[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chemmy:
An act can mean more to someone than its dictionary definition.

Shouldn't we then come up with a new word? Isn't that how languages grow?

[Chemmy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The NAMBLA people say the same thing. But replace gender with age.

For someone who bothered to look up marriage in the dictionary, it seems odd that you wouldn't look up "consenting" and "adults", since you obviously understand neither of these terms.

They not only want to get married. They want to force their values on everyone. They want everyone to accept their lifestyle and values as one being normal and morally correct.

What, exactly, isn't "morally correct" about two consenting adults who love each other?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
And why shouldn't they? Is there a particular reason that they shouldn't be offended by this?

Yes, they should also respect the beliefs of others. What I have been seeing a lot esp coming from gays is, "You must accept my lifestlye, even if it means going against your beliefs. "

How is their beliefs or ideals more important than mine?

They can be offended by anything they like, and you can find the fact that they're offended offensive. It just doesn't matter.

I don't find it offensive. Not at all. I expect it. I know why it offends them.

The government will still have no legal grounds to do anything about it.

Not at this point in time no. But things like the Constitution has been distorted before recently, so it's not like it's not unthinkable

As much as I agree that gay marriage is a good thing and should be allowed, I would do all I can to prevent the government from forcing that ideal on a religious institution.

They wont have to. You can't force something onto a organization that will be abolished in favor of secular humanism and the "If it feels good do it" mentality.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chemmy:
For someone who bothered to look up marriage in the dictionary, it seems odd that you wouldn't look up "consenting" and "adults", since you obviously understand neither of these terms.

I am not saying that someone having sex with a consenting adult is just as bad as someone having sex with someone that our morals deem to be too young for sex in our society today. BTW such acts are only bad in certain countries. Other countries pedophilia isn't illegal, but homosexuality is.

Our countries moral laws tell us it's bad. As it once did with homosexual sex.

But anyhow, the point I was trying to make is.. just because "Love is love, regardless of gender." or regardless of whatever, that doesn't somehow magically justify the actions "Love" creates.

What, exactly, isn't "morally correct" about two consenting adults who love each other?

Well you don't see two people of the same sex having sexual intercourse as being morally wrong. But many many people do. That is something people who are fighting for this will have to just deal with I guess.

[Chemmy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But anyhow, the point I was trying to make is.. just because "Love is love, regardless of gender." or regardless of whatever, that doesn't somehow magically justify the actions "Love" creates.

Gender differences aren't equivalent to age differences.

Well you don't see two people of the same sex having sexual intercourse as being morally wrong. But many many people do. That is something people who are fighting for this will have to just deal with I guess.

I don't see why anyone should stop doing anything in the privacy of their own home, simply because some group of people don't like the idea.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, they should also respect the beliefs of others. What I have been seeing a lot esp coming from gays is, "You must accept my lifestlye, even if it means going against your beliefs. "

If the majority of America told you that they hated you for who you were and that you would spend eternity burning in hell how would you feel? I definitely agree that some people take it way too far, but I think that the reaction that many gays have is completely understandable if not justified.

How is their beliefs or ideals more important than mine?

It is to them. Just as my beliefs are more important to me than yours are, and yours are more important to you than someone else's.

I don't find it offensive. Not at all. I expect it. I know why it offends them.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you felt any specific way. I was using "you" in a general sense. But if you know why it offends them then can you not relate to them even a little bit and understand why they react the way they do?

Not at this point in time no. But things like the Constitution has been distorted before recently, so it's not like it's not unthinkable

On the other hand, perhaps the founding fathers specifically intended to outlaw homosexual unions. Or maybe they specifically meant to allow them. Or maybe it never even occured to them that two men might want to marry each other. The 'intent of the founders' interpretation of the constitution can only go so far. There has to be some room for flexibility to accomodate the current situation.

They wont have to. You can't force something onto a organization that will be abolished in favor of secular humanism and the "If it feels good do it" mentality.

Yes, but people will try. And in my opinion, it is the duty of everyone who believes in freedom to fight such attempts no matter how much they disagree with the group they are protecting.

[Chemmy]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
And in my opinion, it is the duty of everyone who believes in freedom to fight such attempts no matter how much they disagree with the group they are protecting.

Exactly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Chemmy:
Gender differences aren't equivalent to age differences.

TO YOU. That is subjective.

I don't see why anyone should stop doing anything in the privacy of their own home, simply because some group of people don't like the idea.

I don't either.

Originally posted by nonhuman:
If the majority of America told you that they hated you for who you were and that you would spend eternity burning in hell how would you feel?

Are the majority of the Americans actually telling people this? But if they were, I would see if what they are saying had any truth to it.

I definitely agree that some people take it way too far, but I think that the reaction that many gays have is completely understandable if not justified.

I can understand why they get upset. No one wants to be told what they are doing or what they enjoy doing is wrong. People don't like feeling guilty. And we hate anyone that reminds us. I have the same problem.

It is to them. Just as my beliefs are more important to me than yours are, and yours are more important to you than someone else's.

Of course, but don't you see the hypocrisy of a group wanting another group to change their beliefs to suit theirs? They will probably call them intolerant bigots in the process too to further the hypocrisy.

if you know why it offends them then can you not relate to them even a little bit and understand why they react the way they do?

Of course I can. Like I said above. People don't like being told what they are doing is wrong. It pisses us off.

On the other hand, perhaps the founding fathers specifically intended to outlaw homosexual unions. Or maybe they specifically meant to allow them. Or maybe it never even occured to them that two men might want to marry each other. The 'intent of the founders' interpretation of the constitution can only go so far. There has to be some room for flexibility to accomodate the current situation.

It probably followed along the lines of the first. Considering sodomy was illegal at the time too I believe. As far as "flexibility" goes, should we then too just get rid of the separation of church and state? I mean it wasn't there to begin with. Lets just do away with it.

People want to get rid of parts of the constitution they don't like, and use the parts they do to further their agenda. I think when we go and tamper, we fail.

Yes, but people will try. And in my opinion, it is the duty of everyone who believes in freedom to fight such attempts no matter how much they disagree with the group they are protecting.

But that isn't likely to happen.

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

That wasn't what I was saying. SOME people will STILL find it offensive that certain churches will not recognize their relationships as being legit. This will upset some people. They will claim they aren't being treated equally.

And other people find it offensive that there can be same sex marriages civilly. They're upset and are complaining that people shouldn't be treated equally.

And let's not even get into how many people were upset about being denied equal rights during the Jim Crowe era. And how many people were upset about not being able to continue segregating blacks and whites when that all finally came crashing down.

The lesson is that you can't always please everyone. Don't worry about that so much -- instead look towards what's the right thing to do.

BTW the 1st amendment was written so Congress couldn't form a official religion for the country, and so that it couldn't make any laws governing religious affairs.

Well, and also to permit free exercise. That's about right -- and that's all those two clauses do now.

Congress shall not set up a national church. That's what it meant.

Newsflash: the 14th Amendment extends this to the states as well. And as it would be insane to prohibit Congress from doing this but permitting the judicial or executive branches to do so, it's been read for a long time as applying very broadly.

There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state. It doesn't exist. This is a fiction that has been created by courts over the last few years.

Aside from that it dates back for an amazingly long span of time (I can recall cases from the early 20th century off the top of my head and I _know_ they cited precedent going further and further back), government being unable to 'respect an establishment of religion' is the operative clause here.

It prevents the government from becoming embroiled in religious matters. Because the government cannot interfere in free exercise either, it is in the position of being safest when it avoids even thinking about religious matters. It can't discriminate either in favor of or against religion. It's not easy, but that's how it's been for a while now.

You're surely not going to make me dig up cites, I hope.

There is no turning back to the original way it was planned.

Bear in mind that the original way it was planned also included slavery and the 3/5ths compromise and not enfranchising women, or popularly electing most officials, etc.

That's why the original way it was planned permitted for us to change the government through legislative and judicial means as well as through amendments. A static unchanging Constitution would never have lasted as long as the living one has.

Christianity and religion in general will all be looked down upon as time goes by.

Well, it's done rather well over the last two millennia. I think that it is premature to foretell it's abandonment -- give it a few centuries to see what happens. After all, we would've needed that long to see if it ever caught on to begin with, as well as how various schisms would resolve themselves.

"The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Is there an actual reason why there has to be a man and a woman, or is it just tradition?

Remember: tradition isn't often a good enough reason for things. How did that quote by IIRC J. Holmes go? That a law is worthless if the best reason there is for its existence is that it dates back to Henry II? Something like that.

The NAMBLA people say the same thing. But replace gender with age.

But our morals tell us differently.

Well -- which morals, precisely. It wasn't all that long ago that the age one could get married in England was 12.

The age thing appears to lately arise out of the capacity for consent -- if children are too young to understand marriage, they oughtn't to be getting married.

But the precise age at which they could is certainly up for debate, and it's changed plenty over history. Read Romeo and Juliet sometime.

This isn't about equal rights. Homosexuals have the SAME rights as I do. They too can marry someone from the opposite sex. Just like any other person can.

That argument has been recognized as utter tripe for about 40 years.

After all, it used to be that whites and blacks had equal rights -- they could each marry someone of the same race, just like any other person could. But they couldn't marry each other.

Loving v. Virginia threw your argument in the trash before you were born. Try again.

They not only want to get married. They want to force their values on everyone. They want everyone to accept their lifestyle and values as one being normal and morally correct.

I'm sure that some people might want that, but then the opposite camp is trying to do EXACTLY the same thing.

I say let people get married, and if you think that they're moral or immoral, that's your business, but not especially relevant to what should actually be happening. No one can force other people to change their beliefs.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
And other people find it offensive that there can be same sex marriages civilly. They're upset and are complaining that people shouldn't be treated equally.

This isn't being treated equally. I can marry, so can any homosexual.

They want rights added to marriage concerning same sex partners.

Not the same as "being treated equally"

What about people who have love for say, a pet. Should they too be able to marry it and recieve benefits?

How about a person who only has love for younger people? Should we deny their God given right to Love and marry those who they choose? Of course not. We have moral laws that go against it. And people have no problems with that. For now anyhow.

Having said that, like I said before, I don't think the government should tell gays they can or cannot be married.

I know a few homosexuals in my town that are married. They didn't have to ask the goverment for permission.

Now if you are talking about the government supporting such a marriage, that is a different story.

And let's not even get into how many people were upset about being denied equal rights during the Jim Crowe era. And how many people were upset about not being able to continue segregating blacks and whites when that all finally came crashing down.

Not the same thing. While you can compare the two in certain situations, it doesn't work here.

The lesson is that you can't always please everyone. Don't worry about that so much -- instead look towards what's the right thing to do.

Right, and people have a different opinion as to what that right thing is.

Well, and also to permit free exercise. That's about right -- and that's all those two clauses do now.

No, now we also say that there has to be a complete separation between church and state. There is a difference between congress not being able to make laws hindering religious beliefs, and Congress making laws to do away with any religion in the government.

Otherwise I doubt in the passage "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

"Our Lord" wouldn't be mentioned. And when you say
""the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

You are meaning only one person.

If they were so dead set against such separation you better believe that would have been left out.

Newsflash: the 14th Amendment extends this to the states as well. And as it would be insane to prohibit Congress from doing this but permitting the judicial or executive branches to do so, it's been read for a long time as applying very broadly.

James Blaine, proposed what was called the Blaine Amendment. And the Blaine Amendment said we're going to take the entire Bill of Rights and apply it to the states. And the Blaine Amendment was voted down in Congress. Congress in those days said, "No way are you going to take the Bill of Rights and apply everything that is a restriction of the federal government and apply it to the states."

But later on, they did just that.

Aside from that it dates back for an amazingly long span of time (I can recall cases from the early 20th century off the top of my head and I _know_ they cited precedent going further and further back), government being unable to 'respect an establishment of religion' is the operative clause here.

Again, such amendment wasn't to keep religion in line. It was to keep Congress in line.

It prevents the government from becoming embroiled in religious matters.

It was to keep the government from making a official religion. That is why it was put there. That is why it was wanted there.

Because the government cannot interfere in free exercise either, it is in the position of being safest when it avoids even thinking about religious matters. It can't discriminate either in favor of or against religion. It's not easy, but that's how it's been for a while now.

You're surely not going to make me dig up cites, I hope.

Dig all you wish. It has been this way for awhile now. But that isn't how it originally was intended.

Bear in mind that the original way it was planned also included slavery and the 3/5ths compromise and not enfranchising women, or popularly electing most officials, etc.

That's why the original way it was planned permitted for us to change the government through legislative and judicial means as well as through amendments. A static unchanging Constitution would never have lasted as long as the living one has.

I never said otherwise. I am speaking about the people going on about how the founding fathers wanted it this way, and anyone trying to "change it" (It was already changed) is going against the wishes of the founding fathers. This is just total bull hockey.

The separation is just us moving towards a Godless state.

Well, it's done rather well over the last two millennia. I think that it is premature to foretell it's abandonment -- give it a few centuries to see what happens. After all, we would've needed that long to see if it ever caught on to begin with, as well as how various schisms would resolve themselves.

Yup it sure has. It will dwindle faster than it grew.

Not that there wont be people that still believe. It will be frowned upon and you'll look like a second class citizen for being religious. Much like it is in this forum today. I accept that though. It's just the sign of the times. Bad actions will be good. Good actions will be bad.
Killing babies and sodomy = good. Believing that Jesus is your savior = bad. You can see the fruits of such thoughts in this forum already. Mind you, Mac users are usually more liberal and such than the rest. Probably because of most users working in the art and entertainment industry.

Is there an actual reason why there has to be a man and a woman, or is it just tradition?

Without that, there is no marriage. Marriage by definition is man and woman. If it's man and man, then it should be called something else.

Our whole language is based on tradition.

Well -- which morals, precisely. It wasn't all that long ago that the age one could get married in England was 12.

I am speaking of the US. And you are right about England. They didn't see it as bad. But we do. Are we somehow more morally superior? Should we too adopt such a policy to fit in?

The age thing appears to lately arise out of the capacity for consent -- if children are too young to understand marriage, they oughtn't to be getting married.

But who is to say who has the capacity for consent? This all has to do with morals.

That argument has been recognized as utter tripe for about 40 years.

Recognized by people who want to see it as tripe. Recognized by people who want to paint themselves as not being treated equally, when they are.

After all, it used to be that whites and blacks had equal rights -- they could each marry someone of the same race, just like any other person could. But they couldn't marry each other.

Again not the same thing. Marriage by definition says nothing about race.

There is a difference between race and sex.

Loving v. Virginia threw your argument in the trash before you were born. Try again.

Er that is about interracial marriages. My argument wasn't about interracial marriages.
I know you like to see it as being the same, but in my eyes, and a lot of other people's eyes it is not.

I'm sure that some people might want that, but then the opposite camp is trying to do EXACTLY the same thing.

I say let people get married, and if you think that they're moral or immoral, that's your business, but not especially relevant to what should actually be happening. No one can force other people to change their beliefs.

Right

Gays should be able to get married all they want to.

But don't expect people to accept it as being legit.

Don't expect Congress to bow down.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What about people who have love for say, a pet. Should they too be able to marry it and recieve benefits?

Equating humans with animals...Zimphire, there just aren't the words to express my dismay and disgust with you.

Sad...very, very sad...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Equating humans with animals...Zimphire, there just aren't the words to express my dismay and disgust with you.

Sad...very, very sad...

My point flew over your head keekeeree.

I was showing that just because there was romantic feelings involved, that doesn't justify ANY actions coming from such feelings.

Just because I am deeply in love with <name anything here> doesn't mean I should have a right to marry <name anything here> and demand that the Government treat it just like a normal marriage.

Emotions don't justify your actions.

[Cipher13]

Well. The outcome of this thread is a real shock.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Well. The outcome of this thread is a real shock.

Hey I am agreeing gays should be able to get married. I am agreeing with them.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The separation is just us moving towards a Godless state.

Thank God.

[cpt kangarooski]

Zimphire--

They want rights added to marriage concerning same sex partners.

No, they want marriage to no longer be discriminating against same sex marriages -- right now the failure of marriage to encompass that is discriminatory. That it's long-standing discrimination does not make it right any more than that centuries of discrimination in the South made that discrimination right.

What about people who have love for say, a pet. Should they too be able to marry it and recieve benefits?

Animals can't consent to things -- they're animals. This is a moot point until we can uplift, or we find aliens or something. But to draw on a fictional example, is there some reason why Mr. Spock's parents, who were of totally different species, couldn't get married?

How about a person who only has love for younger people? Should we deny their God given right to Love and marry those who they choose? Of course not. We have moral laws that go against it. And people have no problems with that. For now anyhow.

Morality doesn't enter into it. We bar this for consent reasons again. Though of course, it depends on how young -- a 100 year old and an 18 year old can marry. With parental permission, the younger partner could be as young as 16 in many jurisdictions IIRC. A few hundred years ago, or in other cultures it might be possible for people as young as 10. Maybe younger. This one varies on what people think children are capable of.

Having said that, like I said before, I don't think the government should tell gays they can or cannot be married.

I know a few homosexuals in my town that are married. They didn't have to ask the goverment for permission.

This is true -- however their marriage may not be recognized by the government, and frankly it is indisputable that at the present time, that's an important thing, to have your marriage recognized.

No, now we also say that there has to be a complete separation between church and state. There is a difference between congress not being able to make laws hindering religious beliefs, and Congress making laws to do away with any religion in the government.

If there is religion in government, this often, though admittedly not always, seems to somehow involve government favoring, establishing, one religion over others.

Government cannot hinder religious beliefs due to the free exercise clause. But they cannot promote religious beliefs due to the establishment clause. They are two seperate clauses working towards the same overall purpose -- seperation of church and state.

Otherwise I doubt in the passage "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

"Our Lord" wouldn't be mentioned. And when you say
""the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

You are meaning only one person.

If they were so dead set against such separation you better believe that would have been left out.

You know, it's always possible that 1) they were only human and could never live up to their ideals, and 2) that we're a bit better at doing this than they were. Kind of how Jefferson spoke of natural rights of freedom, but owned slaves.

Again, such amendment wasn't to keep religion in line. It was to keep Congress in line.

It was to keep the government from making a official religion. That is why it was put there. That is why it was wanted there.

Yes -- any official religion. Such as Roy Moore's attempt to make his own brand of religion the official, or at least apparently official, religion of the Alabama Judiciary.

The separation is just us moving towards a Godless state.

Piffle. The seperation has improved religion thoroughly. England has an official religion -- it's dying out due to lack of interest though. Seperation forces our religions to maintain their own vitality, and they do. Other nations have official religions and end up with internal religious conflicts -- we tend not to, however, because of our strong 'everyone do what they like' attitudes.

A godless _government_ is fine. It'll never have any impact on the people. Whereas putting gods into government leads to faction or the failure of the attempt.

Not that there wont be people that still believe. It will be frowned upon and you'll look like a second class citizen for being religious. Much like it is in this forum today. I accept that though. It's just the sign of the times. Bad actions will be good. Good actions will be bad.
Killing babies and sodomy = good. Believing that Jesus is your savior = bad. You can see the fruits of such thoughts in this forum already. Mind you, Mac users are usually more liberal and such than the rest. Probably because of most users working in the art and entertainment industry.

At this point you're just stupidly overreacting.

Without that, there is no marriage. Marriage by definition is man and woman. If it's man and man, then it should be called something else.

Yes -- marriage, definition 2. There is a great dictionary out there called the Oxford English Dictionary. Every word listed has a lengthy entymology, showing how it changed over time to come to its present meaning; given more time, words will continue to change.

Definitional arguments forget that definitions are not static in any respect.

Again not the same thing. Marriage by definition says nothing about race.

Marriage as recognized by the laws of southern states said something about it for hundreds of years. Marriage was defined as being between persons of opposite gender and same race. There was a huge tradition behind it, and anyway, it wasn't as if mixed-race marriages were ever historically common enough so far as they knew that the definition had not been just as they said it was.

Marriage by definition _NOW_ says nothing about race. Because we forced the issue.

We can just as easily force gender out of the picture.

[calamar1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The separation is just us moving towards a Godless state.

Praise "Bob" and pass the Slack, then!

The really hilarious thing is that so many people in the country (e.g. the deposed judge in Alabama) think that this ever was intended to be a God-ful state. The fact that one of their primary arguments is based on a fallacy is great commentary on the quality of the statements which are based on that falsehood.

The original colonies started off religious, as most American middle-schoolers know. The Puritans, the Quakers, even my hometown of Plymouth. Ironically enough, Massachusetts was long the opposite of what it is now, the most conservative of the colonies. But other priorities took hold, long before the revolutionary war, and government concerned itself with practical matters of commerce, etc., seeking only to get religion the hell out of the way of them. The establishment clause is important to that, but it was probably a compromise. It's always instructive to consider the words of Thomas Jefferson when wondering about the Founding Fathers' true intent as to separation of church and state:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

and also my personal favorite:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

Godless state. Oooh, I'm scared now. Must be that damned 'wall of separation'.

[Chemmy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
TO YOU. That is subjective.

Not really. A child is easily controlled by an adult, hence the reason pedophilia is seen as an adult abusing a child.

Unless your argument is "women are easily controlled by men, due to their inexperience and na�vet�" it's not subjective at all.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What about people who have love for say, a pet. Should they too be able to marry it and recieve benefits?

This reminds of both Rick Santorum and Ellen Degeneres. Zimphire reminds me of Santorum and Degeneres had this to say (paraphrased)

Why is it conservatives always say, "once we accept homosexuality, we'll have to accept beastiality." Look, I love my dog, but I don't love my dog. I don't look over at it and think... "hmmm...". I guess it's because I see dogs and gays as different.

[benb]

Originally posted by calamar1:
Praise "Bob" and pass the Slack, then!

The really hilarious thing is that so many people in the country (e.g. the deposed judge in Alabama) think that this ever was intended to be a God-ful state. The fact that one of their primary arguments is based on a fallacy is great commentary on the quality of the statements which are based on that falsehood.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because there is no national religion that it is unlawful for the beliefs of citizens and elected officials to show in the nation.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by benb:
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because there is no national religion that it is unlawful for the beliefs of citizens and elected officials to show in the nation.

Of course it's not unlawful. Nevertheless, it is unlawful for official government action, or government officials that are acting in their official capacities, to violate the establishment OR free exercise clauses.

Moore for example, was judged to have violated the establishment clause by virtue of what he did. Had he had that statue in his front yard at home, though, people might have, or might have not liked it, but there would be nothing unlawful about it.

It's when government is seen as endorsing or is entangled with religion that problems arise.

[RodriCO2000]

This great nation of ours was founded on the principle of "All men are created equal" and; "...are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." Thats Jefferson if anyone doesn't know.

I find it extremely apalling that these simple clauses are being overlooked by our government today. Gay people should have the SAME rights as the rest of the country does. If 2 people love each other and they want to marry, then so be it. Tax benefits, Insurance, home ownership, etc. are all valid reasons for people to want to be married. Someone stated earlier that tax benefits should only be given to families that can produce a child, what about the countless straight marriages that never have or adopt kids? also if one of them is sterile and cannot have kids, they should not be allowed to marry? that is total B.S.

Comparing gay people with animals was a low blow .... come up with better arguments.

Gay people are not asking for any kind of special treatment, they want equal treatment, equal rights and the freedom to choose who they want to marry. This debates greatly reminds me of the great debate of segregation, slavery, etc. Eventually those atrocities were abolished and people are treated equally no matter what their race is.

What I don't understand, and what makes me very mad is all those people who fight to keep gay people from marrying? WHY? Why does it even matter to them? Its like as soon as gay people marry somehow that will affect THEM? people argue something with no foundation of an argument.

Zimphire: you claim that our "moral law" says gays cannot marry? Please tell me what that "moral law" is as there is no such thing,and if there is how do YOU personally claim to know what that is?? make argumetnts based on TRUTHS not merely PREFERENCES. Everyone knows that morality is relative and whatever you think is good is not necessarily a good thing for the USA. so DO NOT speak for the USA unless you have some idea of what "morality" is, get a clue!!!!


I for one am very pleased with the Court's decision in MA, it will pave the way for equal rights to all human beings, and allow us to progress as a modern culture.


Thats it!!!!!

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Captain Obvious--


You can't really have it both ways. If it's based on intent to raise children, then couples that don't so intend shouldn't get them regardless of other factors.

Given that there frankly are a lot of same sex couples that want to or do raise children (typically through adoption or by one member being the natural parent of a given child; in the future we'll probably be able to genetically engineer kids from both same sex parents), I see little practical advantage to a ban.


And besides which, equal rights kind of mean that they're equal, right?

Actually, you are wrong. If there were a tax law being created now for the very first time that gave married couples tax benefits then there might be a problem not grandfathering in gay unions. But that isn't the case.
1) Gay unions are not recognized by the federal government as marriages. 2) Marriage tax breaks as we know them now have almost no chance of being repealed.
So yeah I can have it both ways. In truth it would be really easy to write up a new tax code for gay unions to receive benefits for raising a child. It couple be piggybacked onto some sort of legislation giving similar tax breaks to people raising children not entirely their own: like grandparents, etc.
Scientific advancements would be irrelevant in terms of taxes because if the couple could afford the procedures to test tube a new baby out of their own genetics then they would be in a high enough tax bracket that they would be paying more than their fair share to the IRS.


And besides which, I am not talking about equal rights. I am talking about tax code.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by RodriCO2000:

I find it extremely apalling that these simple clauses are being overlooked by our government today. Gay people should have the SAME rights as the rest of the country does. If 2 people love each other and they want to marry, then so be it. Tax benefits, Insurance, home ownership, etc. are all valid reasons for people to want to be married. Someone stated earlier that tax benefits should only be given to families that can produce a child, what about the countless straight marriages that never have or adopt kids? also if one of them is sterile and cannot have kids, they should not be allowed to marry? that is total B.S.
.............

Gay people are not asking for any kind of special treatment, they want equal treatment, equal rights and the freedom to choose who they want to marry. This debates greatly reminds me of the great debate of segregation, slavery, etc. Eventually those atrocities were abolished and people are treated equally no matter what their race is.

**********

Thats it!!!!!

Nope not the same. First off it is not a right at all. It is a benefit extended by the federal government, one they could easily take away if the votes were there. As I mentioned before it would be impossible (politically) to take away the tax breaks from straight married couples. Those laws were MADE to give married couples a head start in saving financial assets to afford the cost of having a child. It would be impossible to determine which couples were planning on it or not. Plus many times births are not planned and the immediate relief is needed to those couples. With gay couples it is entirely different.

In their case it is entirely impossible not to have to plan it. Male gay couple's cannot have a child without the aide of a surrogate mother thus making the child related to only one of the men in the union. There would be no way for them to circumvent this at this time so they will always be stuck without pre-birth benefits. But since one person would be technically a single parent then tax breaks on that basis would be easily possible after the birth of the child.
With lesbian couples they would have the above available to them plus artificial insemination at a sperm bank. Which the cost of could be considered a tax write-off if the right code was written up.
In either case it might not be "fair" but benefits would be available to them if they could afford to have kids. The biology of how humans reproduce is not going to change so gay couples are screwed unless they had the money to afford an alternative method anyway.

Finally all these comparisons to slavery are idiotic. The two are not even remotely similar. They show your complete inability to understand the intricacies of the issue and are as asinine as bringing in religious objections to the discussion You are reacting emotionally to the topic without seeing the different tangents that arise by making this a nationally recognized institution. If you are going to even address the issue at least have the foresight to see the different aspects of how this would change things in society, the workplace, and how the law sees the situations that would inevitably come with it.

[mr. natural]

posted by captain Obvious:

I am not talking about equal rights. I am talking about tax code.

Well then, one would think that when it comes to such a battle on the federal level between the tax code and equal rights, equal rights will trump the tax code!

This country was largely founded on equal rights and not a silly tax code.

[maxelson]

Married hetero couples enjoy an additional 1042 standard benefits gay couples do not.
This number is from the GAO.
No one- and I do mean NO ONE has EVER been able to come up with any argument against that I would consider valid- or even remotely worthy of "hey, he's got a point there".

And I'm still waiting for that argument. From the Legislature or the corner office, I hear nothing but "moral" arguments (given the general tone of "politics as usual on the hill", I find these arguments both laughable and outrageous).

I am shocked and VERY pleased that Massachusetts is taking that first step. I will do everything in my power as a voter and citizen of the Commonwealth (and let's take a moment to examine THAT word, shall we) to help see that the proposed constitutional amendment fails.
As for the tax code: last I knew, gay paid the same taxes as heteros. That should be the end of the argument.
Scuse me. I am off to write letters to my reps, senators and governor.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Married hetero couples enjoy an additional 1042 standard benefits gay couples do not.
This number is from the GAO.
No one- and I do mean NO ONE has EVER been able to come up with any argument against that I would consider valid- or even remotely worthy of "hey, he's got a point there".

And what are those benefits? And I am glad you used that word because everyone here seems to be confusing benefits with rights.
Almost all of the things extended to married couples as benefits that are not available to gay couples through some sort of legal procedure are based on money. Which again I argue were made in the first place to help people afford the cost of raising children.

I can make anyone the beneficiary of my estate, I can sign over guardianship of my kids to anyone who isn't a felon, and I can give advanced directive over my medical decisions to someone with the proper paperwork. Those are the big ones I hear being argued as rights that gay couples want. And if they want to make a new classification of some sort of union that gives them those sweeping powers, fine. But the truth is that much of the push for gay marriages is just an issue of pride not legalities or rights.
Tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc., are all things that were made to defray the cost of raising a child. If gay couples can get their hands on a kid to raise then there can be tax codes to accommodate that. And insurance companies are private institutions who should be treated as such and not be forced into changing their policy unless they want to. But either way those are all BENEFITS not rights.
If something is drastically denied to them without reason the law would shape itself around it but as it stands there are ways to accomplish almost everything gay couples want without calling gay unions marriages.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Well then, one would think that when it comes to such a battle on the federal level between the tax code and equal rights, equal rights will trump the tax code!

This country was largely founded on equal rights and not a silly tax code.

Are you that dense?
Taxes aren't fair or equal. Is it fair that people who don't have kids or send their kids to private schools have to pay to support public schools? If I work really hard all my life, pay my taxes and amass a small fortune why does the government make my kids pay taxes AGAIN on that same money when I die and leave it for them. Clearly, you spend too much time in your fantasy world with your hobbits because you really don't see the thousands of unequal laws we are subjected to every day.
Oh, and technically our country was founded with the colonies revolting against British rule. In which taxes were a big catalyst in that happening.

[maxelson]

No. I disagree 100% on the agenda issue you are suggesting. It has nothing whatevedr to do with pride. It has to do with being classified and treated as a normal citizen with normal rights and benefits.
I just wrote a letter to my Governor (Romney) and suggested that ifg the only issue is with the word, well, then the easy thing to do is call it a civil union, recognized entirely by the state and all rights and benefits of a "married" couple are then bestowed upon the same sex union.

I would counter this: what is the big deal, then? I would suggest that those opposed to this ruling are not opposed as a result of "sanctity" or legal issues. It comes down to "morality" (which, in my language and concerning this issue, means it comes down to bigotry).

Someone does not like gays, homosexual unions, the whole idea of "gay" and feels that they are a sick subculture no better than criminals.

Once again- no one- not the legislature of MA, not the Gov's office, not the State itself has a valid legal reason to oppose this- and the Supreme Court recognized it.

[daimoni]

.

[cpt kangarooski]

Captain Obvious--

I can make anyone the beneficiary of my estate, I can sign over guardianship of my kids to anyone who isn't a felon, and I can give advanced directive over my medical decisions to someone with the proper paperwork. Those are the big ones I hear being argued as rights that gay couples want.

First, just because people can create wills, that doesn't mean that there are no problems with same sex spouses not being recognized for intestacy purposes. Most people die without wills, and there can always be, and often are, contests or defects in wills.

Second, AFAIK the thing involving children isn't constant -- some places recognize adoption by same sex partners of a parent, other places do not; this is a big deal.

And I'd imagine that aside from other issues such as marital privilege, there is frankly the matter of dignity; people in a marital relationship ought to be able to truthfully state that they're married and have that fact be recognized. Don't discount this one.

And if they want to make a new classification of some sort of union that gives them those sweeping powers, fine. But the truth is that much of the push for gay marriages is just an issue of pride not legalities or rights.

Does this mean that you think that the civil rights movement should have pushed for seperate but truly equal facilities, or do you think that seperate but equal is inherently and irrevocably unequal? Most people I think would hold with the latter, meaning that there cannot be any substitute for marriage; no matter how similar something else might be, it still lacks the proper cachet and can never truly be equal.

If I work really hard all my life, pay my taxes and amass a small fortune why does the government make my kids pay taxes AGAIN on that same money when I die and leave it for them.

Not unless that small fortune is a ****ing big fortune. Those taxes hardly apply to anyone; it is a mountain out of a molehill.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by maxelson:
No. I disagree 100% on the agenda issue you are suggesting. It has nothing whatevedr to do with pride. It has to do with being classified and treated as a normal citizen with normal rights and benefits.
I just wrote a letter to my Governor (Romney) and suggested that ifg the only issue is with the word, well, then the easy thing to do is call it a civil union, recognized entirely by the state and all rights and benefits of a "married" couple are then bestowed upon the same sex union.

I would counter this: what is the big deal, then? I would suggest that those opposed to this ruling are not opposed as a result of "sanctity" or legal issues. It comes down to "morality" (which, in my language and concerning this issue, means it comes down to bigotry).

Someone does not like gays, homosexual unions, the whole idea of "gay" and feels that they are a sick subculture no better than criminals.

Once again- no one- not the legislature of MA, not the Gov's office, not the State itself has a valid legal reason to oppose this- and the Supreme Court recognized it.

They are not benefits given to "normal" people they are given to future parents. If it was given to normal people then everyone would get those benefits even if they weren't married. Gay people are not being withheld the federal benefits everyone else gets they are just not being given the financial relief that was put in place to help potential parents.

Maybe some people object to this because of their morality but that is not me.

I am just saying that benefits that are given to straight married couples under the assumption that the will reproduce and have children and thus need monetary relief CAN NOT be given to gay couples until they actually have a kid. Hell, I say pass laws that make it easier for them to adopt. I'd be happy for anyone to take those kids out of the DCFS system.

Originally posted by daimoni:
Wow. I love to see you when you're feeling so insecure about the sanctity of your own bile filled worminess.

Very entertaining!

Yeah you are cool and clearly not able to formulate an argument that can even dispel anything I have said. Way to make your junior college proud.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
They are not benefits given to "normal" people they are given to future parents.

Also posted by Captain Obvious:
I am just saying that benefits that are given to straight married couples under the assumption that they will reproduce and have children and thus need monetary relief

(Emphasis mine.)

ASSUMPTION.

How about this, by your line of reasoning:
If, after 5 years, a straight couple does not have children they have their marriage revoked? Does that work by your reasoning? Seems to.

I know plenty of married couples who have no intention of bearing children. And yes, surprise, they are indeed married. Weird, huh?

Marriage, at least here in the USA, does not mean "intent to have children."

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My point flew over your head keekeeree.

I was showing that just because there was romantic feelings involved, that doesn't justify ANY actions coming from such feelings.

Just because I am deeply in love with <name anything here> doesn't mean I should have a right to marry <name anything here> and demand that the Government treat it just like a normal marriage.

Emotions don't justify your actions.

Over my head? Your kind of thinking hardly involves higher thought.

I knew exactly what you were talking about, and you simply reinforced it.

You imply that all kinds of "love" are equal. Are you telling me that the love you feel for your wife is the same love you would feel for your god or a dog?

You use words like "romantic feelings" and "in love". Those words are reserved for that wonderful emotional bond between two people. If those romantic feelings of being in love are shared between two people of the same sex, it doesn't make it any less wonderful.

You simply can't comprehend how two people of the same sex can be in love with each other. I don't hold that against you because I'm sure there are many on this board that feel the same way. That's what makes us heterosexual. But because you and I and others could never be in love with someone of the same sex doesn't make their love illegitimate. And it certainly doesn't justify you making the leap of equating their love with the love of a pet.

By doing so, you're either being small minded or you simply have no understanding of love.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
<snip>

Wow. Best post of the day, and there have been many good ones on this thread. Very, very nice refutation of Zim's typical anti-gay rhetoric.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by petehammer:
(Emphasis mine.)

ASSUMPTION.

How about this, by your line of reasoning:
If, after 5 years, a straight couple does not have children they have their marriage revoked? Does that work by your reasoning? Seems to.

I know plenty of married couples who have no intention of bearing children. And yes, surprise, they are indeed married. Weird, huh?

Marriage, at least here in the USA, does not mean "intent to have children."

Plus of course it leads to significant problems -- imagine if it had been a requirement that Abraham and Sarah had to have children. It took them a while, as I recall.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Paraphrasing Jon Stewart:

This means we'll all be foreced to marry gays, right?

No, it means we'll all be forced to redefine the word "marriage". Is it really too much to expect people to not be so flip about a change of this magnitude in such a fundamental institution? The legal protection that surrounds marriage can be dealt with through civil unions legislation. That apparently wasn't enough for the Massachusetts Supreme Court but their ruling will have profound cultural ramifications that none of us can foresee.

[Xeo]

If a civil union was the legal equivalent to a marriage, I wouldn't care if gays were allowed that. You can still get "married" at any church that accepts gays. But if that's the case, then all people should get "civil unions" as far as the state is concerned, whether they are hetero or homo couples. If the word "marriage" is the problem for all those against it, then do away with it.

Unless of course, all men and women have to pass fertility tests to get married and put in writing that they'll have children within x years.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
their ruling will have profound cultural ramifications that none of us can foresee.

Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
-Ghostbusters

[daimoni]

.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Captain Obvious--


First, just because people can create wills, that doesn't mean that there are no problems with same sex spouses not being recognized for intestacy purposes. Most people die without wills, and there can always be, and often are, contests or defects in wills.

Second, AFAIK the thing involving children isn't constant -- some places recognize adoption by same sex partners of a parent, other places do not; this is a big deal.

And I'd imagine that aside from other issues such as marital privilege, there is frankly the matter of dignity; people in a marital relationship ought to be able to truthfully state that they're married and have that fact be recognized. Don't discount this one.



Not unless that small fortune is a ****ing big fortune. Those taxes hardly apply to anyone; it is a mountain out of a molehill.

Yes true, wills are not 100% effective. But that goes for anyone's surviving spouse. And like that case in FLA with the vegi-woman ,spouses medical directives can be challenged by other family members. And blood relation parent's rights will almost always supersede the custody claims of the partner of the other parent.... happens everyday in divorce cases where one parent dies and wants to leave the kid with their spouse not their ex.

So really all we have proven is that no marriage law is completely effective for anyone and gay couples with the ability to marry would be no more secure than if they had just had the protection of the legal documentation I stated above. Just like their straight counterparts.

So really I am not trying to discount the personal importance that being gay and married may have to those people. But if they intend to use arguments about legal protection and denial of benefits (benefits put in place with a very specific intent gay couples would have to strive for inorder to qualify) in support of the right to marry then those points can be contested and alternative solutions can be found.

Originally posted by petehammer:
(Emphasis mine.)

ASSUMPTION.

How about this, by your line of reasoning:
If, after 5 years, a straight couple does not have children they have their marriage revoked? Does that work by your reasoning? Seems to.

Yes, thank you. That is why I put the word in the sentence.
It was not an oversight it was there to support my claim.
It is not my line of reasoning it is why the tax break was made.
If you could find the political support to pass that law then go for it. But I am being realistic about the reasons why the tax benefits were put in place and why it would be impossible to change them.
If you can't see that from my post maybe you can turn in your sarcasm for some ability to make logical deductions.

[maxelson]

Gay couples are potential parents. And not all married couples are potential parents, and yet, they realize the same benefits.

So. SHock of all shocks, I guess we agree. As a matter of current practicality.

Still, it ain't no matter of "legal wordings" or extending of benefits that holds this up here. For us to say so would be less than truthful, I think.

Then there are death situations, sick spouse benefits- things that we legally call "benefits", but should be rights. Should my spouse become incapacitated, I do believe I would be the default person to speak for her, make these decisions. Speaking from experience, the situation I just described becomes a nightmare for same sex couples.

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
They are not benefits given to "normal" people they are given to future parents. If it was given to normal people then everyone would get those benefits even if they weren't married. Gay people are not being withheld the federal benefits everyone else gets they are just not being given the financial relief that was put in place to help potential parents.

Maybe some people object to this because of their morality but that is not me.

I am just saying that benefits that are given to straight married couples under the assumption that the will reproduce and have children and thus need monetary relief CAN NOT be given to gay couples until they actually have a kid. Hell, I say pass laws that make it easier for them to adopt. I'd be happy for anyone to take those kids out of the DCFS system.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by petehammer:

<snip>

Petehammer going for a cheap thrill. Thankyou for the braindead response.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
No, it means we'll all be forced to redefine the word "marriage". Is it really too much to expect people to not be so flip about a change of this magnitude in such a fundamental institution? The legal protection that surrounds marriage can be dealt with through civil unions legislation. That apparently wasn't enough for the Massachusetts Supreme Court but their ruling will have profound cultural ramifications that none of us can foresee.

If this decision were based in any LEGAL matter, then NO. It would not be too much. But it isn't, so it is.

Now. The honorable thing to do here would be to simply agree, then, to civil union legislation. If it really were just the word- the definition, then screw it. I think most folks for whom the cause is legitimately a legal thing would not quiver at it. Got a problem with the "institution", well, then let's just get that legislation through as quickly as they jumped on the constitutional amendment bandwagon (which, in my view, is disgraceful. This state is a HUGE ass mess and THIS is the gavanizing topic that gets everyone pushing legislation through like sh*t through a goose? We got ed, infrastructure, fiscal and a gazillion other issues that don't get 1/4 the attention) But it isn't, is it? Let's be honest- we are talking about Homosexuality, and therein lies the issue. This is a "moral" issue. Not a legal one.
So. The supreme court issues a ruling based upon law. The legislature and Romney are not reacting to law. They are reacting to the "moral" issue of homosexuality.

It is a shame. I really had a hope that Romney would not be so backward about this.

Change your sig tune. I got a collection to maintain.

[Joshua]

Didn't see this posted here yet: Marriage Quiz. Can you pick out which comments were made about gay marriage, and which were made about interracial marriage?

[petehammer]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Petehammer going for a cheap thrill. Thankyou for the braindead response.

And thank you for the personal attack, where I had provided none.

You can tell you're hitting close to home when the defense attacks without provocation.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:
If this decision were based in any LEGAL matter, then NO. It would not be too much. But it isn't, so it is....

Not following you here. This is a Supreme Court ruling. How is it not based in any legal matter?

Now. The honorable thing to do here would be to simply agree, then, to civil union legislation...

My understanding is that Goodrich specifically rejected a civil unions option. Why, I don't know. I don't really have the time to cover this story as thoroughly as I'd like right now. Maybe over the weekend...

... If it really were just the word- the definition, then screw it.

I believe this is a distinction all the Democratic Presidential candidates have made. They are against gay marriage but for civil unions.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by petehammer:
And thank you for the personal attack, where I had provided none.

You can tell you're hitting close to home when the defense attacks without provocation.

No provocation. Riiiight.

[maxelson]

I'm sorry. Not being clear: When discussing the root of the issue, I am not referring to the Supreme COurt. If this were purely a legal issue, I don't think there would be a problem.
I am referring to the Political and Moral issues.

As for the rejection od the civil union thing, I guess I need to look more into that as well. I wasn't aware if that. I wonder why.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
No provocation. Riiiight.

A movie quote, from Ghostbusters no less? Wow, are you seriously this ultra-senstitive?