Hartzler compares gay marriage to incest, allowing 3 year olds to drive

[titaniumSS]

In an excerpt of her talk posted on a People for the American Way website, the freshman Republican begins by asking why government officials should care about the issue.

“Well, think about it,” Hartzler said. “That starts you down the road to opening up licensure to basically meaning thatthe license would mean nothing.

“If you just cared about somebody, have a committed relationship, why not allow one man and two women or three women to marry?

“There are a lot of people in this country that support polygamy. Wny not? They’re committed to each other. Why should you care? Why not allow group marriage? There are people out there who want that.

“Well, is that the best policy? Why not allow an uncle to marry his niece? Why not allow a 50-year-old man to marry a 12-year-old girl if they love each other and they’re committed?

“So pretty soon if you don’t set parameters, you don’t have any parameters at all. The license means nothing, marriage means nothing.

“We’re saying marriage is between a man and a woman….It’s not a right in the Constitution as far as that goes either. It’s not a right of… a 3 year old to be able to drive a car. The government has set some parameters.”

cXPIZFY3QEc


Read more: http://midwestdemocracyproject.org/blogs/entries/hartzler-compares-gay-marriage-incest-allowing-3-year-olds-drive/#ixzz1OZZVpSWZ

............wow.

[FOACAD]

Cant watch the video, but just reading the text it isnt AS bad as your title makes it sound.

Is she using some extremes for comparison? Sure, but her point is valid. No where in the constitution does it say people have a right to marry who they want. The govt set up regulations for things so there isnt any exploitation of "well its not in the laws".

I agree with her though, polygamy should be legal :mrgreen:


ps. you realize that source is about as far left as you can get right?

[volksmech]

only men should drive, no matter the age.

[spyde25]

And this is why we need this in the kitchen.

http://armchairspasm.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/ball-and-chain.jpg

[spyde25]

On topic

My takeaway is that the last thing we need is more involvement and regulation from the government. The anti gays marriage camp is hypocritical on the point that their principals dictate less government involvement in their lives unless gays are involved.

[mrstage1]

Agree with FOACAD. Her examples are extreme but the premise of her argument is sound. Where do we stop and say "That's far enough." Based on conversations I've had with elders in my family gay marriage was just as outlandish an ideal as a man marrying a dog in the 50's. It was unthinkable to them. Who's to ay we won't end up in the future with a group of polygamists or bestiality freaks making a strong case that their lifestyle is "normal" and shouldn't preclude them marrying the love of their lives so that their benefits can be passed on.

Keep in mind I am in no way equating gay marriage to any of these lifestyles, just merely pointing out that sometimes we need to think far ahead in or decisions in order to make the right call as someday what we can't fathom now is reality in the future.

[spyde25]

Agree with FOACAD. Her examples are extreme but the premise of her argument is sound. Where do we stop and say "That's far enough." Based on conversations I've had with elders in my family gay marriage was just as outlandish an ideal as a man marrying a dog in the 50's. It was unthinkable to them. Who's to ay we won't end up in the future with a group of polygamists or bestiality freaks making a strong case that their lifestyle is "normal" and shouldn't preclude them marrying the love of their lives so that their benefits can be passed on.

Keep in mind I am in no way equating gay marriage to any of these lifestyles, just merely pointing out that sometimes we need to think far ahead in or decisions in order to make the right call as someday what we can't fathom now is reality in the future.


POINT 1 Benefits.

Already able leave your possessions to your dog

Helmsley's Dog Gets $12 Million in Will

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703513604575311020555877854.html


In regard to gays and benefits received upon a recognized marriage. All can be had without a marriage. Meaning the gay's are not being discriminated against in relation to marriage.


Point 2

Arguments of extremes, i mirror the above points that her views are valid but extreme. the desensitization o f the nation has been a slow process that yielded large changes in lifestyle and priorities. The question is where do we stop today? and will the point that we stop at today be accepted tomorrow? If so why not accept everything? A moral line in the sand is to be drawn i believe is what her end game is.

[FOACAD]

On topic

My takeaway is that the last thing we need is more involvement and regulation from the government. The anti gays marriage camp is hypocritical on the point that their principals dictate less government involvement in their lives unless gays are involved.
I agree to an extent.

The last thing we need is more involvement from the FEDERAL govt. If a state wants to ban gay marriage in their state, and another wants to let people marry whoever they want, then that is the states rights. States need to be afforded more power to govern their people as is fit for that state. What is good for people in Alaska is not the same things that are good for people in Florida.

The federal govt needs to set a broad regulation and say that it is up to the states to decide how they (the states) want to handle that issue.

[phreakdna]

Agree with FOACAD. Her examples are extreme but the premise of her argument is sound. Where do we stop and say "That's far enough." Based on conversations I've had with elders in my family gay marriage was just as outlandish an ideal as a man marrying a dog in the 50's. It was unthinkable to them. Who's to ay we won't end up in the future with a group of polygamists or bestiality freaks making a strong case that their lifestyle is "normal" and shouldn't preclude them marrying the love of their lives so that their benefits can be passed on.

Keep in mind I am in no way equating gay marriage to any of these lifestyles, just merely pointing out that sometimes we need to think far ahead in or decisions in order to make the right call as someday what we can't fathom now is reality in the future.
and the same arguments were made by a large number of people about multi-racial and multi-religious marriages in the past. didn't make them right then, doesn't make them right today.

the line has been consistent from back when racists ruled to today when bigots (yes that's a bit inflammatory but its also completely true) are losing the public opinion battle but still have a political party to back their bigotry:

two consenting adults.

children nor pets can legally consent...

[Scooby24]

Lets stick with the topic of consenting adults, because to compare marriage between consenting adults to that of beastiality or pedophilia is just ridiculous.

That being the case, either polygamy or gay marriage. Lets focus on those.

What's the concern with allowing them to get married? I want to hear some concrete harms that are justification enough to discriminate against them and not provide them the same rights allowed to married couples.

[spyde25]

The regurgitated argument that holds no weight in my opinion is that those against gay marriage is for religious reasons. They hold on to the thread that America was once religious and that religious belief is against gays.

Other arguments are those around the children. not that having gay parents will produce gay adopted children but that the gay parental unit is not a stable environment due to "divorce rate" amongst gays. Granted a traditional marriage in America is not a solid one but does not see as many separation as gays.

[spyde25]

Lets stick with the topic of consenting adults, because to compare marriage between consenting adults to that of beastiality or pedophilia is just ridiculous.

That being the case, either polygamy or gay marriage. Lets focus on those.

What's the concern with allowing them to get married? I want to hear some concrete harms that are justification enough to discriminate against them and not provide them the same rights allowed to married couples.


Same rights are afforded to gays, they just have some extra steps to attain them.

[spyde25]

One other interesting argument i have come across in regards to against gay marriage stance. Is that it is about the $$$. The state does not benefit from gay marriage financially as compared to a traditional marriage. Assumption that traditional marriages produce offspring.

[phreakdna]

Same rights are afforded to gays, they just have some extra steps to attain them.
1. that's not entirely true.
2. why is that okay with anyone? no group that is innocent in the eyes of the law should have to work any harder than another to obtain rights afforded to everyone else


(only reason for the caveat about innocence is right to bear arms and felons, etc which imo can be reasonable limitations on some rights that can be forfeit by one's own actions)

[phreakdna]

One other interesting argument i have come across in regards to against gay marriage stance. Is that it is about the $$$. The state does not benefit from gay marriage financially as compared to a traditional marriage. Assumption that traditional marriages produce offspring.
gay couples tend to have a higher net worth (d.i.n.k.s), therefore have more money to buy more high-end products, etc.
the state gives away a shitton of money to couples with kids via tax breaks, public education, etc

I'm not certain, but I would think that if anything that argument is backwards.

edit: UCLA researchers seem to think that the argument is backwards based on their study of econ impacts in VT and CA - http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/VT%20econ%20impact%20final.pdf

[ksuchewie]

Same rights are afforded to gays, they just have some extra steps to attain them.
Unless something has changed recently, there is a large list of rights unavailable to unmarried gay couples, even those that "extra steps" can't provide.
btw, "extra steps" involve contacting attorneys, signing papers, spending lots of time and $....which are automatically provided to heterosexual couples.
So now gays in effect have to "pay for the rights", and even still these "rights" are really just a privilege to them because in court those documents don't provide legal protection.

[ksuchewie]

I'm not certain, but I would think that if anything that argument is backwards.

Even without considering the amount of income, the argument presented was backwards. Kids provide a tax benefit. 2 different couples; 1 with a child, will have to pay less taxes than the couple without a kid, given all other equal variables. If you have kids, the government makes less money off your family taxes.

[BuddyLee]

Here's my problem with the issue. Everyone who argues this issue tends to use morality as the reason. I want to see someone actually argue against this and NOT use morality as the basis for their argument.

[Scooby24]

Here's my problem with the issue. Everyone who argues this issue tends to use morality as the reason. I want to see someone actually argue against this and NOT use morality as the basis for their argument.

EXACTLY!

Morality isn't enough to be justification for restricting equal rights to another human being.

THAT is immoral.

[spyde25]

Just providing arguments for scooby, don't shoot the messenger.

[Ryan Stewart]

Its unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage.

[spyde25]

One more to be the devils advocate.

Are gays wanting to be married to have recognition that two consenting adults be allowed to wed because they love each other?

If so, all citizens that love each other be allowed to wed?

(similar argument to that above)

If we and the government should embrace and regulate marriage to allow gays to participate on marriage where does it end?

[FOACAD]

Its unconstitutional for the government to regulate marriage.
Im unfamiliar with this, please explain.


Also, i agree with scooby and buddylee. I hate when morality is legislated by the federal govt.

If a state has a little more right leaning general populous and they dont want gay marriage in THEIR STATE, im fine with that. If a state decides their citizens should be allowed to get married to a person of the same sex, im fine with that too.

Im also fine with polygamy and hate that it is illegaly and punished so harshly for the "crime"

I can understand insurance companies and other entities not wanting it legal for business reasons, but i cant understand it at all from a legality aspect.

[calispec]

When gay marriage goes nationwide I'm enrolling in law school.

You know those are going to be some bitter, drama-filled divorces and since men make more money than women both sides will have plenty of money to fight for and pay for representation.

One small step for equality, one giant leap for the legal profession.

[spyde25]

When gay marriage goes nationwide I'm enrolling in law school.

You know those are going to be some bitter, drama-filled divorces and since men make more money than women both sides will have plenty of money to fight for and pay for representation.

One small step for equality, one giant leap for the legal profession.


:skep: Not unless the tender is samiches, the paradigm of professional women in the workforce making less and not holding management positions equal to men has shifted.

But your train of thought is correct that business will be booming for divorce attorneys

[phreakdna]

One more to be the devils advocate.

Are gays wanting to be married to have recognition that two consenting adults be allowed to wed because they love each other?

If so, all citizens that love each other be allowed to wed?

(similar argument to that above)

If we and the government should embrace and regulate marriage to allow gays to participate on marriage where does it end?
that's your extension (illogical as it may seem to me). typically those in support of gay marriage are doing so to either promote equality or to protect their own rights. I'm not gay - I'm white, christian(raised), heterosexual and married. but I support gay marriage because I support my own right to get married and live my life the way I want. the discussion shouldn't ever get into whether or not people love each other enough to get married. what would be the test for that? can anyone say that the gov't should have a role in determining whether or not two consenting adults can enter into a legal agreement that others are allowed to?

this slippery slope ridiculousness and those that promote it may prefer to ignore it but the slope goes the other way. if gays can be stopped from entering a legal agreement to be married (which is what the base gov'tal function is), can Catholics? Mexicans? dare I say all white people at some point when 'the spics take over'?

[spyde25]

That's about all the arguments i could find against gay marriage. They were weak at best and those were the pick of the litter too.

[BuddyLee]

Im unfamiliar with this, please explain.


Also, i agree with scooby and buddylee. I hate when morality is legislated by the federal govt.

If a state has a little more right leaning general populous and they dont want gay marriage in THEIR STATE, im fine with that. If a state decides their citizens should be allowed to get married to a person of the same sex, im fine with that too.

Im also fine with polygamy and hate that it is illegaly and punished so harshly for the "crime"

I can understand insurance companies and other entities not wanting it legal for business reasons, but i cant understand it at all from a legality aspect.

Playing devils advocate this is the only thing I can come up with that isn't a morality issue. Funny thing is you never hear about these lobbyists. You just here how the church doesn't want it.

Continuing to play devils advocate you would need regulation assistance from some agency to keep it in check and make sure people aren't marrying simply for the benefits. We do the same thing with immigration. You don't see us outlawing immigration because we simply don't want to deal with people finding shady ways to get legal immigration status, so why should it be any different with this issue?

[Ryan Stewart]

Im unfamiliar with this, please explain.

Marriage is a religious institution. Of course its been modified to fit the "secular" culture but it is still a religious institution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" meaning they cannot support or oppose the tenants of a religion but they do, its just become accepted practice because its the majority religion's point of view (even our founding fathers forgot why the original settlers even came here, TJ was the only one who fucking got it).

Its just like the abuses of the commerce clause (its funny the people who think its the job of the govt to protect their, over 50% failed, marriages are the same ones bitching that the govt should stay the fuck out if their business). Its grown beyond simply classifying it as a religious institution and become social engineering. Its social engineering based on their values.

I am all for protecting the innocent (although that definition changes by decade) but if the Episcopalians want to allow two dudes to get married then it is, by the basic definition, illegal for the govt to intervene.

As for insurance companies that goes back to the whole "illegal social engineering" thing. Its not the govt's job to promote the nuclear family. It should be up to the insurance company as to whether they apply coverage to others. Hell, my company's policy, because we have so many "alternative couples," that its structured to cover (optionally of course) "others and legal dependents." My girlfriend could be under my policy (but my insurance would go up a ton since its not subsidized by my compensation package.

The difference between me and your average Republican/Democrat is I am not a hypocrite. When I say I want the federal govt to mind their own fucking business I mean it. If you can prove I am infringing on someone else's rights, fine, but this is nowhere near the case.

[FOACAD]

Playing devils advocate this is the only thing I can come up with that isn't a morality issue. Funny thing is you never hear about these lobbyists. You just here how the church doesn't want it.

Continuing to play devils advocate you would need regulation assistance from some agency to keep it in check and make sure people aren't marrying simply for the benefits. We do the same thing with immigration. You don't see us outlawing immigration because we simply don't want to deal with people finding shady ways to get legal immigration status, so why should it be any different with this issue?
yeah, those are really the only legit arguments i have seen.

benefit/insurance fraud, and insurance companies getting the shaft


if that was what they were arguing and providing good hard evidence of how it would royally fuck those companies, or put such a burden on the govt to control the potential fraud then i might be a little more open to the idea of not allowing it. but their argument is just "wellll, uh! THE BIBLE SAYS SO!!!"

nope, sorry. that argument is shit and id wipe my ass with the page you quote that says it.

[Ryan Stewart]

Because heterosexual people don't abuse the system...

and if its that easy to abuse then its the system that is broken.

[FOACAD]

Marriage is a religious institution. Of course its been modified to fit the "secular" culture but it is still a religious institution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" meaning they cannot support or oppose the tenants of a religion but they do, its just become accepted practice because its the majority religion's point of view (even our founding fathers forgot why the original settlers even came here, TJ was the only one who fucking got it).
.
hmmm, well. there is no laws that say a priest or pastor or rabi or whatever cant marry two people of the same sex. it just says they arent recognized by the state as it pertains to benefits etc.

you can go to a courthouse and not have it be a religious thing and get married to a person of the opposite sex, so that you can attain the benefits granted to married couples. that has nothing religious about it. they are just saying that they wont do that for two guys or two women. not seeing a 1st amendment violation there.

[Ryan Stewart]

hmmm, well. there is no laws that say a priest or pastor or rabi or whatever cant marry two people of the same sex. it just says they arent recognized by the state as it pertains to benefits etc.

you can go to a courthouse and not have it be a religious thing and get married to a person of the opposite sex, so that you can attain the benefits granted to married couples. that has nothing religious about it. they are just saying that they wont do that for two guys or two women. not seeing a 1st amendment violation there.

Did you read my post? The fact that the govt is setting the rules based on religious standards is the issue. I dont give a shit if its in a church or city hall, if the govt is saying you have to fuck the christian way to get the hookup then its a violation of the first amendment.

[FOACAD]

Because heterosexual people don't abuse the system...

and if its that easy to abuse then its the system that is broken.
:doh:

im not saying they are GOOD arguments, im just saying those are the only DECENTLY LOGICAL arguments that could be made.

i two guys want to get married legally (religiously bothers me not either) then i have no issue with it if the system can maintain it.

same goes with polygamy, why is polygamy so bad that people have to live in darkness and go without all their lives just to live how they want to live?

[FOACAD]

Did you read my post? The fact that the govt is setting the rules based on religious standards is the issue.
hmm, still not sure its a 1st violation.

any case law to back that up? are there any active cases pertaining to this topic?

^not being sarcastic, im honestly curious.

[Ryan Stewart]

:doh:

im not saying they are GOOD arguments, im just saying those are the only DECENTLY LOGICAL arguments that could be made.

i two guys want to get married legally (religiously bothers me not either) then i have no issue with it if the system can maintain it.

same goes with polygamy, why is polygamy so bad that people have to live in darkness and go without all their lives just to live how they want to live?
THERE SHOULD BE NO SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN. ITS NOT THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVT TO SAY THAT WHOMEVER I WANT TO FUCK SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS MY PARTNER AND THAT I SHOULD ONLY GET THE HOOKUP IF I FOLLOW THEIR CHRISTIAN IDEALS.

Clear enough?

[titaniumSS]

I posted this because we spoke of it in my Ethics class. She's notorious for using the slippery slope argument. Basically to make random assumptions on something that have nothing to do with the original topic. She is also known for being one of the biggest anti-gay activists in politics. There are plenty of other articles out there, I didn't pay much attention to the site. If you only read into the facts of what she said and can watch the video you see just how little of an argument and real points she actually has.

[FOACAD]

THERE SHOULD BE NO SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN. ITS NOT THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVT TO SAY THAT WHOMEVER I WANT TO FUCK SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS MY PARTNER AND THAT I SHOULD ONLY GET THE HOOKUP IF I FOLLOW THEIR CHRISTIAN IDEALS.

Clear enough?
AND I AGREE


but a state can imo....

[Ryan Stewart]

There are no cases because the govt wont hear them. Just like the commerce clause, its become accepted practice to abuse it and since its the majority there is nothing to motivate them otherwise.

This is akin to in some 3rd world areas its legal to stone your daughter/sister to death because she refused to comply with an arranged marriage. Its a legal system based on their religious values. If you think our system is correct then their system must be equally correct. If theirs is barbaric and backwards then ours is barbaric and backwards.

[spyde25]

Did you read my post? The fact that the govt is setting the rules based on religious standards is the issue. I dont give a shit if its in a church or city hall, if the govt is saying you have to fuck the christian way to get the hookup then its a violation of the first amendment.


Hmmm is see where you are coming from and agree with you.

The act of marriage for all intensive purposes religious.

The act of marriage gives those participating state recognized benefits.

If the state approves gay marriage is the state going to interfere with religious groups that deny marriage ceremonies to gays?

i agree with your point Ryan that this is a slippery slope and the government is encroaching.

[Ryan Stewart]

AND I AGREE


but a state can imo....

States have to comply with the constitution too, or else Mississippi could have passed on that whole "blacks voting" thing.

[Ryan Stewart]

Hmmm is see where you are coming from and agree with you.

The act of marriage for all intensive purposes religious.

The act of marriage gives those participating state recognized benefits.

If the state approves gay marriage is the state going to interfere with religious groups that deny marriage ceremonies to gays?

i agree with your point Ryan that this is a slippery slope and the government is encroaching.

Exactly. I wasnt really getting to the slippery slope but more that its a tar pit, its bullshit that has been perpetuated from the beginning and just accepted as right when in reality its been corrupted from the beginning and needs to be corrected.

We should abolish the concept of legal matrimony altogether, along with the "modern family." Its biased against non-Christians of all types, including those who don't believe in the institution of marriage and the infertile.

[FOACAD]

I think gays should be allowed to be married under the legal system if they want to and the state allows it.

I dont think the federal govt should make any laws for it or against it.

Those are my feelings on the subject, but it doesnt matter as i think there will be supreme court cases in the next few years to decide it. The court isnt as right anymore as it once was. I think if a proper case was presented it would be heard.

I mean, nothing has even come out of the most liberal and pro gay courts in the nation yet. That tells me that either the cases arent being presented or there really is no case.

[ksuchewie]

When gay marriage goes nationwide I'm enrolling in law school. You know those are going to be some bitter, drama-filled divorces and since men make more money than women both sides will have plenty of money to fight for and pay for representation.


One could argue that legalized gay marriages would be stronger than the traditional man/woman marriage. If these couples have already endured all the bullshit from the anti-gay's by just being together, could the new benefits from the government really split them apart? A study a few years ago showed that gay couples that REALLY want to be married have been committed to each other for 10+ years...much longer than the traditional man/woman marriage.

[Scooby24]

THERE SHOULD BE NO SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN. ITS NOT THE JOB OF THE FEDERAL GOVT TO SAY THAT WHOMEVER I WANT TO FUCK SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS MY PARTNER AND THAT I SHOULD ONLY GET THE HOOKUP IF I FOLLOW THEIR CHRISTIAN IDEALS.

Clear enough?

What your suggesting is an entire overhaul to the marriage system in our country. Marriage is no longer religious in the eyes of the government, it's a tax status. You have benefits that are granted when you become married. If the government is to not have any stance on this, you have to rewrite tax code and every other rule/law granting privileges to married couples. If it's a religious institution only, you can't grant benefits for it. If you did, you've granted rights based on your religious status.

I don't disagree with you from an ideological perspective, but marriage isn't a religious institution anymore. It ceased to be once the counties started performing marriages. They took the IDEA of marriage, which was religious in nature, and made it secular.

[spyde25]

One could argue that legalized gay marriages would be stronger than the traditional man/woman marriage. If these couples have already endured all the bullshit from the anti-gay's by just being together, could the new benefits from the government really split them apart? A study a few years ago showed that gay couples that REALLY want to be married have been committed to each other for 10+ years...much longer than the traditional man/woman marriage.


BS

Divorce rate amongst traditional marriages runs a little of 50%. So i can see how one may say that the commited gays relationship would endure better than the hetero ones is not far fetched but that is a small sample.

Divorce rate amongst traditional marriages that the couples REALLY want to be married to each other is ..........


“The Male Couple” (1984) written by a gay couple, Dr. Mattison (a psychiatrist) and Dr. McWhirter (a psychologist) showed the alarming lack of fidelity among gay couples. They interviewed 156 gay couples and discovered that the rate of infidelity was 95 %. Another study done by a gay psychologist, Dr. Martin Dannecker in 1991, rendered the same results. He interviewed 900 men over a period of one year who were in committed relationships. He found the infidelity rate was 83%. The truth is, the norm for homosexual relationships is infidelity. The norm for heterosexual relationships is fidelity. (taken from the film “It’s Not Gay” DVD).

[spyde25]

What your suggesting is an entire overhaul to the marriage system in our country. Marriage is no longer religious in the eyes of the government, it's a tax status. You have benefits that are granted when you become married. If the government is to not have any stance on this, you have to rewrite tax code and every other rule/law granting privileges to married couples. If it's a religious institution only, you can't grant benefits for it. If you did, you've granted rights based on your religious status.

I don't disagree with you from an ideological perspective, but marriage isn't a religious institution anymore. It ceased to be once the counties started performing marriages. They took the IDEA of marriage, which was religious in nature, and made it secular.


It is to me and i exercise my right to participate in it.

[JohnnyBravo]

Anyone who has been through a divorce will probably agree that there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage.

You will get fucked in the ass either way.

Let them get married and have the opportunity to be as miserable as everyone else.

The grass is always greener. I look forward to the day when I see a messy homosexual divorce and the two of them are about to scratch each others eyes out over who gets the lace doilies. Only when a court bends them over and gives them a good fucking will they wish they'd kept their mouths shut and just "broken up" rather than having to pay a lawyer to file infinite legal paperwork to divorce which will destroy their lives, their bank accounts and their future in open court.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Scooby24]

It is to me and i exercise my right to participate in it.

Marriage is an idea that has religious origins. Religion doesn't have a patent on that idea. The state recognized that status, and took it a step further by granting benefits for those with that title. That's where they screwed up because they were giving privileges based on that religious status.

They then fixed their mistake and took the IDEA of marriage and made it secular by granting that right and the benefits that go along with it to everyone regardless of religion.

You exercise your right to the idea of religious marriage.

I exercised my right to be recognized by the state as married and be granted the same benefits you are.

If the state really wanted to fix their mistake, they'd have to go so far as to not even have divorce hearings. They'd have to wash their hands of marriage entirely.

Not going to happen. So, since that's not going to happen, we have to accept that marriage is no longer religious. It's Secular....and as a result, we need to put away our soap boxes and stop restricting the option to others based on moral implications.

[BuddyLee]

Marriage is an idea that has religious origins. Religion doesn't have a patent on that idea. The state recognized that status, and took it a step further by granting benefits for those with that title. That's where they screwed up because they were giving privileges based on that religious status.

They then fixed their mistake and took the IDEA of marriage and made it secular by granting that right and the benefits that go along with it to everyone regardless of religion.

You exercise your right to the idea of religious marriage.

I exercised my right to be recognized by the state as married and be granted the same benefits you are.

If the state really wanted to fix their mistake, they'd have to go so far as to not even have divorce hearings. They'd have to wash their hands of marriage entirely.

Not going to happen. So, since that's not going to happen, we have to accept that marriage is no longer religious. It's Secular....and as a result, we need to put away our soap boxes and stop restricting the option to others based on moral implications.

This

[spyde25]

Marriage is an idea that has religious origins. Religion doesn't have a patent on that idea. The state recognized that status, and took it a step further by granting benefits for those with that title. That's where they screwed up because they were giving privileges based on that religious status.

They then fixed their mistake and took the IDEA of marriage and made it secular by granting that right and the benefits that go along with it to everyone regardless of religion.

You exercise your right to the idea of religious marriage.

I exercised my right to be recognized by the state as married and be granted the same benefits you are.

If the state really wanted to fix their mistake, they'd have to go so far as to not even have divorce hearings. They'd have to wash their hands of marriage entirely.

Not going to happen. So, since that's not going to happen, we have to accept that marriage is no longer religious. It's Secular....and as a result, we need to put away our soap boxes and stop restricting the option to others based on moral implications.


I agree with this point, but since we are in America i still can choose to participate in the religious side of marriage. By that same token one cannot be on a soapbox too.

[Scooby24]

I agree with this point, but since we are in America i still can choose to participate in the religious side of marriage. By that same token one cannot be on a soapbox too.

Agreed. You can have a religious marriage and get married in the eyes of God, but on the books with the state, your marriage is the same as mine which was done in a courthouse by a judge.

The State books are what homosexuals want. They want to be recognized by the state and get those benefits.

If the churches want to continue to not perform the ceremonies for the couples, that's the church's choice. I don't think anyone is expecting the state to come knocking on the churches door and say THEY have to perform a marriage for homosexuals. That wouldn't be appropriate.

But the state should be granting the status and the benefits to homosexuals if they choose to sign the license and deal with the same bullshit the rest of us have to deal with.

[spyde25]

Agreed. You can have a religious marriage and get married in the eyes of God, but on the books with the state, your marriage is the same as mine which was done in a courthouse by a judge.

The State books are what homosexuals want. They want to be recognized by the state and get those benefits.

If the churches want to continue to not perform the ceremonies for the couples, that's the church's choice. I don't think anyone is expecting the state to come knocking on the churches door and say THEY have to perform a marriage for homosexuals. That wouldn't be appropriate.

But the state should be granting the status and the benefits to homosexuals if they choose to sign the license and deal with the same bullshit the rest of us have to deal with.


Oh but they will. and the Federal courts will be involved and non-for profit status will be revoked ect. This i believe is what Ryan and i dont want to see.

[spyde25]

Personal note.

My father in-law works for a local major non for profit organization in KC that is battling with the current administration because they do not employ gays. Their non profit status could be pulled and would result in no donations coming in, thus shutting down the organization.

[phreakdna]

Oh but they will. and the Federal courts will be involved and non-for profit status will be revoked ect. This i believe is what Ryan and i dont want to see.
as soon as the courts are involved the courts will excuse themselves from the fray by stating factually that they cannot force a religion to do anything against their moral code.

otherwise the courts would be involving themselves in discrimination cases against Catholics for the priesthood by women, gays for just about every priesthood, etc which the courts clearly don't want to do.

you're using the same slippery slope bs as the woman in the video...

[Ryan Stewart]

What your suggesting is an entire overhaul to the marriage system in our country. Marriage is no longer religious in the eyes of the government, it's a tax status. You have benefits that are granted when you become married. If the government is to not have any stance on this, you have to rewrite tax code and every other rule/law granting privileges to married couples. If it's a religious institution only, you can't grant benefits for it. If you did, you've granted rights based on your religious status.

I don't disagree with you from an ideological perspective, but marriage isn't a religious institution anymore. It ceased to be once the counties started performing marriages. They took the IDEA of marriage, which was religious in nature, and made it secular.

Yes and no. Yes on overhaul, no on it not being religious. Its a tax structure that drives you to full fill religious objectives, that makes it religious.

[Scooby24]

Yes and no. Yes on overhaul, no on it not being religious. Its a tax structure that drives you to full fill religious objectives, that makes it religious.

So, by that reasoning, the laws governing against theft are fulfilling the religious objective "thou shall not steal", so our laws are religious?

Marriage is a practice that occurs in various forms in many, many, many societies and is not always based on religion, but accepted for various economical, legal, social, emotional and religious reasons.

Marriage was adopted into religion just as so many other social norms. That doesn't mean religion has an ownership over it.

[ksuchewie]

“The Male Couple” (1984) written by a gay couple, Dr. Mattison (a psychiatrist) and Dr. McWhirter (a psychologist) showed the alarming lack of fidelity among gay couples. They interviewed 156 gay couples and discovered that the rate of infidelity was 95 %. Another study done by a gay psychologist, Dr. Martin Dannecker in 1991, rendered the same results. He interviewed 900 men over a period of one year who were in committed relationships. He found the infidelity rate was 83%. The truth is, the norm for homosexual relationships is infidelity. The norm for heterosexual relationships is fidelity. (taken from the film “It’s Not Gay” DVD).

Did you see when that study was written? 1984. Gay marriage wasn't even on the roadmap back them. Hell, inter-racial marriage was still banned in some states. Homosexuality was much more taboo back then so there's no way the sample size was close to representing the population. I'll see if I can find the study in my wifes book tonight, it was study in '01....a little bit more relevant.

[Ryan Stewart]

So, by that reasoning, the laws governing against theft are fulfilling the religious objective "thou shall not steal", so our laws are religious?

Marriage is a practice that occurs in various forms in many, many, many societies and is not always based on religion, but accepted for various economical, legal, social, emotional and religious reasons.

Marriage was adopted into religion just as so many other social norms. That doesn't mean religion has an ownership over it.

So you're saying racism and homophobia are basic human tenants because it was marriage laws forbade interracial or gay marriage? I am an atheist and I know stealing is wrong, what about my conscience tells me gays can't pair up? Because I missed that part when they were handing out the human psyche

[titaniumSS]

So you're saying racism and homophobia are basic human tenants because it was marriage laws forbade interracial or gay marriage? I am an atheist and I know stealing is wrong, what about my conscience tells me gays can't pair up? Because I missed that part when they were handing out the human psyche

Atheists aren't outside of societal norms and opinions though. You're influenced by the environment around you, whether it's religion, media or peers.

[Hyper Blue]

...wow.
I hope Rep. Hartzler's daughter grows up to be a lesbian. Please God, let it happen.

[titaniumSS]

I hope Rep. Hartzler's daughter grows up to be a lesbian. Please God, let it happen.

Hey, it happened to Phelps, I'm counting on it. :mrgreen:

[spyde25]

Racism at its core is a human tenant. The dislike of something different than ones self. Recent study revealed that children and babies were "racist".

[mrstage1]

I can't help myself but every once in awhile I get the thought in my head about us and ancient Greek societies downfall.



IDK.

BTW: People can talk about leaving morals out of this but in reality it's your moral compass that guides every decision you make, like it or not. I see alot of posters in her with vision about as long as their face.

Scooby, think of this for a sec. I do my best to make all my decisions based on rational thoughtfulness and fair treatment to those involved. I have religious and secular friends I would die for if it meant saving their life. Have a few gay friends also(one who I KNOW would be a killer standup comedian. Hilarious dude). At 44 years of age, knowing that the human race procreating is what nature intended and it takes one of each sex to do so. Do you think I am wrong in feeling that gay anything is just not what nature intended and that my moral compass, based on human evolution alone, tells me gay is wrong therefore gay marriage should not be acceptable to me?


BTW: My gay friends and I have discussions about this all the time. We hope to reach a resolution sometime before 2050.

[Ryan Stewart]

Our relationship with the romans has more do do with overstretched military, too many enemies, laziness than homosexuality. If wasnt their sexual morality that killed that empire, it was pissing off a bunch of europeans and attempting to rule the world. When the shit finally hit the fan they couldnt do anything about it because all of their armies were off somewhere else.

Oh, and they basically drank lead.

[spyde25]

Good thread and always good posts by Ryan

[Ryan Stewart]

The funniest are when blacks defend traditional marriage, using the same arguments that were used to keep them from marrying post slavery and later on keeping them from marrying outside their race.

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/david-tyree-thinks-gay-marriage-will-lead-to-anarchy-video/72922

[ctprelude]

I agree to an extent.

The last thing we need is more involvement from the FEDERAL govt. If a state wants to ban gay marriage in their state, and another wants to let people marry whoever they want, then that is the states rights. States need to be afforded more power to govern their people as is fit for that state. What is good for people in Alaska is not the same things that are good for people in Florida.

The federal govt needs to set a broad regulation and say that it is up to the states to decide how they (the states) want to handle that issue.

This is my stance on it. I personally think gay couples should be allowed to be married, but I think it should be a state issue, not federal.

[FOACAD]

Our relationship with the romans has more do do with overstretched military, too many enemies, laziness than homosexuality. If wasnt their sexual morality that killed that empire, it was pissing off a bunch of europeans and attempting to rule the world. When the shit finally hit the fan they couldnt do anything about it because all of their armies were off somewhere else.

Oh, and they basically drank lead.
Our military is not over stretched by any means.

The troops we have stationed around the world are strategically placed to keep any "war" off of our soil. This wasnt something that any of the recent presidents did either.

As for the troops that are deployed, they account for a total of less than 6% of the total number of troops in our US Military.

When people say that our military is over extended i just laugh.

[mrstage1]

Our relationship with the romans has more do do with overstretched military, too many enemies, laziness than homosexuality. If wasnt their sexual morality that killed that empire, it was pissing off a bunch of europeans and attempting to rule the world. When the shit finally hit the fan they couldnt do anything about it because all of their armies were off somewhere else.

Oh, and they basically drank lead.I said society..that means as a whole, no? Our country's path right now and theirs bear alot of similarities imho.

[Scooby24]

I can't help myself but every once in awhile I get the thought in my head about us and ancient Greek societies downfall.



IDK.

BTW: People can talk about leaving morals out of this but in reality it's your moral compass that guides every decision you make, like it or not. I see alot of posters in her with vision about as long as their face.

Scooby, think of this for a sec. I do my best to make all my decisions based on rational thoughtfulness and fair treatment to those involved. I have religious and secular friends I would die for if it meant saving their life. Have a few gay friends also(one who I KNOW would be a killer standup comedian. Hilarious dude). At 44 years of age, knowing that the human race procreating is what nature intended and it takes one of each sex to do so. Do you think I am wrong in feeling that gay anything is just not what nature intended and that my moral compass, based on human evolution alone, tells me gay is wrong therefore gay marriage should not be acceptable to me?


BTW: My gay friends and I have discussions about this all the time. We hope to reach a resolution sometime before 2050.

And there in-lies the problem, and that vision being about as long as your face statement holds very true here.

You choose to not find it acceptable. That's your moral choice. You should not be allowed to force your moral choice on another person simply because it conflicts with your own.

That's the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for. In a free society where religion and state are kept separate, and we've already pointed out that marriage is a state sponsored union, your moral compass should not dictate what another person chooses to do with their own lives, provided it doesn't present a concrete harm to yourself or your own interests.

A federal judge has already ruled that your position is unconstitutional.

I love how you believe your own position is one of true vision. Ignorant, close minded, and UNAMERICAN, more like it.

[Hyper Blue]

...your moral compass should not dictate what another person chooses to do with their own lives, provided it doesn't present a concrete harm to yourself or your own interests...
Amen.

:hurray:

[ksuchewie]

Thought this was interesting:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/nyt.jpg

[titaniumSS]

:lolg: that's amusing, funny and disgusting.

[mrstage1]

And there in-lies the problem, and that vision being about as long as your face statement holds very true here.

You choose to not find it acceptable. That's your moral choice. You should not be allowed to force your moral choice on another person simply because it conflicts with your own.

That's the exact opposite of what this country is supposed to stand for. In a free society where religion and state are kept separate, and we've already pointed out that marriage is a state sponsored union, your moral compass should not dictate what another person chooses to do with their own lives, provided it doesn't present a concrete harm to yourself or your own interests.

A federal judge has already ruled that your position is unconstitutional.

I love how you believe your own position is one of true vision. Ignorant, close minded, and UNAMERICAN, more like it.Scooby, have you eve reported an eyesore to authorities, say a car on blocks or grass too tall? Something along those lines. If you ever have(I believe you have as you spoke about it awhile back in a post)then I think you know what I'm gonna say next.

Also, close minded, un-American?? Really?? Hows this for open minded and real American. I also feel and always have that I should still have the ability to challenge anyone who affronts me to a pistol duel. Be it a shootout on a dusty street like the old West or a proper gentleman's duel in a grassy field. Either way, I think it would cut down on disrespectful behavior in this country to go back to that. If you don't agree that would be a good thing then YOU are close minded and definitely un-American.


PS: Scoob, I said those were my beliefs, not what I expect others to believe you jump to conclusions fuck. And Hyper, stop clapping your just as bad. You read into what I posted as you saw fit. Remember little boys: We read with objectivity first.

[Scooby24]

Scooby, have you eve reported an eyesore to authorities, say a car on blocks or grass too tall? Something along those lines. If you ever have(I believe you have as you spoke about it awhile back in a post)then I think you know what I'm gonna say next.

No...I've also never made a statement as such. The closest thing I can ever remember was when someone was parked on my street blocking my driveway. They were actually preventing me from doing something.

Also, close minded, un-American?? Really?? Hows this for open minded and real American. I also feel and always have that I should still have the ability to challenge anyone who affronts me to a pistol duel. Be it a shootout on a dusty street like the old West or a proper gentleman's duel in a grassy field. Either way, I think it would cut down on disrespectful behavior in this country to go back to that. If you don't agree that would be a good thing then YOU are close minded and definitely un-American.

They also allowed slavery but made no mention of slavery or dueling as part of the American ideal.

I'll leave you with a couple of very important words I want you to think about really, really hard.

Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness.

If homosexuals are allowed to get married are they, in any way, hampering your access to any of those three?

On the flipside, if you do not allow homosexuals to get married, per your so called moral compass, are you restricting a homosexuals access to any of those?

lib·er·ty/ˈlibərtē/Noun
1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life

You tell me, sir. Is the American ideology that every person is granted the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or not?

[xXSTi-lynXx]

not going to even start....

[mrstage1]

No...I've also never made a statement as such. The closest thing I can ever remember was when someone was parked on my street blocking my driveway. They were actually preventing me from doing something.



They also allowed slavery but made no mention of slavery or dueling as part of the American ideal.

I'll leave you with a couple of very important words I want you to think about really, really hard.

Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness.

If homosexuals are allowed to get married are they, in any way, hampering your access to any of those three?

On the flipside, if you do not allow homosexuals to get married, per your so called moral compass, are you restricting a homosexuals access to any of those?

lib·er·ty/ˈlibərtē/Noun
1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life

You tell me, sir. Is the American ideology that every person is granted the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or not?Once again you gloss over part of my post. Let me say this slowly for ya Scoob:

I NEVER SAID THEY COULDN'T GET MARRIED. I SAID IT FELT WRONG TO ME BASED ON IT TAKES ONE OF EACH SEXES TO CONTINUE THE SPECIES. That tells me normal is pairing a man and woman. END OF STORY. That is my thoughts and I'm entitled to them. DEAL WITH IT.

YOU blew this up farther than it needed to go. YOU are the one "screaming at the rafters" when there are none blocking your voice. Get it?

BTW: Do you have any problem letting a dude marry multiple women, or his dog that obviously loves him to death. Or a can of Tuna? None of these infringe on YOUR ability in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Scooby24]

Once again you gloss over part of my post. Let me say this slowly for ya Scoob:

I NEVER SAID THEY COULDN'T GET MARRIED. I SAID IT FELT WRONG TO ME BASED ON IT TAKES ONE OF EACH SEXES TO CONTINUE THE SPECIES. That tells me normal is pairing a man and woman. END OF STORY. That is my thoughts and I'm entitled to them. DEAL WITH IT.

YOU blew this up farther than it needed to go. YOU are the one "screaming at the rafters" when there are none blocking your voice. Get it?

BTW: Do you have any problem letting a dude marry multiple women, or his dog that obviously loves him to death. Or a can of Tuna? None of these infringe on YOUR ability in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, lets put two and two together. If a vote come up on the next ballot for a proposition to allow same sex marriage, how would you vote?

Your "thoughts" for why it "felt wrong" have some significant holes in them. Based on making it "feel right" to you, we'd need to start adding a requirement for a straight couple to agree to have children and check the fertility status of them before granting a marriage license to ensure we are continuing the species. It feels wrong to you because you're homophobic and have ignorant prejudices toward the idea of a homosexual couple being granted the same rights as the heterosexuals.

Polygamy, outside of the legal complications, I see no reason to deny. Your other scenarios are moronic. A dog is not a consenting adult. A can of tuna is not a consenting adult.

[mrstage1]

So, lets put two and two together. If a vote come up on the next ballot for a proposition to allow same sex marriage, how would you vote?

Your "thoughts" for why it "felt wrong" have some significant holes in them. Based on making it "feel right" to you, we'd need to start adding a requirement for a straight couple to agree to have children and check the fertility status of them before granting a marriage license to ensure we are continuing the species. It feels wrong to you because you're homophobic and have ignorant prejudices toward the idea of a homosexual couple being granted the same rights as the heterosexuals.

Polygamy, outside of the legal complications, I see no reason to deny. Your other scenarios are moronic. A dog is not a consenting adult. A can of tuna is not a consenting adult.Why does it matter to you whether it is consenting adults or not. You said I needn't bother unless it harms ME personally. I personally could care less if a dude wants to marry a can of tuna. Go for it. I can still call him abnormal though. Just like homosexuality. IT IS NOT NORMAL end of story. Doesn't matter if I am homophobic or not. True us true. None of the gay/les friends I have have a problem with my thoughts(and we HAVE discussed gay marriage). Funny thing is even they will admit they are a minority of society and definitely outside societal norms. The real non screamers among the group just want to go to work, get paid have fun and live life without drama. Cool with me as that's what I do.

Only the high and mighty judgment passers such as yourself seem to really have a problem with it. Seems as though you can construe 44 years of my life and relationships into an internet post or two. Great work Dr. Kinsey.

[FOACAD]

This is one topic i agree with Congressman Paul on in the most recent debate.

Get this topic out of the govts hands. Let the church and the people decide.

The tax benefits etc need to be changed. Thats all this is.

Its not the gays wanting to be recognized by god or any of that. Its them wanting benefits and tax breaks for being "married".

if two guys/ two girls want to get "married" then by all means, do it.

if a guy wants to take 5 wives, then by all means, do it.

but let the private sector handle the insurance and the benefits from the job that person has.

not the federal govt regulating who does or does not get special things from it.

[Scooby24]

Why does it matter to you whether it is consenting adults or not. You said I needn't bother unless it harms ME personally. I personally could care less if a dude wants to marry a can of tuna. Go for it. I can still call him abnormal though. Just like homosexuality. IT IS NOT NORMAL end of story. Doesn't matter if I am homophobic or not. True us true. None of the gay/les friends I have have a problem with my thoughts(and we HAVE discussed gay marriage). Funny thing is even they will admit they are a minority of society and definitely outside societal norms. The real non screamers among the group just want to go to work, get paid have fun and live life without drama. Cool with me as that's what I do.

Only the high and mighty judgment passers such as yourself seem to really have a problem with it. Seems as though you can construe 44 years of my life and relationships into an internet post or two. Great work Dr. Kinsey.

What are the benefits of getting married? Would those benefits be at all, or in any way, applicable to a can of tuna? What a stupid fucking straw man.

You didn't answer my question. How would you vote?

[Scooby24]

This is one topic i agree with Congressman Paul on in the most recent debate.

Get this topic out of the govts hands. Let the church and the people decide.

The tax benefits etc need to be changed. Thats all this is.

Its not the gays wanting to be recognized by god or any of that. Its them wanting benefits and tax breaks for being "married".

if two guys/ two girls want to get "married" then by all means, do it.

if a guy wants to take 5 wives, then by all means, do it.

but let the private sector handle the insurance and the benefits from the job that person has.

not the federal govt regulating who does or does not get special things from it.

I can completely agree with this, but you have to take away ALL benefits from a federal/legal standpoint that marriage provides. Taxes, insurance, medical consent, adoptive rights, etc.

A wonderful idea, but unfortunately like most of Paul's positions, not something that's going to happen. We need to accept that and address the issue from the understanding that it will not happen that way.

[FOACAD]

then make it completely a state issue.

the federal govt shouldnt touch that one. they shouldnt touch ANY "marriage" topic.

[Scooby24]

then make it completely a state issue.

the federal govt shouldnt touch that one. they shouldnt touch ANY "marriage" topic.

I would agree with it being addressed at the state level if there were only state sponsored benefits...but there are federal benefits, so it needs to be addressed at the federal level.

[Ryan Stewart]

Secretly all this debate really makes me hope that radical islam would take over so all of those who say that the rules should be in place because they are social norms could eat crow as they then have to deal with social norms that dont match their own.

[FOACAD]

"If your state recognizes the 'marriage' then we the federal govt will recognize it as well"

:dunno:

[Ryan Stewart]

I can completely agree with this, but you have to take away ALL benefits from a federal/legal standpoint that marriage provides. Taxes, insurance, medical consent, adoptive rights, etc.

A wonderful idea, but unfortunately like most of Paul's positions, not something that's going to happen. We need to accept that and address the issue from the understanding that it will not happen that way.

Been basically my point from the beginning. Not that its going to happen but the govt shouldnt be using tax policy for what is effectively social engineering.

[Scooby24]

"If your state recognizes the 'marriage' then we the federal govt will recognize it as well"

:dunno:

Okay, I can understand that philosophy, but at what point does the federal govt have to step in and acknowledge what the states are doing is unconstitutional?

Judge Walker's ruling is on appeal and will likely reach the SCOTUS, but assuming it holds up, shouldn't it be the position of the Feds to enforce the constitutionality of protecting the rights of the citizens from the moral majority?

The south wanted slavery to be entirely a states rights issue too, but there's a point where protecting a persons federally sponsored rights/benefits must be done.

[FOACAD]

i agree

but are govt benefits an unalienable right?

[mrstage1]

Ok Scoob, here's how I'd vote.

A bill for them to get benefits of a legal union= Yes

A bill calling it marriage= No

A bill with the combo of the two= No

I could care less if they get the benefits but I draw a line at the male/female being married. Since "marriage" is a religious thing and all the state has done is latch on to get their piece if the pie then lets compromise and say if anyone(gay or straight) goes to the courthouse to get hitched it's called a "legal/civil union". Same benefits, different title. Then we let the church decide if they wanna "marry" gay couples under god as well as marrying anyone else they deem worthy. How's that sound. Seems to me it'd let the people who want a religious ceremony be satisfied as well as the ones who care less about religion getting themselves legally bound to splitting half their shit upon divorce.

OR, we tell the gov't to get the fuck out of it altogether.

[Scooby24]

Ok Scoob, here's how I'd vote.

A bill for them to get benefits of a legal union= Yes

A bill calling it marriage= No

A bill with the combo of the two= No

I could care less if they get the benefits but I draw a line at the male/female being married. Since "marriage" is a religious thing and all the state has done is latch on to get their piece if the pie then lets compromise and say if anyone(gay or straight) goes to the courthouse to get hitched it's called a "legal/civil union". Same benefits, different title. Then we let the church decide if they wanna "marry" gay couples under god as well as marrying anyone else they deem worthy. How's that sound. Seems to me it'd let the people who want a religious ceremony be satisfied as well as the ones who care less about religion getting themselves legally bound to splitting half their shit upon divorce.

OR, we tell the gov't to get the fuck out of it altogether.

I'm glad we could put two and two together and confirm what you were trying to deny. A person's equality and right to the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is dependent upon semantics. How trivial.

[titaniumSS]

Religion adopted the fact of marriage, marriage was established before the catholic church claimed it as theirs. Just pointing that out.

[mrstage1]

I'm glad we could put two and two together and confirm what you were trying to deny. A person's equality and right to the same life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is dependent upon semantics. How trivial.Sometimes in life Scooby, words are everything.

I find it funny though. You spend time railing for gay marriage because it's unfair that they don't get the same benefits as straight people. Yet I propose a solution that makes everyone happy and yet somehow it's still not good enough.

Hmm, like I said, there's more to this than the benefits.

Scoob, Hate to tell ya but HOMOSEXUALITY WILL NEVER BE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS NORMAL. Get that through your thick skull, STFU and actually just argue for the benefits and the ability to go about your life normally.

[Scooby24]

Sometimes in life Scooby, words are everything.

I find it funny though. You spend time railing for gay marriage because it's unfair that they don't get the same benefits as straight people. Yet I propose a solution that makes everyone happy and yet somehow it's still not good enough.

Hmm, like I said, there's more to this than the benefits.

Scoob, Hate to tell ya but HOMOSEXUALITY WILL NEVER BE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS NORMAL. Get that through your thick skull, STFU and actually just argue for the benefits and the ability to go about your life normally.

Your arguments are full of logical fallacies.

Interracial marriage is still not universally accepted as normal, yet those couples should be and are treated as equals.

Your "solution" will never be adopted, unless you plan on going back and updating all those married couples like myself that did so in a courtroom and inform them they are no longer "married", just a legal union.

Not going to happen. It's going to either be called marriage or nothing at all.

There will always be ignorant people. That has no bearing on whether or not a person should get equality and that equality shouldn't be dependent upon a word.

y u so mad? Bring your A game and a real point that we can actually debate instead of arguing against stuff because it makes you feel bad. That's not a good argument.

[phreakdna]

Sometimes in life Scooby, words are everything.
yes they are. and you're proposing (below) a 'solution' that "makes everyone happy" and yet, because "sometimes words are everything" your solution doesn't make everyone happy... calling their marriage by another name will not make most happy. it wouldn't make me happy if my non-religious ceremony was called something other than a marriage.
I find it funny though. You spend time railing for gay marriage because it's unfair that they don't get the same benefits as straight people. Yet I propose a solution that makes everyone happy and yet somehow it's still not good enough.
so what if in 30 years when hispanics are a majority you have to go to the DMV and get a "blanco" license instead of a driver's license? its just words right? I mean it could still offer you the benefits of a driver's license but now only whites have to get something called other than a driver's license... or what if the election boards had proposed "bitch" licenses back in the 20s? shouldn't women have just been happy with getting the right to vote? its just a name, right?

you're right... sometimes "words are everything". equality means equal, not what is essentially separate but equal.

[Ryan Stewart]

Religion adopted the fact of marriage, marriage was established before the catholic church claimed it as theirs. Just pointing that out.

Religion existing well before the Catholic Church. I know its hard to imagine in a judeo-christian country but organized religion existed well before Jeebus and humans have been offering entrails to the gods well before that.

[titaniumSS]

Religion existing well before the Catholic Church. I know its hard to imagine in a judeo-christian country but organized religion existed well before Jeebus and humans have been offering entrails to the gods well before that.

Yep, realize that too. I love talking about this stuff. My ethics class is opening up my eyes to a lot of the fallacies that people believe and tell as the truth that I was aware of and unaware of. My favorite higher beings were the Greek gods.

[Cj98]

http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/520494-post1.html

Thought that was interesting though I don't know if this has been updated or changed since then. I was actually speaking with a friend about this and how we feel that the government more and more is trying to restrict our social freedoms and one of those is Marriage. We shouldn't be told who we should be allowed to marry, only on the basis that both parties can consent and give their okay to be wed.

[kcstreeter]

I dont and never will believe in gay marriage. But I dont think the government should be involved in matters such as marriage.

[84USNGT]

lSfFa44p96o

:mrgreen: