Marriage Equality - DawgTalkers.net

At least we haven't gone to toaster, animal, or children marriage arguments. I say this is progress!

Tulsa, I understand completely about the state's decision. What if the state is preventing two consenting adults the right to marry?

If the people of that state have voted then that state has made their choice. Everyone has a vote. Not everyone will be happy with the end result, but the choice is made.

What about states that enforced segregation before it was deemed illegal? Were they in the right?

I will never get the argument against gay marriage. If it's against your religious beliefs, well it's a good thing we have separation of church and state. If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage, maybe we should just outlaw divorce. When half of marriages end in divorce, I'd say the sanctity of marriage is nonexistent.

Two people, regardless of their gender, doesn't affect me in any way. If it doesn't infringe upon my rights, infringe upon other people's rights or hurt anyone, I don't care.

Which states would those be?

There were many states across The United States which had Jim Crowe laws.

And that's one of the reasons we have the Supreme Court, to overturn unjust laws.

Would you argue that current laws banning gay marriage are unjust?

Are you trying to equate Jim Crow laws to marriage laws?

Yes. Both law(s) have either eliminated marriage as an option for consenting adults or created a separate but equal institution through civil unions.

Edit: I mean have created separate but equal institutions.

Seems like they they're trying to help the opponents, mostly religious vs. the proponents, mostly those without religious conviction find common ground where everyone could move on freely within their lives while enjoying the benefits deserved by both factions. Not a perfect solution in everyone's eyes I suppose, but a solution non the less.

I think my favorite comedian, unfortunately deceased, Richard Jeni said it best, "I think they ought to have the same right to lose half their stuff just like everyone else!"

With the divorce rate above 50%, why anyone would want to sign up for marriage who are offered a safer, more stable alternative is beyond me. Those who protest an advantage are protesting simply to be protesting. As they say though, you can't fix stupid.

I voted no.

Although I completely agree that they should be able to have a civil union that is recognized by the government with all the rights and privileges of a marriage.

I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a man and woman.

Part of me would like religious institutions to use a new word to express the bond.

But gay rights folks would probably have a hissy fit and demand that their "marriage" be recognized as the new word.

I like gay people for the most part and count a gay male couple as close friends. They understand my position but they really want society to recognize their relationship as just as sacred as a marriage and I just don't agree.

Procreation being a substantial difference among many important others.

Quote:

Although I completely agree that they should be able to have a civil union that is recognized by the government with all the rights and privileges of a marriage.

Then why can't they just get married?

You literally just said, they can get married, but not call it married, so why can;t they just get married?

That makes literally no logical sense.

When has "married" ever meant a union of 2 people of the same gender?

Gay marriage means changing the very meaning of the word. Gay couples can have an approximation of marriage, but marriage has never meant 2 people of the same gender. So in order to accommodate the sensibilities of gay couples who want to be "married", they want to change the meaning of what a marriage is for everyone to something that it has never been.

I have said that I would support civil unions, but I do not believe that we should change the meaning of the word marriage. In the end, this issue has hurt gay union advocates, because people do think that marriage is a union between man and woman ..... not man and man, or woman and woman. This hurt gay people wanting a union in Ohio, because it created an environment where a Constitutional amendment went on the ballot, and was passed. This amendment was horribly written, but now would have to be removed from the Ohio Constitution to allow gay unions that "approximate marriage" in any way.

Marriage is, and has always been a heterosexual union. There have been examples throughout history where a man has had multiple wives, but regardless, it has never, at least that I know of, been applied to 2 people of the same gender. Changing the word is merely an attempt to legitimize the union of 2 gay people, and I think that they be better off just being great examples of loving couples, enjoy their united lives, and stop worrying about trying to change the meaning of a word that applies to most people at one point or another in their lifetimes.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, California, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey apparently disagree with you...

Which was my point earlier, and now you're talking about making up new words for it, those states didn't feel the need to make up a new word..?

Many years ago, it was illegal for a Black person to Marry a White person, but that's changed. Then the laws changed.

The only reason no one wants to change the laws this time is because of what a book someone wrote a really long time ago says.

There is absolutely a religious aspect to the word. However, why should religious people have to, again, change the meaning of a word that is hugely important to their religion?

It is possible to be tolerant of other peoples' beliefs and relationships without having to also change the traditional meaning of a word so important to their beliefs. Why should religious people be forced into a new meaning of the word "marriage" in order to accommodate a new definition to make other people feel somehow better about their relationships?

You can change the meaning of the word marriage to accommodate gay unions, but in the end you diminish marriage in the eyes of many, rather than having the desired impact of somehow legitimizing gay unions by virtue of applying a word that has never applied to such a union.

As far as black/white ..... that may have been a problem in the history of the US, but there were almost certainly such marriages throughout the history of the world.

Here's the thing..

I could possibly agree with what your saying.

Except for the fact that MOST (note I didn't say all) but most of the people that share your opinion, don't have it because they think gay people being married will hurt the word itself..

They have it because they don't think homosexual are people.

Good point. I looked it up in my dictionary (granted it's a 1976 version of Webster, definitions may have changed due to political correctness): "The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

The World used to be flat and the center of the universe. What's your point?

I don't understand why people care how other people live their lives. Like them being able to get married somehow makes your marriage worth less on the marriage stock market or something.

I get it, certain people are not going to change their minds on something.

Just know that in 50 years kids are going to be in school learning about how back in the day it was illegal for same sex couples to get married.

It's GOING to happen, it's just a matter of time. Just as long as it doesn't happen on your watch, right?

Quote:

The World used to be flat and the center of the universe. What's your point?

Exactly what I said it was. My dictionary's definition of the word marriage.

Quote:

It's GOING to happen, it's just a matter of time. Just as long as it doesn't happen on your watch, right?

Why the panties in a bunch? I haven't really expressed an opinion one way or another.

Jonathan Haidt wiki

According to some of the science in the field of politics.. Political stances are largely genetic. If this helps...people are always going to have a differing world view that is largely genetically determined. So debate isn't likely to change many opinions. People will always disagree on equality vs. tradition & purity.

I personally wouldn't lift a finger to either ban or legalize gay marriage. It isn't really an issue in my life and frankly I don't care. If I had my way no one would be able to get married by the state and we'd be in some sort of futuristic libertarian society

Speaking of which..I live internationally so I really shouldn't comment on US politics

It is a "states issue"...

Just clicking

I'm just trying to understand what business it is of ours what two consenting adults do in the confines of thier own bedroom?

I honestly don't think I have the right to tell anyone who they can or can't love and marry......

Quote:

They already are in some states.

The fact that the states of a single country are allowed to disagree and not recognize something another state has done is ridiculous..

So you basically disagree with the entire founding principles of the United States of America?

But since 30 +/- states have amendments against it.. and only a select few allow it.. if states were all made to conform, you do realize how that would turn out right?

And it's funny that you put California on your list... the people of California voted to enact a marriage amendment and one judge saw fit to overturn it.. so they don't really belong on your list...

I grew up in a protestant congregation. Also went to a private christian school from preschool till about eighth grade. All those years showed me good and bad things about organized Christianity. That could be a whole other topic in itself. But, I learned this much.

Why is it acceptable to pick and choose from a holy text like The Bible, Torah, Qur'an?

Quote:

But since 30 +/- states have amendments against it.. and only a select few allow it..

It's not an issues if many more states vote to allow same sex marriage.

Quote:

So you basically disagree with the entire founding principles of the United States of America?

I'm not speaking for OS but I know I have a problem when individuals are denied the rights which others have based on sexual orientation.

Rocket, this is an issue I struggle with more than most issues.. and your choices are yes or no... Let me lay out why exactly it is that I struggle with it...

I would not be a member or attend a church that performed or condoned same sex marriage because it is inconsistent with my faith. I know the common argument is that, even if you think homosexuality is a sin, everybody sins... I get that. In my faith, I know I have sinned and I know that I will continue to sin.... but every day, I wake up and say a quick prayer and start my day trying not to sin.. Gay marriage, within the church, is basically saying that I'm going to enter into this relationship, this "contract" that says I will knowingly and willingly sin for the rest of my life and I want the church to bless that. Some churches do, I just wouldn't be associated with one of them.

On the other hand, people of different faiths (even under the umbrella of Christianity) feel differently and some people do not view marriage as a religious affiliated institution at all but more of a social contract/personal expression of commitment that has nothing to do with God.

So on a personal level, I believe that gay marriage is inconsistent with my faith.. on a political level, I'm very torn on how much regulation the government should have in deciding who gets to marry whom. I've read quite a bit from both sides on the merits of their opinions from a faith and a political perspective but nothing has really resonated with me yet to take a strong political stance one way or the other..

I know it can be uncool around here to take the "I'm just not sure" opinion and that I should have a firm opinion then treat everybody who disagrees with it like they are an idiot.. and on some issues I don't mind doing that

... but in this case I just can't.

And for the record, I live in North Carolina where the vote was just cast which caused the President to change his opinion, which is why this thread is probably here... I did not vote on the marriage amendment... not because I don't care, but because I just felt so conflicted...

I voted to let them marry.......b/c marriage is an institution that is in decay and the one thing that might be able to save it....is making it a little more gay.

Put me in the "I don't care" category.

I'm not pro gay marriage, I'm not anti gay marriage.

I don't understand why people have such strong opinions on things that don't affect them at all.

Allowed or not, it doesn't affect my life at all.

Quote:

marriage is an institution that is in decay

this has been stated a few times in this thread and it is simply not true.

first off, one person marrying/divorcing multiple times skews the numbers.
example:
2 couples stay married for life.
1 person gets married twice and divorces twice.
marriage rate = 50%

secondly, let's take a look at the actual numbers. you might be surprised:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0131.pdf

important note: these numbers include death&divorce. if a spouse dies, then it takes away from the percentage of reaching the anniversary.

people reaching their 5yr anniversary has stayed steady at ~90% since 1965
10yr - dipped to near 70% in early 80s but it's back on the rise (77%)
15yr - similar fluctation (bottoming at 63%) but back to 66%
20yr - men/women start to see a separation more (60%men/56%women)
25yr - ~53% for both men/women
30yr - ~53% for both men/women
35yr - 58%men / 52% women
40yr - 60%men / 49% women

The big discrepencies in the longer anniversaries is largely due to women living longer then men.

Looking at the table, the numbers have fallen off some from 1965 in the longer anniversaries, but it's not a huge discrepency and I would argue that it's likely due to divorce being more "accepted" and those multiple marriage/divorce being more "common"

There are still a ton of folks who get married and stay married. That just isn't fun for the media and politicians to discuss.

#rant_off_thread_topic

You can call a boat a "car" ....... but that doesn't mean that you can drive it on the street.

You can call a jalapeño a sweet roll, but I don't know too many people who would knock the door down to grab one for dessert.

Words have meaning. A new legal arrangement of 2 gay people that approximates marriage is a legal issue that should be supported ...... but that does not make it marriage. It is a new thing entirely.

You understand this would create a separate but equal situation, right?

Quote:

Put me in the "I don't care" category.

I'm not pro gay marriage, I'm not anti gay marriage.

I don't understand why people have such strong opinions on things that don't affect them at all.

Allowed or not, it doesn't affect my life at all.

for once, we agree

Quote:

You understand this would create a separate but equal situation, right?

Is it really "separate"? What is separate about it? Can gay couples no longer live in certain neighborhoods? Eat in certain restaurants? Have health insurance? Attend the same schools?

Let me put it this way, if I have a man and a woman and I call them "married"... and I have a man and a man and I call them "civil union".. yet they have all the same rights then is it really separate but equal?

Compared to... if I have a white man and woman and I call them white... and I have a black man and woman and I call them black... yet they have all of the same rights.. is that separate but equal? ... or is it just nomenclature?

I think you have taken a term with a very derogatory historical meaning and you are attempting to apply it where it doesn't fit to make something seem worse than it is...

Quote:

You understand this would create a separate but equal situation, right?

No, actually it would not.

It would create a new word for a new institution.

The 2 institutions would have equal legal standing. However, instead of assigning new meaning to the word marriage, we would have a new word for a completely new legal institution.

I think we see eye to eye on this issue.

Nothing against gay people wanting to spend their lives together and fix other issues like survivorship laws and other right married people are afforded by law.

Just don't call it marriage.

The only reason gay people want to call it marriage is because they want to force society to find moral equivalency for their union.

Quote:

Why is it acceptable to pick and choose from a holy text like The Bible, Torah, Qur'an?

One thing I find quite ironic --

Jesus never said one single word about homosexuality. Not one. The New Testament doesn't even talk about it directly - there's three or four passages that vaguely reference it, and even then it's among categories of other sins.

The Bible talks about the sin of shaving more than it does the sin of homosexuality ... and I don't see many clamoring for constitutional amendments about beard length.

The religious cherrypick their holy text arbitrarily, which makes it hard to really take their case seriously, and in that regard, their opinions should be dismissed when it comes to laws and governing.

And without the religious component, this isn't even a debate.

I could not care less if two people of the same gender want to get married. It's none of my buisness as long as both of them are consenting adults. I am also a Republican but that is mainly because I am conservative on fiscal issues. I'm more moderate on social issues.

Quote:

The only reason gay people want to call it marriage is because they want to force society to find moral equivalency for their union.

That's exactly it. I hate all these stupid comparisons to civil rights issues and legitimate descrimination that occurred in the 60's . That's not occuring here. What "rights" are they not getting exactly? Nobody is kicking in the doors of a gay wedding ceremony and hauling off the participants to jail. Nobody is forcing gays to eat in the "gays only" section of a restaurant or go to the "gays only" colleges. Nobody is banning them from employment from having a homosexual partner (and if they do, it's ALREADY considered descrimination). If needed, anybody can list pretty much anybody as their domestic partner in pretty much any legal documentation they want to.

It really boils down to what Hel is saying ... they want to force their moral definition of marriage onto the rest of society. And the biggest argument we hear in favor of gay marriage is that society can't force their moral beliefs on others.

Quote:

I think it's fairly simplistic to state that the only reason gay people want to have the equal rights of marriage is just to force their beliefs on others. That certainly isn't true for all. As you state Daman, it is for many of the issues you list.

For the people who have stated or believe that gay people don't face discrimination, that's also rather silly, but that is another topic.

As for Obama, I think his new stance on the issue hurts him. There is quite a bit of animosity in the country toward gay people. A lot of people want gays to shut up and go away. I think a lot of the religious black community will be angry over it, I've already heard a number of people in the hospital I am working at state they will not be voting at all in the election because of this and they were big supporters of him in the last election. That is a group of people he completely carried in the last election. While I agree with him on this one issue, I won't be voting for him because he's still a crappy president.

I refuse to get into a political conversation with you

Having said that,, the one reason that same sex couples want the right to get married never seems to be openly discussed.. not sure why.. but, it's Love.

They love each other.. some tell them that it's wrong... I don't understand the obsession some people/groups have with trying to tell others who they can and can't love.

I don't think it's my place to tell anyone who to love.. I honestly don't think it's my business... none.

And being a married couple or a joined or united couple makes no difference as far as love goes.

If we allow the exact same benefits and responsibilities, then there is no difference ..... except for the name.

For some reason it seems like gay people think that somehow there will be more acceptance if they can call themselves married. I do not think that will be the case.

Quote:

And being a married couple or a joined or united couple makes no difference as far as love goes.

It obviously makes a difference to you.

Quote:

If we allow the exact same benefits and responsibilities, then there is no difference ..... except for the name.

Which makes your stance sound even more ridiculous.

Quote:

For some reason it seems like gay people think that somehow there will be more acceptance if they can call themselves married. I do not think that will be the case.

Or they just want to get married. Because that's what they want. Not everyone has arterial motives...

Quote:

It obviously makes a difference to you.

Yes, it does make a difference, as I favor maintaining the traditional meaning of the word "marriage", instead of changing it to a completely different definition that would change or eliminate the traditional and religious meanings.

Quote:

Which makes your stance sound even more ridiculous.

Maybe to you ...... however to people who believe that marriage should be a sanctified institution, in accord with their religious beliefs, gay "marriage" is ridiculous. It goes against the teachings of the church. and completely changes the meaning of what marriage is.

Quote:

Or they just want to get married. Because that's what they want. Not everyone has arterial motives...

And in many cases they can be united in a civil, secular union that approximates marriage.

As far as "arterial" motives ..... is that a matter of the heart .... or in a completely different vein ......?

I have no problem whatsoever in allowing gay people to unite in a civil, secular union that approximates and mirrors the rights and responsibilities of marriage .... but the bottom line is that by changing the definition of marriage to become a secular union in which gay couples can unite is an affront to those to whom marriage is a sacred union.

Easy solution.
In order to receive benefits for one's spouse and for tax purposes, the government no longer will issue a marriage license.
Everyone now applies for a civil union certificate, straight or gay.
The government recognizes this document the same way it did a marriage license, and all current marriage licenses will be re-issued as civil union certificates.
All marriages will still be conducted by the church, but newly married couples will receive no classically marriage based benefits from the government, state or employer without the civil union certificate.
It takes the issue of gay marriage off the table, everybody wins.
The church can feel free to discriminate as it pleases and it no longer imposes and impossible barrier to same sex couples.
Problem solved.

Why can't it be that easy?
Besides, gay couples deserve to be just as miserable together as straight couples.

Quote:

Why can't it be that easy?

Because some people of certain beliefs believe they are better than other people.

I'm now all in for gay marriage....because "Gay Divorce Court" would be one seriously funny TV show.

Quote:

Maybe to you ...... however to people who believe that marriage should be a sanctified institution, in accord with their religious beliefs, gay "marriage" is ridiculous. It goes against the teachings of the church. and completely changes the meaning of what marriage is.

There are more references in the Bible to shaving being a sin than homosexuality.

Do you think shaving should be legislated according to the teachings of the church? Are you for a constitutional amendment banning shaving?

What about adultery? According to the Bible, adultery should be punished by death, and once again, this is mentioned far more than homosexuality. Are you in favor of pushing for the teachings of the Bible in this case? Should we look to make adultery a capital punishment?

What about the sanctity of the Sabbath? I mean, that's one of the big ones, the top ten. Should we make laws banning working on Sundays?

Quote:

Should we make laws banning working on Sundays?

it's called the NFL and it's working out just fine to get a majority of people to not work on Sundays

Quote:

I refuse to get into a political conversation with you

Isn't this entire topic political??

Quote:

Having said that,, the one reason that same sex couples want the right to get married never seems to be openly discussed.. not sure why.. but, it's Love.

Believe it or not, I'll bet people are all pretty much the same and want to get married for many different reasons.

Quote:

I don't think it's my place to tell anyone who to love.. I honestly don't think it's my business... none.

Right. I find it hysterical that our governments want to legislate love. THIS is right, THIS is wrong, blah blah blah. Just because a "majority" votes on a personal freedom doesn't make it okay (and this works BOTH ways, imo).

Smoking.
Casinos.
Helmet laws.
Eminent domain.
Gay equality.
Etc.

How 'bout people stay out of each others private lives? I think there should be a law against it.

Quote:

I refuse to get into a political conversation with you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't this entire topic political??

Jules brought up something about Obama and I just wasn't gonna go there...LOL

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having said that,, the one reason that same sex couples want the right to get married never seems to be openly discussed.. not sure why.. but, it's Love.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe it or not, I'll bet people are all pretty much the same and want to get married for many different reasons.

Absolutly, but the thing I hear so little about is love..

Quote:

I don't think it's my place to tell anyone who to love.. I honestly don't think it's my business... none.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right. I find it hysterical that our governments want to legislate love. THIS is right, THIS is wrong, blah blah blah. Just because a "majority" votes on a personal freedom doesn't make it okay (and this works BOTH ways, imo).

well, actually we do have a majority rules kinda thing going on in this country.. Kinda been that way for oh,, I dunno,, long time now!

But we are talking about something that I don't think should fall into the majority rules realm..

If what a gay/lesbian couple want to do had an effect on my life, then I'd say, wait,, let me look at this.. and I'd be right to do so., If it's going to have an impact on my life, I think I have a right to at least have some say in the matter.

But what those particular couple do doesn't effect me and therefore, I don't see why majority rules should even apply.

Now,, you brought up smoking. I was a smoker for years. Stopped in 2006.. 4 pack a day smoker,, let me tell you, I was seriously hooked.

It has been proven over and over again that second hand smoke harms other people. so I see the outrage against smokers by non smokers. I get that. (didn't always, but now I do, odd how that happens)

But gay/lesbian marrage (by whatever name you place on it) doesn't harm anyone as far as I can see. I mean,, if you get to close to a gay guy,, you don't go gay.. if a lesbian touches you, it doesn't make you wanna wear pink!

Please allow for a little stupid humor there to get the point across. hope I don't offend..

Point is,,, I don't believe I have the right to tell anyone who to love/marry or whatever with.. UNLESS it has some direct effect on my life..

j/c

It's quite obvious that gay people will be allowed to marry in my lifetime (I'm 22). I can tell you from personal experience that the people who are opposed to gay marriage are mostly older people and that once my generation is in their 40s, gay marriage will be legal.

I'm 100% for gay marriage. My life and my relationship with my girlfriend (future wife) is not affected even a little bit by 2 other consenting adults getting married - no matter their sexual orientation.

I don't understand people who oppose gay marriage at all. The whole "marriage has always meant one thing" is a myth. The origin of marriage comes from trading women for farm animals and land. So all the parents out there, make sure you get a good deal for your daughter when a suitor comes calling.

Gay marriage is the next natural step in evolution of marriage and all those who oppose it are clearly on the wrong side of history because it will pass and the only reason people oppose it is because of their own religious views and bigotry - two things which have no place in a society based on the separation of church and state.

That's all very nice, and even could make some sense. As long as you, and everyone else, leaves out the primary purpose of marriage, and the main reason it exists.

All the rights, obligations, etc., and particularly any benefits which various societies allow for married couples, are all geared around the children mutually produced by the two people. Gay couples are NOT CAPABLE of mutually producing children.

You are correct in that "marriage" predates any religion by quite a wide margin. Various religions simply added rituals and other meanings to the practice.

Gay worker wants to have a dependent? There is no requirement for the spouse to stay home and tend to their children.

There are also no mutually produced children to hold the union together. Historically, this has made married couples with children a better credit risk. Adopted children do not have the same effect.

Civil union, I don't care. Don't much care about so-called "gay marriage", either, it's just the complete and total stupidity of the concept. I might as well argue that 5" 10" be called "tall", so that I can be "tall".

I still won't be very good at basketball.

Quote:

Check out this new word for a school that is just for blacks: Center for the Education of African Americans. Regular school is just for whites.

Actually thats not even close.. in your instance the black kids and white kids are forced to go to different schools and have presumably unequal access to the same quality of education.. in the civil union, they are both going to the same school, but when they sign up for school, they either check the box on the entrance form that says they are a white kid or check the box that says they are a black kid... Everybody has the same opportunity...

Quote:

Or how about this one: different brigades for different races, religions, and sexual orientations. They all get to serve the military and die for us, we just keep em separate so the parades look nicer.

Wrong again.. in this instance you are providing physical separation and probably unequal distribution of responsibilities and opportunities... show me where a civil union does either of those things.

Quote:

Here an oldy but goody: We'll use the term "house" for where most of us get to live. We'll call it "camp" for the Japanese.

3rd strike, go have a seat on the bench.

You are talking about a group of people being held against their will based on national origin... and giving them unequal rights to live, work and play where and how they want to...

You are yet to give a single example of HOW this fits in the same "separate but equal" classifications of the past... none of your examples pass because you are talking about forced physical separation, which this doesn't do... or you are talking about opportunities which are totally unequal, which this also doesn't do...

Quote:

All the rights, obligations, etc., and particularly any benefits which various societies allow for married couples, are all geared around the children mutually produced by the two people. Gay couples are NOT CAPABLE of mutually producing children.

Neither are all straight couples. Should straight, infertile couples (or those who simply do not want children) be prohibited from marrying since they are incapable of "mutually producing children"?

Quote:

That's all very nice, and even could make some sense. As long as you, and everyone else, leaves out the primary purpose of marriage, and the main reason it exists.

My wife and I have been married for 26 years next week. We don't have kids,, didn't want them. we didn't get married to have kids.. thought wasn't even in the realm of possibility because neither of us wanted kids... one of the reasons we were so compatible.

Quote:

There are also no mutually produced children to hold the union together.

Wow,, if you need kids to hold the marriage together, you are married to the wrong person.

Quote:

Gay marriage is the next natural step in evolution of marriage and all those who oppose it are clearly on the wrong side of history because it will pass and the only reason people oppose it is because of their own religious views and bigotry - two things which have no place in a society based on the separation of church and state.

You can pretty much close the thread here.

Like it or not, in 20 years, the folks who are against gay marriage today will be looked at as archaic and ignorant.

I hate dog piling on mox because I feel we share the same religious beliefs. I just disagree with this from a political and personal perspective.

Quote:

I hate dog piling on mox because I feel we share the same religious beliefs. I just disagree with this from a political and personal perspective.

I actually disagree with moxdawg on this issue. I just found the response to him to be a bit crass overall when his initial posts on his opinion were quite reasonable.

My thought currently is that it is an element of free will, which is an essential portion of any religion (w/o free will there is no morality). Whatever your feelings on the matter, it is going to happen. Therefore, the free will matter has already been divested and God will sort out the morality of it later.

I woudl also add that the whole purpose of the Constitution allowing free exercise of religion, and so on was to ensure that those who came to America to practice their religions would be able to do so freely. Many, if not most of those who came to America did so because of religious persecution in England. England had "The Church of England", of which the King was the head. This is what the founders wished to avoid ..... not free expression of religious beliefs in public.

I look back at how cities and states were set up back in the days of the founders, and many were based around a particular religion. Whole communities were made up of members of a single religion. Local governments had laws based on the predominant religion.

Did the founders fight these communities based on their beliefs that the Constitution forbade such things? Not that I know of.

The whole purpose of protecting religion, and religious expression, is that people get to decide for themselves, and are not forced into a nationalized religion. This absolutely does not mean that people, even those in government, cannot express their religious beliefs.

I find it ironic that the Supreme Court opens its sessions with a prayer. They forbid others to do so ..... they uphold cases forbidding others from saying a prayer in a public arena ..... yet they do exactly what they forbid others to do.

Anyway ..... more than anything else, the whole debate over gay marriage really is a morality issue, and what people, and communities see as moral, and what they see as immoral. Communities and states decide what they accept as moral and acceptable behavior, and what they do not. Communities can even make secular laws which can allow for behavior that certain religion, and maybe even members of the community, find reprehensible, but which can allow for the behavior without condoning it. That really is the whole argument in the case of gay "marriage". I, and others, accept the right of gay couples to live their lives as they choose, to love who they choose, and to even join together in a legal institution ....... but not to change the meaning of the word marriage in order to apply it to such a joining. Marriage has a special and sacred meaning to me. I can accept the rights of gay people to join together, but not in the institution of marriage, simply because there is a religious connotation to the word, and because the institution itself has never been used to create such unions at any time in the history of the world. (except very recently). In many ways, I think that becomes the whole argument becomes a desire to rub peoples' noses in it by taking the word marriage, or to somehow artificially gain acceptance by taking the word to mean something it has never meant before, instead of integrating into the legal side of society without trying to shoehorn something that religions find immoral and unacceptable into what is seen as an inherently religious institution.

I do not see gay unions as marriage, because they cannot be marriage under a wide range of historical, religious, and traditional meanings of the word. Including gay unions as marriage changes the very meaning of the word ...... so I really don't see why a gay person would want to do that anyway. There are literally billions and billions of things that gay couples can call their unions. IMHO, marriage should be the one they do not use. If gay people want to find acceptance in the world, they should not do so by trying to take away what people see as a holy institution for themselves, but rather by appealing to the issue of fairness for all, and the right to unite in a legal arrangement that allows for all of the rights and privileges that marriage conveys upon everyone else. I honestly believe that the main reason that so many states have passed (and in many cases, horribly written) constitutional issues against gay marriage is because of this. Offer up a law allowing for civilly and legally accepted unions with the same rights, responsibilities, and privledges as marriage, and I think that it could have passed many states. Say that marriage should be changed to include gay marriage, and it's doomed.

Someone once said that politics is the art of the possible. In most states, gay marriage is not possible. However, gay unions or such just night be. This is never pursued though, and in many states, now it can't even be pursued without first changing the Constitution.

Quote:

Yep, It's pretty hard to explain things that there is no proof of. I agree.

and it's impossible to prove that god does not exist, yet you act like it's a fact that he doesn't

Quote:

It's going to energize the young voters. Many young voters feel like the guy hasn't stood up for much of anything. They see this as him growing a backbone. That's the part of the electorate that probably wasn't going to be voting and he probably just got them energized again.

Until he says what he plans to do about it... it is about the same as him saying he likes chocolate cake or iPhones or Mary J Blige... A lot of people like those things and it is neat to know the President likes them too... In the end, what he plans to do about it is all that really matters... and on that he hasn't said anything yet.

obviously, he is going to give an iPhone to every American that includes Mary J Blige's entire collection already on it and a free coupon for chocolate lava cake on it as well that can be scanned at your friendly neighborhood Applebee's. oh, and don't worry about the cost because the plan will not be enacted until 2016 and by then it'll be budget nuetral. promise.

Quote:

obviously, he is going to give an iPhone to every American that includes Mary J Blige's entire collection already on it and a free coupon for chocolate lava cake on it as well that can be scanned at your friendly neighborhood Applebee's. oh, and don't worry about the cost because the plan will not be enacted until 2016 and by then it'll be budget nuetral. promise.

I'd laugh if that wasn't so true in so many ways .........

Quote:

Quote:

Yep, It's pretty hard to explain things that there is no proof of. I agree.

and it's impossible to prove that god does not exist, yet you act like it's a fact that he doesn't

I'm not the one basing my arguments on weather or not he/she/it does exist.

I'm not an athiest, I don't think there is no god... I just don't care if there is or isn't.. I don't rely on it.

Quote:

Quote:

Yep, It's pretty hard to explain things that there is no proof of. I agree.

and it's impossible to prove that god does not exist, yet you act like it's a fact that he doesn't

Just like you can't prove aliens weren't at Thanksgiving.

(Someone will get this.)

Stuffing! Alien Technology!

Are you going to marry an alien surfer now?

lol

Quote:

Quote:

Homosexuality is not natural

The animal kingdom disagrees with you.

The animal kingdom also has lots of instances of beastiality, so I guess we should legalize that too?

But seriously, back to the original statement ... Does it though? I've heard this argument a lot, and I honestly wonder what kind of studies have been done to actually confirm this. Sure, there are lots of instances where an animal gets so horny it will screw anything that moves. But have there been any documented cases or studies where:

A) An animal will ONLY attempt to mate with an animal of the same gender, and not with the opposite gender if given the opportunity?

B) The animal will go so far as to become a lifetime mate in replacement of what would otherwise be a mate of a different gender?

C) It occurs at a population percentage anywhere close to what we see with humans?

Quote:

The animal kingdom also has lots of instances of beastiality, so I guess we should legalize that too?

What?

Unless you're considering Humans a part of The Animal Kingdom, then that makes no sense...

Sorry, is that not the word? Xenophilia maybe?

Or are you saying that different species in the animal kingdom never have cross-species relationships?

Addendum: Please no arguments about people marrying/having sexual relationships with children, toasters, animals, or other inanimate objects. This poll question only considers consenting adults over the age of 18 who wish to be married to their same sex partners.

Quote:

Addendum: Please no arguments about people marrying/having sexual relationships with children, toasters, animals, or other inanimate objects. This poll question only considers consenting adults over the age of 18 who wish to be married to their same sex partners.

YOU'RE the one who dragged the animal kingdom into it. Now if you ignore the first part of my post ... do you have some actual data to back up your assertion, because it is something I'm legitimately curious about.

I've seen dogs trying to hump peoples' legs ..... so I would guess that they aren't too choosy .......

Wiki on Homosexuality in Animals

Head down to the bottom of the page with all the references listed. It's a wide spectrum.

The first few sentences sort of gave an answer to questions I posed: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.

Although, these are some interesting studies. Thanks for the link.

I got this from your wiki page...

Quote:

Researchers found that disabling the (fucose mutarotase) FucM gene in laboratory mice – which influences the levels of estrogen to which the brain is exposed – caused the female mice to behave as if they were male as they grew up.

The FucM gene... that's classic.

Perhaps we should all just be like my clown fish.

They can change gender at will.

Then everyone can be happy!

Quote:

The FucM gene... that's classic.

I wish I could be a bored researcher!

Quote:

Quote:

The FucM gene... that's classic.

I wish I could be a bored researcher!

Aren't most researchers pretty bored?

Quote:

I've seen dogs trying to hump peoples' legs ..... so I would guess that they aren't too choosy .......

That's actually a dominance thing used to set the pecking order in a pack, it's really a common sight among wolves and other canines.
And yes, I know you're joking, but thought I'd toss that fun fact out there.

Quote:

Quote:

I've seen dogs trying to hump peoples' legs ..... so I would guess that they aren't too choosy .......

That's actually a dominance thing used to set the pecking order in a pack, it's really a common sight among wolves and other canines.
And yes, I know you're joking, but thought I'd toss that fun fact out there.

Wolves come down out of the woods and hump peoples legs to show dominance? Sounds like some kind of wolf gang initiation.

I don't know why it is such a big deal.

If you feel morally it's wrong, then don't do it. But in the end it is not for me to judge. No one answers to me for their actions, they will one day stand before God and then they will be judged. But all the while, it is said that I should love thy neighbor as I love thy God.

Does that not mean I treat them with respect and kindness, regardless if I agree with their choices or not?

Almost every law we have (outside of traffic laws, and maybe a few others) is a moral judgement in one way or another.

NRTU

I'm just wondering if, in the interest of equality and non-discrimination, a person who is totally blind (as opposed to legally blind) should be able to get a driver's license?

Rules and restrictions don't matter if someone is offended by them, right? Everyone absolutely MUST be treated equally, and if you don't think they should get a driver's license, that must mean that you hate all blind people and want them to die, correct?

Quote:

I don't know why it is such a big deal.

If you feel morally it's wrong, then don't do it. But in the end it is not for me to judge. No one answers to me for their actions, they will one day stand before God and then they will be judged. But all the while, it is said that I should love thy neighbor as I love thy God.

Does that not mean I treat them with respect and kindness, regardless if I agree with their choices or not?

I'm glad that you have been able to distill it down to such simple terms, sometimes I wish I could do that. Thus far, I have not been able to and there are still aspects of it (for and against) which prevent me from doing that.

Quote:

I'm just wondering if, in the interest of equality and non-discrimination, a person who is totally blind (as opposed to legally blind) should be able to get a driver's license?

Did you ever drive up to ATM an notice the Brial pad?

Brial?

Did you mean Braille ....... the touch method of reading used by blind people?

I would assume that they build all ATMs the same, and since some are inside a bank foyer, and others might be on the side of a bank away from a driving area, then they would have a legitimate need for a Braille pad.

Yes, they should be allowed to marry.

They will, however, have to start a whole extra other battle to get the right to have a divorce

One of the very first lesbian couples to marry in California saw their marriage end in divorce shortly thereafter. They were the activists who went to the courthouse every year trying to get a marriage license, only to be denied year after year. They finally married in June of 2008, right before the proposition banning gay marriage was voted on .... only to divorce in Jan 2012.

Shame is that they had been a couple for almost 20 years prior to getting married. It's almost like their desire to get married was one of the things that bound them together, and when that was gone, they lost something vitally important to their relationship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/gay-divorce-la_n_1263881.html

Quote:

One of the very first lesbian couples to marry in California saw their marriage end in divorce shortly thereafter. They were the activists who went to the courthouse every year trying to get a marriage license, only to be denied year after year. They finally married in June of 2008, right before the proposition banning gay marriage was voted on .... only to divorce in Jan 2012.

Shame is that they had been a couple for almost 20 years prior to getting married. It's almost like their desire to get married was one of the things that bound them together, and when that was gone, they lost something vitally important to their relationship.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/gay-divorce-la_n_1263881.html

Relationships started or born out of working closely on a project often turn south at some point after the project ends..

Quote:

The animal kingdom also has lots of instances of beastiality, so I guess we should legalize that too?

But seriously, back to the original statement ... Does it though? I've heard this argument a lot, and I honestly wonder what kind of studies have been done to actually confirm this

I think the argument is more of a bare bones opposition to the claims religious folks make about people "choosing" to be gay rather than being born that way. You pose some good questions, though, so I'll try and give them an answer or two...

Quote:

A) An animal will ONLY attempt to mate with an animal of the same gender, and not with the opposite gender if given the opportunity?
B) The animal will go so far as to become a lifetime mate in replacement of what would otherwise be a mate of a different gender?
C) It occurs at a population percentage anywhere close to what we see with humans?

A. Not sure what the Excel (see what I did there

) data would look like on it, but Wiki shows cases of that with the black swan and rams seem to do so on an exclusive basis.
B.) Again, the spreadsheet and data I have are limited, but it seems the bottlenose dolphin has those relationships and animals with "bachelor groups" like bison, antelopes, etc. will pair bond with the same sex even though the opportunity presents itself with members of the opposite sex. Aside from that, humans are in a minority of species who put a premium on monogamy. Of about 5,000 mammal species, only 3-5% form lifelong, monogamous bonds.
C.) Depends on the animal. They run the gambit from a lesser to a far greater extent. One of the animals we know of with exclusive homosexual orientation (rams) has it occur in 8% of all males (I just found interesting given the general "10% of the population is gay" idea).

It doesn't have much ado with marriage, but our understanding of the animal kingdom and research into that thus far was instrumental in the striking down of the last remaining sodomy laws in this country. From the earliest pilgrim settlements, American statutes, and judicial opinion, sodomy was regarded as "the crime against nature" and seen as "abominable" and "detestable". Seeing it so prevalent in the animal kingdom kicked the legs out from under it in our lawbooks.

End of the day, the momentum is rolling heavily in favor of "the gay movement" (which I'd define as tearing down the demonization and lack of understanding against those persons and building up of allowing people to be honest and integrated into society as they are). We didn't coin the term "homosexual" until 1868, institutionalized gay people well into the 20th century, made it legally allowable to fire them under ground of "sexual perversion" from gov't jobs in 1953, and our own APA didn't strip it of its mental disorder status until 1973. A lot of progress has been made in a little over a hundred years. The gay marriage laws basically separating how a gay couple has to go about its tax forms and other documents from heterosexual couples is the last legal hurdle in the way of a fuller assimilation into society.

Something like 31 states have completely banned gay marriage, most using a Constitutional amendment. I would hardly call that momentum heavily in favor of gay marriage.

As far as I can tell, 9 states allow gay marriage, and 2 others have proposals to allow gay marriage. The remaining states have some statute or law that bans gay marriage.

Further, 2 populations typically more stridently against gay marriage are the Black and Hispanic communities. These are 2 segments of the population that are increasing more than any other. This does not bode well for the future of gay rights, as these 2 voting blocks typically vote against gay marriage initiatives.

Quote:

I would hardly call that momentum heavily in favor of gay marriage.

Context. Take a step back and look at what's happened. In less than one hundred years, the gay rights movement (should've been my terminology to start rather than "Gay Movement") has gone from having their sexual practices outlawed (the "crime against nature" via sodomy laws), being stigmatized as having a mental disorder, and being fired from gov't jobs for their sexual orientation, all the way to there being no more sodomy laws on the books, the APA releasing homosexuality from mental disorders, and to actually being able to marry in almost double digit states now. How is that not significant progress and an indication of momentum now that the proverbial rug (tying homosexuality to being an unnatural, depraved social ill) has had its feet swept out from under it?

Obama coming out and saying he's in full support of same sex marriage is a pretty clear indication of how public opinion has shifted on this in the last decade alone. Check the latest Pew Research data on it. More Americans are in favor than opposed. I have a lot of gay friends who talk about how pleased they are that he (BO) really "gave it heavy consideration, evolved, and made a strong stance" when he knows he needs to do this to rally up the base support and that he's very attentive to what the publics' views on this have been. Otherwise, he would have been more ballsy about being in favor of same-sex marriage to start the process.

Quote:

Further, 2 populations typically more stridently against gay marriage are the Black and Hispanic communities. These are 2 segments of the population that are increasing more than any other. This does not bode well for the future of gay rights, as these 2 voting blocks typically vote against gay marriage initiatives.

Upon further review...

The NAACP announced Saturday the 103-year-old black civil rights group is supporting same-sex marriage.

The group's board of directors made the decision at a meeting this weekend, saying it was a "continuation of its historic commitment to equal protection under the law."

The decision follows President Obama's recent support of gay marriage, a move that threatened to divide key parts of the Democratic voting base -- the gay and black communities.

web page

The NCAA might support it, but overall, and by enormous margins, Black voters do not. The NCAA is a straight line arm of the Democratic Party.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-05...-civil-marriage

A Pew Research Center poll conducted in April showed 39 percent of African-Americans favor gay marriage, compared with 47 percent of whites. The poll showed 49 percent of blacks and 43 percent of whites are opposed.

This is in Baltimore, one of the more liberal states in America. If you look at where gay marriage has seen approval, it's mainly been on the more liberal East Coast.

In North Carolina, it's 20-27% of Black Voters who approve of gay marriage, depending on who you ask. Their initiative still failed badly.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76446.html

Overall, every time there has been a vote n gay marriage, Black voters have voted overwhelmingly against it. There might be a short term, temporary attitude change for some Black voters because of President Obama's change of heart ...... but it is interesting that he didn't "come out" before the NC vote where his leadership might really have been demonstrated.

One thing I have always found to be bizarre about the Black vote is this ....

Black voters vote lockstep with the Democratic Party, and have for years. They did even when the Democrats had former KKK members as candidates.

The Democrats have embraced all of these social issues that disagree with most Black voters.

Abortion, gay marriage, restraints on religions, and so on ..... these are NOT causes championed by Black voters. Typically, these are issues that Black voters vote overwhelmingly against when they get the chance. However, they continue to support the Democrats, even as the Democrats support causes that they do not believe in.

I honestly believe that in time, same sex marriage will be a none topic. probably not in my lifetime,,

In the 70's,, if you were gay, you were an outcast. simple as that and I don't think that back then, the thought of same sex marriage was even on the horizon. (I don't remember it at least) now it's front and center. who would of thought in 1970 that this discussion could even ever occur. Unthinkable.

All studies and articles you post to the contrary, I think it's inevitable that same sex marriage will eventually be recognized.

if you go back in time, there is a history of things that were once thought untouchable. Slavery, interracial relations, General Motors ever having to file bankruptcy.

It's gonna happen.. it will eventally be accepted.

Look at me for instance. I accept same sex marriage as a fact of life.. I believe it's not my business to concern myself with who someone falls in love with.. As for My dad,, my guess is he couldn't or wouldn't have.. and his father.. NO FREAKIN WAY.

Hell, my grandfather would have found it difficult (maybe impossible) to marry a woman that wasn't Italian...LOL

Quote:

The NCAA might support it, but overall, and by enormous margins, Black voters do not. The NCAA is a straight line arm of the Democratic Party.

NAACP....

In the end, a lot of those individuals may be opposed to it but if forced to vote between their wallet and their morals... well we all know which one is going to win that.

Quote:

Quote:

The NCAA might support it, but overall, and by enormous margins, Black voters do not. The NCAA is a straight line arm of the Democratic Party.

NAACP....

In the end, a lot of those individuals may be opposed to it but if forced to vote between their wallet and their morals... well we all know which one is going to win that.

Wow ..... major typo.

For the record, I have no idea how the NCAA feels about gay marriage ...... or much of anything else either.

you did it twice... that's not a "typo."

It was a pain medicine induced type.

Quote:

For the record, I have no idea how the NCAA feels about gay marriage ...... or much of anything else either.

As long as a coach, university official, agent, or booster doesn't provide a gift, provide the limo, contribute toward the honeymoon, or send flowers, they are probably ok with it.

Quote:

Quote:

For the record, I have no idea how the NCAA feels about gay marriage ...... or much of anything else either.

As long as a coach, university official, agent, or booster doesn't provide a gift, provide the limo, contribute toward the honeymoon, or send flowers, they are probably ok with it.

also, if a recruit is getting married, the coach may attend the wedding but at no time may they congratulate the couple.

I'm Orthodox Catholic, so from a personal standpoint, I am opposed to gay marriage. But from a legal standpoint, and a human rights standpoint, I believe all citizens should be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges. So I voted "yes" they should be allowed to marry.

Despite the fact that it conforms directly with my personal views, I am opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act. Just as we don't need to be creating legislation and altering our Constitution to accommodate gays, we also don't need to be enacting legislation or changing our Constitution to prevent them from living their lifestyle.

But I also want to point out that there is no place for marriage (homosexual or heterosexual) in our government and in our Constitution. As long as people have the same basic human rights, which they do, the government should not be involved.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that marriage is a ritualistic union between the participants and the sanctioning body. For instance, I am an Orthodox Catholic, if I get married in an Orthodox ceremony, my marriage will not be recognized by the Jewish faith. Should I be petitioning the Jewish community to recognize my marriage? No, of course not. First of all, it would never happen and second of all, it shouldn't happen. They have every right to believe what they believe, and I have a right to believe what I believe. If I want Jews to recognize my marriage, then I need to take the necessary steps to meet the criteria set forth by that sanctioning body.

If gays want to be married, all they really need to do is form a sanctioning body. They can call it the "Church of Same Sex Marriage" or any other name they see fit, and within that sanctioning body, their marriage would be just as legitimate as mine is.

Unfortunately, this debate isn't about human rights or equality. Because gays already have the same rights as the rest of us. Laws were passed in 2009 that require hospitals, insurance companies and other municipalities to recognize same sex partnerships in the same exact way they recognize traditional partnerships. If you are a gay person in the hospital, the power is now in your hands to authorize anybody you want to make critical life decisions and enjoy visitation. The same applies to the tax code. Gays can now file jointly and list dependents according to the same criteria as hetero couples. So the human rights aspect of this discussion was solved a long time ago. Like I said, this isn't about equality anymore, it's about acceptance. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the gay community will be satisfied until we not only accept them, but celebrate their choice. And that is where I start to have a problem with their agenda being jammed down my throat.

Quote:

If the people of that state have voted then that state has made their choice. Everyone has a vote. Not everyone will be happy with the end result, but the choice is made.

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Larry Flynt

Quote:

Unfortunately, this debate isn't about human rights or equality. Because gays already have the same rights as the rest of us. Laws were passed in 2009 that require hospitals, insurance companies and other municipalities to recognize same sex partnerships in the same exact way they recognize traditional partnerships. If you are a gay person in the hospital, the power is now in your hands to authorize anybody you want to make critical life decisions and enjoy visitation. The same applies to the tax code. Gays can now file jointly and list dependents according to the same criteria as hetero couples. So the human rights aspect of this discussion was solved a long time ago. Like I said, this isn't about equality anymore, it's about acceptance. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the gay community will be satisfied until we not only accept them, but celebrate their choice. And that is where I start to have a problem with their agenda being jammed down my throat.

You may want to do a little research for some of what you pass of as fact in this paragraph, because some of it is not accurate, such as insurance and taxes.

It's funny when people don't agree with something how they make the group that does want it out to be "shoving their beliefs down their throat" or "having an agenda". It's extremely hypocritical.

What the hell would you know about it?

Yes, I realize it's silly for me to chime in on the topic. All you He-Men who know so much about it and are so affected by it are doing a wonderful job.

Quote:

Quote:

If the people of that state have voted then that state has made their choice. Everyone has a vote. Not everyone will be happy with the end result, but the choice is made.

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Larry Flynt

As a state question on a ballot it's majority rule. Whether it works or not is for the individual to decide.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. Please accept this green banana as a peace offering.

Oh geez what was you name when you were here before?

Quote:

As a state question on a ballot it's majority rule. Whether it works or not is for the individual to decide.

That's in no way true or accurate. If a court decides it's an infringement on a persons civil rights the vote doesn't count.

According to your theory, a state could vote for seperate bathrooms for blacks and it would become law. This is not the case at all.

Hopefully very soon, courts will see this for what it is. Simple and basic discrimination against people who are not the same as the majority. If and when that happens, your theory will be tossed out the window.

discrimination is illegal, no matter how people try to vote to make it legal. Thus the Larry Flynt quote....

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Larry Flynt

As much as you may think it's so, majority rule is not the be all, end all of everything.......

Quote:

Sorry I hurt your feelings. Please accept this green banana as a peace offering.

Actually it would appear she called you out, not got her feelings hurt. If you knew her you would realise it will take a lot more than that! She's not as thin skineed as you think she is and you don't appear to be nearly as clever as you think you are.....

LMAO

Okay, you get two bananas..

If I hurt anybody else's feelings, you better come quick. There were only four bananas in the bundle and they won't be green for long....

Banannas are good and rich in potassium. Thank you!

Quote:

Okay, you get two bananas..

If I hurt anybody else's feelings, you better come quick. There were only four bananas in the bundle and they won't be green for long....

LOL I don't think you hurt anyones feelings, but Jules seemed to be pointing out flaws in your interpretation of fact.

I have no idea which one of you is correct. Do some research, check your facts if your so inclined, and inform us of what you find.

Quote:

LOL I don't think you hurt anyones feelings, but Jules seemed to be pointing out flaws in your interpretation of fact.

I have no idea which one of you is correct. Do some research, check your facts if your so inclined, and inform us of what you find.

This topic was raised yesterday, or day before in the "Things I hate" thread, and one poster (I believe it was Buckeyed, but don't quote me on that) asked me to prove that television was filled with homosexual themes. I spent about 15 minutes of my time finding links to studies that proved my point, and about a minute after I posted it, it was deleted...

Knowing that this is how things work around here, I'm not wasting my time proving anything to anybody. I don't know if it was the links to outside resources that got the post flagged, or maybe the moderators are gay and they just find the whole topic offensive...? I simply don't know. And honestly, I just don't care. This is a Browns forum, I came here for football discussion and then made the mistake of posting in a non-football thread. I won't make that mistake again. After seeing how certain posters respond to things here, I've come to the conclusion (in only a few short days) that this is the kind of place you need to keep it light, stick to only the football threads, and tread lightly because the moderation is apparently a little over the top.

If I do post in a non-football thread again, it will probably be a one-liner or something humorous. I'm not here to ruffle any panties. I've been here three days and Ive already been accused of being a former poster who is back under a new identity. It's funny, I've been posting on forums for a long time, and one thing you can always count on when you are a newb and you . somebody off, is that they'll accuse you of being some former -now banned- member that is back under a new identity. If any of the mods are reading this, please feel free to release my IP address information, and verify the fact that I'm not some troll... You have my permission. I really don't care. You'll find this is my first stint in this community.

As far as my claims in this thread, anybody can go check them out on Google. Equal hman rights has been achieved. It's not about rights, it's about acceptance. And to be honest, even if this poster could provide some example of how my facts are wrong, it doesn't change my opinion that altering the Constitution or creating legislation is not the solution. If there are still glitches in the tax system, then pass legislation to fix those glitches. You can create legislation to attain equal rights without inserting anything about sex or marriage into our government or our Constitution. That's my opinion. If she doesn't like it, guess what, she doesn't have to agree... simple as that.

This is the last thing I'll say on this topic. like I said, this is a place for football talk. If the creators of this website want to provide a place to talk about religion and politics, that's their prerogative... but I've learned my lesson. There appears to be far too many "left-thinking" personalities here for my liking. So I'll stick to the Ron Paul forums for my political fix.

The only person getting their panties ruffled is you. I merely posted that what you stated as facts are not accurate. I didn't respond in a way that was in any way indicative of someone who was in the least bit "hurt" or "upset". You are the only one acting in that fashion on this thread. I'm not sure what about my comment got that sort of response, but you appear to be looking for someone to treat you in a certain way and are responding as if they did when they didn't.

Quote:

The only person getting their panties ruffled is you.

Please provide an example...
I apologized for hurting your feelings and then told Damanshot why I will now choose to refrain from this discussion. So what are you talking about?

My suggestion, move on. There's nothing to see here. I've already formed my opinion of you, you've already formed yours of me. So what's really left to debate? Whose panties are in a twist? really? Grow up.

yeah, grow up, leftist!

Quote:

The same applies to the tax code. Gays can now file jointly and list dependents according to the same criteria as hetero couples. So the human rights aspect of this discussion was solved a long time ago.

Can gay and lesbian couples file joint federal taxes?

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996, defines marriage as between one man and one woman, prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex couples. And since only married couples can file joint federal tax returns, all gay and lesbian couples (including same-sex spouses in Massachusetts) must file federal taxes as individuals.

http://taxtime.about.com/od/tipstricks/a/taxfilingjoint.htm

You are also incorrect about health insurance, although some companies do offer it, certainly not all. As far as the visitation and medical decision making in a hospital I've seen a number of cases where the family intervenes when paperwork is not completed ahead of time and since the two people are not married the next of kin wins out.

So, everything you typed in that entire paragraph was pretty much just something you made up. That's why I said what I did. But yeah, everybody is picking on you.

Quote:

yeah, grow up, leftist!

That's me!

Quote:

There appears to be far too many "left-thinking" personalities here for my liking.

Yeah, it's pretty much like Burning Man around here.

I can't imagine what the other boards must be like.

Quote:

or maybe the moderators are gay and they just find the whole topic offensive...?

Yeah, that was probably it.

Quote:

I spent about 15 minutes of my time finding links to studies that proved my point, and about a minute after I posted it, it was deleted...

I'm not sure of that discussion,, didn't see it and I didn't see your response so I'm not sure what links you posted.

There are some rules around here about certain types of sites not being allowed and the reasons for each seem fair so far. (I still question the twitter thing if it's a verified tweeter but that's no biggie)

Your links may have been against one of the rules.. did you by chance take a moment to go over them? Just wondering.

Quote:

Knowing that this is how things work around here, I'm not wasting my time proving anything to anybody.

for the most part, you don't have to prove anything you say.. I mean, if you don't when someone questions it, then that's fine. Last I Checked, nobody puts a gun to anyone elses head to prove a point.

that's why I said, if you have a mind to show some verification,, go for it. But no biggie if you don't want to.

But please, don't blame it on the site. this place runs essentially free for us. One man on here carries the weight on his shoulders financially for the most part.

And from what I know, the mods work totally free. While I may not always agree with thier decisions, I respect the work they do.. it ain't easy..

You've been a member here a very short time,, what you say you experienced in the other thread is actually rare. so I'm guessing the links you posted had something in them that isn't allowed.

LOL,, I once posted a link to a video that was truly funny,, But there were some Swear words in it and it was deleted. I guess I was laughing so hard at it, that I didn't even notice the cussing..LOL

And,, here's the thing. if you have an issue with a decision, there is a forum for that on there.. Ask about it.., you'll get your answer..

Quote:

This is a Browns forum, I came here for football discussion and then made the mistake of posting in a non-football thread. I won't make that mistake again

sorry you feel that way.. but I understand it. I don't post in the gaming threads or anything to do with Fantasy football.. don't care for any of that. I think I've posted in the Smack Shack 3 or 4 times in the entire time I've been on this board.. mostly cause I'm not all that good with smack and for the most part, I don't care for it.

Quote:

maybe the moderators are gay and they just find the whole topic offensive

Or, maybe the moderators are offensive and they just find the whole topic gay?

Quote:

Yeah, it's pretty much like Burning Man around here.

I heard Bob Dylan is stopping by next week.

Quote:

I spent about 15 minutes of my time finding links to studies that proved my point, and about a minute after I posted it, it was deleted...

Or, perhaps, there were a number of posts from that thread which were deleted because they were all in reply to one post that was against board rules. Example: Someone calls another poster an assho|e (clearly forbidden as name calling is a no-no) and then a bunch of people start clicking "Reply" from that or reply to the replies. When that first post is deleted, all those replies go bye-bye too.

Or, it could be as Damanshot said: Your links were to sites that aren't permitted here (personal blogs, websites that are profane, twitter, other message boards posts etc)

Quote:

Quote:

The same applies to the tax code. Gays can now file jointly and list dependents according to the same criteria as hetero couples. So the human rights aspect of this discussion was solved a long time ago.

Can gay and lesbian couples file joint federal taxes?

The Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law in 1996, defines marriage as between one man and one woman, prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex couples. And since only married couples can file joint federal tax returns, all gay and lesbian couples (including same-sex spouses in Massachusetts) must file federal taxes as individuals.

http://taxtime.about.com/od/tipstricks/a/taxfilingjoint.htm

You are also incorrect about health insurance, although some companies do offer it, certainly not all. As far as the visitation and medical decision making in a hospital I've seen a number of cases where the family intervenes when paperwork is not completed ahead of time and since the two people are not married the next of kin wins out.

So, everything you typed in that entire paragraph was pretty much just something you made up. That's why I said what I did. But yeah, everybody is picking on you.

As someone who worked with gay couples and hospital visitation rights, Jules is absolutely correct (as expected). Hospitals do not have to acknowledge the gay couple as family if they do not want to. Even in life-threatening situations, spouses can be prohibited from visiting or even getting any information regarding their spouse's state. I've seen the injustices hands-on and anyone who thinks that gays "have achieved equal human rights" has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

And I think that a large part of the reason we have seen so many defense of marriage acts. People don't want to change what marriage is. Many people would support civil unions, but there is never a middle ground. It's "give us gay marriage" and people refuse to change marriage to include gay couples.

I was against the Ohio Amendment that banned gay marriage, because it also banned any approximation of marriage, or benefits of marriage to any couple other than a legally married man/woman couple. It was bad legislation, but people did not want to have marriage include gay couples, so bad law passed.

This is the problem. If gay activists would say "Look, we understand that marriage has a religious connotation for many people, and we want to respect their beliefs. We want to be able to be joined in the same manner with partners of our choice in the same way, and to enjoy the same privileges, responsibilities and rights as married couples through a legal, civil union. We aren't asking for anyone to do anything except to respect our civil, legal rights, not to require any religion to approve of such if they feel that it is against their beliefs."

If gay rights activists would have come out with a position like that, then I bet that they would have legal civil unions in some of the states where they, instead, have bans on gay marriage. (or any approximation, which includes civil unions)

I think that the whole issue was horribly mismanaged.It seemed to me like gay rights activists wanted to try somehow to not only get gay marriage legalized, but also to have people accept them as moral, even when their religion would specifically forbid such acceptance.

Because of this refusal to accept a position that would allow for an equivalent of marriage, gay activists have energized people to vote against all of it, civil unions at all. It was a horrible miscalculation.

Are we forcing the Jewish faith to deem eating pork as moral? Are we forcing Muslims to deem drinking alcohol as moral? Are we forcing mormons to deem drinking caffine as moral?

The difference is that we are not changing what Pork, Drinking, or Caffeine are.

This would be changing what marriage is, and has always been.

You can call things whatever you want, but if people have specific beliefs, then trying to change the names of things won't change their beliefs. Pork is still pork, even if you try to call it beef, or blue, or zebra, or toe, or some made up word like goobdagata. It's still the same thing, through and through, as it was before. A Jewish person is not going to eat it. Trying to serve it to someone by changing the name is lying .... nothing more, nothing less.

It also works in reverse. You cannot make beef into pork just by saying that it is.

Quote:

This is the problem. If gay activists would say "Look, we understand that marriage has a religious connotation for many people, and we want to respect their beliefs. We want to be able to be joined in the same manner with partners of our choice in the same way, and to enjoy the same privileges, responsibilities and rights as married couples through a legal, civil union. We aren't asking for anyone to do anything except to respect our civil, legal rights, not to require any religion to approve of such if they feel that it is against their beliefs."

And why should one group's beliefs trump anothers? Especially when said belief system is arbitrary and illogical?

I mean, it's an attempt not to offend a belief system that puts homosexuality as a sin on par with getting tattoos and shaving, a belief system that calls for adultery, homosexuality and wizards to be stoned to death. This is the belief system that we should tip-toe around?

Religious beliefs should in no way help to determine law. A church should be free to not recognize or perform whatever marriages it chooses, and that should be the extent of their influence.

Quote:

Because of this refusal to accept a position that would allow for an equivalent of marriage, gay activists have energized people to vote against all of it, civil unions at all. It was a horrible miscalculation.

First of all, it's not a 'horrible miscalculation' to demand equal rights. Secondly, they're eventually going to get what they're asking for, probably within the next twenty years or so.

Quote:

This would be changing what marriage is, and has always been.

You mean like we've been doing for centuries?

Quote:

And I think that a large part of the reason we have seen so many defense of marriage acts. People don't want to change what marriage is. Many people would support civil unions, but there is never a middle ground. It's "give us gay marriage" and people refuse to change marriage to include gay couples.

There is a dfference in "changing mairrage" and "openning up mairrage to others of different beliefs and lifestyles".

You see, to me, mairrage wouldn't change. I'm not gay, so in my life, mairrage would be the same. To the entire non-gay community, mairrage would be exactly the same. Two people of the opposite sex having a mairrage union. It would not change our life, nor what mairrage is to us nor how we conduct mairrage in our own life.

It does not intrude on our life in any way. It does not effect our households nor our belief system. It does "not change" mairrage in your life or mine.

What a ban on gay mairrage does, is inflict our belief system upon others. It makes it impossible for those who live and believe differently than ourselves equal rights to have the same oppertunities simply because their lifestyle does not conform to what we believe, or at least some believe to be moral.

Nothing more and nothing less IMO

In other words, you are basically saying it's not going to change the way you live your life and you don't really care how others live thiers..

100% agree with ya

it makes no difference to me at all. Now if we want to talk abortion

Quote:

it makes no difference to me at all. Now if we want to talk abortion

talk about ringing a bell.. abortion is a toughy for me. honestly, I'm as confused by that as anything on earth. I honestly don't know how I feel about it.

but gay/lesbian marriage? I got no problem with it. none.

But for many people there is a HUGE difference between changing marriage and "opening" it up to others.

That is why there have been so many defense of marriage type acts and such. That's why there are so many bad pieces of legislation floating around. Whether you agree personally or not, most people do not want to change what marriage means at its core. That is why it is rejected almost everywhere there is a vote of the people. (even in liberal California)

http://www.youtube.com/v/ojZg3e3KSpk

I think she should be allowed to file jointly with herself....

Quote:

But for many people there is a HUGE difference between changing marriage and "opening" it up to others.

That is why there have been so many defense of marriage type acts and such. That's why there are so many bad pieces of legislation floating around. Whether you agree personally or not, most people do not want to change what marriage means at its core. That is why it is rejected almost everywhere there is a vote of the people. (even in liberal California)

But, are they really changing marriage by allowing same sex to get married? I mean, I know that if you look up the defination of marriage, it talks about a man and a woman. But what it's really talking about is a union of two people.

So, marriage is marriage,, doesn't really seem to matter what genders are involved..

maybe I think this way because I don't really see anything wrong with it in general so therefore it doesn't matter to me.

See, you are changing it in your own statement there.

"I know that it says .... but we want to change it because we think it really means this other thing" ......

That's not how most people look at marriage. (at least going by election results) People look at marriage as a man and a woman, leaving their families and joining together to create a new family.

I'm not married, and I have no kids, so the longer I am on this Earth, the less I really give a damn what people want to do. I think that this country is heading down the toilet for a lot of reasons, such as people are lazy, they want everything today but don't want to work for it, and many other similar reasons. Gay marriage really isn't something that keeps me up at night. However, I can see why people want to defend traditions and institutions that have meaning in their lives. They want to defend them for their children and grandchildren. They want to pass on a particular legacy and traditions, and don't want to see traditions changed and altered because of political considerations.

In my opinion, there is no reason why a gay couple cannot have a secular, legal, civil union. However, the fight has been for gay couples to be allowed to "marry". This has been a losing fight almost everywhere it has been contested, and gay couples lose the right to civil unions as a result as well in many cases. (like is the poorly worded Ohio Amendment) I would bet that gay couples could have secular civil unions, with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, if they had gone that route. Instead many gay leaders seemed to want to almost rub peoples' noses in the fact that they were going to be a gay "married" couple, and it backfired badly in most cases and states. A secular civil union that would allow for gay couples, as well as those who do not believe in any religion would have been a very appropriate way to get the ball rolling. Instead they became confrontational, and really ticked off a lot of voters. (Republicans and Democrats alike, especially Black and Hispanic voters)

I do find it interesting and appalling that so many fight for the institution of marriage while having children out of wedlock with multiple partners. I find it especially interesting that it happens so often in the Black community, where marriage is on such a decline, yet Black voters overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage initiatives.

Well, Yeah. I changed it. Because it's probably inaccurate to say that marriage is a union between man and woman today.

In fact, I don't think there is any probably about.

Bottom line, I just don't see the reason for the hubbub.

You don't. Obviously many other people do.

I think this is another example of when you decide something, and then skew logic to meet up with your opinion.

The progress the gay rights movement has made in the last eight or so years has been staggering. Public opinion continues to sway towards gay marriage every year, and the jump is only going to increase as the youth population - who by and large have no problem with it - get older.

The tides have been turning on this one for awhile. More and more people are getting past their bigotry. It's going to be legal in the next few decades.

And quite frankly ... it baffles me to know end to hear people who constantly preach that the government should stay out of people's lives is in favor of the government - be it state or federal - suddenly are in favor of the government legislating who you can marry. It completely differs from conservative ideology, and the only reason the view is held is because a holy text has a few passages forbidding it. A holy text, mind you that is filled with all sorts of other absurd decrees that said followers have no problem ignoring.

And not to mention ... why is everyone always talking about how gay marriage is always rubbed in their face? Do you have to rent a tux and make a toast at the wedding?

Unless someone is forcing your congregation to perform gay marriages, you're pretty much free to avoid and/or ignore it.

You say that public opinion swings towards it, yet it continues to be voted down by sizable majorities almost everywhere there is a public vote.

Which state has had the largest public vote in favor of gay marriage?

Quote:

You say that public opinion swings towards it, yet it continues to be voted down by sizable majorities almost everywhere there is a public vote.

Which state has had the largest public vote in favor of gay marriage?

You're missing the forest for the trees.

That majority is rapidly shrinking. Every single day, more and more people are coming to realize their bigotry. I've seen it in my own family, amongst friends, and almost every statistical measure you can find shows that support for gay marriage is increasing at a steady rate.

Couple that increase in support with the fact that those opposed are predominantly older, and those in support are predominantly younger ... and in a few decades or less, you'll see gay marriage legalized, as it should be.

There are many issues I worry over ... gay rights isn't one of them. There's a ways to go, but the wheels are in motion.

The dinosaurs are going to get left in the dust on this one.

I don't see a huge swing going on.

The most opposed demographics to gay marriage are the Black and Hispanic communities. These are the 2 fastest growing segments of the population as well.

We'll see what happens down the road.

Quote:

I don't see a huge swing going on.

That's because you only see what you want to see.

No, that's because I see election results, and growth pattern in the 2 groups traditionally most opposed to gay marriage. (Black and Hispanic populations)

The White voter has been the strongest proponent of gay marriage, and they are a shrinking segment of our population. Explain to me how that means that gay marriage has a better chance of becoming law in the future. Unless there is a radical change in the outlook of these 2 communities towards the matter of gay marriage, it will be a very long time before gay couples will be able to marry in any state in the US.

There's growing support in the African American community after Obama went public about it.

For now.

No one has voted since then ..... and Obama was afraid to come out with his new position prior to the NC election.

We'll see what happens when it's no longer fresh in anyone's head, especially if Obama loses the upcoming Presidential election.

Strong public support for same-sex marriage exceeds strong opposition by a significant margin for the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls, and African-Americans have moved more in favor, perhaps taking their lead from Barack Obama on the issue.

Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, steady the past year but up from 36 percent in just 2006. Thirty-nine percent “strongly” support it, while 32 percent are strongly opposed – the first time strong sentiment has tilted positive. Six years ago, by contrast, strong views on the issue were negative by a broad 27-point margin.

See PDF with full results here.

Further, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that support for gay marriage has reached a new high among African-Americans in ABC/Post polls, up from four in 10 in recent surveys to 59 percent now.

Another result shows increasing exposure: Seventy-one percent of Americans now say they have a friend, family member or acquaintance who’s gay, up from 59 percent in 1998. People who know someone who’s gay are 20 points more likely than others to support gay marriage.

Regardless of that shift, Obama’s May 9 announcement of his support for gay marriage shows no measurable impact on political preferences. While more support than oppose his position, 51-41 percent, Americans divide on whether it’s a political plus or minus, with most saying it’s not a major factor in their vote choice.

SUPPORT – Support for gay marriage reached a majority for the first time in an ABC/Post poll in March 2011 and has held there since, at 51 to 53 percent. Strong support has been essentially at parity with strong opposition across that time, a shift from previous years.
In this poll, though, strong opposition to gay marriage is at a new low in polls since 2004, while strong support is at a numerical high, producing a 7-point positive gap.

Notably among groups, 59 percent of African-Americans in this survey express support for gay marriage – up from 41 percent in combined ABC/Post polls this spring and last summer. Likewise, 65 percent support Obama’s new position on the issue. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People announced its support for gay marriage last weekend.
Fewer whites, 46 percent, approve of Obama’s announcement, and 50 percent support gay marriage – numerically (albeit not statistically significantly) the fewest since 2010.

VOTE and GROUPS – While 20 percent see the issue as a major reason to support Obama, about as many, 23 percent, call it a major reason to oppose him, both among groups that look likely to have supported or opposed him anyway. Fifty-five percent say it’s not a major factor.

Even among those who approve of the president’s support for the issue, nearly six in 10 say it’s not an important factor in their vote; 38 percent call it a major reason to support him. More of those who disapprove of his position, half, call it a major reason to oppose him in the election.

Sharp differences among groups persist. Republicans and conservatives oppose gay marriage by more than 2-1, evangelical white Protestants by more than 3-1. While Democrats support it by more than 2-1, the balance is tipped, as is often the case, by independents: Fifty-eight percent support legalizing gay marriage; 43 percent do so strongly.

Among other groups, support for gay marriage reaches 69 percent among adults under age 30 (with 51 percent “strong” support), compared with just 38 percent of seniors. (Half of seniors are strongly opposed). Support is also 14 points higher among college graduates than among non-graduates, 63 to 49 percent. But it’s the same, 53 percent, among men and women alike.
FRIEND/FAMILY – As noted, seven in 10 Americans report having a friend, family member or acquaintance who is gay or lesbian. They’re much more apt to support gay marriage (59 percent, vs. 39 percent of those who don’t know someone who is gay) and also to approve of the president’s position on the issue (56 percent, vs. 39 percent of others).

As with support for gay marriage, knowing someone who’s gay is notably high among young adults and people with college degrees, 80 percent in each group. It’s higher among women than men, 76 vs. 66 percent. Broad majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents (65, 71 and 76 percent, respectively) also report having a friend, family member or acquaintance who is gay. It’s 56 percent each, by contrast, among blacks and seniors.

STATE vs. FED – Obama said he supports gay marriage personally but believes the states should decide on its legality; on that the public splits about evenly, with 49 percent favoring state control vs. 46 percent who’d prefer to have the federal government make the rules.
Support for federal legislation is higher (57 percent) among proponents of gay marriage; among those who oppose gay marriage, the same share, 57 percent, prefer state rule. Thirty states have constitutionally banned gay marriage; eight (plus Washington, D.C.) have legalized it (including two in which those laws are yet to take effect).

Political divisions follow, with Republicans 23 points more apt to back state rather than federal rule, Democrats 14 points more likely to favor a single federal law – and independents roughly divided, 50-45 percent, state-federal.
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 17-20, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points for the full sample. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by Abt-SRBI of New York, N.Y.

link

Here's the actual poll.

As my generation gets older and starts having children and the older generation passes away, support for gay marriage will become overwhelming. The times they are a-changing. Gay marriage will be legal soon, there's no way around it. Too many young people support it and the only demographic that truly is dead-set against it are the elderly. It's a cultural shift that the older generation just can't wrap their head around for some reason.

Like I said ..... that "majority" obviously doesn't vote ..... because gay marriage loses almost every public vote by a fairly substantial margin.

I've also found it interesting that a polling company can access the mood of the country by calling 1000 people ..... which is about 20 per state.

Further, likely voters is really about the only poll that ever matters in any poll material, because people who don't vote, don't matter.

I doubt that gay marriage is going to get someone who rarely or never votes to get out and vote, unless they someone close to them who is directly impacted.

Quote:

Like I said ..... that "majority" obviously doesn't vote ..... because gay marriage loses almost every public vote by a fairly substantial margin.

Except for the fact it's legal in (soon to be) 8 states.

You're completely missing the big picture. Even with that majority not voting yet , gay marriage has gone from a mental disease to being legal in several states over the course of 40 years. As the younger generation gets older - which by and large has absolutely no issue with gay marriage - do you really think these old bigotries will stand? Sooner or later, there will be a federal bill passed. I don't know how old you are, but I have no doubt it will happen in my lifetime (I'm 22) and I would be willing to bet it happens within 10-15 years when my generation gets to the age where they actually begin voting

Quote:

Like I said ..... that "majority" obviously doesn't vote ..... because gay marriage loses almost every public vote by a fairly substantial margin.

Not only are you ignoring a multitude of facts to cling to one point, your point isn't even really valid.

In the last fifteen state votes on legalizing gay marriage, six voted yes. Of those voting 'no', half were California and New York, retrying after their previous attempts to ban gay marriage were deemed unconstitutional. New York later legalized gay marriage.

Votes aren't even important any more ... the courts are.

Quote:

You say that public opinion swings towards it, yet it continues to be voted down by sizable majorities almost everywhere there is a public vote.

Which state has had the largest public vote in favor of gay marriage?

I don't know the stats, but 15 years ago, how many states allowed gay marriage? Any?

today it's what, 4 or 5 I think..

I don't think there is any question that it's the direction we're heading as a nation.. Might take 25 or more years for it to be legal in every state.. but it's gonna happen...

6 states and D.C.

3 other states recognize but don't allow.

Quote:

6 states and D.C.

3 other states recognize but don't allow.

It was just a guess but I was close.

Point is, 15 years ago, did any state allow or even recognize it? I think not..

So it took 15 years to get 6 states to allow it,, like I said, it won't be allowed in every state in my lifetime, but I'm pretty sure it will come to pass..

My army buddy from taxes said and I quote "I think Texas will Secede before they Legalize Gay Marriage."

I found it funny.

Everything is bigger in Texas... especially the bravado.

Quote:

Point is, 15 years ago, did any state allow or even recognize it? I think not..

So it took 15 years to get 6 states to allow it,, like I said, it won't be allowed in every state in my lifetime, but I'm pretty sure it will come to pass..

How long did it take to get a bunch of states to create constitutional amendmends against it?

I look for it to be a very hotly contested issue for quite a while with both sides digging their heels in....

Quote:

Quote:

Point is, 15 years ago, did any state allow or even recognize it? I think not..

So it took 15 years to get 6 states to allow it,, like I said, it won't be allowed in every state in my lifetime, but I'm pretty sure it will come to pass..

How long did it take to get a bunch of states to create constitutional amendmends against it?

I look for it to be a very hotly contested issue for quite a while with both sides digging their heels in....

I do as well,, but in the end, and again, probably not in my lifetime, you will see it legalized everywhere.

J/c....

Why is it okay for any of us to vote on personal freedoms of others? Why is it okay for us to vote on things that DO NOT AFFECT US one little tiny bit?

People seem to vote based on their morals when I believe we should always vote for freedom. (Yes, there is still issue of defining both morals and freedom.) Voting on the personal lives of a group of people just seems wrong to me...who am I to say what's best for them?!? I am not bigger or more important than anyone else, yet most people just love to shove their beliefs and thoughts down my throat. Here's something....we don't have to agree on everything, but you stay out of my life, and I'll stay out of yours. Simple. Respectful.

Why couldn't we vote on the recent issue of drug testing for those on unemployment, btw? Why was that in in-house thing?

Personally, I don't think I should even have a say in who marries who?

At the backbone of any and all society and civilization is a set of principles and laws that legislate behavior among the citizens of a state or country. Many of these could be considered moral judgements. Don't steal, don't kill. don't lie under oath, don't cheat people out of their money, and so on. At their core, these are the things that separate civilization from the law of the jungle. In the jungle, the strongest force would prevail, and the weak would either perish, or lose whatever the strongest wanted to take.

Many, many laws in our society have a moral component to them. Don't have sex with children, don't commit rape, don't marry more than one person, etc. These laws all have a moral judgement aspect to them.

As far as gay marriage, I have long been on record as supporting a secular civil union for gay couples. People ask me "well why is defending a word so important to you?", and I would ask the same in reverse. If a gay couple gets to spend the rest of their lives together, joined in a loving relationship, and in a legal institution that gives them all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privledges as a married couple receives, then what difference does it make if it is called "marriage", or "sam"? If you could have all of the same rights and privledges of marriage, but it was called a "secular civil union", or even just a "civil union" ....... or if it was called "blooto" ...... wouldn't you want to join with the person of your choosing? The insistence that the meaning of the word marriage should be changed to include gay couples is, IMHO, more than anything else, what has held back the cause of gay legal unions, and is the biggest rallying point for groups who place badly written amendments on ballots, which are then usually passed in sizable margins.

In most polls I have seen, support for gay civil unions is significantly higher than for gay marriage. However, this isn't good enough. Wanting to change the meaning of the word "marriage" has slammed the door shut for gay couples across the country who want to have a legal joined relationship with the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

People can say that voters are intolerant and such, but some blame lies with the movement itself that tries to force their morality on a wider range of society. It seems to me that voters would accept a way of legally allowing a gay union without the perceived religious approval that changing the word marriage to include gay couples would imply. This really is the basis of the argument. Gay couples want the acceptance that the word marriage would convey. They want the societal, religious, and moral approval it would imply. However, religious institutions are never going to accept gay behavior as moral, even if they accept the right of people to be gay. The whole thing truly does seem to me to be an attempt to put a thumb in the eye of religious people and institutions, rather than a purely heartfelt attempt to have a union that would allow 2 people to live together in a legal bond.

I know that it is parsing words in a way, but the gay marriage movement does the same, just coming from the other side. Plus, they have given up the right to have a legal union in many states by pushing people into poorly written "all or nothing" ballot issues.

Quote:

People can say that voters are intolerant and such, but some blame lies with the movement itself that tries to force their morality on a wider range of society.

Legalizing gay marriage isn't forcing anyone's morality on anyone in any way, shape, or form. Not allowing it, however, is.

I find it completely ridiculous that the religious are always the one claiming that everyone is trying to force their morals on them, when it's almost always the other way around.

If gay marriage were deemed legal by the Supreme Court tomorrow, you would be absolutely free to not attend gay weddings. The church would be absolutely free to not recognize or perform gay weddings. You could, if you chose, live your life without having to deal with gay marriage, outside of maybe having neighbors that were married, or possibly passing by a gay wedding while driving. That's not forcing anything on you. Not in the least. Gay marriage being legal wouldn't affect your freedoms whatsoever. You wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything, nor would anything be 'forced' upon you.

Now, on the flip side, banning gay marriage is forcing your morals upon another.

If it's a moral issue one way, then it has to be, by definition, a moral issue the other way.

In many ways it really has been an attempt by gay leaders to shove the noses of religious people in it. It's been a case of "we'll show them", instead of "we'll reach an accommodation and get what we actually want".

Quote:

If it's a moral issue one way, then it has to be, by definition, a moral issue the other way.

In many ways it really has been an attempt by gay leaders to shove the noses of religious people in it. It's been a case of "we'll show them", instead of "we'll reach an accommodation and get what we actually want".

So you object to the methods used to achieve the desired result but not the desired result?

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that gay couples should have the right to a union that has the same rights and responsibilities, but not that we should change marriage to become something that it has never been before.

On the religious side, I do not believe that this should be a marriage. I believe in the traditional meaning of marriage. However, like I said, as a societal issue, in the secular arena, I don't feel that gay couples should be kept from joining together in a union.

I do think that the insistence by gay activists that gay unions be called marriage has caused many of the state issues that now forbid even a union that "approximates" marriage. Activists went for all or nothing, and in many cases, got nothing.

Quote:

If it's a moral issue one way, then it has to be, by definition, a moral issue the other way.

Again, their morality isn't being 'forced' upon you. Two people of the same sex being married has zero effect on you. Nada. You don't have to rent a tux and attend, or make a speech, or buy them a gift. You don't have to say that you condone it. Your church doesn't have to say that they condone it. If you choose to, you can live a life where gay marriage plays virtually no part in it. The most you'll have to deal with is having married gay neighbors, or married gay co-workers, and you're free to avoid them if you want. You don't have to conform to someone else's morality one iota.

On the other hand, you are trying to make others conform to your morality. They do have their freedoms restricted and your morals are being forced upon others.

Morally, I'm opposed to the KKK. And they have a legal right to exist, and march and speak their minds. I've even come across a few members over the course of my life. And you know what ... nothing's been forced upon me. My nose is not being rubbed in the morals of the KKK. I am free to keep them out of my life, and I have done so with very high success. However, if I were to say it should be illegal for them to march or protest or pass out literature, then I would be forcing my morals onto them.

Quote:

In many ways it really has been an attempt by gay leaders to shove the noses of religious people in it. It's been a case of "we'll show them", instead of "we'll reach an accommodation and get what we actually want".

Yes, that's clearly it.

What they want is equal freedom under equal terms.

And I'm yet to understand how two people getting married outside of the church is rubbing their nose in anything. Does the church have to attend? Is the wedding party going to hang out in the parking lot after noon mass? How is the church affected in any way, outside of the law not agreeing with their morals, which it already doesn't?

j/c

I see PDR, Ytown and Daman are getting in typing shape for the upcoming election cycle by stating the same things over and over as per usual.

now guys, we need you for the election push. make sure to rotate your wrists every 15-20 minutes, wear a carpal-protector if needed, stretch your neck and back (be careful Ytown). Oh, and get your eyes enough rest.

Remember, it's a marathon until the last mile where it becomes a sprint. Don't be like Bodemeister and use everything up in the first half of the race.

I'm just not going to even bother with you on this any more. It really is the same stuff back and forth to no end ..... and I kinda feel almost like you're stalking me.

Religious people see marriage as a sacred institution, and gay as a sin. the 2 are completely and absolutely incompatible. There is no way to make the 2 compatible for churchgoing religious people.

While you may convince religious people that gay people have a right to a secular institution with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, you will never convince them to allow gay marriage itself. I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Quote:

I'm just not going to even bother with you on this anymore.

Stay classy.

Well, I'm not gonna change his mind and he's not gonna change my mind.

Given that .... it's senseless to continue replying to him on this matter.

Quote:

I'm just not going to even bother with you on this any more. It really is the same stuff back and forth to no end ..... and I kinda feel almost like you're stalking me.

This is one of the funnier 'I can't refute your point, so I'll divert' statements I've seen in awhile. Very Michael Scott-esque.

I'm not saying that just to be facetious ... it really did crack me up and, to be honest, I could use the laugh.

Quote:

Religious people see marriage as a sacred institution, and gay as a sin. the 2 are completely and absolutely incompatible. There is no way to make the 2 compatible for churchgoing religious people.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with law?

Zero.

This argument doesn't hold a single drop of water in the legal arena (where gay marriage will eventually be decided).

Quote:

While you may convince religious people that gay people have a right to a secular institution with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, you will never convince them to allow gay marriage itself. I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

I've seen plenty already in my lifetime that were convinced that their prior bigotry was wrong. I expect to see plenty more.

And beyond that ... no one has to convince religious people of anything ... why do you insist on acting like our laws are or should be dictated by religion?

Religious people vote, especially when issues like this arise. .

Quote:

Religious people vote, especially when issues like this arise. .

That's not the point.

As I've said, voting really doesn't matter here.

A) Trends are that acceptance of gay marriage is soon to be in the majority.

B) Plenty of religious folks have voted to ban gay marriage, only to have a court overturn it as unconstitutional

These are two trends you continue to bury your head in the sand on.

As I've said ... in the end, voting won't be what matters. The courts will end up deciding this, and in the end, there's no legal justification for banning gay marriage. Not one.

It will be legal, countrywide, within the next twenty years.

Also ... can you explain how gay marriage being legal is someone 'shoving' their morals into your face? You've yet to explain that, or how you wanting gay marriage to be illegal isn't you shoving your morals in their faces.

Quote:

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that gay couples should have the right to a union that has the same rights and responsibilities, but not that we should change marriage to become something that it has never been before.

On the religious side, I do not believe that this should be a marriage. I believe in the traditional meaning of marriage. However, like I said, as a societal issue, in the secular arena, I don't feel that gay couples should be kept from joining together in a union.

I do think that the insistence by gay activists that gay unions be called marriage has caused many of the state issues that now forbid even a union that "approximates" marriage. Activists went for all or nothing, and in many cases, got nothing.

Well hell, I wouldn't want you to compromise your belief systems.. But I just happen to see it differently. I'm absolutly convinced that I, you and others in this country should tell people who to marrry and I see nothing wrong with calling it a marriage.

So,, we just disagree on terminology

Quote:

At the backbone of any and all society and civilization is a set of principles and laws that legislate behavior among the citizens of a state or country. Many of these could be considered moral judgements. Don't steal, don't kill. don't lie under oath, don't cheat people out of their money, and so on. At their core, these are the things that separate civilization from the law of the jungle. In the jungle, the strongest force would prevail, and the weak would either perish, or lose whatever the strongest wanted to take.

Many, many laws in our society have a moral component to them. Don't have sex with children, don't commit rape, don't marry more than one person, etc. These laws all have a moral judgement aspect to them.

As far as gay marriage, I have long been on record as supporting a secular civil union for gay couples. People ask me "well why is defending a word so important to you?", and I would ask the same in reverse. If a gay couple gets to spend the rest of their lives together, joined in a loving relationship, and in a legal institution that gives them all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privledges as a married couple receives, then what difference does it make if it is called "marriage", or "sam"? If you could have all of the same rights and privledges of marriage, but it was called a "secular civil union", or even just a "civil union" ....... or if it was called "blooto" ...... wouldn't you want to join with the person of your choosing? The insistence that the meaning of the word marriage should be changed to include gay couples is, IMHO, more than anything else, what has held back the cause of gay legal unions, and is the biggest rallying point for groups who place badly written amendments on ballots, which are then usually passed in sizable margins.

In most polls I have seen, support for gay civil unions is significantly higher than for gay marriage. However, this isn't good enough. Wanting to change the meaning of the word "marriage" has slammed the door shut for gay couples across the country who want to have a legal joined relationship with the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

People can say that voters are intolerant and such, but some blame lies with the movement itself that tries to force their morality on a wider range of society. It seems to me that voters would accept a way of legally allowing a gay union without the perceived religious approval that changing the word marriage to include gay couples would imply. This really is the basis of the argument. Gay couples want the acceptance that the word marriage would convey. They want the societal, religious, and moral approval it would imply. However, religious institutions are never going to accept gay behavior as moral, even if they accept the right of people to be gay. The whole thing truly does seem to me to be an attempt to put a thumb in the eye of religious people and institutions, rather than a purely heartfelt attempt to have a union that would allow 2 people to live together in a legal bond.

I know that it is parsing words in a way, but the gay marriage movement does the same, just coming from the other side. Plus, they have given up the right to have a legal union in many states by pushing people into poorly written "all or nothing" ballot issues.

Just in case people skimmed over it I'm quoting the above.

This is exactly how I feel as well. Well said.

I agree. Especially this statement:

Quote:

If a gay couple gets to spend the rest of their lives together, joined in a loving relationship, and in a legal institution that gives them all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privledges as a married couple receives, then what difference does it make if it is called "marriage", or "sam"?

This would meet the needs of all involved. But in this day and age of someone having to win and rub the noses of the loser in it, it just makes too much sense.

Quote:

I agree. Especially this statement:

Quote:

If a gay couple gets to spend the rest of their lives together, joined in a loving relationship, and in a legal institution that gives them all of the same rights, responsibilities, and privledges as a married couple receives, then what difference does it make if it is called "marriage", or "sam"?

This would meet the needs of all involved. But in this day and age of someone having to win and rub the noses of the loser in it, it just makes too much sense.

If there's no difference between calling it marriage' and 'sam' ... then let's just call it what it is - marriage.

And it's not about winners and losers ... it's about equal rights on equal terms.