serious gay marriage question

“Thank God.”

“Was it OK to ban "interracial" marriage?

You guys made the argument the majority of the people said no to smoking in restaurants so it's OK to ban smoking in restaurants then why shouldn't it be the same with interracial marriage or gay marriage? I would hate for you guys to have any consistency within your beliefs... or do you just believe in something when it suits you and your personal opinions?

This is a classic example of removal of rights by majority rule and why I will never support the ability of a majority to vote away the rights of a minority. This is exactly why the representative system of government was set up by our founding fathers. They were damned smart guys. But if you believe fundamentally that your majority has the right to take away the rights of a property owner to allow people to smoke on his premises then within that same governing law you have to allow the majority to ban gay marriage, or interracial marriage, if it is brought to them for a vote.”

“Smoking in Restaurant is an..................orange, if you will.

Marriage is..................not, if you will.”

“Thank you
last edited: 12/19/05 9:30:58 PM”

“You guys made the argument the majority of the people said no to smoking in restaurants so it's OK to ban smoking in restaurants then why shouldn't it be the same with interracial marriage or gay marriage?

Hey now, who's "they"? I never used such an argument nor do I agree that gay marriage and smoking in restaurants are even comparable in the slightest. Gay marriage has never been legal here since day one, nor in most countries on planet Earth. Not even in godless communistic countries is gay marriage legal. Why are you all of a sudden making this some "American Christian" issue? It's not.

Gay marriage is not legal here in the U.S., it's not legal in the vast majority of countries, neither now or in the past. It is not just Christian morality that wants to keep the timeless principle of marriage between a man and a woman protected, it's the vast majority of our politicians, citizens, and courts, both here and throughout the world. Yet you try and make it some "current event" as if Christians want to "take away" an existing, accepted right. Not so, not EVEN close.

Bill Clinton personally signed the Defense of Marriage Act and it passed by a landslide in Congress by both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, Christians and non-Christians. Americans, not just Christians, do not want gay marriage. Citizens of the WORLD do not want gay marriage. Don't try and make this some "Christians are bigots" thing, it doesn't work. It's WAY bigger than that. Sorry for being so repetitive, but I keep hearing the same parroted, repetitive arguments that this is some Christian morality hang-up, otherwise America, and the world, would all be happily gay and married.”

“Gay marriage is not legal here in the U.S., it's not legal in the vast majority of countries, neither now or in the past.

No but there were some damn big cultures that really enjoyed both sexes.”

“Why not just accept the fact that there is no moral basis for the tradition that marriage has to be between hetrosexual couples and be done with it?”

““Why not just accept the fact that there is no moral basis for the tradition that marriage has to be between hetrosexual couples and be done with it?”
Jimmy san

It's a moral argument now? Finally!

Ok, who's morals should we go with? pitt's or God's?”

“Why not just accept the fact that there is no moral basis for the tradition that marriage has to be between hetrosexual couples and be done with it?”

Why not just accept the fact that there is no moral basis to ban consenting-adult incest. There is no moral basis to ban a bisexual from marrying a person of each sex at the time. There is no moral basis to ban polygamy. There is no moral basis to ban group marriage. Also, while we're at it, why not just accept the fact that there is no moral basis to kill unborn babies? And that there is no moral basis to ban pedophilic virtual images as long as they aren't "real children".

Jimmy san, you're gonna hafta take your case to the citizens of the world, and to the citizens of the U.S., and to BOTH your liberal politicians and your conservative ones, and to the judges that consistently uphold the man/woman marriage defintion. That's fine, go do it, but don't blame American Christians for what "is" and always has been, throughout the world. Because, frankly, the vast majority of people think there is a moral basis, not just religious morals, but societal morals on what's best for a country. Go get 'em, kiddo.”

“No but there were some damn big cultures that really enjoyed both sexes.

True, and you won't get thrown in jail in this culture either if you wanna have a gay fest orgy or live with a gay partner. Doesn't mean we hafta endorse it and call it traditional legal marriage.”

“Used to be oh so not long ago.”

“wish i had time to properly respond to this. ok, everybody, dont say anything until i get back from work”

“anyway, times they are a-changin. years ago, it would have been unheard of for any states to legalize gay marriage, or for their to be as much cultural acceptance of it as there currently is. it took blacks decades to go from being non-citizens to second-class citizens, to pissing off the archie bunkers of this world. the same is happening for the happy people. years ago they didnt even exist in the cultural conscienceness. now they can marry in a couple of states. i dont think buck and s-rge are bigots for their views, for theyve made it clear theyre just following orders. but many ppl certainly are bigots, and someday that will change”

“i dont think buck and s-rge are bigots for their views, for theyve made it clear theyre just following orders. - crash

Check again...

That said, I don't base my decision in this case as to what is a sin. I base my decision on history. Historically, marriage is the union between an adult male and female. Anything else is not marriage.

You want to change the definition? Fine. What is your standard for doing so? And while you're at it, are you going to discriminate against age?
Sarge
12:05:14 PM
12/19/05”

“N - nice animal house reff there. Funny.

I was asked what wasn't civil about this discussion. A pet peeve of mine is when CNN or whoever shows a protest about something having to do with gay rights. There are always zealots in the audience who have banners that say somthing like, "God Hates Fags." I can't stand that because I don't and can't believe that statement. The tone and feel of this conversation has gotten into the neighborhood of that statement. Sarge - I'm not going to debate this, provide quotes or any of that as you like to request. I'm merely making a comment. Like it or don't like it. I don't care.”

“So can anyone sum up why gay marrage is detrimental to society and how this means the rights afforded to hetero couples should not be extended to homos.”

“Well Mutt, why is self-determination important? Is that in the constitution somewhere?

Goddamit, quit wasting my time. The Socratic method is not a substitute for content. For once, put the meat of your damned thesis (that I'm beginning to doubt you truly have) in writing and let's have a critical look at it.”

““Why not just accept the fact that there is no moral basis for the tradition that marriage has to be between hetrosexual couples and be done with it?”

Actually this borders on the separation of church and state. Marriage is defined by the world's religions, mainly the Judeo/christian religions. Would this then not seem as an imposition of religious tradition on a secular country? I absolutely hate the conception that the constitution offers freedom FROM religion (which is not what it means) but this is an interesting aspect of the discussion. Someone who is not a Christian is not bound by it’s laws any more than someone who is not a Jew is not bound to it’s laws.”

“Someone who is not a Christian is not bound by it’s laws any more than someone who is not a Jew is not bound to it’s laws.”

Thank you, Nigal. I can go and live my immoral life with a little more ease now. For a minute there, I thought I should bow up to others beliefs so I could become a decent human being and part of society....oh wait...I already am!”

““Thank you, Nigal. I can go and live my immoral life with a little more ease now. For a minute there, I thought I should bow up to others beliefs so I could become a decent human being and part of society....oh wait...I already am!”

I hope you didn’t misunderstand what I was saying Wolfy. I never said you were immoral. You are a beautiful person. I wasn’t meaning to put you below a christain or a Jew. I was trying to say that you do not follow what someone else follows then it shouldn’t be imposed upon you to do so. It’s like the Sunday blue laws. I’m not a christain so why can’t I go out and hunt on Sunday or buy beer?”

“We can make gay marriage illegal 11 months out of the year but on the 12th it would be mandatory.”

“No misunderstanding here. It was a genuine "thank you".”

“Oh OK, I was afraid I offended you by mistake which in that case I humbly submit my bare, tight, white bum for a good paddling. :)”

““We can make gay marriage illegal 11 months out of the year but on the 12th it would be mandatory.”

Kind of like gay day at Disneyland? Do the gays wear red t shirts that month?”

“wolfeyes should not have the right to post on this thread.

being a lesbian, she is obviously a sinner and therefore not deserving of the same rights as us heteros.

the right to post on this thread, like marriage was never guarenteed by the US constitution.

first it's marriage, then it's posting on this thread. Next thing you know they'll be wanting to use the same drinking fountains as us decent folk!”

“Well, in that case, I took offense. You want the 8" paddle or the 12" paddle?”

“I haven't used a drinking fountain in years.”

“let's just keep it that way, mmmkay.”

“I have a little cracker ass so the 8' one should work fine. Just make it count because I've been very very naughty. OK, go puke now.”

“Unless there is Corona spurting out of it, you can rest assure that I will not slurp from your fountains.”

“Ya know what the sick part is? I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere that has this fetish covered. LOL!”

“that one is just too easy nigal.”

“Knock it off Nigal and Wolfeyes.

Let's get back to the holier than thou moral debate.

I want to hear a summary of why gay marrage is detrimental to society and how this means the rights afforded to hetero couples should not be extended to homos.”

“Ya know what the sick part is? I'm sure there's a website out there somewhere that has this fetish covered. LOL!”
Nigal
10:49:43 AM


what lesbian's slurping corona from a fountain?

or paddlin'?

bet there's hundreds of paddlin ones. dunno about the corona one. sounds like a job for bitpusher to me.”

“"I want to hear a summary of why gay marrage is detrimental to society and how this means the rights afforded to hetero couples should not be extended to homos.”

I've been asking this ever since Bush started the holy crusade against the gay evil doers and have yet to get an answer.”

“talkin outta turn? that's a paddlin'.


last edited: 12/20/05 10:17:30 AM”

“Many, many companies already offer equal benefits to same-sex partners and it hasn't resulted in the collapse of the corporate giants or widespread corruption.”

“maybe not JS, but it has obviously led to guys showing their wee-wees to bacpac in the park and at rest stops along I-40.”

“sacco: This is obviosuly not the result of gay marriage since gay marriage isn't legal at the present time.”

“Oh, and if people are showing their wee wees to bacpac at rest stops... well... you know where I could go with this one.

Let's just say it's never happened to me.”

“I know it may not be exactly what you want to hear. Can't say I exactly agree with all of them but many I do.

http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm
last edited: 12/20/05 11:24:34 AM”

“Veddy interesting to read Dobson's view... I have never read his views on this and some of his points sound like he's plagiarizing me! :^D All my thoughts are my own thinking, I haven't read what other Christian's specifically think on this issue or the arguments they use. Great minds think alike! :Þ”

“The article posted states many conclusions based on no evidence or false causal relationships. The article is entirely speculation. It states there have been thousands of studies to support their claims yet none are stated. It makes 11 points based off the assumption the homosexuals are out to destroy families. So what do you agree with from this argument.

There is a lot to debate. The only point I see as valid is "where is the line of marriage drawn."”

“I like how that web page admits that there are legal benefits to marriage that are handed out discriminately based on sexual orientation:

With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, and much more) without limiting the number of partners or their gender.

By the way, I also love how polygamy is thrown in for the hell of it... the "slippery slope" argument.

…then it goes on to predict the collapse of Social Security and the healthcare system. Social Security is already a mess without gay marriage. Large corporations have been extending healthcare benefits to same sex couples for years and years and they haven't seen costs that made them "stagger and collapse".”

“Remember were talking about an article not a scientific study in itself; read as such. Yeah, you could say some of it is subjective; however, the conclusions drawn from the evidence acknowledged in each argument is well stated (recent history of California/Scandinavian countries, Scripture, studies etc). From the argument you mentioned, do you believe that there is any reason to cite a source or even a single study when the same conclusion is consistently drawn and overwhelmingly accepted by primarily everyone (and this field of study) as a given? Nigal asked for an explanation of why gay marriage is detrimental to society. It doesn’t exactly take a rocket scientist or in this case a Ph.D in Family and Child development to draw the conclusion that this decision has revolutionary consequences.

I agree with everything but 6 and 7. Although as stated by the author they will indeed be affected, changes in these areas are coming soon regardless at the expense of the employee or employed. Also stated, the problem is when there no grounds to legally limit the number of partners or their gender. Why not sign up the community?
last edited: 12/20/05 2:40:07 PM”

“Wow Trailhound, "the conclusions drawn from the evidence". There was no evidence stated.
The Scandinavian argument is flawed. They say that Scandinavian countries such as Norway allow gay marriage. They say that marriage as an institution is declining. Then they say that the decline in marriage is therefore do to gay marriage. This is a false causal relationship. The cause of the decline in marriages in Norway is blamed on the liberal social welfare programs that heavily subsidize single parents. There is a greater economical reward for a couple to have children while not being married. They have two incomes and also receive government support. This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Scripture is not an argument for a legal issue.

The article says there are so many studies that support them yet none are listed. There is a reason that any piece of legitimate literature lists its references. To justify conclusions drawn from evidence, the evidence must be available for review.

There is plenty of Ph. D work on development of children with same sex parents. Yet this article points to nothing but speculation as to how children will develop in such families.

The entire article is full of such baseless statements. The article was written for those that already believe gay marriage is bad. It assumes that you will not analyze the arguments.”

“By the way, I also love how polygamy is thrown in for the hell of it... the "slippery slope" argument.

(sigh) there's the usual hypocrital "slippery slope" non-sense. First of all a slippery slope implies that everything less than either straight or gay marriage is BAD, as if it would SLIDE down to icky stuff. Icky according to who? YOU, Jimmy? What's the difference if I call "gay marriage" on the downslope of morality, but you draw the line a little differently, include only gay marriage, and EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS from then on? What a moralistic hypocrite to suggest anything other than straight or gay marriage is morally wrong and down the slippery slope of what you think is right. Are you REALLY that much of a bigot based on your own morality? Slippery slope, ha ha! Ya, let's just include what YOU think is non-slippery and everyone else below you morally must suffer, screw them, the lousy pagan hoodlum pigs.

I have my moral standings from God, not me... those of you who judge based upon your OWN moral standings, who ARE you? That makes you the worst of all bigots and the most judgmental and intolerant of all. I'm a little surprised at you, Jimmy. Forcing YOUR morality on others and anything less is slippery.
last edited: 12/20/05 3:08:19 PM”

“Buck, maybe you should read the article. Jimmy was paraphrasing the moral opinion of article in question.

"Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions....The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy." Crappy Article

Buck, thanks for admitting that you are a judgmental and an intolerant bigot. That was a nice touch.
last edited: 12/20/05 3:36:03 PM”

“Buck, you getting your moral standings from someone's interpretion of mythology is no greater than someone who developes there moral opinion with an open mind.”

“"The responsibility to defend the family now rests on you and me to prove that polygamy is unhealthy."

If some guy up in Utah wants five wives, who's the victim? Does it effect Nigal P. McGuillicutty in Ohio? No.”