Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol? by chrisisall

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

But, Chris, did you ever notice that every single time they DO show a black president, there's something really horrible going on with the U.S.?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:42 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But, Chris, did you ever notice that every single time they DO show a black president, there's something really horrible going on with the U.S.?

Like now?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:53 AM

Eeeeeeaaassssyyyy, hotshot - the dude's not even in office yet!

At least give him a CHANCE to destroy the country! Doesn't he deserve a chance?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
But, Chris, did you ever notice that every single time they DO show a black president, there's something really horrible going on with the U.S.?

OMG Kwicko! There was the black President in "The 5th Element"...Ultimate evil had returned to bring permanent darkness to the Galaxy, or maybe even Universe!

Then asteroids!

BYW, I sat next to Morgan Freeman back in the 90's on a flight from Memphis to Chicago. His family got a row behind us and he was the odd man out. He eventualy figured out a very gracious way of telling me to shut up so he could read.

Trolls against McCain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If slaves were allowed to own slaves one could argue that slavery is 'non-discriminatory'. That is essentially the argument that Hero is making, which is simply fallacious.

As for this ...
"... the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'."
... there is a gap in here which makes gay marriages possible by overly defining what is a marriage - it has to do with the husband and wife conditional placed on the definition. So the law in its text is faulty. Well, that's what happens when you become overly legalistic and throw too many words onto the pile. You need to use just enough words to get the job done, and then STOP.

Further, it IS possible to have laws which are unconstitutional and which can be nullified. So the fact that there is a law, no matter how badly written, isn't enough to say something is constitutional.

Finally, rights are only given to human beings. By denying full rights to gay people they are being defined as less than human.

One day - and I hope that it's in an Obama Supreme Court - this will come up for a court challenge.

***************************************************************

And I noticed that Rap, in his straining to draw equivalency between the one "man and one woman" statements and plural marriages and bestiality failed to mention anything about legal age of consent. Got something going there you care to share, Rap ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:28 AM

WHODIED

But wait-- here's a bit of good news for the haters! (Biblical, legal or flag-waving)

Even though you WILL eventually lose this battle, your children or grandchildren won't have to live in Tolerance-Land forever. Someday, they'll get to argue that marriage is only for Humans. Any (deviant) humans that (*shudder*) want to join with an alien will have to settle for a 'civil union'.

Of course by then, your sanctimonious little spawn will naturally included gay marriage in their definition (as long as it's humans, dammit!).

Because ultimately, that's what social conservatives do: rigorously defend traditions that their ancestors fought against, (and lost,) while vigorously fighting to prevent social progresses that their descendants will eventually, doggedly, defend.

--WhoDied

_______________________

Like any of that's enough
to fight the dark master.

...bator.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:47 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

I oppose gay marriage on many grounds...legal, moral, political, ethical, survival (of the species).

Survival? Honestly? You seem like a smart fella, Hero. Do you really think that gays getting married endangers the species? The world is over-populated as is. How do a relatively small group of people marrying someone of the same sex endanger the species? Can you honestly say you think procreation will stop?

Seems to me, with the problems inherent to over-population, that having a bunch of people not have kids would be a good thing.

And if you really think it's such a threat, why aren't you speaking out against stright couples who marry, but choose not to have children?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:03 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You seem like a smart fella, Hero."

Well, I hope he replies, but I'd like to chime in with an observation. Hero gets pretty carried away with rhetoric. I can almost see him waving his arms around and declaiming. I don't know if it actually works for him anywhere else, but it doesn't work here and he seems to not 'get' that, even after repeatedly being brought up short.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hero:

How would you feel if Civil Unions had MORE government sponsored and/or recognized benefits than "traditional" Church marriages? Would you feel discriminated against then?

As seperate and distinct entities based upon contract law...there is nothing stopping a married couple from entering into a Civil Union and thus enjoying the same benefits. The law would have to be crafted to prevent unworkable arrangements...such as married folks entering into civil unions with folks other then spouses or any kind of multiple partner situation.
Quote:

Let's say we give same-sex Civil Unions the exclusive rights on adoption, and all church marriages are exempt - since, as 'Rap says, they're only real marriages if children result, so no adoption is necessary.

The your comparing apples to steak. Adoption is also a legal concept grounded in traditional common law legal precedents. If such a stupid law were to pass, it would be Consitutionally valid, but that does not make it right. The standard for adoption should be the best interests of the child, not the social arrangment of the parents.

Argue the adoption issue all you want, I for one have no problem with gay folks adopting kids. A loving home is a loving home and damn sight better then "the system". The advantage of Civil Unions for gay couples would include parental rights that are rarely seen outside marriage.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Malbad kinda beat me to the punch, but imma say it anyways.

You got "The Law" and you got "What's Right"...

And very, very fucking rarely do those two things coincide.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:03 PM

Quote:
The your comparing apples to steak. Adoption is also a legal concept grounded in traditional common law legal precedents. If such a stupid law were to pass, it would be Consitutionally valid, but that does not make it right. The standard for adoption should be the best interests of the child, not the social arrangment of the parents.

Argue the adoption issue all you want, I for one have no problem with gay folks adopting kids. A loving home is a loving home and damn sight better then "the system". The advantage of Civil Unions for gay couples would include parental rights that are rarely seen outside marriage.

Yes, it was indeed an over-the-top hypothetical; I brought it up to illustrate the point that the group getting the "separate but equal" (more like "lesser-than-equal") treatment would indeed have a right to howl about their treatment and lesser legal status.

It's good to see that you are in favor of legal adoptions by loving parents of any stripe, though. On that we can agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

But isn't this missing the conflict: that heterosexuality and homosexuality are viewed as being distinct - in nature and value. It's not a discrimination of wording but a discrimination of.. spirit, if you will. Homosexual relationships, by being barred from marriage, are being distinguished from heterosexual ones.

Thats the counter argument.

Many people don't feel that way, thats the political question, one answered in nearly every state as being no distinction.

I'm confused. No distinction? Why then ban gays from marriage?

Quote:

The legal question is that there is no distinction, marriage is between a man and woman.

So there can be no inclusive way of amending that? If it is worded that way, truly, I find it to be wrongly so. Much like any law that in the past criminalized homosexual activity.

And should that REALLY be up to the people to decide, when the values upon which they decide are not necessarily rational?

Quote:

I oppose gay marriage on many grounds...legal, moral, political, ethical, survival (of the species).

Legal - well, that's the entire subject of the debate, so it's like saying "I'm against it, because I'm against it." Many people want the legal situationt to change because it creates a moral and ethical distinction between heterosexual relationships and homosexual ones.

Moral - I am hesitant to ask why. You do not say religious, you say moral. What is immoral about gay marriage or homosexuality that is not defined to be so by religion?

Political - what political consequences do you fear in connection to gay marriage?

Ethical - I point toward the moral aspect of it. What about it is unethical? I'm honestly confused.

Survival - Uh. Do you think homosexuality will spread if gay marriage were legal? Do you think less babies will be born? How do you see it affecting the fate of our species?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

It's good to see that you are in favor of legal adoptions by loving parents of any stripe, though. On that we can agree.

I foster puppies for adoption to loving homes, which are kind of like kids with fur, so I appreciate a good home. I encourage Civil Unions in part because it will make gay households more stable for adopted children.

Would limiting adoption to same sex couples be discrimination? Yes. But just because there is discrimination, it does not make something unconstitutional.

But your talking about limiting a right or denying it to another. In the case of marriage, there is no such limitation or denial. Gay and straight people have EXACTLY the same rights and restrictions on marriage. Both can marry folks of the opposite sex and neither can marry folks of the same sex. There is no basis for a discrimination claim.

If the law allowed lesbian marriages but not male-male marriages, then there would be unconstitutional discrimination, not because they are gay, but on the basis of gender.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Gay and straight people have EXACTLY the same rights and restrictions on marriage."

You must have missed my earlier post b/c you failed to address it.

The argument is fallacious on its face. To say that just b/c a law applies equally to all it's not discriminatory - is wrong. One example: slavery. If there were laws allowing slaves to own slaves I could make the same argument. See - the law doesn't discriminate between slaves and non-slaves for the purpose of owning slaves, and that makes it non-discriminatory. I hope you can see the issue.

The same argument applies to banning same-sex marriages. The law itself is discriminatory, not its application.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:43 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

In many peoples minds...

Gays marrying is the equivilant of a brother and sister getting married, or little Johnny "marrying" the family dog.

I doubt that idea is going to change any time soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But that's a religious view.

The Consitutional mandate of 'equal protection under the law' needs to hold sway.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So there can be no inclusive way of amending that? If it is worded that way, truly, I find it to be wrongly so. Much like any law that in the past criminalized homosexual activity.

Your example does not work. In the past homosexual activity was criminal. What changed was not the definition of sodomy, but rather the definition of criminal behaivor, which has always been subject to revision because of the changing nature of society (for example, computer fraud was not a crime in 16th Century Britain, fishing from horseback was a crime in 19th Century Pennsylvania).

Can the definition of marriage be amended? Yes. That is the role of the legislature. But in that sense this becomes a political question, not a legal one. Legally the definition is well settled and absent Constitutional conflict, there is no basis for revision.

Quote:

And should that REALLY be up to the people to decide, when the values upon which they decide are not necessarily rational?

They are rational. For most folks is a religeous issue...just like polygamy and pedophilia (and murder and theft and right and wrong). God says "man and woman". Thats rational because God also says "pay taxes" and "love thy neighbor". Sure God also said "don't eat pork" but faith is subject to revision, just like marriage is.

And if you want a rational Godless argument...then polygamy and pedophilia both lend themselves to the issue. The same argument in favor of gay marriage applies to polygamy and consential underage marriages as well (and PN... we've seen you looking fondly at your neighbor's dog).

And should any of that REALLY be up to the people? Thats the same question asked by King George, my friend...its kind of what we do here. Our whole way of life is based on the idea that people can decide for themselves what should be REALLY up to the people.

Quote:

Moral - I am hesitant to ask why. You do not say religious, you say moral. What is immoral about gay marriage or homosexuality that is not defined to be so by religion?

What is immoral about ANYTHING that is not defined to be so by religion. We start with 'thou shalt not kill' and move all the way down to 'thou shalt not park on the right side of the street during snow emergencies'. Along the way we generally decided bacon was ok and being gay was a choice and not some satanic compulsion.

Even if you are choosing to reject faith and still live a good life...religion still helps you figure out that "a good life" does not include child rape and having improper tags on your car.

Quote:

Political - what political consequences do you fear in connection to gay marriage?

In this case I oppose gay rights because, like all such interest groupls, they can suddenly become benefits or additional protections not available to non members.

Quote:

Ethical - I point toward the moral aspect of it. What about it is unethical? I'm honestly confused.

It would not be ethical for me to support something to which I am morally opposed.

Quote:

Survival - Uh. Do you think homosexuality will spread if gay marriage were legal? Do you think less babies will be born? How do you see it affecting the fate of our species?

Boy meets girl...sex...babies.
Boy meets boy...sex...no babies.

Sure, girl meets girl...turkey baster...babies, but not so many as when 98% are doing it the old fashioned way.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The argument is fallacious on its face. To say that just b/c a law applies equally to all it's not discriminatory - is wrong. One example: slavery. If there were laws allowing slaves to own slaves I could make the same argument. See - the law doesn't discriminate between slaves and non-slaves for the purpose of owning slaves, and that makes it non-discriminatory. I hope you can see the issue.

Your confusing the political and legal arguments.

Slavery was wrong...but entirely legal and constitutional (until they amended it).

Gay marriage bans are generally legal and constitutional (it varies by state). The question of rightness or wrongness is a political question which is ultimately decided by a moral judgement.

Just because you can point to something like slavery, which was changed because it was wrong, does not mean that this is wrong or that it should be changed. What about the right to own property...thats right and constitutional. Does that make my argument any stronger? No. Every issue needs to be decided on its own merits.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I was pointing out that the arguments are the same, not the issues.

The overarching standard to apply is 'equal protection under the law'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:44 AM

Hero, You're a lawyer and it's probably quite easy to out-lawyer most of us. I could probably run circles around you if we were speaking of substance abuse counseling.

Don't you ever feel like the lawyer who is defending the KKK? Instead of the Southern Poverty Law Center? Or less extreme, do you feel like the lawyer who was trying to keep inter racial couples from marrying in the 1960's?

It's fine for you to find solace and authority in the decision of the law and courts...or do you think that there is a man, called God, in heavan, who believes that gay people are not quite deserving a full set of human rights. Lesser human beings? Or maybe humans who made bad choices and need to be punished with the denial of a full set of human rights.

Gays will be marrying nationwide in 10 years tops Hero...so it matters very little what the courts think now. I would have wanted to be dilligent in making sure I was on the side of logical fairness, instead of religious hocus pocus which is fading through time for a good reason.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:52 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Gays will be marrying nationwide in 10 years tops Hero...so it matters very little what the courts think now. I would have wanted to be dilligent in making sure I was on the side of logical fairness, instead of religious hocus pocus which is fading through time for a good reason."

Gays cannot "marry" as defined by any religious instituition. Nor can the government force the churches to marry them.

They may get civil unions...but at this point? Who knows. Gays may have pushed it too much.

People are sick of being compared to (for example) the KKK, just because they don't believe 2 men or 2 women should have the "right" to "marry:

Polygamy, pediophilia, bestiality ect...you can make the same arguments for them that are being made for gay marriage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
In many peoples minds...

Gays marrying is the equivilant of a brother and sister getting married, or little Johnny "marrying" the family dog.

I doubt that idea is going to change any time soon.

Thems are some extremely fragile minds right there...See...I can actualy distinguish humans from animals. I learnt me that in fancy pants college boy school.

Although church going people in the south have been marrying thier cousins and brothers since time and memorial, I guess it doesn't matter because they all go to church together and it's the Preacher who is marrying his niece...who happens to be the daughter of his brother, the Sherriff.

Yet they oppose gay marriage. The Lord must think incest is okee dokee.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:59 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Debase the South all you want. Crack redneck jokes, and the like, as much as will make you feel better.

Doesnt change things.

However, it does make you look like a spoiled brat, who just got through Sociology 101 on Daddys dime.

Grow up.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:08 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You seem like a smart fella, Hero."

Well, I hope he replies,

Well, I guess we're both dissapointed, then.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Debase the South all you want. Crack redneck jokes, and the like, as much as will make you feel better. Doesnt change things. However, it does make you look like a spoiled brat, who just got through Sociology 101 on Daddys dime.Grow up.

Oooops! Let me guess...you're from the south.

I thought you were joking! I'm sorry Wulf.

Anyway...no more than ten years, gay marriage will be legal, the last ballot measure passed by 20 points, 8 passed by 4. As soon as the voodoo chicken leg wavers realize they've become bigots everything will be ok. The Liberal press is saying 5-10 years. The sexist christian redneck press says they'll always want to marry donkeys and God loves it when we hate and oppress gays. Cuz it's fun...cousin

Oh yeah! I'm 44 year old with a degree in Anthropology, got a scholarship, just like Obama.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
Don't you ever feel like the lawyer who is defending the KKK? Instead of the Southern Poverty Law Center? Or less extreme, do you feel like the lawyer who was trying to keep inter racial couples from marrying in the 1960's?

Nope. Don't feel that way at all. I don't support the political positions of the KKK, although I believe they have a legal right to peaceful association and speech. I support interacial marriages and likewise support Constitutional bans on race based discrimination (and I note the interacial marriage is as much a white issue as it is black or hispanic or asian).

I support same sex couples rights to have relationships, sex, children, etc. I do not support the redefinition of marriage on either political or legal grounds.

Quote:

Gays will be marrying nationwide in 10 years tops Hero...so it matters very little what the courts think now.

Perhaps. Such an occurrance would require either all fifty states to undergo drastic changes to their laws, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed or thrown out as unconstitutional, or a landmark decision by a conservative/moderate Supreme Court.

Any or all of those things make little difference. Much like Roe v. Wade the fight continues regardless of whether we're the ones fighting to keep things the way they are or to change them to what we think they should be. (Thats a bad example, since unlike most Pro Lifers I read Roe v. Wade and find it to be a pro life decision).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Can the definition of marriage be amended? Yes. That is the role of the legislature. But in that sense this becomes a political question, not a legal one. Legally the definition is well settled and absent Constitutional conflict, there is no basis for revision.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Quote:

And should that REALLY be up to the people to decide, when the values upon which they decide are not necessarily rational?

They are rational. For most folks is a religeous issue...just like polygamy and pedophilia (and murder and theft and right and wrong). God says "man and woman". Thats rational because God also says "pay taxes" and "love thy neighbor". Sure God also said "don't eat pork" but faith is subject to revision, just like marriage is.

Polygamy and pedophilia? Where in the Bible is either condemned?? They married them REALLY young back in the day and I believe I recall a good many instances of polygamy in the most important figures of the old testament.

(Just an aside-rant: So why is it, I wonder, that people find it so easy to scrap the pork rules or ignore what Jesus says about wealth and keep a few vague mentions about certain sexual acts? In particular if those actrs are based on love? I find it so hypocritical, aaaaaaargh!)

Quote:

And if you want a rational Godless argument...

In the interest of separating church and state, yes I do, thank you.

Quote:
then polygamy and pedophilia both lend themselves to the issue. The same argument in favor of gay marriage applies to polygamy and consential underage marriages as well (and PN... we've seen you looking fondly at your neighbor's dog).

But very good, logical arguments can be made against consentual underage marriage and bestiality. (For all I care, polygamy is up for grabs the same way gay marriage is.)

There aren't really logical, "godless" arguments to be made against gay marriage.

You can't just pretend that homosexuality and exploitative relationships are one and the same. They are not and it can be logically proven.

Quote:

And should any of that REALLY be up to the people? Thats the same question asked by King George, my friend...its kind of what we do here. Our whole way of life is based on the idea that people can decide for themselves what should be REALLY up to the people.

Oh, I guess that's why minorities are always treated fairly by the law when it's up to the majory..

Quote:

Quote:

Moral - I am hesitant to ask why. You do not say religious, you say moral. What is immoral about gay marriage or homosexuality that is not defined to be so by religion?

What is immoral about ANYTHING that is not defined to be so by religion.

Do you really think that the entirety of human morality is based on the Bible? That empathy and fairness are not values that can be felt and justified without religion?

Quote:

Along the way we generally decided bacon was ok and being gay was a choice and not some satanic compulsion.

I don't think the gays decided that being gay was a choice, exactly.

Why do you think it is?

Quote:

Even if you are choosing to reject faith and still live a good life...religion still helps you figure out that "a good life" does not include child rape and having improper tags on your car.

Nah, actually religion is not helping me figure that out, no. Empathy does. Reason does.

I never "rejected" faith, as I never had it. I have respect for people who practice what they preach, religion-wise, but I feel it's quite arrogant of you to claim that my morality is the product of your faith. Or that it's absence would lead people to rape children or improperly tag their car because they wouldn't be able to consider it wrong.

Also, I consider many of the morality displayed in the Bible really horrifyingly cruel. Much of the old testament I wouldn't want my children to read until they are old enough to understand it on the same level they can understand horror movies.

Quote:

Quote:

Political - what political consequences do you fear in connection to gay marriage?

In this case I oppose gay rights because, like all such interest groupls, they can suddenly become benefits or additional protections not available to non members.

So you oppose gay marriage because they MIGHT ask for something more when they get it? And what extra-benefits would they want?

Quote:

Quote:

Ethical - I point toward the moral aspect of it. What about it is unethical? I'm honestly confused.

It would not be ethical for me to support something to which I am morally opposed.

Is it unethical for you to separate church-based morality and state-based practice?

As in, if you can't translate your religious morality into an unreligious, universally applicable value (such as, do not steal = stealing is a violation of property and harms general safety and prosperity), you shouldn't try to apply it to everyone by legal means?

Quote:

Quote:

Survival - Uh. Do you think homosexuality will spread if gay marriage were legal? Do you think less babies will be born? How do you see it affecting the fate of our species?

Boy meets girl...sex...babies.
Boy meets boy...sex...no babies.

Sure, girl meets girl...turkey baster...babies, but not so many as when 98% are doing it the old fashioned way.

Do you think the people who are gay now will turn heterosexual if you deny them gay marriage? Do you think the people heterosexual now will turn homosexual if gay marriage is legal?

Do you think heterosexual couples are feeling themselves stopped from having children by married gays?

Why would the numbers change at all? Can you tell me, specifically, how this would be directly related?

Gays will be gays, heteros will be heteros, marriage or not.

If you are worried about population, speak to the already existing heterosexual couples, I figure. I'm just really confused by this point. It doesn't seem logical at all. What do you mean?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
In many peoples minds...

Gays marrying is the equivilant of a brother and sister getting married, or little Johnny "marrying" the family dog.

I doubt that idea is going to change any time soon.

Yes, and in many peoples' minds, Barack Obama is a Muslim. The fact that many, many people are simpering fucking morons doesn't make their idiotic views "right".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I support same sex couples rights to have relationships, sex, children, etc. I do not support the redefinition of marriage on either political or legal grounds.

See...you are the only one against gay marriage to come close to what the whole shabang is for gays. It's not getting married thats the issue...it's people you don't know, or like, telling them what they can, and cannot do. Do you feel good running down your list of things they can and cannot do like you were some concentration camp guard?

Being homosexual isn't illegal. Being heterosexual isn't illegal.

Anti gay marriage folks can't say "it's because God doesn't like it", and they can't say "picturing gay people doing it makes me uncomfortable"

So they have found this "institution of marriage" bit, and have lawyers argue it and come up with a million analogies supporting how homosexuals are different from heterosexuals.

They're not different because of how they have sex, they're different because heterosexuals have to look at them walking the streets and feel uncomfotable explaining it to thier kids...who would'nt care if they knew anyway.

This whole mess begins and ends inside the heads of anti gay marriage people hanging on to the trailing end of sociological evolution.

Lawyers were able to get OJ off. Lawyers should never be burdoned to tell us right from wrong, it's not thier job. Just wether or not they won. And what kind of shady religion has created so many enemies that they need a gaggle of lawyers? Mormons. Tax evasion and bigotry. Nice religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Gays cannot "marry" as defined by any religious instituition."
Not true - there are religious institutions that perform gay marriages.

"Polygamy, pediophilia, bestiality ect...you can make the same arguments for them that are being made for gay marriage."
Not particularly. Voluntary choice is missing from pedophilia and bestiality. It MAY be missing from polygamy if the adult has been brought up knowing only one way of life. As for incest, there may be genetic reasons to not allow it, but as far as I now there hasn't been any studies on that specifically; though there have been studies on very small, closed communities like the Amish that have high prevalence of genetic diseases.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:28 AM

Quote:

Polygamy, pediophilia, bestiality ect...you can make the same arguments for them that are being made for gay marriage.

Except that you can't. Polygamy, maybe, but the others, not so much. A marriage requires two consenting adult humans.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:30 AM

STORYMARK

Still waiting for a response here, Hero....

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:31 AM

Quote:

Yet they oppose gay marriage. The Lord must think incest is okee dokee.

Actually, their bible is lousy with incest. Hell, if you go by the "literal word", there absolutely HAD to be incest. That's why rednecks are okay with it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:35 AM

Quote:

(Just an aside-rant: So why is it, I wonder, that people find it so easy to scrap the pork rules or ignore what Jesus says about wealth and keep a few vague mentions about certain sexual acts? In particular if those actrs are based on love? I find it so hypocritical, aaaaaaargh!)

Same reason they're totally willing to cherry-pick their beliefs, what they'll follow from the Old Testament and the New, and what they'll throw aside as "quaint". It's because, at the heart of it, all of them are hypocrites.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:40 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Pretty much. The religion of Christ - one based on following his teachings - is extremely inconvenient.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

(Just an aside-rant: So why is it, I wonder, that people find it so easy to scrap the pork rules or ignore what Jesus says about wealth and keep a few vague mentions about certain sexual acts? In particular if those actrs are based on love? I find it so hypocritical, aaaaaaargh!)

Same reason they're totally willing to cherry-pick their beliefs, what they'll follow from the Old Testament and the New, and what they'll throw aside as "quaint". It's because, at the heart of it, all of them are hypocrites.

You see, I don't think they are, not... in a malicious sense and certainly not all of them. Many Christians are great people who do not freak me out but who it is a pleasure to know.

I'm sure there are those Christians who feel the discrepancy of messages that can go on there. Inclusion yet exclusion, the discarding of some rules over others, etc.

There has historically often been an oppressive element to Christianity, but at the same time there have always been reform movements. Adjustments within the faith have happened. They usually did when people used their minds to question both the text and their religious authority, how they matched up and how they corresponded with the realities of their lives.

I think Christianity is in as much cultural confusion as the rest of the planet. Fear is probably at the root of that as much as it is anywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

" Many Christians are great people who do not freak me out but who it is a pleasure to know."

I have met 3 people in the RW and one one-line whose religion I thought enhanced and informed their being - they were awesome. The rest of the religious people I have met (and there are many in the US) have been narrow-minded, self-congratulatory rationalizers.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
(Just an aside-rant: So why is it, I wonder, that people find it so easy to scrap the pork rules...and keep a few vague mentions about certain sexual acts?

Good question...show of hands...who prefers pork ribs to sodomy?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Still waiting for a response here, Hero....

To what?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
(Just an aside-rant: So why is it, I wonder, that people find it so easy to scrap the pork rules...and keep a few vague mentions about certain sexual acts?

Good question...show of hands...who prefers pork ribs to sodomy?

H

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHHHH!!!

Good one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
(Just an aside-rant: So why is it, I wonder, that people find it so easy to scrap the pork rules...and keep a few vague mentions about certain sexual acts?

Good question...show of hands...who prefers pork ribs to sodomy?

H

There is a bit more to sex than "sodomy". Kissing and pretty much everything that heterosexual couples do, is what homosexual couples do.

Pork ribs vs. kissing someone you love... show of hands?

And why not scrap both rules? Was there a quota?

I'd have more of a sense of humor about this if I had ever seen someone give a serious and sensible response.

(ETA - PS: I had hoped you would also have a response to the other things we were discussing. Later?

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:16 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You still haven't explained HOW it "dilutes" or "cheapens" what marriage is. Hell, you haven't rationally explained what marriage really is in the first place. And hetero couples are doing a bang-up job of ruining the word and the rite already, what with the fact that a minimum of HALF of all traditional marriages in this country fail.

As I said, words mean things, and if you start calling same sex unions 'marriages', you might as well start calling your brother your 'sister', and calling a chair a 'table'.

Quote:

"No one is denying anyone's right here [except that you are], nor is anyone keeping 2 people a part[sic] [except that you are]..."

Mike

No one's rights are being denied, no one is being kept apart. Your simplistic utterance that they are is flat out wrong.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
As I said, words mean things, and if you start calling same sex unions 'marriages', you might as well start calling your brother your 'sister', and calling a chair a 'table'.

You may as well call people who are gay homosexua-- oh, wait a second.

Dammit! Words CAN change their meaning??

I'm pretty dang sure in many cultures the word "citizen" used to mean "a man", too.

Amendment to such meanings is not as impossible as you think.

To most people marriage means committment, family, love and an adult, consentual contract.
Between who this takes place should be a great deal less important to what marriage means. Change those other things, THEN you start diluting the word.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2008 3:01 AM