Gay/Lesbian Marrige Bans

[MannyIsGod]

Look for there to be a LOT of court battles in regards to these bans. They all passed easily.

[T Park]

So in other words, screw what the American people want, were gonna force our agenda down there throughts, right?

[IcemanCometh]

When the American people are wrong yes screw what they want. There are alot of things the American people want that you don't give them, like no taxes and free beer. In the 1950's the majority of America was for segregation yet it took progressive minded people to realize it was wrong and ban it.

[Goddess Spur]

How sad. :(

[MannyIsGod]

Exactly Ice. I remember back when Tparks great grandfather wanted to Keep blackie out off of his ferris wheel. Fuck, whey didn't we let the majority keep what they wanted. Oh yeah, the constitution got in the way.

[Brodels]

When the American people are wrong yes screw what they want. There are alot of things the American people want that you don't give them, like no taxes and free beer. In the 1950's the majority of America was for segregation yet it took progressive minded people to realize it was wrong and ban it.

The problem with that is this: if you believe that you can't trust the American people to be right on particular issues, how do you determine which group of people is really right? If the majority shouldn't decide whether or not something is legitimate, who decides it? And who decides that those people should decide it?

[Marcus Bryant]

Funny how that logic extends rather easily to the Iraq invasion.

[IcemanCometh]

funny what a slippery slope morality can be.

[T Park]

funny how people thought the popular vote shouldve elected Gore,
but when it comes to this, a popular vote is wrong.


Of course screw what the american people want. FORCE them.

Comparing this to civil rights and slavery is disgusting.

[Marcus Bryant]

So the people are only right when you like what they say. Understood.

[IcemanCometh]

why is it disgusting tpark?

[scott]

I don't see anything wrong with allowing the states to decide this issue on their own. Oklahoma doesn't want gay marriages, fine.

But when California decides to make them legal, let them without having our Born-Again President trying to force his agenda on those people.

It's a two way street.

[Uncle Donnie]

Didn't California vote overwhelmingly against legalizing gay marriage?

[Clandestino]

yeah but you are born black.........you are sexually molested by a homosexual pedofile into homosexuality.

flash gordon, you're a crazy fucker! hahaha... i always laughed my ass off over at sr when they would all start crying and the wild things you said! glad you are here now and still at it.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's one thing to say a President could or should be elected by popular vote; it's something else to say that the definition of one's rights should be subjected to the whim of the majority. It's really easy to be for majoritarian rule on those matters when you're in the majority. But history has shown repeatedly that relying on the majoritarian view can sometimes lead to a great deal of unfairness to those in the minority. Segregation is one example -- what if the majority felt that interracial marriage was an abomination (as many did as recently as the late 1960's?).

Those who are all for majority rule when it comes to individual rights should read up on Constitutional history -- the Framers of the Constitution would vehemently disagree with you.

James Madison's Federalist 51 is proof positive of that:


Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

[Marcus Bryant]

So why should I as an individual be forced to accept a gay couple as 'married'? I feel that violates my right to religious expression.

Also if we are going to change the definition of marriage based upon how people fuck then I am for plural marriages and every other possible combination.

Also comparing this to racial discrimination is currently a bit of a stretch.

How about we move marriage out of the government arena? That would be a nice first step. Forcing your view of marriage upon others who do not share your view of marriage and infringing upon their individual rights because you feel yours are being violated is not exactly the best solution to this issue.

[T Park]

Its disgusting your ignorant Slut Iceman, because the voice of the people have spoken.

IN THERE OPINION ITS NOT RIGHT!!

YOU YOU YOU!!!!!!!!

HAVE ZERO RIGHT, TO FORCE ONTO THEM SOMETHING YOUUUUU THINK IS RIGHT.

Why is it not a two way street witht he rights of people with liberals?
Why is it they can demand, scream and cry for the voice of the people to be heard, when they get it and it disagrees with them, why must they bitch and then say, well, were gonna FORCE IT, FUCK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!

[bigzak25]

may Godbless those people that want to be with someone of the same sex....

but I don't want my tax dollars going towards giving them the tax breaks of a married couple.

[Spurminator]

I don't want my tax dollars going towards any form of marriage.

[IcemanCometh]

funny how that opinion doesn't apply to the middle east. the arabs think we are wrong , and we have zero right to force onto them something we think is right. right tpark?

[IcemanCometh]

Basic human rights are not a state issue. They are not subject to a popular vote.

Freedom from discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is as much a human right as freedom from discrimination on the basis of skin color or religious preference.

[MannyIsGod]

The same reason that I am forced to support straight marriges is the same reason you should have to support gay marriage MB.

[bigzak25]

i see your point manny.

[Marcus Bryant]

The same reason that I am forced to support straight marriges is the same reason you should have to support gay marriage MB.

Um go back and re-read my post.

[2pac]

Basic human rights are not a state issue. They are not subject to a popular vote.

Freedom from discrimination on basis of sexual orientation is as much a human right as freedom from discrimination on the basis of skin color or religious preference.

Marriage isnt a basic human right. Life is. Voting is. Property ownership is.

In addition, everyone has the right to marry someone else. Any man can marry any single woman who he is not related too and who is old enough. It isnt that hard.

[MannyIsGod]

The sad thing is, I'm willing to bet a lot of Non Vbookie cash on there being a larger portion of homosexual marriges that actually work than straight marriges. Not that we've set a high bar at 50% for anyone to hurdle.

[IcemanCometh]

Freedom from discrimination is a basic human right.

[Samurai Jane]

Sexual orientation is a basic human right? There are some people who are "oriented" towards young children, some who are "oriented" towards multiple partners, some who are "oriented" towards relatives and so on.. perhaps we should let them marry whoever they want too... and the rest of us that think that's wrong, well you just have to live with it...

You have to draw the line somewhere.

[Marcus Bryant]

Freedom from discrimination is a basic human right.

Indeed. TPark's desire to marry his sister should entitle him to the right to force everyone else to recognize his marriage to his sister. After all, he can't help it if he wants to tap that ass for the rest of his life. To not allow him would violate his 'basic human rights.'

[MannyIsGod]

Once again, what about forcing me to accept straight marriges????

[Spurminator]

Unless you're talking about taxes, "acceptance" is not a burden. It cannot be tangibly forced upon you. You can choose to hate gays, blacks, teenagers and celebrities all you want.

[JoeChalupa]

When I heard that the ban had passed in Ohio I knew it was over for Kerry.

[Marcus Bryant]

Apparently young Manuel can't read.


How about we move marriage out of the government arena? That would be a nice first step. Forcing your view of marriage upon others who do not share your view of marriage and infringing upon their individual rights because you feel yours are being violated is not exactly the best solution to this issue.

[MannyIsGod]

yes, well then why are you advocating yet MORE marrige legislation??

[IcemanCometh]

once again your bigoted views about things simply do not matter. comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your sister is like me alluding your worthless faith to witchcraft.

[Marcus Bryant]

Probably because I'm not.

[FromWayDowntown]

Marriage isnt a basic human right. Life is. Voting is. Property ownership is.

You might check with the Supreme Court on that one -- at least in terms of defining marriage as a fundamental right. You might also check with them on the idea that state's can deny fundamental rights to homosexuals.

[Marcus Bryant]

comparing homosexual marriage to marrying your sister is like me alluding your worthless faith to witchcraft.

So you have no point. Good talk.

[MannyIsGod]

Whatever, always playing 2 sides of the coin.

Denying Marrige rights to gay's is not equal. Thats the bottom line, it's discrimination because of your spouses gender.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, re-read my statement. How exactly would that deny "marrige" rights to "gay's"?

[Duff McCartney]

Sexual orientation is a basic human right? There are some people who are "oriented" towards young children, some who are "oriented" towards multiple partners, some who are "oriented" towards relatives and so on.. perhaps we should let them marry whoever they want too... and the rest of us that think that's wrong, well you just have to live with it...

You have to draw the line somewhere.

Equating homosexuality with child molestation and incest is laughable.

[ducks]

what states?

[scott]

Great post, FWD... you hit the nail on the head if you ask me. Not ironically, it is always the majority that forgets that "majority rules" is constitutionally incorrect.

I'm glad to see Marcus is still in the habit of dodging facts to serve his agenda. I can't recall any proposed legislation to make gay marriages legal in this election, just a smattering of constitutional ammendments to ban them (which have been rightfully left up to the states to decide). Thattaway to get the Government out of the marriage business.

[Yonivore]

Great post, FWD... you hit the nail on the head if you ask me. Not ironically, it is always the majority that forgets that "majority rules" is constitutionally incorrect.
I haven't forgotten.

It's just sweet to take that argument away from the Left this time...by 3 and a half million votes. And, in this election, that's a mandate.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm glad to see Marcus is still in the habit of dodging facts to serve his agenda.


Haven't dodged anything.



I can't recall any proposed legislation to make gay marriages legal in this election,


I didn't say there was any such legislation. Pay attention.



just a smattering of constitutional ammendments to ban them (which have been rightfully left up to the states to decide). Thattaway to get the Government out of the marriage business.

Nice straw man. Ask Yonivore to defend that position.

I know you are obsessed but at least bring a real argument next time, lil' snott.

[dcole50]

Sexual orientation is a basic human right? There are some people who are "oriented" towards young children
Uh, there's a huge difference between sex between two consenting people of the same gender and child molestation. It's the same as comparing consensual sex to rape.

[Samurai Jane]

Uh, there's a huge difference between sex between two consenting people of the same gender and child molestation. It's the same as comparing consensual sex to rape.


I'm not talking about the sexual act itself, but about defining "sexual orientation" as a right. And I like how you ignore the rest of the scenarios involving consenting adults...

[JoeChalupa]

I'm for legal civil unions.

[Hook Dem]

I don't really give a flip about all this shit anyway. As for me, I'm queer for women! Gays and lesbians have always been here....always will be. I don't bother them and they don't bother me. Just don't push that shit on me.

[CosmicCowboy]

I also am for legal civil unions.

I believe:

Gays should not be discriminated against in housing
Gays should be able to buy property together without having to create legal partnerships under business law.
Gay partners who have created a civil union should not be denied access to partners by "real" family in medical situations
Gays should be able to leave property to their civil union partner without "family" being able to contest it in probate.

NOW MANNY...


Denying Marrige rights to gay's is not equal. Thats the bottom line, it's discrimination because of your spouses gender.

what ADDITIONAL rights would you like to add to this list?

[CosmicCowboy]

c'mon Manny...step up to the plate and swing...

[Spurminator]

Gay marriage is such a behemoth issue for something so inconsequential.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's just sweet to take that argument away from the Left this time...by 3 and a half million votes. And, in this election, that's a mandate.

It's a mandate to undertake legislative action and a mandate for the President.

It's not a mandate to use majoritarian power to institutionalize efforts at discriminating against minority groups like homosexuals or non-Christians.

[CosmicCowboy]

I also am for legal civil unions.

I believe:

Gays should not be discriminated against in housing
Gays should be able to buy property together without having to create legal partnerships under business law.
Gay partners who have created a civil union should not be denied access to partners by "real" family in medical situations
Gays should be able to leave property to their civil union partner without "family" being able to contest it in probate.

NOW MANNY...



what ADDITIONAL rights would you like to add to this list?

since Manny doesn't want to play any of you other supporters of gay marriage please feel free to jump in...

[Spurminator]

I'm in support of gay marriage as long as marriage is sanctioned by the government. I'm not really sure how a legal "marriage" differs from a civil union, but if straight couples get any priviledges from their married status, then same sex couples should have that opportunity as well.

But ideally, the government would stop sanctioning "marriage" altogether, because to me that's like sanctioning baptism. And these bans on gay marriage only add to the problem of government involvement in private matters.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

like no taxes and free beer.

I want a flat tax rate, free liquor, and a Playboy bunny to serve me and my buds beer and food naked while we watch the game.

I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of America :)

[Marcus Bryant]

But ideally, the government would stop sanctioning "marriage" altogether, because to me that's like sanctioning baptism. And these bans on gay marriage only add to the problem of government involvement in private matters.

Exactly. Too bad some can't seem to grasp that.

[1369]

I want a flat tax rate, free liquor, and a Playboy bunny to serve me and my buds beer and food naked while we watch the game.

I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of America :)

Angela Little anyone?

http://kunkel.hispeed.com/Germany/HamburgStPauliGirlPoster4.jpg

[CosmicCowboy]

if straight couples get any priviledges from their married status, then same sex couples should have that opportunity as well.


You just don't get it...its not just about government recognition of government granted rights or benefits...

I will give you an example...

I pay 100% of health insurance for my employees and their families.

I am not required to do so by any law and do it because I want to.

With the legalization of gay marriage I would not have a choice whether or not to pay the gay spouses insurance if I paid my marriage spouses insurance...

I I chose not to pay the mans insurance (which I am not required by law to pay health insurance at all) I would not only be subject to civil damage litigation but criminal litigation as well as a felon for not doing something I am not required to do by law...

fuck that...

[Marcus Bryant]

With the legalization of gay marriage I would not have a choice whether or not to pay the gay spouses insurance if I paid my marriage spouses insurance...

I I chose not to pay the mans insurance (which I am not required by law to pay health insurance at all) I would not only be subject to civil damage litigation but criminal litigation as well as a felon for not doing something I am not required to do by law...

Nail. Head. Bang.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I was thinking more along the lines of Crista Nicole.

http://store.playboy.com/images/us/local/products/detail/9417.jpg

Next link is NSFW...

http://www.bellezzevip.com/modelle/crista_nicole/crista_nicole_09.jpg

[Spurminator]

With the legalization of gay marriage I would not have a choice whether or not to pay the gay spouses insurance if I paid my marriage spouses insurance...

I I chose not to pay the mans insurance (which I am not required by law to pay health insurance at all) I would not only be subject to civil damage litigation but criminal litigation as well as a felon for not doing something I am not required to do by law...

fuck that...

That's fine, but why does that require a BAN on gay marriage? I wouldn't be in favor of any law that requires you to recognize gay marriages in your own private practice.

It's not my understanding that we are creating a law to accept gay marriage... we're pulling one out of thin air to ban it. Let me know if I'm mistaken.

[Marcus Bryant]

The bans are a move to circumvent a judicial imposition that would force the private recognition of gay marriage.

[Spurminator]

In that case, it seems that the term "Ban" is misleading in regards to this legislation.

What are the terms, exactly? I would assume that businesses who choose to recognize gay marriage can still do so in these states, correct?

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm not sure that the state bans are uniform. Yes, I believe that firms are currently free to recognize "gay marriage." Not sure how those 'bans' would effect that ability.

[ClintSquint]

Personally I don't think we need an amendment to ban gay marriage.
It's not legal now in many states am I right?
So if it's not legal why do the feds want and amendment.
Shouldn't this be left to the individual States? Like Cheney said?
But I do think if 2 guys or gals are shacked up and supporting each other and buying a home together then they should be able to speak on each other's behalf if one of them goes nuts or is incapacitated for some reason.
I don't think that some other family member can just jump in and take over and that is a right I feel they should have.

[CosmicCowboy]

exactly...

thats why I would support laws allowing civil unions that granted specific rights to couples choosing civil unions as opposed to a broad "every right granted to married couples" law that goes along with the concept of gay marriage.

[Samurai Jane]

exactly...

thats why I would support laws allowing civil unions that granted specific rights to couples choosing civil unions as opposed to a broad "every right granted to married couples" law that goes along with the concept of gay marriage.


I'd be okay with that.

There are some companies that I work with that currently recognize "domestic partnership" which gives them the "married" rates.

[Guru of Nothing]

Look for there to be a LOT of court battles in regards to these bans. They all passed easily.

I oppose all forms of marriage.

Sincerely, ME!

[SpursWoman]

I was reading through this thread earlier and had a thought...granted, I have some pretty off the wall thoughts sometimes...maybe relevant, maybe not...but I was wondering...

How many of you men (and remember, I've been around here a long time, I remember everything, and I've heard most of ya'll talk some serious shit at one point or another) get off watching 2 women together? I don't think I've ever heard any man even infer that they found that repulsive...and in no context that such an act of immorality and offensiveness be *forced* upon them, that they shouldn't have to accept or recognize that kind of behavior.

Which translates to me, given what I've heard over time and the opposing responses in this thread, that if you're female, it's okay if you fuck each other (provided you're relatively attractive and I can watch and/or participate) but you can't have feelings for each other, want to make a committment to each other...to enjoy the benefits that other human beings have (ie, straight couples) in a legally binding relationship--because you don't want to recognize it and have it forced on you--like somehow by them getting married they are suddenly moving in with you or something. And if you're a man...well you can't do either, because that's just TOTALLY wrong and against everything you believe in..morally, religiously...whatever.

So you advocate *just fucking* (just the females, of course), because that's okay if you're the one being entertained, which in that same archaic social and religious stance is immoral and wrong in itself.

That sounds seriously hypocritical to me.



I personally don't care one way or the other if a gay couple want to get married, raise monkeys, or climb Mt. Everest in nothing but a bikini top and chaps....I don't consider other people's personal lives my business, and has absolutely no bearing on how I make it through the day.

[Guru of Nothing]

Please don't take me too seriously SW, BUT, could you watch a video of "hot lesbian action?" Could you watch a video of "hot gay oral sex?"

I'm all for live and let live, but, at a gut level, I think 90% of the population is creeped-out by man on man sex, and it has nothing to do with morality.

[Guru of Nothing]

More succinctly ...

Given the choice, would you rather catch your man in bed with another woman, or another man?

[Guru of Nothing]

Oh wait! This is the POLITICAL forum.

Disregard.

[SpursWoman]

Please don't take me too seriously SW, BUT, could you watch a video of "hot lesbian action?" Could you watch a video of "hot gay oral sex?"

I'm all for live and let live, but, at a gut level, I think 90% of the population is creeped-out by man on man sex, and it has nothing to do with morality.


It's not just all about sex, though. On the one hand, promiscuous sex between two woman is okay, because it turns YOU on....but the minute they actually start having serious feelings for each other and you aren't invited, all of the sudden it's morally corrupt and you don't want it forced on you.

And if brussell sprouts make me want to vomit....and 90% of the world gets nauseous at the site of brussell sprouts too, is it wrong for the 10% that's left to happen to like those nasty things?

[SpursWoman]

More succinctly ...

Given the choice, would you rather catch your man in bed with another woman, or another man?



Well, considering the only man I plan on having in my life is my son....I'd rather not catch him with anyone. :)

[Spurminator]

My wife would rather have me and another man than me and another woman... for what it's worth.

Believe me, I've tried to reason with her.

[Guru of Nothing]

It's not just all about sex, though. On the one hand, promiscuous sex between two woman is okay, because it turns YOU on....but the minute they actually start having serious feelings for each other and you aren't invited, all of the sudden it's morally corrupt and you don't want it forced on you.

And if brussell sprouts make me want to vomit....and 90% of the world gets nauseous at the site of brussell sprouts too, is it wrong for the 10% that's left to happen to like those nasty things?

For the record, I've no problem with gay "unions," BUT, when entrenched in a voting booth, I'd expect people to vote against things which turn their stomach, including brussell sprouts.

[SpursWoman]

So 90% of the population gets to decide what the 10% have for dinner?

[Guru of Nothing]

So 90% of the population gets to decide what the 10% have for dinner?

I guess that's why I drink 3.2 beer.

[SpursWoman]

Because the brussell sprouts in and of themselves aren't hurting anyone, and they aren't going to be in your refrigerator unless you go out and buy them.

[Guru of Nothing]

Because the brussell sprouts in and of themselves aren't hurting anyone, and they aren't going to be in your refrigerator unless you go out and buy them.

It's a bad idea to serve brussell sprouts in a voting booth.

[Drachen]

You just don't get it...its not just about government recognition of government granted rights or benefits...

I will give you an example...

I pay 100% of health insurance for my employees and their families.

I am not required to do so by any law and do it because I want to.

With the legalization of gay marriage I would not have a choice whether or not to pay the gay spouses insurance if I paid my marriage spouses insurance...

I I chose not to pay the mans insurance (which I am not required by law to pay health insurance at all) I would not only be subject to civil damage litigation but criminal litigation as well as a felon for not doing something I am not required to do by law...

fuck that...


Agreed, you would have to make things equal for all of your employees. Damn that would suck if we lived in a society where the is a law that says that all people are created equal...

[Drachen]

Please don't take me too seriously SW, BUT, could you watch a video of "hot lesbian action?" Could you watch a video of "hot gay oral sex?"

I'm all for live and let live, but, at a gut level, I think 90% of the population is creeped-out by man on man sex, and it has nothing to do with morality.


I think the main reason for this at a very base level is that a womans body is more asthetically pleasing than a mans (ie compare curves w/straight lines, soft w/hard [get your mind outta tha gutter])

[Guru of Nothing]

All people are NOT created equal.

It's a sucky fact, but it's true.

[jalbre6]

My .02, for what it's worth...

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. This may sound a little extreme, but I think this just a individual rights issue. Once, it was marrying outside one's religion was taboo. Then next, interracial marriage was scoffed at. Now, it is same-sex marriage that's up for debate. People are going to do what they want to do, especially if they follow their hearts. And I thought that the Constitution and any amendments made were to grant rights and privleges, not to take them away or specifically abolish them. As far as states voting to ban gay marriage, what happens the first time a gay marriage is allowed in one state, and a lawsuit-property claim-will execution regarding the marriage is brought up in another?

[SpursWoman]

I think the main reason for this at a very base level is that a womans body is more asthetically pleasing than a mans (ie compare curves w/straight lines, soft w/hard [get your mind outta tha gutter])



A woman's body is more asthetically pleasing.....in a man's opinion. I personally prefer hard, straight lines. :)

[Drachen]

Because the brussell sprouts in and of themselves aren't hurting anyone, and they aren't going to be in your refrigerator unless you go out and buy them.


Yes but a lot of that 90% think that by allowing the 10% to eat brussel sprouts, their young and impressionable children will think it's alright and be infected with "brusselsproutus." According to them this is already going on to a lesser extent through such popular TV shows as "Brussel Sprout and Grace."

[Spurminator]

:lol

[Drachen]

A woman's body is more asthetically pleasing.....in a man's opinion. I personally prefer hard, straight lines. :)

Yes we all understand that you are heterosexual, but at a very base level soft curves are more pleasing visually (see: art). Or maybe this is just my opinion, but I think that it is something that is ingrained in us, just like 1.618 is the most visually pleasing ratio.

[Guru of Nothing]

Yes but a lot of that 90% think that by allowing the 10% to eat brussel sprouts, their young and impressionable children will think it's alright and be infected with "brusselsproutus." According to them this is already going on to a lesser extent through such popular TV shows as "Brussel Sprout and Grace."

You just jumped the shark.

[Drachen]

You just jumped the shark.

I dont understand, is that like flogging the dolphin??

[dcole50]

http://www.jumptheshark.com/about.htm

[SpursWoman]

I dont understand, is that like flogging the dolphin??


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[SpursWoman]

Yes we all understand that you are heterosexual, but at a very base level soft curves are more pleasing visually (see: art). Or maybe this is just my opinion, but I think that it is something that is ingrained in us, just like 1.618 is the most visually pleasing ratio.



I think it's just your opinion, because I'm quite sure that when you visualize a little hot girl on girl action, Rosie O'Donnell & Rosanne aren't the first images that come to mind.

So what about those kind of girls? The overweight, overly masculine ones? Is it acceptable for them to be together because they are particularly curvy, or do they fall into the man/man category, because it's a visually repulsive image for you?

[scott]

So 90% of the population gets to decide what the 10% have for dinner?

As FWD pointed out early in the thread, James Madison and the other founding fathers were afraid of this very thing and it is thus why "Majority Rules" is constitutionally incorrect. Awesome analogy, SW.

[Drachen]

I think it's just your opinion, because I'm quite sure that when you visualize a little hot girl on girl action, Rosie O'Donnell & Rosanne aren't the first images that come to mind.

So what about those kind of girls? The overweight, overly masculine ones? Is it acceptable for them to be together because they are particularly curvy, or do they fall into the man/man category, because it's a visually repulsive image for you?

Hey, just to make things clear, I truly think that you cant help who you love, so I dont care if you are fat skinny or otherwise man/man, man/woman, or woman/woman. Oh and your example doesnt hold up because I wouldnt want to see fat male/female couples having sex. But Rubenesque (i.e. not obese/not twiggy) women have been, up until about 50 years ago considered to be very beautiful (see: Marilyn Monroe, dress size:13, and see: just about every piece of art).

[Marcus Bryant]

90% of the world gets nauseous at the site of brussell sprouts too, is it wrong for the 10% that's left to happen to like those nasty things?

No. Which is why they should be free to enjoy those nasty things if they like, so long as I am not required to assist it directly. Actually, to extend it, the 10% that like brussel sprouts shouldn't be forced to pay for what the other 90% like to do as I, like a few other sane individuals, don't believe that the Leviathan should be involved in deciding what we can and cannot eat, as well as forcing us into recognizing and assisting the consumption of foods which we find undesirable.

[SpursWoman]

No. Which is why they should be free to enjoy those nasty things if they like, so long as I am not required to assist it directly.

How are you directly assisting in it? Bagging the groceries? Hired as chef?



Actually, to extend it, the 10% that like brussel sprouts shouldn't be forced to pay for what the other 90% like to do as I, like a few other sane individuals, don't believe that the Leviathan should be involved in deciding what we can and cannot eat, as well as forcing us into recognizing and assisting the consumption of foods which we find undesirable.


How are you paying for other people's produce? Maybe that's one part I don't quite understand.

And I know I've strayed off topic a bit as far as who gets to decide what's legally acceptable or not, but what struck me as somewhat hypocritical is that some so strongly opposed to having the rights of homosexuals to be treated equally as their counterparts be forced upon them are the same ones who at some point previously were regaling us with tales of sexual escapades with multiple females or their desire to do so. Homosexual sex is homosexual sex whether you're involved in it or not....but apparently only the promiscuous kind involving women is not immoral or against any religious beliefs? God forbid that *that* type of sex, or sex at all for that matter, have any feelings involved. But maybe it's just me that finds that somewhat inconsistant.

[Marcus Bryant]

How are you directly assisting in it? Bagging the groceries? Hired as chef?

See CC's comments in this thread.


Homosexual sex is homosexual sex whether you're involved in it or not....but apparently only the promiscuous kind involving women is not immoral or against any religious beliefs?

Irrelevant. The issue here is what the legal nature of relationships between consenting adults should be.



God forbid that *that* type of sex, or sex at all for that matter, have any feelings involved. But maybe it's just me that finds that somewhat inconsistant.

Just because something is legal, that does not mean that everyone must find it acceptable.

[JoeChalupa]

I think gays should have certain rights when it comes to property and health issues.

[SpursWoman]

See CC's comments in this thread.

So, if CC was a raging bigot against African Americans or Hispanics...and didn't feel that he should have to cover them either when he does for everyone else...that wouldn't have legal implications or raise a few eyebrows, how? How is discriminating againt a particular race any different than discriminating against sexual orientation? He'd have to not employ the homosexual to begin with, because with that logic he shouldn't want to cover him/her either, not just the spouse...because he/she is just as damn gay.

So that's CC's personal involvement in how he may or may not be subjected to pay or face charges of discrimination. What's yours? And I'm not being a smart ass...I just want to know how the general public might feel that there are real, out of pocket expenses incurred by them if gay people are allowed by law to get married. I don't see it.



Irrelevant. The issue here is what the legal nature of relationships between consenting adults should be.


And I know I've strayed off topic a bit as far as who gets to decide what's legally acceptable or not, but what struck me as somewhat hypocritical is that some so strongly opposed to having the rights of homosexuals to be treated equally as their counterparts be forced upon them are the same ones who at some point previously were regaling us with tales of sexual escapades with multiple females or their desire to do so.

It's not irrelevant to me...that was my observation. Respond or don't.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm still at a loss to understand how a homosexual marriage somehow cheapens the relationship between a man and a woman. I know very few people who define their relationships in terms of how it compares to those of others. And nobody complains about common law marriages cheapening the institution of marriage, though arguably, couples who are married at common law are less committed to those relationships than many homosexuals who would choose to marry. So, it's all about money and power. There are portions of this debate that can't be reconciled in purely economic terms, though.

For example, to my knowledge, no state in the union permits the transfer of property from one person to a homosexual partner. So, if Jane and Janet have been partners for 20 years and would have been married but for the law of the state, when Jane dies unexpectedly without a will, Janet is legally entitled to nothing at all. Meanwhile, if Jane had been living in the same sort of relationship with John, John becomes her common law husband and is entitled to the entirety of her estate.

Changing THAT law doesn't impose a burden on anyone or society -- it's simply a matter of saying that we (as a society) don't condone that relationship and, in essence, choose to punish those who participate in such relationships. But that's not what the Constitution was intended to do. It's one of many examples, but to me, its as clear an indication as any that this is nothing other than the majority imposing a morality judgment on the remainder of society.

I understand the law to hold that marriage is a fundamental right, and that fundamental rights can be denied to people only where the government has a compelling interest that is based on something other than race, gender, religion, age, or sexual orientation. Certainly, we wouldn't deny homosexuals of either the right to vote or the right to free speeh, for examples. If government is going to be in the business of sanctioning relationships, it has no compelling basis (and, as James Madison long ago wrote, the will of the majority is not a compelling basis) to acquiesce to one relationship while denying its blessing to another, simply because those who are involved are of the same sex. There's got to be something more than that, or the protections of the Constitution are pretty hollow.

This is entirely about one segment of society choosing to put down another segment of society for its own purposes.

[dcole50]

God forbid that *that* type of sex, or sex at all for that matter, have any feelings involved. But maybe it's just me that finds that somewhat inconsistant.No, you're not the only one who finds that inconsistant.

Homosexual marriage is not going to harm me in any way. Therefore, I have no problem with it. If it's a moral issue that's bothering people, well, banning gay marriage is not going to prevent homosexuality. And, personally, I feel I have no right telling somone what is moral or immoral (I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of doing that. I'm just speaking from personal experience).


This is entirely about one segment of society choosing to put down another segment of society for its own purposes.
I agree. And I live in a state that for the longest time did everything possible to prevent interacial marriage. So, I know that the popular decision (states voting to ban gay marriage) isn't always the right decision.

[Marcus Bryant]

So, if CC was a raging bigot against African Americans or Hispanics...and didn't feel that he should have to cover them either when he does for everyone else...that wouldn't have legal implications or raise a few eyebrows, how? How is discriminating againt a particular race any different than discriminating against sexual orientation?


This is not race, it is behavior. Actually, fuck it. If CC wants to hire based on whatever pleases him then he should be free to do so. If the community doesn't like that then he is going to lose business, not to mention lose out on a significant pool of employable talent.

But why did you stop there? We can't discriminate against polygamy and incest because people can't help it but they like to fuck like that and to discriminate against them would be like being racial or whatever. After all, those are just other forms of sexual activity they are 'oriented' towards. If you are going to say that marriage cannot be defined as exclusively between a man and a woman then why should it be defined as being exclusively between two unrelated individuals? You can't.

It's nice to know that you feel compelled to force your views upon someone else. I thought that was what you were supposedly against?

What you offer is just the other side of the coin, the one that gets back at those whose state definition of marriage you don't like with a definition of marriage that they don't like. And on it goes.




He'd have to not employ the homosexual to begin with, because with that logic he shouldn't want to cover him/her either, not just the spouse...because he/she is just as damn gay.

If he's such a horrible man why would anyone want to work for him in the first place?




So that's CC's personal involvement in how he may or may not be subjected to pay or face charges of discrimination. What's yours?

That I don't think I should be in that position.




And I'm not being a smart ass...I just want to know how the general public might feel that there are real, out of pocket expenses incurred by them if gay people are allowed by law to get married. I don't see it.

So we should be forced to support certain things we disagree with only if we can't prove "there are real, out of pocket expenses incurred" by us? That's an interesting standard.

How about letting individuals be free to live life according to their values?

Notice I am not even saying that gay marriage should be illegal. If I understand CC correctly he currently provides benefits to "family members" of his employees. I have no problem with his right to do so. I do have a problem with someone being forced to do so. Pretty clear, I would think.

The difference is that I apparently can handle people being free to live their life according to their values, values which I may or may not agree with.

Yet you want to force that on me just because you think I should be forced to accept it because of your own personal views. How exactly does that differ from what those who seek to ban "gay marriage" advocate? Here's a hint: it doesn't.

Different side of the same coin.


It's not irrelevant to me...that was my observation. Respond or don't.

Nanny nanny poo poo.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

After reading several different posts from homophobes on this website, what makes me so sad about everyone bashing gays is that most "heterosexual" men (that is, who say that they are heterosexual) are actually leading double-lives on the side. I have read several articles (no, not in gay magazines--in the regular newspapers) about "heterosexual", married men who are spreading AIDS to their wives. How you may ask? Sure, some of them have slept with prostitutes and have questionable pasts, but the majority of them are secretly homosexual and lead double-lives because they refuse to be rejected by society for being gay. Matter of fact, a gay male wrote a book on this issue that was set to release in February of this past year, but I have yet to see it's release because of death threats that this man has had on his life.
This man writes in his book of how he has slept with politicians, married men, famous celebrities that everyone knows as heterosexual but are secretly gay. It makes me wonder if the homophobics on here, in the immortal words of Shakespeare, "doth protest too much?"

[Marcus Bryant]

Well it was only a matter of time before someone responded with righteous indignation and a buzzword label.

[FromWayDowntown]

But why did you stop there? We can't discriminate against polygamy and incest because people can't help it but they like to fuck like that and to discriminate against them would be like being racial or whatever. After all, those are just other forms of sexual activity they are 'oriented' towards. If you are going to say that marriage cannot be defined as exclusively between a man and a woman then why should it be defined as being exclusively between two unrelated individuals? You can't.

Under your reasoning, Marcus, the government could never preclude felons from voting, for example. The State is permitted to restrict rights, but it can do so only where it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. There are compelling interests involved in prohibiting polygamy and incest -- interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions, and interests in assuring that any offspring of a marriage may not be burdened by genetic similarity. Those issues don't exist with homosexual unions, since the only reason advanced for limiting such unions boils down to the distaste of a majority of society for those relationships.

[Marcus Bryant]

Under your reasoning, Marcus, the government could never preclude felons from voting, for example.

I have no problem with former felons voting.



The State is permitted to restrict rights, but it can do so only where it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so. There are compelling interests involved in prohibiting polygamy and incest -- interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions, and interests in assuring that any offspring of a marriage may not be burdened by genetic similarity. Those issues don't exist with homosexual unions, since the only reason advanced for limiting such unions boils down to the distaste of a majority of society for those relationships.

What's the compelling interest for banning polygamy? I see nothing but simply it being a matter of "distaste" of a majority of the general population. There is no reason why a state definition of marriage should be limited to 2 individuals at all under your reasoning. None whatsoever.

[FromWayDowntown]

What's the compelling interest for banning polygamy? I see nothing but simply it being a matter of "distaste" for the general population. There is no reason why a state definition of marriage should be limited to 2 individuals at all under your reasoning. None whatsoever.

You might read what I wrote, but I'll repost for clarity, since the interests apply equally to both incestuous relationships and polygamous relationships:


interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions, and interests in assuring that any offspring of a marriage may not be burdened by genetic similarity.

Change the analysis a bit -- if the government can preclude marriage between two men, why can't it preclude marriage between two atheists? Would that be sound public policy? Should we permit the heterosexual, Christian majority to define marriage as an institution between a Christian man and a Christian woman. After all, the general proposition here is that homosexual marriage violates Christian beliefs. If that's true, why doesn't marriage between atheists implicate the same concerns? If you take the position that homosexuality is a behavior, then why doesn't the same position apply to religion, which is also a behavior?

[Marcus Bryant]

interests in protecting individuals from being overwhelmed or coerced into unions

That's just what the "majority" thinks. Those damn Mormonphobes.



Here's one: if the government can preclude marriage between two men, why can't it preclude marriage between two atheists? Would that be sound public policy?


That would infringe upon their right to religious expression. Why stop at 2?




Should we permit the heterosexual, Christian majority to define marriage as an institution between a Christian man and a Christian woman. If you take the position that homosexuality is a behavior, then why doesn't the same position apply to religion, which is also a behavior?

Then a state definition of marriage that includes gay marriage would impose on those whose religious beliefs do not accept that. But no, obviously your desire is to not impose your beliefs upon that group.

[FromWayDowntown]

Why stop at 2?

Because stopping at 2 doesn't limit anyone's right to be married -- it's not discriminatory.


Then a state definition of marriage that includes gay marriage would impose on those whose religious beliefs do not accept that. But no, obviously your desire is to not impose your beliefs upon that majority.

My only desire is to ensure that people are treated fairly, as the Constitution demands. Again, the Constitution is NOT a majoritarian document. It is expressly designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority; to ensure that the political or numerical majority cannot choose to limit the rights of those who are in the political or numerical minority. It seems to me to be a pretty simple concept, but of late, Madisonian thinking seems to be only a trifiling concern for many on the right.

Outright bans on same-sex marriage would certainly seem to violate Equal Protection principles in the same way that an athiest marriage ban would violate Free Exercise principles. In either event, the practice is discriminatory and, I think, unconstitutional.

[Marcus Bryant]

Because stopping at 2 doesn't limit anyone's right to be married -- it's not discriminatory.

Sure it's discriminatory against practitioners of polygamy, a practice for which there is no compelling state interest to ban.


My only desire is to ensure that people are treated fairly, as the Constitution demands.

As is mine.



Again, the Constitution is NOT a majoritarian document. It is expressly designed to protect against the tyranny of the majority; to ensure that the political or numerical majority cannot choose to limit the rights of those who are in the political or numerical minority. It seems to me to be a pretty simple concept, but of late, Madisonian thinking seems to be only a trifiling concern for many on the right.

And most certainly on the left as well, majority or not.



Outright bans on same-sex marriage would certainly seem to violate Equal Protection principles in the same way that an athiest marriage ban would violate Free Exercise principles. In either event, the practice is discriminatory and, I think, unconstitutional.


There's no reason to stop at 2. Also I would say there is no reason why the government should be defining marriage to begin with, no matter what compelling interest some politicians and judges want to come up with in order to interfere with our private lives.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sure it's discriminatory against practitioners of polygamy, a practice for which there is no compelling state interest to ban.

But it's not.

Practioners of polygamy are still permitted to marry. In the polygamy situation, the infirmity to marriage is the fact of one person's already being married. There is no discrimination against the individual; the line is drawn based on the previous exercise of a fundamental right to marry one person.

In the same-sex marriage situation, the analysis is much different: the infirmity to marriage is nothing other than a societal decision that nobody in a specific group can ever exercise that same fundamental right. While a polygamist can marry, a homosexual cannot. That is discriminatory.


And most certainly on the left as well, majority or not.

I abhor any efforts to curtail the civil rights of political or social minorities; I just find more evidence of such efforts on the right. If you want to bring up religion or something like that, I'm game to discuss it and prove my point.


Also I would say there is no reason why the government should be defining marriage to begin with, no matter what compelling interest some politicians and judges want to come up with in order to interfere with our private lives.

Well, as long as governmental benefits are disbursed in light of marital status, the government has to define marriage. If politicians do it in an unconstitutional way, our system of government compels judges to act and strike down the laws. It's a bit of a Catch-22.

[Marcus Bryant]

But it's not.

Practioners of polygamy are still permitted to marry. In the polygamy situation, the infirmity to marriage is the fact of one person's already being married. There is no discrimination against the individual; the line is drawn based on the previous exercise of a fundamental right to marry one person.

Sure it is discriminatory because it limits their definition of marriage for no other reason than the fact that it does not meet the majority's definition of marriage.



In the same-sex marriage situation, the analysis is much different: the infirmity to marriage is nothing other than a societal decision that nobody in a specific group can ever exercise that same fundamental right. While a polygamist can marry, a homosexual cannot. That is discriminatory.

The polygamist cannot practice their definition of marriage legally. That is discriminatory, inasmuch as the homosexual couple cannot practice their definition.

[FromWayDowntown]

The polygamist cannot practice their definition of marriage legally. That is discriminatory, inasmuch as the homosexual couple cannot practice their definition.

But the point is, the polygamist is permitted to marry, just not more than once. The homosexual is not permitted to marry at all. Don't you see a difference there?

[Marcus Bryant]

I abhor any efforts to curtail the civil rights of political or social minorities; I just find more evidence of such efforts on the right. If you want to bring up religion or something like that, I'm game to discuss it and prove my point.

I'd say a good place to start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian." The Constitution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, even those in a given "majority" group.


Well, as long as governmental benefits are disbursed in light of marital status, the government has to define marriage. If politicians do it in an unconstitutional way, our system of government compels judges to act and strike down the laws. It's a bit of a Catch-22.

Sure. Which is another argument for a limited government.

[Marcus Bryant]

But the point is, the polygamist is permitted to marry, just not more than once. The homosexual is not permitted to marry at all. Don't you see a difference there?

No, because that definition of marriage is discriminatory. It is 'half' of a marriage or a 'third' of a marriage or a 'fourth'....

[Spurminator]

I'd even say the Polygamist is free to marry as many times as he/she wants... but they can only receive benefits for one partner. I think that would be more than fair.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'd even say the Polygamist is free to marry as many times as he/she wants... but they can only receive benefits for one partner. I think that would be more than fair.

Nice, but still discriminatory.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd say a good start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian."

Now, be fair. I never advocated for that proposition. I simply asked if that would be a supportable public policy. I was trying to make a point . . . .


The Constitution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, not just those in a given "majority" group.

. . . . and apparently, I did. In this argument, aren't you essentially saying that the Constitution protects the rights of all -- er, other than the rights of homosexuals?

[Marcus Bryant]

. . . . and apparently, I did.

Edited. Please see above.

[FromWayDowntown]

No, because that definition of marriage is discriminatory. It is a 'half' marriage, a 'third', 'fourth', etc...

But it's not -- a polygamist is still permitted to marry, is he not?

Is a homosexual permitted to marry?

[Marcus Bryant]

That's still not his or her definition of "marriage" so it's discriminatory.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's still not his or her definition of "marriage" so it's discriminatory.

But it's not. Discrimination occurs when one person is entitled to do a particular thing, while another person is not entitled to do the same thing, simply by virtue of an identifiable characteristic. In this case, "the thing" is marriage. The polygamist can marry. The homosexual cannot. Discrimination. Q.E.D.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd say a good place to start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian." The Constitution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, even those in a given "majority" group.

But it doesn't permit those in a given "majority" group to unilaterally define what the rights of others will be.

. . . . and again, the Christian marriage thing was a hypothetical to test your position. I, by no means, would ever support a movement to define marriage as an institution only between Christians.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm just wondering.

What exactly is it about "gay marriage" or a "civil union" that scares or upsets people into wanting to ban them?

Is it because you think it will make homosexuality more acceptable?
Is it because you think it will make more people decide they are homosexual?

I'm just curious that is all.

[SpursWoman]

It's not irrelevant to me...that was my observation. Respond or don't.





Nanny nanny poo poo.



Brilliant.

[Marcus Bryant]

But it's not. Discrimination occurs when one person is entitled to do a particular thing, while another person is not entitled to do the same thing, simply by virtue of an identifiable characteristic. In this case, "the thing" is marriage. The polygamist can marry. The homosexual cannot. Discrimination. Q.E.D.

The homosexual can "marry" as well, but according to a definition which they do not agree with, much like the polygamist

[Marcus Bryant]

But it doesn't permit those in a given "majority" group to unilaterally define what the rights of others will be.

Which I agree with, hence my willingness to support the rights of individuals, not the state, to define marriage as they see fit.




. . . . and again, the Christian marriage thing was a hypothetical to test your position. I, by no means, would ever support a movement to define marriage as an institution only between Christians.

Neither would I.

[Marcus Bryant]

Brilliant.

I thought so too. After all, it was just my observation.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, I think if people want to keep marriage defined between a man and a woman, that is fine. I wish the government would simply issue civil uninions to EVERYONE, then marriage can be handled completely by a church. And then if a church wishes to recognize same sex marriage, it can.

Everyone would be equal, and the government would be compeltely out of marriage.

[Marcus Bryant]

What if marriage was simply treated as a private contract and not limited by the government? If a man and a woman wish to agree to a marriage contract created by an institution of faith, that's their choice. If perhaps an insititution of faith waited to create a multiple marriage contract then they could. If a homosexual double, triple, or quadruple wanted to enter into one they could as well.

[FromWayDowntown]

The polygamist has the benefit of his government saying that he can marry the person of his choosing in the first instance. That is a fundamental right and is subject to curtailment only when the State can demonstrate a compelling interest for doing so. As to any secondary marriages -- a secondary right -- the polygamist's right can be curtailed by a reasonable exercise of the police power. If there is discrimination in the second marriage, it is only on the basis of his previous marriage, which is permissible if the limitation is reasonable. The "discrimination" has nothing to do with who the polygamist is -- it has only to do with his self-chosen status. Mostly, though, it doesn't prohibit him from marrying an unmarried person of his choice in the first instance.

The same cannot be said in the context of a homosexual who wishes to marry another homosexual. In the first instance, the argument would deny that homosexual the right to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance, only by virtue of his choice of who he wishes to marry.

[FromWayDowntown]

What if marriage was simply treated as a private contract?

That would be a solution. But if governmental benefits are doled out based on whether or not someone is married, all such contracts would have to be recognized by the government.

[Marcus Bryant]

The polygamist has the benefit of his government saying that he can marry the person of his choosing in the first instance.

He or she cannot marry the persons of his or her choosing.



That is a fundamental right and is subject to curtailment only when the State can demonstrate a compelling interest for doing so.

And there is no compelling interest for the polygamist's rights being curtailed besides the fact that the Christian majority say so.



As to any secondary marriages -- a secondary right -- the polygamist's right can be curtailed by a reasonable exercise of the police power.

It's not a secondary right. It's a fundamental right of the polygamist to marry as he or she sees fit.



If there is discrimination in the second marriage, it is only on the basis of his previous marriage, which is permissible if the limitation is reasonable. The "discrimination" has nothing to do with who the polygamist is -- it has only to do with his self-chosen status. Mostly, though, it doesn't prohibit him from marrying an unmarried person of his choice in the first instance.

He or she is forced into a choice of one individual to marry, which violates their fundamental right to marry as they see fit, as well as their right to religious expression.




The same cannot be said in the context of a homosexual who wishes to marry another homosexual. In the first instance, the argument would deny that homosexual the right to exercise a fundamental right in the first instance, only by virtue of his choice of who he wishes to marry.

The homosexual can marry someone, but the state puts limits on that just like it circumscribes the rights of the polygamist and everyone else for that matter to define marriage as they see fit.

[Marcus Bryant]

That would be a solution.

That's the direction I believe we should be heading.

[JoeChalupa]

What if the tax code is simplified by Bush and there is no "Married" tax rate?

And with the divorce rate over 50%..is the sanctity of marriage really the issue?

[SpursWoman]

I thought so too. After all, it was just my observation.


I'm well aware. I recognized the MO.

[Marcus Bryant]

oh ok.

[Drachen]

I'm just wondering.

What exactly is it about "gay marriage" or a "civil union" that scares or upsets people into wanting to ban them?

Is it because you think it will make homosexuality more acceptable?
Is it because you think it will make more people decide they are homosexual?

I'm just curious that is all.


See the conversation about brussel sprouts a couple of pages ago...

[JoeChalupa]

But I hate brussel sprouts!

[Drachen]

But I hate brussel sprouts!

So do I, the fact that a lot of people dont like them, kind of formed the base of the analogy.

[JoeChalupa]

But they are welcome on my plate. I just won't eat them.

[SpursWoman]

But they are welcome on my plate. I just won't eat them.


And yet my son has an enormous hissy-fit until I entirely remove the offending vegetable from his plate.


I try to teach him not to react that way, because it upsets everyone else around the table...but he is quite adament about expressing his displeasure and couldn't care less if we're happy about it or not.

Even the "there are people starving in China" logic fails. :fro

[Hook Dem]

:lol :lol Motherhood ain't easy is it SW?

[SpursWoman]

No, it isn't....

[FromWayDowntown]

Nice, Joe.

[Marcus Bryant]

So we all should be treated like children and told what to think by 'mother' government. Makes perfect sense.

[MannyIsGod]

You know Marcus, you can't play both sides of the damn plate. You say you hate the government thinking for you, but you also supported a cantidate who when he gets his way will have gone a long way to having government make decisions for you and not allow you to be part of decision making process.

The fact is that you find this kind of stuff easier to support because they follow your beliefs.

[Marcus Bryant]

You supported a candidate with the same position on "gay marriage" as the candidate I voted for. Get a clue.

Of the two major candidates I voted for the one who most closely matched what I was looking for: an aggressive anti-terrorism policy, a chance at restructuring the major entitlement programs and at least delaying the eventual nationalization of our economy, and pissing off clueless little wannabe trendy fuckers like you. Bush is sure to give me the first of my list. The second I am skeptical of, but it seems like he is getting started on that and the last apparently has already been accomplished. The man knows how to deliver.

Of course neither candidate is going to provide every voter with what they precisely believe. That's the nature of politics.

[SpursWoman]

So we all should be treated like children and told what to think by 'mother' government. Makes perfect sense.

No, that's actually what he does. It would make my life considerably less stressful if McDonald's made a McGreenBean.


And this whole disagreement I have with the "other side of the coin" is that our definition of what makes someone a homosexual...whether an inherent trait or a learned behavior...is obviously different. A question that I had asked which you had answered to begin with that made the rest of scathing tirade completely unnecessary.

I feel that it's an inherent trait, which would put it in the same category as race in a sense. You feel it's a chosen behavior, which would not. That was enough, I didn't need help connecting the dots.

I have never tried to inflict my own beliefs on anyone except for my children, in which case it's not so much as *inflict* but to teach them to be open-minded and tolerant of people that are different than them, for whatever reason. Excuse me if I don't think that's a bad way to be.

[Marcus Bryant]

I believe homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.

[SpursWoman]

I believe homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.




This is not race, it is behavior.


Then I misunderstood? :wtf

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes.

[SpursWoman]

Judging from the response I got I really don't think I did.

[Marcus Bryant]

I think my response was rather appropriate.

[scott]

No. Which is why they should be free to enjoy those nasty things if they like, so long as I am not required to assist it directly. Actually, to extend it, the 10% that like brussel sprouts shouldn't be forced to pay for what the other 90% like to do as I, like a few other sane individuals, don't believe that the Leviathan should be involved in deciding what we can and cannot eat, as well as forcing us into recognizing and assisting the consumption of foods which we find undesirable.


The 10% already pays for the 90%, but apparently that is okay as long as we make sure that then 90% doesn't have to pay for the 10%.

That wouldn't be like discrimination or anything.

[SpursWoman]

Ironically, I really have no strong opinion on this subject...mainly because I don't feel like anything is being forced on me, that I'm being forced to accept anything. And since I have no desire to enter into a homosexual relationship it doesn't affect me on the other side of the argument either. I'm sure there were an awful lot of folks pissed off and feeling like their "rights" were being infringed with desegregation laws, too...and I honestly don't see the difference between the two. To each their own, I guess.

[scott]

I'd say a good place to start is your desire to see the government impose a definition of marriage upon someone who is a "Christian." The Constitution protects the rights of all the last time I checked, even those in a given "majority" group.

And here again is the classic Marcus Bryant logic.

He has a problem with people "imposing" some non-Christian definition of marriage on Christians, but no problem with protecting a Christian definition that applies to and is accepted by non-Christians.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you would re-read the thread you will notice that I oppose any state definition of marriage. You would also notice that I have no problem with "gay marriage" just like I have no problem with any other bastardized form of marriage, provided it is a private contract and again, not a state imposed definition.

So the next time you want to criticize my argument at least have the courtesy (or should I say the honesty) to represent it correctly.

Until then, suck a fat one you fat little nosy jealous fucker.

Good day.

-MB

[scott]

If you would re-read the thread you will notice that I oppose any state definition of marriage. You would also notice that I have no problem with "gay marriage" just like I have no problem with any other bastardized form of marriage, provided it is a private contract and again, not a state imposed definition.

So the next time you want to criticize my argument at least have the courtesy (or should I say the honesty) to represent it correctly.

Until then, suck a fat one you fat little nosy jealous fucker.

Good day.

-MB

I've taken the courtesy to read your argument several times in the countless threads on this subject, and each time it is highlighted by the following:


Also if we are going to change the definition of marriage based upon how people fuck then I am for plural marriages and every other possible combination.

There has only been 1 group pushing for changing the definition of marriage, and that is the Anti-Gay Marriage group. I've yet to see your criticizism of the state definition proposed by the Anti-Gay Marriage crowd, only a continued stance against the non-existent definition proposed by the Pro-Gay Marriage crowd.

Actually I take that back, on page 4 (which I admittedly skipped over for the most part) you allude to the fact that the bans do not solve, but only add to the problem. But then you seemingly turn around and support the bans as a way to circumvent the judicial process. But perhaps straight marriages should also be banned to prevent a Gay business owner from having to provide health insurance for his straight employee's spouses just because he wants to provide insurance for his gay employees.

Why is the forced acceptance of straight marriage (the status quo) any less worse than the forced acceptance of gay marriage? You seem willing to protect that status quo ahead of accepting any challenges to it.

Thanks again for the childish insults. I always get a kick out of knowing I can count on your tendency to make personal attacks on someone you've never met.

[MannyIsGod]

If gay marriage were legal in TX, I'd dump Jess and propose to Scott