This is the best speech on gay marriage

[Supergirl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0

Seriously, check the Senator from NY make her plea for why gay marriage doesn't threaten anybody's marriage.

Too bad there were enough douchebags in the NY Senate to keep them a slave state.

[rjv]

it was a good speech, especially the aspect regarding the way we really do not value marriage the way that we consider ourselves to and that religions are not really threatened by sanctioned gay marriages.

still, i think this is really about insurance companies and all the other "sanctity" of marriage rhetoric is a cover.

[MiamiHeat]

still, i think this is really about insurance companies and all the other "sanctity" of marriage rhetoric is a cover.

It's a cover for homosexuals to feel normal and be 'accepted' by society.

Notice how they do NOT want their own institution with all of the same rights.

bullshit.

[DarrinS]

I think we should let men marry multiple women, fathers marry daughters, brothers marry sisters, people marry their pets, etc. etc. As long as they love either other, who cares, right?

[baseline bum]

I think we should let men marry multiple women, fathers marry daughters, brothers marry sisters, people marry their pets, etc. etc. As long as they love either other, who cares, right?

That's because you're retarded. Pets can't give consent. A daughter under 18 can't legally consent, because she's a kid who could never be expected to be capable of making a decision like that. If every person is of legal age though, then let them do it. Peoples' social lives are not any of the government's responsibility, at least to me (not to you evidently).

As long as the government is allowed to tell people how to live, they should probably limit everyone to an hour a day of TV. They should make everyone run a mile 3 times a week. Burn off those fat asses. They could criminalize listening to talk radio and posting on the internet while at work, since it kills productivity. Everyone could be forced to eat their veggies and drop their sodas, beer, and tobacco in your authoritarian utopia.

[sabar]

I think we should let men marry multiple women, fathers marry daughters, brothers marry sisters, people marry their pets, etc. etc. As long as they love either other, who cares, right?

When has a slippery slope argument ever worked?

Pets and kids aren't rational thinkers.

Complete failure of a post.

[Blake]

I think we should let men marry multiple women, fathers marry daughters, brothers marry sisters, people marry their pets, etc. etc. As long as they love either other, who cares, right?

would you care if a brother married his sister?

[Blake]

I'm setting the over/under line at 5 pages.

place your bets.

[baseline bum]

It's a cover for homosexuals to feel normal and be 'accepted' by society.

Notice how they do NOT want their own institution with all of the same rights.

bullshit.

It won't have the same rights unless it is made into an inseparable synonym with marriage. In other words, no lawmaker could ever refer to marriage without also implying civil unions and vice-versa. Otherwise, the two sets of rights will quickly become out of sync, even without any kind of malicious intent (the same way when you write a computer program and have two separate objects that are supposed to be equivalent, it's easy to change one and forget about the other, and then have them no longer refer to equivalent data, which can lead to major problems (hence, one reason programming languages have pointers, to effectively make names synonyms)).

[AussieFanKurt]

No point arguing with these bigots. They're irrational and claim to have all these morals and ethics and that justifies why gays shouldnt marry. But wouldnt it be immoral to exclude a perfectly law abiding and tax paying group from courtship. A very important thing in society. Homosexuality isnt disgusting or immoral or unethical. Its just how some people are. I know gays and they are nice people. Put away your bible for at least 2 minutes

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think we should let men marry multiple women, fathers marry daughters, brothers marry sisters, people marry their pets, etc. etc. As long as they love either other, who cares, right?

nah, just twp consenting adults. are you equating gay people to animals?

[spursncowboys]

The Reaction to Jesus' Teaching on Marriage and Divorce

Matthew 19:9



I know of no one who would deny it. Jesus was radical in the religious arena of the first century world. His life began in the womb of a woman not yet married. He was not degreed from a prestigious rabbinical school, yet He never hesitated to engage the scribes and lawyers in fierce verbal confrontations. He did not pay tribute to the hallowed traditions of men. He rowed against the tide of current religious thought during His entire ministry and for a finale, He died the despicable death on the cross.

Repeatedly, the Lord heralded the message, "My kingdom is different." In the Greco-Roman world of first century Palestine, a person could not have found someone more openly counter-cultural in both lifestyle and philosophy than was Jesus of Nazareth. One would come to expect anything Jesus said to be expressed in radical terms.

The marriage question has been a controversial religious issue for years, even during the first century. The scribes and Pharisees were forever trying to entrap Jesus with their questions, attempting to force Him to take a position which they, in turn, could effectively destroy. In Matthew 19, their question was erroneously focused on the legalities and technicalities of divorce. My Lord, in response, focused on God's purpose and intent in marriage. Rabbi Hillel was the champion of liberals, advocating a broad position of divorce for every cause. Rabbi Shammai, on the other hand, was the hero of the conservative wing, holding the line on what seemed to be an extremely narrow interpretation of the law regarding divorce. Jesus of Nazareth was publicly challenged to show His colors and declare one way or the other. It seemed to be the perfect challenge. No matter which of the two positions Jesus took, those holding the other view would devour Him

You already know that less did not take either of the two positions on divorce. Instead, He stated the law of God concerning marriage. According to the Lord, marriage was God's idea. It was designed for one man and one woman, instituted from the time of creation. God said that the duration of the relationship established between a man and woman in marriage would be lifelong. Furthermore, God said that sundering a marriage was sin.

While the listeners were still reeling from the rigidity of these comments on marriage, Jesus boldly asserted a divine message about this matter of divorce. To the ears of these listeners, it was the most radical statement of all.

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).

Who can believe it?
Who can accept it?

When this confrontation began, it was the Pharisees who were challenging Jesus. As Jesus expresses the attitude of heaven toward marriage and divorce, it is the disciples not the Pharisees who react to Jesus' teaching.

Today, when a Christian teaches that divorce for every cause is sin and those who thus divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery, he likely will hear some folks say, "That's too hard!" Be advised, that is exactly what the disciples of Jesus said almost two thousand years ago (Matthew 19:10). The disciples understood what Jesus was saying. They understood the implications of that teaching. In fact, in their turmoil they concluded that if His rigid, obdurate statement is indeed the divine Word on marriage, then it would be far better for a man not to marry. "It's hard. It requires so much. It's so inflexible. It's radical!" But what did they expect? What less can you expect in a kingdom born of a crucified King. This is the King who demands a loyalty to Him that exceeds loyalty to one's own flesh and blood (Matthew 10:34-39). If God can require of us our very lives, He can surely require of us certain relationships in life.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples would have reacted as they did, if in fact Jesus was not teaching what He appears to be teaching? As they heard these words of Jesus, they immediately concluded that this was a hard saying. Jesus taught that marriage is for life. He likewise taught that divorcing a mate (for a cause other than sexual immorality) and marrying again is sinful. Was this statement hard because it was difficult in interpretation? No. It was hard because it was painful in application.

By David Thomley
From Expository Files 3.10; October 1996

http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-19-9.htm

[spursncowboys]

The Reaction to Jesus' Teaching on Marriage and Divorce

Matthew 19:9



I know of no one who would deny it. Jesus was radical in the religious arena of the first century world. His life began in the womb of a woman not yet married. He was not degreed from a prestigious rabbinical school, yet He never hesitated to engage the scribes and lawyers in fierce verbal confrontations. He did not pay tribute to the hallowed traditions of men. He rowed against the tide of current religious thought during His entire ministry and for a finale, He died the despicable death on the cross.

Repeatedly, the Lord heralded the message, "My kingdom is different." In the Greco-Roman world of first century Palestine, a person could not have found someone more openly counter-cultural in both lifestyle and philosophy than was Jesus of Nazareth. One would come to expect anything Jesus said to be expressed in radical terms.

The marriage question has been a controversial religious issue for years, even during the first century. The scribes and Pharisees were forever trying to entrap Jesus with their questions, attempting to force Him to take a position which they, in turn, could effectively destroy. In Matthew 19, their question was erroneously focused on the legalities and technicalities of divorce. My Lord, in response, focused on God's purpose and intent in marriage. Rabbi Hillel was the champion of liberals, advocating a broad position of divorce for every cause. Rabbi Shammai, on the other hand, was the hero of the conservative wing, holding the line on what seemed to be an extremely narrow interpretation of the law regarding divorce. Jesus of Nazareth was publicly challenged to show His colors and declare one way or the other. It seemed to be the perfect challenge. No matter which of the two positions Jesus took, those holding the other view would devour Him

You already know that less did not take either of the two positions on divorce. Instead, He stated the law of God concerning marriage. According to the Lord, marriage was God's idea. It was designed for one man and one woman, instituted from the time of creation. God said that the duration of the relationship established between a man and woman in marriage would be lifelong. Furthermore, God said that sundering a marriage was sin.

While the listeners were still reeling from the rigidity of these comments on marriage, Jesus boldly asserted a divine message about this matter of divorce. To the ears of these listeners, it was the most radical statement of all.

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).

Who can believe it?
Who can accept it?

When this confrontation began, it was the Pharisees who were challenging Jesus. As Jesus expresses the attitude of heaven toward marriage and divorce, it is the disciples not the Pharisees who react to Jesus' teaching.

Today, when a Christian teaches that divorce for every cause is sin and those who thus divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery, he likely will hear some folks say, "That's too hard!" Be advised, that is exactly what the disciples of Jesus said almost two thousand years ago (Matthew 19:10). The disciples understood what Jesus was saying. They understood the implications of that teaching. In fact, in their turmoil they concluded that if His rigid, obdurate statement is indeed the divine Word on marriage, then it would be far better for a man not to marry. "It's hard. It requires so much. It's so inflexible. It's radical!" But what did they expect? What less can you expect in a kingdom born of a crucified King. This is the King who demands a loyalty to Him that exceeds loyalty to one's own flesh and blood (Matthew 10:34-39). If God can require of us our very lives, He can surely require of us certain relationships in life.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples would have reacted as they did, if in fact Jesus was not teaching what He appears to be teaching? As they heard these words of Jesus, they immediately concluded that this was a hard saying. Jesus taught that marriage is for life. He likewise taught that divorcing a mate (for a cause other than sexual immorality) and marrying again is sinful. Was this statement hard because it was difficult in interpretation? No. It was hard because it was painful in application.

By David Thomley
From Expository Files 3.10; October 1996

http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-19-9.htm

[George Gervin's Afro]

The Reaction to Jesus' Teaching on Marriage and Divorce

Matthew 19:9



I know of no one who would deny it. Jesus was radical in the religious arena of the first century world. His life began in the womb of a woman not yet married. He was not degreed from a prestigious rabbinical school, yet He never hesitated to engage the scribes and lawyers in fierce verbal confrontations. He did not pay tribute to the hallowed traditions of men. He rowed against the tide of current religious thought during His entire ministry and for a finale, He died the despicable death on the cross.

Repeatedly, the Lord heralded the message, "My kingdom is different." In the Greco-Roman world of first century Palestine, a person could not have found someone more openly counter-cultural in both lifestyle and philosophy than was Jesus of Nazareth. One would come to expect anything Jesus said to be expressed in radical terms.

The marriage question has been a controversial religious issue for years, even during the first century. The scribes and Pharisees were forever trying to entrap Jesus with their questions, attempting to force Him to take a position which they, in turn, could effectively destroy. In Matthew 19, their question was erroneously focused on the legalities and technicalities of divorce. My Lord, in response, focused on God's purpose and intent in marriage. Rabbi Hillel was the champion of liberals, advocating a broad position of divorce for every cause. Rabbi Shammai, on the other hand, was the hero of the conservative wing, holding the line on what seemed to be an extremely narrow interpretation of the law regarding divorce. Jesus of Nazareth was publicly challenged to show His colors and declare one way or the other. It seemed to be the perfect challenge. No matter which of the two positions Jesus took, those holding the other view would devour Him

You already know that less did not take either of the two positions on divorce. Instead, He stated the law of God concerning marriage. According to the Lord, marriage was God's idea. It was designed for one man and one woman, instituted from the time of creation. God said that the duration of the relationship established between a man and woman in marriage would be lifelong. Furthermore, God said that sundering a marriage was sin.

While the listeners were still reeling from the rigidity of these comments on marriage, Jesus boldly asserted a divine message about this matter of divorce. To the ears of these listeners, it was the most radical statement of all.

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).

Who can believe it?
Who can accept it?

When this confrontation began, it was the Pharisees who were challenging Jesus. As Jesus expresses the attitude of heaven toward marriage and divorce, it is the disciples not the Pharisees who react to Jesus' teaching.

Today, when a Christian teaches that divorce for every cause is sin and those who thus divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery, he likely will hear some folks say, "That's too hard!" Be advised, that is exactly what the disciples of Jesus said almost two thousand years ago (Matthew 19:10). The disciples understood what Jesus was saying. They understood the implications of that teaching. In fact, in their turmoil they concluded that if His rigid, obdurate statement is indeed the divine Word on marriage, then it would be far better for a man not to marry. "It's hard. It requires so much. It's so inflexible. It's radical!" But what did they expect? What less can you expect in a kingdom born of a crucified King. This is the King who demands a loyalty to Him that exceeds loyalty to one's own flesh and blood (Matthew 10:34-39). If God can require of us our very lives, He can surely require of us certain relationships in life.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples would have reacted as they did, if in fact Jesus was not teaching what He appears to be teaching? As they heard these words of Jesus, they immediately concluded that this was a hard saying. Jesus taught that marriage is for life. He likewise taught that divorcing a mate (for a cause other than sexual immorality) and marrying again is sinful. Was this statement hard because it was difficult in interpretation? No. It was hard because it was painful in application.

By David Thomley
From Expository Files 3.10; October 1996

http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-19-9.htm

so what about the people who aren't christians? where do they fall?

[Bartleby]

The Reaction to Jesus' Teaching on Marriage and Divorce

Matthew 19:9



I know of no one who would deny it. Jesus was radical in the religious arena of the first century world. His life began in the womb of a woman not yet married. He was not degreed from a prestigious rabbinical school, yet He never hesitated to engage the scribes and lawyers in fierce verbal confrontations. He did not pay tribute to the hallowed traditions of men. He rowed against the tide of current religious thought during His entire ministry and for a finale, He died the despicable death on the cross.

Repeatedly, the Lord heralded the message, "My kingdom is different." In the Greco-Roman world of first century Palestine, a person could not have found someone more openly counter-cultural in both lifestyle and philosophy than was Jesus of Nazareth. One would come to expect anything Jesus said to be expressed in radical terms.

The marriage question has been a controversial religious issue for years, even during the first century. The scribes and Pharisees were forever trying to entrap Jesus with their questions, attempting to force Him to take a position which they, in turn, could effectively destroy. In Matthew 19, their question was erroneously focused on the legalities and technicalities of divorce. My Lord, in response, focused on God's purpose and intent in marriage. Rabbi Hillel was the champion of liberals, advocating a broad position of divorce for every cause. Rabbi Shammai, on the other hand, was the hero of the conservative wing, holding the line on what seemed to be an extremely narrow interpretation of the law regarding divorce. Jesus of Nazareth was publicly challenged to show His colors and declare one way or the other. It seemed to be the perfect challenge. No matter which of the two positions Jesus took, those holding the other view would devour Him

You already know that less did not take either of the two positions on divorce. Instead, He stated the law of God concerning marriage. According to the Lord, marriage was God's idea. It was designed for one man and one woman, instituted from the time of creation. God said that the duration of the relationship established between a man and woman in marriage would be lifelong. Furthermore, God said that sundering a marriage was sin.

While the listeners were still reeling from the rigidity of these comments on marriage, Jesus boldly asserted a divine message about this matter of divorce. To the ears of these listeners, it was the most radical statement of all.

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery" (Matthew 19:9).

Who can believe it?
Who can accept it?

When this confrontation began, it was the Pharisees who were challenging Jesus. As Jesus expresses the attitude of heaven toward marriage and divorce, it is the disciples not the Pharisees who react to Jesus' teaching.

Today, when a Christian teaches that divorce for every cause is sin and those who thus divorce and remarry are guilty of adultery, he likely will hear some folks say, "That's too hard!" Be advised, that is exactly what the disciples of Jesus said almost two thousand years ago (Matthew 19:10). The disciples understood what Jesus was saying. They understood the implications of that teaching. In fact, in their turmoil they concluded that if His rigid, obdurate statement is indeed the divine Word on marriage, then it would be far better for a man not to marry. "It's hard. It requires so much. It's so inflexible. It's radical!" But what did they expect? What less can you expect in a kingdom born of a crucified King. This is the King who demands a loyalty to Him that exceeds loyalty to one's own flesh and blood (Matthew 10:34-39). If God can require of us our very lives, He can surely require of us certain relationships in life.

Did you ever wonder why the disciples would have reacted as they did, if in fact Jesus was not teaching what He appears to be teaching? As they heard these words of Jesus, they immediately concluded that this was a hard saying. Jesus taught that marriage is for life. He likewise taught that divorcing a mate (for a cause other than sexual immorality) and marrying again is sinful. Was this statement hard because it was difficult in interpretation? No. It was hard because it was painful in application.

By David Thomley
From Expository Files 3.10; October 1996

http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-19-9.htm

[Bartleby]

so what about the people who aren't christians? where do they fall?

They're going to Hell anyway so it's a moot question.

[doobs]

I support gay marriage, but I don't use platitudes about love and consenting adults and equality to dismiss the line-drawing argument. Whether you like to admit it or not, not all relationships are treated equally . . . even the ones that are between consenting adults.

There are certain prohibitions that everyone can agree with. No children (but under what age?) and no animals. The rationale being that children and animals are not capable of understanding, much less consenting to, a marital relationship. But that surely is not the only line to be drawn.

Adult siblings can be consenting adults who love each other. Sure, their offspring will often be retarded or otherwise harmed, but who are we to force them not to marry? How paternalistic. And what about sterile siblings? What possible reason is there to deny them marriage? Similarly, what about gay siblings? After all, if you're going to allow gay marriage, what possible reason can there be to deny marriage to gay siblings, who are effectively sterile?

What right does the government have to deny polygamists legal marriage? These are consenting adults. You may not like the choice they've made, and maybe you can't even comprehend why a woman would want to be one of many wives. But it's not your life, and these are consenting adults who love one another.

Point being, if gay marriage supporters are going to talk about consenting adults they need to be consistent. If it's only about consenting adults, then incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage should surely be legal. I happen to think polygamy should be legal, and incestuous marriage should be illegal. But I acknowledge my unprincipled and highly bigoted line-drawing. Incest is just plain gross, even when the people involved are sterile.

[DarrinS]

When has a slippery slope argument ever worked?

Pets and kids aren't rational thinkers.

Complete failure of a post.


Ok, take out kids and animals. See doobs post.

[Supergirl]

It's a cover for homosexuals to feel normal and be 'accepted' by society.

Notice how they do NOT want their own institution with all of the same rights.

bullshit.

Where you gettin' your information, sparky?

If you are referring to civil unions, here's the deal - and I've talked to quite a number of people in the lgbt people who agree with me on this: If we were to make all legal marriages called civil unions, with all the same rights, and reserve the word "marriage" for religious institutions to bestow or not bestow, as they see fit - that would be fine. But that is a much bigger legal and bureaucratic hassle at this point, and the reason why most people object to same gender marriage is because they don't really understand the difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious institution.

This speech elucidates that difference beautifully, and with humor.

[whottt]

would you care if a brother married his sister?

I wouldn't. I mean I would think it's fucked up but at the same time, it wouldn't have the slightest bit of impact to me personally if they wanted to do it.

It's been done before in human history, usually among royalty, even in the bible. I mean well, obviously the children of both Adam and Eve. Not to mention Adam and Eve inbreeding with their own children. They simply had to do some inbreeding to populate the human race. And I am sure science will verify that early homo sapiens inbred at some point. Because at some point the only ones in existence were all siblings. We are the result of a genetic mutation, or variation if you like, and it's highly unlike the same mutation occurred between totally unrelated individuals. Great Apes do it, and since we are a great ape, without a doubt at some point we did it. Everyone in the world is a blood relative of everyone in the world...I think it's that we're all like 11th cousins or something.


Charles Darwin himself was married to his first cousin.

I think it's been proven that brother sister incest is actually the most common form of incestual activity reported privately by people..and there are some other interesting facts, like a brother a sister that are raised together as infants will actually have a biochemical barrier against attraction, but a brother and sister raised apart will have a genetic sexual attraction to one another. This is usually the dynamic at work between cousins as well.


This shit is social primarily...there are cultures in the world for instance:

Where the father take the daughter for the first time.
The mother takes the son.

There is a tribe in New Guinea where the rite of passage for boys to become men involves the men taking the boys off for the weekend and the boys perform oral sex on the men and swallow their semen to become men.

There's one tribe in Africa where the rite of passage to manhood is to eat out a cow's snatch.

Marriages between brothers and sisters occured countless times in antiquity usually among royalty. Mostly in Egypt.

In the mid-east and at times in British history intermarriage between cousins was not just acceptable, but actually preferred.

In war torn cultures where the women outnumber the men polygamy almost always becomes acceptable, and and polyandry when the men outnumber the women. It is a survival mechanism.

This shit is social more than anything else...

Techcnically speaking, a female is biologically ready to bear children when she begins mensturating and a male is ready once he reaches puberty, and for most cultures throughout human history and including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, that is the age when it became acceptable for them to have begin having sex(assuming they got married). That age is usually around 12.


It's all about survival...

So my question for you...

If you have a sister and you and her were the last two people on earth the job of saving the species was yours and yours alone, would you do it?


Some numbers off the top of my head...

I think there is a like a 3 percent chance of a child inheriting a recessive gene from two non-related indivifuals.

It jumps to 5 or 6% between 1st cousins.

10% between Uncles/Aunts and Nieces and Newphews

30% or so between parent child and siblings.

[DMX7]

I think we should let men marry multiple women, fathers marry daughters, brothers marry sisters, people marry their pets, etc. etc. As long as they love either other, who cares, right?

Yeah, marrying your pets and sister are exactly the same as gay marriage? :rolleyes

[Jacob1983]

Incest marriage and bestiality marriage probably shouldn't be legal. However, how do gays feel about polygamy? If gays can get married, then why not let polygamists get married too? Besides, what's wrong with a person having some extra love? If gay marriage is legal, polygamy should be too. Besides, polygamists should have just the same rights as regular heterosexual married couples do. We have to be fair to everyone, not just gays.

[EmptyMan]

Damn Whott, TMI.

:lol

[spursncowboys]

Where you gettin' your information, sparky?

If you are referring to civil unions, here's the deal - and I've talked to quite a number of people in the lgbt people who agree with me on this: If we were to make all legal marriages called civil unions, with all the same rights, and reserve the word "marriage" for religious institutions to bestow or not bestow, as they see fit - that would be fine. But that is a much bigger legal and bureaucratic hassle at this point, and the reason why most people object to same gender marriage is because they don't really understand the difference between the legal contract of marriage and the religious institution.

This speech elucidates that difference beautifully, and with humor.
What is the benefit for our society if gay couples got married? What is the benefit for the change of marriage to call them all unions? Nothing. It is against the natural law. It is against all cultural and social norms. Where is the highest aids cases from?
Since there is no evidence that proves people are born gay, then you cannot prove that it is not a choice. Why should we change a cultural norm? One man and one woman. The only beneficial way for our society to advance.

[baseline bum]

What is the benefit for our society if gay couples got married?


That government shouldn't be in a position to penalize people for living their social lives as they see fit.



What is the benefit for the change of marriage to call them all unions?
Nothing.


I already addressed this. Separate but equal does not work because it's easy to change one and not the other.



It is against the natural law.


If that's true, then how did it ever start?



It is against all cultural and social norms.


Who gives a shit about cultural norms? In the United States you do not have the right to not be offended by what others say and do. That's the fucking price you pay for living in a free society.



Where is the highest aids cases from?


Almost certainly shared IV drug use, since you're directly injecting others' blood into your system.



Since there is no evidence that proves people are born gay, then you cannot prove that it is not a choice. Why should we change a cultural norm? One man and one woman. The only beneficial way for our society to advance.


Even if it is a choice, why does that give the government the right to discriminate against them? Why do you want an authoritarian government sticking it's nose into people's personal business? The United States is not supposed to be about protecting only the rights of the majority. It's going to be funny in 30-50 years when you're the minority in this nation.

[spursncowboys]

That government shouldn't be in a position to penalize people for living their social lives as they see fit.



I already addressed this. Separate but equal does not work because it's easy to change one and not the other.



If that's true, then how did it ever start?



Who gives a shit about cultural norms? In the United States you do not have the right to not be offended by what others say and do. That's the fucking price you pay for living in a free society.



Almost certainly shared IV drug use, since you're directly injecting others' blood into your system.




Even if it is a choice, why does that give the government the right to discriminate against them? Why do you want an authoritarian government sticking it's nose into people's personal business? The United States is not supposed to be about protecting only the rights of the majority. It's going to be funny in 30-50 years when you're the minority in this nation.
Your use of discrimination can be used against all our rules and laws. Is laws against pedophilia disriminating? Is making laws against shitting on the sidewalk discriminating? Should our society allow public drug usage so as not to be discriminate?

[MiamiHeat]

baseline bum's whole argument is ridiculous to me.

he seems to believe that law makers or whatever, would add extra rights, or changes, to one side and not the other because 'they forgot'

As if the entire gay population, which totals 1% of the population of USA, would allow that

Dumb argument. Makes no sense.

[baseline bum]

Your use of discrimination can be used against all our rules and laws. Is laws against pedophilia disriminating? Is making laws against shitting on the sidewalk discriminating? Should our society allow public drug usage so as not to be discriminate?

Pedophilia is a crime with a real victim incapable of defending himself. I don't know why the hell you all always try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality.

[baseline bum]

baseline bum's whole argument is ridiculous to me.

he seems to believe that law makers or whatever, would add extra rights, or changes, to one side and not the other because 'they forgot'

As if the entire gay population, which totals 1% of the population of USA, would allow that

Dumb argument. Makes no sense.

There is no way you'd keep the two definitions in sync, even in a perfect world where there is no malicious intent. Of course there would be malicious intent from social conservatives who would drag bills out and refuse to vote for them with unless the language "civil unions" was removed from the bill. Furthermore, they'd sneak in stipulations for marriage only into bills that the rest of congress wants to pass the same way so many earmarks get thrown into everything that comes out of DC.

Back to the perfect world, keeping the two notions together under different names without making them direct synonyms would give plenty of room for interpretation unless they're written word for word as the exact same law and if every amendment of the rights was written word for word exact in comparison to its counterpart. Fat chance of that ever happening.

The government needs to either not recognize marriage, or recognize it equally for everyone. It does not have the right to discriminate the way private individuals and businesses do.

[AussieFanKurt]

JjQlh52Em3o

typical bigotry, irrational argument of many anti-gay people

[George Gervin's Afro]

the anti gay marriage crowd sure is grasping for anything to justify their bigotry..:lmao

[admiralsnackbar]

typical bigotry, irrational argument of many anti-gay people

What I think is funny is the picking and choosing of what constitutes moral orthodoxy. We can all agree slaves are bad, we can all agree that we can be around menstruating women, we can all agree that any number of OT pronouncements are either wrong or only partially right (and that this fact doesn't need to have a negative impact on our faith), but somehow some people can't wrap their heads around letting people love who they want to love. And honestly, the only reason I can reason it out for myself is that by reducing certain types of people into "others," some pastors are able to energize their flocks in a way that they fail to do by using Christ's message of love and acceptance. I can't help but find that reprehensible and un-Christian by definition.

[admiralsnackbar]

the anti gay marriage crowd sure is grasping for anything to justify their bigotry..:lmao

Regarding moral orthodoxy again, isn't it interesting that the guy wants to end the discussion rather than have a conversation about his interpretation of scripture? At what point does something become so self-evident (especially when we're talking about textual interpretation) that it no longer merits consideration as a topic?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Regarding moral orthodoxy again, isn't it interesting that the guy wants to end the discussion rather than have a conversation about his interpretation of scripture? At what point does something become so self-evident (especially when we're talking about textual interpretation) that it no longer merits consideration as a topic?

No one knows what God thinks. Century old texts can be interpreted to fit anyon'e point of view. God made man in his own image.

[AussieFanKurt]

I thought Jesus was loving and accepted everyone?

[admiralsnackbar]

I thought Jesus was loving and accepted everyone?

I'll pre-empt all the haters who justify their nastiness with Matt 10:34 :sleep

[101A]

it was a good speech, especially the aspect regarding the way we really do not value marriage the way that we consider ourselves to and that religions are not really threatened by sanctioned gay marriages.

still, i think this is really about insurance companies and all the other "sanctity" of marriage rhetoric is a cover.

Without taking sides in this debate (right or wrong) - it is NOT about insurance; it is about votes/public opinion. Gay marriage loses EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.

[101A]

I thought Jesus was loving and accepted everyone?

Loving? Yes.

"Accepting". No. Read the Sermon on the Mount, or any of a number of parables. There were many behaviors that Jesus did NOT suffer lightly.

[coyotes_geek]

According to the Lord, marriage was God's idea. It was designed for one man and one woman, instituted from the time of creation. God said that the duration of the relationship established between a man and woman in marriage would be lifelong. Furthermore, God said that sundering a marriage was sin.


So when God says marriage is between a man and a woman we have to make sure that two men or two women don't get married because it goes against God's definition of marriage. But when a man and a woman want to get divorced suddenly it's okay to let two people decide for themselves whether or not God's definition of marriage needs to be adhered to. Why is that?

[ElNono]

Separation of Church and State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s)

[Oh, Gee!!]

consenting adults (excluding those related within a certain degree designated by statute) should have the freedom to marry.

[ElNono]

I agree with whottt on this one. This is entirely a social construct.

And as I said a while ago, I think it's worth repeating: There will be a future time when we will look back and feel pretty stupid about all this sexual-orientation driven discrimination. Much like the way we feel when we look back at things like racial segregation in the past.

[TeyshaBlue]

I agree with whottt on this one. This is entirely a social construct.

And as I said a while ago, I think it's worth repeating: There will be a future time when we will look back and feel pretty stupid about all this sexual-orientation driven discrimination. Much like the way we feel when we look back at things like racial segregation in the past.

^^^^^^^This is made of win^^^^^^^^

[BacktoBasics]

I love how you thumpers think that marriage is your union. You somehow own it and god created it for you. Its not your union. You never created it. It was never yours. Marriage or unions date back much further than your creation of Christ and any notion of his Father God. It was never yours to manipulate in the first place. Like everything else in this society your fantasy tale religion has taken something from someone or something else and twisted it to fit in your own little disgusting vision of perfection.

[admiralsnackbar]

So when God says marriage is between a man and a woman we have to make sure that two men or two women don't get married because it goes against God's definition of marriage. But when a man and a woman want to get divorced suddenly it's okay to let two people decide for themselves whether or not God's definition of marriage needs to be adhered to. Why is that?

Moreover, why is polygamy frowned on now if the same OT that allegedly "defines" marriage as boy on girl (forgetting for a moment that Genesis is the story of creation and can therefore easily be taken as less the definition of marriage than an observation that only the union of men and women create life and human history) later describes boy on girl on girl on girl etc. marriage with no judgment? Why the sliding goalpost?

[admiralsnackbar]

Also, if Genesis is a definition, does this mean that women are defined as being inferior to men? Or not made in the image of God as man is? Or more susceptible to evil?

[rjv]

Without taking sides in this debate (right or wrong) - it is NOT about insurance; it is about votes/public opinion. Gay marriage loses EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.

Gay marriage solves,creates money issues

By Chuck Jaffe | May 20, 2004
When friends asked Sharon Rich whether she and her partner planned to marry when Massachusetts allowed them to, Rich said, "I have to talk with my lawyer first."
"One thing I do know is that if we are married, we'll save more than $500 a month in health insurance costs, so I'll probably discuss this with my lawyer soon," she said.
That Rich is taking a pragmatic and financial approach is hardly a surprise. She runs Womoney in Belmont and is routinely included on any list of the nation's top financial advisers.
While many people focus on the religious, moral, and ethical issues around gay marriage, Rich and the financial community are looking at the monetary picture. It is here that allowing gay marriage will make one of the biggest day-to-day differences in the celebrants' lives, and it is also here that the biggest potential errors may be made.
Talk with financial advisers who have a large gay and lesbian clientele and they are likely to acknowledge that these customers are more aware of estate planning and tax issues, if only because the system for years has forced makeshift maneuvers aimed at achieving the financial ends that straight couples take for granted. These include survivor benefits, beneficiary rights, and more.
Yet many of these same financial advisers -- particularly here in Massachusetts, the first state to allow gay marriage -- suggest that the couples rushing to tie the knot may be undoing years of financial planning in the process.
"A lot of people developed domestic partnership or relationship agreements, which functioned like a prenuptial agreement," says John LeBlanc of Back Bay Financial in Boston. "But state law supersedes those agreements, so when a couple gets married, those prior agreements in most cases become null and void. If the couple gets a divorce -- and if there are marriages, you can bet there will be divorces -- the careful planning that a couple did when they were not married may be undone by having gone through the ceremony."
There are other obstacles for gay couples to negotiate, most notably the difference between state and federal law.
A couple married in Massachusetts, for example, might file their taxes jointly. Since Massachusetts taxes ride on the federal tax form, the couple would complete a federal tax form as a married couple, then transfer the information to a Massachusetts form.
And then the couple would toss out the federal form they had prepared, because they're not married in the eyes of Uncle Sam.
That means not only starting over and filing federal returns as singles, but enclosing a letter with their federal return saying they are married in Massachusetts. Some financial and tax planners are concerned that if couples file as single when they are married -- and don't include a letter of explanation -- they could be considered guilty of tax fraud under federal law.

That's a little twisted.
There are other issues, such as how Massachusetts tax payments will be split for federal credit and more. And there will be issues surrounding Medicaid, COBRA benefits (the federal rule allowing a worker who loses a job to continue health benefits at his or her own cost), Social Security benefits for adopted children, different forms of property ownership, and more.
Eventually, if the debate on gay marriage becomes a federal issue, there will be broader decisions on Social Security, too.
For now, whether it is a marriage or a civil union, there are two sets of rules to be aware of -- federal and state -- and there is the need to remember that major life events require significant financial planning reviews.
For every financial issue gay marriage creates, however, it solves one or two problems.
Rich's insurance case -- where married couples can get discounts that are unavailable to singles in this state -- is one example.
Another: Massachusetts residents who are married can make unlimited financial gifts to each other, unlike partners who are subject to an annual gift tax law limit. (This is another area where partners need to be careful, as it will be possible to move money in accordance with state rules but still mess up on federal statutes.)
There are estate tax benefits -- married couples have an unlimited marital tax deduction in Massachusetts -- and basic protections.In this state,married spouses who die without a will have their assets automatically move to their partner, which is not the case with an unmarried person.
Says Rich: "The issues are more complicated than heterosexual marriage, so the people who are rushing to get married now need to do this with stars in their eyes but they must take off the rose-colored glasses. Don't assume everything will be very simple, because it isn't."
IRS won't roll over
A recent Internal Revenue Service ruling may put the kibosh on a strategy that a large number of financial gurus were trumpeting as a short-term solution to money problems. The strategy has involved making an IRA rollover and using the proceeds during the 60-day rollover period as a form of interest-free loan.
In more than 30 prior rulings in the past few years, the IRS had been willing to overlook mistakes where the taxpayer didn't get a rollover completed within the allotted time.
But in the recent case, the taxpayer wasn't trying to do a rollover, he just wanted the cash. Once his financial situation changed, he wanted to put it back in the IRA.
That was not in the cards, so he gets no leniency and owes taxes and penalties on what is now classified as an IRA withdrawal.
The moral of the story is clear: No matter how attractive an interest-free loan to yourself may sound, don't risk your IRA savings with an unnecessary rollover.
"The IRA is the last place you ever want to take money from," says Ed Slott of E. Slott & Co., who runs the IRAHelp.com (http://irahelp.com/) website. "People advising that you can get away with tapping your money for short-term needs need to know that they have no margin for error anymore. Any problem and they will have blown up your savings."
Chuck Jaffe is a senior columnist at CBS Marketwatch. He can be reached at [email protected] or at P.O. Box 70, Cohasset, MA 02025-0070.http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

who cares if something loses a majority vote? since when has the majority been right about something? hell, if the civil rights acts of 1965 had been put to a vote it would have been shot down in no time.

[doobs]

Also, if Genesis is a definition, does this mean that women are defined as being inferior to men? Or not made in the image of God as man is? Or more susceptible to evil?

Actually, Genesis got that part right.

[admiralsnackbar]

Actually, Genesis got that part right.

My first marriage confirmed it, too, but I thought making an ex-wife joke would diminish my credibility in this thread :toast

[EmptyMan]

Actually, Genesis got that part right.

:lol

I don't really care if gays want to get married, but at the same time I'm not that crazy about my future son growing up in a culture where it is normal for two dudes to get married. Who is anyone else to deny two people happiness from the love they share between one another, I get that. It's just kind of weird maaaaaaaaaan.

The religious/bigotry bullshit is old and tired. Those two sides will dick around with each other for all of eternity. :sleep

I think whoever said it is mainly about the gays feeling "accepted" is right.

[admiralsnackbar]

:lol

I don't really care if gays want to get married, but at the same time I'm not that crazy about my future son growing up in a culture where it is normal for two dudes to get married.


How can it be "worse" than living in a culture where it's normal for two dudes to date and bone and live together? We already live there, dude! And the wheels haven't come off the wagon yet, have they? :lol

[Supergirl]

Without taking sides in this debate (right or wrong) - it is NOT about insurance; it is about votes/public opinion. Gay marriage loses EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.

And if we had put it to the people to vote whether the schools should be integrated, whether Black people should be allowed to ride on the bus with white folk, whether white and Black people should be allowed to marry - all those things would have LOST too. All those things required learned justices who understoood our Constitution deeply to correct decades of injustice and inequality.

[admiralsnackbar]

And if we had put it to the people to vote whether the schools should be integrated, whether Black people should be allowed to ride on the bus with white folk, whether white and Black people should be allowed to marry - all those things would have LOST too. All those things required learned justices who understoood our Constitution deeply to correct decades of injustice and inequality.

Don't forget the Reconstruction Amendments.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lol

I don't really care if gays want to get married, but at the same time I'm not that crazy about my future son growing up in a culture where it is normal for two dudes to get married. Who is anyone else to deny two people happiness from the love they share between one another, I get that. It's just kind of weird maaaaaaaaaan.

The religious/bigotry bullshit is old and tired. Those two sides will dick around with each other for all of eternity. :sleep

I think whoever said it is mainly about the gays feeling "accepted" is right.

my son will know that gay people exist and that they are human beings just like he is.

[101A]

And if we had put it to the people to vote whether the schools should be integrated, whether Black people should be allowed to ride on the bus with white folk, whether white and Black people should be allowed to marry - all those things would have LOST too. All those things required learned justices who understoood our Constitution deeply to correct decades of injustice and inequality.

Be that as it may....these current justices are NOT going to find the language in the Constitution necessary to mandate the recognition of Same Sex Marriages; which makes this a political issue; which means I stand by my original post: Senators in New York are looking at polls, not the insurance lobby.

[admiralsnackbar]

Be that as it may....these current justices are NOT going to find the language in the Constitution necessary to mandate the recognition of Same Sex Marriages; which makes this a political issue; which means I stand by my original post: Senators in New York are looking at polls, not the insurance lobby.

You haven't demonstrated why the two are mutually exclusive.

[spursncowboys]

And if we had put it to the people to vote whether the schools should be integrated, whether Black people should be allowed to ride on the bus with white folk, whether white and Black people should be allowed to marry - all those things would have LOST too. All those things required learned justices who understoood our Constitution deeply to correct decades of injustice and inequality.

majority of schools did not need the federal govt. to tell them to desegregate. I also would appreciate that you use some facts when slandering the entire country. I am not saying that the average person then is as enlightened as you are, but I doubt the majority believed in segregation.
Also deciding to be gay, and not having the same opportunities because of your physical appearance and cultural background are similar in no way.

[rjv]

i can not see how one can categorically state that there is no language in the DOM that would preclude a supreme court ruling against it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Also deciding to be gay, and not having the same opportunities because of your physical appearance and cultural background are similar in no way.

Only if you believe that homosexuality is a choice. Most gay people don't (after all, who would choose to become part of a reproductively un-viable demonized minority for fun?).

[rjv]

Also deciding to be gay, and not having the same opportunities because of your physical appearance and cultural background are similar in no way.

one-does one decide to be gay? if so, prove this premise. i am not offering the opposite side as a definitive premise. i am asking you to state what makes you assume one side of the coin is so conclusive.

second-are you stating this in moral terms or in legal terms?

[101A]

You haven't demonstrated why the two are mutually exclusive.


Being that I am not a Senator in New York, I cannot.

It is an opinion.

[admiralsnackbar]

Fair enough, man.


Be that as it may....these current justices are NOT going to find the language in the Constitution necessary to mandate the recognition of Same Sex Marriages;

BTW -- why do you say this? There's plenty in the 14th amendment to support an argument for equality of due process for all citizens, isn't there?

[doobs]

Fair enough, man.



BTW -- why do you say this? There's plenty in the 14th amendment to support an argument for equality of due process for all citizens, isn't there?

Equal Protection and Due Process are two different things. Both are in the 14th Amendment.

To answer your question, the applicable clause would be the Equal Protection Clause. Unfortunately for the gays, discrimination against them is subject to rational basis scrutiny.

[rjv]

BTW -- why do you say this? There's plenty in the 14th amendment to support an argument for equality of due process for all citizens, isn't there?

of course there is. the 14th amendment as well as the full faith and credit clause.

[MiamiHeat]

Only if you believe that homosexuality is a choice. Most gay people don't (after all, who would choose to become part of a reproductively un-viable demonized minority for fun?).

Do you realize how flawed your question is?

How about these...

After all, who would choose to become a member of the White Nationalist Nazi movement in the USA year 2009, to become a hated and reviled human being?

After all, who would choose to be a part of child pornography rings, exposing themselves to prison and becoming a demonized disgusting human being, and then gets raped in prison?


After all, who would choose to murder 3,000 innocent civilians by crashing a plane into a building and become a hunted, world wide hated terrorist for the rest of your life?

After all, who would choose to become a genocidal maniac, plunging his country into war and killing 6 million innocent jewish people in concentration camps, to become one of histories worst evil men?



Use your brain. There are many reasons why a human would choose to be gay even though it's demonized. Especially nowadays, with the whole 'gay pride' and "I'm gay and I'm a victim" movement

[Supergirl]

majority of schools did not need the federal govt. to tell them to desegregate. I also would appreciate that you use some facts when slandering the entire country. I am not saying that the average person then is as enlightened as you are, but I doubt the majority believed in segregation.
Also deciding to be gay, and not having the same opportunities because of your physical appearance and cultural background are similar in no way.

"Majority of schools" in this country are STILL segregated in many ways. Easily 90% of the population of the Boston Public Schools are African-American and Latino. Same for most urban areas in this country.

But it's now unconstitutional to prevent Black students from going to a school solely based on race. It's no unconstitutional for white parents to spend the money to put their kids in a private school.

The parallel here is that it is perfectly constitutional for religious groups to discriminate against gay people, against Black people, against women, whatever. Many of them do. But it is NOT constitutional for the US government to provide legal rights (some 1200 of them, roughly) to one class of people and deny them to another class of people, solely because of their gender.

Did you know, that the federal government would recognize a male-to-female transsexual who has not had genital surgery in her marriage to a woman, but not a biologically-born woman married to another woman? It doesn't make any sense. It is blatantly, irrefutably unconstitutional.

The question of polygamy is a different question entirely. Currently, the US government recognizes marriage as being a contract between two people, and the legal rights are set up to grant reciprocity between these two people. I am not sure how most of those rights would work in a contract between 3 or more people but if polygamists want to take this cause on and try to redefine marriage this way, I'll support it. That really is a redefinition of marriage.

Same-gender marriage doesn't redefine marriage at all, really. It simply grants rights to people who are being denied them. But marriage has been redefined in the past 20-30 years. BY STRAIGHT PEOPLE. Britney Spears' 24 hour marriage says more about how marriage has been redefined than any gay or lesbian couple.

[spursncowboys]

"Majority of schools" in this country are STILL segregated in many ways. Easily 90% of the population of the Boston Public Schools are African-American and Latino. Same for most urban areas in this country.

But it's now unconstitutional to prevent Black students from going to a school solely based on race. It's no unconstitutional for white parents to spend the money to put their kids in a private school. So you are using a community destroyed by liberalism as an example? Thanks for the fact-checked statistic too. I really believe the 90%. It's funny how most urban areas are ran, for the past 60 years atleast, by liberals or social policy politicians.


The parallel here is that it is perfectly constitutional for religious groups to discriminate against gay people, against Black people, against women, whatever. Many of them do. But it is NOT constitutional for the US government to provide legal rights (some 1200 of them, roughly) to one class of people and deny them to another class of people, solely because of their gender. What constitutional case held that religious groups can discriminate against anyone? How can it be ruled unconstituional then? Homosexuals are not a class of people. They do not have an origin. They are barely a subculture.

Did you know, that the federal government would recognize a male-to-female transsexual who has not had genital surgery in her marriage to a woman, but not a biologically-born woman married to another woman? It doesn't make any sense. It is blatantly, irrefutably unconstitutional. How is it unconstitutional? because you want it to be. A transexual was born like that, they did not decide. You keep trying to portray gays as victims. It seems the easier life is, the more problems with more victims.

[AussieFanKurt]

I wonder how many people would be against homosexual marriage if there was no religion

[CuckingFunt]

But it is NOT constitutional for the US government to provide legal rights (some 1200 of them, roughly) to one class of people and deny them to another class of people, solely because of their gender.

1,138 rights, to be exact.

It's both frustrating and scary to me how misunderstood this particular debate is, for the record. And flat out retarded that an issue of equality and human rights should have anything to do with one's sexual partners/activities.

As long as marriage exists as currently defined/recognized and brings with it 1,138 legal rights, I will fight for every consenting adult to have access to those rights. Including the polygamists. It is my personal preference, however, that "marriage" be completely removed from every level of government. I'd prefer state/federally recognized civil unions for everyone with the same rights and requirements across the board. Want to be married through the church? Have at it. Let the churches decide who they do or do not want to marry, and have marriage be just a ceremony and a certificate to which zero legal rights are attached.

[rjv]

I wonder how many people would be against homosexual marriage if there was no religion


people would find something else to justify being opposed to homosexuality.

[AussieFanKurt]

people would find something else to justify being opposed to homosexuality.

I guess, but what makes it so so bad. I've worked with gays over the years and they are nice people.
I'm a straight teenage male and I can appreciate and understand equality. Why can't everyone else?

[MiamiHeat]

I wonder how many people would be against homosexual marriage if there was no religion

I am atheist, there goes your theory.

There are MANY logical reasons to think homosexuality is stupid.

In fact, the ONLY reason to support it is the following :

"Because we should all be able to do whatever we want"

Peace and love, man!!

right?

[admiralsnackbar]

Do you realize how flawed your question is?

How about these...

After all, who would choose to become a member of the White Nationalist Nazi movement in the USA year 2009, to become a hated and reviled human being?

After all, who would choose to be a part of child pornography rings, exposing themselves to prison and becoming a demonized disgusting human being, and then gets raped in prison?


After all, who would choose to murder 3,000 innocent civilians by crashing a plane into a building and become a hunted, world wide hated terrorist for the rest of your life?

After all, who would choose to become a genocidal maniac, plunging his country into war and killing 6 million innocent jewish people in concentration camps, to become one of histories worst evil men?



Use your brain. There are many reasons why a human would choose to be gay even though it's demonized. Especially nowadays, with the whole 'gay pride' and "I'm gay and I'm a victim" movement

Aw snap! Cicero is back to school me on the logics. Everybody hold on to your rhetorical asses :lol (PS, that was ad hominem... see how that works? I attacked you -- not your point -- in order to make your argument seem less valid to the audience)

People choose to join extremist movements on ideological grounds or because they are brainwashed by people on ideological grounds. While you could argue that a person's circumstances could add up to an unavoidable predisposition or determination towards some type of behavior, there's nothing visceral or compulsive about it the way that a congenital condition is. A neo-nazi may choose to be a pariah and a suicide bomber may choose to blow himself up because they believe it to be the most reasonable solution to the problem of their experience, but at any point they may change their ideology and revise their behavior. Nothing -- short of a psychological condition -- physically prevents them from changing. Not so in questions of attraction, where you are no longer talking about a reasonable choice, but an irrational or instinctive motive. Why are you sexually attracted to some women over others? Is it a reasonable decision? Or is it just the way "the spirit moves you?"

Pedophilia/fetishism and homosexuality differ in that there is no evidence that the former are genetic "conditions" (there is mounting evidence that homosexuality is, more often than not, congenital). But assuming for a moment that all are caused by external factors like childhood trauma, if you look at the numbers, all these "behaviors" are practically incurable. People treated for pedophilia have an astonishingly high rate of recidivism, as do gay people who submit themselves to the Christian heterosexual reprogramming regimens. So functionally, even if homosexuality and fetishism reprsent two sides of the nature/nurture coin, they aren't rational decisions because they can't be "rehabilitated," or altered, or even understood by the people who exhibit the behaviors.

In short, your political extremists could probably give you a reasonable answer for what motivates them, whereas gay people and pedophiles -- for different reasons -- could not.

[MiamiHeat]

I guess, but what makes it so so bad. I've worked with gays over the years and they are nice people.
I'm a straight teenage male and I can appreciate and understand equality. Why can't everyone else?

You are not understanding the issues at hand.

This isn't about 'gay marriage'

This is about gays trying to CHANGE, REDEFINE marriage.


Believe it or not, MAJORITY of USA WOULD SUPPORT a gay union of their own. A new institution, with ALL OF THE SAME RIGHTS as marriage, but with a different name.


Majority would accept that.

Just don't try and redefine marriage.

[spursncowboys]

I wonder how many people would be against homosexual marriage if there was no religion

I wonder how many people would be able to read and write if there was no religion.

[spursncowboys]

I wonder how many sick would have died over the years if not for the religious.

[MiamiHeat]

In short, your political extremists could probably give you a reasonable answer for what motivates them, whereas gay people and pedophiles -- for different reasons -- could not.


Nevertheless, your post was deflated. You tried to argue that homosexuality is not a choice because "who would choose to do such things??!"

People choose to do things, as we have now shown, for MANY REASONS.

That is NO ARGUMENT for trying to prove that homosexuality is not a choice.

Try again, snacky.

[admiralsnackbar]

You are not understanding the issues at hand.

This isn't about 'gay marriage'

This is about gays trying to CHANGE, REDEFINE marriage.


Believe it or not, MAJORITY of USA WOULD SUPPORT a gay union of their own. A new institution, with ALL OF THE SAME RIGHTS as marriage, but with a different name.


Majority would accept that.

Just don't try and redefine marriage.

Awesome. "Seperate but equal." Do you have reasons for being a bigot, or is it some uncontrollable urge on your part?

Also, are you confusing the institution of marriage as a governmentally administrated union which only amounts to legal protections for taxpayers regardless of race, color or creed with the religious institution of marriage, which has other preconditions? While you may not, I think the "majority" you speak of has been led to do just that.

[MiamiHeat]

Same-gender marriage doesn't redefine marriage at all, really. It simply grants rights to people who are being denied them.

Gays have the exact same rights I do. Go marry the opposite gender. Nobody is stopping them. So your logic is flawed


You will then say, "but gays want to marry same sex genders!"

so then that IS a redefinition of MARRIAGE.

Marriage = man and woman

[spursncowboys]

Nevertheless, your post was deflated. You tried to argue that homosexuality is not a choice because "who would choose to do such things??!"

People choose to do things, as we have now shown, for MANY REASONS.

That is NO ARGUMENT for trying to prove that homosexuality is not a choice.

Try again, snacky.

Right, the default view should not be that you are a victim of a godless, nature world while you go against natural law.

[rjv]

Nevertheless, your post was deflated. You tried to argue that homosexuality is not a choice because "who would choose to do such things??!"

People choose to do things, as we have now shown, for MANY REASONS.

That is NO ARGUMENT for trying to prove that homosexuality is not a choice.

Try again, snacky.

is there an argument to demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice? in all cases? indubitably so?

[MiamiHeat]

Awesome. "Seperate but equal." Do you have reasons for being a bigot, or is it some uncontrollable urge on your part?


and what is wrong with that? I don't see a single problem with it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Nevertheless, your post was deflated. You tried to argue that homosexuality is not a choice because "who would choose to do such things??!"

People choose to do things, as we have now shown, for MANY REASONS.

That is NO ARGUMENT for trying to prove that homosexuality is not a choice.

Try again, snacky.

:lol Why do you suppose I need to try again when you confuse skirting my points with rebutting them?

[ElNono]

Marriage = man and woman

According to who? you?

[MiamiHeat]

is there an argument to demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice? in all cases? indubitably so?

There is no legitimate argument to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a choice.


You see, we choose our sexual partners.

Sexual preference.

[MiamiHeat]

:lol Why do you suppose I need to try again when you confuse skirting my points with rebutting them?

Poor sport, snacky.

You obviously know what you did wrong and where you failed, because I pointed it out to you.

yet you ignored it and just wrote a pointless sentence trying to deny responsibility.

poor showing.

[admiralsnackbar]

and what is wrong with that? I don't see a single problem with it.

Yep, and some Miami Heat in the 50's didn't see a problem with keeping "the culluhds" in their own legally identical -- but actually disparate -- school systems, bus seats, bathrooms, etc.

[MiamiHeat]

According to who? you?

Yeah, according to me. I invented marriage, you see. I invented it while sitting on the shitter and watching a Spurs-Heat game.

[admiralsnackbar]

Poor sport, snacky.

You obviously know what you did wrong and where you failed, because I pointed it out to you.

yet you ignored it and just wrote a pointless sentence trying to deny responsibility.

poor showing.

I'm dissapointed. Here I was thinking you were a logician, and it turns out you're just a projectionist.

[ElNono]

Yeah, according to me. I invented marriage, you see. I invented it while sitting on the shitter and watching a Spurs-Heat game.

Who invented marriage? And did it include homosexual, polygamous and incest relationships back then?

[BacktoBasics]

According to who? you?Exactly. I said basically the same thing earlier. These people seem to think that marriage is somehow theirs to define.

[MiamiHeat]

Yep, and some Miami Heat in the 50's didn't see a problem with keeping "the culluhds" in their own legally identical -- but actually disparate -- school systems, bus seats, bathrooms, etc.

Are you suggesting that gay unions would not be allowed to ride the same buses and go to the same school system?

I really don't see how the two have anything to do with each other. You fail at trying to tie the two.

Nobody is discriminating against gays. They can do whatever they want with their gay union, the only difference is the name.

[MiamiHeat]

Exactly. I said basically the same thing earlier. These people seem to think that marriage is somehow theirs to define.

I agree. Who are we to define anything.

In my opinion, freedom means being ruled by a communist dictator. I say we dissolve the Bill of Rights, heck, the whole Constitution.

When you are told what to do and how to live, it's easy and you have the freedom to not worry about those things.

I agree. It's not ours to define. Freedom can mean anything.

[rjv]

There is no legitimate argument to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a choice.


You see, we choose our sexual partners.

Sexual preference.



just to make sure. you are saying that there is no way to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a choice?

if that is the case, is there one to show that it is a choice?

[admiralsnackbar]

Right, the default view should not be that you are a victim of a godless, nature world while you go against natural law.

Animals go against "natural law" all the time. It's scandalous.

[MiamiHeat]

Who invented marriage? And did it include homosexual, polygamous and incest relationships back then?

Do I look like google to you?

[ElNono]

I agree. Who are we to define anything.

:blah

I agree. It's not ours to define. Freedom can mean anything.


Who invented marriage? And did it include homosexual, polygamous and incest relationships back then?

[BacktoBasics]

I agree. Who are we to define anything.

In my opinion, freedom means being ruled by a communist dictator. I say we dissolve the Bill of Rights, heck, the whole Constitution.

When you are told what to do and how to live, it's easy and you have the freedom to not worry about those things.

I agree. It's not ours to define. Freedom can mean anything.I've seen you argue much stronger than this. For someone who typically argues against modern day religion I'm surprised to see you argue on behalf of what marriage is and should be. Considering that the very institutions you love to blast are the same ones who have taken marriage and redefined what they think it should be.

[ElNono]

Do I look like google to you?

You sure defend 'marriage' for whatever the definition means to you like you know what you're talking about. How is this about changing marriage if you don't even know what it is or wether you usurped the definition in the first place?

[MiamiHeat]

Animals go against "natural law" all the time. It's scandalous.

Since when do animals dictate what 'nature' is?

[spursncowboys]

Exactly. I said basically the same thing earlier. These people seem to think that marriage is somehow theirs to define.

including homosexuality in marriage is trying to redefine the term and definition, not interpret differently.

[MiamiHeat]

You sure defend 'marriage' for whatever the definition means to you like you know what you're talking about. How is this about changing marriage if you don't even know what it is or wether you usurped the definition in the first place?


I told you already, I invented it while sitting on the shitter during a Heat-Spurs game.

[spursncowboys]

Animals go against "natural law" all the time. It's scandalous.

So do humans, ex-gays.

[ElNono]

I told you already, I invented it while sitting on the shitter during a Heat-Spurs game.

You sure defend it like it...

[TheProfessor]

1,138 rights, to be exact.

It's both frustrating and scary to me how misunderstood this particular debate is, for the record. And flat out retarded that an issue of equality and human rights should have anything to do with one's sexual partners/activities.

As long as marriage exists as currently defined/recognized and brings with it 1,138 legal rights, I will fight for every consenting adult to have access to those rights. Including the polygamists. It is my personal preference, however, that "marriage" be completely removed from every level of government. I'd prefer state/federally recognized civil unions for everyone with the same rights and requirements across the board. Want to be married through the church? Have at it. Let the churches decide who they do or do not want to marry, and have marriage be just a ceremony and a certificate to which zero legal rights are attached.
Surely the most logical thing I've read in this thread.

[MiamiHeat]

I've seen you argue much stronger than this. For someone who typically argues against modern day religion I'm surprised to see you argue on behalf of what marriage is and should be. Considering that the very institutions you love to blast are the same ones who have taken marriage and redefined what they think it should be.

So you agree or disagree that freedom must be defined by us? I guarantee you that Stalin, Castro, Hitler, and every single dictator has a pretty damn convincing explanation of what freedom really is.

I'd say we, as americans, did a pretty damn good job of defining what real Freedom means, what it is.


But then again, you say who are we to define anything. So I guess we made a mistake in taking a stance on what freedom is.

[admiralsnackbar]

Are you suggesting that gay unions would not be allowed to ride the same buses and go to the same school system?

I really don't see how the two have anything to do with each other. You fail at trying to tie the two.

Nobody is discriminating against gays. They can do whatever they want with their gay union, the only difference is the name.

Actually I think I'm going to start suggesting that you're willfully obtuse since you try to pass this weak shit as a reasonable reply. But in the interest of entertaining the notion that you're actually as befuddled as you seem to want me to believe, the point is there's no legal justification for distinguishing between people, and, by extension, between the unions they choose to enter into. Religions don't have to do anything they don't want to, but by and large, our government isn't set up to discriminate what tax-paying citizens do consentually, or deny rights to couples that are legally the same as other couples. That the discrimination lives on says more about our current body politic than our actual laws. Clear enough?

[admiralsnackbar]

Since when do animals dictate what 'nature' is?

What if C-A-T spelled DOG?

[BacktoBasics]

including homosexuality in marriage is trying to redefine the term and definition, not interpret differently.
Marriage was never defined in the first place. Marriage or unions were taken on by religion and redefined to their liking. Its was never theirs to define in the first place. This entire man/women thing is a byproduct of the church. It was common for a union to mean many things long long before the thumpers took it as their own.

[BacktoBasics]

But then again, you say who are we to define anything. So I guess we made a mistake in taking a stance on what freedom is.
No. I'm basically saying who is the Government or Religion to define what marriage should be.

Just because modern day religion stole it for their own doesn't make it right.

[MiamiHeat]

Marriage was never defined in the first place. Marriage or unions were taken on by religion and redefined to their liking. Its was never theirs to define in the first place. This entire man/women thing is a byproduct of the church. It was common for a union to mean many things long long before the thumpers took it as their own.

What relevance does time have? There is absolutely no importance as to WHEN the cause was taken up, or what it meant in the past, or if the devil himself invented it. The fact remains, it is what it is now.


and the idea of freedom, human rights, and equality was never defined in the first place, either. They were taken on by certain men, philosophers, groups, and governments and redefined to their liking, such as the men who wrote the Constitution, or the French who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This entire freedom/human rights thing is a byproduct of men like these. It was common for freedom to mean many things, such as being ruled by a monarchy or dictatorship, long before the humanist/revolutionists took it as their own.

[admiralsnackbar]

What relevance does time have? There is absolutely no importance as to WHEN the cause was taken up, or what it meant in the past, or if the devil himself invented it. The fact remains, it is what it is now.


and the idea of freedom, human rights, and equality was never defined in the first place, either. They were taken on by certain men, philosophers, groups, and governments and redefined to their liking, such as the men who wrote the Constitution, or the French who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This entire freedom/human rights thing is a byproduct of men like these. It was common for freedom to mean many things, such as being ruled by a monarchy or dictatorship, long before the humanist/revolutionists took it as their own.

Why, then, do you take the stance that your current definition of marriage is immutable?

[baseline bum]

Without taking sides in this debate (right or wrong) - it is NOT about insurance; it is about votes/public opinion. Gay marriage loses EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.

And if there was a proposition to give everyone a Cadillac, it would pass EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.

[MiamiHeat]

Why, then, do you take the stance that your current definition of marriage is immutable?

Don't dodge.

You tried to say that homosexuality is not a choice because 'who would choose to be demonized?'

Your logic was shown as flawed.


So, do you have anything further to say to prove homosexuality is not a choice or do you admit defeat?

[BacktoBasics]

What relevance does time have? There is absolutely no importance as to WHEN the cause was taken up, or what it meant in the past, or if the devil himself invented it. The fact remains, it is what it is now.


and the idea of freedom, human rights, and equality was never defined in the first place, either. They were taken on by certain men, philosophers, groups, and governments and redefined to their liking, such as the men who wrote the Constitution, or the French who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This entire freedom/human rights thing is a byproduct of men like these. It was common for freedom to mean many things, such as being ruled by a monarchy or dictatorship, long before the humanist/revolutionists took it as their own.Well it matters now. In a day and age where bigotry is becoming a thing of the past the argument of who defined marriage, when and why, is plenty relevant. Society managed to evolve away from slavery because the neanderthal like way of thinking was wrong. Just like this bigotry is wrong. The past is pertinent because you learn from it.

[MiamiHeat]

And if there was a proposition to give everyone a Cadillac, it would pass EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.

Thankfully, your contempt for the masses is irrelevant.

We live in a democracy. Majority rules. A government by the people, and for the people.

Tough shit. If you hate it so much, move to Cambodia.

[ElNono]

What relevance does time have? There is absolutely no importance as to WHEN the cause was taken up, or what it meant in the past, or if the devil himself invented it. The fact remains, it is what it is now.


Wait. You're defending a temporal definition of a social structure while ascertaining that we've been better off by changing the definition of other temporal social structures?

[baseline bum]

Thankfully, your contempt for the masses is irrelevant.

We live in a democracy. Majority rules. A government by the people, and for the people.

Tough shit. If you hate it so much, move to Cambodia.

Bullshit. The constitution was written to protect minorities. Otherwise, there is no need whatsoever for a bill of rights.

[Blake]

I'm setting the over/under line at 5 pages.

place your bets.

who had the overs?

[MiamiHeat]

Well it matters now. In a day and age where bigotry is becoming a thing of the past the argument of who defined marriage, when and why, is plenty relevant. Society managed to evolve away from slavery because the neanderthal like way of thinking was wrong. Just like this bigotry is wrong. The past is pertinent because you learn from it.

If I were to prove that the worst womanizer of all time invented Marriage, a union between man and woman, what does that have to do with us now?

Mankind has seen marriage, and saw that it was good. It works for us on earth. It matters not where it came from or who invented it, or what it meant anymore. What matters is we now have an idea of what we want.


Do we avoid using highways/modern paved roads because Hitler pioneered them? What does it matter?

They are good. That is all.

[ElNono]

We live in a democracy. Majority rules. A government by the people, and for the people.

Tough shit. If you hate it so much, move to Cambodia.

Is that your definition of freedom? Tough shit?

[ElNono]

who had the overs?

You're good!

[MiamiHeat]

Bullshit. The constitution was written to protect minorities. Otherwise, there is no need whatsoever for a bill of rights.

The Constitution, way back then, was written to protect minorities? :lol:lol

[BacktoBasics]

Thankfully, your contempt for the masses is irrelevant.

We live in a democracy. Majority rules. A government by the people, and for the people.

Tough shit. If you hate it so much, move to Cambodia.
The Constitution was designed for us to operate like a democracy?

[MiamiHeat]

Is that your definition of freedom? Tough shit?

I voted for McCain.

Tough shit. Democracy. Live by it or leave.

[baseline bum]

The Constitution, way back then, was written to protect minorities? :lol:lol

Yes, for instance the first amendment was written to prevent the majority from legally silencing the voice of a minority viewpoint.

[rjv]

What relevance does time have? There is absolutely no importance as to WHEN the cause was taken up, or what it meant in the past, or if the devil himself invented it. The fact remains, it is what it is now.


and the idea of freedom, human rights, and equality was never defined in the first place, either. They were taken on by certain men, philosophers, groups, and governments and redefined to their liking, such as the men who wrote the Constitution, or the French who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This entire freedom/human rights thing is a byproduct of men like these. It was common for freedom to mean many things, such as being ruled by a monarchy or dictatorship, long before the humanist/revolutionists took it as their own.

your penchant for the back and forth such switching from relativism to existentialism and then to determinism is truly on a politician's level of wavering.

[admiralsnackbar]

Don't dodge.

You tried to say that homosexuality is not a choice because 'who would choose to be demonized?'

Your logic was shown as flawed.


So, do you have anything further to say to prove homosexuality is not a choice or do you admit defeat?

So am I understanding you right? You're trying to pass off the way I glossed over my point in the original post you replied to as the sum and substance of my position, even though I clarified it down the line?

EDIT -- you also dodged the question of why you think ideals change over time while elsewhere arguing that they are rock-solid in the present.

I don't know who you think you're fooling, compadre, but I hope you're enjoying yourself all the same.

[BacktoBasics]

Yes, for instance the first amendment was written to prevent the majority from silencing the voice of a minority viewpoint.He doesn't get that. He thinks it was written purely from a democracy standpoint.

[MiamiHeat]

Wait. You're defending a temporal definition of a social structure while ascertaining that we've been better off by changing the definition of other temporal social structures?

I am sorry but I am...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3304156525_895e02c354.jpg

[baseline bum]

:yield

[MiamiHeat]

Yes, for instance the first amendment was written to prevent the majority from legally silencing the voice of a minority viewpoint.

It was written to ensure FREEDOM to say whatever you want to say, believe in any god you want to, etc..


You interpret that as 'protecting minorities'

I interpret that as defining FREEDOM, the methods of a Free Country.

[ElNono]

I am sorry but I am...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3304156525_895e02c354.jpg

http://fandangogroovers.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/run-lola-run-poster-lg.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

He doesn't get that. He thinks it was written purely from a democracy standpoint.

It was written to ensure the peoples of this new nation, FREEDOM.

Freedom to live however you want to live, to say what you want to say, to believe in any religion you want to.

[baseline bum]

It was written to ensure FREEDOM to say whatever you want to say, believe in any god you want to, etc..


You interpret that as 'protecting minorities'

I interpret that as defining FREEDOM, the methods of a Free Country.

Of course it's protecting minority viewpoints. Majority viewpoints don't need protection in a nation where representatives are elected by popular vote.

[BacktoBasics]

It was written to ensure FREEDOM to say whatever you want to say, believe in any god you want to, etc..


You interpret that as 'protecting minorities'

I interpret that as defining FREEDOM, the methods of a Free Country.Dude you're killing yourself. It was very specifically designed to protect minorities. He's not interpreting it wrong. Its the very foundation of its existence.

[MiamiHeat]

Dude you're killing yourself. It was very specifically designed to protect minorities. He's not interpreting it wrong. Its the very foundation of its existence.

I said he choose to interpret it differently than me.

For a free country to exist, it must define what FREEDOM IS, and create rules to ALLOW FOR FREEDOM to exist in the land.

If not, freedom cannot exist because people will abuse it. The preamble of the Bill of Rights says it quite clearly :

in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.


That is why it was written. To define what Freedom is, and how a Free Country will operate - ensure the way of life of a free peoples.

They took a STANCE on what it means to be a FREE COUNTRY. I am sure glad they did.

I can imagine a B2B and baseline bum back in the 1700's, asking :

"Who are we to define what freedom is? You act as if it was yours to define"

[admiralsnackbar]

So do humans, ex-gays.
So now you're saying ex-gays go against natural law? By becoming straight, I presume? Do you see how this undermines your original position by suggesting that natural law can't be violated? Or that if it can, it occurs on an individual level when somebody goes against their essential nature, be they essentially gay or essentially straight?

Am I missing something? /shrug

[MiamiHeat]

Of course it's protecting minority viewpoints. Majority viewpoints don't need protection in a nation where representatives are elected by popular vote.

Well, BY CONSEQUENCE, it protects minorities.

However, if there were 2 equally large viewpoints, it protects each from each other. Free from persecution, free to do what you want, with the support of the government.

So while you choose to interpret it like that, it was written to ensure that FREEDOM can survive, minority or majority or equally large.

It is a WAY OF LIFE, a belief, not a mandate to protect minorities.

[MiamiHeat]

So now you're saying ex-gays go against natural law? By becoming straight, I presume? Do you see how this undermines your original position by suggesting that natural law can't be violated? Or that if it can, it occurs on an individual level when somebody goes against their essential nature, be they essentially gay or essentially straight?

Am I missing something? /shrug

Once again, where is your argument that gays have no choice in who they suck off?

[admiralsnackbar]

Well, BY CONSEQUENCE, it protects minorities.

However, if there were 2 equally large viewpoints, it protects each from each other. Free from persecution, free to do what you want, with the support of the government.

So while you choose to interpret it like that, it was written to ensure what FREEDOM can survive, minority or majority or equally large.

Kind of a back-pedal bonanza after inviting people to go to Cambodia if they disagreed with you, isn't it?:toast

[admiralsnackbar]

Once again, where is your argument that gays have no choice in who they suck off?

The argument was that they have no choice who they're sexually attracted to, the same way as YOU have no choice who you're sexually attracted to. Choice implies reasoning. Capisce?

[MiamiHeat]

Kind of a back-pedal bonanza after inviting people to go to Cambodia if they disagreed with you, isn't it?:toast

I don't see how that has anything to do with my comments.

It is a fact. If you can't abide by the decisions of the majority, why are you living in a democracy?

Are we to operate on the opinions of the MINORITY now, instead? Who's to say they are correct? Because you think so?

We operate the way we operate, like it or not. Tough shit.

[MiamiHeat]

The argument was that they have no choice who they're sexually attracted to, the same way as YOU have no choice who you're sexually attracted to. Choice implies reasoning. Capisce?

So sexual attraction automatically means they have no choice in who they get in bed with ?

Are you trying to say that?

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't see how that has anything to do with my comments.

It is a fact. If you don't like the decisions of the majority, why are you living in a democracy?

Are we to operate on the opinions of the MINORITY now, instead? Who's to say they are correct? Because you think so?

We operate the way we operate, like it or not. Tough shit.

I don't know about you, but I live in a representative republic.

[admiralsnackbar]

So sexual attraction automatically means they have no choice in who they get in bed with ?

Are you trying to say that?

No, I'm saying sexual attraction automatically means they have no control over who they're sexually attracted to. Are you suggesting you'd rather bone ugly chicks than hot ones?

[MiamiHeat]

You could argue we are a Democratic Republic, but in modern times, we are a democracy because it is now defined as a government which derives it's power from the people and is responsible and accountable for it's use of that power to the people.

[MiamiHeat]

No, I'm saying sexual attraction automatically means they have no control over who they're sexually attracted to.

Aha.

But they do have control over who they get in bed with.

Choice.

[MiamiHeat]

and really, you aren't helping the homosexualist cause by implying they are hedonistic, primal sexual pervert's who can't control themselves.

and lastly, I really don't care about homosexuals and their choices. I just don't want to redefine marriage.

[admiralsnackbar]

You could argue we are a Democratic Republic, but in modern times, we are a democracy because it is now defined as a government which derives it's power from the people and is responsible and accountable for it's use of that power to the people.

Duuuude... this is like watching the Tour de France in reverse. It's been real fun, but I'm gonna hang out with my girlfriend for awhile. You have fun, now.

[admiralsnackbar]

Aha.

But they do have control over who they get in bed with.

Choice.

:lol

[Spawn]

Can somebody tell me how supposedly redefing marriage to include gays is somehow going to lead to the destruction of America?

[MiamiHeat]

but I'm gonna hang out with my girlfriend for awhile. You have fun, now.

http://ninxmz.org/images/420.thrashbarg.net/so_ronery_sad_otaku_subway_pillows.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

Can somebody tell me how supposedly redefing marriage to include gays is somehow going to lead to the destruction of America?

I don't believe it would lead to the destruction of America, so that's a loaded question.

[Ignignokt]

Miami Heat is owning this place.

[Spawn]

I don't believe it would lead to the destruction of America, so that's a loaded question.

Then what's the big deal?

[AussieFanKurt]

Miami Heat is owning this place.

:rolleyes

[MiamiHeat]

Then what's the big deal?

there are many atheist anti-redefine marriage explanations on the web

[spursncowboys]

So now you're saying ex-gays go against natural law? By becoming straight, I presume? Do you see how this undermines your original position by suggesting that natural law can't be violated? Or that if it can, it occurs on an individual level when somebody goes against their essential nature, be they essentially gay or essentially straight?

Am I missing something? /shrug

Sorry, failed attempt to shorten example. I meant example-gays.

[spursncowboys]

miami heat is owning this place.

+1

[admiralsnackbar]

http://ninxmz.org/images/420.thrashbarg.net/so_ronery_sad_otaku_subway_pillows.jpg

Nice :lol So does this make me a Cambodian freedom-hating polygamist who doesn't know what kind of political system he lives in?

[admiralsnackbar]

and really, you aren't helping the homosexualist cause by implying they are hedonistic, primal sexual pervert's who can't control themselves.

and lastly, I really don't care about homosexuals and their choices. I just don't want to redefine marriage.

I'm actually making the case that you and Liberace are the same, you just happen to be attracted to different things. Does that make you a hedonistic pervert? Probably not. You just like what you like.

[admiralsnackbar]

Sorry, failed attempt to shorten example. I meant example-gays.

OK, that makes more sense. I guess I don't know what you mean by natural law, then. In philosophy, natural law is usually a system of rules determined based on observing nature (Hobbes, Darwin, Hume) or idealizing pre-social states of human society (Rousseau, Locke, and maybe even Kant, on a metaphysical level). Or do you have your own take?

[George Gervin's Afro]

The premise of the dead enders gay philosophy is that the lifestyle is a choice.

It's not a choice so you fail


You do realize that don't you?

[baseline bum]

I can imagine a B2B and baseline bum back in the 1700's, asking :

"Who are we to define what freedom is? You act as if it was yours to define"

Bullshit. You don't believe in freedom. You believe in the government forcing your belief.

[jacobdrj]

Why does the 'state' have 'license' granting power over marriages to begin with?


If we can clarify that point we can move on to the rest of the discussion.

[jacobdrj]

Bullshit. You don't believe in freedom. You believe in the government forcing your belief.

Nobody was questioning the definition of freedom. Those guys were questioning whether non-Euros were people, and therefore entitled to freedom like people, or freedom like animals.

[admiralsnackbar]

Why does the 'state' have 'license' granting power over marriages to begin with?


If we can clarify that point we can move on to the rest of the discussion.

Because there is no other entity that has the authority to administrate and regulate contracts between people.

[mogrovejo]

It's a cover for homosexuals to feel normal and be 'accepted' by society.

Notice how they do NOT want their own institution with all of the same rights.

bullshit.

True.

[mogrovejo]

Because there is no other entity that has the authority to administrate and regulate contracts between people.

Really? I'd guess that marriage has been around way before the modern state. And I strongly suspect that every day millions of contracts are celebrated without any kind of interference from the state.

[mogrovejo]

is there an argument to demonstrate that homosexuality is a choice? in all cases? indubitably so?

I don't know about homosexuality. But homosexual acts are certainly a choice. But what's the point? It's not like people want to criminalize homosexual sex.

[CuckingFunt]

I don't know about homosexuality. But homosexual acts are certainly a choice. But what's the point? It's not like people want to criminalize homosexual sex.

No.

They just want to ensure that a large community is denied the same legal rights as the rest of the population.

Which stigmatizes/marginalizes the LGBTQI community.

Which in turn creates an environment in which existing prejudices are legitimized by law and, therefore, encouraged to grow.

Which, finally, produces a segment of the population, no matter how small, who DO want to criminalize homosexual sex (which, for the record, could be argued already occurs, especially when you consider how unevenly anti-sodomy laws have been enforced).

It's all connected.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, we as a country look back on segregation laws and the Jim Crow south as a dark time in our country's history; as extreme to the point of being absurd. It's not because we all magically became enlightened at some point within the last few decades, though. As legal rights become more equally distributed, successive generations become more and more tolerant.

[baseline bum]

True.

Garbage.

[mogrovejo]

No.

They just want to ensure that a large community is denied the same legal rights as the rest of the population.

Which stigmatizes/marginalizes the LGBTQI community.

Which in turn creates an environment in which existing prejudices are legitimized by law and, therefore, encouraged to grow.

Which, finally, produces a segment of the population, no matter how small, who DO want to criminalize homosexual sex (which, for the record, could be argued already occurs, especially when you consider how unevenly anti-sodomy laws have been enforced).

It's all connected.

As someone earlier in the thread mentioned, we as a country look back on segregation laws and the Jim Crow south as a dark time in our country's history; as extreme to the point of being absurd. It's not because we all magically became enlightened at some point within the last few decades, though. As legal rights become more equally distributed, successive generations become more and more tolerant.

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

[MiamiHeat]

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

seems like CuckingFunt has been humbled

nice post

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

Changing a law does not force one to change their beliefs. Did racism suddenly stop after civil rights laws?

Right now, the debate is mainly about whether marriage should be redefined as a social contract between two people in love, as opposed to a strict woman-man definition.

Republicans cast marriage as some timeless honorable ceremony, when in many cases marriages were set up by parents with no choice by their children, in order to cement alliances. Marriage as an institution has often changed; to deny this is somewhat ridiculous. Some members of society want to change it in another new and radical way. They will win if they gain the popular opinion, as I believe they will some twenty years from now.

I mean, look at diamond engagement rings. Now a de facto courting procedure, but in terms of history, it's relatively new.

[mogrovejo]

Changing a law does not force one to change their beliefs.

Okay, but that's not what I said.

The theory that changing the law would lead to a change of mentalities - and that it would be a good thing - was outlined very explicitly and it wasn't by me.

In my view it's repugnant to liberty is to use the law (emblematic of the power of state) to provoke changes on the beliefs of individuals (even if as a proxy).

Ultimately, that's the cause of the proponents of the estatization of the gay marriage - not some kind of abstract legal equality. I strongly suspect that if the "legal rights" currently attributed to married people were entirely repealed (as they should be, there's no reason for the state to favour people who decide to marry) they'd still want to be allowed to marry. Why don't they defend that instead? What they really want is other people to be more "tolerant" towards them (clearly missing the meaning of tolerance; what they want is acceptance or at least acriticism). Heck, some of them even defend the criminalization of homophobia. If this isn't totalitarianism, what is it?

[jacobdrj]

If marriage is purely contractual, than why is it illegal for people to 'marry themselves' in ceremonies that aren't recognized by the state.
Further, why is marriage the only contract that exists between people taking care of each other? In a purely non-sexual context, what is wrong with the 'civil union' for, say, neighbors wanting to share responsibility for one's children?

[CuckingFunt]

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

That's not at all what I suggested should take place. You mentioned that no one wanted to criminalize the homosexual act and I merely pointed out that not only does that attitude exist, it is I feel directly connected to the fact that discrimination and negative attitudes toward the gay community are normalized by the current legal discrepancies.


Okay, but that's not what I said.

The theory that changing the law would lead to a change of mentalities - and that it would be a good thing - was outlined very explicitly and it wasn't by me.

In my view it's repugnant to liberty is to use the law (emblematic of the power of state) to provoke changes on the beliefs of individuals (even if as a proxy).

Again, all I'm advocating is providing equal/identical access to the rights associated with a legally recognized marriage for all consenting adults. I feel that, were this to happen, many (not all) negative attitudes toward alternative sexualities would change over time. I never, at any point in my post, suggested that this change should be the reason we seek equality or a change in policy, however. It would be ridiculous of me to suggest that tolerance be legally guaranteed or enforced, but so would it be ridiculous to suggest that a natural increase in tolerance/acceptance would somehow be bad or damaging to the country.


Ultimately, that's the cause of the proponents of the estatization of the gay marriage - not some kind of abstract legal equality. I strongly suspect that if the "legal rights" currently attributed to married people were entirely repealed (as they should be, there's no reason for the state to favour people who decide to marry) they'd still want to be allowed to marry. Why don't they defend that instead? What they really want is other people to be more "tolerant" towards them (clearly missing the meaning of tolerance; what they want is acceptance or at least acriticism). Heck, some of them even defend the criminalization of homophobia. If this isn't totalitarianism, what is it?

It's both naive and deceptive to treat this as an "us" versus "them" fight. The LGBTQI community isn't some sort of hive mind all fighting for the same thing or for the same reason. Nor are we fighting this issue alone -- without heterosexual allies, it wouldn't even have gotten this far.

[LnGrrrR]

Mogro, using your hypothetical, if straight people lost the right to marry, do you think they would fight for the right to marry because they wanted to be accepted? Or would they want o marry because it is a statement of their love, recognized by the state?

Gay people would like the right to use the word marry, becase their intentions towards their partner are the same as straight people. To decalre their love in a legally binding fashion, under the eyes of family and the state.

It is a recognition of the validity of ther coupling as
well.

[admiralsnackbar]

Really? I'd guess that marriage has been around way before the modern state. And I strongly suspect that every day millions of contracts are celebrated without any kind of interference from the state.

That's great, Ron Paul, but what does that have to do with the question I was answering?

[Mr. Peabody]

I don't know about homosexuality. But homosexual acts are certainly a choice. But what's the point? It's not like people want to criminalize homosexual sex.


Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

The statute is now unenforceable, but that's only been the case since 2003.

[Mr. Peabody]

Gays have the exact same rights I do. Go marry the opposite gender. Nobody is stopping them. So your logic is flawed


You will then say, "but gays want to marry same sex genders!"

so then that IS a redefinition of MARRIAGE.

Marriage = man and woman

I think that's the same argument that was used to support anti-miscegenation laws - "Interracial couples have the same rights I do. Go marry within your race. Nobody is stopping them. You will then say, but interracial couples want to marry other races! so then that is a redefinition of marriage."

[AussieFanKurt]

^^ makes a good point. Any old bullshit is used to descriminate and stop marriages that can be perfectly moral, legal and happy courtships

[spursncowboys]

I think that's the same argument that was used to support anti-miscegenation laws - "Interracial couples have the same rights I do. Go marry within your race. Nobody is stopping them. You will then say, but interracial couples want to marry other races! so then that is a redefinition of marriage."

why do gays always try and create a similarity with racism? Maybe if you made your discussion in it's own right, people might take it more serious. race changes nothing from one man and one woman. the definition stays the same.

[George Gervin's Afro]

why do gays always try and create a similarity with racism? Maybe if you made your discussion in it's own right, people might take it more serious. race changes nothing from one man and one woman. the definition stays the same.

why do you look at gays differently than most sane people do?

[spursncowboys]

why do you look at gays differently than most sane people do?

way to not get personal, troll.

[Spawn]

Fuck all this bullshit. How about we just end governmental benefits that marriage brings altogether. Lets put that on the ballot.

[spursncowboys]

Fuck all this bullshit. How about we just end governmental benefits that marriage brings altogether. Lets put that on the ballot.

Why? If it is only to be fair, then what is fair for over 90% of marriages to be denied? Also our society should promote a healthy marriage, because that benefits everyone.

[spursncowboys]

Is our government in the business of making things fair?

[atxrocker]

(CNN) -- As a gay man in Uganda, Frank Mugisha is used to the taunts, the slurs and the daily harassment of neighbors and friends.

But if a new bill proposed in the east African country becomes law, Mugisha could be put away for life, or worse, put to death for having sex with another man.

"Right now, you can't go to places that are crowded, because the mob can attack us or even burn us. We can't walk alone. We are ostracized by relatives. But if this bill passes, it will become impossible for me to live here at all. And that part hurts the most," Mugisha said.

The Anti-Homosexuality Bill features several provisions that human rights groups say would spur a witch hunt of homosexuals in the country:

• Gays and lesbians convicted of having gay sex would be sentenced, at minimum, to life in prison

• People who test positive for HIV may be executed

• Homosexuals who have sex with a minor, or engage in homosexual sex more than once, may also receive the death penalty

• The bill forbids the "promotion of homosexuality," which in effect bans organizations working in HIV and AIDS prevention

• Anyone who knows of homosexual activity taking place but does not report it would risk up to three years in prison

"Who will go to HIV testing if he knows that he will suffer the death sentence?" Elizabeth Mataka, the U.N. Special Envoy on AIDS in Africa, told reporters last week. "The law will drive them away from seeking counseling and testing services."

Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda under colonial-era laws. But the bill, introduced in October, is intended to put more teeth into prosecuting violators.

It applies even to Ugandans participating in same-sex acts in countries where such behavior is legal.

"They are supposed to be brought back to Uganda and convicted here. The government is putting homosexuality on the level of treason," Mugisha said.

Lawmakers have indicated that they will pass the bill before year's end.

It has the blessing of many religious leaders -- Muslim and Christian -- in a country where a July poll found 95 percent opposed to legalizing homosexuality.

The Rev. Esau Omara, a senior church leader, said over the weekend that any lawmaker opposing the bill will pay for it during the next election, according to local newspaper reports.

And a leading Muslim cleric, Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje, has called for gays to be rounded up and banished to an island until they die.

Several media outlets also have inflamed sentiments in recent months by publicly pointing out gays and lesbians.

Who will go to HIV testing if he knows that he will suffer the death sentence?

--Elizabeth Mataka
In April, the Observer newspaper published tips to help readers spot homosexuals. And over the summer, the Red Pepper tabloid outed 45 gays and lesbians.

Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni has not publicly stated his position on the bill, but last month blamed foreign influence in promoting and funding homosexuality.

"It is true that, if the president has said that, he must have information that European nations are promoting (homosexuality) and recruiting homosexuals," government spokesman Fred Opolot said. "You must note that the president or the legislators are responding to the concern of the citizenry of the country."

At the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago late last month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he pulled aside Museveni to deplore the bill.

"We find them inconsistent with, frankly, I think any reasonable understanding of human rights, and I was very clear on that with the president of Uganda," Harper told reporters.

In the United States, a coalition of Christian leaders released a statement Monday denouncing the bill.

"Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children, worthy of respect and love," the statement read.

Human rights groups have called on Western nations to withhold aid from Uganda if the measure passes. About 40 percent of the country's budget comes from international aid.

"This draft bill is clearly an attempt to divide and weaken civil society by striking at one of its most marginalized groups," said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at the New York-based Human Rights Watch. "The government may be starting here, but who will be next?"

Opolot, the government spokesman, said consideration of the bill in parliament is merely "democracy at work."

"We as a country are engaging and debating a pertinent issue," he said. "So if a foreign country chooses to cut aid simply because Uganda is debating its destiny, then it is quite outrageous and quite wrong."

Mugisha, who now heads the group Sexual Minority of Uganda, said he is working with lawyers and other activists to change minds and defeat the measure.

"I have put a lot of effort in this struggle. I just want to live freely every day," he said. "I want to be happy knowing that if I'm going to meet someone, I'm not going to be taken to jail forever."

[mogrovejo]

That's great, Ron Paul, but what does that have to do with the question I was answering?

I have no idea. I was replying to your statements and refuting them. If you disagree with my refutation, feel free to explain why.

Why are you calling me Ron Paul? I'm not Ron Paul, thank God.


Mogro, using your hypothetical, if straight people lost the right to marry, do you think they would fight for the right to marry because they wanted to be accepted? Or would they want o marry because it is a statement of their love, recognized by the state?

Gay people would like the right to use the word marry, becase their intentions towards their partner are the same as straight people. To declare their love in a legally binding fashion, under the eyes of family and the state.

It is a recognition of the validity of ther coupling aswell.

I have no idea. I think people would do the same they were doing before marriage became a state-sanctioned agreement. Why wouldn't they?

Why exactly do you think it's necessary that the state serves as a partner in that particular kind of agreement? Is your thesis that individuals may use the state as a tool to promote their particular world-views and their individuals goals? Because that's what this is. How exactly do you justify that? By involving the state, you're involving everybody, even those individuals who may held strong anti-marriage views. Why should those people be forced to participate in a thing they despise or believe to be nocive?

I still don't understand your position: do you think it's admissible to defend the enacting of certain legislation with the ultimate goal of changing mentalities and set of beliefs or not? Only if that change is seen by you as positive?


That's not at all what I suggested should take place.

I'm sorry, but I disagree and I think it was the most proper hermeneutics of what you wrote. Please re-read your post. You've even traced an analogy with racism, stating that enacting certain legislation changes eventually produced a change of the views of individuals towards racial differences.


You mentioned that no one wanted to criminalize the homosexual act and I merely pointed out that not only does that attitude exist, it is I feel directly connected to the fact that discrimination and negative attitudes toward the gay community are normalized by the current legal discrepancies.I don't know if people want to criminalize homosexual acts. But if so, that's an whole different issue.

I'm not sure if there's proof of a causation effect between the existing marriage legislation and the alleged discrimination and negative attitudes towards the gay community, whatever the gay community is. What I do believe is that individuals have the right to nurture negative attitudes against gays, heterosexuals or those who are antagonistic towards the practice of sexual acts and discriminate, positively or negatively, towards them.



Again, all I'm advocating is providing equal/identical access to the rights associated with a legally recognized marriage for all consenting adults.By rights you mean the privileges granted to those who are married? I can't think of a single reason for the existence of those privileges, as I've said before. Extending those privileges to more people would only compound the mistake. But I do agree that would be a less harmful situation than the attempt to use the government to re-define what marriage is.


I feel that, were this to happen, many (not all) negative attitudes toward alternative sexualities would change over time. I never, at any point in my post, suggested that this change should be the reason we seek equality or a change in policy, however. It would be ridiculous of me to suggest that tolerance be legally guaranteed or enforced, but so would it be ridiculous to suggest that a natural increase in tolerance/acceptance would somehow be bad or damaging to the country.I do agree that changes in the legislation can lead to changes in the social interaction - to put it in formal terms, thesis, that should be strictly confined to the administration of essential services are often used as a way to re-model the nomos, the spontaneous evolution of the habits and manners of the people.

But that's exactly the reason why we should restrain ourselves from using that tool. You are probably convinced that in this case it would serve a good, just cause. However, there's nothing as over-rated in the realm of politics as good intentions - unintended consequences happen all the time. More importantly, people have confliting views of what is good or bad for a country. The state should not be at the service of any of the factions. The philosophical underground is the same that was used by totalitarian regimes to promote ideas like "the new man" or the "Lebensunwertes Leben".

The concept of "bad/good to the country" itself is scary to me. What's exactly "the country"? There is never consensus about what is good or bad for the country.


It's both naive and deceptive to treat this as an "us" versus "them" fight.Why? There are people who support the estatization of different types of marriage with the purpose of changing mentalities and those who oppose it. Just like it happens with many others political issue. A necessary simplification sure, there are always those who are agnostic or undecided, but naive or deceptive?


The LGBTQI community isn't some sort of hive mind all fighting for the same thing or for the same reason. Nor are we fighting this issue alone -- without heterosexual allies, it wouldn't even have gotten this far.Oh, you mean us as "LFHBQTHS community" and them as "citizens excluded from the LQBTISISH community"? I don't think of political problems under that mindframe, unlike you apparently do. What people do in bed is immaterial for any political discussion.

[mogrovejo]

If marriage is purely contractual, than why is it illegal for people to 'marry themselves' in ceremonies that aren't recognized by the state.
Further, why is marriage the only contract that exists between people taking care of each other? In a purely non-sexual context, what is wrong with the 'civil union' for, say, neighbors wanting to share responsibility for one's children?

Is it? The state recognition of marriage is an invention of Calvinism - in its origins a form of theocracy, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in countries of anglo-saxonic/protestant cultures.

That's the Hegelian view of marriage - more than a contract, or, more precisely, as a contract that transcends the standpoint of a contract.

Although I don't deny Hegel's views that there's a very particular symbolic value inherent to marriage, making it a special type of contract , I don't think there's a persuasive argument that it should lead to a special protection by the state. I'd rather side with Locke's minimalist view of marriage as no less than a contract.

[rjv]

Once again, where is your argument that gays have no choice in who they suck off?


why do you demand proof from others when you offer none of your own ?

[rjv]

Is it? The state recognition of marriage is an invention of Calvinism - in its origins a form of theocracy, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in countries of anglo-saxonic/protestant cultures.

That's the Hegelian view of marriage - more than a contract, or, more precisely, as a contract that transcends the standpoint of a contract.

Although I don't deny Hegel's views that there's a very particular symbolic value inherent to marriage, making it a special type of contract , I don't think there's a persuasive argument that it should lead to a special protection by the state. I'd rather side with Locke's minimalist view of marriage as no less than a contract.


there really is no point in the attempt to link any philosophical origin to the contract of marriage as in today's times, the financial applications of matrimony far outweigh any ideological ones.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why? If it is only to be fair, then what is fair for over 90% of marriages to be denied? Also our society should promote a healthy marriage, because that benefits everyone.

My definition of a healthy marriage (man and a woman).

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is our government in the business of making things fair?

To esnure no one is discriminated against? I'd say yes.

[TheProfessor]

Is our government in the business of making things fair?
See: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[jacobdrj]

there really is no point in the attempt to link any philosophical origin to the contract of marriage as in today's times, the financial applications of matrimony far outweigh any ideological ones.

Then that would be a surefire reason for civil unions, and conventional marriage be damned.

[jacobdrj]

If it is just a contract (IMHO that is what it is) than it is like any other contract. Any number of consenting parties can enter into this contract. If it is some sort of state sanctioning of religion, than any state regulation of marriage is unconstitutional according to the 1st ammendment.

[rjv]

Then that would be a surefire reason for civil unions, and conventional marriage be damned.

one would think but the insurance companies would like to reduce their obligations to pay benefits wherever possible

[MiamiHeat]

why do you look at gays differently than most sane people do?

Hey

The US Military still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder

up until all of this politically correct nonsense, so did modern psychiatry.


There is nothing sane about being an exclusive homosexual.

[rjv]

Hey

The US Military still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder

up until all of this politically correct nonsense, so did modern psychiatry.


There is nothing sane about being an exclusive homosexual.

make up your mind. if it is a mental disorder then it is physiologically based. is it a choice or is it natural?

[spursncowboys]

Also the studies that a large percent of molested children growing up and choosing to have homosexual relationships goes against the logic and statistics of having a gay gene.

[baseline bum]

mogrovejo's right. The best solution would be to have the state quit endorsing marriage period. Then the churches could have it and have the rights to legally promote or discriminate as they see fit. The government has no business pushing social agendas, whether it's in marriage, in sin taxes on sodas, beer, tobacco, etc., our ridiculous war on drugs, propping churches by not taxing them, and so on.

[rjv]

Also the studies that a large percent of molested children growing up and choosing to have homosexual relationships goes against the logic and statistics of having a gay gene.

links? analysis?

one thing to clear up here is that there is no single clear cut definition for what a homosexual is. would one act of homosexuality constitute homosexuality? would all deviant acts be lumped together?

and gene expression is not a simple matter as well. one can sometimes have a trait that goes expressed or not depending on environmental influences.

and you have mentioned nothing at all about any brain mapping studies currently in progress.

[rjv]

mogrovejo's right. The best solution would be to have the state quit endorsing marriage period. Then the churches could have it and have the rights to legally promote or discriminate as they see fit. The government has no business pushing social agendas, whether it's in marriage, in sin taxes on sodas, beer, tobacco, etc., our ridiculous war on drugs, propping churches by not taxing them, and so on.

but the government always needs to find a way to pay for the infrastructure.

[baseline bum]

why do gays always try and create a similarity with racism? Maybe if you made your discussion in it's own right, people might take it more serious. race changes nothing from one man and one woman. the definition stays the same.

:rollin

hyprocrite


Your use of discrimination can be used against all our rules and laws. Is laws against pedophilia disriminating? Is making laws against shitting on the sidewalk discriminating? Should our society allow public drug usage so as not to be discriminate?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Also the studies that a large percent of molested children growing up and choosing to have homosexual relationships goes against the logic and statistics of having a gay gene.

so what about the non molested children who turn out to be gay? would they have the gay gene?

[Spawn]

Why? If it is only to be fair, then what is fair for over 90% of marriages to be denied? Also our society should promote a healthy marriage, because that benefits everyone.

They can still marry each other in a spiritual sense in their church. All the social benefits that marriage supposedly brings will still be there, just the government won't provide any benefits for such a union. Surely you don't think that it is the government that is keeping the institution of marriage afloat right?

[Blake]

Also the studies that a large percent of molested children growing up and choosing to have homosexual relationships goes against the logic and statistics of having a gay gene.

ugh

I hate unsourced posts like this

[Blake]

Also our society should promote a healthy marriage, because that benefits everyone.

what studies have you seen show that a healthy marriage benefits everyone?

[George Gervin's Afro]

what studies have you seen show that a healthy marriage benefits everyone?

he still hasn't defined what a healthy marriage is. I guess we could assume that healthy means heterosexual marriages.

[AussieFanKurt]

Hey

The US Military still classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder

up until all of this politically correct nonsense, so did modern psychiatry.


There is nothing sane about being an exclusive homosexual.


How would you know? Do you have great knowledge on how the mind and body works? Are you a psychologist?
Unless you have great knowledge on something, you can't call being homosexual insane. Thats like me saying marijuana is disgusting and vile. I really wouldnt know as I have tried it yet but thats the similar irrational, bigotry point you make.

and whats wrong with political correctness?

[spursncowboys]

what studies have you seen show that a healthy marriage benefits everyone?
the "study" of default living you no talent assclown. In a situation where over 90% living the situation, working towards living the situation, or a product of the situation- you should make a case for why our society advances.

[rjv]

the "study" of default living you no talent assclown. In a situation where over 90% living the situation, working towards living the situation, or a product of the situation- you should make a case for why our society advances.

so divorce rates our domestic violence or child abuse or poverty do not add inot this "equation".

wow. i wish all "math" could handpick its variables.

[spursncowboys]

ugh

I hate unsourced posts like this
It was a vague enough comment to not need to be absolute. I learned it in my crime in America class but cannot find a good stat to study for it. After two pages from google's webpages filled with liberal op-eds i could not care less if you believe or don't.

[spursncowboys]

so divorce rates our domestic violence or child abuse or poverty do not add inot this "equation".

wow. i wish all "math" could handpick its variables.
what the hell are you talking about? You are supposing that all those variables are the reason why our society has advanced throughout the ages? Dumbass. Way to get on a soapbox and stay on topic.

[rjv]

It was a vague enough comment to not need to be absolute. I learned it in my crime in America class but cannot find a good stat to study for it. After two pages from google's webpages filled with liberal op-eds i could not care less if you believe or don't.

wow. no empirical data to back up his BS. what a shock.

[spursncowboys]

wow. no empirical data to back up his BS. what a shock.

empirical data. Isn't that a bad word for you libs? Why don't you use some empirical data for global warming, welfare, keynsian economics, tax hikes, patents, healthcare, minimum wage, etc...
Sorry, don't know your stand on all these issues so just discard opinions you don't hold with closed eyes and ears.

[rjv]

what the hell are you talking about? You are supposing that all those variables are the reason why our society has advanced throughout the ages? Dumbass. Way to get on a soapbox and stay on topic.

the point was that half of all marriages in america fail. if the advancement of our society was dependent upon healthy marriages, as defined by your limited parameters, then we would have significantly less success to show for your "equation".

as for soapboxes, i'm not the one who wasted so much bandwidth preaching conservative old testament wrath to the rest of the forum.

[dallaskd]

i call bullshit on a gay gene. people choose to be gay..

[spursncowboys]

the point was that half of all marriages in america fail. if the advancement of our society was dependent upon healthy marriages, as defined by your limited parameters, then we would have significantly less success to show for your "equation".

as for soapboxes, i'm not the one who wasted so much bandwidth preaching conservative old testament wrath to the rest of the forum.

What new behaviors in our society increase while marriages decline?

[rjv]

empirical data. Isn't that a bad word for you libs? Why don't you use some empirical data for global warming, welfare, keynsian economics, tax hikes, patents, healthcare, minimum wage, etc...
Sorry, don't know your stand on all these issues so just discard opinions you don't hold with closed eyes and ears.

you have missed the irony of your own commentary. i have never posted anything at all about any of the above subjects except on healthcare and on that subject i am opposed to the obama plan. if you want to regard economics as a hard science then that is on you.

you are the one coming in here with half-baked arguments about the quantitative benefits of "healthy"marriages in our society but can't show any numbers at all.

then there is your demonstration of your completely off base genetics and human behavior "theories".

go out in the pragmatic and verifiable world with these sort of "theories" and see how far you go.

you are the one here making categorical statements and when pressed to offer something other than the bible or opinion you just go to the old "abuse" card as if anyone here really cares or is offended by any of your mediocre and cliched insults. the only thing this succeeds in is verifying the obvious: that you are not capable of any real argument on most subjects demanding any real and demonstrable knowledge.

[rjv]

What new behaviors in our society increase while marriages decline?

what parameters are you setting for your "study" ? what is a "healthy" marriage? one that does not end in divorce? if that is the case compare the behavioral issues of our times and compare them to those times where there were supposedly more "healthy" marriages. then rule out all other factors as contributing variables. rule out poverty, or population size, or diet, or increased exposure to violence. if you can filter out all this in a well stated argument then you can start to get at something other than just an opinion that healthy marriages are keeping our society from decay.

also-what is a new behavior ? are you suddenly a proponent of evolution?

[spursncowboys]

the point was that half of all marriages in america fail. if the advancement of our society was dependent upon healthy marriages, as defined by your limited parameters, then we would have significantly less success to show for your "equation".

as for soapboxes, i'm not the one who wasted so much bandwidth preaching conservative old testament wrath to the rest of the forum.

I am sorry. I assumed that people who were in homosexual marriages were not having sexual intercourse with people of the opposite sex. Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

[spursncowboys]

what parameters are you setting for your "study" ? what is a "healthy" marriage? one that does not end in divorce? if that is the case compare the behavioral issues of our times and compare them to those times where there were supposedly more "healthy" marriages. then rule out all other factors as contributing variables. rule out poverty, or population size, or diet, or increased exposure to violence. if you can filter out all this in a well stated argument then you can start to get at something other than just an opinion that healthy marriages are keeping our society from decay.

also-what is a new behavior ? are you suddenly a proponent of evolution?
What argument do I need. The fact is our society has advanced from Judeo-Christian values. You on the other hand are trying to remove all these values, even the basic family structure ones. Without any evidence that this has ever worked in the history of this world, you are assuming that it will. Make as much variables as you want to blame for the decaying of our society. It could all be traced to the breakdown of our beliefs in what is acceptable and what is a family.
Do you have any empirical data?

[ElNono]

I am sorry. I assumed that people who were in homosexual marriages were not having sexual intercourse with people of the opposite sex. Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

You mean heterosexual couples that cannot procreate are somehow unhealthy marriages? You don't think that the people in those unions cannot help advance society?

Wow... I always knew you were a bigot, but now you're being flat out ignorant.

[MiamiHeat]

You mean heterosexual couples that cannot procreate are somehow unhealthy marriages? You don't think that the people in those unions cannot help advance society?

Wow... I always knew you were a bigot, but now you're being flat out ignorant.

Homosexual lifestyle is a health hazard, discouraged by the medical profession.

They have the highest rates of STD's, and internal injuries, and all sorts of other problems.

They create an disgusting union that is not a traditional family. Man, woman, and child. Not man man, or woman woman.

I would say you are the ignorant one.

You are a victim of modern political correctness. You think you are special, you think you are fighting 'the good fight' to do something 'good' and 'change the world'... however there is a whole generation of misguided 'world change' idealists, just like the hippies.

You are wrong and you are young.

[MiamiHeat]

lastly, most of you eat right from the feedbag when it comes to your 'view' on gays.

You think of the gay guy from Will and Grace, or others like him.

In case you didn't know, most gay people are not like that. Some are like that, but most are effeminate, some even want sex changes because they hate themselves. Some are loud and obnoxious type of gay, with their pink ribbons and pink hair.

Obvious signs of emotional or mental health problems, self confidence problems, where they overcompensate to project a 'confident' and 'im different' feeling because of their insecurities and confusion.

and the gay population is about 1% of the USA. We got more important shit to worry about.

[baseline bum]

Homosexual lifestyle is a health hazard, discouraged by the medical profession.

They have the highest rates of STD's, and internal injuries, and all sorts of other problems.


So no marriage for couples who like anal?

[MiamiHeat]

So no marriage for couples who like anal?

You already know that your logic is flawed because woman also have vaginas, so no point to try and point it out. You were trying too hard and failed.

[spursncowboys]

You mean heterosexual couples that cannot procreate are somehow unhealthy marriages? You don't think that the people in those unions cannot help advance society?

Wow... I always knew you were a bigot, but now you're being flat out ignorant.

There it is.

[TheProfessor]

lastly, most of you eat right from the feedbag when it comes to your 'view' on gays.

You think of the gay guy from Will and Grace, or others like him.

In case you didn't know, most gay people are not like that. Some are like that, but most are effeminate, some even want sex changes because they hate themselves. Some are loud and obnoxious type of gay, with their pink ribbons and pink hair.

Obvious signs of emotional or mental health problems, self confidence problems, where they overcompensate to project a 'confident' and 'im different' feeling because of their insecurities and confusion.

and the gay population is about 1% of the USA. We got more important shit to worry about.
I know plenty of gay people, male and female. And in their stead I say, "Fuck you, you bigot."

[baseline bum]

You already know that your logic is flawed because woman also have vaginas, so no point to try and point it out. You were trying too hard and failed.

So where are you going with that point then? Anal sex is just as destructive and dangerous whether it's a man or a woman getting it.

[MiamiHeat]

To Professor:

I say, "Fuck you, you abomination and disgusting perversion of humanity"

Learn to accept who you were born as. You were born a MAN. Learn how to act like one. Stop bitching and deal with it, faggot.

[MiamiHeat]

"waaah, my emotions hurt!!! sniff sniff, i was born a man... but i feel i should be a woman.... i am so girly *tee hee* "

"I don't like what I got in life, waaaah..... may I please be given a vagina? I don't want me penis!"

fucking confused, self-loathing, weak minded individuals.

[TheProfessor]

I say, "Fuck you, you abomination and disgusting perversion of humanity"
:lol What? You're not going to lecture us on how gay people aren't like the guy from Will and Grace?

Seriously, you've got issues. Is someone who thinks of homosexuals as abominations seriously going to lecture me when it's patently obvious he's never known an actual gay person? You sit in judgment and make crass simplifications that simply aren't true, because you don't know what you're talking about and you don't look at homosexuals as human beings.

[Blake]

Also our society should promote a healthy marriage, because that benefits everyone.


what the hell are you talking about? You are supposing that all those variables are the reason why our society has advanced throughout the ages?

are you supposing that healthy marriages are the reason why our society has advanced through the ages?

[MiamiHeat]

:lol What? You're not going to lecture us on how gay couples should be allowed to re-define marriage?

Seriously, you've got issues. Is someone who thinks of people who don't agree with re-defining marriage as "bigots" seriously going to lecture me when it's patently obvious he's never been able to respect opinions? You sit in judgment and make crass simplifications that simply aren't true, because you don't know what you're talking about.

[Blake]

It was a vague enough comment to not need to be absolute. I learned it in my crime in America class but cannot find a good stat to study for it. After two pages from google's webpages filled with liberal op-eds i could not care less if you believe or don't.

it was an absolute enough comment that should be sourced if you want to have any bit of credibility.

Obviously you could not care less if you have no internet cred.

[TheProfessor]

:lol What? You're not going to lecture us on how gay couples should be allowed to re-define marriage?

Seriously, you've got issues. Is someone who thinks of people who don't agree with re-defining marriage as "bigots" seriously going to lecture me when it's patently obvious he's never been able to respect opinions? You sit in judgment and make crass simplifications that simply aren't true, because you don't know what you're talking about.
You're not a bigot because of your stance on marriage. You're a bigot because of how you view human beings who have never set out to harm you or anyone else. You don't see them as people.

[Blake]

I am sorry. I assumed that people who were in homosexual marriages were not having sexual intercourse with people of the opposite sex. Therefore without married couples procreating I cannot understand how offspring come about. Without new population in a society it would be fair to assume that the society will not advance.

what year do you live in?

[Blake]

"waaah, my emotions hurt!!! sniff sniff, i was born a man... but i feel i should be a woman.... i am so girly *tee hee* "

"I don't like what I got in life, waaaah..... may I please be given a vagina? I don't want me penis!"

fucking confused, self-loathing, weak minded individuals.

I find this to be :lol

[Blake]

Make as much variables as you want to blame for the decaying of our society. It could all be traced to the breakdown of our beliefs in what is acceptable and what is a family.
Do you have any empirical data?

what part of our society is decaying and how exactly can it all be traced to the breakdown of our beliefs in what is acceptable and what is a family?

[spursncowboys]

it was an absolute enough comment that should be sourced if you want to have any bit of credibility.

Obviously you could not care less if you have no internet cred.


Me
Also the studies that a large percent of molested children growing up and choosing to have homosexual relationships...

THere is nothing absolute with that post. It stands alone. I stand by it. If I do anything for internet cred, I would hope my family to take me out of my misery. Living my life in the hopes that you believe me is not a goal. Reading some of your nonsensical crap makes me feel that you need to focus more inwardly. Take your own advice.

[MiamiHeat]

You're not a bigot because of your stance on marriage. You're a bigot because of how you view human beings who have never set out to harm you or anyone else. You don't see them as people.

I would never persecute, harm, or discriminate against homosexuals. Never.

I won't support anything that does that.

Just because I disapprove of them and think they are confused, perverted human beings, doesn't mean I don't care for them as human beings and would see them harm. I would help them, and if I saw a homosexual being hurt, I would be on the homosexual's side.



But my views don't change. and I don't want marriage re-defined and muddied up with homosexuals.


Give them their own institution. Gay couples are a new and strange thing to be recognized now to the USA, so accordingly, give them a new union name, with all of the same rights.


I'd be happy with that, the end.

If they aren't happy, too fucking bad. My happiness matters too. and they should only be worried about being with their couple and afforded all of the financial/legal incentives.

If they are worried about what I think of them, then this isn't about marriage now is it. This is a trojan horse for acceptance, which will never happen.

[spursncowboys]

what year do you live in?

:lol care to explain.

[TheProfessor]

I would never persecute, harm, or discriminate against homosexuals. Never.

I won't support anything that does that.

Just because I disapprove of them and think they are confused, perverted human beings, doesn't mean I don't care for them as human beings and would see them harm. I would help them, and if I saw a homosexual being hurt, I would be on the homosexual's side.



But my views don't change. and I don't want marriage re-defined and muddied up with homosexuals.


Give them their own institution. Gay couples are a new and strange thing to be recognized now to the USA, so accordingly, give them a new union name, with all of the same rights.


I'd be happy with that, the end.

If they aren't happy, too fucking bad. My happiness matters too.
Fair enough. I got on my soapbox, but I see where you stand now. Personally, I agree with the other posters that would allow churches to do what they want and make a civil ceremony that's the same across the board.

[spursncowboys]

I would never persecute, harm, or discriminate against homosexuals. Never.

I won't support anything that does that.

Just because I disapprove of them and think they are confused, perverted human beings, doesn't mean I don't care for them as human beings and would see them harm. I would help them, and if I saw a homosexual being hurt, I would be on the homosexual's side.



But my views don't change. and I don't want marriage re-defined and muddied up with homosexuals.


Give them their own institution. Gay couples are a new and strange thing to be recognized now to the USA, so accordingly, give them a new union name, with all of the same rights.


I'd be happy with that, the end.

If they aren't happy, too fucking bad. My happiness matters too. and they should only be worried about being with their couple and afforded all of the financial/legal incentives.

If they are worried about what I think of them, then this isn't about marriage now is it. This is a trojan horse for acceptance, which will never happen.

It is disturbing how these open minded people are willing to brand us for not following them lock-step. I see the brown shirt mentality from their side, not us.