VERY important RE: gay marrage....

[Banginblaz]

I Dont know how the rest of you feel, but I am an openminded person, and I think that gay people should have every right that we do.....


http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp

--- forwarded message ---

The American Family Association has decided to try and "prove a point" by having a poll on their website for folks to take about their opinion on gay marriage. They intend to present the results of this poll to the United States Congress in an attempt to instate a federal law against Gay Marriage.

It's obvious that they think that this poll will come out in their favor, and that the vast majority of people will vote to keep marriage for traditional couples only.

I ask you all to please visit
http://www.afa.net/petitions/marriagepoll.asp
and let your opinion be heard. It takes about 45 seconds, and it is SUCH an important topic. Whether you are gay or straight, conservative or liberal, your opinion matters, and you NEED to vote here.

The only folks who were even made aware of it's existence were the people on the AFA's mailing list and the people who happened to wander across their website. They have absolutely every intention of presenting this poll in the form of a petition to congress against gay marriage. I wonder if they will still present it when the YAYs outweigh the NAYs?

PLEASE let your voice be heard.

[sbp]

Here's a question for you: why does not supporting gay marriage = bigot?

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
Here's a question for you: why does not supporting gay marriage = bigot? Where does he make that statement anywhere in his post?

[molecularfire]

Here's a question for you: why does not supporting gay marriage = bigot?
It doesn't. Depending on how popular opinion goes it may become that way in 10+ years or so, but right now it doesn't. However, the question that I have is where does this come from? I didn't see that on the website or on Banginblaz's post. I did however, see this...

Whether you are gay or straight, conservative or liberal, your opinion matters, and you NEED to vote here.

[sbp]

Ofttimes when this issue is raised the supporters of said idea try to label those who don't support this as closeminded bigots.

I want Mr. Banginblaz to provide some more info on why he supports this.

And yep I signed it, but not in favor of homosexual "marriage".

[topane]

Originally posted by sbp
And yep I signed it, but not in favor of homosexual "marriage". What about homosexual "civil unions"? Is it just the word "marriage" which is the problem?

And I wouldn't bother visiting the AFA site.

[molecularfire]

Originally posted by sbp
Ofttimes when this issue is raised the supporters of said idea try to label those who don't support this as closeminded bigots.

I want Mr. Banginblaz to provide some more info on why he supports this.

And yep I signed it, but not in favor of homosexual "marriage".
I agree with you that someone who raises an issue should be prepared to defend it. However, since he hasn't called anyone a bigot, it is premature to assume that he will call those who don't support such a law bigots. Your pre-emptive strike isn't the kind of statement that really advances the idea of a freely open discussion of ideas. The way to advance such ideas is to present your own first to prime the pump so to speak (which is something nobody has yet to do here) so I'll start. This is rudimentary and I'm sure will be picked apart because I have lecture in a few minutes but it should start the game.


1) I'm not a religious person, so the problems that the bible have with homosexuals I'm not really qualified to argue so I'll leave that in the hands of people who are better qualified than me.
2) I think it's hard enough to meet people you can care for and spend a significant amount of time for, so I don't see the rationale in adding more stipulations to make that more difficult.
3) I don't see how gay marriages does any harm to anybody. People who say that marriages should be a sacred thing should really take a look around and see where marriages are. The traditional family structure as we know is has already fallen apart. Divorces are increasing, marriage durations are shrinking, and you guys think that it's gay marriages that is going to make marriages a joke. Hah. It already is a joke. Heterosexuals have already done that. Heck, I figure why not give gay people a shot at it... they can't possibly do a worse job than we already have.
4) Anything that increases the number of lesbians and decreases the number of guys that I have to compete with to get girls can't be a bad thing.
I'll come back and put some better arguments on later. Gotta go to lecture now.

Question for those against gay marriages though... why are you against them?

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
Ofttimes when this issue is raised the supporters of said idea try to label those who don't support this as closeminded bigots.

I want Mr. Banginblaz to provide some more info on why he supports this.

And yep I signed it, but not in favor of homosexual "marriage". Sbp, you can't expect people to defend statements they didn't make, based on your preconceptions of their views and generalizations of an opposing political base. That's simply not fair.

Its like if you were to post something about the need for wlefare reform, and I were to say, "Sbp, why do you think every person on welfare is a lazy good for nothing leech who should be left to starve?" After you claim you never said you felt this way, I would then reply, "Oh, well, a lot of reform advocates seem to feel this way, and I just wanted you to explain why you support the idea."

[sbp]

Originally posted by zenbooty
Sbp, you can't expect people to defend statements they didn't make, based on your preconceptions of their views and generalizations of an opposing political base. That's simply not fair.

Its like if you were to post something about the need for wlefare reform, and I were to say, "Sbp, why do you think every person on welfare is a lazy good for nothing leech who should be left to starve?" After you claim you never said you felt this way, I would then reply, "Oh, well, a lot of reform advocates seem to feel this way, and I just wanted you to explain why you support the idea." But I do feel that way about welfare and believe that euphemistically named program should be abolished-well at least at the federal level. The Constitution says nothing and gives no authority to the federal government for "public charity."

Many people long ago wrote off the inner cities. This patronizing system is an attempt to make themselves feel better-that they have done something substantial. Basically it's not about giving the poor a "hand up rather than a handout", it's attempt to buy their silence. :hmm:

[johnnymk]

The way he stated "I am an open minded person" and then saying he supports gay marriages, the conclusion is that people who don't support gay marriages are bigots.

[sbp]

Originally posted by molecularfire

I agree with you that someone who raises an issue should be prepared to defend it. However, since he hasn't called anyone a bigot, it is premature to assume that he will call those who don't support such a law bigots. Your pre-emptive strike isn't the kind of statement that really advances the idea of a freely open discussion of ideas. The way to advance such ideas is to present your own first to prime the pump so to speak (which is something nobody has yet to do here) so I'll start. This is rudimentary and I'm sure will be picked apart because I have lecture in a few minutes but it should start the game.


1) I'm not a religious person, so the problems that the bible have with homosexuals I'm not really qualified to argue so I'll leave that in the hands of people who are better qualified than me.
2) I think it's hard enough to meet people you can care for and spend a significant amount of time for, so I don't see the rationale in adding more stipulations to make that more difficult.
3) I don't see how gay marriages does any harm to anybody. People who say that marriages should be a sacred thing should really take a look around and see where marriages are. The traditional family structure as we know is has already fallen apart. Divorces are increasing, marriage durations are shrinking, and you guys think that it's gay marriages that is going to make marriages a joke. Hah. It already is a joke. Heterosexuals have already done that. Heck, I figure why not give gay people a shot at it... they can't possibly do a worse job than we already have.
4) Anything that increases the number of lesbians and decreases the number of guys that I have to compete with to get girls can't be a bad thing.
I'll come back and put some better arguments on later. Gotta go to lecture now.

Question for those against gay marriages though... why are you against them? "pre-emptive strikes" are not always a bad thing molecularfire. Its also ironic since "pre-emptive strikes" {so to speak} allow this forum to be kept clear of the various miscreants.

Sure homosexuals can be in loving relationships.

I don't believe unmarried couples, no matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual, should act like "civil unions" are marriage and get the benefits thereof.

What a sad and somewhat unrealistic view of marriage you have molecularfire.

afaik the divorce rate has stabilized.

How is making marriage a bigger joke going to help matters? It won't!

The institution of marriage has been the bedrock of society for thousands of years. Now a few folks decide it should be changed, because they know what's best. Uh huh, excuse everyone for not believing that. We've seen enough frankenstein social engineering gone wrong.

Ever consider why the institution of marriage is not in great shape? And now yet another step. How do you know it the deterioration won't get worse? I see "homosexual marriage" undermining that bedrock and weakening the family even more.

Why so eager to change that bedrock institution and take an action that may not be good for society? Many times these great social experiments don't work out. And once something vital is broken, it can't always be patched back up.

Seems like every bad idea is just another step towards an even worse one. Now that this Pandoras box has been opened on what grounds will you tell 3 people they can't get "married?" How about brother and sister-dont think it can happen? At one time not long ago the very idea of homosexual "marriage" was considered total folly.

Oh the homosexual activists and their backers will try to portray it as freedom. It won't be when taxpayers and companies are forced to pay. Don't deny it won't happen...it will. And here's another illustration of a small vocal minority telling the majority what to do. Ever think about the tensions it causes? The majority is getting tired of being told what to do.

One example is that gay bishop of the Episcopal Church. Its about what he wants, nevermind it'll lead to a split in that church.

[Nija]

oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions" 61.03%
(115760 votes)
I favor legalization of homosexual marriage 33.26%
(63092 votes)
I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name 5.71%
(10832 votes)

I favor everyone being equal, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference.

[topane]

Looks like the AFA was removing "pro" votes at one point (http://www.livejournal.com/users/griffen/667656.html) - how honest of them.



Originally posted by sbp
The institution of marriage has been the bedrock of society for thousands of years. Now a few folks decide it should be changed, because they know what's best. Uh huh, excuse everyone for not believing that. We've seen enough frankenstein social engineering gone wrong. Those few folks are simply asking for equal rights under the law.

I don't believe unmarried couples, no matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual, should act like "civil unions" are marriage and get the benefits thereof. Unmarried couples can share health benefits. Unmarried couples can name each other as beneficiaries on life insurance policies. Unmarried couples can receive power of attorney over each other. Hell, if you and I sign the right documents, I can name you as my insurance beneficiary and I can give you the power to pull the plug on me in case I'm in a horrible accident. Is there anything wrong with that? What's the difference between that and a civil union? There's only a small step.

BTW, I applaud you for at least being consistent between homos and heteros above.


Seems like every bad idea is just another step towards an even worse one. Now that this Pandoras box has been opened on what grounds will you tell 3 people they can't get "married?" How about brother and sister-dont think it can happen? Slippery slope fallacy there, bubba. You forgot to add "after that we'll be raping kittens in public school".


At one time not long ago the very idea of homosexual "marriage" was considered total folly. Not long ago the idea of blacks being married was total folly.


Oh the homosexual activists and their backers will try to portray it as freedom. It won't be when taxpayers and companies are forced to pay. Don't deny it won't happen...it will. It is freedom. The government has no place telling people whom they can or cannot marry. And taxpayers and companies being forced to pay for what? We're being forced to pay for useless **** now, how is this going to be any different?

And here's another illustration of a small vocal minority telling the majority what to do. Ever think about the tensions it causes? The majority is getting tired of being told what to do. Please. Telling them what to do? Nice persecution complex there. Can you show me exactly where gays are trying to get a law passed that we must all marry our same sex? No? No one is telling anyone what to do, all they want is the same rights as any American citizen.

If two men or women get married how does that affect you? What's the point where it does something horrible to you and you suffer personal injury?

[nickel]

NO......PLEASE.......NOT ANOTHER LONG WINDED HOT AIR THREAD!

my opinion: let homosexuals get married. what the fvck does it matter?

[sbp]

Originally posted by Nija
oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and "civil unions" 61.03%
(115760 votes)
I favor legalization of homosexual marriage 33.26%
(63092 votes)
I favor a "civil union" with the full benefits of marriage except for the name 5.71%
(10832 votes)

I favor everyone being equal, regardless of race, sex, or sexual preference. People will never be completely equal.

Just the mere fact some work harder than others changes things.

“Everybody is equal” but it appears what you are really saying is “Some are more equal than others” :dodgy:

[sbp]

Originally posted by topane
Those few folks are simply asking for equal rights under the law.Homosexuals can already get married.

Some equal rights {cue Harvey Milk high}


Unmarried couples can share health benefits. Unmarried couples can name each other as beneficiaries on life insurance policies. Unmarried couples can receive power of attorney over each other. Hell, if you and I sign the right documents, I can name you as my insurance beneficiary and I can give you the power to pull the plug on me in case I'm in a horrible accident. Is there anything wrong with that? What's the difference between that and a civil union? There's only a small step.

BTW, I applaud you for at least being consistent between homos and heteros above.Funny how small steps become large.
Its problematic when civil unions are equated to marriage.

Why must everything be made so difficult.


Slippery slope fallacy there, bubba. You forgot to add "after that we'll be raping kittens in public school".Please.

Wait and see, its not a fallacy...3 people getting "married" and brother and sister are going to come up. What will you say then?


Not long ago the idea of blacks being married was total folly.Nice effort trying to link to civil rights but it is not the same thing.

Most blacks don't support this nonsense of "homosexual marriage."


It is freedom. The government has no place telling people whom they can or cannot marry. And taxpayers and companies being forced to pay for what? We're being forced to pay for useless **** now, how is this going to be any different?

Please. Telling them what to do? Nice persecution complex there. Can you show me exactly where gays are trying to get a law passed that we must all marry our same sex? No? No one is telling anyone what to do, all they want is the same rights as any American citizen.

If two men or women get married how does that affect you? What's the point where it does something horrible to you and you suffer personal injury? Because we are paying for so much useless crap, we should pay for more. Splendid.

These radicals are telling us to change the age old definition of marriage-the bedrock of society.

Make no doubt about it-the coercive power of government will force all to support it one way or another. Geez aren't you a libertarian?

Sure its freedom...as long as you believe a certain way.

Stop telling us what to believe. :dodgy:

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by johnnymk
The way he stated "I am an open minded person" and then saying he supports gay marriages, the conclusion is that people who don't support gay marriages are bigots. That's a conclusion whose meaning you've drawn. And its based on faulty logic. Correlation != causation.

He said, "I am openminded, and I support gay marriage."

He did not say, "I am openminded, so I support gay marriage."

You drew that conclusion all by your lonesome.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
But I do feel that way about welfare and believe that euphemistically named program should be abolished-well at least at the federal level. The Constitution says nothing and gives no authority to the federal government for "public charity."Nor does it strip them of said authority.


Many people long ago wrote off the inner cities. This patronizing system is an attempt to make themselves feel better-that they have done something substantial. Basically it's not about giving the poor a "hand up rather than a handout", it's attempt to buy their silence. :hmm: Not all welfare recipients live in the inner cities. This system was meant to keep the poor from starving and freezing to death. It was never meant to be permanent income.

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by zenbooty
That's a conclusion whose meaning you've drawn. And its based on faulty logic. Correlation != causation.

He said, "I am openminded, and I support gay marriage."

He did not say, "I am openminded, so I support gay marriage."

You drew that conclusion all by your lonesome.

You are so smart!!

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that either he or someone else would call someone a bigot because they don't believe in this politically correct thinking.

I have seen it on GotApex way too many times. Two plus Two Equals Four.

My reasoning stands regardless of your logic.

[sbp]

Using such thinking there would be no limit on the power of the federal government. That most certainly is not what the Founders intended. The Founders of this country gave certain duties and powers to the federal government. Everything else was left to the states.

Funny how people worry about big government, but will support big nanny programs. :hmm:

If people want all this nanny state, please modify the Constitution.

As you know already know, under the old welfare program for some peeps living off taxpayer provided money became a way of life.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by johnnymk
You are so smart!!
Why thanks.


It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that either he or someone else would call someone a bigot because they don't believe in this politically correct thinking.No, all it takes is a presumptuous nature and a desire to start trouble when no trouble is to be found.


I have seen it on GotApex way too many times. Two plus Two Equals Four. Seen what, ultra-rightwing nutjobs jumping on the liberal bogeyman, accusing people of things they never spoke of or agreed to? Yeah, I see way too much of that **** too.


My reasoning stands regardless of your logic. Your reasoning stands on its ass!

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by sbp
Using such thinking there would be no limit on the power of the federal government. That most certainly is not what the Founders intended. The Founders of this country gave certain duties and powers to the federal government. Everything else was left to the states.

Funny how people worry about big government, but will support big nanny programs. :hmm:

If people want all this nanny state, please modify the Constitution.

As you know already know, under the old welfare program for some peeps living off taxpayer provided money became a way of life. Ok, you have some good points here. But from what I see in your 1st paragraph (Federal vs. State level control of the program) and 4th (some people abuse the system, not all), i'd say what it sounds to me like you'd like to see reform rathe than abolition of the program. I'm not for a nanny state either, but I'm also not for letting the have nots starving in the streets. Now certainly there can be some middle ground between those two poles, can't there?

[topane]

Originally posted by sbp
Funny how small steps become large.
Its problematic when civil unions are equated to marriage. What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? It's only semantics.

Wait and see, its not a fallacy...3 people getting "married" and brother and sister are going to come up. What will you say then?I'll say "must be Utah" or "must be West Virgina", depending on which one we're talking about. Seriously, I don't give a **** if some moron wants to marry his sister. Yeah it's gross but who am I to judge their love no matter how appalling I find it? Likewise with the threesome. If they are mutually consenting adults, who am I to tell them that they cannot? Again it's appalling to me, but maybe they're just following their religion.

Nice effort trying to link to civil rights but it is not the same thing.It is the same thing. There is no reason the gov't should tell people whom they can or cannot marry.

Most blacks don't support this nonsense of "homosexual marriage."Non sequitur. Neither do most Pentecostals.

Because we are paying for so much useless crap, we should pay for more. Splendid. That was more tongue-in-cheek, but since I didn't indicate that I'll be clearer: How would our tax burden be greater by allowing these civil unions? I can't see it being worse than it already is. If you have a good logical reason for our taxes suffering for this, I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Make no doubt about it-the coercive power of government will force all to support it one way or another. Geez aren't you a libertarian? <sigh>
OK, here's where I stand: The government has no authority to tell a couple, whether opposite- or same-sex, who they can or cannot marry. The government has the power to make sure no one infringes on anyone else's civil rights. If you don't like gay unions ("or marriages") or two men butt-****ing that is your prerogative and no one can force you to think it's right. OTOH, if two women want to get married the government should not stand in their way and only act if someone denies that right to them. There does not need to be a law on the books stating that "two people of the same sex can marry", by implication it should not be denied in the first place.

If a church or an entire religious denomination refuses to perform a marriage or union ceremony or whatever you want to call it the government cannot make them.

Is that libertarian enough for you?

Sure its freedom...as long as you believe a certain way.

Stop telling us what to believe. :dodgy: No one told you what to believe. You can believe it's wrong or unnatural or whatever word you choose. I'm going to ask you again: If two men or women get married how does that affect you? What's the point where it does something horrible to you and you suffer personal injury? How does this infringe on your freedoms?

[Banginblaz]

Originally posted by johnnymk
The way he stated "I am an open minded person" and then saying he supports gay marriages, the conclusion is that people who don't support gay marriages are bigots.


Not Bigots, but not openminded.


It takes an openminded person to see that other people, irregardless of who/what/when/where/how deserves the same option, if you will, that "normal" (I hate that word) people have.


I am much more pro options, than pro gay marriage. I just feel that people should be able to do what they want, and not have someone else say they cant, just because they dont like the person for whatever reason they have.

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by Banginblaz



Not Bigots, but not openminded.


It takes an openminded person to see that other people, irregardless of who/what/when/where/how deserves the same option, if you will, that "normal" (I hate that word) people have.


I am much more pro options, than pro gay marrage. I just feel that people should be able to do what they want, and not have someone else say they cant, just because they dont like the person for whatever reason they have.

If you are so open-minded, then why the urgency for people to vote AGAINST the way that the American family Association thinks. That's not open-mindedness.

[johnnymk]

Originally posted by zenbooty


Seen what, ultra-rightwing nutjobs jumping on the liberal bogeyman, accusing people of things they never spoke of or agreed to? Yeah, I see way too much of that **** too.


So where did that come from? Everybody who disagrees with you or with politically correct thinking fits into that category?

Admit it. You do the same thing.

Here's another point. The sense of urgency that he had to vote against the AFA...Yeh, that's real open-mindedness. If he hadn't been so adamant about his feelings, I wouldn't have mentioned it and "started trouble".

[Banginblaz]

Originally posted by johnnymk


If you are so open-minded, then why the urgency for people to vote AGAINST the way that the American family Association thinks. That's not open-mindedness.


They should not be able to control marriage, and this is for congress, not just "lets see what our members think" poll.


They opened it up to the public, and I am not telling people to vote one way or annother, but I am making sure people know about it, so its not a fully one sided thing.

[nickel]

Originally posted by nickelback
NO......PLEASE.......NOT ANOTHER LONG WINDED HOT AIR THREAD!

my opinion: let homosexuals get married. what the fvck does it matter?

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by johnnymk
So where did that come from? Everybody who disagrees with you or with politically correct thinking fits into that category?You're just grabbing at straws now. I just love how you had to throw that term "politically correct" into the mix. You are just scared to death of those bogeymen, aren't you? No one mentioned PC. I happen to hate PC. But of course, I'm sure you assumed otherwise, which is my whole point to this argument and nothing more.

People have every right to disagree with me. But when they start tilting at windmills because they read one thing stated and jumped to further conclusions, they look like fools to me.


Admit it. You do the same thing.I'm not perfect, but in those very few cases where I have misread people's statements, I have admitted to it and moved on. I certainly never continued to argue that my assumptions were valid afterward, as you are doing now.


Here's another point. The sense of urgency that he had to vote against the AFA...Yeh, that's real open-mindedness. If he hadn't been so adamant about his feelings, I wouldn't have mentioned it and "started trouble". So what? He has an opinion. He never said that he was not listening to any arguments. And the fact that he has made his opinion known certainly does not mean that he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot, which is where all this got started, in case you've (conveniently) forgotten. Don't try and change the subject.

[johnnymk]

OK, you win..End of discussion, this could go on forever and ever.
You are at one end of the spectrum and I am at the other. No matter what I say or you say concerning politics and religion, we will rarely agree.

Have a Happy Christmas :P

[zenbooty]

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/bknight4.jpg

Oh, running away, eh?
You yellow bastard!
Come back here and take what's coming to you!
I'll bite your legs off!



Merry Christmas! :P

[johnnymk]

Oh, I forgot to tell you what you won :eek:

A night out on the town with this guy

http://www.billybobteeth.biz/products/jethro.gif

He REALLY wants to discuss gay marriages with you.

[Hoser]

Before I start, realize that I'm a retired (20+) Air Force enlisted person.

I've been around, and I've seen a lot of different things. My son has two friends that are gay and live together. They're no different than any two people that I've seen live together.

In my opinion, if two people (any two people) want to have a relationship, it's nobody's business. Consenting adults can do whatever they want to do.

Life is short, don't ruin somebody's day because you have issues!

[Nija]

Originally posted by sbp
People will never be completely equal.

Just the mere fact some work harder than others changes things.

“Everybody is equal” but it appears what you are really saying is “Some are more equal than others” :dodgy:

No, I'm not saying some are more equal that others. I'm saying that everyone should be treated the same. You get advantages by working hard, but everyone should have the same basics. I think marriage between two people is one of these basics.

by keeping marriage away from homosexuals, you are saying that hetrosexual are better than everyone else.

There are very few times you should legislate morality. This should not be one of them.

[molecularfire]

Man... sorry about the delayed post. Not trying to be a troll... just had a shelf exam today. Anyways, jumping into the mix...

Many people long ago wrote off the inner cities. This patronizing system is an attempt to make themselves feel better-that they have done something substantial. Basically it's not about giving the poor a "hand up rather than a handout", it's attempt to buy their silence.
No argument here. I do think that in the very least, the welfare system needs to undergo a major overhaul. I've seen how it is abused. However, this isn't the thread to go into this.

The way he stated "I am an open minded person" and then saying he supports gay marriages, the conclusion is that people who don't support gay marriages are bigots.
Oh... come on. Either you're more paranoid than me (not an easy task I can assure you) or you're just looking to start a fight instead of a debate. Makes me question how much faith you have in your arguments.

"pre-emptive strikes" are not always a bad thing molecularfire. Its also ironic since "pre-emptive strikes" {so to speak} allow this forum to be kept clear of the various miscreants.
Unfortunately, it's also the self justification for most of the actions of miscreants also. I don't know different customs of different people, but I was raised to not attack somebody until they have shown some sign of attacking me first. I don't just attack someone assuming that they will eventually attack me. Too many fights otherwise.

As for the arguments... first of all let me applaud you on making arguments. It's always better to discuss issues than try to gain the silence of others with insults. Anyways here is my rationale. Yes, the divorce rate has stablized. It's stabilized at the one of if not the highest level ever.
As for the argument about how would making a bigger travesty of marriage make it better, I never said it would. I never said that I thought gay marriages would be a travesty. I said that heterosexuals have failed in making the concept of marriage sacred I don't see where they have any justification for saying how to keep it that something is wrong because it would jepordize the sanctity of marriage. If the institute of marriage was perfect or close, I could see where someone might argue that you shouldn't mess with it because there is a greater likelihood that something would go wrong. You can't dirty mud.
The institute of marriage has not been the bedrock of anything. It's been changed to fit the needs of people from king Henry to african americans, to people who just decided they were bored with each other. If you want to make an argument to defend the sanctity of marriage, make one limiting divorces. Make some to actually put some teeth into the concept of a marriage contract. Personally, I have no idea how someone can go to a wedding listen to the priest/rabbi, whoever say "till death do you part" without laughing.
As for the slippery slope argument... personally I don't have a problem with gay marriages because they don't cost society any more harm than regular marriages. Heck, I don't have a problem with three way marriages either (well... depends on how they handle the tax and divorce issues...). I do have a problem with incestual marriages on the grounds that children from incestual relationships have a much greater likelihood of coming out genetically messed up and 1) I don't want to put children through that and 2) I don't think it is fair to ask society to pay for that.
As for the civil rights argument... just because blacks have benefited from the civil rights movement does NOT make them the decision maker on whether an issue can be termed a civil rights issue or not (Heck, a lot of different groups have benefitted from the civil rights movement). That is decided based on whether the issue is a civil issue and whether gay people should have the same rights allotted to straight people. So, what difference does it make if blacks support gay marriages or not?
As for the taxpayer/money argument, that shouldn't have a bearing on anything. The heart of the matter is whether gay people should be allowed to marry or not. I personally don't think that taxes should've ever been calculated differently for married people. That would take care of that problem...
Sorry that this post is long, but a lot of good points were made by those who actually bothered to make real arguments instead of random paranoid insults and I wanted to address them. Anyways, I've been out of this thread for a while and so had a lot of catching up to do.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Hoser
Before I start, realize that I'm a retired (20+) Air Force enlisted person.

I've been around, and I've seen a lot of different things. My son has two friends that are gay and live together. They're no different than any two people that I've seen live together.

In my opinion, if two people (any two people) want to have a relationship, it's nobody's business. Consenting adults can do whatever they want to do.

Life is short, don't ruin somebody's day because you have issues!


you're missing the point. nobody here is saying your boy's friends shouldn't suck some other guy's ****. they're saying the term "marriage" should refer only to heterosexual unions.

[cheapie]

Originally posted by Nija


No, I'm not saying some are more equal that others. I'm saying that everyone should be treated the same. You get advantages by working hard, but everyone should have the same basics. I think marriage between two people is one of these basics.

by keeping marriage away from homosexuals, you are saying that hetrosexual are better than everyone else.

There are very few times you should legislate morality. This should not be one of them.

again, you won't find the vast majority of the people on the right saying that gays don't have a right to their behavior. they just want to marriage union to only apply to heterosexuals.

nobody is attempting to legislate morality. in fact, it is the gay community trying to change the current legislation to redefine marriage.


The way he stated "I am an open minded person" and then saying he supports gay marriages, the conclusion is that people who don't support gay marriages are bigots.


Originally posted by molecularfire
Oh... come on. Either you're more paranoid than me (not an easy task I can assure you) or you're just looking to start a fight instead of a debate. Makes me question how much faith you have in your arguments.



come on dude. that's precisely the inference anyone else would have draw.

[molecularfire]

come on dude. that's precisely the inference anyone else would have draw.
I didn't. Heck, I couldn't figure out where it came from initially. I even checked the website to see if it came from there (it didn't by the way).

[InfiniteNothing]

Uhgh. You people. The obvious solution is that all marriage should be abolished at the legal level. Sure you can go out and get married but that shouldn't mean crap to the state. Mariage should have never entered legistation. Let's fix this one. The state should stay out of this one.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by cheapie



you're missing the point. nobody here is saying your boy's friends shouldn't suck some other guy's ****. they're saying the term "marriage" should refer only to heterosexual unions.

Trying to find the class in that post...missing it.

[InfiniteNothing]

I'm thinking that the outcome of the poll won't matter if it comes up against gay rights. The truth is that the rights of the minorty must be protected regardless of what the majority wants.


Originally posted by cheapie


they're saying the term "marriage" should refer only to heterosexual unions.

First. I don't think this is about the term as much as the rights. We can argue what to call it later.
Second. Why not. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then well let's go ahead and call it a duck.


I checked the poll and it looks like legalization of gay mariages has the majority for now. Somone say backfire?

[cheapie]

Originally posted by LPMiller


Trying to find the class in that post...missing it.


yeah. maybe so. i prob. could have been a bit less crude.:blush: