Gays Marry near New York

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
God resides outside of religion bottom line and we all fall under him like it or not.

Tracy - if I don't believe in your God, or anyone elses God, then am I above the law? Can I rape and pillage (I could use the money)?

We do NOT all fall under God - only people with Faith do.

Jeff

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by meatblanket
Jeff, that's an interesting point.

Let me ask you, though, if you think there is an argument that the right to marry a person of the same sex is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, could you not also argue that US citizens have a fundamental right to marry 10 spouses at once, or marry their own children, dead people, animals, and inanimate objects?

I'm not suggesting where the line should be drawn, but just making the observation that most folks are going to want it drawn somewhere.

Mike S.

Mike - obviously there is a line in a normal society and I do not have the answer as to where that is, however the argument being made sources the pursuit of happiness and equal treatment parts of the constitution. I think most courts look at how reasonable laws and rules are, and that is the big question. Is it reasonable for two people of the same sex to get married because they love each other?

How anyone could put up with 10 wives though is beyond me - unless they are all mutes!!!

I do think it's kinda silly to offer certain rights only to people who are married (or direct family) (especially hospital visitation, etc.) - this is really the problem here IMO.

Jeff

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by John
Deep thoughts

That rules!

[TJP]

Originally posted by 02_WHITE_TJ_X
In our pledge it still states "one nation under God" Are we? or is this a sham.

What were we before " under God" was added in 1953? Just a sham?

[Scott Hill]

MY RANT ABOUT THIS.


We are lucky enough to live in the land of the free, we have so many anti discrimination laws it would take days to read them.


SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL

if to people are in love and want to get married how about America pull its head out of its over religious A$$ and let others marry.


Priest molest boys and all kind of sick stuff happens daily so what is the deal if some people ( about half are offended ) by a marriage is o9ffencise???

I have met several couples that are offensive so what is the deal??

POP our head out of our Puritan beginnings and let gays marry this is the same fight we had with all interracial marriages in the past in fact some of the people ( I hope you are not offended ) board marriages would be illegal 50 or 100 years ago.


Well that is enough for now.



Scott


PS
why should gays not enjoy the happiness and troubles of us married people do on a daily basis.

[Bermudacat]

All we have to do to make the world a better place is worry more about what we do and less about what others do, provided they're not harming others.

[shmekelhead]

If I may ask a question about this:

What if we as a nation do allow gay marriages? What then? Do we allow multiple wives and husbands? Do we allow siblings to marry? Do we allow parents and children to marry (providing their of legal age), or not (they are their parents after all, lol)? Just were do we draw the line (if any)? Or will this go on for several decades, until our children?s generation is desensitized and accepts these too?

[Deaver]

Originally posted by Paradiddle

How anyone could put up with 10 wives though is beyond me - unless they are all mutes!!!

Jeff

And not to mention having 10 Mother's-In-Law

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by shmekelhead
If I may ask a question about this:

What if we as a nation do allow gay marriages? What then? Do we allow multiple wives and husbands? Do we allow siblings to marry? Do we allow parents and children to marry (providing their of legal age), or not (they are their parents after all, lol)? Just were do we draw the line (if any)? Or will this go on for several decades, until our children?s generation is desensitized and accepts these too?

Now that you ask, I'd rather see two guys wind up in a marriage than a father marry his daughter.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by shmekelhead
If I may ask a question about this:

What if we as a nation do allow gay marriages? What then? Do we allow multiple wives and husbands? Do we allow siblings to marry? Do we allow parents and children to marry (providing their of legal age), or not (they are their parents after all, lol)? Just were do we draw the line (if any)? Or will this go on for several decades, until our children?s generation is desensitized and accepts these too?

Here's the thing, this slippery slope argument that keeps popping up is bunk. I mean, why even start down the slippery slope? Ban heterosexual marriage not had for procreation. You're condemning those kinds of relationships because in the most ideal sense, they're based on love and friendship alone. That's pretty strong.

In addition, linking an acceptance of homosexual marriage to eventual acceptance of incest and pedophilia is nothing short of maliciously ignorant. This is similar to a type of argument folks use against homosexual adopters (the implication that they will all sexually abuse their adopted children), when the truth is that there are likely an equal or higher percentage of heterosexual adopters sexually abusing their adopted children. It's just ignorant about what these types of relationships and legal contracts are really about.

[DanB98TJ]

[Paradiddle]

On the Oscars last night Robin Williams and Billy Crystal held hands while Robin said "look - we're a San Franscisco Wedding Cake"

It was very funny.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
Here's the thing, this slippery slope argument that keeps popping up is bunk. I mean, why even start down the slippery slope? Ban heterosexual marriage not had for procreation. You're condemning those kinds of relationships because in the most ideal sense, they're based on love and friendship alone. That's pretty strong.

In addition, linking an acceptance of homosexual marriage to eventual acceptance of incest and pedophilia is nothing short of maliciously ignorant. This is similar to a type of argument folks use against homosexual adopters (the implication that they will all sexually abuse their adopted children), when the truth is that there are likely an equal or higher percentage of heterosexual adopters sexually abusing their adopted children. It's just ignorant about what these types of relationships and legal contracts are really about.

I think you are slightly inverted with your slippery slope stuff there, Rick. I do see it as a slippery slope. I just think it's one that we are steadily working our way up instead of sliding down.

I don't see women voting as a bad thing, we are a country based on all being created equal, are we not? I forget though, did it say equal only as long as we all believe in the same God or was that qualifier left out? Equal as long as we only get married to glorify a deity or equal as long as we get married to procreate?

In reality, the percentage of children abused is going to be much higher amongst hetero marriages. I don't recall the exact percentage, but the last research I did related that the overwhelming majority of abuse stemmed from "family", not adopted, but blood family.

A similar statistic to the one that most murders are committed by someone the victim knows intimately.

You could make a strong case that adopted children to gay couples are much less likely statistically to be abused.

[mnjeeper]

At least they won't have to sin by having premarital sex. They just have to worry about the type of sex now.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by mrblaine
I think you are slightly inverted with your slippery slope stuff there, Rick. I do see it as a slippery slope. I just think it's one that we are steadily working our way up instead of sliding down.

I don't see women voting as a bad thing, we are a country based on all being created equal, are we not? I forget though, did it say equal only as long as we all believe in the same God or was that qualifier left out? Equal as long as we only get married to glorify a deity or equal as long as we get married to procreate?

In reality, the percentage of children abused is going to be much higher amongst hetero marriages. I don't recall the exact percentage, but the last research I did related that the overwhelming majority of abuse stemmed from "family", not adopted, but blood family.

A similar statistic to the one that most murders are committed by someone the victim knows intimately.

You could make a strong case that adopted children to gay couples are much less likely statistically to be abused.

Agreed on all points. As an addendum, when I said "there are likely an equal or higher percentage of heterosexual adopters sexually abusing their adopted children", I say that understanding that the percentages involved are much closer to zero, than cases involving non-adopted children.

[meatblanket]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
Here's the thing, this slippery slope argument that keeps popping up is bunk. I mean, why even start down the slippery slope? Ban heterosexual marriage not had for procreation. You're condemning those kinds of relationships because in the most ideal sense, they're based on love and friendship alone. That's pretty strong.

In addition, linking an acceptance of homosexual marriage to eventual acceptance of incest and pedophilia is nothing short of maliciously ignorant. This is similar to a type of argument folks use against homosexual adopters (the implication that they will all sexually abuse their adopted children), when the truth is that there are likely an equal or higher percentage of heterosexual adopters sexually abusing their adopted children. It's just ignorant about what these types of relationships and legal contracts are really about.

\

I didn't view the post as a "slippery slope" argument. Rather, it is an opportunity for those in favor of allowing homosexual marriages to make logical distinctions between homosexual marriages and other forms of "marriage" which are almost universally condemned by society.

One observation I have that no one seems concerned about is why we allow all of this discrimination against single people. If we are going to try to end unfair discrimination, then why not allow the chronically single to form mutually advantageous civil unions, which the government must recognize as legitimate?

Seems logical to me, and fair to everyone, eh?

Mike S.

[mrblaine]

Originally posted by meatblanket
\

I didn't view the post as a "slippery slope" argument. Rather, it is an opportunity for those in favor of allowing homosexual marriages to make logical distinctions between homosexual marriages and other forms of "marriage" which are almost universally condemned by society.

I see now where all of our arguements in this discussion have gone awry.

I am not in favor of homosexual marriages. Therein lies the issue. Detractors being blinded by bigotry can not separate the target of their bigotry from the issue of equality. They have pronounced judgement upon a class of citizen and in doing so have also ascertained them to be not equal, therefore second class.

That is my issue. I do not want to wake up tomorrow morning and find myself the victim of someone else's judgement who just happens to hate denim.

Look past the bigotry for a moment and be careful of exactly what you are wishing for and the precedent you will be setting.

Do you really want to live in a country where we as a group will let our government define a group of our citizens as not equal and therefore limited in their rights under the constitution?

Before you answer, think carefully. Be aware that I am one of those folks that see couples with children daily that are clearly an annoyance and inconvenience to their lifestyle. Where is the fairness in that? Not a rare instance either. Just because you can procreate does not mean you should.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by meatblanket
\

I didn't view the post as a "slippery slope" argument. Rather, it is an opportunity for those in favor of allowing homosexual marriages to make logical distinctions between homosexual marriages and other forms of "marriage" which are almost universally condemned by society.

I disagree, and further pose the question, did anyone really try to come up with these so called logical distinctions when heterosexuals began marrying for reasons other than procreation (whenever that was)? If not, then to me this present inquisition seems hypocritical. In addition, the implication that because I would be in favor of homosexual marriage licenses, I am that much more likely to endorse criminal behavior including pedophilia and incest, is personally offensive to me.

One observation I have that no one seems concerned about is why we allow all of this discrimination against single people. If we are going to try to end unfair discrimination, then why not allow the chronically single to form mutually advantageous civil unions, which the government must recognize as legitimate?

Mike, I don't see anything stopping the chronically single from marrying, unless they want to marry someone of the same sex. There's no law that says you must consummate to get the marriage license, much less even touch or look at the other person.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by Joe Dillard
"Now I'm normal and equal like every one else," he said.

I don't know about the normal part but equal is fine

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by mrblaine
That is my issue. I do not want to wake up tomorrow morning and find myself the victim of someone else's judgement who just happens to hate denim.

The single best quote in this whole thread!

[Scott Hill]

Originally posted by mrblaine
I do not want to wake up tomorrow morning and find myself the victim of someone else's judgement who just happens to hate denim.

You would hve to be a nudist



Scott

[Robert J. Yates]

Just a few observations on this doscussion:

I always wonder why folks drag the bible into it - as if one sentence contained in Leviticus and taken out of context is the only support needed in order to be right. Leviticus also happens to say amongst many other things, that owning slaves is ok but we don't do that anymore do we? Should we now, all be smited by God for having laws against it? I think not and I think folks who want to use that argument need to re-read their bible, including the New Testament and then re-examine their own lives.

Regarding single folks - I think that is probably the closest we have to the wedge issue in this debate as it clearly defines what a fair chunk of it is about - the conferrence of societal privledges. Singles are very definately discriminated against in the tax code but they are still able to craft legal agreements with regard to medical powers of attorney, wills and the like. I wonder if there are in fact ways for Gays to craft these same arrangmernts? I don't know the answer to that.

Yes, in some ways this is about money and frankly, I see that as the root of many of our other "crossroads issues". Illegal immigration for instance is another one that immediately comes to mind. Maybe what really needs to happen is that the income tax and its associated code needs to be junked and we go to a VAT, or sales tax method of collection. That will remove the issue of preference, ie the redistribution of benefits and once that happens, i think most folks will no longer care what others do as it no longer wil affect them in the pocket book.

[meatblanket]

Originally posted by mrblaine
I see now where all of our arguements in this discussion have gone awry.

I am not in favor of homosexual marriages. Therein lies the issue. Detractors being blinded by bigotry can not separate the target of their bigotry from the issue of equality. They have pronounced judgement upon a class of citizen and in doing so have also ascertained them to be not equal, therefore second class.

That is my issue. I do not want to wake up tomorrow morning and find myself the victim of someone else's judgement who just happens to hate denim.

Look past the bigotry for a moment and be careful of exactly what you are wishing for and the precedent you will be setting.

Do you really want to live in a country where we as a group will let our government define a group of our citizens as not equal and therefore limited in their rights under the constitution?

Before you answer, think carefully. Be aware that I am one of those folks that see couples with children daily that are clearly an annoyance and inconvenience to their lifestyle. Where is the fairness in that? Not a rare instance either. Just because you can procreate does not mean you should.

I understand perfectly what you are saying. Where do we disagree?

I'm looking for a logical distinction between homosexual marriage and other types of marriage that cannot result in procreation. In my view, civil unions of homosexuals should be recognized by the government just as heterosexual marriages are. However, if we must recognize civil unions between persons of the same sex, there will be other groups who will want recognition of there civil unions as well, maybe multiple spouses, close relatives, etc. My observation is that there is no logical reason for allowing recognition of a homosexual civil union and then condemning me for forming such a union with my brother or sister, if I happen to want to do that.

BTW, on the issue of procreation, maybe that's deserving of another thread-- concerning why our government subsidizes it, when the world is clearly not in need of continued exponential population growth.

Mike S.

[meatblanket]

Originally posted by Rick Bernotas
I disagree, and further pose the question, did anyone really try to come up with these so called logical distinctions when heterosexuals began marrying for reasons other than procreation (whenever that was)? If not, then to me this present inquisition seems hypocritical. In addition, the implication that because I would be in favor of homosexual marriage licenses, I am that much more likely to endorse criminal behavior including pedophilia and incest, is personally offensive to me.



Mike, I don't see anything stopping the chronically single from marrying, unless they want to marry someone of the same sex. There's no law that says you must consummate to get the marriage license, much less even touch or look at the other person.

Rick, just two points. First, homosexual activity is still "criminal activity" in many States.

Second, I'm not in favor of pedophilia or incest. But if a person can form a civil union with a person of the same sex, why can't I form such a civil union with my brother? Next thing you'll tell me is that you don't like denim either..........

Mike S.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by meatblanket
Rick, just two points. First, homosexual activity is still "criminal activity" in many States.

Second, I'm not in favor of pedophilia or incest. But if a person can form a civil union with a person of the same sex, why can't I form such a civil union with my brother? Next thing you'll tell me is that you don't like denim either..........

Mike S.

Mike,

I think you are misinterpreting the point I am trying to make about the manner in which folks go about trying to restrict others' civil liberties.

Rick

[William]

Can I make this simple for everyone here? Let's ask the question:

Can anyone here make a strong, valid, LEGAL, (that is NOT MORAL) case against the marriage of two people of the same sex? (Legal age, etc already met).

[Robert J. Yates]

nothing like boiling down the argument for us morons huh William

[Cement_guy]

Originally posted by William
Can I make this simple for everyone here? Let's ask the question:

Can anyone here make a strong, valid, LEGAL, (that is NOT MORAL) case against the marriage of two people of the same sex? (Legal age, etc already met).

Yes!! Marriaige voilates separation of church and state, wheter it's hetro or otherwise!!!

[William]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates
nothing like boiling down the argument for us morons huh William

I'm boiling soup right now. You've got to soften the noodles before you feed, you know?

It's what I had to do for my own opinion, I'm just as much a moron as the next guy. Perhpas, more so in some cases.

Really, I've decided to live by example, rather than tell people how to be. 'Cause many a rule I believe in, I break myself, so, I won't preach. So, by example, I married a women (and that's been checked several times over), and thus, I've made my example. It's a good life, to be sure, and I would recommend it. As for other forms of companionship, I won't recommend them, or dis recommend them, as, I have no experience in that manner. Now, if others don't want to take my example, so be it.

[meatblanket]

Rick, I understand your point. I had posed the question earlier in the thread about where is the logical place to draw the line of which civil unions should be recognized by the government and which, if any, should not be.

Someone else came along and said basically the same thing, then you tagged it as a "slippery slope" argument. I agree with your observation that illogical folks will sometimes use the slippery slope and the false analogy to scare others into agreeing with them.

Mike S.