religious zealots - and these are the last kind of unreasonable people we should care about.

[Sailor Steve]

Yet my belief does say to respect the law of the land...which in most states at this time outlaw this behavior and choice.
We can pass laws that outlaw just about anything. That doesn't make it right. The 18th amendment is a good example.

I can only quote Thomas Jefferson: "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its exten, it is unobsructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobsructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
-Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819

And again: "The compulsions of the law seem to have been provided for those only who require compulsions."
-Letter to Albemarle County Commissioners, 1780.

Today is the perfect day for this: a quote from myself. During the Vietnam era, there were those who tried to tell the protesters that they were "UnAmerican", and should not question their leaders on questions of politics, war, government, law or anything else. During such a discussion I came up with my own warning:

"Never forget that your Founding Fathers rebelled against their rightful, God-given government."

Not all laws are good ones.

[Sea Demon]

As will I on the concept of absolute freedom - "Your freedom ends where my nose begins".

Right. And I appreciate that point of view. Unlike some of the other defenders of gay marriage on this thread, I appreciate your insights because it's firmly based on freedom, and not just the usual clap-trap "It feels so good to show how tolerant I am" emotionally driven drivel.

But with that in mind Steve, as you know there are other laws on the books that can be argued to be punishing of behavior and limiting in constitutional freedoms. These are things society, through their representatives and directly through the ballot process decide. And they stand up to legal scrutiny. The voters decide these issues. How much taxes one pays and on what schedule is such an example. I am a boat owner in the State of California. And I get hit with that luxury tax which is nothing more than a jealousy tax if you ask me. This is a punishment of my behavior that society has enacted on me through the rules and tax laws. It takes away my property and liberty to pursue my freedom because some Democrat in the State legislature decided that it's "fair". I could use that money to upgrade my engine, or buy that trolling motor I've been itching to get. The hideous federal AMT has hit me every year except for the last two (thanks to some prudent tax reform), and all that was designed to do was make sure that the high end people pay "their fair share"....whatever the hell that means since I've been paying an enormous state and federal tax bill for the last 8 years. And I'm no billionaire.

Society at large does have the right to self govern, and decide what the eligibility of marriage is. Just like they can choose what tax laws they live buy, and who pays based on what behaviors. What about cigarette taxes as well? The state punishing a behavior? Yes..it is. And in the case of marriage, it's simply an eligibility requirement. There are no Constitutional losses, nor is there a right to happiness being denied. Nobody will take away their life partner. Nor will their right to live gay be denied. But if you get married, you must meet the eligibility requirements. If you move to this country and wish to be a citizen, you must met the requirements. If you want to become an officer of the military, you must meet the requirements. If you want to be an elementary school teacher, you must meet the requirements. If you want to be a licensed contractor in the State of California, you must meet the requirements. And the big question is, will you only be able to fulfill your freedoms through a marriage certificate? Or do I smell spoiled brats driving this agenda? What happens to those people who never marry because they can't find a partner or don't meet the eligibility because they want two spouses instead of one? Automatic second class citizens?

[Letum]

Sea Demon, tell me please, what do you think marriage, in the legal sense, is for?

And i mean strictly in the legal sense as gay people can already marry in every other
sense other than the legal one!

[Sea Demon]

what do you think marriage, in the legal sense, is for?
I could certainly outline the legalities of marriage, but it is totally irrelevant to the way this is being discussed. We could talk merits of heterosexual only marriages all day, but it won't address what we are talking about here. The rules are one man/one woman equals marriage. And a narrow activist subset is determining that society has no right to arbitrate the rules of it's institutions or make laws therein. But of course allowing others in society to determine how much the government should be able to confiscate from me by tax rules and laws is open season. What do you want me to say? That it's for the production of children or something?

And i mean strictly in the legal sense as gay people can already marry in every other sense other than the legal one!
And with this statement as it is.......then why all the ruckus?

[JHuschke]

Sick, sick, sick!! Gay marriage, gayness..should be banned from the WHOLE world. It is very disgusting, I hope they don't allow incest..that is like..umm..undescribable sick loving..

I am 15 years old pple! So THIS will ALWAYS be my opinion!!!

[Sailor Steve]

But with that in mind Steve, as you know there are other laws on the books that can be argued to be punishing of behavior and limiting in constitutional freedoms. These are things society, through their representatives and directly through the ballot process decide. And they stand up to legal scrutiny. The voters decide these issues. How much taxes one pays and on what schedule is such an example.
I think that comparison is a bad one, mainly because I both agree and disagree with where it leads:

I am a boat owner in the State of California. And I get hit with that luxury tax which is nothing more than a jealousy tax if you ask me. This is a punishment of my behavior that society has enacted on me through the rules and tax laws. It takes away my property and liberty to pursue my freedom because some Democrat in the State legislature decided that it's "fair". I could use that money to upgrade my engine, or buy that trolling motor I've been itching to get. The hideous federal AMT has hit me every year except for the last two (thanks to some prudent tax reform), and all that was designed to do was make sure that the high end people pay "their fair share"....whatever the hell that means since I've been paying an enormous state and federal tax bill for the last 8 years. And I'm no billionaire.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, in my judgement any property tax is a direct violation of the Constitution itself: "No man shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." They place a tax on your property, and if you fail to pay it they take that property away, and they call it 'Due Process'. If that is proper, then why not a 'Liberty Tax', or even a 'Life Tax' with the same justifications? Simply because the people won't stand for it. So why does the property tax work? Simply because the people will stand for it. That doesn't make it right.

Society at large does have the right to self govern, and decide what the eligibility of marriage is. Just like they can choose what tax laws they live buy, and who pays based on what behaviors. What about cigarette taxes as well? The state punishing a behavior? Yes..it is. And in the case of marriage, it's simply an eligibility requirement.
I said I also disagree, and this brings up why. If you call a cigarette tax punishing a behavior, then are you also not calling the marriage requirement punishing a behavior? The one you justify by saying the behavior is destructive, but the other is not? The marriage requirement is strictly a moral judgement, not a clinical one. And if you deny gays the right to marry, then you are either saying that behavior is destructive, or you are doing it on moral grounds.

There are no Constitutional losses, nor is there a right to happiness being denied. Nobody will take away their life partner. Nor will their right to live gay be denied. But if you get married, you must meet the eligibility requirements.
But if the requirements are based strictly on the fact that you don't like the behavior involved, do they not become artificial? You are, indeed, denying their right to the pursuit of happiness.

If you move to this country and wish to be a citizen, you must met the requirements. If you want to become an officer of the military, you must meet the requirements. If you want to be an elementary school teacher, you must meet the requirements. If you want to be a licensed contractor in the State of California, you must meet the requirements.
Each of those requirements involves a goal which is attainable. I can study and pass the requirement to become a citizen. I can study and become an officer. I can study and become a teacher. I can study and become a contractor. This is also true of driving, flying or piloting a boat. And, except for citizenship, each is important because if I don't prove I am capable of performing that task I become a danger. A marriage requirement is artificial, designed specifically to keep someone from attaining a goal because they don't fit an arbitrarily assigned category. The same has already been applied to the race question. "I'm sorry, you can't do this because your skin is the wrong color. It's the law."

And the big question is, will you only be able to fulfill your freedoms through a marriage certificate?
Not at all, but if two adults desire to marry and are declined because of an arbitrary rule, then their freedom has indeed been denied, and simply on moral grounds.

Or do I smell spoiled brats driving this agenda?
There are certainly plenty of those. We had a big 'Pride March' (the 'Gay' part has been dropped) here a few weeks ago. I thought it was silly. But what I think is unimportant - they have as much right to gather and celebrate as a group of bikers, or, yes, even Nazis.

What happens to those people who never marry because they can't find a partner...
What about the man who can't fly a plane because he has no arms and no legs? Having a partner in order to get married isn't a legal requirement, it's a physical one. You can't make laws forcing the impossible. There is no law requiring my kids to talk to me, but they don't. I can't change that.

...or don't meet the eligibility because they want two spouses instead of one? Automatic second class citizens?
As I said, I'm still conflicted on that one. But, the more I think about it the more I wonder why. Roughly ten percent of the state of Utah is polygamist. It's illegal, but unless some outright harmful crime is committed they are usually ignored. And many of them are happy with it, so they aren't second-class citizens at all.

I believe we create governments to keep the peace and protect ourselves. If someone wants to bring harm to someone else, do something about it. Otherwise, let them live the way they want to, and marry whom they want to, as long as they are consenting adults.

[Sailor Steve]

Sick, sick, sick!! Gay marriage, gayness..should be banned from the WHOLE world. It is very disgusting, I hope they don't allow incest..that is like..umm..undescribable sick loving..

I am 15 years old pple! So THIS will ALWAYS be my opinion!!!
And you are more than welcome to it. But how would you enforce your ban? Kill them? That is also sick. I don't have to like any behaviour, but if no one is forcing me to do it I can always just ignore it.

[Safe-Keeper]

Sick, sick, sick!! Gay marriage, gayness..should be banned from the WHOLE world. It is very disgusting, I hope they don't allow incest..that is like..umm..undescribable sick loving..

I am 15 years old pple! So THIS will ALWAYS be my opinion!!!At least I appreciate your honesty. You don't beat about the bush with pseudo-arguments like certain other people, you state what your real reason is.

[Sea Demon]

I believe we create governments to keep the peace and protect ourselves. If someone wants to bring harm to someone else, do something about it. Otherwise, let them live the way they want to, and marry whom they want to, as long as they are consenting adults.

Well, as I've alluded to before Steve. I appreciate where your argument comes from. I disagree, but I won't address every rebuttal you've done as circling around is all we seem to do. And I do feel we need people like you out there. The people that call for freedom from the rooftops, and are genuine about it. Unlike fake liberal Democrats who praise freedom if it allows them the ability to do their nuttiness, then use government wholesale to deny freedom to others through confiscation and worthless government interventions. While I'm a big adherent to freedom as well, I also believe we need laws, adherence to those laws, institutional rules, and society's ability to self govern and arbitrate those rules. And that includes marriage eligibility. While I see your point, I strongly disagree that anybody is being denied any rights. That anybody has a "right to marriage" in the first place. I don't believe society needs to allow gay marriage, nor is it a violation of anybody's rights to define eligibility. Nobody is taking away their ability to live how they want or commit to who they want. They simply can't get married as marriage is defined. No need to fret, we simply disagree on whether or not society can uphold the rules of eligibility on this institution.

BTW Steve. I don't want to really steer this topic off. But do you think it's a violation of the First Amendment to have the Secret Service escort those "protestors" off the grounds at Monticello today while President Bush was making his speech? They're not hurting anyone you know. Just being a general nuisance really. But are they denied anything by the Secret Service enforcing those rules? Should there even be such rules? Just curious. I'd like to know what a total freedom guy has to say about it.

[Sea Demon]

At least I appreciate your honesty. You don't beat about the bush with pseudo-arguments like certain other people, you state what your real reason is.

If you're referring to me Safe-Keeper, I'm brutally honest about where I stand. We're discussing this issue on the merits. Sorry, but not everyone who disagrees with your "gay marriage" worldview is a bigot. Please make no assumptions. But I will tell you that I don't care what you do in Norway. If you want gay marriage......have at it. If you want to burn your houses down and run the streets naked.....go for it. It doesn't concern me in any way how you feel about the way I vote in my country or how I view marriage laws, and why it bothers you so much that I'm opposed. For all I care, you folks in Norway can get married to gorillas and I wouldn't give half a crap about it. How's that for honesty.

[Cohaagen]

You tell 'em guys! Don't listen to the limp-wristed naysayers - probably brown-jobs to a man - and their hokey doubletalk about logic or liberty. Stick to yer guns, and just keep fighting the good fight. How can anyone find pleasure in sodomy?? As far as I'M concerned, the anus is for pooing. Fruits will break into your house, crawl up on your bed, and smear KY Jelly all over your face!

It is a scientific fact that homosexuals cannot reverse a car, lift any weight greater than a bunch of flowers (making them a liability in our Forces), cannot tell the difference between China and Taiwan, and they don't celebrate Christmas. Sir, do you wish a queer in every home? Would you want the government to make it mandatory - mandatory, I say! - that every homeowner take in at least one lodger with the "Turkish tendency", some wincing fairy floating about your darn house in his tight T-shirt with his hand on his hip? And possibly (the word catches in my throat)....infected? I will not stand at the sink scrubbing my crockery with bleach like Pauline Fowler did in Eastenders in 1990! We have many brave young Americans fighting for our freeee-eee-dom over in Iraq right now - are they to arrive home in their dress best to find a country fit not for heroes, but only rancid brown-hatters? Is that their reward? To come home a decorated Veteran only to be cored like an apple by the swollen prongs of some drifting gang of homosadist Mexicans? I shall not stand to see it. What we need is Purple Hearts, not Purple Asses...our people are not baboons. If you agree with me, please note in your signature:

I AM AN AMERICAN, NOT A HIP-WIGGLING STRIPY-ASSED PRIMATE :stare:

God Bless you All.

[Takeda Shingen]

This one is now over.

The Management

Preserved:


You tell 'em guys! Don't listen to the limp-wristed naysayers - probably brown-jobs to a man - and their hokey doubletalk about logic or liberty. Stick to yer guns, and just keep fighting the good fight. How can anyone find pleasure in sodomy?? As far as I'M concerned, the anus is for pooing. Fruits will break into your house, crawl up on your bed, and smear KY Jelly all over your face!

It is a scientific fact that homosexuals cannot reverse a car, lift any weight greater than a bunch of flowers (making them a liability in our Forces), cannot tell the difference between China and Taiwan, and they don't celebrate Christmas. Sir, do you wish a queer in every home? Would you want the government to make it mandatory - mandatory, I say! - that every homeowner take in at least one lodger with the "Turkish tendency", some wincing fairy floating about your darn house in his tight T-shirt with his hand on his hip? And possibly (the word catches in my throat)....infected? I will not stand at the sink scrubbing my crockery with bleach like Pauline Fowler did in Eastenders in 1990! We have many brave young Americans fighting for our freeee-eee-dom over in Iraq right now - are they to arrive home in their dress best to find a country fit not for heroes, but only rancid brown-hatters? Is that their reward? To come home a decorated Veteran only to be cored like an apple by the swollen prongs of some drifting gang of homosadist Mexicans? I shall not stand to see it. What we need is Purple Hearts, not Purple Asses...our people are not baboons. If you agree with me, please note in your signature:

I AM AN AMERICAN, NOT A HIP-WIGGLING STRIPY-ASSED PRIMATE :stare:

God Bless you All.