Bush's Gay Marriage Ban ! (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040224/D80TO4P01.html)

It seems to me that Bush and his government have a whole helluva lot of more important things to worry about other than this issue. WHO CARES?? People are people REGARDLESS of their sexual preference! As such, they should be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

This issue is such a waste of time and money...both of which could be better directed elsewhere.


Decisions in Massachusetts and San Francisco "have left the people with one recourse: if we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America," Bush said Tuesday in a statement long-awaited by the GOP right.

Semantics! .... to "protect" marriage in America...hmmm. How about this instead: To BAN, JUDGE and PUNISH those that don't share the same beliefs. :rolleyes:

So you thought Bush would so busy that the gay redefinition of mariage would just fly right under the radar huh? like the kid who goes into buy beer and buys a bunch of other stuff hoping the clerk wont notice the beer? then when the clerk says something about it the kid mentions the kid he saw putting a candy bar in his coat pocket as if that will make the clerk forget he was trying to buy beer underage? the gays will not get to use the word marriage, nough said. I foyu want to be able to write in your spouses name on your tax form, or include them in your insurance, or whatever other beneifts you think married people get, call it something else. stop being to proud to be different.

Hey Trav...

http://www.misteak.com/stfu2.JPG

/in defense of Dop

now thats healthy debate!

Originally posted by Travh20
now thats healthy debate!
All right so if I say it it's "not healthy debate" but if you say it it's okay? Nice double standard there, Trav.

I was refering to the use of "healthy debate" in another post. I dont care if someone tells me to STFU, I am not some little sissy who cant take an insult. I dont have a problem with emotion in debate. I fI piss you off and you call me an asshole, so be it. I wont try and make you look like a jerk for showing emotion.

Holy Shit ppl's. Gay marriage will be happening soon, even though there are some idoits that are opposed to it. I think the church should fuck off on the marriage issue,infact i think they should have no say in marriage proceedings period!!! If they wanna marry, then goddamnit they will be wed,maybe not today,maybe not tommorow,but someday in the near future. In my mind, weddings should be looked over by a appointed person, who is not a priest. Then we would not have whiny little bitches in the church,govn't,even the white house,bitching about same sex marriage. I say fuck you to gay haters! (im straight but stand up for their rights).

oh yes please excuse the swearing its a touchy subject

Shaman? is that you?

Sheesh cx33, do you have any issues with the church?

Putting aside the issue of whether gay marriage is right or wrong, I think this is nowhere near important enough to be put into the Constitution. It comes off as spitefulness more than anything.

Lionel, your a lawyer right? if I were a polygamists, and came into court to argue for my right to marry 3 women (god knows why I would want that, one is more than enough!) and I used the fact that the court says it is OK for 2 consenting adults to get married, no matter anything else, that I should be allowed ince we are all consenting adults. I am no lawyer, but it seems that allowign gays to marry makes it so there really is no argument against 3 or 4 people all getting married to each other. it cant be argued agaisnt without a law that says marrieage is between one man and one woman.

Originally posted by Travh20
Shaman? is that you?
Shaman can't string 2 sentences together without a link, a string of 20 !'s, or an "LOL!!!!!!!". And there is no "Skippy" in sight.
Lionel, your a lawyer right? if I were a polygamists, and came into court to argue for my right to marry 3 women (god knows why I would want that, one is more than enough!) and I used the fact that the court says it is OK for 2 consenting adults to get married, no matter anything else, that I should be allowed ince we are all consenting adults. I am no lawyer, but it seems that allowign gays to marry makes it so there really is no argument against 3 or 4 people all getting married to each other. it cant be argued agaisnt without a law that says marrieage is between one man and one woman.
While the slippery slope is not a valid argument against anything, I'll bite. Say that the Supreme Court says that gay marriage must be allowed. Say that the majority opinion is written such that the main reason given is that the state cannot discriminate. In that case, polygamist marriages would also have to be allowed, at least the way I understand things they would be. And if everyone consents, I don't see what could be wrong about that.

As a "preemptive strike" against the question I know is coming, neither minors nor animals can consent to be married.

borg, since you admit that polygimists are next in line fo rtheir "rights", do you really think that pedophilia is far behind? Clintons old Surgeon General has already gone on record as saying that children can enjoy sex too. from there an argument is made that the age of consent should be lowered or eliminated all together. there would be plenty of 14 yer old girls who would consent to marrying their 40 year old lover. I cant believe that hte gays think it will all stop with them. it was written in the gay manifesto that destroying the age of consent was one of their goals, along with getting married.

Originally posted by Travh20
borg, since you admit that polygimists are next in line fo rtheir "rights", do you really think that pedophilia is far behind? Clintons old Surgeon General has already gone on record as saying that children can enjoy sex too. from there an argument is made that the age of consent should be lowered or eliminated all together. there would be plenty of 14 yer old girls who would consent to marrying their 40 year old lover. I cant believe that hte gays think it will all stop with them. it was written in the gay manifesto that destroying the age of consent was one of their goals, along with getting married.
The age of consent will not go down. I don't support lowering it any lower than 16, and I don't know anybody who does. And I have quite a few ultra-liberal friends.

Oh, and "gay manifesto"? LOL.

LOL, gay manifesto, LMAO, it does sound silly but there are a few out there

Yeah, and let's make sure that the new ammendment covers gay marriages between martians so when we conquer that planet they are already covered and we don't have to waste more time ammending the ammendment.

Dop

I would really like some good arguments against gay marraige. I'm really interested in why anyone thinks that it shouldn't happen, because I can't personally think of any. and please don't say slippery slope. juts some logical, valid arguments.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
I would really like some good arguments against gay marraige. I'm really interested in why anyone thinks that it shouldn't happen, because I can't personally think of any. and please don't say slippery slope. juts some logical, valid arguments.

I think you are hoping for something that doesn't exist Whammy, the only arguments against gay marriage are invalid, illogical ones or ones based on someone's religion.

i'm interested as to why some people seem to care so deeply about the (CONSENTING) sex lives of others. why does it matter? and what's with this whole "sanctity of marriage" shit? i've yet to hear someone say that thier marriage is failing because men are marrying men and women are marrying women.

exactly. someone's sex life and maraige, who you don't know, doesn't effect yours. period. and I really do wnat to know if nay logical reasons exist. becaue as far as I'm concerned, they don't. and I'm being an eternal optimist and hoping that all these people aren't maiking such a fuss over nothing.

Originally posted by Travh20
Lionel, your a lawyer right? if I were a polygamists, and came into court to argue for my right to marry 3 women (god knows why I would want that, one is more than enough!) and I used the fact that the court says it is OK for 2 consenting adults to get married, no matter anything else, that I should be allowed ince we are all consenting adults. I am no lawyer, but it seems that allowign gays to marry makes it so there really is no argument against 3 or 4 people all getting married to each other. it cant be argued agaisnt without a law that says marrieage is between one man and one woman.

I seem to recall reading where a polygamist has filed suit making exactly that argument. I can't see how you could distinguish between homosexual marriage and polygamy without making the same sort of moral or religious argument that so many people don't want to bring into the gay marriage argument.

That being said, I don't have a problem with polygamists. At least they're committing to their many partners instead of the usual scummy idiots who love 'em and leave 'em.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I think you are hoping for something that doesn't exist Whammy, the only arguments against gay marriage are invalid, illogical ones or ones based on someone's religion.

I'm not really advocating this viewpoint, but you could maybe fashion some sort of argument about the government wanting to promote relationships that are most likely to lead to the perpetuation of that society. It's more of a practical view. Of course the reality in this country is that there's no lack of population. It might be a better argument in Italy, where the birthrate is substantially below that needed to maintain the present population. (Not that homosexuality is the cause of the low birthrate).

First bush tells us that A-stan is the greatest threat to america so we bomb the crap outta them. Then he tells us Iraq is the greatest threat and we bomb the crap outta them. Now, it's gay marriage that's the greatest threat.

Ya, know, this guy has to make up his friggin mind. And he talks about kerry waffling????

All this is a gop distraction from the real issues of today, jobs going to india, soldiers being killed in iraq, every kid left behind etc etc.

It'll get about much play as Janet's nipple. I already hear people yawning over it.

LMAO, Dop

Changing the Constitution of the US is not to be taken lightly. Now a proposed amendment to discriminate against our own citizens?

george bush is not the one who started this gay marriage issue, he is responing to it. he would not come out and propose and ammendment for the hell of it. do you think if the crazy anarchist mayor and judges had anything to do with this, or do you believe they are all in bushs pocket too dop? getting paid to make an issue for bush to "drive a wedge between us"(in my best teddy kennedy impersenation).

the nerve of the democrats! first you got kerry, who talks about vietnam every single speech accusing bush of opening up old wounds by talking about vietnam (which he never did) , then ted kennedy suggesting somehow bush started all this gay marriage stuff so he could drive a wedge between us. WTF are these guys thinking? bush isnt handing out marriage certificates illeagally from the oval office teddy. he is responding to law breakers and radical jusges who want to write new laws for the coutnry.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'm not really advocating this viewpoint, but you could maybe fashion some sort of argument about the government wanting to promote relationships that are most likely to lead to the perpetuation of that society. It's more of a practical view. Of course the reality in this country is that there's no lack of population. It might be a better argument in Italy, where the birthrate is substantially below that needed to maintain the present population. (Not that homosexuality is the cause of the low birthrate).

On the surface it does make a certain amount of sense, but the reason most people are against gay marriage is a religious one.

Conservatives will say to a gay couple that you are not a family because you can't have children and we wont let you adopt either because you are a pervert. It's sort of a catch-22 situation.

Getting your hits on Kerry when you can, eh?

Bush is responding to it, but the uproar is because of the side he's taking on the issue.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Travh20
[B]george bush is not the one who started this gay marriage issue, he is responing to it. he would not come out and propose and ammendment for the hell of it.

Bush is only doing this because of his religious beleifs, and those of his supporters. the religious right give him a shit load of money, and he needs to make them happy. this will

do you think if the crazy anarchist mayor and judges had anything to do with this, or do you believe they are all in bushs pocket too dop?

they aren't crazy, or anarchists. they are practicing something called civil disobedience. they are being responsible citizens. who are they harming? frankly, nobody. I can't think of a single person who would get hurt by all of this. all these judges are doing is standing up for people rights. would you call Rosa Parks an anarchist? I hope not.



the botom line is that homosexuals have rights too, and they should be allowed to live the same lives as straight people because they are only human. think about someone who's bisexual. if there are eight people, and four of them end up in a same-sex relationship, and the other four in one's with the opposite sex. do the oposite sex couple deserve to get married more than the same sex ones, even though everyone involved is bi? the answer is unarguably no.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
they aren't crazy, or anarchists. they are practicing something called civil disobedience. they are being responsible citizens. who are they harming?

I think civil disobedience has its place, but I'm not sure I like my elected officials doing it. I mean these are people that are really well placed to actually change the law legally.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
I would really like some good arguments against gay marraige. I'm really interested in why anyone thinks that it shouldn't happen, because I can't personally think of any. and please don't say slippery slope. juts some logical, valid arguments.

Unfortunately the slippery slope argument does apply.

The basic premise, as i understand it, is that two people who love each other should be allowed to marry.
If that is the presumption then there is no reason why any two people who say they love each other cannot be married. Two men, two women, brother-sister, man-boy, woman-girl, person-pet/animal .....
Incest is legal as is bestiality and pedophilia.

Originally posted by waldo
brother-sister
Incest is a sticky issue, but I believe it's in the nation's best interests to keep genetic diseases away, and incest breeds genetic disease
man-boy, woman-girl
EEEEHHHH, sorry Waldo, you lose. Minors are incapable of consent. But here's a cookie as a consolation prize! person-pet/animal .....
See above. Pets cannot "love" either.

Borg you sound so old fasion. just think, you are now the christian who imposes your beliefs on others! who gives you the right to say a man and young boy can not be married? if the boy wants to, and the man wants to, who is it hurting? and how can you prove an animal can not love? have you ever owned a dog? have you seen how a dog reacts when you come home after a long day working? somepeople can be so old fasion.

Originally posted by waldo
Unfortunately the slippery slope argument does apply.

The basic premise, as i understand it, is that two people who love each other should be allowed to marry.
If that is the presumption then there is no reason why any two people who say they love each other cannot be married. Two men, two women, brother-sister, man-boy, woman-girl, person-pet/animal .....
Incest is legal as is bestiality and pedophilia.

Well, waldo I guess it just proves that you don't understand the basic premise.

Let me phrase it so that you can understand it.

The basic premise is that two consenting adults, who are not related by blood closer than second cousins, and are of the species homo sapiens should be allowed to get married.

The only slippery slope here waldo is the one you slipped on and struck your head rendering you insensible.

Any other stupid arguments waldo?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Well, waldo I guess it just proves that you don't understand the basic premise.

Let me phrase it so that you can understand it.

The basic premise is that two consenting adults, who are not related by blood closer than second cousins, and are of the species homo sapiens should be allowed to get married.

The only slippery slope here waldo is the one you slipped on and struck your head rendering you insensible.

Any other stupid arguments waldo?

so you are willing to put conditions on it you just want a different set of conditions. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by waldo
so you are willing to put conditions on it you just want a different set of conditions. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but I can't quite make out what you are trying to say here.

If you believe that a gay person who marries their adult lover in any way equates to an adult marrying their sibling, a child, or an animal; then I suggest you seek medical attention immediately, as you are showing symptoms of brain damage, probably from that tumble you took down that slippery slope.

the gays cannot see, anything wrong with what they are doing waldo, so it is impossible to make them look at it from another angle. any attempt will result in them reverting to looking at things in a very litteral sense. of course we know that 2 men getting married is not the SAME EXACT thing as a man and boy, or 3 men. they can not see any way how other groups with strong feelings, who are also "discriminated" agaisnt could possible see gay marriage as a light at the end of the tunnel for them. they believe that once gays get the right to marry, it will all end. no politicallly active group ever "ends" its struggle.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I'm sorry, but I can't quite make out what you are trying to say here.

If you believe that a gay person who marries their adult lover in any way equates to an adult marrying their sibling, a child, or an animal; then I suggest you seek medical attention immediately, as you are showing symptoms of brain damage, probably from that tumble you took down that slippery slope.

What you are advocating is a change to the status quo. The status quo has served society admirably for eons. You need offer a reason for change other than what you have offered.
If two consenting adults is the sole criteria then your refutation of my examples is worthless. You are only offering us your opinion as the criteria for change. What makes your opinion more worthwhile than what society has recognized as the norm for ages?

Originally posted by Travh20
of course we know that 2 men getting married is not the SAME EXACT thing as a man and boy, or 3 men. Just as a union between a man and a woman is not the SAME EXACT thing as man/man or woman/woman. Vile, it does seem hypocritical for someone to advocate same sex marriages on one hand and then in the next breath try to put limits on others. If you think that one form of "bigotry" is wrong, how can you impose your personal opinions on someone else's opinion of a perfect union? How do you tell Bob he cant marry his sister Beth? What reasons? Because inbreeding produces birth defects? What business would it be of yours? You wouldnt be raising the kid. See? Anyone can argue a civil rights case and sound like the person involved is being unfairly denied his/her civil rights. Like I asked in another thread: Where do you draw the line? How do you draw a line?

Originally posted by es347fan
Changing the Constitution of the US is not to be taken lightly. Now a proposed amendment to discriminate against our own citizens?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Since when has the Constitution become a document used to redress trendy issues. If we had amendments like this regularly, the Constitution would be filled with whimsical amendments from ancient issues. This would only perpetuate disrespect for our nation's most important document.

A while back I predicted that GLBT's would be the next 1930/40's jews and they should be very scared. I was called chicken little among other names and told I was crazy.

Well here ya go -- it's starting just like I said it would. The great state of Alabams newspapers say gays are worthy of death.

http://tinyurl.com/3xj33

Dop

Originally posted by waldo
What you are advocating is a change to the status quo. The status quo has served society admirably for eons. You need offer a reason for change other than what you have offered.

Slavery was the status quo for eons and served society admirably, but not from the slaves perspective. I believe that being denied equal rights under the law is more than sufficient reason to demand change.

If two consenting adults is the sole criteria then your refutation of my examples is worthless. You are only offering us your opinion as the criteria for change. What makes your opinion more worthwhile than what society has recognized as the norm for ages?

Actually my opinion wont change the law, the courts opinion will however, and I suspect that the courts will agree with me.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Just as a union between a man and a woman is not the SAME EXACT thing as man/man or woman/woman. Vile, it does seem hypocritical for someone to advocate same sex marriages on one hand and then in the next breath try to put limits on others. If you think that one form of "bigotry" is wrong, how can you impose your personal opinions on someone else's opinion of a perfect union?

I'm not putting limits on anyone, the law is. The law makes all these forms of behavior illegal and I'm suggesting that the law needs to be changed. You are lumping these dissimilar groups together to justify denying rights to ALL of them. Again we're not talking about my opinion we're talking about the law.

How do you tell Bob he cant marry his sister Beth? What reasons? Because inbreeding produces birth defects? What business would it be of yours? You wouldnt be raising the kid. See? Anyone can argue a civil rights case and sound like the person involved is being unfairly denied his/her civil rights. Like I asked in another thread: Where do you draw the line? How do you draw a line?

To be honest HaVok I'm surprised you would make this ridiculous argument. The OBVIOUS difference between gay marriage and pedophilia and incestuous relationships is that in gay marriage the only thing injured is your sensibilities. In pedophilic relationships a child is taken advantage of for the sexual gratification of an adult. I think we can agree that a person is ACTUALLY harmed by this. In an incestuous relationship the probability of producing a child with birth defects is increased and I think that we can both agree that in this case the CHILD WITH THE DEFECTS has suffered substantial harm. So in short , I would draw the line at ACTUAL PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM INFLICTED ON ANOTHER PERSON. Sorry for yelling HaVok, but in my opinion the differences between these kinds of behaviors are so obvious as to preclude rational comparison.

every argument that doesnt line up with pagans is a ridiculous argument. it is getting old. he can not justify gay marriage when legitimate questions are brought up about how gays marriage will be the last group demanding marriage based on the constituitions saying that "all men are created equal" that is his big argument, yet he can not say why the men who like boys or their sisters are not equal to men who like men. his big word about that is "consenting". well there could be a boy who consents to being with a man, or a sister that consents to being ih her brother. the reality is that allowing gays to get married really is opening the door to all sorts of things. I know the gays play so innocent adn like this is no big deal, but it is, is could change the entire coutnry. I dont mean everone will turn gay, or anything like that, but it will change things a lot. how can you stop a brother and sister from gettign married? who does it hurt? what if the get steralized?

first of all, trav, why do you have something against homosexuals? hve you ever met one? really gotten to kow one? as a human being? I'm assuming not, becasue you speak about homosexuality as if it's the most sinful disgusting thing in the world. the point of living in the U.S. the fact that we are all supposed to have equal rights. including peole hwose lifestyles you don't agree with, for noe reason or another. I dislike religion. if it were up to me the world would be functinoing without it. do I think that religious activity, and religious marraige should be banned? absolutely not. everyone is allowed to live their lives as they please. and homosexuality isn't even a choice, it's something biological that a person is born with. trav, you're attacking people for "not giving good enough arguments" while you yourself have yet to respond to my query, if you really feel gay marraige is so bad, then give me reasons why. and against homosexuality in general, as you seem to be so against it, please. hit me hard. I want to know EXACTLY why you think what you do. that's the only way your views will ever hold any legitimacy in anyone's mind.

Looks like the GOP screwed themselves big-time with this issue. The polls now show that nearly 60% of americans favor gay marriages up from 37% just a few weeks ago.

More states are coming on-line with GM licenses ... Illinois and New York for example. California SC will most likely rule the Knight law unconstitutional. BWAhahahahahaha

It's called critical mass and president rove should have seen it coming but he didn't -- they really blew it on this one.

LMAO.

Dop

polls are about as useless as tits on a boar dop, but come in handy when you want to sway public opinion. cook up a poll, use trick questions, bingo, you got a favorable poll, for being so smart you sure are gullible.

Originally posted by Travh20
every argument that doesnt line up with pagans is a ridiculous argument.

No Trav not every argument, just the ones that are especially absurd, like yours tend to be (see end of post for example)

it is getting old. he can not justify gay marriage when legitimate questions are brought up about how gays marriage will be the last group demanding marriage based on the constituitions saying that "all men are created equal" that is his big argument, yet he can not say why the men who like boys or their sisters are not equal to men who like men. his big word about that is "consenting". well there could be a boy who consents to being with a man,

No Trav, there can't, under existing laws, be a boy who legally consents to being with a man. Your arguments would be more persuasive if you didn't insist on ignoring the truth. To my knowledge we wouldn't have to lower the age of consent to allow gays to marry so your agrument about men marrying boys is just a stupid, hateful, attempt to equate gays and pedophiles, and it makes you look like a fool for even suggesting it.

I know the gays play so innocent adn like this is no big deal,

Oh no Trav, we're not innocent we're really trying to get the right to marry as the first step in our quest for domination of the world...;-)

but it is, is could change the entire coutnry. I dont mean everone will turn gay, or anything like that, but it will change things a lot.

How will it "change things a lot"?


how can you stop a brother and sister from gettign married? who does it hurt? what if the get steralized?

With the law.
The child born with birth defects.

I hope the courthouses stock up on extra marriage certificates to handle the mad rush of women who are going to sterilize themselves so they can marry their brothers..:rolleyes:

Really Trav, you have come up with some bizarre shit before, but women sterilizing themselves in a fit of incestuous lust? Yeah that's why we should ban gay marriage, to stop those incestuous sluts...:rolleyes:

under current law it is illegal for gays to get married to pagan, not just a boy and a man. that doesnt seem to stop yo from trying to get what you feel you deserve.

These are your arguments against gay marriage? I can’t believe you are using these things as your line of reasoning. There isn’t a sexual situation between any number of consenting adults I can think of that even registers on the level of low you’re trying to sink to in an effort to validate this load of crap. When is an animal or a child EVER a consenting individual? Trav, you have kids! I can’t even believe you’re using this as part of your usual “slippery slope” BS. Or do your concerns no longer apply after the rugrats are born? If one of your kids came home and told you they were in love with someone your age and wanted to have sex, tell me that you honestly wouldn’t go hunt down that person and shatter their teeth for them. Or what if you came home and found the neighbor screwing your dog and he/she claimed that the dog was in love with them, so it was ok to abuse and rape your pet? How can you sit there and argue that these things are remotely related to two consenting adults of the same sex in a monogamous relationship getting married?
I agree with Pagan 100%. If it doesn’t inflict actual physical or psychological harm on another person, what exactly is the problem? I think it simply boils down to this: Other special interest groups don’t approve of someone tarnishing their shiny moral high horse and they are waving their votes in front of the politicians greedy little noses. He who screams “injustice” the loudest wins. It’s not that I mind if the black and white extremists are homophobic, I just think they should keep it at home where the rest of us don’t have to watch. Or perhaps in the closet if you like that better.

slippery slopes only exist in the land of abortions and howard sterns right to make boob and fart jokes, if you try and use it to argue agaisnt gay marriage or gun laws your just an uninformed moron

Originally posted by Travh20
slippery slopes only exist in the land of abortions and howard sterns right to make boob and fart jokes, if you try and use it to argue agaisnt gay marriage or gun laws your just an uninformed moron

The problem here Trav, is that you use the "slippery slope" argument to generate fear, and the examples you cite are absurd. Gay marriage will NOT lead to people marrying their pets, and you make your argument look ridiculous by suggesting it will. Your "slippery slope" argument would carry a lot more weight if you could cite some believable examples of bad things that would automatically follow if gay marriage were allowed, but since you can't, you grasp at straws. There is nothing wrong with the argument, you just make it very poorly.

you use slippery slope argument to generate fear that a woman wont be able to get an abortion at any time if we pass the unborn victims of violence law, or claim that by stopping howard stern from talking about a naked man puking in a bucket chained to a naked woman shitting in a hat in the middle of the day on radio waves heard by all that soon we wont be able to speak freely about anything. (just to clarify, I dont mean you specifically pagan) I never said that the day gay marriage is legal a mad rush of people will be runing down to the court house with Fido to get married. I never even used the pet marriage example. I said if marriage is redefined to mean two consenting adults, then two brothers could go get married, and even you admitted that they could, under your defenition. that is a slippery slope. then I said someone could argue that a child can decide for themselves what they want, and if they want to marry a 40 year old man, are you going to stop them? there are 15 year olds on this board who will argue with you that they are old enough to decide whats best for them, are you going to tell them no? you? the one who redefined marriage for everone in attempt to redefine it for yourself? come on pagan. I never said all this will automatically follow. I said that if you get your way, how can you stop these examples I cited without being a complete hypocrit? you cant.

Originally posted by Travh20
you use slippery slope argument to generate fear that a woman wont be able to get an abortion at any time if we pass the unborn victims of violence law, or claim that by stopping howard stern from talking about a naked man puking in a bucket chained to a naked woman shitting in a hat in the middle of the day on radio waves heard by all that soon we wont be able to speak freely about anything. (just to clarify, I dont mean you specifically pagan)

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, was ostensibly passed to provide for increased penalties for persons who commit violent crimes against pregnant women, which is a good thing. I think we both agree that criminals who commit such acts deserve to be severely punished. However, rather than providing extra protection for the woman, the law protects the fetus, by defining it as a person. I can understand why pro-choice groups see this as a step towards having the legal status of fetuses changed, which would be the first step in eliminating abortion rights.

I said if marriage is redefined to mean two consenting adults, then two brothers could go get married, and even you admitted that they could, under your defenition. that is a slippery slope. then I said someone could argue that a child can decide for themselves what they want, and if they want to marry a 40 year old man, are you going to stop them? there are 15 year olds on this board who will argue with you that they are old enough to decide whats best for them, are you going to tell them no? you? the one who redefined marriage for everone in attempt to redefine it for yourself? come on pagan. I never said all this will automatically follow. I said that if you get your way, how can you stop these examples I cited without being a complete hypocrit? you cant.

As far as two brothers wanting to marry each other, I personally think that the laws governing incest would cover that situation nicely. If someone wants to petition the courts to have the law changed, that is their right.

The children who want to marry an adult will come up against the age of consent laws, and despite your misguided belief that gays have a "gay agenda" or a "gay manifesto" in which they state their desire to remove age of consent laws, these laws still will prevent kids from marrying adults. Just as I believe there should be a minimum drinking age, and a minimum age before you can legally enter into a contract, I believe there should be a minimum age for marriage. I fail to see how this makes me a hypocrite. Your logic is flawed Trav. It does not logically follow that if one law is unjust, that ALL laws are unjust.

wel, there is a law agaisnt gay marriage, is there not? and legally changing this law, instead of legislating it will give the brothers the legal firepower they need to get marired and force states to recognize their marriage. you see, its opening a can of worms. from now on, it is no longer a slippery slope, its a can of worms. you site all these laws as reasons why these other groups cant get married, like that means anyhting anymore. you yourself support the breaking of very similar laws to get what you want, but think similar laws are going to stop others from doing the same thing you are doing. how can you be so narrow minded? dont you see that once gay marriage is legalized marriage is a free for all for anybody? it makes a mockery of it entirely. it means nothing anymore.

Originally posted by Travh20
wel, there is a law agaisnt gay marriage, is there not?

Not in every jurisdiction. Some state laws are very ambiguous on the subject, and in Massachussetts the state's high court said their law was invalid.

and legally changing this law, instead of legislating it will give the brothers the legal firepower they need to get marired and force states to recognize their marriage.

Huh?

you see, its opening a can of worms. from now on, it is no longer a slippery slope, its a can of worms.

Trav, I know you are against gay marriage for religious reasons so you use negative terms when you mention the subject. Whether you see it as a "slippery slope" or a "can of worms" is irrelevant because you shouldn't use your fear of what MIGHT happen to justify granting people equal rights.


you site all these laws as reasons why these other groups cant get married, like that means anyhting anymore. you yourself support the breaking of very similar laws to get what you want, but think similar laws are going to stop others from doing the same thing you are doing. [/B

I'm sorry you feel the law doesn't mean anything anymore. I support non-violent civil disobedience for the purpose of eliminating injustice.
[B]
how can you be so narrow minded? dont you see that once gay marriage is legalized marriage is a free for all for anybody? it makes a mockery of it entirely. it means nothing anymore.

No Trav, I don't see how allowing me to marry another man in any way affects your marriage, or makes a mockery of it. Perhaps you could tell me why that would happen.

Originally posted by Vilepagan


No Trav, I don't see how allowing me to marry another man in any way affects your marriage, or makes a mockery of it. Perhaps you could tell me why that would happen.

Well, if he told someone he was married, it would remain ambiguous as to whether he was gay or straight....A small inconvenience, but you're changing the established definition of marriage, to be sure.

That's why I would consider applying a different title (e.g. "civil union") for gay "marriage" with the same basic rights associated with a normal marriage.

"No Trav, I don't see how allowing me to marry another man in any way affects your marriage, or makes a mockery of it. "

thats obvious :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Leper
Well, if he told someone he was married, it would remain ambiguous as to whether he was gay or straight....A small inconvenience, but you're changing the established definition of marriage, to be sure.

That's why I would consider applying a different title (e.g. "civil union") for gay "marriage" with the same basic rights associated with a normal marriage.

good point leper, and if 2 guys who are firends and both happen to be married are hanging out otgether, everyone might think they are gay. it could be quite embarrasing.

So thinking they were in a civil union wouldn't be embarrasing.

So what... why would you care how other people think of you?

I dont care what other people think of me pepper. does that mean I shoul dhave to explain that I am married to a woman every time the fact that I am married comes up?

If you don't care, then you don't have to explain anything. It really isn't anyone's business if you are married or single to a man or a woman.

thats not the point pepper, the point leper made was that there is a direct effect on everyone, even if it is minor.

Any change to the status quo is going to effect people on some level, but that doesn't mean we should stop that change from happening. If the worse that could come from this is men might feel embarrassed because others may think they are gay, I say bring it on. It isn't like you are going to get killed for it. Well maybe in some parts of the country...

I said lepers point was a good point, i didnt adopt it as the main argument against gay marriage. just because something doesnt hurt somebody physically doesnt automatically mean its OK.

Is it hurtful to be mistaken as gay?

what? who said that? but for argumetns sake, its hurful to be offended in your world, so wouldnt someone who was offended have an argument?

In my world? Is my world different from your world? i thought we were all americans??

You said one could be embarrassed for being mistaken as a gay married couple. Embarrassed and offended are different statements.

How about the gays who are offended that they can't get married? This is an ugly circle that could go around and around.

I think what's important to remember that our country is based on the fact that we are all created equally; the laws and benefits of our society should reflect that view.

The true question is; should one right not to be offended supersede another right for equality? There were many people who were offended at the prospect of interracial marriage. Should we not have allowed such unions to happen?

blah blah blah, if I hear the corelation between two dudes getting married and civil rights or interacial marriage again I am going to need that air sickness bag. that's the biggest crock of crap to come out of theis gay marriage flap. even the blacks are offended by it. gays trying to seem so put upon and oppressed. so they cant get married, so what? it is offensive to put that on equal footing with what black americans have gone through. I am sure the poor black really feels sorry for the rich gay guy with the ferrari and 60"plasma TV becasue he cant get married, break out the violins.

Originally posted by Travh20
blah blah blah, if I hear the corelation between two dudes getting married and civil rights or interacial marriage again I am going to need that air sickness bag. that's the biggest crock of crap to come out of theis gay marriage flap. even the blacks are offended by it.

Wrong. Coretta Scott King makes the comparison herself.

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/coretta.html


I am sure the poor black really feels sorry for the rich gay guy with the ferrari and 60"plasma TV becasue he cant get married, break out the violins.

What the hell does rich and poor have to do with the issue? This may come as a shock Trav, but not all gay guys are rich and white.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
What the hell does rich and poor have to do with the issue? This may come as a shock Trav, but not all gay guys are rich and white.

And not all blacks are poor and straight.

ya, correta scott king is the end all be all voice for all blacks :rolleyes: maybe when she stops charging people to use her husband speechs we may be able to take her seriously again. and I dont think I have ever met or heard of a poor gay person. thats agood thing dont get me wrong, i respect people who can make it and excel in our society, no matter what sexual persuasion they are. honestly,though, poor is one approach they havent taken yet, although it will be coming. I think a poor, gay, wheel chair bound black woman would have to be the most sacred person the liberals could devise in their never ending hut for the most put upon, discriminated agaisnt person in america.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'm not really advocating this viewpoint, but you could maybe fashion some sort of argument about the government wanting to promote relationships that are most likely to lead to the perpetuation of that society. It's more of a practical view. Of course the reality in this country is that there's no lack of population. It might be a better argument in Italy, where the birthrate is substantially below that needed to maintain the present population. (Not that homosexuality is the cause of the low birthrate).

Ah, seeing as I'm new I have to drudge up the old posts. I know that you're not advocating this viewpoint, but I thought I'd put one of the many I have out here: homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has a function. This goes along with the viewpoint that being gay isn't a choice but a biological drive that can't be helped.

Homosexual behavior, defined as long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays, or the rearing of young [by same sex animals], has been documented in some 450 species. This suggests that animals, which live and function on this planet by acting on instinct, follow a biological drive to interact with the same sex. But why are animals biologically keyed to be attracted to the same sex? Some scientists hypothesize that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of a species by not producing their own offspring and supporting and nurturing their relative’s young. This does in effect, make sense. As humans are experiencing now in the form of orphanages and adoption agencies, many children are without homes and guardians to raise them and their numbers continue to rise as the number of people able to raise children continues to fall. But help could be in the very group the United States’ wishes to suppress: same-sex couples. Without the natural ability to reproduce with each other, same sex couples resort to adopting children to raise as part of their family, thus nurturing young abandoned by others of the species and substantiating a possible function for homosexuality.

And before someone refutes animal studies, know that all "superior" animals (meaning animals consciously aware of their environment and thus manipulate it to achieve something to their end) retain and exhibit BASIC behavioral patterns -- including humans.

your actually from coalinga? hot as hell down there. i used to live in San Luis Obispo, and spend time in paso robles, righ there on the 46.

Originally posted by Travh20
and I dont think I have ever met or heard of a poor gay person.

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is only "for" economically disadvantaged people? I hope not. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
your actually from coalinga? hot as hell down there. i used to live in San Luis Obispo, and spend time in paso robles, righ there on the 46.

Actually, it's Taft right now (oh do I hate this place!) but it'll be Coalinga in a couple of months. :D

wow, sounds like your moving up in the world! lol

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, correta scott king is the end all be all voice for all blacks :rolleyes:

No Trav, I was just responding to your contention that blacks were offended by the comparison of gay rights and the struggle for civil rights by blacks. I'm not the one who lumps people into neat little categories and believes that they all think alike. There are blacks who don't like the comparison as well.


maybe when she stops charging people to use her husband speechs we may be able to take her seriously again.

You've brought this up before Trav, but I don't understand why she shouldn't be able to charge someone to use something that belongs to her. Any explanation?

and I dont think I have ever met or heard of a poor gay person.

I don't know why this surprises me.


honestly,though, poor is one approach they havent taken yet, although it will be coming. I think a poor, gay, wheel chair bound black woman would have to be the most sacred person the liberals could devise in their never ending hut for the most put upon, discriminated agaisnt person in america.

Wow, that is quite the list of hadicaps you came up with Trav, but you left out conservative. If she was a conservative too, then I'd really feel sorry for her...:rolleyes:

LOL, conservative, good one. add that to the list too. god knows the liberals hate the conservatives for having the gall to try and make thenm stick to something for more than a few years

the I have a dream speech is part of american history. to profit off of it is sad. it should be there for all to use to learn about the civil rights struggle. what kind of message does it send to speak of civil rights as one of the greatest achievments of out time, then charge a fee to use the speech that defines it? its just one of those things that seems wrong, of course you dont seem to ever get that feeling

Originally posted by Travh20
the I have a dream speech is part of american history. to profit off of it is sad. it should be there for all to use to learn about the civil rights struggle. what kind of message does it send to speak of civil rights as one of the greatest achievments of out time, then charge a fee to use the speech that defines it? its just one of those things that seems wrong, of course you dont seem to ever get that feeling

I can understand how you feel Trav, but the copyright wont last forever and then the speech will be in the public domain. I suspect she's using the money she makes from licensing its use for a good cause. There is also the fact that if you want to read the speech it's available in numerous places for free.

Originally posted by Embyr
Ah, seeing as I'm new I have to drudge up the old posts. I know that you're not advocating this viewpoint, but I thought I'd put one of the many I have out here: homosexuality, like heterosexuality, has a function. This goes along with the viewpoint that being gay isn't a choice but a biological drive that can't be helped.

Homosexual behavior, defined as long-term bonding, sexual contact, courtship displays, or the rearing of young [by same sex animals], has been documented in some 450 species. This suggests that animals, which live and function on this planet by acting on instinct, follow a biological drive to interact with the same sex. But why are animals biologically keyed to be attracted to the same sex? Some scientists hypothesize that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of a species by not producing their own offspring and supporting and nurturing their relative’s young. This does in effect, make sense. As humans are experiencing now in the form of orphanages and adoption agencies, many children are without homes and guardians to raise them and their numbers continue to rise as the number of people able to raise children continues to fall. But help could be in the very group the United States’ wishes to suppress: same-sex couples. Without the natural ability to reproduce with each other, same sex couples resort to adopting children to raise as part of their family, thus nurturing young abandoned by others of the species and substantiating a possible function for homosexuality.

And before someone refutes animal studies, know that all "superior" animals (meaning animals consciously aware of their environment and thus manipulate it to achieve something to their end) retain and exhibit BASIC behavioral patterns -- including humans.

What an intelligent and erudite post. I think I like you Embyr. :flowers:

COOL, a constitutional amendment that will protect the sanctity of marriage.

Its about time the Constitution made divorce and audultery illegal...I'm all for this new amendment.

When you take the term “marriage” and boil it down to its simplest meaning, what you are really talking about is a contract between two parties. If it weren’t a contract, would you need legal advice and/or representation to get a divorce? If two consenting adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual, want to get married and enjoy the legal benefits that come from being married, then it’s their prerogative and no one else’s. By calling same-sex marriages “civil unions” then what are heterosexual marriages, “uncivil unions”? ;) Frankly, I don’t see the need for two different terms to describe the same type of union. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck… The gender of the people involved is completely irrelevant since this would be flagrant gender discrimination.

If a person is concerned about not being easily identified as straight or gay when stating that they are married then they should clear up any possible confusions and say something along the lines of: “I have a wife” or “I have a husband”.

Now, when the word “sanctity” is used to describe “marriage”, what is being described is a different type of union, one that is recognised by a church. Since there is separation of church and state, it is not the state’s duty to protect the “sanctity” of anything.

Very well put Noel, btw...I like your name. :D

you can try to be as eloquent as you can, it doesnt make 2 guys getting married and getting it on as wholesome as apple pie. the vast majority of americans dont wnt homosexual marriage, and are frankly tired of hearing gay this and gay that every 5 seconds on the news when there is a war going on.

Originally posted by Travh20
you can try to be as eloquent as you can, it doesnt make 2 guys getting married and getting it on as wholesome as apple pie. the vast majority of americans dont wnt homosexual marriage, and are frankly tired of hearing gay this and gay that every 5 seconds on the news when there is a war going on.

True, a vast majority don't want homosexual marriage but I think you should be a little more specific. The older population, ages 30+ do not favor same-sex marriage but 53% (the number varies around 50% - you know how polls are) of young voters ages 25 and below are NOT against gay marriage.

It's all older folk (no offense to the older people on this board) who control this government and dictate what the "majority" of American wants. However, once that generation passes, the next generation, which isn't as intolerant, will come to power and things will change. Or if not that generation, the one following. It doesn't take a genius to see that social problems which plague a particular generation aren't supported as much by the following generation. Racism is a perfect example. After African Americans were freed as slaves, people still hated them for who they were. But as the years have gone by and generations have passed, hate against blacks still exists but it's not as bad as it used to be. People have come accept the black community.

My point is that yes, a vast majority of the US's OLDER people oppose gay marriage, but its not easily a majority for the younger population. Social change is among us and in my lifetime, gay marriage will be legalized - it's part of the cycle. For YEARS, the definition of marriage has changed to encompass new ideals held by this (or any country). You say a lot of people are against gay marriage. You should realize that a significant amount of the minority supports same-sex marriage and that this issue will NEVER go away. And eventually, the privilege of marriage will be extended to the gay community.

Embyr, I stand in awe of that post. I must, however, add one point. We are not a democracy here in this country. At best, we are a representative democracy, at worst, a fascist state. I'd just say we're a republic. In other words, it doesn't matter one whit what the majority thinks in this case, and you should drop that point, Trav. It's not a "vast majority" anyway, it's more like a slight majority.

I can only imagine that amongst the reasons why the “vast majority of Americans” don’t want homosexual marriages is because they aren’t homosexuals. A nation is not just the “vast majority”; there are also an ample amount of minority groups which are part of the nation and just as significant. By denying minority groups (in this case homosexuals) the same rights as the vast majority of Americans, we are implying that they are second class citizens. And that is not what the United States and its Constitution is about.

Although the country is at war, it doesn’t mean that the problems and obstacles that the citizens face should be put on a back burner until the war is over. If President Bush was able to find the time to address this issue, I’m sure the rest of us can too.

BTW, thanks Vile.

by forcing upon the majority the will of the minority you are creating tyranny. put it to a vote, if it passes its law. by going through the courts, and having liberal judges interpret the constitution to fit your desires, you will never have credibility. It seems all the great liberal "achievments" have come through the courts, knowing that it ould never pass a vote. none of these achievements has had a real positive impact on or lives as a country.

Originally posted by Travh20
none of these achievements has had a real positive impact on or lives as a country.
Yeah, ending slavery really didn't help this country one bit. :rolleyes:

LOL, you think ending slavery was a liberal achievment? a republican president fighting the bloodiest war in US history ended slavery, not the judiciary

Originally posted by Travh20
LOL, you think ending slavery was a liberal achievment? a republican president fighting the bloodiest war in US history ended slavery, not the judiciary
A.) Republicans were not the conservative party back then.
B.) Liberals generally want more civil rights.
C.) Conservatives generally want things to stay the same.
D.) Ending slavery resulted in more civil rights, and upset the status quo.

Thus, ending slavery was a liberal achievement. Oh, and the majority of Americans opposed it.

Trav, if you believe that we should always do what the majority wants, then you must believe that women should be in charge in this country since they make up 52% of the population. Tyranny, is rule by an individual, not a minority.

You have to remember that a majority of people in this country were against interracial marriage and mandatory integration of our schools, both of which we have because of "activist", "liberal" courts. I assume you think both of those decisions was wrong because you believe in "majority rule".

Our governmental system was set up to prevent the majority from forcing their views on the minority. Under our system everyone is supposed to have equal rights, even if the majority of the people want to discriminate against one group or another. I understand the desire to say "lets all vote on it", but that's just not how our system works. We have the courts to prevent the legislature from bowing to the majority and passing laws that are discriminatory in nature.

To Trav: If you're having "wholesome" sex, you're not doing it right.

To Noel: The reason I like your name is because that's my name as well...:D

To Embyr: Nice posts

again with the interracial marriage thing. I am tired of this topic. we will never agree. we will never convince one another. I could go into the whole history of biblical interracial marriage, and no history of biblical gay marriage, but whats the point? you think youve found your silver bullet, by comparing the "struggle" of gays to the real struggle of blacks you feel you have an unarguable argument. its offensive and wrong. no matter what you say, this country is not set up to impose minority rule upon the majority. that is just bass ackwards. if the will of 3 or 4 judges working for the agenda of radical homosexuals is in the constition, I would like to see what constitution you are reading. if you base your argument on the phrase "all men are created equal" then pedophiles and all men anywhere are equal to us all, and should have all the same rights. its just moroninc to not see this. gay mariage is a slippery slope, when it uses the "all men are created equal" as its argument, for if it wins it means all men, pedophiles, incest, everyone, is equal. I can guarentee you that the founding fathers did not mean homosexual marriage, nor even think about it, when they created these documents, and are probably rolling over in their graves at the thought of special interests taking their document and bending it like they are.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
A.) Republicans were not the conservative party back then.
B.) Liberals generally want more civil rights.
C.) Conservatives generally want things to stay the same.
D.) Ending slavery resulted in more civil rights, and upset the status quo.

Thus, ending slavery was a liberal achievement. Oh, and the majority of Americans opposed it.

so I guess ending the rule of saddam hussein was a liberal achievement, as the old status quo of mass murders, oppresion and child rape are over. I guess that makes all teh peace protestors conservatives for wanting to keep the status quo as well.

Originally posted by Travh20
again with the interracial marriage thing. I am tired of this topic. we will never agree. we will never convince one another. I could go into the whole history of biblical interracial marriage, and no history of biblical gay marriage, but whats the point? you think youve found your silver bullet, by comparing the "struggle" of gays to the real struggle of blacks you feel you have an unarguable argument. its offensive and wrong.

Try not to deliberately misunderstand Trav. We were taliking about "majority rule". I pointed out interracial marriage and integration as examples where the courts decided something that was contrary to what the majority wanted at the time.

no matter what you say, this country is not set up to impose minority rule upon the majority.

Correct, and I never said it was. Explain to me how having the courts decide in favor of gay marriage, in defiance of the desire of the majority, is going to foster discrimination.

that is just bass ackwards. if the will of 3 or 4 judges working for the agenda of radical homosexuals is in the constition, I would like to see what constitution you are reading.

Happily these judges understand the Constitution better than you do. If you believe that there is a "radical homosexual agenda", you need help.

if you base your argument on the phrase "all men are created equal" then pedophiles and all men anywhere are equal to us all, and should have all the same rights. its just moroninc to not see this. gay mariage is a slippery slope, when it uses the "all men are created equal" as its argument, for if it wins it means all men, pedophiles, incest, everyone, is equal.

What's moronic, is to compare someone who preys on children to a gay person who is committing no crime whatsoever.

I can guarentee you that the founding fathers did not mean homosexual marriage, nor even think about it, when they created these documents, and are probably rolling over in their graves at the thought of special interests taking their document and bending it like they are.

I can guarantee you that the founding fathers owned slaves, and didn't believe in interracial marriage either, even if some of them sired children by their slaves. Do you think that blacks represented a "special interest" when they tried to change the laws?

Originally posted by Travh20
so I guess ending the rule of saddam hussein was a liberal achievement, as the old status quo of mass murders, oppresion and child rape are over. I guess that makes all teh peace protestors conservatives for wanting to keep the status quo as well.
Okay, okay, bad example. But, as Vile pointed out, what of interracial marriage and integration of schools? The analogy is apt, Trav, as much as you hate to admit it.

all men are created equal pagan. you, me the pedophile and gay brothers. if you got your way you could not argue against tehm, for we all are eual and deserve equal rights, do we not?

Originally posted by Travh20
all men are created equal pagan. you, me the pedophile and gay brothers. if you got your way you could not argue against tehm, for we all are eual and deserve equal rights, do we not?

You're floudering here Trav, why don't you address my last post.

Originally posted by Travh20
if you base your argument on the phrase "all men are created equal" then pedophiles and all men anywhere are equal to us all, and should have all the same rights. its just moroninc to not see this. gay mariage is a slippery slope, when it uses the "all men are created equal" as its argument, for if it wins it means all men, pedophiles, incest, everyone, is equal.

Actually, all men (and women), be them pedophiles, rapists, murders, ARE equal. This "all men are created equal" applies to the legal system and legally, everyone has (well is supposed to have) the same rights.

Originally posted by Travh20 I can guarentee you that the founding fathers did not mean homosexual marriage, nor even think about it, when they created these documents, and are probably rolling over in their graves at the thought of special interests taking their document and bending it like they are.

Actually, the founding fathers knew that different issues would come up over time (they did mean for this government to last) which is why they left the Constitution a little ambiguous. That way, it could be lenient enough to allow change but still strict enough to keep the country together. How the Constitution is interpreted has a lot to do with that and it's ultimately the Supreme Court's job to interpret that document (and the SC will never approve an amendment which endorses discrimination against a group of people in this country, thank you very much).

Oh, and the founding fathers weren't hard asses as you seem to be making them. Some of them were more socially "open." Did you know that the Declaration of Independence gave more rights to African Americans originally? It had to be changed though because at that time, not everyone felt that African Americans (slaves back then) should have had rights. Obviously that's changed since then and now they have equal rights.