OK, since I am the only one willing to try and come up with solutions, how about this. we seperate marriage and civil unions, although civil unions isnt jsut for homosexuals, it could be used by anyone. marriage would be a religious ceremony, while no religious people, of any orientation, could get the civil union in a legal ceremony in a court house or wherever. it would divided along religious grounds. this way, the religious peopl who feel marriage is a holy union could kep that sacred, and non religious people could get all the same benefits, responsibiliteis and all that in a relationship not religious. no one would be lower than the next, all would recieve the very same benefits. homo and hetero sexuals would share a union, whie religious people would keep what is sacred to them. since ther are not a whole lot of religious gays out thee, it wouldnt rn into to many problems.

If the whole issue is just a word - then it's not much of an issue really is it? Words are just words.

Solutions are always positive, but lets face it - that solution doesn't really have any chance of being implemented.

What will happen is gays will break existing state laws and get married, then thru the courts the constitutionality of the laws will be challenged and the laws will be struck down. Then via a legal ruling all gays will be able to be married.

That train is coming, you need to accept it as a done deal - so the best option rather than looking for false security in a word - focus on making your own marriage even more special than it already is and let other people live their lives.

Once gays have that right, only a constitutional amendement could take it away - and such a move has 0% chance of success because the hurdles are way to high. Sure, it will have an impact on making attitudes more liberal in the long term (just like rock & roll did in the 60's) - but acceptance and a less-judgemental society is not automatically a bad thing.

What will NEVER happen (because there is NO possible legal route) is stuff like incest etc being challenged - there is no feasible route from Gay marriage to that - so don't lose a moments sleep in that area.

"What will NEVER happen (because there is NO possible legal route) is stuff like incest etc being challenged - there is no feasible route from Gay marriage to that - so don't lose a moments sleep in that area."

funny, I can picture this same thing being said about gay marriage in the not to distant past. never say never drew.

True, but if a legal route ever opens up for a challenge to incest laws - then it won't be because of Gay marriage.

Original post by Trav:
OK, since I am the only one willing to try and come up with solutions, how about this. we seperate marriage and civil unions, although civil unions isnt jsut for homosexuals, it could be used by anyone. marriage would be a religious ceremony, while no religious people, of any orientation, could get the civil union in a legal ceremony in a court house or wherever. it would divided along religious grounds. this way, the religious peopl who feel marriage is a holy union could kep that sacred, and non religious people could get all the same benefits, responsibiliteis and all that in a relationship not religious. no one would be lower than the next, all would recieve the very same benefits. homo and hetero sexuals would share a union, whie religious people would keep what is sacred to them. since ther are not a whole lot of religious gays out thee, it wouldnt rn into to many problems.

I acutally agree with Trav on this point because of what I've said in the past. There is a difference between religious marriages and marriage contracts issued by the state.

I also agree that the precedent of allowing gay marriage can later be used by other groups to get married (as long as they are consenting adults and not hurting anyone). However, what I don't understand is why that would be wrong. Just because its not normal in our minds??? Trav, can you explain why it is wrong?

if you do not see anything wrong with 2 brothers marrying and living together, no explanation by me is going to show you the light

drew, it wont be becasue gays married, but that issue would definantly come up in any court case to allow the same rights to any other deviant group, and no offense by using the word deviant, but thats jsut what it is, deviance from the norm. any liberal jusge hearing the case worth his salt would be forced to allow those groups to marry, as he can not deny te same rights to anyone for any reason

Originally posted by Travh20
lol, wow pagan, saying my marriage is a joke really bolsters your arguments, you jerk.

Wow Trav, calling me a jerk, and a deviant, and a pervert, and an abomination really bolsters your arguments doesn't it. I didn't say your marriage was a joke, I said it was probably a joke. The reason I said it is because you talk about marriage as a "sacred union" and call it "holy matrimony", and in two separate posts you said the only reason you got married was so you could have kids, and if you were able to marry who you wanted to, you would have married a rich woman who owned an island. By saying things like that Trav, you've made a joke out of your own marriage without any help from me.

let me once again point out the hypocrisy of your views. you call me a dumbass for even thinking that alowing gay marriage could lead to other types of marriage from becoming part of everyday life.

Actually Trav, I don't believe I've ever called you a dumbass. I've never even said that allowing gay marriage couldn't lead to other types of marriage being legalized. What I have said, and continue to say, is that the issues of gay marriages, and incestuous marriages, pedophilic relationships, and polygamist marriages, are separate legal issues with no common elements, and that allowing gay marriages will not automatically lead to other forms of marriage being made legal.

you go ahead with yor gay marraiges against the law.

Not all the gay marriages taking place today are against the law. Yes, the Mayor of San Francisco is probably breaking the law by having the city issue marriage licenses, but the couties in Oregon are apparently not breaking Oregon State law by issuing marriage licenses to gays.

Now, you turn aarund and demand removal of any 10 commandments or cross you see in a public place. you site the law for your reason. how can you say that the emre presence of the 10 commandments will lead to a strict christian theocracy?

I don't know how you could say that, since I've never said it.

how can the law apply for removal of crosses and not for your pet issue? you are a hypocrit man, admit it.

Because they are two completely different legal issues. One is the separation of church and state, and the other is about equal protection under the law. I fail to see that the two issues are even related so i can't even understand how you could possibly see any hypocrisy there. Oh wait...now I get it...since we disagree on both of those issues they MUST be related...right?

and for someone so tolerant aand open minde you sure make a lot of assumtions about me, for the mere reason that I dont agree with you.

Like what sort of assumptions?

you are one of the least tolerant, closed minded people I have enountered.

Oh I don't know Trav, I've tolerated a lot of name calling from you without responding in kind, for the most part, and as far as being closed-minded goes, I'm not the one who wants to tell other people how to live their lives, or that they are being "wrong", you are.

you fail to see the logical path that homosexual marriage will follow. you want it so bad you throw caution to the wind and jsut go all out, damn the topredos.

The logical path that gay marriage will follow is that gays will get married. Any other predictions are pure conjecture and I can't read the future any better than you. As I've said before trav, I have no personal interest in getting married. What I do want "so bad' is to see our society live up to the promises of the Constitution.

you got an answer for everything font you you know it all? there is not one thing I can post without you snickering and typing some diluted retort that denies everything while calling me everything all at the same time. I have dealt with liberals like you for years, and know that you will never actually say anything, but will always mean it by saying it other ways, all so you can deny saying it when confronted with it. it is an old story. you are either vague to the point of incoherance, or so particular as to point out the most minute observation, all depending on how it helps your argument.

Originally posted by Travh20
you got an answer for everything font you you know it all?

Obviously not, or I would have been able to convince you of the error of your ways long ago.

there is not one thing I can post without you snickering and typing some diluted retort that denies everything while calling me everything all at the same time.

Didn't snicker once, and my retorts are not nearly as diluted as this response you wrote. I didn't deny everything, just your misrepresentations about what I said in a previous post. And I don't believe I "called" you anything.

I have dealt with liberals like you for years, and know that you will never actually say anything, but will always mean it by saying it other ways, all so you can deny saying it when confronted with it.

See that's your main problem Trav, you lump people into groups and then you convince yourself that they all think alike, and say the same things, so you really don't have to listen to their arguments since you already know what their going to say. Given that mindset you simply blunder ahead with the same tired old arguments regardless what is being said to you.


it is an old story. you are either vague to the point of incoherance, or so particular as to point out the most minute observation, all depending on how it helps your argument.

If there is something I was vague about please let me know and I'd be happy to clarify it for you. I always try to help my arguments rather then hinder them, perhaps you should try that sometime.

Original post by Trav:
if you do not see anything wrong with 2 brothers marrying and living together, no explanation by me is going to show you the light

That is not an answer. Come on, if its so obviously wrong then you should be able to explain it easily. I'm open minded...if you can explain what is wrong with it then I might agree with you. But, for you to just say "I won't explain it" just tells me that even you, the person who thinks its wrong, doesn't really have a reason...other than "just because".

oh come on, are you now going to argue that there is nothing wrong with 2 brothers marrying and having sex with each other? if this argument comes to that I will say you win and leave.

Original post by Trav:
oh come on, are you now going to argue that there is nothing wrong with 2 brothers marrying and having sex with each other?

Actually, you are making that argument by not being able to explain why it is wrong, for the 2nd time. If I thought someting was wrong and you asked me why, I would explain...not just say "well, if you don't know I'm not going to tell you".

if this argument comes to that I will say you win and leave.

Great debate tactic. I would rather you stayed and answered the question....just humor me if you have to.

this guy is the exact reason that gay marriage will never happen. he is the slippery slope. maybe pagan and drew will come in and reign your "nothing wrong with 2 brotherts having sex" ass in before you give credit to everything they have spent so much time denying and casting off as christian propaganda

That was your answer???? Stike 3.

I have dealt with liberals like you for years, and know that you will never actually say anything, but will always mean it by saying it other ways, all so you can deny saying it when confronted with it.

Talk about denial. You won't answer a direct quesion when asked over and over and over again.

And talk about "never actually saying anything", the following quotes are entire responses by Trav to an issue or a direct question:


oh, well that settles it! what was I thinking!?

whatever pagan, your right, as usual

And finally, as for the slippery slope argument...the slippery slope already exists. If you let one group (heterosexuals) get married, how can you then legally say no other group can do it? You can't let one group have something that others don't have, and then turn around and say "if you let a second group have it, then everyone's going to want it". Thats like having 3 kids, giving kid #1 a piece of candy, then telling kid #2 that "I can't give you one, becuase then kid #3 will want one". The only way you can use that argument is before you ever gave the first piece of candy to kid #1.

Now, dispute this point...don't just say something like "thats ridiculous" and move on.

What about being bi-sexual? Shouldn't one be allowed to marry a male and a female then? Why not be married to one of each then? Shouldn't bi-sexuals then have rights too?

Just wondering what you all think?

-lilvoyce

Why not? Honestly, I'm accepting to almost all marriage.

Sadly, family marriage is sick to me. BUT again just because I personally think it's wrong, does not mean I can make that decision for someone else.

Whose says then the union should only be between two people? I was up late watching a telivision show where there was this tribe of people, and the women there rule!!

They get a hubby that is specifically for hunting and fishing, another for taking care of the children, a nice young one for making babies, one for upkeep of the house, one for taking care of her old parents, and all she has to do is sit around and make cornbread in all her glory...lol. What a life..I tell yah...Can't have enough good men!!!

If we are about change, then why not change it all?!? Who says a union has to be only between two people? Just curious as to what anyones thoughts on my questions are.

I am not a person who debates by YELLING and name calling..so please be nice okay? I am into friendly debate only.

-lilvoyce

BTW...When you speak of family marriage...You do mean by consenting adults over the age of 18 correct?

EYEEEW!!!!! Call me anything you want but I will not debate that one with a ten foot pole. That is just plain out wrong..wrong..wrong..

Just because someone wants to make THAT decision does not mean that it is right. You would be looking at some seriously confused offspring who will end up spending their lives in a phsyciatrist office.

-lilvoyce

I'm all for polite debate...in my opinion, anyone who needs to call names does so because they can't argue the point, otherwise they would just argue the point.

The only reason I think marriage should be limited to 2 people is because of the problems it would cause to have multiple spouse deductions on your tax return or health insurance. Other than that, I see no reason why the gov't should tell 3 or more other consenting adults what type of relationship they sould have, although one woman is good enought for me.

Holy Christ! It took me nearly an hour to get through this thread! We need to start a website for this alone! We went from gay marriage, civil rights, racism, etc. all in one thread. Whew!

Anyway, for my two cents:

Pagan, I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi or whatever. I am sooo on your side. I am married to the love of my life and have two great kids. Some of the values I instill in them are - people are all different. All people need to be treated with respect UNTIL such time as the respect factor goes out the window...when you've done your part to the best of your ability and you've been degraded, beat up on, ridiculed, etc. Then it's okay to ignore them and KNOW that you are SOO above their level. They are not then worthy of your respect. The same can be said for several people on this board (ugababe for one).

My children know about the gay relationships - I have a very close friend who is gay and I love him like my own brother. He is a very professional individual with many abbreviations behind his name. He is loving, caring, smart, witty, charming, etc. I am proud to be very close to him.

For those of you - like Ugababe - who believe that gays choose to be this way is absolutely ridiculous. If scientists are trying to determine WHAT gene, etc. it is that makes certain people gay, I say BAH to that! Who cares! What certain gene is it that makes us fat? Oily skinned? Domineering? Republican? (hehehe) Excuse me, but, I believe that we are people - all people are different. Just because some is different, doesn't make them vile, (sorry pagan!) wrong, lower class, etc.

To give gays the "marriage" rights, not only will boost their morale and self-esteem, perhaps they will no longer feel that they are constantly asking - or as Trav puts it "whining" - for civil rights. This is a no-brainer to me. EVERYONE, every human being in our country, no matter size, color, shape, age, etc. deserves the same rights as everyone else. For others to deny that right is not only selfish, but narrow minded to say the least.

Here's an interesting message I received on a board today...



I wrote to my state legislators who were making a move to ban gay marriage in Arizona. Here's the reply from one of them...and the reason I'm not moving from this normally Republican state:

***************************
Dear -----,

Thank you for your email opposing HCM2004, (One Man One Woman Bill). I voted against it. I wish to share with you, the explanation of my vote.

EXPLANATION OF REP. TED DOWNINGS VOTE ON HCM2004
The Arizona legislature is not empowered to change history nor facts. As a professional anthropologist, I can assure you that the evidence shows, in contradistinction to the HCM2004 preamble, that one man/one woman marriage is neither universal "since time began" nor unchanging. Marriage entered the English lexicon in the 14th century, derived from the French word marier. Marriage represents a variety of contractual unions...but the nature of that contract has evolved and changed within each culture and across cultures. It was once a binding of kin and social groups, often without the consent of the individuals and still is in some parts of the world. And the state and Church have a history of manipulating marriage rules as a way to control property rights.

We must look at HCM2004 within an historic and civil rights context. The state no longer relegates women to be second class citizens in marriage, as they once were. Within my lifetime, the state no longer forbids marriage between different races. Each step in this evolution has been more inclusive...recognizing rather than restricting our civil and human rights. Puritans did not found this country, in contradistinction to what the preamble to the proposed Resolution claims....Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson would cast a resounding NO to this proposition. They are not here...but I, a lineal descendent of the American revolution - whose Mother's DAR certificate hangs on my wall in the legislature, I am here. And I vote a resounding no.

Ted Downing
State Representative
LD28 Tucson
******************************


And as for Trav -- HOW can he claim to be Christian? His attitude goes against all Christian ethics that I've ever heard! (i.e. his rotten language and pompous demeanor) I laughed out loud when I saw that he actually admitted to being Christian. :rolleyes:

why dont you read a little closer next time, and you will see that I said I am not atrue christian, I mearly side with them on issues such as these. and your one to talk and call someone else pompous.:rolleyes: