Same-Sex marriages banned ?

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
in some places, I noticed, they banned it despite a certain popularity for it. weird.

allowing for gay marriage is a good thing for two reasons:

1. It allows people who are in the closet to come out and relieve themselves of the preventitive anguish that they have been suppresing themselves with for who knows how long.

2. It decreases the overall national divorce rate because, let's face it, sometimes heterosexual people marry a gay guy or a lesbian who is still in the closet until... oops... a same-sex affair.

on a moral level, I cannot really say because that's a largely subjective angle. on a reproductive level, it's kinda bad because only lesbian couples can reproduce children.

but at least the governments aren't totally coming out and saying "if you are gay, you are in violation of such-and-such law". Damn. The chaos that would cause.

Despite what popularity? You listen to the media too much. Just because 2 or three people cry a little harder than a room full of 100, doesnt mean that it is a popular thing to do.

It has been banned in at least 11 states due to a VOTE that the people participated in. If it was so popular, they would have voted down the ban.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Man, thats just stupid! You know damn good and well that I ment between 2 concenting adults. Are you a sicko? Why would you even bring up a pedophile? I take great offence to this as I have a 6 year old daughter, and I guarentee that she is more open minded than half the people on this thread. Take your childish insults somewhere else. If you have a serious question about my replies to this post, then ask and I wil answer to the best of my abilitites.

Wow, that's kind of what I thought of your original post, stupid. Your entire post is about moral obligation of accepting folks and not stopping them from doing things that they want (never once mentioning age). The first thing that came to mind is that is the same argument that NAMBLA uses. As you chastised everyone for being so closed minded�.sounding very pedophilic.

So what you�re now saying is; it�s so obvious that we should completely reverse everything you said based on some silly and arbitrary thing like age�when it�s is totally obvious that maturity and other such things have little to do with age. So my question to you is: if it is so obvious that every thing that you said is full of sh!^ for people of a certain age�.what age is it? ie�when does what you said stop being obviously full of sh!^ in your opinion? Please illuminate all of us as to when every thing you said magically starts to apply. And does it apply in stages or all at once? And if you�re so proud of how open minded your kid is�I guess implying maturity why would you then figure that:
1. You have a right to tell who she can love and marry?
2. That you are somehow excepted from your moral obligation to accept her for who she is�.and if she has decided to date who are you to deny your moral obligation of acceptance.
3. It�s somehow your responsibility to control someone�s life; I�ve lost faith in you kf.
Now before you go premenstrual on me again, what I was trying to illuminate for you is that adopting the argument of NAMBLA to justify, trying to force churches to recognize the �right� of gays to be called �married� was more than a little stupid��generally when I find myself agreeing with organizations like the previously stated (won�t say it again, so you won�t go premenstrual) I usually re-think my positions. Jeez, arguing the previously mentioned organizations (no PMS, I didn�t say it) party line�.what are you a sicko.

Oh and by the way in case you haven�t figured it out yet, it is the moral obligation of the �state� (society) to draw the line between acceptable and un-acceptable behavior, not accept everyone as is. whether you like the decision or not...it's a little over the top to adopt the NAMBLA party line to justify disgust with folks who don't want a definition change for marriage based on the desires of a special interest group. PC run amuk


as for you childs open mindedness being greater than most on this thread.....duh, when newly born she was more open minded than most on the planet....hopefully if you do your job, her mind will close enough to help her.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by keholmes]

Age of consent, between consenting adults etc, etc, these make all the difference to the argument. Your NAMBLA/downward spiral objection is rather like calling for an all out ban on driving because by your reasoning saying it's legal to drive a car at 18 could then open the floodgates for younger people to demand that same right, why not 16, 15, 14, 10. Maturity and the self responsibility to ensure your actions are not damaging to those around you is why we have legal age limits set for various things including sex hetero and homo. Personally I think the NAMBLA connection was deliberate and emotive, there are plenty of other examples to choose from, will you try bestiality next.

KID, obviously your only reading what you want to hear....i cut and pasted your question and answered MANY of them item by item on page 2 of this thread in my post #924654. Go back, comprehend what your reading, then come back and tell me i didnt answere your questions....
If i missed one, please restate it and ill give you an answer you wont like again.

Kid speaks of equality here,

The fact is, everyone is not being treated equal.

CONGRATULATIONS...YOU GET IT!!!
equality in America is a misnomer....
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. (1rst ammenment) 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.

Now tell me again about everyone getting equal special interest group entitlements....there is plenty of entitlement discrimination here to go around and around.

Kid says calling someone a homophobe,

is not a derogatory comment. It simply means that you are unwilling to accept what you do not understand.

You have no clue the depth of my or anyones understanding....my gay uncle, my gay friends, the many nights ive partied in gay nightclubs in Miami, or if ive even ever tried gay sex or not....you mearly brand the opposition with a devicive name that implies they are bad people when in reality, we havnt condemed you, just not accepted your demands.

Even if someone does expresses "disdain for homosexuals" as you say, they have the right to, and, you need to accept they have this right.
Starting from the idea that they are "wrong" means you will never find a way to reach a majority concensus.

Kid claims the marriage = man+woman laws are bad,

Another reason this is wrong is it starts to bring church and state together.

No it doesnt....the government is not using religion to enact these laws....PEOPLE having a faith you do not respect, happen to constitute a majority of people in the places where these new laws were voted in....the fact that these people MAY have used their religious beliefs (we dont know all reasons) to guide their decision is NO WAY government pushing religion. its rule BY the people, FOR the people, thru democratic means to define their cultural values. Now you want to take away the rights of these voting citizens to have a faith and act accordingly, so that you can get what you want?
Who's persecuting whom here?

[edit on 5-11-2004 by CazMedia]

How did this thread turn out to become a "NAMBLA" = "HOMOSEXUALITY" debate ?

Not only that: i have yet to see anyone prove that homosexuality is deleterious to society, and furthermore, that they have a negative impact on our 'children'. Now, i don't want to here some subjective clatter, or : "we have not conducted 'studies' to concluded the overall effect yet " crap. Anyone with a right mind knows that homosexuality has been around in socities the world over, anthropologicaly speaking.

Religious and homophobic convictions aside, if homosexuality is an atrophy to society and 'human nature', why is it ?

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
How did this thread turn out to become a "NAMBLA" = "HOMOSEXUALITY" debate ?

Deep

At some point don't most of these discussions!

This illustrates why, despite the arguments put forward by Cazmedia which on the face of it seem reasonable enough, democratic decisions made by the majority may not be considered sound if they're labouring under false assumptions and predjudice when reaching those decisions and there's a deppressingly large amount that do hold to these.

Nobody is trying to steal anything.... the same people who opposed equal rights for blacks said that they were trying to "steal" from society.

We do not live in a christian theocracy.. deal with it.

The founding fathers talked about "Freedom and choice" These founding fathers have little relation to the right-wingers of today who oppress certain groups based on fear and poor knowledge.

Your rights to marry a woman will not be abolished if gay marriage is allowed. Marriage does not always have to relate to Christianity or someones religion... it is a legal ceremony to bond people.. whether its two women, woman and man, or two men. It doesen't make a difference.

[edit on 6-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

ubermunche

It was deliberate and emotive�what did you think I accidentally posted it�.nice grasp of the obvious, but you missed the whole point of the post. And it�s kind of illuminating that you seem to place bestiality as more offensive then pedophilia. Again as I stated maturity & self responsibility have a pretty poor correlation to age, so it is a fairly arbitrary standard�but that wasn�t the point.

The idea that every action and thought is somehow controlled (fairly & obviously) until a certain age and then there should be absolutely nothing out of bounds�.unless an actual immediate physical harm is demonstrated on another is silly. Beyond the fact that certain actions can be dangerous although not immediately obvious; it relies on the vast majority of people to share the same values which is obviously not the case.

But beyond all that this drive towards PC speech is damaging. Beyond it being the ultimate expression of the lefts drive towards teaching tolerance through intolerance. Was marriage a state created institution�no they merely license it. Why does the left believe that the government should be in the business of defining words�..I personally don�t want the government in the dictionary business. Especially if the definition portion is under the control of the left�for many years we have seen racist redefined as �a person disagreeing with the left�

Originally posted by keholmes
ubermunche

It was deliberate and emotive�what did you think I accidentally posted it�.nice grasp of the obvious, but you missed the whole point of the post. And it�s kind of illuminating that you seem to place bestiality as more offensive then pedophilia. Again as I stated maturity & self responsibility have a pretty poor correlation to age, so it is a fairly arbitrary standard�but that wasn�t the point.

The idea that every action and thought is somehow controlled (fairly & obviously) until a certain age and then there should be absolutely nothing out of bounds�.unless an actual immediate physical harm is demonstrated on another is silly. Beyond the fact that certain actions can be dangerous although not immediately obvious; it relies on the vast majority of people to share the same values which is obviously not the case.

But beyond all that this drive towards PC speech is damaging. Beyond it being the ultimate expression of the lefts drive towards teaching tolerance through intolerance. Was marriage a state created institution�no they merely license it. Why does the left believe that the government should be in the business of defining words�..I personally don�t want the government in the dictionary business. Especially if the definition portion is under the control of the left�for many years we have seen racist redefined as �a person disagreeing with the left�

I'd like you to clarify exactly why you seem to think I regard bestiality as more offensive than molesting a child, where in my post did I make any such reference. As someone who has three friends who were all abused during their childhood (by heterosexuals BTW) I assure you I find it second only if not equal to murder.





.

Originally posted by keholmes
But beyond all that this drive towards PC speech is damaging.

How exactly do you feel this is damaging?

Why does the left believe that the government should be in the business of defining words�..I personally don�t want the government in the dictionary business.

But if a priest wants to marry a gay couple; you believe the government should legislate on how not to interpret the Bible?

Especially if the definition portion is under the control of the left�for many years we have seen racist redefined as �a person disagreeing with the left�

Would you mind elaborating on this statement?


[edit on 7-11-2004 by Durden]

Same sex marriage has been banned in 11 states. I was wondering how do you get a petition for a same sex marriage ban in the other 39 states. I would like to petition all the state representatives for the purpose. How often is it that we can do such things. Does it have to be every four years? Or can it be done anytime?

For those of you familiar with my posts. you know I'm a neo-conservative, and a huge Bush supporter. I am also very happy that the republicans control both houses of congress.

Now, where I differ from my man Dubya, and most other conservatives is the banning of gay marriage.

My feelings on it are why can't they be as miserable as the rest of us? (Yes I'm married).Seriously, who are we to tell these people that they can't be happy?

I'm not upset with the 11 states that passed gay marriage bans though, because I think it should be left up to the individual states.

I know my man dubya is for a constitutional amendment to ban it all together, but that is only one of the very few things I disagree with him on.

Uber

Your post just seemed to me to elevate them to the same level.

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by keholmes
But beyond all that this drive towards PC speech is damaging.

How exactly do you feel this is damaging?

I personally believe that drives towards PC speech are damaging, you might not agree�.I�m just against thought police.

Originally posted by Durden
But if a priest wants to marry a gay couple; you believe the government should legislate on how not to interpret the Bible?

then if the elders of his particular religion want to allow that it is up to them. However, the federal/state government has no business issuing marriage licenses, period. if you are 'married' by a judge or JOP i don't believe it should be called a marriage.....regardless....wtf is do you need a marriage license for?

Originally posted by Durden
Would you mind elaborating on this statement?

the left for years has branded folks as racist in order to oppose them�.look to the judicial nominations a couple of years ago, I can�t remember the name. I believe the demos and local NAACP supported the guy and at the national level democrats labeled the guy a racist�.funniest thing was listening to byrd in a interview talk about him. Although this is one example, I�m pretty sure that you yourself can come up with a few many of them in this just past political campaign.


[edit on 7-11-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes
I personally believe that drives towards PC speech are damaging, you might not agree�.I�m just against thought police.

Who is policing your thoughts here, keholmes?

And btw, IMO the description 'PC' has been tossed around rather recklessly as of late, so I'm just curious about your definition of - and which opinions you consider to be - PC?

then if the elders of his particular religion want to allow that it is up to them.

So if a christian priest wants to marry a gay couple, you have nothing against it?

.....regardless....wtf is do you need a marriage license for?

.....regardless....why tf should it be legislated against the people who wishes this license?

the left for years has branded folks as racist in order to oppose them�.look to the judicial nominations a couple of years ago, I can�t remember the name. I believe the demos and local NAACP supported the guy and at the national level democrats labeled the guy a racist�.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this example is satisfactory enough to support your notion of how we for many years have seen the left redefining the word 'racist' to 'a person disagreeing with the left'. Would you mind elaborating a little bit further on exactly how you came to this conclusion?



[edit on 8-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by keholmes
ubermunche


The idea that every action and thought is somehow controlled (fairly & obviously) until a certain age and then there should be absolutely nothing out of bounds�.unless an actual immediate physical harm is demonstrated on another is silly. Beyond the fact that certain actions can be dangerous although not immediately obvious; it relies on the vast majority of people to share the same values which is obviously not the case.

Well yes it has it's flaws but it's been the standard practice of society to both regulate and afford freedom to the majority both now and in the past so why negate it's use to the gay community
You can still use that argument to object to any number of freedoms that you enjoy today. The difference is when you screw up society judges you, if I screw up society sees it as an indictment of the whole gay community which is an unfair and uninformed burden.

Originally posted by Durden
Who is policing your thoughts here, keholmes?

that would be the small minority that want to redefine through law a societal institution to appease there own agenda.

Originally posted by Durden
And btw, IMO the description 'PC' has been tossed around rather recklessly as of late, so I'm just curious about your definition of - and which opinions you consider to be - PC?

so you don�t think that taking a historical institution that was between a man and a woman and extending it by law against the wishes of the majority to a small special interest group just to make them happy, qualifies as Politically Correct��in that case, it seems to me PC hasn�t been tossed around quite enough as you seem to miss understand it fairly well.

Originally posted by Durden
So if a christian priest wants to marry a gay couple, you have nothing against it?

as I said before if the official policy of the church was to �marry� a gay couple�.then who am I or you to tell them how to practice their religion ESPECIALLY BY LAW�.however, who the hell is the government to license marriage. Are they the overseers of religion�.are they going to start licensing Sunday schools, church retreats, what next. The state has absolutely no business issuing marriage licensing.

Originally posted by Durden
.....regardless....why tf should it be legislated against the people who wishes this license?

Originally posted by keholmesHowever, the federal/state government has no business issuing marriage licenses, period. if you are 'married' by a judge or JOP I don't believe it should be called a marriage

I don�t know about you but I don�t want the government licensing or teaching religion�..I would like the government to do governmenty things and leave religion to the religious. What�s next hopscotch licenses

Originally posted by Durden
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this example is satisfactory enough to support your notion of how we for many years have seen the �����..

niggardly, a gentleman used it in its proper usage and was forced by the outcry to resign his post�..before the left slowed down enough to realize what it meant. I can still remember the panel on TV with 2 righties and 3 lefties and the lefties were arguing that it didn�t matter what the word actually meant he should still retire, priceless. Or you could watch the actions of the NAACP under it�s current democratic leadership�..however I really don�t have the time nor the inclination to list all of the examples there are too many to list, so if you haven�t seen it then you probably never will.


[edit on 10-11-2004 by keholmes]

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Durden
Who is policing your thoughts here, keholmes?

that would be the small minority that want to redefine through law a societal institution to appease there own agenda.

That description of this issue hardly describes how anyone would be policing your thoughts, keholmes.

so you don�t think that taking a historical institution that was between a man and a woman and extending it by law against the wishes of the majority to a small special interest group just to make them happy, qualifies as Politically Correct��in that case, it seems to me PC hasn�t been tossed around quite enough as you seem to miss understand it fairly well.

I never stated to subscribe to the claims above, now did I? I merely inquired about your definition of PC.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Durden
So if a christian priest wants to marry a gay couple, you have nothing against it?

as I said before if the official policy of the church was to �marry� a gay couple�.then who am I or you to tell them how to practice their religion ESPECIALLY BY LAW�.however, who the hell is the government to license marriage. Are they the overseers of religion�.are they going to start licensing Sunday schools, church retreats, what next. The state has absolutely no business issuing marriage licensing.

I actually think we agree in large. However I'm guessing we're using different reasoning behind this view. And as long as the government does issue marriage licenses, I definetly don't think it should be legislated against this union when it concerns gay couples.

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Durden
I'm sorry, but I don't see how this example is satisfactory enough to support your notion of how we for many years have seen the �����..

niggardly, a gentleman used it in its proper usage and was forced by the outcry to resign his post�..before the left slowed down enough to realize what it meant. I can still remember the panel on TV with 2 righties and 3 lefties and the lefties were arguing that it didn�t matter what the word actually meant he should still retire, priceless. Or you could watch the actions of the NAACP under it�s current democratic leadership�..however I really don�t have the time nor the inclination to list all of the examples there are too many to list, so if you haven�t seen it then you probably never will.

I'm not contesting that there are people who use this label in situations where it absolutly doesn't apply. I may have misread you, however I got the impression that you argued that this was a common practice by liberals in large. This, I have yet to see evidence of.

Originally posted by Durden
That description of this issue hardly describes how anyone would be policing your thoughts, keholmes.

so you tell me, if the activist judges and the extremely small minority get there wish to redefine a religious activity to no longer be associated with the nuclear family, husband and wife; to include an activity that most major accepted religions view as sin how do you argue that is not at the very minimum thought policing. Social engineering run amuk, yet another example of liberals trying through the courts to redefine what they don't like.

Originally posted by Durden
I never stated to subscribe to the claims above, now did I? I merely inquired about your definition of PC.

no but as they are fairly obvious you sure seemed to imply that there was not any connection; however, it is refreshing to see you acknowledge that this is a PC drive�the only question left is how damaging it is

Originally posted by Durden
I actually think we agree in large. However I'm guessing we're using different reasoning behind this view. And as long as the government does issue marriage licenses, I definetly don't think it should be legislated against this union when it concerns gay couples.

what a conveniently liberal position to take�.seeing as how we have managed to inject governmental regulation through advanced social engineering were it has no business, we might as well take advantage of it and teach you religious nuts how to think. So in your opinion it is alright for the state to infringe on religion, for the prurient enjoyment of a minority on a whim. And as far as legislated�.no one has legislated anything. It is activist judges redefining precedence to fit their soooo advanced and enlightened conceptualization.

Originally posted by Durden
I'm not contesting that there are people who use this label in situations where it absolutly doesn't apply. I may have misread you, however I got the impression that you argued that this was a common practice by liberals in large. This, I have yet to see evidence of.

I don�t know about in large but for sure there would be at least be a vast minority. And only exists through the tacit approval of the majority.

Originally posted by keholmes
so you tell me, if the activist judges and the extremely small minority get there wish to redefine a religious activity to no longer be associated with the nuclear family, husband and wife; to include an activity that most major accepted religions view as sin how do you argue that is not at the very minimum thought policing. Social engineering run amuk, yet another example of liberals trying through the courts to redefine what they don't like.

Still no policing of thoughts, keholms. You may disagree with an eventual ruling in favor of this. But that hardly constitutes as someone policing your thoughts.

no but as they are fairly obvious you sure seemed to imply that there was not any connection; however, it is refreshing to see you acknowledge that this is a PC drive�the only question left is how damaging it is

Farily obvious, was it? In what way have I acknowledged this issue as a PC drive?

what a conveniently liberal position to take�.seeing as how we have managed to inject governmental regulation through advanced social engineering were it has no business, we might as well take advantage of it and teach you religious nuts how to think. So in your opinion it is alright for the state to infringe on religion, for the prurient enjoyment of a minority on a whim. And as far as legislated�.no one has legislated anything. It is activist judges redefining precedence to fit their soooo advanced and enlightened conceptualization.

'Conveniently liberal'? Call it what you like, keholms. I'd call it taking to account the situation at hand. If something is to be governed upon, then clearly the same reasoning should be applied to all (in this case; consenting adults). If the government weren't to be allowed to have a say in this case or issue marriage licenses (but instead; civil unions), then clearly this decision should be between the priest and the couple in question.

I don�t know about in large but for sure there would be at least be a vast minority. And only exists through the tacit approval of the majority.

Again, provide some actual evidence of how the left is redefining the word 'racist' to 'a person disagreeing with the left', and how this is supported by the majority, will you? The previous examples you provided is hardly sufficient to support this notion.

Originally posted by Durden
Still no policing of thoughts, keholms. You may disagree with an eventual ruling in favor of this. But that hardly constitutes as someone policing your thoughts.

Prior to activist judges legislating from the bench � thought-> marriage: religious institution co-opted by the government to collect taxes in yet a new and unique way. Definition = man and woman probably family related
After activist judges legislating from the bench � thought -> marriage: religious institution co-opted by the government to collect taxes in yet a new and unique way. Further expanded by the judiciary in contravention to the constitution to include gays; this is done because gays are desirous of the title. They appear a little different and it wasn�t a voluntary change, I wonder what prompted the change, hmmm?

Originally posted by Durden
Farily obvious, was it? In what way have I acknowledged this issue as a PC drive?

so you don�t believe that gays wanting to be called �married� is PC?

Originally posted by Durden
'Conveniently liberal'? Call it what you like, keholms. I'd call it taking to account the situation at hand. If something is to be governed upon, then clearly the same reasoning should be applied to all (in this case; consenting adults). If the government weren't to be allowed to have a say in this case or issue marriage licenses (but instead; civil unions), then clearly this decision should be between the priest and the couple in question.

So clearly you�re for the abolition of affirmative action, elimination of prosecution for fraud, legalization of prostitution, elimination of welfare. And also you�d be in support of allowing spouses to sell/give up for adoption their minor children if they were so inclined, without approval of the other parent, right?

Originally posted by Durden
Again, provide some actual evidence of how the left is redefining the word 'racist' to 'a person disagreeing with the left', and how this is supported by the majority, will you? The previous examples you provided is hardly sufficient to support this notion.

one of the previous was directly on point�the president put forth a judicial nomination that both local parties supported�.the liberal constituency allowed the national party to oppose through filibuster his nomination, based on his being �racist�. There are other examples but as I said if you want to close your eyes to the obvious you never will see it.