Homosexual Marriages

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this is the 1001th post on this topic.
2. And I AM, *RIGHT* again!
3. Anyone who caters to homosexuals are on the boundaries of insanity.
4. Its a fore gone conclusion that homosexual deviants are just that, deviated people, who are mixed up in the head.
5. Perverts.
6. This fact will never change.
7. EVER!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Saigio]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this is the 1001th post on this topic.
2. And I AM, *RIGHT* again!
3. Anyone who caters to homosexuals are on the boundaries of insanity.
4. Its a fore gone conclusion that homosexual deviants are just that, deviated people, who are mixed up in the head.
5. Perverts.
6. This fact will never change.
7. EVER!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Prove that homosexuality is deviant and/or perverted.

FYI: This is post 1001.

[Pookie]

Well, back to the original question, I am not worried about gays being married or in a civil union. My OWN marriage is happy and we kind of tend to stay out of other people's bedrooms and tend to our own stuff.
It's only a threat if you dream it up or have problems in your own relationships. Then I would say, if you have problems with it, look at your own situation and honestly ask the question: "How will this hurt me?"
My answer: Pffft! Who cares? I know what I have, let them do what they will.
Purrs,

[Gabriel]

So if a kids being insulted because his parents are poor, you should try and protect the kids from these types of insults.Â*Â*Your words not mine.

Exactly. Which is the main reason gay adoption should not be allowed. One has to protect the kids from insults, like you said.


Oh wait, did you just mean being teased because their parents were gay?Â*Â*Oh I say, no agenda there is there? :rolleyes:


I am unsure as to what agenda you are referring to. Perhaps you could be less vague.



Yes you did ignore it

No I did not.


and you even tried to be intellectually dishonest by saying there are MANY states that prohibit gay adoption when in fact there was just one.

The laws are hazy on gay adoption in many states.


Your opinion is just that, your opinion, but the majority of people do not see gay adoption as a threat and it is perfectly legal and unchallenged in the MAJORITY (except 1) states.Â*Â*

I disagree. There are plenty who disagree with you.


Let me ask you this, do you go tease kids that have gay parents?Â*Â*

I am old, and hardly at the age where kids tease each other. Duh.


If not, why would the majority of people then?


Kids are well known to tease each other over just about anything.

[Gabriel]

Gabriel stay out of the areas of psychology or sociology....you dont have a clue.,


I do have a clue. Do you always engage in put downs with those that you disagree with?


I can't speak for newscaster, but I do have a clue about psychology and I can tell you there isn't a single study out their that shows any harm in having homosexual parents.


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053106.html


Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children

MADRID, Spain (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report on the effects that being raised by same-sex parents has on a child. The report, entitled “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples� and available only in Spanish at this time, gathers and compares information from a vast number of studies carried out on the issue.

HazteOir, concerned by the apparent unquestioning acceptance in Spain of homosexual adoption, hopes that the wide array of information provided in the report and its extensive bibliography will prove to the Senate that homosexual parentage is harmful for children.

The president of HazteOir stated, in light of the findings of the report: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children.�

The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.

To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.

In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.

Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child�.






Gabriel doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about.

Put downs are a common debating technique for those who have no logical grounds to debate upon, thereby indulging in personal remarks and attack the person instead of the argument.



I'll give you 4 to 1 odds that he doesn't even know the meaning of anti-social behavior.

I am not a socialist and thus am not exposed to the type of thinking that would cause me to be antisocial.


which I even posted studies more than once in this thread showing that they aren't ostracized any more than other students in peer groups. Instead of disputing them he demanded me post every single source cited by groups such as the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Pediatric Association, otherwise he wouldn't respond.

You still haven't provided any source, and until you do, the debate cannot continue.

[Gabriel]

And while saddam may have been inhuman when it came to most things he did do some good things for Iraq like giving women added freedoms and offering them high-level government and industry jobs.

I disagree. Cases of official rape and abuse of women was common under Saddam.

Also it lets bigots win and we can't have that in this or any country.


Again, there is nothing bigoted about protecting kids from abuse. You have it upside down and reversed 180 degree. What is immoral is allowng kids to be teased constantly in school for having two fathers, for instance, and pass laws allowing this sort of behavior.

[1Samuel8]

Marriage should not even be an issue of the State at all. Having the government meddling with marriage is the problem. Nobody should be "legally" allowed to get married. They should just do it on their own and keep the State out.


Now, we should all tug on eachother's hearstrings and twist the debate by tying in the issue of adoption.

Again, there is nothing bigoted about protecting kids from abuse. You have it upside down and reversed 180 degree. What is immoral is allowng kids to be teased constantly in school for having two fathers, for instance, and pass laws allowing this sort of behavior.Interesting. Now, forget about homosexual parents for a moment and apply your demand for proptection to homosexual kids.
Please tell us what laws should be passed to protect homosexual students from the abuse and constant teasing in school.

[Alonzo]

Gabriel stay out of the areas of psychology or sociology....you dont have a clue.,


I do have a clue. Do you always engage in put downs with those that you disagree with?


I can't speak for newscaster, but I do have a clue about psychology and I can tell you there isn't a single study out their that shows any harm in having homosexual parents.Â*Â*


http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/may/05053106.html


Experts Worldwide Find Gay Adoption Harmful for Children

MADRID, Spain (LifeSiteNews.com) – In light of a pending vote in the Spanish Senate on same-sex marriage HazteOir, together with the Spanish Forum for the Family and the Institute for Family Policy, has published and distributed an in-depth report on the effects that being raised by same-sex parents has on a child. The report, entitled “Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples� and available only in Spanish at this time, gathers and compares information from a vast number of studies carried out on the issue.

HazteOir, concerned by the apparent unquestioning acceptance in Spain of homosexual adoption, hopes that the wide array of information provided in the report and its extensive bibliography will prove to the Senate that homosexual parentage is harmful for children.

The president of HazteOir stated, in light of the findings of the report: “In no way can a couple of persons of the same sex be judged suitable for adopting a child. Considering the findings of this vast bibliography we are obliged to protect the minor and say that same-sex couples must not be allowed to adopt children.�

The report contests that the majority of the studies carried out which have concluded in favour of same-sex parenthood betray an egregious lack of scientific rigour. Most of the studies show a strong bias to one side.

To prove this the report analyzes the nature of the individuals who have been responsible for the various studies carried out thus far, demonstrating that the vast majority are either homosexuals themselves, or active in the gay-rights movement. Into this category fall all six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association, which, unsurprisingly is one of the organizations most strongly and vocally in favour of homosexual adoption.

In compiling and comparing the available data from these studies, as well as more objective studies, the team of first-class psychologists and sociologists which penned the HazteOir report have noted prominent and disturbing trends.

Among children raised by same-sex couples, the report notes a significant increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, an increase in mental illness, drug use, promiscuity, STD’s, and homosexual behaviour, amongst others. Furthermore, the report shows that statistics have brought to light the fact that same-sex relationships betray a much higher instance of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.

The Spanish Association of Pediatrics firmly backs up the findings of the report, stating that a “family nucleus with two fathers or two mothers is clearly dangerous for the child�.


Gab, there's no study showing mentioned, it looks like an attempt at a metanalysis. But there's no evidence that I can see to base that opinion on. It looks like they're reinterpreting previous studies in ways that no one else has. I can't find the supposed report, and considering it's bias source the report on studies doesn't seem reliable. I can't find any of the studies they may be referring to, since none of them support these conclusions. But, again, it still doesn't counter my statement that not a single study exists. Nice try though.

If you want to find support for homosexuality is dangerous then you can do so, though not by reputable sources. You are stuck looking at sites run by Dobson and similar folks, which would be derided in a serious report. But, still, the ones supposedly linking it to same sex couples are seemingly absent on those sites as well.

HazteOir info:
From a christian conception of mankind and society, we state the human being dignity and the importance of values such as liberty, justice and solidarity. We want to contribute for the construction of a fair society in favour of people integral accomplishment.

Our projects are destined to state and promote (i) the political participation, (ii) the human dignity and (iii) the value of life.


http://www.hazteoir.org/modules.php?name=Contenido&pa=showpage&pid=34

A statement like that, from the organization, isn't really indicative of a reputable source.

I also could be unreasonable and demand that you give me a link to every source that report cited before responding further.

I also can't find info on the spanish association of pediatrics.

Put downs are a common debating technique for those who have no logical grounds to debate upon, thereby indulging in personal remarks and attack the person instead of the argument.

Whether or not you had a clue was part of the discussion.


I'll give you 4 to 1 odds that he doesn't even know the meaning of anti-social behavior.

I am not a socialist and thus am not exposed to the type of thinking that would cause me to be antisocial.[/quote]

And you were saying you had a clue about what that term means? http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3322/laughingroflsmileyljiz8.gif You have absolutely no idea how funny this is to me.

I wish someone had taken my bet.


which I even posted studies more than once in this thread showing that they aren't ostracized any more than other students in peer groups. Instead of disputing them he demanded me post every single source cited by groups such as the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and the American Pediatric Association, otherwise he wouldn't respond.

You still haven't provided any source, and until you do, the debate cannot continue.
[/quote]

Gab, I provided plenty of sources. You want me to get the sources for my sources. That's absurd, and completely unreasonable and no one would fulfill that request, especailly for a message board debate. It's omething that would take hours, or more, and require me to go down to a university library.

On top of that, you refused to request one or two sources and demanded I give you all the sources.

It's not like I'm posting questionable sources either. They're the leading authorities in their field.

[Truth_and_Power]

Sorry bout that,
3. Anyone who caters to homosexuals are on the boundaries of insanity.


Yeah I used to work for a company that catered homosexual weddings, and we all took lots of LSD at work, so I guess you're right.

Also, while we're "protecting the kids" lets pass some laws limiting what you can name your kids.Â*Â*For instance, the name "Amanda" should be banned, because it's just too easy to poke fun with, for instance: "Hey who's that?Â*Â*A-Man, Duhh."Â*Â*Also the name richard should be banned to prevent kids from calling the poor soul Dick.Â*Â*We should also ban those butt-ugly white tennis shoes that you get only at the cheapest of stores, and members only jackets too.Â*Â*I mean c'mon, think about the children!!!

Of course, you could ban bullying and demand that the teacher supervise the kids instead of staying inside the classroom between periods and during lunch and recess and taking a cigarette-company-esque position of "see no evil". But why put the weight of the crimes on the attackers or the chaperones when you can put it on the abused. I mean that's why we put rape victims in jail, right, to remove the chance of further rape from society. For this reason I am starting a petition to forcefully provide the "michael-jackson-treatment" to the skin of all black people, as well as free nose jobs, so that we can eliminate the black race completely in america, thus ending discrimination.

[Pookie]

Well, back to the original question, no. Gays getting married has no influence on me and people who are secure within their own relationships are fine. It's the people who have to poke their noses into other peoples' bedrooms who have trouble with this.
I don't care. I mind my own damn business.
Purrs,

[Alonzo]

Well, back to the original question, no. Gays getting married has no influence on me and people who are secure within their own relationships are fine. It's the people who have to poke their noses into other peoples' bedrooms who have trouble with this.
I don't care. I mind my own damn business.
Purrs,


Well, there are always those people who have to have someone they're superior to. Now that everyone can marry, they are desperately clinging to that one last group they can be superior to, Homosexuals.

[Red Dragon]

I disagree. Cases of official rape and abuse of women was common under Saddam. And rape isn't common in America too? Also he did support womens rights, in fact heres a picture of him in the 1970s Promoting women's literacy and education. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Saddam1970s.JPG



Again, there is nothing bigoted about protecting kids from abuse. You have it upside down and reversed 180 degree. What is immoral is allowng kids to be teased constantly in school for having two fathers, for instance, and pass laws allowing this sort of behavior.


Your right there's nothing bigoted about restricting the rights of others to supposedly "protect" others from their "vile" influence. Hmm I wonder if straight parents should be able to raise gay kids, I mean wouldn't the child fill pressured? I wonder how the theistic right would fell about that? Also kids are made fun of for having Dental braces, to make sure they are not made fun of we must get rid of them and allow malocclusions such as under bites, overbites, cross bites and open bites, or crooked teeth and various other flaws of teeth and jaws, whether cosmetic or structural. Also some kids are made fun of for being smarter, to be fair to everyone we must destroy their minds.

[Pookie]

That was thought-provoking, Zo. I think you're right. I'm just an ordinary wannabe author and definitely in no way superior to anybody. In fact, I think pretty much everyone is better than me, because I know my faults.
I liked that reply!
Purrs,

[Saigio]

I guess if we are to protect kids from teasing, then no one should adopt. Kids will always be teased

On topic, there is absolutly nothing wrong with two consenting adults who love each other marrying, no matter the religion, ethnicity, or gender.

[piratemonkey]

On topic, there is absolutly nothing wrong with two consenting adults who love each other marrying, no matter the religion, ethnicity, or gender.


That is the key point, Saigio.

Nobody here seems to be able to tell us even theoretically how it is wrong.Â*Â*They use words like "perverted" and "unnatural," but then can't tell us why their religion's definitions of those words should be applied to everyone.

Those against gay marriage use purely emotional and religious argument... neither of which are good reasons to make laws.

[BoogyMan]

On topic, there is absolutly nothing wrong with two consenting adults who love each other marrying, no matter the religion, ethnicity, or gender.


That is the key point, Saigio.

Nobody here seems to be able to tell us even theoretically how it is wrong. They use words like "perverted" and "unnatural," but then can't tell us why their religion's definitions of those words should be applied to everyone.

Those against gay marriage use purely emotional and religious argument... neither of which are good reasons to make laws.


I believe you have misrepresented the point a bit pirate. Those who hold to the fact that homosexuality is wrong also hold to the fact that marriage is an institution designed by God to be between a man and a woman alone, for life.

If the left is intent on defining some king of legal protection for this error why not leave marriage alone and build some other institution rather than raping the existing marriage institution to achieve a political agenda?

The left speaks of great tolerance, but the only tolerance they evidence is for their approved ideologies and anything else needs to either be modified to fit their ideology or be eradicated.

Give those intent on pursuing the homosexual agenda something else that fits their ends, but leave marriage alone.

[Alonzo]

Those who hold to the fact that homosexuality is wrong also hold to the fact that marriage is an institution designed by God to be between a man and a woman alone, for life.


I'd like to see you support this. Was there not marriage before Judaism? And where can I find proof that homosexuality is wrong?

If the left is intent on defining some king of legal protection for this error why not leave marriage alone and build some other institution rather than raping the existing marriage institution to achieve a political agenda?


Since when is marriage only a religious institution? You don't have a point until churches are forced to marry homosexuals.

The left speaks of great tolerance, but the only tolerance they evidence is for their approved ideologies and anything else needs to either be modified to fit their ideology or be eradicated.


Seems like the left isn't doing much to prevent religions from practicing bigotry. That's tolerant of them, especially since they're so against such bigotry.

Give those intent on pursuing the homosexual agenda something else that fits their ends, but leave marriage alone.


Ok, what else would provide homosexuals with the same level of social equality? What else won't be viewed as something lesser than marriage in society?

[Saigio]

I believe you have misrepresented the point a bit pirate. Those who hold to the fact that homosexuality is wrong also hold to the fact that marriage is an institution designed by God to be between a man and a woman alone, for life.

Then only the religious should marry. After all, it is soley religious.

If the left is intent on defining some king of legal protection for this error why not leave marriage alone and build some other institution rather than raping the existing marriage institution to achieve a political agenda?

A political agenda? Equality is a political agenda? If marrige was soley religious, then it would not reap governmental benifits, and Atheists would not be able to marry.

The left speaks of great tolerance, but the only tolerance they evidence is for their approved ideologies and anything else needs to either be modified to fit their ideology or be eradicated.

Really? I've not seen any proof of it. The only people that spring to mind from that are conservative nutjobs like Phelps.

Give those intent on pursuing the homosexual agenda something else that fits their ends, but leave marriage alone.


"Homosexual agenda"?

And what the fuck would that be? I hear it mentioned all the time, but have never seen any evidence of it.
Oh, is the idea that homosexuals deserve equal rights? Oh that is sooo evil!

[Saigio]

Seperate but equal is not equal, Boog's. Remember that. If you want to give homosexuals all the rights of marriage, but not call it marriage, you ARE discriminating.

[piratemonkey]

Those against gay marriage use purely emotional and religious argument... neither of which are good reasons to make laws.


I believe you have misrepresented the point a bit pirate.Â*Â*Those who hold to the fact that homosexuality is wrong also hold to the fact that marriage is an institution designed by God to be between a man and a woman alone, for life.
You prove my point better than I could.


If the left is intent on defining some king of legal protection for this error why not leave marriage alone and build some other institution rather than raping the existing marriage institution to achieve a political agenda?
The "sacred" marriage defense completely falls apart when we see the statistics that conservative Christians get divorced just as often as everyone else.

Are you just as vehemently against divorce?


The left speaks of great tolerance, but the only tolerance they evidence is for their approved ideologies and anything else needs to either be modified to fit their ideology or be eradicated.Â*

As I've asked here many times... how does my gay neighbors' marriage have anything to do with you?Â*Â*
How does it "eradicate" your ideology?Â*
Can you even tell me if they are married?Â*Â*
(If it's "eradicating" your ideology... then you must know.)


Give those intent on pursuing the homosexual agenda something else that fits their ends, but leave marriage alone.


Let 'em sit in the back of the bus....

[BoogyMan]

The "sacred" marriage defense completely falls apart when we see the statistics that conservative Christians get divorced just as often as everyone else.

Are you just as vehemently against divorce?

What that is, pirate, is a shame to those claiming Christianity, it doesn't make the defense fall apart as you would wish it to, but it is a shame. Marriage is dealt with in the text of the N.T. with one exception for divorce and that exception is infidelity. The fact that divorce exists doesn't negate the institution.

I am completely anti-divorce pirate.

[piratemonkey]

The fact that divorce exists doesn't negate the institution.

I completely anti-divorce pirate.


This is what I like about you, Boogy.

Though we often disagree, you are SO much more intellectually consistent than most of the people I disagree with. I'd rather talk to and intellectually honest person who I disagree with than an idiot that I agree with. :)

Back on topic:
So, in my mind, if someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal due to "sanctity of marriage" arguments, they'd also have to think that divorce should be illegal... for all the same reasons.

What do you think?

[Pookie]

But wait a minute! I asked a qustion. I have a stable marriage and I am secure in my home, my man, and my relationshionship. How can gays hurt me? That is IMPOSSIBLE.
I know what I have. No one without nukes can take that away from me or mine.
So tell me what I'm supposed to be worried about.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Elrathin]

How can gays hurt me? That is IMPOSSIBLE.
I know what I have. No one without nukes can take that away from me or mine.
So tell me what I'm supposed to be worried about.
Purrs,
Pookie


Unfortunately, many Christians do not get your point and this is why many against gay marriage are labeled gay haters. The reason they want gay marriage to be illegal is so they can ENFORCE their religious doctrine on others.

[Alonzo]

How can gays hurt me? That is IMPOSSIBLE.
I know what I have. No one without nukes can take that away from me or mine.
So tell me what I'm supposed to be worried about.
Purrs,
Pookie


Unfortunately, many Christians do not get your point and this is why many against gay marriage are labeled gay haters. The reason they want gay marriage to be illegal is so they can ENFORCE their religious doctrine on others.


I'm sure you have a few in there who have horrible marriages and would otherwise divorce, but stay together due to some sense of obligation. So gays being married would harm their sense of obligation?

I'm stretching here.

[BoogyMan]

So, in my mind, if someone thinks that gay marriage should be illegal due to "sanctity of marriage" arguments, they'd also have to think that divorce should be illegal... for all the same reasons.

What do you think?


Thanks for the kind words pirate and they are returned your direction as well. :)

To some extend I think you are correct in that we now have divorce for any reason whatsoever. The marriage bond is a bond between man and woman and that bond should stay that way without the redefinition. The divorce problem makes a mockery of many of those who support my position on marriage but once again does not negate the institution.

The scripture teaches that there is a single reason for divorce and man has already messed that one up pretty badly, lets not make it worse by redefining the institution.

[Alonzo]

Just out of curiosity, since I believe you mentioned that the one reason was infidelity, what about abuse? Or one partner ignoring the other?

[BoogyMan]

Just out of curiosity, since I believe you mentioned that the one reason was infidelity, what about abuse? Or one partner ignoring the other?


Show me scripture for it Zo. You beg the question and claim to have some knowledge of scripture, so show me where there is any release from the marriage bond for such activities?

[Alonzo]

Just out of curiosity, since I believe you mentioned that the one reason was infidelity, what about abuse? Or one partner ignoring the other?


Show me scripture for it Zo. You beg the question and claim to have some knowledge of scripture, so show me where there is any release from the marriage bond for such activities?


Boogy, I merely asked you whether or not you thought an abusive partner was reason for divorce. You seem to be suggesting that you don't think that is reason for divorce. So what is your solution in such a case? Say a wife is out driving with her husband, they get into an argument, pull over, the husband pulls over and tells the wife to get out of the car. He then threatens to kill her with a gun before driving off and telling her to walk home. A few days later he beats her, and continues to do so relatively regularly. A while later he even hits one of the kids. You're arguing divorcing him shouldn't be allowed?

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, I merely asked you whether or not you thought an abusive partner was reason for divorce. You seem to be suggesting that you don't think that is reason for divorce. So what is your solution in such a case? Say a wife is out driving with her husband, they get into an argument, pull over, the husband pulls over and tells the wife to get out of the car. He then threatens to kill her with a gun before driving off and telling her to walk home. A few days later he beats her, and continues to do so relatively regularly. A while later he even hits one of the kids. You're arguing divorcing him shouldn't be allowed?

I never said it "shouldn't be allowed" as you seem to want to make it appear, I said that there is no allowance under God's will for divorce in any case outside of infidelity.

Now, if you want to continue a discussion of divorce, how about starting a thread and we can go after it there.

[Alonzo]

I never said it "shouldn't be allowed" as you seem to want to make it appear, I said that there is no allowance under God's will for divorce in any case outside of infidelity.

So it would be immoral then?

That's nice to know. Cause it's that form of thinking that caused that marriage to last 4 years. My cousin put up with his abuse all that time because her family (parents in particular) kept telling her that divorce was against God's law, and because the Church wouldn't let her remarry if she divorced. She didn't leave until he one day beat one of their children.

About 15 years later another one of his girlfriends shot and killed him.

I guess guns aren't entirely useless, right? :D

Now, if you want to continue a discussion of divorce, how about starting a thread and we can go after it there.


It's about marriage so it's close enough. We've strayed into topics such as gay adoption, so straying into issues regarding what it means to be married shouldn't be an issue. And it's not like we haven't already addressed the same sex marriage issue.

[Pookie]

Would somebody please answer my question? How in the heck can gays being married hurt me?
Purrs,

[Saigio]

Would somebody please answer my question? How in the heck can gays being married hurt me?
Purrs,


I can answer that. It can't.

[piratemonkey]

I can answer that. It can't.


I can prove it.

If a homosexual marriage effects someone, by definition they should be able to tell us whether that marriage exists or not... i.e. there can't be an effect without a cause.

I've challenged many here to tell me if the nice couple that lives next door to me, both men, are married.

If nobody can tell me if they are even married or not, how could it be hurting them in any way?

If their marital status isn't effecting you in any way... why do you care?

[Yushimi]

2. Firstly, gays being given legal marriage rights hurts everyone.
Oh yeah! Totally understandable, thanks for going into deep detail about it.

3. Its morally bankrupt!
It matters on what your 'morals' are.

4. The more we allow it, the more other freaks will want the right to leave their sheep their fortune after they've died.
I pity you. I'm so sorry you didn't grow up learning that everyone is equal. Now you'll say mentally challenged persons are freaks too.
Oh and by the way, please prove how they're freaks without bringing the bible or religion into it.

5. Or whatever thing they married.
Yes because last time I checked, a man wanted to marry a wounded goat.

6. The basic legal ramifications harm any Country for where its legal.Basic ramifications?

7. And on top of its, its wrong. Flat out wrong.Oh! the evidence is swarming, I am unable to keep my mind straight. ... straight...

8. Giving gays this much credence is bad as well.
I think you've gotten too much credence. Freak.

9. For the rest of us normal people, to allow them to be like us, *married*, we cheapen our selves for their no account lives they have chosen to live.
First off being gay is NOT a choice, just like your un-likable personality isn't a choice for you.

[Newscaster]

Yushimi, welcome to Democracy Forums. I hope you have fun here but there is a minor caveat.......
Beware Chesswarsnow. The man has no clue about pretty much everything bu especially Homosexuality and some of his postings are enough to send your blood pressure sky high or make you laugh so hard, you will squirt milk out of your nose.

I just hope that one day, God Forbid for I wish him no harm, should he ever need the services of paramedics, I hope one of them is gay. A friend of mine from the Vietnam war is gay. When he left the Air Force, he became a paramedic to pay for his medical school tuition. Today he is a top thoracic surgeon in Chicago. There is no difference between gay people and straight people except for those they may be attracted to but as I have said here countless times, gay contribulate to the good and welfare of this country on a regular basis despite the discrimination against them For that we should be damn proud of them instead of harboring infected thinking ala Chesswarsnow.

Again, welcome to Democracy forums. Most of us are regular who do not discriminate.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I have been absent from this thread for awhile.
2. I see its still going strong.
3. Yes *Ramifications*.
4. Same as when Neahgros say _igger to each other in an endearing way.
5. Its degrading to have homosexuals marry.
6. Its rather a simple concept.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Yushimi]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I have been absent from this thread for awhile.
2. I see its still going strong.
3. Yes *Ramifications*.
4. Same as when Neahgros say _igger to each other in an endearing way.
5. Its degrading to have homosexuals marry.
6. Its rather a simple concept.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I understand your view and the points you are trying to make, but why so degrading for homosexuals to marry? If it is possible to explain in a NON religious way, please do. And the Bible has been revised so many times over ten thousand years and now things are being picked and chosen to be in the great book, the whole story isn't there.

~Yushimi

[linaloki]

1. I say this Liberal view on life in America is leading our Nation into Civil War.

I say you're a purple flaming giraffe.

Hm... without proof, I guess we're both right? Is that how this works?

2. Firstly, gays being given legal marriage rights hurts everyone.

Especially those gays! Wait...

3. Its morally bankrupt!

Thank God He made a Wheel of Fortune. Buy your Bible, get 300 Morality points!

Oh, and prove morals are universal kthxbai.

4. The more we allow it, the more other freaks will want the right to leave their sheep their fortune after they've died.

Well, in that case, we should ban heterosexual marriage. Allowing that caused the gays to want marriage, right?

6. The basic legal ramifications harm any Country for where its legal.

Like Canada and Spain? Care to prove that?

7. And on top of its, its wrong. Flat out wrong.

Your face is on fire. And, no, I need no proof. That seems to be the game we're playing, yes?

8. Giving gays this much credence is bad as well.

What, acknowledging they exist is bad?

9. For the rest of us normal people, to allow them to be like us, *married*, we cheapen our selves for their no account lives they have chosen to live.

Sorry to tell you, but divorce and adultery cheapens us for more than gays could.

[Newscaster]

I truely don t understasnd why anyone, including myself, wastes time answeerring Cheeswarsnow. I for one will not longer do so. He has nothing intelligent to contribute to any serious discussion and what he does contribute he refuses or cannot back up with facts of any kind. It is Chess who does however contribute to split in this country, worse than any since the US Civil War of 1860-65.

[Yushimi]

I truely don t understasnd why anyone, including myself, wastes time answeerring Cheeswarsnow. I for one will not longer do so. He has nothing intelligent to contribute to any serious discussion and what he does contribute he refuses or cannot back up with facts of any kind. It is Chess who does however contribute to split in this country, worse than any since the US Civil War of 1860-65.


Absolutely right, but he's impossible to ignore, like the painful itch of poison ivy on your back.

[Pookie]

What are we afraid of? If we don't snoop in their bedrooms and they don't snoop in ours, how the hell can that hurt us? Don't people have anything damn well better to do than snoop into others' panties?
I say: "Shut up and mind your own damn bedroom!! WHO CARES??
Purrs,

[Newscaster]

Pookie, Chess believes you can catch it by being near a gay man or lesbian women.
Chess expresses simple fear of what he doesnt know or understand.

[MazerRackham]

What is the difference between restricting a homosexual being's rights and restricting those of an African-American? I don't see one. By NOT allowing same-sex marriage, you are being prejudiced against them, you are taking away one right that all 'straight' humans can enjoy. By not allowing homosexuals to get married, you are being no better than those in the south in the late 1800s, treating them like they are inferior to us.

Homosexuality plays no role in what a human is. Whether a person be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, that person is still entitled to their natural rights.

Not allowing them to be married is violating one of the most sacred phrases in one of our most sacred of documents: "All men are created equal" (The Declaration of Independence). Argue the point all you want, they have a right to be allowed to be wed.

[CleoCrawford]

Sorry bout that,

1. I say this Liberal view on life in America is leading our Nation into Civil War.
2. Firstly, gays being given legal marriage rights hurts everyone.
3. Its morally bankrupt!
4. The more we allow it, the more other freaks will want the right to leave their sheep their fortune after they've died.
5. Or whatever thing they married.
6. The basic legal ramifications harm any Country for where its legal.
7. And on top of its, its wrong. Flat out wrong.
8. Giving gays this much credence is bad as well.
9. For the rest of us normal people, to allow them to be like us, *married*, we cheapen our selves for their no account lives they have chosen to live.
10. This they can not escape.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


1. Uh, noo.. I believe it's the president who's leading us into a cival war.
2. saying firstly on your second statement makes no sense. And I'd like you tell me what gay has ever hurt you. Even if it had to do with religon, how does that effect you?
3. Different people have different morals.
4. What is your idea of a freak then, anyone who isn't you?
5. I hardly think anyone would marry a sheep, that's a rediculous point to bring out. But if there ever came a time where that was possible, it definately would be interesting to breed with different animals. After all, people like centaurs and other various human/animal creatures in stories so why couldn't they be alright with it in real life if it happened?
6. Yeah, England's falling and Elton John's bringing them down with him *rolls eyes*
7. You wouldn't be saying that if it were turned around, and the gays were telling you that loving your wife or girlfriend was wrong. But who's to say any woman in their right mind would put up with you for long enough.
8. If you hate it so much, don't talk about it.
9. Um you just said it right there, THEY'VE chosen to live their lives like this, so how it is cheapening you when you have nothing to do with their choice?
10. What they cannot escape? Hell? Well, if you go to hell for being a loving, caring, fun person, then I'd rather be there than Heaven.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But allowing homosexuals to marry is like calling all normal, *Married* folks, (freaks), just like it would be for a homosexual marriage.
2. Guilty by association.
3. Like when a black man uses the word _igger, as a joke or a term of endearment, it effects all blacks negatively.
4. This is why its not to be encouraged.
5. The more they paint themselves as being normal, the worse it gets for society in general.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[micfranklin]

2. Firstly, gays being given legal marriage rights hurts everyone.

How does two people of the same sex being married together hurt everyone. How does that impede upon other people? Moreover, how is this even an issue?

Do explain this Chess. Please.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I just learned a new thing.
2. Russia is getting it right!
3. Russia just won more *CWN* points!
4. Take a look folks:
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_6002360
"
News
Gay rights activists held in Russia
By Jim Heintz
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 05/27/2007 02:56:34 PM MDT


A woman in a headscarf typical of devout Russian Orthodox believers attacks British human rights activist Peter Tatchell as gay rights activists try to hold a demonstration in downtown Moscow today. (AP /Sergey Ponomarev)Moscow - Police detained gay rights activists, among them European lawmakers, as they tried to present a letter to Moscow's mayor today in a demonstration that also attracted a hostile crowd of people who punched the activists and pelted them with eggs.

The letter, signed by some 40 European lawmakers, appealed the city's ban on a march that would have taken place today to mark the 14th anniversary of Russia decriminalizing homosexuality.

Police quickly grabbed about a dozen demonstrators and forced them into a bus, including Russian gay rights movement leader Nikolai Alexeyev. Police then hustled away others, including German parliament member Volker Beck, as opponents threw eggs and shouted: "Moscow is not Sodom!"

Marco Cappato, a European Parliament deputy from Italy, was kicked by one opponent as he spoke to journalists. Cappato began shouting: "Where are the police? Why don't you protect us?" and officers hauled him away as he struggled.

The gay rights activists appeared to number fewer than 100, while roughly that many police were present.

Cappato later told Italy's Sky TG24 that he had been released.

He said that when he saw that Ottavio Marzocchi, an official with the Liberal Democrats in the European parliament, had come under attack, he began shouting, and "within five seconds I was taken away by police in anti-riot gear."

A total of 31 people were detained, though most were later released, Moscow police spokesman Yevgeny Gildeyev said. He said two Italians were detained for jaywalking and a German was taken away by police to prevent him from being beaten.

But Beck, who was later released, told The Associated Press that police beat him and the others and seized their passports. Beck also denied the group was holding a demonstration, insisting they were only trying to hand over the letter.

Alexeyev said he and two other activists expected to be held until Monday, Ekho Moskvy radio reported.

Cappato denied he had broken a traffic rule. "I was just trying to defend a friend from violent people because the police were not doing that," he said.

The Interfax news agency quoted a Moscow city spokesman, Mikhail Solomentsev, as praising the "coordinated and polite actions of the police, who acted in strict accordance with the law." Despite being decriminalized, homosexuality is still widely despised in Russia.

Many of the gay rights opponents carried icons or other insignia of the Russian Orthodox Church, and one man wore the garb of an Orthodox priest.

The only Russian lawmaker to publicly state support for the demonstrators came from an unexpected wing: Alexei Mitrofanov of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Party.

"How can one act in such a manner, assuming Russia wants to be a part of Europe?" Mitrofanov said at the scene, according to the Interfax news agency.

"
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if your without a moral compass.
2. Yo shall never know why homosexuals getting married like normal people is so very perverted.
3. If you agree with it, your equal to it, and it doesn't bother you.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[linaloki]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if your without a moral compass.
2. Yo shall never know why homosexuals getting married like normal people is so very perverted.
3. If you agree with it, your equal to it, and it doesn't bother you.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Are you okay with divorce?

[Saigio]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if your without a moral compass.
2. Yo shall never know why homosexuals getting married like normal people is so very perverted.
3. If you agree with it, your equal to it, and it doesn't bother you.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


My moral compass tells me you are wrong and perverse. You don't have the right to destroy marriage by getting married. If you are married, you should be seperated from your partner, permanently. You also deserve to be treated like a second class citizen just because of how you are.

Sound fair?

[Newscaster]

I wonder if, God forbid, Chess' kid needed a heart transplant and the only heart that was available, came from a gay man, would he say no?

Of if he were in an accident and the paramedic that showed up was gay, would Chess also say no?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But what if a plane load of homosexuals crashed their Lear Jet into my land, and they all were survivors?
2. Would I still say they were perverts?
3. Yes.
4. Lucky perverts.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Newscaster]

And the rest of the world would condemn you beyond your wildest imagination.

A real God fearing person would not ask who or what they were....he would help them to stay alive. But sir, you are not God fearing.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Who said I wouldn't of helped them?
2. It was my hypothetical.
3. You can't add stuff to my hypotheitcal dude!
4. I would of called them in and offered them Cokes.
5. Then said, you lucky perverts got a second chance, flee from the wrath to come in your lives.
6. You got a second chance to get it right, change your ways now.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Saigio]

Sorry bout that,

1. Who said I wouldn't of helped them?
2. It was my hypothetical.
3. You can't add stuff to my hypotheitcal dude!
4. I would of called them in and offered them Cokes.
5. Then said, you lucky perverts got a second chance, flee from the wrath to come in your lives.
6. You got a second chance to get it right, change your ways now.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Hypothetical situation. You forgot a word. Just FYI.
And, by your standards, if they surived, wouldn't it have been god saving them? And wouldn't that poke rather large holes in your theroy of god hating homosexuals?
And I highly doubt you would let them in your house if you knew they were gay. I've seen how much you hate anyone that is not a straight white christian male.

[CleoCrawford]

Sorry bout that,

1. But if your without a moral compass.
2. Yo shall never know why homosexuals getting married like normal people is so very perverted.
3. If you agree with it, your equal to it, and it doesn't bother you.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Wouldn't getting married mean they WEREN'T perverted? If they loved each other so much that they wanted to spend the rest of their lives together with no one else, then that would mean they were in it for a hell of a lot more than you think.

I'm sure there have been times you've been a complete pig towards a woman, whether in a perverted way, or not helping with the dishes because it's a 'woman's job'. A lot of gays are far more respectable than a lot of straight men. and woman too.
I don't think YOU even know why it's perverted, because you refuse to tell anyone the answer. If homosexuality was a sin, I don't think your god would have ever let it happen.

[preservanation]

Homosexual Marriages= oxymoron.
Hi, glad to be here!

[BoogyMan]

I don't think YOU even know why it's perverted, because you refuse to tell anyone the answer. If homosexuality was a sin, I don't think your god would have ever let it happen.

Hi Cleo, welcome to the forums. Murder is a sin and it is allowed to happen, so I don't see that particular line of argumentation holding much water.

Once again, welcome!

[CleoCrawford]

I don't think YOU even know why it's perverted, because you refuse to tell anyone the answer. If homosexuality was a sin, I don't think your god would have ever let it happen.

Hi Cleo, welcome to the forums. Murder is a sin and it is allowed to happen, so I don't see that particular line of argumentation holding much water.

Once again, welcome!


That just raises questions as to how great to god is then now doesn't it?

[Saigio]

Homosexual Marriages= oxymoron.
Hi, glad to be here!


I fail to see your logic in that statement.
I do reember trolls on other sites saying that, but they were mostly morons.

But anyways, welcome to the site!

[Newscaster]

If you read carefully, in the Bible, God has killed more people than any serial killer the world has ever known. Just try to count the number of people good and bad who have died at his hand.
It is also an accepted fact that gay men and lesbian women have been around since the dawn of civilization. In fact in ancient Greece, homosexuality was an intrinsic part of the culture. No, if God disapproved of being gay, he would have put a stop to it immediately. But he didnt back then and he doesnt now. What doies that tell you......he likes homosexual folks. They why he makes so many of them and you would be best warned not to fool around with people he likes.

[BoogyMan]

I don't think YOU even know why it's perverted, because you refuse to tell anyone the answer. If homosexuality was a sin, I don't think your god would have ever let it happen.

Hi Cleo, welcome to the forums. Murder is a sin and it is allowed to happen, so I don't see that particular line of argumentation holding much water.

Once again, welcome!


That just raises questions as to how great to god is then now doesn't it?


No, it points to the fact that man is a free moral agent and can choose condemnation is he so wishes.

[BoogyMan]

If you read carefully, in the Bible, God has killed more people than any serial killer the world has ever known. Just try to count the number of people good and bad who have died at his hand.
It is also an accepted fact that gay men and lesbian women have been around since the dawn of civilization. In fact in ancient Greece, homosexuality was an intrinsic part of the culture. No, if God disapproved of being gay, he would have put a stop to it immediately. But he didnt back then and he doesnt now. What doies that tell you......he likes homosexual folks. They why he makes so many of them and you would be best warned not to fool around with people he likes.


You need to do some serious reading Newscaster as your understanding of biblical history and the present testament is obviously quite flawed.

[Newscaster]

Boogey, maybe you ought to study the difference between biblical story telling and history. Then maybe you might understand where I am coming from.

[CleoCrawford]

If you read carefully, in the Bible, God has killed more people than any serial killer the world has ever known. Just try to count the number of people good and bad who have died at his hand.
It is also an accepted fact that gay men and lesbian women have been around since the dawn of civilization. In fact in ancient Greece, homosexuality was an intrinsic part of the culture. No, if God disapproved of being gay, he would have put a stop to it immediately. But he didnt back then and he doesnt now. What doies that tell you......he likes homosexual folks. They why he makes so many of them and you would be best warned not to fool around with people he likes.


Very good point, sometimes you don't have to read carefully. sometimes it's in plain sight. But there's always going to be people who can't see that, and aren't willing to accept it.

[BoogyMan]

Boogey, maybe you ought to study the difference between biblical story telling and history. Then maybe you might understand where I am coming from.


Don't tell me, you are coming from the story telling side of that comment, right? :)

Now Newscaster, that has what to do with your insistance that God doesn't condemn homosexuality when it clearly does?

[CleoCrawford]

Boogey, maybe you ought to study the difference between biblical story telling and history. Then maybe you might understand where I am coming from.


Don't tell me, you are coming from the story telling side of that comment, right? :)

Now Newscaster, that has what to do with your insistance that God doesn't condemn homosexuality when it clearly does?


If it's so clear, then how about you clarify it for us?

[piratemonkey]

Now Newscaster, that has what to do with your insistance that God doesn't condemn homosexuality when it clearly does?



I've never heard God, speaking from the clouds, condemn homosexuality, have you? ;)

I've seen it in the Bible... a document written by humans, translated many times and revised even more...

[NortheastCynic]

What's disturbing to me is the amount of Biblical debate happening in a thread that concerns a legal agreement between two people. If you think homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with a member of your own sex. If you think gay marriage is wrong, don't befriend a gay couple. But to be honest with you, I don't care how much of a sin the Bible says something is, the only thing that should matter here is that two guys marrying each other violates the rights of no one.

-NC

[preservanation]

Homosexual Marriages= oxymoron.
Hi, glad to be here!


I fail to see your logic in that statement.
I do reember trolls on other sites saying that, but they were mostly morons.

But anyways, welcome to the site!

Hi, Siago!
I'll probably prove your hypothisis for you!:P
God Bless this Nation.

[preservanation]

Thank you, but...
I prefer "gnome" over "troll".
I snipe from the lawn at libs walking by.

[piratemonkey]

I don't care how much of a sin the Bible says something is, the only thing that should matter here is that two guys marrying each other violates the rights of no one.


This, my friend, is the key point... and I couldn't agree more.

[Newscaster]

Northeast....that is too simple a solution for some peopl. They feel honor bound to butt into the affairs of others even though it does not involve them. This may also be why all through history.....wars have been started over religion and what the bible says or does not say, but the bible and the religeous folks have NEVER ENDED A WAR. If pople would just allow other people to lead their lives quietly, in peace and privately, the world might be a much better place but when you butt inwhere you have no riht to go....all hell breaks loose.

[NortheastCynic]

Truer words never spoken.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

What's disturbing to me is the amount of Biblical debate happening in a thread that concerns a legal agreement between two people. If you think homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with a member of your own sex. If you think gay marriage is wrong, don't befriend a gay couple. But to be honest with you, I don't care how much of a sin the Bible says something is, the only thing that should matter here is that two guys marrying each other violates the rights of no one.

-NC


That is your right and privilege NC. I am simply answering the poster of this thread who claimed that God has no problems with such activity and yet cannot back that claim up.

The institution of marriage should be left as it was designed to be, 1 man and 1 woman, for life.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Yeah, I am sick and tired of Homosexuals trying to muck up everything good.
2. Just stay away, you people are not normal, your perverted.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

What's disturbing to me is the amount of Biblical debate happening in a thread that concerns a legal agreement between two people. If you think homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with a member of your own sex. If you think gay marriage is wrong, don't befriend a gay couple. But to be honest with you, I don't care how much of a sin the Bible says something is, the only thing that should matter here is that two guys marrying each other violates the rights of no one.

-NC


That is your right and privilege NC. I am simply answering the poster of this thread who claimed that God has no problems with such activity and yet cannot back that claim up.

The institution of marriage should be left as it was designed to be, 1 man and 1 woman, for life.


And isn't it good that CWN is there to back you up?:P

[NortheastCynic]

The institution of marriage should be left as it was designed to be, 1 man and 1 woman, for life.
Designed by whom? People. People "designed" the institution of marriage and have amended it several times to include others. Marriage used to be between one man and several women, it used to be between one man of a given race and one woman of the same race. I ask again, how do to gay men marrying violate the rights of anyone?

-NC

[BoogyMan]

The institution of marriage should be left as it was designed to be, 1 man and 1 woman, for life.
Designed by whom? People. People "designed" the institution of marriage and have amended it several times to include others. Marriage used to be between one man and several women, it used to be between one man of a given race and one woman of the same race. I ask again, how do to gay men marrying violate the rights of anyone?

-NC


Designed by whom? God.

Same sex union is not marriage NC. It is that simple. You want to push religion out of the issue, but that is where it stands, it is a religious issue. If they want something similar let them have it but leave marriage alone.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm with you 50%, Boogy. Churches [private organizations] should not be forced to recognize gay marriages or perform same sex marriage ceremonies, but in the eyes of the state, marriage should be a legal contract, not a religious commitment. Again, let Churches define marriage any way they want, but the State has no right denying the same legal standing of straight couples to gay ones.

-NC

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. The problem is that its immoral.
2. Being a homosexual hideous sin.
3. And to allow homosexuals the respect of a legal marriage debases normal marriages.
4. Why should we allow homosexuals to be normal anyways?
5. And why should we as a Nation condone this hideous sin, in order to permit sin to run rampant?
6. What that will do, is open up the *Pandora's Box*.
7. And the hideous sin nature in the freaks and perverts will all rush the, *Door*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[micfranklin]

Sorry bout that,

1. The problem is that its immoral.
2. Being a homosexual hideous sin.
3. And to allow homosexuals the respect of a legal marriage debases normal marriages.
4. Why should we allow homosexuals to be normal anyways?
5. And why should we as a Nation condone this hideous sin, in order to permit sin to run rampant?
6. What that will do, is open up the *Pandora's Box*.
7. And the hideous sin nature in the freaks and perverts will all rush the, *Door*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


I didn't know you were a part of the Westboro Baptist Church cult:P

[NortheastCynic]

Allow legal marriage, Chess? Need I remind you that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution guarentees all Americans equal protection under the law and equal access to all "privileges and immunities" granted to everyone else. By not "allowing" legal gay marriage our government is acting in a way that violates the Constitution of the United States.

-NC

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,




What's disturbing to me is the amount of Biblical debate happening in a thread that concerns a legal agreement between two people. If you think homosexuality is a sin, don't have sex with a member of your own sex. If you think gay marriage is wrong, don't befriend a gay couple. But to be honest with you, I don't care how much of a sin the Bible says something is, the only thing that should matter here is that two guys marrying each other violates the rights of no one.

-NC


That is your right and privilege NC. I am simply answering the poster of this thread who claimed that God has no problems with such activity and yet cannot back that claim up.

The institution of marriage should be left as it was designed to be, 1 man and 1 woman, for life.


And isn't it good that CWN is there to back you up?:P


1. Sure I will back my bro Boogyman up.
2. He and I am on the same team.
3. Heading for the pearly gates, when this life is over.
4. In that day, we shall meet, and talk about these days, and laugh.
5. My mission started long ago, when Jesus spoke to me from Heaven.
6. Sure call me a nutjob, I love that when that happens.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Buck Laser]

And I'm sure Boog loves you, too, Chessy. In a special kind of way!:P

[Alonzo]

Same sex union is not marriage NC. It is that simple. You want to push religion out of the issue, but that is where it stands, it is a religious issue. If they want something similar let them have it but leave marriage alone.

So, if you admit it's a religious issue, maybe you could point out which part of the constitution allows for laws based on religious beliefs?

[BoogyMan]

So, if you admit it's a religious issue, maybe you could point out which part of the constitution allows for laws based on religious beliefs?

What happened to your "don't give a %$#$ what the framers of the constitution think?"

[NortheastCynic]

If I ask you that question will you answer it Boogy? :P

-NC

[Alonzo]

So, if you admit it's a religious issue, maybe you could point out which part of the constitution allows for laws based on religious beliefs?

What happened to your "don't give a %$#$ what the framers of the constitution think?"


First, your censoring the word "damn" makes it look like I'm saying something I'm not.

Second, I made that in a post where the issue was personal opinion. No one tells me what my personal opinion should be. It wasn't about what should or shouldn't be legal given the reality of the situation and laws.

Third, for someone who got such a kick out of that line, you probably shouldn't be so hypocritical and adopt that same line of reasoning in your own arguments.

[BoogyMan]

First, your censoring the word "damn" makes it look like I'm saying something I'm not.

No, it shows that I won't use that kind of language.

Second, I made that in a post where the issue was personal opinion. No one tells me what my personal opinion should be. It wasn't about what should or shouldn't be legal given the reality of the situation and laws.

So you only ""don't give a %$#$ what the framers of the constitution think" when it suits the argument at hand?

Third, for someone who got such a kick out of that line, you probably shouldn't be so hypocritical and adopt that same line of reasoning in your own arguments.

I adopted nothing, I simply pointed out your previous disdain for the framers of the constitution's ideology and expressed dismay over your newfound respect for their work.

[BoogyMan]

If I ask you that question will you answer it Boogy? :P

-NC


I will answer it thusly. Marriage is between man and woman. If homosexuals want something of that kind it should not be marriage as it doesn't fit the bill.

[NortheastCynic]

Okay Boogy, so if it's a religious issue, how do you square your public policy opinion of it with the First Amendment?

-NC

[lily]

Sorry bout that,

1. Who said I wouldn't of helped them?
2. It was my hypothetical.
3. You can't add stuff to my hypotheitcal dude!
4. I would of called them in and offered them Cokes.
5. Then said, you lucky perverts got a second chance, flee from the wrath to come in your lives.
6. You got a second chance to get it right, change your ways now.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


Chess.........I get soooooo mad at you and then you post something like this and crack me up! LMAO........and the funniest part of it is I can actually see you doing this.

[BoogyMan]

Okay Boogy, so if it's a religious issue, how do you square your public policy opinion of it with the First Amendment?

-NC


Marriage is man and woman NC. I have already said that if homosexuals want something similar, give it to them, but do not twist marriage. Those who have advocated no-fault divorce and other causes have done enough damage without piling this onto the institution. Why must the institution of marriage be modified?

[NortheastCynic]

The institution of marriage in the religious sphere does not have to be modified, Boogy. Again, churches need not recognize homosexual marriages.

What I'm saying is that legally, it is unConstitutional to allow two people of opposite sexes to enter into a legal marriage without allowing two people of the same sex to do the same thing...UnConsitutional.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Second, I made that in a post where the issue was personal opinion. No one tells me what my personal opinion should be. It wasn't about what should or shouldn't be legal given the reality of the situation and laws.

So you only ""don't give a %$#$ what the framers of the constitution think" when it suits the argument at hand?

So I should adopt, as my personal opinion, whatever legal position was held by the framers of the constitution? And I'd also like to know which one I should hold as my personal opinion?



I adopted nothing, I simply pointed out your previous disdain for the framers of the constitution's ideology and expressed dismay over your newfound respect for their work.


So you have disdain for their ideology? You agree with the disdain that you believe I have?

Your position is that this is a religious issue, and that the religious argument should be reason enough for banning it. Therefore you must believe that the people such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wanted public policy to be decided on the basis of religious arguments. Right?

[BoogyMan]

So I should adopt, as my personal opinion, whatever legal position was held by the framers of the constitution? And I'd also like to know which one I should hold as my personal opinion?

I am merely pointing out your on again off again view and use of the framers documents as definitive Zo, nothing more.

So you have disdain for their ideology? You agree with the disdain that you believe I have?

Your position is that this is a religious issue, and that the religious argument should be reason enough for banning it. Therefore you must believe that the people such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wanted public policy to be decided on the basis of religious arguments. Right?

Now this is truly a stretch Zo. I pointed out your newfound respect for their ideology after having publicly claimed that you don't care what the framers had to say.

My position is not to twist marriage for every liberal whim that crosses the desks of the political classes. I have said it several times, if the homosexuals want something similar, give it to them, but DO NOT twist or mangle marriage.

[NortheastCynic]

Something similar, Boogy?

Legally impermissable. When the good people who wrote the 14th Amendment wrote "equal protection under the law", they meant equal protection...Not similar.

-NC

[BoogyMan]

Something similar, Boogy?

Legally impermissable. When the good people who wrote the 14th Amendment wrote "equal protection under the law", they meant equal protection...Not similar.

-NC


I see where you are coming from NC but whole heartedly disagree my friend. Equal protection is not redefinition. Marriage is man and woman.

[NortheastCynic]

Marriage is a binding legal contract/agreement wherein the two parties agree to share property money and which beholdens them to certain privileges [tax cuts, medical considerations, etc.]. To prevent some Americans from joining in that contract is denying them both equal protection under the law and denying them privileges and immunities enjoyed by other naturalized citizens. Explain to me how that is not unConstitutional per the 14th Amendment.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Now this is truly a stretch Zo. I pointed out your newfound respect for their ideology after having publicly claimed that you don't care what the framers had to say.

Boogy, you took it out of context immediately, something which I believe I even pointed out in that thread when you did it. If I was creating the constitution there would be no right to bear arms, either in a militia or not. That's my opinion. But, legally, my opinion is that you can't outright ban guns in every situation. My personal opinion differs from my legal opinion. When I made that statement you were trying to tell me I should hold X personal opinion because, legally, it was correct. I was trying to tell you its legal position has no effect on my personal position. Now I'm 95% sure you won't be able to understand this explanation, but that's your own fault.


I am merely pointing out your on again off again view and use of the framers documents as definitive Zo, nothing more.

What exactly does this have to do with you claiming a religious argument is justification for creating laws? Whether I'm a hypocrite or not, what does that have to do with you and your argument?

My position is not to twist marriage for every liberal whim that crosses the desks of the political classes. I have said it several times, if the homosexuals want something similar, give it to them, but DO NOT twist or mangle marriage.


That is only part of your opinion. You opinion also includes that:

You want to push religion out of the issue, but that is where it stands, it is a religious issue.

You want to decide the laws of this nation based on what your religious beliefs are. Now your religious beliefs differ from my religious beliefs, and while I don't deny you have a valid religious position, even though I disagree, you basically keep insisting I'm an dishonest at best, an idiot at worst, when it comes to the religious view on this issue. But whatever you think of my opinion, and whatever I think of yours, I think we can both agree that nowhere in the constitution do we find anything suggesting that laws should be decided on based on ones religious convictions.

Now if you want to go ahead and argue why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed fine, you may have a valid argument. But, instead, you stated that your argument is religious. There's nothing wrong with that. But, given your argument, why should any laws for a secular nation, one made up of wildly different religious viewpoints, be decided on that?

You can go and call me a hypocrite all you want. You have about as much credibility as Bill Clinton would lecturing on the importance marital fidelity.

[Newscaster]

Its amazing how religion can make far too many people insufferably annoying.

[1Samuel8]

Marriage is a binding legal contract/agreement wherein the two parties agree to share property money and which beholdens them to certain privileges [tax cuts, medical considerations, etc.]. To prevent some Americans from joining in that contract is denying them both equal protection under the law and denying them privileges and immunities enjoyed by other naturalized citizens. Explain to me how that is not unConstitutional per the 14th Amendment.Back up a bit.
Explain to me how any of this should be the business of the State.

[BoogyMan]

Marriage is a binding legal contract/agreement wherein the two parties agree to share property money and which beholdens them to certain privileges [tax cuts, medical considerations, etc.]. To prevent some Americans from joining in that contract is denying them both equal protection under the law and denying them privileges and immunities enjoyed by other naturalized citizens. Explain to me how that is not unConstitutional per the 14th Amendment.

-NC


As I has said several times NC, give them something that covers their desire for legal status, but I will never support marriage being anything other than between man and woman as was the original and proper design of the institution.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, you took it out of context immediately, something which I believe I even pointed out in that thread when you did it. If I was creating the constitution there would be no right to bear arms, either in a militia or not. That's my opinion. But, legally, my opinion is that you can't outright ban guns in every situation. My personal opinion differs from my legal opinion. When I made that statement you were trying to tell me I should hold X personal opinion because, legally, it was correct. I was trying to tell you its legal position has no effect on my personal position. Now I'm 95% sure you won't be able to understand this explanation, but that's your own fault.

Right Zo, I figured you would run from that point. I understand it fully and for what it is, a complete running backtrack of your own commentary.

What exactly does this have to do with you claiming a religious argument is justification for creating laws? Whether I'm a hypocrite or not, what does that have to do with you and your argument?

My position is not to twist marriage for every liberal whim that crosses the desks of the political classes. I have said it several times, if the homosexuals want something similar, give it to them, but DO NOT twist or mangle marriage.


That is only part of your opinion. You opinion also includes that:

You want to push religion out of the issue, but that is where it stands, it is a religious issue.

You want to decide the laws of this nation based on what your religious beliefs are. Now your religious beliefs differ from my religious beliefs, and while I don't deny you have a valid religious position, even though I disagree, you basically keep insisting I'm an dishonest at best, an idiot at worst, when it comes to the religious view on this issue. But whatever you think of my opinion, and whatever I think of yours, I think we can both agree that nowhere in the constitution do we find anything suggesting that laws should be decided on based on ones religious convictions.

Now if you want to go ahead and argue why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed fine, you may have a valid argument. But, instead, you stated that your argument is religious. There's nothing wrong with that. But, given your argument, why should any laws for a secular nation, one made up of wildly different religious viewpoints, be decided on that?

You can go and call me a hypocrite all you want. You have about as much credibility as Bill Clinton would lecturing on the importance marital fidelity.


You have completely ignored my multiple comments that state, give them something that suffices for their legal needs but leave marriage alone. I can only imagine that you are doing so intentionally since you have, many times now, completely ignored the point.

Leave marriage alone.

Read your own commentary Zo, you drug out the word hypocritical and in regard to being faced with your own past commentary with regard to the constitution.

[Saigio]

Boogey! Understand that even if you give homosexuals equal righs in civil unions, not calling them marriages and saying that they can ony be called civil unions is just like having two water fountains, one for blacks and one for whites.
Seperate but equal is not equal.

[BoogyMan]

Boogey! Understand that even if you give homosexuals equal righs in civil unions, not calling them marriages and saying that they can ony be called civil unions is just like having two water fountains, one for blacks and one for whites.
Seperate but equal is not equal.


A homosexual union is not a marriage Saigio, it is that simple. You can call an orange an apple, but that doesn't make it so.

[Alonzo]

Right Zo, I figured you would run from that point. I understand it fully and for what it is, a complete running backtrack of your own commentary.

Boogy, the second half of that sentence even makes my point:

Don't give a damn what the framers of the constitution think, I'm telling you what I think about how the criminal justice system should work.

That entire thread I kept saying this is my personal opinion, not my legal one. I said it repeatedly in that thread. You are either incapable of understanding what I type, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it.



You have completely ignored my multiple comments that state, give them something that suffices for their legal needs but leave marriage alone. I can only imagine that you are doing so intentionally since you have, many times now, completely ignored the point.

Leave marriage alone.

Then you believe that the state should cease all involvement in marriage? After all, if it's a religious issue as you say, why is the state recognizing heterosexual marriages?

You say marriage is a religious issue but still you want state involvement in it. Where's the respect for our fathers that you claim to hold in such high esteem?

Read your own commentary Zo, you drug out the word hypocritical and in regard to being faced with your own past commentary with regard to the constitution.


You seem to think that if I'm a hypocrite that somehows justifies you being one. Even if I am that doesn't change anything.

[Newscaster]

This long running discussion is clear proof why there must be separation of church and state in this country. You have people who espouce one religion or another and demand that it be the law of the land. This in effect forces religion upon those who are not religious and this country was NOIT founded on that idea.
Take a look at all the theocracy governments that have been and ask yoursel if you wish to live under conditions like that. And would you like mental midgets like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to be your leaders? If youir idea is someone who believes only one book, written two thousand years ago by marginally educated people, is absolutely correct.....thats fine, but dont force that idea on people who disagree.

[BoogyMan]

Right Zo, I figured you would run from that point. I understand it fully and for what it is, a complete running backtrack of your own commentary.

Boogy, the second half of that sentence even makes my point:

Don't give a damn what the framers of the constitution think, I'm telling you what I think about how the criminal justice system should work.

That entire thread I kept saying this is my personal opinion, not my legal one. I said it repeatedly in that thread. You are either incapable of understanding what I type, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it.

Nothing has been misrepresented, I am simply castigating you for a perceived inconsistency. :)



You have completely ignored my multiple comments that state, give them something that suffices for their legal needs but leave marriage alone. I can only imagine that you are doing so intentionally since you have, many times now, completely ignored the point.

Leave marriage alone.

Then you believe that the state should cease all involvement in marriage? After all, if it's a religious issue as you say, why is the state recognizing heterosexual marriages?

You say marriage is a religious issue but still you want state involvement in it. Where's the respect for our fathers that you claim to hold in such high esteem?

Once again, if they must have something similar, let them have it. Marriage is man and woman, homosexual union is not marriage.

Read your own commentary Zo, you drug out the word hypocritical and in regard to being faced with your own past commentary with regard to the constitution.


You seem to think that if I'm a hypocrite that somehows justifies you being one. Even if I am that doesn't change anything.


You drug out the word apparently based upon a viewing of your own commentary. My position on this has been entirely consistent, hypocrisy? No.

[Saigio]

Boogey! Understand that even if you give homosexuals equal righs in civil unions, not calling them marriages and saying that they can ony be called civil unions is just like having two water fountains, one for blacks and one for whites.
Seperate but equal is not equal.


A homosexual union is not a marriage Saigio, it is that simple. You can call an orange an apple, but that doesn't make it so.


If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, acts like a dog, it is not a cat, boogs.
If a civil union grants all the same rights as a marriage, how can it not be called a marriage and still not be considered discrimination?

[BoogyMan]

If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, acts like a dog, it is not a cat, boogs.

If a civil union grants all the same rights as a marriage, how can it not be called a marriage and still not be considered discrimination?


Marriage is man and woman, any other arrangement is something else.

[Saigio]

If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, acts like a dog, it is not a cat, boogs.

If a civil union grants all the same rights as a marriage, how can it not be called a marriage and still not be considered discrimination?


Marriage is man and woman, any other arrangement is something else.


Prove that a marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The dictonary only provides that as one example of a definition.

[NortheastCynic]

Boogy, you keep saying marriage is between a man and a woman. My point is that marriage used to be between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. It used to be between a white man and many women. The meaning of marriage has changed constantly over the course of human nature to broaden the rights of others, my question to you is, given the Constitutional nature of the legal contract that is marriage, why not expand it to homosexuals per the 14th Amendment?

-NC

[Newscaster]

I think it is time for the dictionary:
This is the Merrian-Webster On Line Dictionary. The word is Marriage:


Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry --
************************************************** ***********

The first definisition pertains to the joining of a man and a woman. This of course is the traditional definition of the word Marriage.
Notice however that the 2nd definition in section 1 is different but the word MARRIAGE still applies.
And you have yet other versions of the word Marriage.
So yoiu cannot apply just one definition and state that that is the end of the story. The word Marriage and all that it implies, applies regardless of the participants. That means a same sex couple is due the same rights and privileges as a two sex couple.

[Saigio]

Thank you newscaster.
Now, Boog, where is your clai that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

[Alonzo]

Right Zo, I figured you would run from that point. I understand it fully and for what it is, a complete running backtrack of your own commentary.

Boogy, the second half of that sentence even makes my point:

Don't give a damn what the framers of the constitution think, I'm telling you what I think about how the criminal justice system should work.

That entire thread I kept saying this is my personal opinion, not my legal one. I said it repeatedly in that thread. You are either incapable of understanding what I type, or you're intentionally misrepresenting it.

Nothing has been misrepresented, I am simply castigating you for a perceived inconsistency. :)

You're correct it's a percieved inconsistency, because you're only one who can percieve it.



Once again, if they must have something similar, let them have it. Marriage is man and woman, homosexual union is not marriage.

Marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what your religious beliefs tell you. Correct? As you stated, this is a religious question. Therefore, if we want to hold true to the spirit of this nation and the founding fathers we should either remove marriage entirely from the state, which would mean nullifying millions of marriages and forcing people to have civil unions, or, if we want continued state involvement in marriage, recognize civil and religious marriage as separate. If you only have a religious argument why should it be used in a society such as ours to bar a group from accessing something?



You drug out the word apparently based upon a viewing of your own commentary. My position on this has been entirely consistent, hypocrisy? No.


You condemn me for supposedly arguing one thing when it suits me and another when it doesn't. And here you are claiming marriage is a religious issue and that the religious argument should have a place in law. You're doing the same exact thing you accuse me of and denouncing me for doing.

You claim respect for the founding fathers then disregard them when it comes to religion in government.

[Newscaster]

FOUND AT: scienceblogs.com/dispatches
(I just knew one or two of you will love this!)

Why Gay Marriage is Good for Straight Marriages


Or, why conservatives should learn to stop worrying and love gay marriage. Dale Carpenter has a brilliant column about the many ways in which opposition to gay marriage actually undermines marriage in ways that the social conservatives think gay marriage itself does. He begins:

Conservative opposition to gay marriage is having unconservative effects, helping to push the boundaries of family law into new territory that challenges the primacy of marriage itself. By opposing gay marriage, conservatives are forcing gay families to seek refuge through untraditional means that could undermine marriage or destabilize family concepts in ways that gay marriage itself would not.
He offers several examples of how this is happening. For instance, second-parent adoptions:

When married couples adopt, both become the legal parents of the child. Traditionally, however, only one member of an unmarried couple could adopt a child. Among other things, this rule has encouraged the couple to get married because it would provide the child with two parents.
Gay couples, who can't marry, must find other ways to protect their children. Starting in the early 1980s, the National Center for Lesbian Rights pioneered the concept of "second-parent" adoptions by which two unmarried people could both be a child's legal parents. Over time, the concept has been embraced by courts or by statute in about half the states.

Here's the kicker. Second-parent adoptions have also become available to unmarried heterosexual couples. Thus, a legal reform intended to compensate for the unavailability of same-sex marriage has been seized by those who can marry but choose not to. It reduces the incentive to marry and means more children will be raised out-of-wedlock.

Another example - parental visitation by non-custodial parents:

In Minnesota, the state supreme court recently upheld an order allowing a woman parent-like visitation with the two adopted children she raised with her lesbian partner of 22 years. Because the women weren't married, only one of them formally adopted the kids. When they split, the legal parent barred her ex from seeing them. If they'd been married, both parents would have been entitled to see the children.
The non-parent sued to get some access to the children based on a Minnesota statute allowing a person "reasonable" visitation if the person lived with the children at least two years. The court ordered that the non-parent be given the right to visit the children on a schedule exactly like what a divorced parent would get (weekends, alternate holidays, long summer vacations) -- all without having to pay child support.

The Minnesota decision was correct under state law and was perfectly justified given that the lesbian couple could not marry and that both women raised the children. But it does set a precedent by which an unmarried heterosexual partner could likewise claim full parental visitation rights without accompanying support obligations. Another incentive to marry is eroded.


The same is true of a whole range of legal options for achieving the legal and financial protections automatically given to married couples. Ironically, we hear constantly from those who oppose gay marriage that it's not necessary to allow gays to get married because there are other ways they can get the same protections through the use of private contracts, power of attorney filings and so forth. Do they not realize that this actually undermines their case? If you can achieve the same protections without getting married - and straight couples can do the same thing - then you are reducing the incentive to get married, something conservatives are always saying is necessary to get people to get married. All of this points out the disingenuousness of such arguments; the real reason they oppose gay marriage really has nothing to do with wanting to "preserve marriage" and everything to do with their bigotry toward gays.

[linaloki]

If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, acts like a dog, it is not a cat, boogs.

If a civil union grants all the same rights as a marriage, how can it not be called a marriage and still not be considered discrimination?


Marriage is man and woman, any other arrangement is something else.


Until about 1981, marriage was between any man and woman of the same race, at least in Alabama. All 50 states had similar laws, I believe, that ended around the late 60s, some taking as long as Alabama to get rid of them. Definitions can change. And, sometimes, they need to.

[Buck Laser]

Until about 1981, marriage was between any man and woman of the same race, at least in Alabama. All 50 states had similar laws, I believe, that ended around the late 60s, some taking as long as Alabama to get rid of them. Definitions can change. And, sometimes, they need to.

Can you provide a source for that? I'm pretty sure miscegenation laws were in place in the south, but I really have a hard time thinking northern states like Minnesota, North Dakota, etc., would have such laws. For one thing, ideas of "race" were much more specific in the early years of the 20th century, when people talked about the "English race" or the "Italian race," etc.

When I was growing up in south Texas in the 40s, there was still quite a level of discrimination toward "Anglo" people who married Mexican Americans. I remember my older relatives ranting about such marriages back then, but I think that kind of prejudice has largely gone away for now. When I was in school, black kids were sent to segregated schools, but there was never any segregation of Mexican Americans.

[Alonzo]

Those laws were unenforcable after 1967, though they were still on the book in two states until 98 I believe, with the last one being defeated in 2000.

[linaloki]

Until about 1981, marriage was between any man and woman of the same race, at least in Alabama. All 50 states had similar laws, I believe, that ended around the late 60s, some taking as long as Alabama to get rid of them. Definitions can change. And, sometimes, they need to.

Can you provide a source for that? I'm pretty sure miscegenation laws were in place in the south, but I really have a hard time thinking northern states like Minnesota, North Dakota, etc., would have such laws. For one thing, ideas of "race" were much more specific in the early years of the 20th century, when people talked about the "English race" or the "Italian race," etc.

When I was growing up in south Texas in the 40s, there was still quite a level of discrimination toward "Anglo" people who married Mexican Americans. I remember my older relatives ranting about such marriages back then, but I think that kind of prejudice has largely gone away for now. When I was in school, black kids were sent to segregated schools, but there was never any segregation of Mexican Americans.


I'll look for sources... I'm probably incorrect about all states having the laws, but I know for a fact that Alabama's law was still on the books until at least the 80s.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, you keep saying marriage is between a man and a woman. My point is that marriage used to be between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman. It used to be between a white man and many women. The meaning of marriage has changed constantly over the course of human nature to broaden the rights of others, my question to you is, given the Constitutional nature of the legal contract that is marriage, why not expand it to homosexuals per the 14th Amendment?

-NC


I find that argument to be based on a false premise as you seem to wish to equate past inequities with regard to race, with the fact that marriage is between man and woman. Race and gender are not interchangeable in the argument NC. A black woman marrying a white man is marriage and should always have been so. Same sex unions, however, don't meet the definition of a marriage.

[Newscaster]

Boogey, I guess you don read other people's poists carefully. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists as th second definition of marriage as the joining of two people of the same sex. But I guess you know more than them and everybody else.

[BoogyMan]

Boogey, I guess you don read other people's poists carefully. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists as th second definition of marriage as the joining of two people of the same sex.

There are many online dictionaries out there Newscaster, some list it that way, some don't. For example consider Meriam Websters Law Dictionary entry for marriage below:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law �see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

But I guess you know more than them and everybody else.

Interesting debate tactic when you have nothing else upon which to stand Newscaster. I am waiting for you to start talking trash about my mother after a post like this.

[NortheastCynic]

[/quote]I find that argument to be based on a false premise as you seem to wish to equate past inequities with regard to race, with the fact that marriage is between man and woman. Race and gender are not interchangeable in the argument NC. I'm not trying to equate interracial marriage bans with same sex marriage bans. What I'm saying is that your argument of "marriage is between a man and a woman" is flawed. That is an overly simplified definition of the word. Marriage has meant many different things and has been expanded to include more and more people. My question to you is WHY can marriage not be between a man and a man. Explain to me who's and what rights are violated by two men marrying one another?

-NC

[BoogyMan]

I find that argument to be based on a false premise as you seem to wish to equate past inequities with regard to race, with the fact that marriage is between man and woman. Race and gender are not interchangeable in the argument NC. I'm not trying to equate interracial marriage bans with same sex marriage bans. What I'm saying is that your argument of "marriage is between a man and a woman" is flawed. That is an overly simplified definition of the word. Marriage has meant many different things and has been expanded to include more and more people. My question to you is WHY can marriage not be between a man and a man. Explain to me who's and what rights are violated by two men marrying one another?

-NC


NC, first let me thank you for the tone of your commentary, you always maintiain a civil tone which is greatly appreciated.

It is redefinition NC. Marriage has through time ALWAYS been man and woman and it is a perversion of the institution of marriage to include same sex couplings in it.

[Newscaster]

First, rebuting the Law dictionary......definition two does not mention participants and thereby includes same sex marriages with male-female marriages and dont think that would not be an argument in court. More times than you can imagine, what is NOT said is used to back up with is being claimed. So not mentioning same sex does not mean that same sex mariages are verboten.

Boogey, it may be a redefinition but that does not in any way diminish its validity. When society realizes that something should be added to a definition, it has the right to add it and change or at least alter meaning. The idea is to be legally correct. Moral correctness is a private matter in as much as morality can take many different forms. So, if a guy wants to marry a guy, he must follow the legal guidelines for such a marriage. If the guy DOESNT want to marry another guy, he simply does not marry another guy. Both are legal and legitimate courses to take. If you dont like it....dont do it. A rocket scientist is not required to figure that one out.

[BoogyMan]

First, rebuting the Law dictionary......definition two does not mention participants and thereby includes same sex marriages with male-female marriages and dont think that would not be an argument in court. More times than you can imagine, what is NOT said is used to back up with is being claimed. So not mentioning same sex does not mean that same sex mariages are verboten.

Boogey, it may be a redefinition but that does not in any way diminish its valid