Massachutsetts spits on Defense of Marriage Act...

I actually thought about putting that whole 'homophobe' argument in, but I'm gay, and I actually never liked that idea myself, so I left it out. It's a little too presumptious in my opinion, plus I think it just serves to incite people.

What I find strange is that certain people who are self-confessed Christians insist on judging others. Didn't Christ himself say 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' ? For them to make someone out to be a lesser person because of his/her sexuality or beliefs is nothing less than hypocrisy of the first order.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Uh, no, Kay'em, you are absolutely wrong. See, that is what makes a society; a group of people who do share such things as moral standards and ethics, so that the group of people can live harmoniously in good times, and can draw upon common strngths and goals to survive as a nation during the bad times. This concept is not new at all, as a matter of fact, moral relativity is the new kid on the block, untested and unproven.
There is no clone in that, you are being a bit over-dramatic with your broad brush.

How exactly am I wrong, TC ?

You tell me in one sentence that a society shares the same morals and standards and then you say in the next that there is no 'clone brush' in that. I don't get how I am wrong, because the last time I checked. Any group of people that thought exactly the same and shunned those who refused to conform (as you are trying your best to do with me and my character in your posts to me of late) WERE clones basically. Pod People. Lovers & worshippers of Stepford.

As for your comments regarding your children, I think you confused my responsibilities with your own. I have no responsibilities towards your children or anybody elses. NONE. You chose to breed, therefore YOU worry and fret over their well-being and whether or not the new neighbor next door to you conforms to your lofty ideals (I feel sorry for THAT neighbor, I can tell you that).

Props to Hamilton by the way....he saved me time by taking the words right out of my mouth by bringing up the overpopulation issue.

I can settle this whole freaken argument.

The government state or federal should not be issueing marriage license... marriage is a purely religious institution ... religion seems to own the word marriage so.. let em have the word.

What the states and federal government should be doing is issueing Partners License and not get involved in religion... Seperation of Church and State remember ?

And laws governing the partners union should apply to any who wish to become partners. Religious people don't have to buy a state license to marry in order for it to be sanctioned by the church do they? No... they don't... and the bible says nothing about license it just says commitment.

The only reason anyone gets a quote Marriage License is so they can have the protections provided under the law for thierselves and thier children. Essentailly the government has sanctioned a purely religious belief by requiring people to Marry at all or by punishing those who don't marry by giving them less protection under the law. See what I'm saying?

So why shouldn't any partners have the same protections provided by the law? Family health care, joint ownership of property, etc etc etc

Its not the governments job to determine what is or isn't a marriage.

Also here is another thing that occured to me. Maybe someone else has already posted... but every species has a way to control over population. Squirrels cut thier male off spring when they are babies to stop them from reproducing... Something in the psychi of the human speicies may be triggering homosexual behavior as a means to control the population growth.... Geesh people there are humans born with both male and female organs..... I'd like to hear what the christian community says about that one... which are they male or female? Who do they get to marry ?




[Edited on 23-5-2004 by Chevy]

This Christian feels that hermaphrodites should be able to marry any consenting adult of any sex, just like everybody else.

Taking God out of the equation, I find two men having sex utterly filthy, disgusting and vile. Just the thought of the very act they perform is repulsive and I do not want my children to think that it is OK. The Judges that would pass laws to allow this have lost their minds and my respect for them. They should be removed from office, they no longer are showing that they can make sound decisions if they allow such perversions to continue. Soon they all will pay a great price when the reality sets in that God still rules in the affairs of men and that homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God and all transgressors will be judged and cast into the Lake of Fire. Whether they believe in the lake or not. one day very soon they will find themselves being tormented in the flames, Lest They Repent and turn from this abominable sin. God loves the sinner but not the sin.

If the U.S. Supreme Court is unable to find a Constitutional argument on the legality of a law, (which they've abmitted, they couldn't) they damn well had better NOT make a ruling. Texas's Sodomy Laws should INSTANTLY be reinstated. Either that, or else Massachusetts's Laws should be reversed. To me, it's a matter of bragging about an America that STILL has a Constitution...and backs it up! Either we live in a Republic, or we don't...it's really very simple!

People have tried to equate gay marriage to a civil right, it is not. The abillity to get married is gaurenteed to no one gay or str8....it is not my civil right to ever have a bride/spouce....and no one will be obligated to provide me with one. The fact that anyone is/is not married has no bearing on the rest of their life, one can still have a successful career, live with someone they love, drive a car and do anything else a non married person can. There is no right to a marriage for anyone. (obviously once married, there is no garuntee of success)

Several people mentioned that its not the governments business to interfere in this manner....i agree to a point.
while id prefer that the government stay out of my personal affairs....government interaction is nessisary for certain things to balance out for everyone (public safety) or the society overall (cultural definition).

ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. IF that culture decided no to say.....smoking in public places, then its NO, and all of us that feel left out in the cold (literally) or feel like our freedoms have been taken away face few choices, right or wrong, the culture has decided that this is what they want as a boundary/definition for them.

A few people have also mentioned that "2 concenting adults doing nothing illegal" well, for the past several decades at least, the physical acts involved in gay sex have been illegal....(SODOMY LAWS, ORAL SEX IN SOME CASES) Gay marriage is not illegal, its just not legally reccognized.

THE BIG PICTURE ON SEXUAL CHOICE.
If in a democratic society they decide to not legitimize gay marriage/civil unions...then they HAVE THAT RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CHOICE...right, wrong, or debatable. While a person can choose to act upon their sexual urges or not, or to get married or not, that does not mean that this choice would be acceptable or that the society overall has to condone this choice.

In fact if a person that wants to be legally gay married does not find that capasity in the society they reside in, THEY CAN CHOOSE TO MOVE TO ONE THAT DOES!! Why with so many choices on this topic have the gay marriage folks come out with "were soo oppressed" ?
Why do they feel the need to force change upon those that have done nothing against them (except relax their cultural standards already)

Dont forget that what you do in the privacy of your bedroom becomes PUBLIC once you get to the courthouse to get your marriage/civil union license....If this has to do with legal issues in the public domain, then it affects every citizen. weather they feel any impact or not.

Well, that is not true. Marriage has been defined and understood for thousands of years. There is no denial of any right by refusing to allow two homosexuals make a mockery of marriage. Homosexuals have rights as human beings, not as being homosexuals.

I must apologize for my bluntness, but this is one of the stupidest arguements I've ever heard. Here is an idea - let's retract all the civil rights legislations. After all, blacks have rights as humans (hey, they could still go to school, get water, and ride the bus without these legislations), not as blacks. Let's retract all the women's rights gains. After all, women have rights as humans, not women.

Please, think before you say something like that.

By not granting homosexuals access to FEDERAL rights that are available to everyone else and having the sole reason of their sexual orientation as the root of the denial of rights, you are discriminating, plain and simple.

Originally posted by CazMedia
A few people have also mentioned that "2 concenting adults doing nothing illegal" well, for the past several decades at least, the physical acts involved in gay sex have been illegal....(SODOMY LAWS, ORAL SEX IN SOME CASES) Gay marriage is not illegal, its just not legally reccognized.

From all I've been able to see, there are around 13 states with sodomy laws still on the books. Out of those, 9 condemn acts of sodomy between heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. And one that condemned sodomy for homosexuals but not heterosexuals was already struck down by the Supreme Court. Sooo, what happened decades ago has no bearing today really, at least not in the context you are using. Far and away the majority of states do not have current sodomy laws, and the few that do will probably be invalidated soon enough.

And who tried to equate 'gay marriage' with civil rights? You're right that the ability to get married is guaranteed to no one, but equal protection and equal rights to all American citizens is. So gay marriage is just an extension of that. So if the Constitution guarantees equal rights to American citizens, and 37 of the states have no laws banning homosexual behavior or relationships, explain to me how you see it as justified that all 50 states (well 49 now) refuse to accept gay marriage from a legal standpoint?

Cutwolf, no need to apologize at all; if you feel it is a stupid argument, then say it! I won't get my feelings hurt.

No, perversion is not the same as skin color. That, sir, is a stupid angle, and were I black, I would be offended.

Federal rights? Please, explain to me what a "federal right" is. Besides, a right is not something you "gain access" to, it is something you have, whether or not you are allowed to excercise it. Nowhere will you find anything that protects homosexuality as a right, unless maybe you go back to their native land, where it was protected. After all, you are saying it is a nationality. Anything that has been created statutorily is new and stands not on the constitution (assuming it is in this country.).

Anyway, apparently, we do not agree. Who'd a' seen that one coming?

Cutwolf says,
"
By not granting homosexuals access to FEDERAL rights that are available to everyone else and having the sole reason of their sexual orientation as the root of the denial of rights, you are discriminating, plain and simple."

Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.

We have federal laws that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor, social security)....The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, womens only medical services, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs. We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income..or gain bennifits based on income (or lack thereof)..Bottom line on #1...a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it.

w_hamilton,
ive been reading many threads on here about the gay marriage issue, and i confused myself when posting....but the gay marriage/civil rights issue has been raised in defense of this issue. So there is my take on any marriage not being a civil right.

You're reaching. To bring you back to the topic at hand, the point you make would be like some church refusing to marry a gay couple, or refusing to acknowledge a gay marriage. If that's the case, so be it, that's their right. There's a difference between the legal institution of marriage and the religious definition of marriage.

Again, I ask anyone here to give one legally justified reason in why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for your other points, there are reasons there are laws against child labor, and other issues you see as 'discrimination.' So if gay marriage is illegal, what's the reason for it? The majority of the states do not have laws banning homosexuals / homosexual behavior. Therefore being gay is not illegal in their view. I'll be waiting. You can't fall back on religious reasons either because of separation of church and state, and because the Constitution states that there will be 'no law respecting an establishment of a religion,' which carried out basically means that the government cannot make and enforce laws from a specific religion. So again, what's the reason not to allow gay marriage?

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
I do not want my children to think that it is OK.

The Judges that would pass laws to allow this have lost their minds and my respect for them. They should be removed from office, they no longer are showing that they can make sound decisions if they allow such perversions to continue.

To the first comment: Again..it is nobodies responsibility but your own to watch over your children and protect them. If you don't want them to spy a gay couple on the street holding hands, purchase blinders for them to wear that only allow them to see the nice, normal couples that society 'approves' of. Oh and yes, also...go to Ebay or your local Wal-fart and purchase a copy of any book that teaches intolerance and hatred towards those all those considered different from you.

To the second comment: I considered that the judges up there lost their minds when they started letting child molesters and rapists go free while punishing drug users with life in prison. Not to mention when they started allowing huge lawsuits (and awarding them) for people spilling hot coffee all over themselves and then complaining it was hot.

Allowing these things to continue are the REAL perversions IMO. Not some couple loving each other. Get your priorities straight, Dude.

Originally posted by CazMedia
ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. IF that culture decided no to say.....smoking in public places, then its NO, and all of us that feel left out in the cold (literally) or feel like our freedoms have been taken away face few choices, right or wrong, the culture has decided that this is what they want as a boundary/definition for them.

I've had this arguement with another person on another thread already basically so I may as well say it again : If a person chooses to become a Clone of Stepford and clings to conformity, hence resisting change and progress, bully for them. But we, as free people have the right to choose NOT to join the majority if we feel that the way the majority lives and thinks doesn't gell with our beliefs/spirituality/tastes etc.

Some of you people who are SO adamant and insistant that everybody else think/live/act/breathe/talk/have sex/relieve yourself in the bathroom/eat/sleep (I hope I'm getting my point across here) the way that everybody ELSE (that would be the majority, yes ?) does are quite simply going to have to get a grip and take several reality pills, because it just is NOT ever going to happen. And why should it ? Diversity is a beautiful thing. Why waste a good portion of your life banging your head against a wall because Joe Blow next door to you has a boyfriend and mows his lawn in a different manner then you or the wrong day of the week as far as you're concerned.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.

You said it, I didn't. Freedom will always sound better to me then rules/responsibilities forced on an individual. If that's what it takes to make the world a fairer place for all, then maybe anarchy isn't such a bad idea.

(by the way, I am only half-serious here..SOME rules are necessary, but we've gone SO over-the-top insane with rules & regulations its amazing that we can still BREATHE without any restrictions placed on it)

Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it.

This is a cop-out as far as I'm concerned. This standard line always seems to come up from the sheeple whenever anybody out there 'dares' to question the status quo by proposing ways and ideas of making the world a fair and better place for all.

In other words, just because life isn't fair, in no way does that mean that life CAN'T be made fair. It simply means that a group (the majority again) don't want it to be because it threatens their complacency and the status quo.

Again...it is none of your business what anybody else does as long as it doesn't hurt you or anybody else. MYOB and NUNYA are the buzzwords here.

How about a law that bans gays? Or is that going to far. Is denying them marriage rights good enough? How about we make it ok not to hire someone because they are gay, or deny gays voting rights. Let's find a compromise.

WHO DOES GAY MARRIAGE HURT?

It hurts me as a person when the sanctity of my beliefs and basic religious tennants are stripped away against my wishes to fit a minority view.
It is insulting for the pro gay crowd to say its ok for them to trample on a culture's belief system...that "no one will be hurt" by being forced to accecpt someone elses alterations to the existing laws/social situation.
in essence..."we dont care if your hurt because we want our way" This thinking is basic lack of respect for the culture that they are trying to gain acceptance/accomodations from. If you choose to not include yourself in the majorities activities, you chose and should accept the results from your choice....no one is forcing you to stay where you dont like things.

It hurts my overall culture when it becomes more and more seperated into smaller and smaller niche groups....what hapened to UNITED WE STAND? It seems like we as a nation are becomming more fragmented, not less, and this WILL lead to the downfall of the USA. We will fight ourselves or make things so watred down, that being a citizen here would become like being a country club member. Take a glass of soda, now start to add water, at what point is it no longer a glass of soda but becomes a glass of water with some soda in it? Where can a culture draw a line for itself and say "this is who we are and what we believe in", and when did it become wrong to do so?

it hurts because this issue has been put forth as a RIGHT...an ENTITLEMENT....instead of what it really is, wich is a voluntary CHOICE.....being married is promised to NO ONE!!!! a person might never meet the person of their dreams and marry...Marriage is not nessisary to be a productive citizen.... the abillity to choose to become married already has boundaries to it...so the fact that one of them is that its only for a man/woman is just another one of them....big deal...

there is a thread going here somewhere about "starting a white club" most people on there agree that it would be ok for this to occur as other groups have "exclusive" clubs.....well marriage is a partially religious/legal exclusive club too....why do some think that joining an exclusive group based or race is ok, but one based on a sexual/religious basis is not?
why do these groups exist as the do? seperate based on some kind of DISCRIMINATION...the answer is because its part of how those groups DEFINE THEMSELVES. They have the legal protections to assemble as they choose (like the boy scouts) without having to accept people into the group that do not subscribe to the same ideals. Why is marriage any different of an issue then? no one forces me to join the scouts, its not nessisary to my life....the same with marriage...i could choose to be married, but dont have to for a sucessful life.

Originally posted by CazMedia
WHO DOES GAY MARRIAGE HURT?

i could choose to be married,

I think you just hit the nail on the head. You CAN choose to be married. Homosexuals can't choose to be married to the ones that they love.

And as far as the majority rules crap.....alot of states have had medical marijuana on the ballot and guess what, it has passed the majority vote. I still don't see medical marijuana legal in any state.....so the majority rules crap is just that......CRAP.

Kayem says,
"They are your children and you chose to have them in the current age/world we live in. Don't expect the world to revolve around your children, please. There are a lot of people out there who happily live without children who don't feel the world should revolve around families, and I happen to agree."

lets replace a few key words and say this again.

That is your relationship and you choose to have it in the current age/world we live in. Don't expect the world to revolve around your relationship, please. There are a lot of people out there who happily live without relationships and dont feel the world should revolve around gays marrying, and i happen to agree.

HMMM, remarkably similar ideology eh?
Especially as having kids and being married are CHOICES.

Lets say the USA took a vote right now, and the majority of this culture choose NO as the answer to the gay marriage issue. Weather or not you agree with that decision, DOES THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION OF CULTURAL DEFINITION?

Are you willing to throw sociology and anthropology out the window?

IF you say they do not, then how do cultures define what it is that makes them what they are? What seperates/distinguishes/defines them from culture b,c,d or e?

Doing whatever you want as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else is the basic premise behind the SATANIC BIBLE....
Did you realize how close your views are to a practicing devil worshiper?
(This statement is not to bring god or religion into this debate, but more to show some relativity/proximity of views to others sharing a similar ideology)

ROFLMAO !!!!!

Caz, your likening my views to devil worship is completely ludicrous.

Besides, if we're going for complete honesty here, I am neither a devil worshipper NOR gay as you so wrongly assumed.

I am in reality a pagan/wiccan (and please don't start in on me by insisting that I'm going to Hell. I don't believe in Hell) and an extremely straight happily married woman. But just because a person isn't gay doesn't mean they can't take up the cause and stand up for those who ARE.

As to all your arguements about society/culture/majority etc etc. I can see where you are coming from. It's crystal clear. You, like an awful lot of other people in this world desire a uniform, cloned Stepford society where everybody thinks and lives a like and nobody deviates from the norms that your 'majority' deem as right and just.

We are just coming from different places here and we will never meet in the middle because I, and those who believe as I do (probably the minority I'm sure, but no less valid), desire a world where individuality is respected as are other peoples personal choices.

You seem to have a hard time with the fact that other peoples choices/lifestyles are NONE of your business.

The only argument against same sex marriage is the Bible.

Alot of people even argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality but this is not the case imho.

If God didn't write the Bible or doesn't exist then the whole issue is irrelevant.

If God does exist then the USA had better watch out. The Bible is fairly clear what God will do.

So I would assume all the people objecting to homosexuality, same sex marriage or both base their objections solely on the Bible being the infallibe inerrant word of God.

There are no other arguments which even begin to hold water and the atheists & liberals will claim that the Bible argument is nonsense anyway.