Bush is dumb. (Gay Marriages)

[Drew2]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.marriage.reacts/index.html


I'm so fucking pissed at this country right now...

Stray... you got room for another in that house?

I swear to fucking god.
al'skjdfgakl;sdiogjk

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Tayre]

[i remember halloween]

whats wrong?

[Bobmuhthol]

Something Bush and I agree on.

Finally.

[Drew2]

Could someone who's not dumb and/or too young to know what the fuck they're talking about comment

[i remember halloween]

how about you establish a position yourself instead of just leaving us to assume what you mean?

[Ravenstorm]

Yes, Tayre. It's a travesty. And hopefully, it will be the nail in his coffin come election day. Even a fair number of conservative groups are against an amendment.

Raven

[i remember halloween]

there is no way this is the nail in the coffin. what gay people/gay rights people would A. vote for bush in the first place or B. care enough to have their voted changed? answer: zero. this is ineffectual.

It will never go through. heh

[Siefer]

Homosexuality is wrong. Gays have no place in this country. I'm voting for Bush, specifically because of this issue.

[Hulkein]

I'm all for the move. Let it be known that John Kerry shares the same viewpoint on this issue as Cheney, so anyone who votes for Kerry because of this issue is a hypocrite.

Edit- It's not like the ammendment is saying BEING GAY IS ILLEGAL. It is just preserving the sanctity of marriage.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I disagree with Bush on this issue.

That being said, good for him for speaking his mind, even if its unpopular.

[Hulkein]

Believe it or not Protestants were more opposed to gays not only allowed to BE gay, but even moreso marrying (well over 50%) then Catholics, so check your research before you make a blanket statement asshole.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Latrinsorm]

Jon Stewart (humorously) (or, for Tayre's new digs, humourouslyu) compared this amendment to the Prohibition one. Go back in time a half hour and watch, it really is funny.

edit: Soulpieced sucks.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[Glavenfyre]

Personally I don't care what your sexuality is if you don't bother me with it. That being said I don't believe homosexuals should be allowed to raise children or receive the same benefits as a married couple.

[Ravenstorm]

Several conservative groups have said outright that they will not support tampering with the Constitution. Log Cabin Republicans (that's the gay ones) have taken it as a declaration of war. It can easily throw moderate support against Bush. One can hope at least.

As for Kerry, he is against tampering with the Constitution despite being against gay marriage. Bush has contradicted himself numberous times about what he will support. One day he's against civil unions, now he wouldn't ban them. Until he will again.

Re: the sanctity of marriage? What a joke. Like Britney Spears deserves to get married but two people committed to each other for twenty years don't? And then there are the religious fanatics going on about how homosexuals are sinful for being licenscious and promiscuous and then turn around and refuse to let them marry!

Personally, I'm happy to see him commit to this. It's a strong issue to rally people against him and the Constitution is sacrosanct to many people. He's backed by the far right but this country isn't run by them.

Raven

[Miss X]

Originally posted by Siefer
Homosexuality is wrong. Gays have no place in this country. I'm voting for Bush, specifically because of this issue.

Oh my God. Hello Siefer, this is the 21st century calling....

[Hulkein]

What Britney Spears did is a joke Raven, but it doesn't change the fact that Marriage is sacred. Unfortunatly it is impossible to set a law to stop an airhead singer from getting married as a publicity stunt. That doesn't however mean that many people don't hold marriage in a certain manner.

[TheEschaton]

What Britney Spears did is a joke Raven, but it doesn't change the fact that Marriage is sacred. Unfortunatly it is impossible to set a law to stop an airhead singer from getting married as a publicity stunt. That doesn't however mean that many people don't hold marriage in a certain manner.

How can you argue marriage is sacrosanct when more than half of them fail?

And how do you know gay people can't hold a marriage between themselves as sacred?

It reeks of hypocrisy/stupidity.

As Jon Stewart said (props to Latrin for getting it out before me), "I don't know how much people like to gay marry as much as they like to drink....but I, for one, don't want to see this country controlled in mob-controlled gay-easies."

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
How can you argue marriage is sacrosanct when more than half of them fail?

How can you be a Christian and have the philosophy that 'oh well some people can't get it right, let's give up on it.' It's a Sacrament, that's how I can argue it. I take it seriously.

I don't care if gays get licenses that enable them to the same rights, but it's not a marriage so don't call it something it's not.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Snapp]

Marriage is sacred? :lol: Have you watched TV lately? All those television shows where marriage is a total joke and they marry whoever lasts in the game the longest? Please... I'm with Raven, I'm glad he spoke out like this, I hope it gets him out of office.

[TheEschaton]

I don't care if gays get licenses that enable them to the same rights, but it's not a marriage so don't call it something it's not.

Wrong. It's not a Christian marriage.

But that's not what they're asking for. They're simply asking for the word marriage, and that word should be separate from any religious conotation other than the ones applied to it by the people within their own marriage. Namely, if I marry a Christian girl, and I'm Christian, I hold marriage to be a Christian one. If two Muslims marry, theirs is an Islamic marriage. Etc, and so forth.

It's the symbol behind the word itself - the intertwining of two people, to be dedicated to each other tirelessly. You know what a civil union is? That's the merging of two properties, basically. It's a legal term - people just want the symbolic term for it.

If gay people were demanding that the churches marry them - then the churches would have a right to say no. As it is, these people are not being asked to be married in the church - so the church HAS NO FUCKING SAY.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

I'm pretty sure Clinton signed something in his term affirming that a marriage is defined as being a man and woman, so it's not just the Church.

[Scott]

I don't agree with Bush in the matter. I personally don't care who gets married, it's not my problem and it doesn't effect me. If two people of the same sex want to get married, who am I to say no? It's their choice, go ahead.

That said, I'll still vote for Bush....

[TheEschaton]

And your argument reeks of a very non-Christian attitude.


You know what modern, LaVeyian Satanism is based on? Individualism, personal gain, conformity to one's own views - I've always pondered a book on how this country claims to be a Christian nation - but it doesn't follow the major tenets of Christianity, and yet, somehow, manages to follow all the major tenets of Satanism. Anton LaVey must be rolling with glee in his grave.

What's that golden rule again? This country must hate its collective self, because we ain't treatin' our neighbors right, by any means.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Was I hearing things when I saw the speech or did Clinton sign something affirming marriage was between a man and a woman, thus disproving your entire argument? Yes or no answer please.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[TheEschaton]

Wait a minute, who said we backed Clinton again?


Oh yeah, the right said we love Clinton. But the fact of the matter is, even if he did sign such a thing, he never advocated a Constitutional Amendment to do it.

As the venerable Jon Stewart pointed out, if this were to pass, this would only be the second amendment to actually restrict our rights, as opposed to expanding them.

The first one being Prohibition.
Which had to be repealed.

Edited to add: Namely, Bill Clinton had as little right to do so, as George Bush. I'd like the proof of it though, just to be sure.

-TheE-

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by TheEschaton]

[Hulkein]

Actually, here's the answer - "Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

It's not a question of backing Clinton, it's a question of backing the United States Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches.

Let's do a summary of our debate E.

Me - I don't care if gays get licenses that enable them to the same rights, but it's not a marriage so don't call it something it's not.

TheE - Wrong. It's not a Christian marriage.


You're wrong. Marriage is defined by the government as a union between a man and a women.

You can argue that it shouldn't have been signed all you want, but under the current GOVERNMENT (yes, government, not CHURCH) marriage licenses should not be given out to gays.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[TheEschaton]

And like I said in my previous post - the gov't has no right to define marriage as per religious definitions.

-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

Actually, it's not just the word.

There are - from what I have been told - over one thousand legal rights that automatically go along with being married. You get married, all things things apply instantly.

Any law about a civil union would basically have to spell out every single benefit individually to give the same equal rights. That's why 'marriage' is so important instead of just civil unions. It has nothing to do with religious marriage however but purely legal, civil, matters.

Raven

[Hulkein]

It's not a religious definition. Just because a Religion had the belief first doesn't mean it is and always will be a religious definition. It's a fact, it is what marriage is.

[Scott]

You're supporting a lost cause. It's only a matter of time before Gay marriages are allowed. Sign all the amendments, laws, etc. you want. They'll all be declared unconstitutional sometime in the future. The goverment has no right to declare who is allowed and not allowed to be married. Everyone should have equal rights. Blacks, whites, hispanic's, and homosexuals.

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hulkein
It's not a religious definition. Just because a Religion had the belief first doesn't mean it is and always will be a religious definition. It's a fact, it is what marriage is.

It's a fact that alcohol was illegal to own. Is it now?

[Hulkein]

Sintik, you're trying to argue a point as if future legal proceedings had already taken place and won. Under the current laws, Bush has EVERY right to do what he is doing. End of story.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
What Britney Spears did is a joke Raven, but it doesn't change the fact that Marriage is sacred. Unfortunatly it is impossible to set a law to stop an airhead singer from getting married as a publicity stunt. That doesn't however mean that many people don't hold marriage in a certain manner.


It's a Sacrament, that's how I can argue it.

If you would just step back a moment and think about what you said here the hypocrisy of it would become clear.

You hold it as a sacrament, as sacred, yet you will not stop even the most inane abuse of this "sacred" institution by someone like Britney, or shows like The Bachelor. You want to keep all the options open for you to enter such an institution all the while keeping the ability to get a divorce should things turn out badly.

Quicky marriage chapels in Vegas , quicky divorces, all of this are allowed because people would not allow even the slightest bit of encroachment on their "rights" to wed or to decide that things just no longer work in thier marriage.

All of this is acceptable, but gays being able to marry would ruin the sanctity of this sacrament?

Please.

[Hulkein]

Not just a sacrament, but under the law. Read up the newest posts dear.

[Skirmisher]

I'm not your dear and my post stands Frankie.

[Ravenstorm]

No one is saying what Bush is doing isn't legal. Whether it's right is under debate. And the DOMA law that Clinton signed into law can be declared unconstitutional which is what Bush wants to prevent.

I wonder if he'd be calling them 'activist judges' if they wanted to overturn Roe vs Wade. Who am I kidding? Of course he wouldn't.

Raven

[Scott]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Sintik, you're trying to argue a point as if future legal proceedings had already taken place and won. Under the current laws, Bush has EVERY right to do what he is doing. End of story.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

Sure he is allowed to do it, but it doesn't make it right. Just because you have a right to do it right now doesn't mean that it's wrong and unconstitutional. Any law prohibiting marriage between two partners is unconstitutional.

[TheEschaton]

If you've read the law, it was enacted so that states wouldn't be forced to accept Hawaii's ruling that gays were allowed to marry back in, what, 95?

It's one of those Catch-22s. Don't agree to it, and you're "against state rights". Agree to it, and you have agreed to legally discriminate against a group of people.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Ok, if your post stands then your logic sucks. And whoever shares the same logic of Skirmisher has a quitter mentality. Your logic is 'Well the situation is bad, GIVE UP ALL PRECONCEIVED BELIEFS AND JUST LET WHATEVER HAPPENS HAPPENS BECAUSE HEY, IT'S NOT PERFECT.' Please, this. I hold something sacred, I don't care if some Fox execs make a TV show about it, that doesn't change anything for me.

What it comes down to is this, and Raven, you've agreed.

Is it legal? <<No one is saying what Bush is doing isn't legal>> The answer is yes.

Is it right? Well, that's where peoples personal beliefs come in. Will be interesting to see how the country feels in upcoming polls.

That's all that has to be said on my part, good night.

[Scott]

Techniqually it isn't legal. To infringe on a United States CITIZEN'S rights is illegal. Which blocking someone from being married is doing. Would it be illegal to make it so a black man and white woman could not get married?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
All of this is acceptable, but gays being able to marry would ruin the sanctity of this sacrament?Divorces aren't Catholic-legal. You can get an annulment (in a pig's eye) but a judge saying "Ok, you're divorced" doesn't hold water in Il Papa's eyes. :)

Does anyone remember how long Prohibition lasted? It was like 5 years, right? With computers nowadays, everything's like 10 times faster. So even if Bush somehow gets this amendment written, it'll be gone in 6 months. Not so bad, eh?

[TheEschaton]

I hold something sacred, I don't care if some Fox execs make a TV show about it, that doesn't change anything for me.

And I agree. I would never be married on TV or go on the Bachelorette, or any such thing, because I hold marriage sacred. But again, how can you not say the partnership of two people of the same sex can't be sacred? God made everything good, right? And kids start displaying their sexuality at the age of two, right? So, if God made homosexuality....that's saying homosexuality can be, and sometimes is sacred.

Just like heterosexuality can be, and is sometimes sacred.

Namely, you have no right to say what is sacred to me. Hell, this country allows Santarians to sacrifice animals, because they believe it is sacred. You or I might find this foul, but it is their view on sacredness (as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others) that counts.

And gay marriage does not infringe on your rights.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

You can get an annulment (in a pig's eye) but a judge saying "Ok, you're divorced" doesn't hold water in Il Papa's eyes.

I believe Britney got an annulment. For what reason? Who knows - I personally thought you needed a good one, other than "I was drunk".

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
I believe Britney got an annulment.If you're right, then I quit Catholicism. I knew the Pope had a thing for blondes, but this is ridiculous.

I wish I could name thread titles as well as Tayre, btw. I don't think he gets enough props.

[TheEschaton]

I don't know if Britney is Catholic, but I believe she got her church's equivalent to an annulment.

-TheE-

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein

... I hold something sacred, I don't care if some Fox execs make a TV show about it,
...



And yet the very concept of two adult people that have had a long and loving relationship wanting to actually enter into a marriage is more offensive to you than two drunks in vegas or some bimbo and a manwhore from fox getting hitched for ratings.

If you really thought it was sacred and was not simply reacting to the gay aspect you would be running to sign some sort of amendment to stop people from abusing this thing you claim to hold so sacred.

But in fact, you and many others like you want to have the right to marry when and who you wish, divorce when you wish but to withhold those same rights from gays and lesbians.

[Scott]

I think this was the greatest quote out of that article.

"Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts issued a statement saying Bush would "go down in history as the first president to try to write discrimination back into the Constitution."

Still, Bush will be my vote come election day.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Divorces aren't Catholic-legal. You can get an annulment (in a pig's eye) but a judge saying "Ok, you're divorced" doesn't hold water in Il Papa's eyes. :)



(Please do not take the following as directed at you personaly but instead meant as a general you.)

Clearly so, however how often when someone meets someone and they say they are married do you press for the manner of the wedding? Do you press them to find if they were first divorced and then remarried? If so, do you inform them that they are not "really" married? Likely not.

This is the problem in mixing religion with civil matters and forcing one group into using civil unions while allowing others to be married. It is just like having different drinking fountains and even employs the same bizarre logic. The whole seperate but equal thing was tried already and failed.

[Siefer]

Originally posted by Miss X

Originally posted by Siefer
Homosexuality is wrong. Gays have no place in this country. I'm voting for Bush, specifically because of this issue.

Oh my God. Hello Siefer, this is the 21st century calling....

No. Just no. I refuse to believe that time makes it right.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Siefer
No. Just no. I refuse to believe that time makes it right.


Time makes what right? The fact that homosexuals exist? That your kid could be one? Your sibling? Get with it already.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Siefer

Originally posted by Miss X
Oh my God. Hello Siefer, this is the 21st century calling....

No. Just no. I refuse to believe that time makes it right.

How about instead showing why its wrong. Not that I think you of all people capable of such a task, but it would be amusing to see you try.

[Ravenstorm]

The most amusing/pathetic thing about this is the hypocrisy...

How quick they would all holler if it were them being discriminated against or if someone else's moral were being pushed on them.

Imagine if all the evangelical Christians were required to attend service skyclad. Or how about if everyone in the US was forced to bow three times a day facing Mecca? Or if the prohibition against idolatry /included/ crufixes and images of Jesus.

Oh, how they would all shout and yell and scream discrimination and hatred was being directed against them. But when they do it to others it's all fine. Fucking hypocrites.

Raven

[Siefer]

It's wrong because I say it is. Also, its wrong because if it were to happen 100 years ago, the people in question would be committed. And Skirmisher, you can take your "Of all people" comment and put it up your ass, along with your gay lovers cock.

[Warriorbird]

Ironically enough there's a fair number of gay Republicans. Funny to see how badly they get dumped on.

Siefer, its a known fact that people from the hellenistic time period openly practiced and even esteemed homosexual practices. What happened in the past has little bearing on the social consciousness of today.

[Ravenstorm]

Skirmisher is in fact female and is not in possession of any gay lover's cock. You might think it strange but there are people who aren't gay who are in fact against an amdendent.

And yes, Log Cabin Republicans are the main group of gay Republicans. Needless to say, they're feeling rather betrayed now. The right wing religious groups are taking over the Republican party, leaving those who believe in the political and economic aspect of Republicanism in the dirt. Or so I have heard some Republicans bemoan. I do actually know a couple.

Raven

[Tendarian]

How many gay republicans are there really? Seriously i bet it has to be less than 10% of the gay population. All the polls ive seen have been against gay marriage by a decent amount even. Somewhere in the 58-60% area dont want it. The mayor of SF is breaking the law marrying gay people. Can he even legally wed a man and a woman?

I think Bush is doing the right thing as long as he pushes as hard for civil unions. Seperate but equal hasnt worked in the past i admit. But a man and a woman devoting their lives together and a man and a man or a woman and a woman devoting their lives are different. My analagy would be an illegal U turn ticket and a speeding ticket are both traffic violations,but calling them both speeding tickets would be silly.

So since rogue judges are going againt the will of the people, i dont think he is in the wrong for trying to stop them. You can say anything is restricting freedom really. Like why is alcohol legal and marijuana not? They are restricting my freedom! Why do i have to wear a seat belt! Damn them.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Siefer
It's wrong because I say it is.
Wow! Well thats good enough for me, I'm convinced. Please have mercy and turn your immeasurable debating skills elsewhere as you have beaten me into submission with that frightening display.


Also, its wrong because if it were to happen 100 years ago, the people in question would be committed.

Well its true of course that we obey all laws and norms from the world as it was 100 years ago as well. Thank you for reminding me.

Truly a stagerring intellect you posess.

And Skirmisher, you can take your "Of all people" comment and put it up your ass, along with your gay lovers cock.

Assuming of course I have a gay lover with me, she would need a strap on for such a feat, but i'll pass your suggestion on.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tendarian

So since rogue judges are going againt the will of the people, i dont think he is in the wrong for trying to stop them.

The 'rogue judges' argument is such a crock. Tell me, if the same judges wanted to overturn Roe vs Wade, would they be rogue? Were there rogue judges and rogue politicians involved in forcing integration on a significant part of the country despite what they wanted?

These 'rogue judges' have said that not ony is 'seperate but equal' unconstitutional but 'seperate an inequal' certainly is. It sounds to me like they're doing their job. If Bush /really/ wanted to do what's right, he could take the issue to the US Supreme Court to decide. But he knows that if they did their job, they too would rule it unconsctitutional. That's why the Constitution has to be changed. To make sure what is right never happens.

Raven

edited to add:

And it's 'right' because I said so. if Seifer can do it...

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Tendarian]

You would be right Raven except that your analagy is only correct if "rogue judges" actually started convicting women of murder for having an abortion. The people of CA voted and had their say(i think prop 22) and they said marriage was a man and a woman. The will of the people should be heard here. If you disagree you should be trying to persuade them instead of just breaking the law.

[Tendarian]

One other thing id like to say is one can be against gay marriage and not be againt gay people. If anyone tried to pass a law saying it was illegal for two men to be together,or women id be pissed and do something to voice my opinion. I have no ill will toward anyone because they are gay.

[Ravenstorm]

No law was broken in Mass. and yet Bush is against what's ahppening there too.

And you didn't respond to the integration issue. Or about taking the entire question to the US Supreme Court.

Since you asked, I looked up the Log Cabin's web page. They don't have any numbers though. Pity. I was curious. They're statement regarding this is interesting if anyone's interested in reading it.

http://www.lcr.org/press/20040224.asp



If anyone tried to pass a law saying it was illegal for two men to be together,or women id be pissed and do something to voice my opinion."

They're called sodomy laws and some states are /still/ trying to get them put back on the books after Lawrence vs Texas declared them all unconstitutional. That judge Pryor Bush put on the bench wrote against that decision. They're the same people as who are pushing this.

Raven

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Tendarian]

Forced integration was at the end of a long road. They didnt do it right away,they went through the proper channels. There is a reason Martin Luther King Jr is looked upon so highly not?

Taking the question to the supreme court would be a good idea instead of what they are doing. It goes along with the proper channels and ways of doing things the right way. If they decieded it was unconstitutional then so be it. Id disagree but those judges are there for a reason,to make tough decisions.

As for the gay republicans,just think how many gay people you know? I assume more than me :) Now ask them and see how many are republican. I live in central MN and know ONE whole person in real life that is gay or lesbian. Im sure i know others,i just dont know they are gay. She being my sister,i happen to know for a fact she is liberal.

[Tendarian]

They're called sodomy laws and some states are /still/ trying to get them put back on the books after Lawrence vs Texas declared them all unconstitutional. That judge Pryor Bush put on the bench wrote against that decision. They're the same people as who are pushing this.

Raven

Haha i cant belive that. If thats true there are people trying put back old sodomy laws thats just sad. They belong on those websites of obscurely funny laws now a days.

[Shari]

Okay, I wasn't going to post anything cause I don't want to get into this whole game of, "No, YOU'RE wrong!"-"Nuh, uh, YOU'RE wrong, and you're stupid"-"No, you misunderstand the issue here"-"No, eat shit and die".

Yet here I go.

I don't see why gays cannot have the same rights marriage-wise as do a man and woman, who the hell is it hurting? People are required to wear seatbelts as a law because it is a safety issue, what sort of damage will a gay marriage cause?

As stated before Brittney Spears (whore that she is) is married for less than what, 24 hours? And that's OKAY, yet gay marriage is not? I swear to god Bush will do anything to take attention away from issues that really matter.

It just baffles me why people hate on homosexuals so much? I mean, its not like they pressure you to be gay, and should they attempt to hit on you, why the hell not take it as a compliment (because not are you only attractive/appealing to the opposite sex, but the same sex as well!) and politely tell them you're straight? I mean, who really cares? This is a whole other topic in itself so maybe nobody should respond to that, hehe.

Shari-who has never been hit on by another girl. (<wails> Lesbians don't find me pretty!)

[Tendarian]

I think most people arnt talking about the same rights of marriage here. They are arguing about using the word marriage as opposed to civil union or other such word. Personally i think the word marriage is romantic and all that. And civil union sounds boring. They should come up with a better word and all would be solved :)

[Caramia]

President Clinton signed the DOMA as a compromise for signing in the executive order banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Yet another political move, especially in light of his own "sanctified" marriage.

[Caramia]

What people don't realize is that the California State Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind, yet the silly voters approved Prop 22, which clearly discriminates. Mayor Newson is bringing this hypocritical point to the forefront and is challenging it.

I hope the courts think he's right. He's got the backing of the City Attorney's Office, and the State Attorney General, even though Ahnuld whipped him into sending Newson an ultimatum to cease and desist.

[Mint]

I really cannot think of any instance where legalized gay marriages would affect me in either a negative or a positive way so why such an uproar? It really does strike me as a homophobic reaction however, when I hear people arguing that it somehow undermines the 'sanctity' of marriage.

[Hanksbane]

Lets see here, first off....

We all have our views on religion. Thats a whole different ball game. The only way religion should be mentioned is if you are refering to the fact that the Constitution....Amendment numero uno, says that we have freedom of religon. Thats it on religion.

Hmm? More? Some will say that marriage is a sacred Christian ritual/right/whatever. Yes it is...to other Christians.But let us remember. The USA is not Christian, Catholic..whatever. A majority of its citizens may be, but thats not all of us is it? Marriage is a part of many many different cultures and religions. So to say that marriage between two people of the same sex is wrong because of a religious view should have nothing to do with how the government should see it. Marriage itself has been around longer than Catholicism anyways. So enough on religion.

What we are left with is that the President of the United States wants to add an amendment banning same sex marriages. Let me quote him:

"The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith"

Now lets take that statement. I agree with it.... mostly. except the cultures part. What he is saying in that statement is that all cultures embrace the union of MAN and WOMAN. Okay wrong. Obviosly he forgets the gay culture. Now now, some of you may argue that culture is defined by race or religion...not so. Its the traits, customs and whatnot of a group of people. So is he saying its wrong to be gay? Hmmmmmmm. How about those of us who aren't religious? (damn I brought it up again...okay but thats the last time. ;p )

My personal view on this is that Bush is wrong. He can't bring religion into this argument, he can't make blanket asumptions that he understands all the cultures in America. The Constitution was left unfinished because our american forefathers knew that times changed, they had no way of knowing what America would be like in the future, so they left us the option of adding to it. This amendment would be a step backwards for America. Do I believe that it will come to be? No...at least I hope it doesn't. If it did, that would be a sad day, for then this won't be the America I love. The American Revloution was fought because people were not given rights by a government that was supposed to look after them. Now here we are, the year 2004 and Bush wants to take some of those rights away.

I say if two PEOPLE want to share their lives together freely under the bonds of love then we should let them. Give them that right. Everyday I see what a farce marriage becomes when two people take marriage for granted. If Bush belives that marriage is that sacred, then they might as well ban divorces.....lets see how you all feel then.

[Drew2]

YAY 4 ARCHEVALD. (And others with similar views)


PS- My new avatar totally rocks my socks.

[Ilvane]

I don't think that this issue will hurt Bush much, but I can only hope..

I totally don't support the amendment to the constitution, it's not the goverments place to define marriage.

-A

[Edaarin]

I didn't know there were so many bigots here.

I'm going to class, this is making me sick.

[Caiylania]

Skirmisher, Hanksbane, Ravenstorm, Jesae, et all.....
/.\
|
|
|
|
What they said!!


Homosexuality has been around longer than Christianity and Judaism. Bible or no, we did used to live in Caves and wear fur. It existed back then too.

Religion has no place in saying whether two people can or can't get married. If it did, then we might as well hand the Government over to Christian leaders. As others have stated, Amercia is not Christian. It is a country with many different people who have many different beliefs.

If we respect the rights of interracial marriage, women's rights, Jewish rights, Islamic rights, Indian rights, then homosexuals deserve the same respect.

All they are fighting for is the right to be legally bound together with all the rights that a husband and wife would share.

How does that hurt anyone?

[CrystalTears]

It only hurts the homophobes who don't want to see gay people display their love for each other. Other than that, there is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. If they can make a mockery of marriage on TV, they can allow people who actually believe in the sanctity of marriage to have it.

[Betheny]

I was just thinking about the gay marriage thing this morning.

I think that our government has far more important things to do than opress people.

The Constitution is not something that is supposed to opress people.

If they succeed doing this, it opens a whole can of worms. What about people with sex changes? What about hermaphrodites?

...Let's deal with more important things. Seriously.

[Caiylania]

No joke, well said Maimara.

Like our horrid education system.
Or over filled jails.
Insurance companies getting rich and hospitals going bankrupt
Spouse abusers (now there is an example of marriage gone wrong)

I mean, its not like there is nothing for the Government to do these days.

[i remember halloween]

because the only thing the government is doing right now is focusing on gay marriage right? that was obviously a well thought out post.

[Drew2]

I think her point was a much more creative and overall beneficial amendment could be made, if any was going to be made. The fact they're even looking at gay marriages right now shows how misplaced their priorities are.

Please take off your dumbness before you post.

[Caiylania]

Thanks Tayre :)

I can't speak for Maimara but I believe that Bush making a huge advertised fuss about this and going through all the trouble of messing with the Constitution and not speaking out about some real problems says more about skewed priorities than anything.

I was with him on Iraq (I don't know HIS other reasons if any but I'm glad we did what we did for the sake of the Iraqis) But to spend valuable time on repressing rights is just ....... grrrrrr

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Tayre
The fact they're even looking at gay marriages right now shows how misplaced their priorities are.


I would love to agree but in fact I think they know exactly what they are doing.

Dean is out. In his place Kerry is coming to be seen as quite a much more credible opponent, one who might actually be able to pull some of the less decided republicans.

With this move Bush and his handlers are hoping to polarize the vast majority of republicans into voting for their own party and at the same time help splinter the democratic party to some degree.

This has nothing at all to do with his real feelings on gay marriage or he would have done it before. Its all politics.

[Caiylania]

POLITICS ARE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel better.

Why isn't it ever about whats best for America's citizins overall and not just power struggles?

:(

[Galleazzo]

What Skirmisher said. This is a nice hot button topic for the Republicassholes.

[Tendarian]

Republicassholes are the only politicians who do things for political reasons. Anyone who disagrees about gay marriage is a homophobe. Anyone who disagrees with affirmative action is a racist. Anyone who disagrees with me is close minded.

[Betheny]

In every election, there is an issue that does nothing -- absolutely nothing -- other than try to generate votes.

I know both sides of this arguement. But if you ask me, it isn't anyone's right to tell anyone else how to live their lives.

Bush is against gay marriage for whatever reason -- my suspicion is it has something to do with religion or his belief system.

My point is simply this: Allowing gay marriages -- or rather, NOT banning them but not endorsing them -- does not detract from the institution of marriage.

This country is founded on the principle that those that are different -- due to race, religion, beliefs, or lack thereof -- are welcome. A step like this would be a step in the opposite direction.

I firmly believe no matter how hard this issue is pushed, no constitutional amendment will be made. Bush himself said during his campaign that this issue is a state issue. Now he's changing his mind? Why?

How is this any different than creating a law banning interracial marriages? I'm willing to bet somewhere in our country's turbulent past there was a law like this instituted.

Wrong is wrong, in my eyes. Gay marriage does not hurt anyone. Why should it be outlawed?

[Meos]

Over all I think the descion should be up to state if they won't to allow it or not. And all this shit about protecting the deffinition of marriage, give me a break. Besides it'd probeby work out better if they called it a Civil Union...

The only real problem I can see with the whole this is if.... lets make an example...

I and my best friend, who are deffinitly not gay, get together and say.... ya know my job has medical insurence, and yours has dental and eyes care coverage. I know we're not getting married so we sould just pretend to be gay and get "civil unionized..." for the tax break and the insurance benifits.

I guess that's no different then how affirmitive action gets abused... shit what do I know...

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Meos]

[Wezas]

Separation of church and state needs to start somewhere in this matter. Keeping a gay couple from being married and getting the benefits (taxes, etc) for the soul reason that the church thinks it's wrong is total bullshit. Noone is being hurt, both parties agree to the union. If it's left up to the state, you will see people flock to those nearby states that allow gay marriages.

[Hanksbane]

Originally posted by Meos

The only real problem I can see with the whole this is if.... lets make an example...

I and my best friend, who are deffinitly not gay, get together and say.... ya know my job has medical insurence, and yours has dental and eyes care coverage. I know we're not getting married so we sould just pretend to be gay and get "civil unionized..." for the tax break and the insurance benifits.

I guess that's no different then how affirmitive action gets abused... shit what do I know...

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Meos]

True but same could be said about a man and a woman who are just friends.

Im pretty sure there are a lot of mariages of conviniences out there of the man and woman type.

[Betheny]

Like I say about abortion. Don't like it? Don't do it. Its that simple.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
And yet the very concept of two adult people that have had a long and loving relationship wanting to actually enter into a marriage is more offensive to you than two drunks in vegas or some bimbo and a manwhore from fox getting hitched for ratings.

If you really thought it was sacred and was not simply reacting to the gay aspect you would be running to sign some sort of amendment to stop people from abusing this thing you claim to hold so sacred.

No, that's not true at all. As I said before (I guess you just read what you want to) it's impossible to make a law making it illegal for a dumb blonde to marry someone as a publicity stunt. If it was possible, I'd be all for that ammendment too.

Marriage is between a man and a women. If two gays want the same advantages of marriage, call it what it is, a union, and give them a license, I'm fine with that.

To everyone who continues to post 'It's a Christian belief, this is the government, not Church'.. IT IS A LAW IN THE GOVERNMENT. It's not just a Church view.

Answer this - How is defining what sexes are involved for something to be marriage wrong, but defining how many people are involved not? People aren't arguing that one man can't love two women enough to marry them both. He wouldn't be infringing on your rights to marry two women, and if the women consent then there's no infringement there either. They all love eachother and consent so it obviously is enough for you guys right? All that needs to be present is love and consent under your argument.

What you have is people who become ignorant and blinded by their own rage of trying to make everyone be quote 'tolerant.' It has NOTHING to do with tolerence. I have NOTHING against gays, I have NOTHING against gays becoming a union, but MARRIAGE is a word, it is an act, and it is defineable (and it HAS been defined in the government). Like any word or act it has parameters that MUST be present for it to be what it is.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I'm a little late reading this thread because the title didn't really capture my attention, but now that I know what is being discussed I'd like to throw my opinion in as well.

There is absolutely no reason why gays should not be allowed to be married. Yes, with the term MARRIAGE. The "civil union" terminology is bullshit. It is just a way for homophobes to feel marginally in agreement with an issue they must obviously know is a violation of basic rights if it is not allowed. They're CITIZENS of the United States. Everything that you're allowed to do, they should be allowed to do. It's that simple. It's freedom. Anyone who believes they are for gays but NOT for them being married is a liar and a bigot.

I voted for the libertarian party the last election, but I feel I am going to have to vote for the democratic candidate because I simply cannot stomach another 4 years with that ignorant redneck in office.

[Latrinsorm]

Civil union and marriage are just words. Homosexual and heterosexual people are different (obviously) thus it doesn't make a ton of sense to describe what they do the same way.
Originally posted by Hanksbane
then they might as well ban divorces.....lets see how you all feel then.I, for one, would feel good.
Originally posted by Maimara
Like I say about abortion. Don't like it? Don't do it. Its that simple. Yeah, I don't like raping women, so I guess I just won't do it. Problem solved, right?
Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Everything that you're allowed to do, they should be allowed to do. Say that again after I go apply for a scholarship from the NAACP. Or sue my boss for sexual harassment. Or racism. (I'm very white, by the way, otherwise these wouldn't make sense)

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Say that again after I go apply for a scholarship from the NAACP. Or sue my boss for sexual harassment. Or racism. (I'm very white, by the way, otherwise these wouldn't make sense)

You can sue your boss for sexual harassment if he has in fact done that. You can also take action if you feel you are a victim of racism. And you can, in fact, get a scholarship from MANY different sources. Because one organization is unavailable to you, that is unfair? Try to keep this in perspective. Gays marriage is proposed to be banned throughout the entire U.S. That's a lot different than you not being able to get a scholarship from the NAACP.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Because one organization is unavailable to you, that is unfair?
Everything that you're allowed to do, they should be allowed to do. I added some more emphasis, to make my point clearer.

Let's keep it in perspective: civil marriage is just a piece of paper with some words. Why care so much about it?

And yes, if I were a politician in position to affect this amendment, I'd probably be against it. As I am not, I'll speak with my vote.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Are you being banned from receiving scholarships? No.

[Hulkein]

<<And you can, in fact, get a scholarship from MANY different sources. Because one organization is unavailable to you, that is unfair?>>

And gays can get a civil union license. Because one type of union is unavailable, that is unfair? Good job provings yourself wrong.

<<Are you being banned from receiving scholarships? No. >>

Are gays being banned from legally becoming a union and banned from all the benefits? No. Again, good job.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Civil union and marriage are just words. Homosexual and heterosexual people are different (obviously) thus it doesn't make a ton of sense to describe what they do the same way.
Originally posted by Hanksbane
then they might as well ban divorces.....lets see how you all feel then.I, for one, would feel good.

Then what would abused spouses do? Or those whose husband or wife is cheating on them? Or abusing the kids?

I personally think that couples should be required to go through (x many months) of some type of pre-maritel counseling. Religious or non as they choose to prove they are really ready for it.



Originally posted by Maimara
Like I say about abortion. Don't like it? Don't do it. Its that simple. Yeah, I don't like raping women, so I guess I just won't do it. Problem solved, right?

I don't think abortion is right the way so many women do it as either birth control (wtf?) or just cause. There are valid reasons for it.

Risk to mother, which could include if they have a serious disease, if they are to old, surguries, complications... etc.

Rape/molestation (I've heard of children as young as 11 getting pregnant from both and getting abortions. One, the trauma mentally, and what it would do to them physically)

Abortion is sometimes necesary :(



Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
Everything that you're allowed to do, they should be allowed to do. Say that again after I go apply for a scholarship from the NAACP. Or sue my boss for sexual harassment. Or racism. (I'm very white, by the way, otherwise these wouldn't make sense)

Why couldn't you sue your boss for sexual harrassment? :?: Or racism?

Men can harass men, and white men can be in a form racist to whites. Maybe giving a promotion to an hispanic person based on % of minorities in their buisiness.

as for scholarships, many are funded privately so they have the right to say who gets what. There are benefits just for asians, ones just for children of military families, ones for women, etc....

[Betheny]

Rape = marriage? No. Rape is a violent act. Marriage is not. Rape has a victim. Marriage does not.

Get it?

[ThisOtherKingdom]

First of all, I don't believe the two should even be compared. I was responding to Larinsorm's analogy. But anyway my point is you're allowed to get a scholarship while still having it CALLED a scholarship.

Where exactly are civil unions allowed at this point?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Maimara
Rape = marriage? No. Rape is a violent act. Marriage is not. Rape has a victim. Marriage does not.

Get it?

He was equting rape with abortion lady. As in, your brilliant solution to abortion was = 'don't like it, don't do it.' That's like saying the solution to slavery (or rape as he put it) is = 'don't like it, don't do it.' Obviously it wouldn't stop the problem, and it's obviously not a solution to anything.

Get it?

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Caiylania
Then what would abused spouses do? Or those whose husband or wife is cheating on them? Or abusing the kids? Leave. Divorce is an avenue towards remarriage. If their situation is that bad, nothing has ever stopped one from leaving. Or standing up for one's self. I agree about that pre-marital stuff, though.
Abortion is sometimes necesaryYep. Doesn't mean that the unnecessary abortions are going to go away if I ignore them.
Why couldn't you sue your boss for sexual harrassment? Or racism? I'm sure I could sue them, I doubt very much I would win. My point was that everyone is not the same (that's what makes this country great, for Christ's sake) and therefore the statement that everything I'm allowed to do everyone should be allowed to do is flawed. I'm not saying the NAACP should be beating down my door with money by any means. I'm saying people are different, accept it, and move on. The idea that equal = fair is stupid. As stupid, in fact, as the idea that unequal = fair. But that's more a thing I have about overgeneralization.

[Betheny]

Okay.

This thread isn't about abortion.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
First of all, I don't believe the two should even be compared. I was responding to Larinsorm's analogy. But anyway my point is you're allowed to get a scholarship while still having it CALLED a scholarship.

Where exactly are civil unions allowed at this point?

I used symbolic language to accurately compare them both and showed you that you are in effect being a hypocrite, saying one solution is fine in one situation but not the other.

Civil Unions should be put into effect before or at the time this ammendment is put into effect (if it ever is.)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
This thread isn't about abortion. Why'd you bring it up, then?

(props to Hulkein for having my back :D)

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Caiylania
Then what would abused spouses do? Or those whose husband or wife is cheating on them? Or abusing the kids? Leave. Divorce is an avenue towards remarriage. If their situation is that bad, nothing has ever stopped one from leaving. Or standing up for one's self. I agree about that pre-marital stuff, though.
Then if they found someone that truly loved and treated them right, they wouldn't be legally allowed to remarry. And when they die, the person they left would have all legal rights over children/property/money. How nice.


Abortion is sometimes necesary
Yep. Doesn't mean that the unnecessary abortions are going to go away if I ignore them.
Agreed.


Why couldn't you sue your boss for sexual harrassment? Or racism?
I'm sure I could sue them, I doubt very much I would win. My point was that everyone is not the same (that's what makes this country great, for Christ's sake) and therefore the statement that everything I'm allowed to do everyone should be allowed to do is flawed. I'm not saying the NAACP should be beating down my door with money by any means. I'm saying people are different, accept it, and move on. The idea that equal = fair is stupid. As stupid, in fact, as the idea that unequal = fair. But that's more a thing I have about overgeneralization.

Exactly!! Accept it! Gay people are different. They aren't hurting anyone, what is wrong with allowing them the rights of and the term Marriage?

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Hulkein
[quote]
I used symbolic language to accurately compare them both and showed you that you are in effect being a hypocrite, saying one solution is fine in one situation but not the other.

Civil Unions should be put into effect before or at the time this ammendment is put into effect (if it ever is.)

They are completely different situations. The scholarship analogy is completely weak. At this point, their rights are being denied everywhere. And while if you were denied a scholarship from one source, others are still attainable. If this ammended into the constitution, they can never obtain a marriage. See the difference?

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Tendarian
One other thing id like to say is one can be against gay marriage and not be againt gay people. If anyone tried to pass a law saying it was illegal for two men to be together,or women id be pissed and do something to voice my opinion. I have no ill will toward anyone because they are gay.

How fucking nice for you.

You know that before 1967, EIGHTEEN STATES made it illegal for blacks and whites to marry? And the fucktards used some of the same arguments you guys are using to say why that was okay. The Bible said so. It was the will of the people.

Tell you what, start voicing that opinion, because it is STILL illegal in Massachusetts and Texas for anyone to have gay sex.


It has NOTHING to do with tolerence. I have NOTHING against gays, I have NOTHING against gays becoming a union, but MARRIAGE is a word, it is an act, and it is defineable (and it HAS been defined in the government). Like any word or act it has parameters that MUST be present for it to be what it is.
What that word/act is right now is discriminatory. And unconstitutional. And just plain fucking WRONG.

"Sanctity" of marriage, bullshit. Only "sanctity" there should be is in religious services. Any church that doesn't believe in it, don't marry gays. Leave civil marriage out of the religious crapdoodle.

:flamed:

[Edited on 2/25/2004 by Galleazzo]

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Maimara
This thread isn't about abortion. Why'd you bring it up, then?

(props to Hulkein for having my back :D)

It was an example. Read my original post.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Maimara
Rape = marriage? No. Rape is a violent act. Marriage is not. Rape has a victim. Marriage does not.

Get it?

I would say the guy is the victim in a Marriage. And it can be a violent act.

<runs away>

[Betheny]

This isn't that thread, Bob. This is a thread about president Bush and his buddies wanting to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman...

[Bobmuhthol]

It's hard to distinguish when Tayre names all his threads "WTF?" "What the hell?" "What the fuck?" and "What the fuck is this bullshit?"

[Bobmuhthol]

<<This is a thread about president Bush and his buddies wanting to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman...>>

My question still stands. Where does abortion come into play?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<too young to know what the fuck they're talking about comment>>

Right. So by agreeing with Bush, and saying nothing more, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Of course. I still haven't learned to agree with someone.

Short answer: Fuck you, idiot.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Caiylania
Then if they found someone that truly loved and treated them right, they wouldn't be legally allowed to remarry. And when they die, the person they left would have all legal rights over children/property/money. How nice.Yep, laws suck sometimes. However, if divorce were illegal, I suspect people would take more care in who they married, thus alleviating some of these problems.
Gay people are different.I have no problem with them getting whatever rights marriage supposedly gets (I'm no legal scholar, obviously) just call it something different, because they are different in a way that causes the nature of their union to be different.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
However, if divorce were illegal, I suspect people would take more care in who they married, thus alleviating some of these problems.

Back when divorce was illegal and/or really hard to do -- you used to have to get your state legislature to sign off on them -- people got married just as kneejerk as any other time. They just suffered for the decisions. That's why the fucking laws were liberalized in the first place.


I have no problem with them getting whatever rights marriage supposedly gets (I'm no legal scholar, obviously) just call it something different, because they are different in a way that causes the nature of their union to be different.

Okay, suppose you tell us how their "unions" are different from any other marriage?

[Hulkein]

They are above pro-creation.

[TheEschaton]

Tell you what, start voicing that opinion, because it is STILL illegal in Massachusetts and Texas for anyone to have gay sex.

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled last year that Texas can't ban gay sex if it is consentual and in the bedroom. Apparently two guys were arrested and convicted of sodomy when the cops broke into their house to search for drugs (which they didn't find).

That's right around the time Pat Robertson and his cronies started Operation Prayer, where they said they were going on a 21 day "prayer offensive" to have God remove the Supreme Court Justices who overturned the Texas law from the Court. Sinister, innit?

(I only caught the 700 club a few times because I would watch Whose Line is It Anyways? on the Family Channel, and sometimes, before I could switch to the Daily Show, Pat Robertson came on and I was sucked in by his uber-evilness - they say Pat Robertson is family programming? I'd rather have kids watching Janet's boob than Pat Robertson).

My theory is that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and a few of the other justices, are holding off their retirements til Bush is out of the White House, whether it's next January, or January 4 years from now. Remember when people were saying in 2000 that this President might be able to name 3 justices to the court? They clamped in for the long haul!

-TheE-

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<This is a thread about president Bush and his buddies wanting to amend the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman...>>

My question still stands. Where does abortion come into play?

It doesn't, i made the offhand remark that my stance on this is the same as my stance on abortion and people ran with it.

[TheEschaton]

They are above pro-creation.

That procreation is the purpose of marriage is, again, a religious definition thereof. And thus, not allowed to be in the legal definition.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

He asked what was different, they can't have kids. Simple answer for a simple question. And I'd have to say you're wrong seeing as how child support is legally demanded if you're not married and you have a kid.

And if you really just want a simple answer, what makes them different? Hmm, see if you can understand it this time. Marriage is a union between a man and a women. What makes their union different? It's not a man and a women. BRILLIANT!

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Hulkein]

I just want to add if the ammendment doesn't pass I won't be furious or even angry, I just support an ammendment defining what marriage is since regular laws don't stop judges from breaking it.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
Okay, suppose you tell us how their "unions" are different from any other marriage? What Hulkein said: they don't make kids. Not that I want to dredge up THAT discussion again. But it seems like a pretty fundamental difference to me.

[TheEschaton]

And I'd have to say you're wrong seeing as how child support is legally demanded if you're not married and you have a kid.

The system behind children simply says children are the responsibilities of two people. If one is not there, he is legally obligated to help support the child.

An unmarried couple living together, with children, is not grounds for a case where the man has to pay child support for the children he is living with.

Try again.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

What Hulkein said: they don't make kids. Not that I want to dredge up THAT discussion again. But it seems like a pretty fundamental difference to me.

Impotent couples can't have children either. The gov't doesn't ban their union, nor does the Church. I've presented my argument on this before, it is the intention of procreation that matters, not the actual act.

For example, I know a gay couple where I live, who have lived together for 20 years, have adopted kids, and raised them in a loving, caring environment. I consider this more of a marriage, and consider it even a marriage aimed towards procreation, then two 16 years olds who liked to fuck, got pregnant, and had a shotgun wedding, and grew up hating each other and their kids because of it.

-TheE-

[ThisOtherKingdom]

What's so horrible about marriage being the union of two people who are in love and can't imagine spending their lives with anyone else?

Everyone has the capacity for that. Man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. They're human beings, they deserve to have the same TITLES bestowed on them. As many people have stated in this thread, religion can define what a marriage is however they want. We're talking about the government, and they have absolutely no right to.

[TheEschaton]

by the way, for those who were asking, I just found this in an AP article:

"Democrats have aggressively courted gay voters and their campaign donations in recent years. Exit polls showed Al Gore got 75 percent of the votes cast by self-identified gays and lesbians in 2000, compared to 25 percent for Bush.

Even with only 25 percent backing, Bush gained an estimated 1 million votes from gays in 2000, although it's unclear what the impact would be on his re-election campaign if many of those supporters deserted him. "


There's 1 million votes down the drain.

-TheE-

[ThisOtherKingdom]

I was also doing some further reading on the subject, and I found this web site.

http://dearmary.com/mary/index.html

I wonder if Dick Cheney's gay daughter will have the courage to stand up and defend her rights.

[Hulkein]

Escha, your argument about certain people being impotent is a fallacy. You're taking a point made for the general population and putting it in a situation where it's specific.


Originally posted by ThisOtherKingdom
We're talking about the government, and they have absolutely no right to.

So does the government have any right to determine if a man and two women can wed together? They're human beings who love eachother and consent, why can't they be married to eachother?

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
So does the government have any right to determine if a man and two women can wed together? They're human beings who love eachother and consent, why can't they be married to eachother?

The government can not step in and refuse a marriage between a man and woman legal age. I'm unsure if they can bar siblings or cousins from marriage as I have not investigated it.

That is the point. They are stepping in to prevent same sex marriages and this is not legal in reference to the constitution they have sworn to uphold.

[Hulkein]

I was talking about one man marrying two women. Why is it that the government can say that is wrong but it can't say two people of the same sex is wrong? The answer is simple = The Government DOES have the right to define what is marriage and what is legal.


[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Tendarian]

How fucking nice for you.

You know that before 1967, EIGHTEEN STATES made it illegal for blacks and whites to marry? And the fucktards used some of the same arguments you guys are using to say why that was okay. The Bible said so. It was the will of the people.

Comparing what homosexuals go through as being equal to what blacks went through is crazy. I see this brought up time and again. Sure there was some mostly uninforced sodomy laws but none were ever slaves. None had to ride the back of the bus. None had to use seperate drinking fountains. It sure is nice to try to hitch your agenda to their train though. Maybe you should bring up how women couldnt vote next too.

I know its fashionable to yell homephobe! or racist bigot! but its just not true. I can criticize what someone does and not hate their whole race,religion or sexual preference,really i can. And if i cant,damn i hate my family way more than any other people on earth cause i complained about them most this far into my life. Its funny how its the straight people who are the angriest and the few gay folks here are rationally trying to show their arguement.

[Tendarian]

As many people have stated in this thread, religion can define what a marriage is however they want. We're talking about the government, and they have absolutely no right to.


Just because the govt and a religion agrees on something doesnt make it horrible. Murder is against the law,its also a ten commandant. No one is arguing that murder should be legal cause seperation of church and state right?

[Hulkein]

Remember I said this? Particularly the bold part.


Originally posted by Hulkein
What it comes down to is this, and Raven, you've agreed.

Is it legal? <<No one is saying what Bush is doing isn't legal>> The answer is yes.

Is it right? Well, that's where peoples personal beliefs come in. Will be interesting to see how the country feels in upcoming polls.


Here are some polls from Gallup.com

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay and lesbian couples?"
Based on 2,527 Gallup Poll interviews conducted July 2003-February 2004

Favor Oppose Don't know
51% 45% 4.5%

Looks as if the majority of the country agrees with it, no? Interesting eh? I guess over half of our country are bigots.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Artha]

Good. This amendment leaves civil unions open, which is what I support. Marriage is sacred. Civil unions are a wonderful compromise.

[ThisOtherKingdom]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Just because the govt and a religion agrees on something doesnt make it horrible. Murder is against the law,its also a ten commandant. No one is arguing that murder should be legal cause seperation of church and state right?

Yes, let's go comparing murder to two people wanting to express their love through marriage.




Originally posted by Hulkein
Favor Oppose Don't know
51% 45% 4.5%

Looks as if the majority of the country agrees with it, no? Interesting eh? I guess over half of our country are bigots.


Yes, it certainly appears that way. It's a shame.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Looks as if the majority of the country agrees with it, no? Interesting eh? I guess over half of our country are bigots.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

doesn't that assume that the whole country answered the poll?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Just because the govt and a religion agrees on something doesnt make it horrible. Murder is against the law,its also a ten commandant. No one is arguing that murder should be legal cause seperation of church and state right?>>

RIGHT.

<<Yes, let's go comparing murder to two people wanting to express their love through marriage.>>

WRONG.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Tendarian
[Just because the govt and a religion agrees on something doesnt make it horrible. Murder is against the law,its also a ten commandant. No one is arguing that murder should be legal cause seperation of church and state right?

I'm sure there will be some arguement about this but the way I see that this isn't related is that murdering someone imposes on their basic freedom and human rights. If two gay men or women get married I don't see that as imposing their will on you or effecting your rights as a human being.

[TheEschaton]

You're taking a point made for the general population and putting it in a situation where it's specific.

Wait a minute, what? Isn't that what the whole homosexual argument is? That marriage (in the general case) produces children....and, well, since gays can't have children, they aren't really married?

What I said about impotent couples has just as much bearing as homosexual couples. I don't know the rates, but 1 in every 7 people is gay (supposedly), roughly 14%. Judging from the viagra and cialis commercials around, a whole hell of a higher percentage of the country is impotent.

What about people who don't want to have kids? Should they not be allowed to marry? Errr, no. Marriage is not defined by procreation, in the legal sense.

Try again.



I was talking about one man marrying two women. Why is it that the government can say that is wrong but it can't say two people of the same sex is wrong? The answer is simple = The Government DOES have the right to define what is marriage and what is legal.

In the reference to your polygamy question, Hulkein, the legal issue at hand is not the fact that the man is married to two women, but that the marriage consists of three people. Namely, their benefits (if such a marriage is counted as legal) are 150% of that of a normal couple. It's a numbers game, in terms of legalese, not a moral question.

Notice, a man screwing around on the side while married is not illegal. Because the man isn't claiming his affair for benefits.

Try again.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Tijay
doesn't that assume that the whole country answered the poll?


It's over 95% accurate for what the entire country believes. Gallup polls in a way that is statistically correct.

[Tendarian]

True enough Tijay,however my only point was to show that just because the gov't definition and religious definition are the same for something, that it isnt invalid. I wasnt trying to compare homesexuality to murder i swear :)

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
In the reference to your polygamy question, Hulkein, the legal issue at hand is not the fact that the man is married to two women, but that the marriage consists of three people. Namely, their benefits (if such a marriage is counted as legal) are 150% of that of a normal couple. It's a numbers game, in terms of legalese, not a moral question.

Notice, a man screwing around on the side while married is not illegal. Because the man isn't claiming his affair for benefits.

Try again.

-TheE-

It's not about tax numbers, if it was then you would be perfectly fine with union licenses. Good try.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I wonder when a reference to nazi's will enter this thread?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Artha
Good. This amendment leaves civil unions open, which is what I support. Marriage is sacred. Civil unions are a wonderful compromise.

I haven't seen a text of the proposed amendment. Have you? If so, please link it. Considering how many times Bush has changed his tune, I'm not going to assume it will even allow civil unions. Especially if the extreme right is happy about it since they want a complete ban.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It's over 95% accurate for what the entire country believes. Gallup polls in a way that is statistically correct.>>

51% accurate to +/- 4% = 48.96% to 53.04%.
45% accurate to +/- 4% = 43.20% to 47.7%.

Take the highest and lowest: The majority isn't much of a majority. And that's not even factoring in the undecideds.

[Hulkein]

TheE, about your point about losing 1 million republican voters, take a look at this chart depicting who opposes and favors the ammendment and what category they fall in.

-Two-thirds of Republicans and conservatives favor a constitutional amendment, as might be expected.

-Four in 10 Americans who identify themselves as Democrats also favor such a constitutional amendment. While this is substantially below the level of support among Republicans, and less than a majority, it is still a not insignificant level of support, and illustrates the caution with which Democratic candidates must deal with this issue in the presidential campaign this year.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Four in 10 Americans who identify themselves as Democrats also favor such a constitutional amendment.>>

Are you too good for two in five now?

[Hulkein]

I'm copy and pasting from http://gallup.com/content/?ci=10792 wiseguy.

[Tendarian]

If it allowed civil unions though would you be less upset then Raven? Just for my own curiousity. Or would you be more upset cause some would be happy to settle?

Im actually dumb founded that 25% of gay voters voted for Bush. I admit i was wrong. I just assumed (heh) that there was no chance of it being higher than 10%

[TheEschaton]

It's not about tax numbers, if it was then you would be perfectly fine with union licenses.

The problem is, civil unions aren't equal. Neither in the literal legal sense (all the rights which apply to married couples DO NOT apply in civil unions automatically, they each have to be spelled out), nor the figurative symbolic meaning behind the word marriage.

Again, if your Church says marriage is the union between one man, and two women, that's great. In your Church, you're married to two women. The gov't has a right to say you're not legally married to two women SOLELY BECAUSE of it being an unfair economic advantage (and thus, infringing on the economic rights of everyone else) to be married to two people, and not because of the majority's moral opinion.

Try again.

I also love how you like to use the majority support as a reason why it should be done. The majority can, and often is wrong. Need I list examples?

Profiles in Courage, a good book. Written by JFK, about how the greatest Congressmen were not the men who lasted the longest, but who sometimes A) did not represent the national majority, B) did not represent their constituency, and C) did not bow to the pressure of either.

That book, by the way, won a Nobel Prize, didn't it? Or was it a Pulitzer? Whatever it was, I think it was a sight bit better than anything G.W. might of ever written.

-TheE-

[Hulkein]

You can spew all the information on the tax numbers you want, fact is government can decide how many people can get married, so it can decide what sex the people getting married are. The tax numbers are irrelevent.

Your second statement is easy to rebute. It is LEGAL to do what Bush is doing, the majority of citizens AGREE with it. That means that in all likelihood, it is the right thing to do. I don't care if the majority has been wrong before, this isn't about other issues (which are usually complex), it's about what marriage is, and that's an issue I'm sure almost every adult is capable of making, unlike in other situations where the majority is wrong this situation isn't very hard to grasp.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

[Artha]

Especially if the extreme right is happy about it since they want a complete ban.

I know I've seen it somewhere, I can't find specific text, though. I'll keep looking around after I do my homework.

However, despite what some people think, Bush isn't a complete tard. There's no way he'd back a constitutional amendment that also bans civil unions. That would alienate a big portion of his base, as well as alot of swing voters.

[Hulkein]

<<
Profiles in Courage, a good book. Written by JFK, about how the greatest Congressmen were not the men who lasted the longest, but who sometimes A) did not represent the national majority, B) did not represent their constituency, and C) did not bow to the pressure of either.
>>

And what are you trying to say here? That Bush only does what is accepted by the majority? HAH. He does what he feels is right, he doesn't do stuff to gain popularity, anyone who has followed politics in the last 4 years should know this.

[Ravenstorm]

No, I wouldn't be satisfied with civil unions because they are not equal at all.

But I bring it up because I personally believe the reference to 'possibly allow civil unions' that is being touted is a red herring. Meaningless noise to make it more palatable to the moderate voter.

We're going to ban gay marriage but it won't actually make civil unions illegal. But that does not mean they're going to make a law making civil unions legal. It's just a lie by omission.

Some people here are saying they'd support the amendment cause they'd then have civil unions so it doesn't infringe on marriage. Find me a direct quote where Bush or anyone in his cabinet states explicitly that they will pass a law making civil unions legal. Perhaps I missed it.

Raven

[Hulkein]

I agree with you Raven, there should be a part in the ammendment that states Civil Unions will be offered to gay couples. This ammendment is a long ways away from anything, so we'll see as time progresses.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Here are some polls from Gallup.com

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay and lesbian couples?"
Based on 2,527 Gallup Poll interviews conducted July 2003-February 2004

Favor Oppose Don't know
51% 45% 4.5%

Looks as if the majority of the country agrees with it, no? Interesting eh? I guess over half of our country are bigots.

[Edited on 2-25-2004 by Hulkein]

Depends who you listen to.

"Eighty five percent of Americans support equal opportunity in the workplace for gays and lesbians. And 68% want laws enacted to punish anyone who would discriminate against homosexual employees. 73% support hate crime laws and banning discrimination in housing. Half now say that gay and lesbian couples should receive the same benefits enjoyed by married couples and 68 percent think gay couples should be entitled to Social Security benefits while 70 percent support employee-sponsored health insurance coverage for gay spouses. And half of us have no problem with gay and lesbian couples adopting children.
AMERICANS ARE A BUNCH OF LIMP-WRISTED PANSY-LOVERS!
The country has gone to the fags! The U.S. Supreme Court has just legalized sex between consenting homosexuals. What's next - gay priests?! How are we going to get all macho for the next war if our men have gone soft on the soft men? Not everyone can have David Crosby's baby!"

Michael Moore
'Dude Where's my Country?'

[Bobmuhthol]

Or you could stop listening to bullshit "facts" altogether.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Here's a fact.

No one is going to change their minds from this "debate".

[Tendarian]

No one hardly ever changes their minds over debates. The point is the more you talk about things the more information you have. I remember one thread that was talking about the Patriot Act and Raven showed me some things that opened my eyes. I respect almost everyones opinions and sometimes they do open my eyes to a perspective i hadnt thought about before.

[Nieninque]

And the Patriot Act is Scary

[Hulkein]

Nienique, what do you mean by depends who you listen to? Gallup polls are 95% accurate and take every step to be statistically sound. Gallup isn't slanted, it is the truth.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Nienique, what do you mean by depends who you listen to? Gallup polls are 95% accurate and take every step to be statistically sound. Gallup isn't slanted, it is the truth.

you can get any result to a poll you want, by asking who you want. I dont doubt that Gallup are reputable in giving the results they have found...but unless they asked everyone in the country, there aint no truth in that. It is was it is...an Opinion poll.

[Bobmuhthol]

A recent poll showed that100% of the idiots in the world should not live.

This poll was constructed by Bobmuhthol Garredy, Lesser Spirit, Son of V'Tull.

[Betheny]

What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?

Why does there have to be a distinction?

Is it because straight people don't want gay people in their club...? Or is it because we are, as a society, just way too insecure...

And... um. If I recall, "Seperate but equal" is not legal anymore, either.... because "Seperate but equal" is never seperate but equal...

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
A recent poll showed that100% of the idiots in the world should not live.

This poll was constructed by Bobmuhthol Garredy, Lesser Spirit, Son of V'Tull.

Off you go then..

[Bobmuhthol]

You're 10, you have no right to speak, move along.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Tendarian
No one hardly ever changes their minds over debates. The point is the more you talk about things the more information you have. I remember one thread that was talking about the Patriot Act and Raven showed me some things that opened my eyes. I respect almost everyones opinions and sometimes they do open my eyes to a perspective i hadnt thought about before.

I agree with you in principle Tendarian. However, see below quotes for why I think this "debate" is useless.


Originally posted by Tayre
Could someone who's not dumb and/or too young to know what the fuck they're talking about comment

Who got information from that?


Originally posted by Siefer
It's wrong because I say it is. Also, its wrong because if it were to happen 100 years ago, the people in question would be committed. And Skirmisher, you can take your "Of all people" comment and put it up your ass, along with your gay lovers cock.

Even better eh?


Originally posted by Tayre
Please take off your dumbness before you post.

Now... you yourself even hinted at it here with your sarcasm, and I actually cheered silently to myself when I read this below...


Originally posted by Tendarian
Republicassholes are the only politicians who do things for political reasons. Anyone who disagrees about gay marriage is a homophobe. Anyone who disagrees with affirmative action is a racist. Anyone who disagrees with me is close minded.

Anyway, thats just in the first 3 or 4 pages. My point being that a civil debate (and there is one going on here actually) is being lamblasted with juvenile remarks (I think my own included?). No one is changing their minds, and I honestly haven't learned much here today.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
You're 10, you have no right to speak, move along.

This is not the game.
You are 13
I am older
How does it go...?
Ah yes...
Kill yourself!

[Betheny]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
You're 10, you have no right to speak, move along.

This is not the game.
You are 13
I am older
How does it go...?
Ah yes...
Kill yourself!

Both of you knock it off. I'll start you a mud-slinging thread if you guys really need to see your immaturity in text.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
That marriage (in the general case) produces children....and, well, since gays can't have children, they aren't really married? Marriage/sex is intended to produce children. In every case, it is impossible for gay people to produce children. Adoption is all well and good, but it's not the same.
The majority can, and often is wrong.It beats oligarchies (or fascism, if you're so inclinced).

However, despite what some people think, Bush isn't a complete tard.

Artha is awesome. Even though he is doing homework (teacher's pet).
Originally posted by Maimara
Why does there have to be a distinction? Because homosexuals and heterosexuals are different. Didn't we cover this like 3 pages back?

[Kefka]

Gallup polls are 95%....

Please don't bring up these polls after Indecision 2000.

[Sean]

I agree with a lot of what you said tayvin, but in my personal opinion there is a lot to be gained here information wise if you just skip over the flames. I know personally i've had this discussion (i prefer this to the term debate) with some peers of mine and the sanctity of marriage issue never came up. For me it was a chance to understand the other side of the issues a bit more and learn something. For me these kind of threads are worth it just for the chance bettering my understanding of people and their beliefs.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Marriage/sex is intended to produce children. In every case, it is impossible for gay people to produce children. Adoption is all well and good, but it's not the same

Where has marriage ever been defined as the act of procreation? I'm not saying it hasn't I've just ever seen it defined as such.

[Betheny]

So because homosexuals are different, they ought to be treated different? Like... people with red hair? Like Muslims? Like people with different colored skin?

My point isn't to say that sexual orientation is like anything that I've stated above. My point is basically this though: In all of human history -- or American history -- every time one minority group has been treated differently than the majority, horrible things have happened. Think about the Indians. Slaves... Chinese people. Women (though I'm not sure if we're a minority... whatever). I would like to think our society has grown beyond this. Nothing bad will happen to straight people if gay people are allowed to marry. But if we ostracize gay people by forcing them to be more 'different' than they already are... it makes me wonder, who is next? If you can be discriminated against based on your sexual orientation -- and that, in my eyes, is exactly what this is -- then every right we've worked for since Abraham Lincoln is in jeopardy.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Hulkein
Nienique, what do you mean by depends who you listen to? Gallup polls are 95% accurate and take every step to be statistically sound. Gallup isn't slanted, it is the truth.

you can get any result to a poll you want, by asking who you want. I dont doubt that Gallup are reputable in giving the results they have found...but unless they asked everyone in the country, there aint no truth in that. It is was it is...an Opinion poll.

Wrong. Take a stat class or call a statistician. The poll question is asked in a way to get a natural, unbiased answer. They poll a certain amount of people in a certain way to get the results of the ENTIRE COUNTRY to within 95% accuracy (Might even be 97% in this case). Don't talk about things you don't know.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

[Hanksbane]

Any kind of polls are really not that accurate, I know a lot of peopl who fill those out for fucks sake, I know people fil those out thinking they know what people want to hear or see. Then there are those people who are so sick of government and their bloody polls that don't answer polls because they are used to sway peopleunder the false notion that these polls represent America.

Government should not tell TWO people that they cannot get married. Drop the marrying of three people argument, that's dumb. Drop the "Polls" say the majority..blah blah..because polls are not an accurate view of America as a whole, just a view of a select few.

This is a political move by someone who feels that their job is in danger. Kinda like an old pop artists that shows her breasts to the world right before her new album comes out.

You know, nowadays, I'd give a better chance to two people of the same sex getting married then a marriage between a man and a woman considering all the failed marriages I've seen and the one that are complete jokes.

I'll put this another way, do you really feel the Government should dictate our personal relationships? And Im talking true personal relationships built around love. Or maybe we should just go back to the days of arranged marriages set by the kings and nobles and whatever.

[Sean]

Off topic a second, I think it would be hilarious watching one of the gallup guys in the innercity with his pen and paper polling random people.

[Betheny]

I don't know if this is Dubya's idea of a political move. My thought is he genuinely believes gay people are wrong. He has his right to his opinion... but it's his duty as the president of the United States to not let his personal bias get to him, and to uphold the laws, not to mention the constitution. The constitution wasn't meant to oppress people...

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Marriage/sex is intended to produce children. In every case, it is impossible for gay people to produce children. Adoption is all well and good, but it's not the same.

Ahem. So, does that mean that people are not to have sex, at all, unless they intend to procreate? Does that mean that two people should not marry if one (or both) of them is infertile? If two people marry and later find that they are infertile together, should they then get a divorce?

Sorry, Latrinsorm. The logic follows.

HarmNone, the logical

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Hanksbane
Any kind of polls are really not that accurate, I know a lot of peopl who fill those out for fucks sake, I know people fil those out thinking they know what people want to hear or see. Then there are those people who are so sick of government and their bloody polls that don't answer polls because they are used to sway peopleunder the false notion that these polls represent America.

Wrong. Gallup has an identification number for every adult on America. They then get a randomly generate string of codes from a computer and choose 2000 people (May be 2314, just 2000 for example) at equal intervals. They then call the person, this isn't a poll in which only certain people answer (Like on the internet, only people that answer are 1- People who go on the internet and 2- People who care enough about a particular subject to vote.) If the person refuses to answer or does not pick, they go with the next randomly chosen person. When you see a poll done by Gallup, it is correct. There's a stat lesson for the day.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

[Betheny]

Wow, I wonder what my number is.

I find it highly unlikely they have MY number.

[Sean]

What about the population who don't have telephones? Don't they have opinions that count?

[HarmNone]

What was the margin of error on the poll you quoted, Hulkein?

HarmNone thinks posting poll results without defining the margin of error is the intellectual equivalent of spitting into the wind.

[Hulkein]

The amount of people who don't have telephones is too insignificant to alter the results of a national poll.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by HarmNone
What was the margin of error on the poll you quoted, Hulkein?

HarmNone thinks posting poll results without defining the margin of error is the intellectual equivalent of spitting into the wind.

I said it was 95% accurate, which would imply it has a 5% Margin of Error.

[Sean]

I think at the bottom of the poll its says that they are 95% sure that the poll is only 3% margin of error. I guess i should double check that though.

[Hulkein]

Here's what it says -

These results are based on telephone interviews with randomly selected national samples of adults, aged 18 and older, conducted between July 2003 and February 2004. For results based on the combined samples, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±2 percentage points. For any individual sample, the margin of error is ±3 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
------------------------------------------------
See how it says 95% accurate? That's because random effects (ie, people without telephones) are +-2%, while the inherent margin of error is +-3%, which is why it is 95% accurate or has a 5% margin of error.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

[Kefka]

::groans:: The same poll that said Bush would have a landslide victory in 2000?

[Ravenstorm]

The percentages on this issue have also varied dramatically based on how the question is phrased.

Raven

[Hulkein]

I pasted how the question was asked. It is completely neutral, but decide for yourself -

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay and lesbian couples?"

[HarmNone]

>> In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.<<

That caveat is what I was going for, Hulkein. It is very important to the interpretation of results, and such a caveat is always included in any public opinion poll.

HarmNone

[HarmNone]

For the record, I would strongly oppose such an amendment to our Constitution. To me, because the institution of marriage has legal ramifications that affect both partners, the religious, moral, and personal implications associated with the word "marriage" must be eliminated, since they have nothing to do with those legal aspects.

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by HarmNone
That caveat is what I was going for, Hulkein. It is very important to the interpretation of results, and such a caveat is always included in any public opinion poll.
HarmNone

You're 100% correct, that's why Gallup makes sure to ask questions in a way that won't push anyone either direction. Read the wording yourself, sounds pretty neutral to me. But yeah, I can see why people would question it, plenty of polls are done with the intent of getting certain answers, this however isn't one I can assure you.

[Hanksbane]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Hanksbane
Any kind of polls are really not that accurate, I know a lot of peopl who fill those out for fucks sake, I know people fil those out thinking they know what people want to hear or see. Then there are those people who are so sick of government and their bloody polls that don't answer polls because they are used to sway peopleunder the false notion that these polls represent America.

Wrong. Gallup has an identification number for every adult on America. They then get a randomly generate string of codes from a computer and choose 2000 people (May be 2314, just 2000 for example) at equal intervals. They then call the person, this isn't a poll in which only certain people answer (Like on the internet, only people that answer are 1- People who go on the internet and 2- People who care enough about a particular subject to vote.) If the person refuses to answer or does not pick, they go with the next randomly chosen person. When you see a poll done by Gallup, it is correct. There's a stat lesson for the day.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

So then what is the opinion of those not picked, those that refuse to answer, those who don't care, people like me who screen calls and would never answer those, idiots who answer polls wrong because its fun to.....I could go on.

Polls are hoohockey. Place EVERY single AMERICAN in a room with a lie detector and your poll, then display the STATS from that. Then maybe then will you ever get the opinion of America.

How can you honestly say that gallup polls represent America?

"If the person refuses to answer or does not pick, they go with the next randomly chosen person. When you see a poll done by Gallup, it is correct. "

How is skipping over people accurate?

[Caiylania]

I actually play gemstone for awhile and you guys add 4 more pages! Well damn, this will be a long post.....


Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Caiylania
Then if they found someone that truly loved and treated them right, they wouldn't be legally allowed to remarry. And when they die, the person they left would have all legal rights over children/property/money. How nice.Yep, laws suck sometimes. However, if divorce were illegal, I suspect people would take more care in who they married, thus alleviating some of these problems.
Do you have any idea how many people get married only to find out their wonderful, sweet spouse is an abuser who hid it until the rings were on? Or start abusing their kids when the time comes? Divorce, like other things, can be necessary.

Gay people are different.I have no problem with them getting whatever rights marriage supposedly gets (I'm no legal scholar, obviously) just call it something different, because they are different in a way that causes the nature of their union to be different.
So it's ok as long as they give it a whole new word? Jeeeeez, it's still marriage.

If I want an apple, but I'm not allowed to have it because I'm gay, so the law says, we shall rename this apple to jujee and then you can eat it. Because only Straight people can have apples. It doesn't change the fact I'm then eating an apple. It's just being anal over a stupid term.


Next........


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are above pro-creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That procreation is the purpose of marriage is, again, a religious definition thereof. And thus, not allowed to be in the legal definition.

-TheE-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Galleazzo
Okay, suppose you tell us how their "unions" are different from any other marriage?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Hulkein said: they don't make kids. Not that I want to dredge up THAT discussion again. But it seems like a pretty fundamental difference to me. [/quote]

Ok, let's say the the whole ORIGINAL purpose of marriage was for a man and woman to procreate. So that we could 'go forth and multiply'. We have gone forth, and we have multiplied. In fact, so much that at this rate the Earth is going ot have problems sustaining us if we don't get it under control.

So we have done our job. Gay people marrying does not hurt the human population. There are so many kids that need homes, I hope good people adopt like crazy instead of being told they can't because they are gay or infertile couples spending 10s of thousands of dollars on fertility drugs when kids all over the US and the world are going foster home to foster home or living in poverty. Off track though.

Point being, if the purpose of Marriage was to fill the Earth with humans, we've done it. So Marriage is obsolete by that point. If however, it is so that TWO PEOPLE who love one another can share THEIR life together, then it isn't obsolete and anyone should be allowed to do it.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Maimara
So because homosexuals are different, they ought to be treated different? Like... people with red hair? Like Muslims? Like people with different colored skin?

My point isn't to say that sexual orientation is like anything that I've stated above. My point is basically this though: In all of human history -- or American history -- every time one minority group has been treated differently than the majority, horrible things have happened. Think about the Indians. Slaves... Chinese people. Women (though I'm not sure if we're a minority... whatever). I would like to think our society has grown beyond this. Nothing bad will happen to straight people if gay people are allowed to marry. But if we ostracize gay people by forcing them to be more 'different' than they already are... it makes me wonder, who is next? If you can be discriminated against based on your sexual orientation -- and that, in my eyes, is exactly what this is -- then every right we've worked for since Abraham Lincoln is in jeopardy.


Amen. <--- In a non-religious but thats exactly what I mean and agree with type of way. Or just......

Amen.

[Edaarin]

Heh..I've completed 10 credits worth of statistics (if you include econometrics and business/economic stat analysis), and working on another four this semester (applied statistics). I think polls are bullshit, the way sampling error is calculated leaves a lot to be desired, and conducting a RANDOM sample large enough to be representative of the US population is next to impossible, and takes so much manpower/effort that the only organization that could probably do it accurately is the federal government.

[Hulkein]

<<So then what is the opinion of those not picked, those that refuse to answer, those who don't care, people like me who screen calls and would never answer those, idiots who answer polls wrong because its fun to.....I could go on.

Polls are hoohockey. Place EVERY single AMERICAN in a room with a lie detector and your poll, then display the STATS from that. Then maybe then will you ever get the opinion of America.

How can you honestly say that gallup polls represent America?

"If the person refuses to answer or does not pick, they go with the next randomly chosen person. When you see a poll done by Gallup, it is correct. "

How is skipping over people accurate?>>

You're wrong. You're not a statistician. Ask one, you'll get the same answer I'm giving you. I don't care if you can't grasp statistical methods, the poll is 95% accurate.

[Hanksbane]

Originally posted by Hulkein


You're wrong. You're not a statistician. Ask one, you'll get the same answer I'm giving you. I don't care if you can't grasp statistical methods, the poll is 95% accurate.

So what you are trying to tell me is that a random selection of people on the phone equals 95% of the people in America?

No I am not a statistician, Im a normal person who can't see how polling some random people would represent 95% of the American people. I look at that and see that it is 95% correct of the people polled. Tell me how the people not polled are accurately portrayed.

[Caiylania]

Heck, a news company did a poll that said 65% of america says to let them marry. I'm to tired (at 2am) to look it up.

My point being everyone can find statistics to prove their side of the issue. Let it go.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Maimara
So because homosexuals are different, they ought to be treated different? Like... people with red hair? Like Muslims? Like people with different colored skin? In my opinion, everyone should be treated differently, because every person is unique (nature and nurture). It's one of the greatest fallacies of the modern age that equality is some kind of great moral goal. Equality, while better than inequality, is hogwash.
Originally posted by Harmnone
So, does that mean that people are not to have sex, at all, unless they intend to procreate? Yes. I thought my position on that issue was clear. Putting aside my personal religion for a moment (I got my ashes today! :)) the purpose of sex is to create offspring in a manner such that genetic variation is ensured. That the act is pleasureable in most cases is a non-issue. "Don't have sex until your married, don't have sex unless you're trying to have kids." would be a good summation of my position.
Does that mean that two people should not marry if one (or both) of them is infertile? If two people marry and later find that they are infertile together, should they then get a divorce?
Yep and nope. Divorce is naughty. No need to be sorry. :)
Originally posted by Caiylania
Divorce, like other things, can be necessary.To me, that means we gotta fix what makes it necessary, not slap a band-aid on it.
It's just being anal over a stupid term. What can I say, I'm a physics major. :D However:
it is so that TWO PEOPLE who love one another can share THEIR life togetherWhy should they care what word is used to describe them? Who's being anal over a stupid term now? ;) Can't have it both ways.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Caiylania
Heck, a news company did a poll that said 65% of america says to let them marry. I'm to tired (at 2am) to look it up.

My point being everyone can find statistics to prove their side of the issue. Let it go.

And your point only verifies that polls can be innacurate, too bad Gallup is run by statisticians, not a local news online website. Is it really that hard to understand? You're trying to argue with statistical facts. Give it a break, you can't win that argument.

[Caiylania]

I wasn't even in the argument. Statistics are nothing more than a bunch of numbers. Statistics can be/have been/will be run. Even on Gallup. I don't personally doubt Gallup's results. Just saying, read it with a grain of salt. Either way.

[Hulkein]

Ok, that's fine Caiyl, I see what you mean.



Originally posted by HanksbaneNo I am not a statistician, Im a normal person who can't see how polling some random people would represent 95% of the American people. I look at that and see that it is 95% correct of the people polled. Tell me how the people not polled are accurately portrayed.

The people are accurately portrayed because there are constants in statistics. I'm not a statistician either, but I've taken stat courses. I can't tell you in depth on what makes this a statistical inevitability, but it is. When you get a random sample in the correct manner, poll it in the correct manner, and ask a question in a completely unbiased response, and do it to around 2000 people (when the population is that of our country), it portrays 95% accuracy. I'm not trying to act like a douche bag or a know it all, but honestly ask a statistician (or research it in a textbook) and you'll be told the same thing.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

[Edaarin]

2527 people were polled.

In no way, shape, or form is that even close enough to be considered a poll with any sort of merit. Here's how you can calculate the confidence interval yourself.

EDIT: Okay, some people don't like numbers. But look at it this way. Based on the demographics of different areas of the country (inner city, suburban areas, rural, etc), do you think that you can get an accurate reading based on 0.0001% of the country?

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Edaarin]

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Harmnone
So, does that mean that people are not to have sex, at all, unless they intend to procreate? Yes. I thought my position on that issue was clear. Putting aside my personal religion for a moment (I got my ashes today! :)) the purpose of sex is to create offspring in a manner such that genetic variation is ensured. That the act is pleasureable in most cases is a non-issue. "Don't have sex until your married, don't have sex unless you're trying to have kids." would be a good summation of my position.
Does that mean that two people should not marry if one (or both) of them is infertile? If two people marry and later find that they are infertile together, should they then get a divorce?
Yep and nope. Divorce is naughty. No need to be sorry. :)

So you believe then, that marriage has nothing to do with love? Only children? I'm not even going there. Everything else you've said I've taken time to consider, that to me is just bull shit.



Originally posted by Caiylania
Divorce, like other things, can be necessary.To me, that means we gotta fix what makes it necessary, not slap a band-aid on it.
I'm all ears. You've said..... she should leave. Then she can't get married again, you basicly said, that sucks.

So punish the woman because someone uses her as punching bag? She should be allowed to divorce. Divorce is not evil. Human's are not God are they? We make mistakes. God understands fixing them.


It's just being anal over a stupid term. What can I say, I'm a physics major. :D However:
it is so that TWO PEOPLE who love one another can share THEIR life togetherWhy should they care what word is used to describe them? Who's being anal over a stupid term now? ;) Can't have it both ways. [/quote]

Why do YOU care? They aren't asking anyone to change anything. Gay people just want to be included. you are saying , No. you can't. Its only for us. neener neener neener.

No comment on the rest of my post huh? You say marriage is about children. Then people need to stop getting married and having them. We are overpopulated. What use is marriage now?

[Caiylania]

PS: I'm going to bed. So I guess I'll have to catch up in the morning.

Hope everyone has a good night.

Ciao!

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Edaarin
2527 people were polled.

In no way, shape, or form is that even close enough to be considered a poll with any sort of merit. Here's how you can calculate the confidence interval yourself.

EDIT: Okay, some people don't like numbers. But look at it this way. Based on the demographics of different areas of the country (inner city, suburban areas, rural, etc), do you think that you can get an accurate reading based on 0.0001% of the country?


You're wrong Edaarin. Didn't you say you took stat classes? You should pay a little attention next time. You already said in a previous post 'you' personally don't agree. I know for a fact that isn't what you're being taught, you just don't believe what you're being taught.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Caiylania
So you believe then, that marriage has nothing to do with love? Only children?I believe the two are inextricably linked. I believe you can't truly have loved until you've created a child. That (to me) is why Jesus was big on us having kids.
I'm all ears.Reeducation.
They aren't asking anyone to change anything. Yes they are. My idea of marriage is a man and a woman til death does them part. I have to change if they want to be called "married". And before anyone brings it up, I'm quite aware there are straight people who are wrecking my idea of marriage. This does not mean I should encourage other people to continue wrecking it.
We are overpopulated. I don't think the problems that can be described as overpopulation are due to there being too many people. I think the more potent cause is the way society is run and the way we haven't completed globalizing yet. Regardless, if each marriage only has one or two children, then overpopulation is irrelevant, so long as we don't eventually attain ridiculous lifespans.
I'm going to bed.Good night! :)

[Hulkein]

If you're not good at math, and want some sort of proof besides the shit coming out of my mouth, here is a nice MoE calculator. I haven't used this, just found it while looking around.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

[Edaarin]

Nevermind, TheE said in one sentence what took me about 30 minutes of formula searching (and failing) to point out

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Edaarin]

[Ilvane]

Okay here are some thoughts on the differences between civil unions and marriage(courtesy of HRC)

Couples eligible to marry may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world.

Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont (the only state that offers civil unions) have no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to neighboring New York or New Hampshire – let alone California or any other state.

Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage.

In short, civil unions are not separate but equal – they are separate and unequal. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn’t work.

Marriage: State grants marriage licenses to couples.
Civil Unions: State would grant civil union licenses to couples.

Marriage: Couples receive legal protections and rights under state and federal law.
Civil Unions: Couples receive legal protections and rights under state law only.

Marriage: Couples are recognized as being married by the federal government and all state governments.
Civil Unions: Civil unions are not recognized by other states or federal government.

Marriage: Religious institutions are not required to recognize marriages or perform marriage ceremonies.
Civil Unions: Religious institutions are not required to recognize civil unions or perform civil union ceremonies.

And Raven, FYI the actual amendment is worded like this:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this [C]onstitution [n]or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

-A

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this [C]onstitution [n]or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

So in other words, they are ordering the states to discriminate and guaranteeing nothing to replace it. Yes, that sounds right.

Raven

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Tijay
I agree with a lot of what you said tayvin, but in my personal opinion there is a lot to be gained here information wise if you just skip over the flames. I know personally i've had this discussion (i prefer this to the term debate) with some peers of mine and the sanctity of marriage issue never came up. For me it was a chance to understand the other side of the issues a bit more and learn something. For me these kind of threads are worth it just for the chance bettering my understanding of people and their beliefs.

Good point Tijay. My remarks were premature and there is something to be said for an open discussion.

My problem earlier was I was so distracted by the swirl I failed to see the rational comments. Thanks for pointing it out.

Bill

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I believe the two are inextricably linked. I believe you can't truly have loved until you've created a child. That (to me) is why Jesus was big on us having kids.

So, you are telling me that you believe you cannot truly love your parents, your grandparents, your siblings, or the little tyke you took into your home when nobody wanted him/her but you, unless and until you have created a child yourself?

I really do not know what to say to that, so I shall bow out.

HarmNone, nonplussed and at a complete loss for words

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by HarmNone]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
So, you are telling me that you believe you cannot truly love your parents, your grandparents, your siblings, or the little tyke you took into your home when nobody wanted him/her but you, unless and until you have created a child yourself?I know you bowed out and all, but I feel the need to respond anyway.

I've created things; music, programs, games. And it's a very enriching experience, bringing an idea to fruition. I can't conceive of what the experience of creating a child must be like, to have a life completely reliant on myself, where I am an intensely imperfect being. With all my faults, with all my sins, with all my failings, I can bring something beautiful, something pure, something right into the world. It's (in a manner of speaking) the same way I feel I won't truly be mature until I really have a close brush with death. How can I understand what that experience is like, having not experienced it? How could I possibly comprehend?

It's the same deal. I love my mom and dad, but it's not the same way I would feel about my kids. It can't be. There's just no way the two relationships can be even close to the same. Raising an unrelated child is probably as close as I could get. But until I actually create, this is all just conceptual anyhow. I don't think I'm wrong. I'm curious as to what you find so off-putting about my theories, Harm. Or anyone else who feels similarly, for that matter.

[TheEschaton]

Wrong. Take a stat class or call a statistician. The poll question is asked in a way to get a natural, unbiased answer. They poll a certain amount of people in a certain way to get the results of the ENTIRE COUNTRY to within 95% accuracy (Might even be 97% in this case). Don't talk about things you don't know.

While your poll might be 95% accurate, it is FAR from statistically significant.

It's like saying: this poll is 100% accurate, and we found 50 people are for this, and 50 are against it. It shows nothing.

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

Your theories are not off-putting to me, Latrinsorm. They are, however, very different from my views of life and living it.

There are many kinds of love, without a doubt. All of them are "true" in their own ways. The love one has for one's spouse, or parent, or adopted child is just as real and true as that one might have for the "child of their loins".

I have had children of my own. I raised, for several years, one child not my own. The love I felt for that child was in no way less than that which I felt for my own children, nor has it ever become so. That young woman is just as important to me, today, as my own offspring are. I can say, without reservation, that I love them all equally.

I have had close brushes with death, and held the dying in my arms...along with the family members of the dying. Sometimes, the dying were very young. Yet, the pain of loss, the love that poured out of the families of those who were passing was not weakened, or less true, by the fact that the dying was not the child of the mourner.

Perhaps, it is experience that speaks when I react to some things I read here. I am older than most of you. That does not mean that I am smarter, or more right. It simply means that I have a larger reservoir of experience from which to draw my conclusions. Whether or not those conclusions are right I do not know; nor, would I wish to force them on others as truth. They are no more than what I have lived. :)

HarmNone

[TheEschaton]

Yes. I thought my position on that issue was clear. Putting aside my personal religion for a moment (I got my ashes today! ) the purpose of sex is to create offspring in a manner such that genetic variation is ensured.

Latrin, I would of thought you would of known better. The Second Vatican Council (which, I hope you recognize -- /sarcasm) stated that sexual relationships between people are equally and separately about love, and procreation. Equally as in they're both valued and necessary, separate as in one cannot make the theological argument that the one only stems from the other.

Now, I've made my argument that aiming towards procreation (creating a family environment, raising kids through adoption, etc, etc) is a sufficient enough to fulfill the "procreation" aspect of having meaningful sex - indeed, that is what your Church (and mine) has taught in the case of other non-childbearing couples. Please, show how a homosexual couple, who love and cherish each other, and want to raise kids together, are not fulfilling the requirements of marriage?

One of the most important lessons that Jesus taught was that intention was just as powerful as action. "If you have thought of adultery, it is as if you have done it yourself..." or how about "If you go to sleep with even a bad thought of your brother, rise up, and go to him, and beg his forgiveness." Or, how about the widow and the two mites, who, though her physical contribution was nothing compared to those of the rich and powerful, was worth far much more in its substance?

Maybe we should go with the very idea behind the Eucharist - that it is not "transformation" taking place, IE, the actual turning of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ - but "transubtantiation", the changing of the substance, the essence of the wafer and wine to body and blood.

Keep it coming, I love it. ;) The state, and the Church's arguments, against homosexuality, have no moral nor theological ground to stand on outside of some obscure verses in the Old Testament and the teachings of one epistle writer who was, in fact, preaching against Roman perversion, and the expression of homosexuality within that context.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

On a side note, Latrin, I didn't get my ashes today. Instead, I had to go the hospital and explain to one of my clients that she was dying, because some HIV+ miscreant raped her 12 years ago. Needless to say, I found my Mass between feeding tubes and the beeping of an EKG machine, my Eucharist in the cafeteria pudding, my Church Community in her hand gripping mine.

Thus, I apologize for any sort of negative tone I've had today. I almost wished I could of gone to Mass. Ash Wednesday, Good Friday - those are all events we can think of abstractly. We beat our breasts in the appropriate spots in the ceremony and cry "Eloi, eloi, lamma sabakthani", but, like T.S. Eliot said, they are but kisses of desperate men to the feet of broken stone. Watching a person die - of something so foul as AIDS - that is when you can live what Job suffered, or what Jesus suffered.

God, I need to go to bed. I need to be up in 5 hours to do it again.

-TheE-

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Nieninque

Originally posted by Hulkein
Nienique, what do you mean by depends who you listen to? Gallup polls are 95% accurate and take every step to be statistically sound. Gallup isn't slanted, it is the truth.

you can get any result to a poll you want, by asking who you want. I dont doubt that Gallup are reputable in giving the results they have found...but unless they asked everyone in the country, there aint no truth in that. It is was it is...an Opinion poll.

Wrong. Take a stat class or call a statistician. The poll question is asked in a way to get a natural, unbiased answer. They poll a certain amount of people in a certain way to get the results of the ENTIRE COUNTRY to within 95% accuracy (Might even be 97% in this case). Don't talk about things you don't know.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

Unless they ask everyone, it is a sample of the population. You can speculate that this is what everyone thinks...or says...but specualtion is exactly what it is, because it does not truly come from everyone. It comes from a bunch of people.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Wrong. Gallup has an identification number for every adult on America. They then get a randomly generate string of codes from a computer and choose 2000 people (May be 2314, just 2000 for example) at equal intervals. They then call the person, this isn't a poll in which only certain people answer (Like on the internet, only people that answer are 1- People who go on the internet and 2- People who care enough about a particular subject to vote.) If the person refuses to answer or does not pick, they go with the next randomly chosen person. When you see a poll done by Gallup, it is correct. There's a stat lesson for the day.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

Highly questionable.
Even if it were this way, its a random poll of a very small number of people in the Country. 2000 people compared to the full population of the US is a tiny sample. Go talk to your stats teacher and ask them what's the chances of such a tiny sample being accurately used to predict the feelings of the entire nation.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by HarmNone
So, you are telling me that you believe you cannot truly love your parents, your grandparents, your siblings, or the little tyke you took into your home when nobody wanted him/her but you, unless and until you have created a child yourself?I know you bowed out and all, but I feel the need to respond anyway.

I've created things; music, programs, games. And it's a very enriching experience, bringing an idea to fruition. I can't conceive of what the experience of creating a child must be like, to have a life completely reliant on myself, where I am an intensely imperfect being. With all my faults, with all my sins, with all my failings, I can bring something beautiful, something pure, something right into the world. It's (in a manner of speaking) the same way I feel I won't truly be mature until I really have a close brush with death. How can I understand what that experience is like, having not experienced it? How could I possibly comprehend?

It's the same deal. I love my mom and dad, but it's not the same way I would feel about my kids. It can't be. There's just no way the two relationships can be even close to the same. Raising an unrelated child is probably as close as I could get. But until I actually create, this is all just conceptual anyhow. I don't think I'm wrong. I'm curious as to what you find so off-putting about my theories, Harm. Or anyone else who feels similarly, for that matter.


I loved my Mother as much as my child. When I hold my daughter, and think of her the love makes my heart hurt with it it is so strong. I felt the same for my Mom.

It sounds to me you have never experienced true love, and as you said yourself, how can you comprehend it?

Love is not just bringing a life into the world. How many men leave and never look back when a GF and/or wife gets pregnant? Thousands upon thousands. Children do not make love, it has to be there first.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Reeducation.

That works, sometimes. I am assuming you mean for abusers. But I shall make my point as clear as I can.

I have a friend whose husband started beating her the week after their honeymoon ended. A year later, after being almost beat to death and he was taken to prison, did she leave him and get a divorce.

He was released 4 years later (re-educated according to parole board). So according to you, she should go back to him? Should never have gotten a divorce?

She is now married (for almost 3 years) with two beautiful children to a man who treats her with honor, love and respect. But according to you she is being naughty (what you call divorce) So let me call her up and tell her to leave the man she shouldn't be married to and go back to her first husband. I'm sure she will understand your point of view and agree.

Oh wait, he's back in prison for putting his new girlfriend in the hospital. Damn, guess she'll have to wait for him to get out before she runs to him again.



They aren't asking anyone to change anything. Yes they are. My idea of marriage is a man and a woman til death does them part. I have to change if they want to be called "married".

YOUR idea of marriage. Based on Religious beliefs or otherwise. How would you feel if Jewish people tried to push through a law saying that people can only eat Kosher food? That it is wrong for people to not do as they believe?

America can not follow Religious law because you want it too. Two gay people getting married does not hurt you unless you continue to get anal over it.

Thousands of people love each other so much they are fighting for the right to marry. There is honor in that. You are trying to say they do not have the same rights as you because they don't share your sexual inclinations.

Is only the missionary position allowed now too? Shesh.

Tell me how you feel after another religion tries to push through laws saying you can't eat cows (Hindu) or do something that you feel is perfectly fine.

Stop pushing your religious beliefs on other people.

We are overpopulated. I don't think the problems that can be described as overpopulation are due to there being too many people. I think the more potent cause is the way society is run and the way we haven't completed globalizing yet. Regardless, if each marriage only has one or two children, then overpopulation is irrelevant, so long as we don't eventually attain ridiculous lifespans.

I agree to a point on dealing with overpopulation. But unless people stop having kids for say a decade and then agree to have only 2 per family, the population shall continue to go Up.

You still didn't answer my question, or respond. If the point of men and women was to go forth and multiply, have we not done so? Is not the job done for now??

Gay people getting married wouldn't even but a DENT into the arrival of more children. And many want to HELP those children that have NO ONE to love them.

Why don't you go adopt a child to make up for the one who won't get a loving home because most gays aren't allowed to adopt. Go take up that burden... and/or go tell them that their are good people who would love and cherish them but they can't cause you say its wrong. Let me know what they say.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Caiylania

Two gay people getting married does not hurt you unless you continue to get anal over it.


Great Quote. :lol:

Kinda like the man who said "I dont mind gay men...as long as they dont try and ram it down my throat...!"

*This insertion of humour in no way is meant to undermine Caiylania's argument as I agree with her 100%*

[Caiylania]

LoL Nice quote yourself.

A gay woman hit on me once, I preened for like a week. She was good looking. Women are harder on women than men, so its a real compliment!

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Caiylania
A gay woman hit on me once, I preened for like a week. She was good looking. Women are harder on women than men, so its a real compliment!


preen
To take pride or satisfaction in (oneself); gloat.

Damn, was hoping an alternate definition for preen would have been "Contemplate"

Yes something like that happend to me two when I was 17, I had a middle aged gay man follow me out of work to my car asking me to go on a date with him, my responce was a simple no. Then when I went to open my door he pushed it shut. A few choice words, and threats got him to back off. I was not "preening" after that.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by The Edine
Yes something like that happend to me two when I was 17, I had a middle aged gay man follow me out of work to my car asking me to go on a date with him, my responce was a simple no. Then when I went to open my door he pushed it shut. A few choice words, and threats got him to back off. I was not "preening" after that.

Guess I'm just sexually unappealing to men. Not that I'm complaining.

But I have had two guys here at work ask me if I've lost weight in the past week or so. And they're both gay.

Fuck it, a compliment's a compliment, and I don't see any women giving me any :P

[Edaarin]

Better than having a gay guy call you scrumptious while questioning your ethnicity at Abercrombie with your metrosexual roommate. Not that that's ever happened to me.

[Betheny]

All the more reason to let gays marry. If they're married -- they wouldn't hit on you! And if they did, all's you'd have to say is, "What would your husband think!?"

[Caiylania]

ROFL some humor finally. Keep it rolling :)

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Hulkein
They are above pro-creation.
Woohoo, just what I wanted to hear?

So, Hulkein, you agree that senior citizens should not be allowed to get married?

You agree that hetero couples need to be fertility tested as a precondition for getting married?

You agree that people who are sterile should not be allowed to get married?

You agree that women over menopause should not be allowed to get married?

You agree that couples who don't want children should not be allowed to get married?

Glad to hear you believe all of that!

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Marriage is a union between a man and a women. What makes their union different? It's not a man and a women. BRILLIANT!

People said the same thing forty years ago, only they said a "white man and a white woman" or "a Negro man and a Negro woman."

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Tendarian
Comparing what homosexuals go through as being equal to what blacks went through is crazy. I see this brought up time and again. Sure there was some mostly uninforced sodomy laws but none were ever slaves. None had to ride the back of the bus. None had to use seperate drinking fountains. It sure is nice to try to hitch your agenda to their train though. Maybe you should bring up how women couldnt vote next too.

Why not.

You know something? No one alive in America was a slave. No one alive in America's PARENT was a slave.

But you know something? People sure get lynched now for being gay. There's been a few cases in NEW ENGLAND in the last few years, and you'd figure that people'd be tolerant of that here if anywhere.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Because homosexuals and heterosexuals are different. Didn't we cover this like 3 pages back?
And whites and blacks are different. That's what the bigots said fifty years ago when they were throwing people in prison for violating mixed-marriage laws.

I got a question: what are you antis- so very afraid of? Can a single ONE of you tell me how gay marriage (and the word M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E, not your "civil" ghettos) harms you?

[Hanksbane]

Okay I justwent to the website of the Gallup Organization and read about how they conducted their polls. SO I see where you are saying that they are 95% accurate.

After reading quite a long winded essay on how they actually believed that sampling the RIGHT 2000 or so people would accuratley represent the country as a whole, all i can say is that its because they assume too much. I for one put no weight towards their polls. For you, and others who agree that Gallup Polls are accurate, its your choice, go ahead. In my OPINION, it still doesn't fly. I can't buy it. There are too many outside factors that they are basically guessing at. There is a population of people not unlike myself who are cynical and pay ne heed to politics because we have become disillusioned to the whole thing. I seriously doubt that there are many of those who would submit to these polls, (well at least a lot of people I know) so I would say that the Gallup polls do not accurately portray them. So like I said..Unless you take EVERYONE's opinion, polls are pretty much...assumptions, and not 95% accurate, I'd say more like 75%. 95% is an optimistic number at best.

But lets get back to what really matters here. Bush wants to add an amendment that goes against everything Americans have fought and died over. And once again, thats my OPINION.

Hulk, i know you're not trying to be an A-hole about it, no worries. Its actually forced me to do some research and learn a bit. One of the things I've learned is how diverse GS players really are in beliefs and views. Its this diversity that makes America what it is.

Okay...I need to go kill some giants or something...

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Caiylania
ROFL some humor finally. Keep it rolling :)
I don't got humor, but I got an anecdote.

Went to see some martial arts flicks with the boys at the drive-in a bunch of years ago. Maybe around 1981. Anyway, this guy hits on me in the men's room at halftime.

I went back to the car chuckling, and the boys asked what happened. I told them, and they wanted to go beat the shit out of him. I asked why -- dude wasn't crude and he took no for an answer, and would they have wanted to beat the shit out of a woman if SHE had hit on me?

They thought on it and rubbed their chins and figured they'd never thought that through, really, but maybe I was right and they needed to do them some thinking.

Made my week.

[Betheny]

Some people don't want kids...

Squirting them out isn't exactly grounds for anything. And in case you hadn't noticed, it doesn't save marriages, or even encourage marriages.

[Skirmisher]

Yeah, having kids to save a marriage is a favored marital counseling technique.:lol:

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheEschaton

Yes. I thought my position on that issue was clear. Putting aside my personal religion for a moment (I got my ashes today! ) the purpose of sex is to create offspring in a manner such that genetic variation is ensured.

Latrin, I would of thought you would of known better. The Second Vatican Council (which, I hope you recognize -- /sarcasm)That's why I said I was putting my religion aside. ;) I didn't think it would be polite (or logical) to bring it into this kind of debate.
Please, show how a homosexual couple, who love and cherish each other, and want to raise kids together, are not fulfilling the requirements of marriage?I just don't believe it's possibly the same. :shrug: There's really no way you (or Harm) can convince me otherwise until I go through it myself.

And I'm not arguing morally against homosexuality. I'm not arguing against homosexuality at all. It seems obvious to me that the nature of a gay couple is so different from the nature of a straight couple that it is inaccurate to describe both the same way.

Man, your job sucks. :(
Originally posted by Caiylania
I loved my Mother as much as my child. I want to make this very clear: I was not comparing the two quantitatively (I love my child more). I was comparing them qualitatively (love for my child is different).
Oh wait, he's back in prison Clearly, the re-education system is flawed. Once we fix that, I will be happy to call up your friend myself and tell her.
Two gay people getting married does not hurt you unless you continue to get anal over it.I never said it hurt me. You said they weren't asking anyone to change. I pointed out that I was being asked to change. That's all.
If the point of men and women was to go forth and multiply, have we not done so?I meant to answer that more clearly: No. We have not.
Why don't you go adopt a child to make up for the one who won't get a loving home because most gays aren't allowed to adopt. When did I ever say they couldn't adopt?!? Did I miss something? I thought we were talking about using the term marriage. :fret:
Originally posted by Galleazzo
And whites and blacks are different. Of course. However, the difference between whites and blacks has 0 to do with anything related to marriage. The difference between gay and straight has A LOT to do with sex, and therefore has a lot to do with marriage.

[Galleazzo]

However, the difference between whites and blacks has 0 to do with anything related to marriage. The difference between gay and straight has A LOT to do with sex, and therefore has a lot to do with marriage.

Kind of deluded, don't you think? The difference between whites and blacks has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. Marriage is a social institution with publically recognized effects and legally recognized facets, and the whole mixed-marriage law deal revolved around "We don't associate with those kind of people."

Gay vs. straight involve -- aside from prejudice -- nothing, NOTHING more than what parts you put in your mouth in the bedroom.

I'm really still missing something, here, I guess. Suppose you explain to me why the definition of marriage should hinge on what bedroom practices I do? What male gays do, for instance, is have a lot of oral and anal sex. Suppose (male, hetero) me has oral and anal sex with my (female, hetero) partner. You're saying that we should be banned from being married because of that?

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Galleazzo

Originally posted by Caiylania
ROFL some humor finally. Keep it rolling :)
I don't got humor, but I got an anecdote.

Went to see some martial arts flicks with the boys at the drive-in a bunch of years ago. Maybe around 1981. Anyway, this guy hits on me in the men's room at halftime.

I went back to the car chuckling, and the boys asked what happened. I told them, and they wanted to go beat the shit out of him. I asked why -- dude wasn't crude and he took no for an answer, and would they have wanted to beat the shit out of a woman if SHE had hit on me?

They thought on it and rubbed their chins and figured they'd never thought that through, really, but maybe I was right and they needed to do them some thinking.

Made my week.


Would have made mine too :) GOod job!

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Galleazzo

Originally posted by Hulkein
They are above pro-creation.
Woohoo, just what I wanted to hear?

So, Hulkein, you agree that senior citizens should not be allowed to get married?

You agree that hetero couples need to be fertility tested as a precondition for getting married?

You agree that people who are sterile should not be allowed to get married?

You agree that women over menopause should not be allowed to get married?

You agree that couples who don't want children should not be allowed to get married?

Glad to hear you believe all of that!

We're talking general cases here genius. Another fallacy on your part.

In general, a heterosexual couple can pro-create. You asked what was different, that's different.


TheE, I don't understand how you debate things with religious doctrines behind you when you agree with them, yet you just ignore them when it's convenient for your personal POV?

Not to mention you flip flop during a debate over and over again just to maintain in your head that you're right. Choose a fucking viewpoint and argue it out. Don't use religious text and expect it to prove anything if you're not going to accept it in a different argument.

First you said gays are allowed to be married because (paraphrased) "The Church defines marriages a man and woman, not the government." I then proved to you that in fact that GOVERNMENT defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. There's one instance of you flip flopping the principle of your argument.

Then I said that gays should be allowed to get civil union licenses with full tax benefits ect.. You said NO, they should be able to be married just like anyone else (which implies that the dilemma at hand for you has nothing to do with taxes), why? Because 'the government has no right to say who can and can't get married.' I then point out that the government CAN AND DOES say who can get married because they say that you cannot wed multiple people. You realize this is true, so what do you do? You then conveniently argue that multiple couples would get too much of a tax break. Funny how you argue that the taxes stop it now that you need that as a crutch to save your dwindled argument, yet earlier in the debate you implied that the tax breaks aren't what is important, otherwise civil union certs would be OK. That is three changes in your argument, all I can say is that your position here holds no water with me the way you've backpedalled and shifted even the main premises of your argument.

[Edited on 2-26-2004 by Hulkein]

[Hulkein]

by John Hawkins
Margaret Thatcher once wrote,

"Whether it is in the United States or in mainland Europe, written constitutions have one great weakness. That is that they contain the potential to have judges take decisions which should properly be made by Democratically elected politicians."

Today, that "great weakness" is being exploited by gay advocates and judicial activists who are attempting to radically alter the definition of marriage. Just as Justice Scalia predicted in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, courts in Massachusetts and a mayor in San Francisco with the tacit approval of liberal judges, are defying the will of the voters and imposing gay marriage by fiat.

One could make the case that per the First Amendment, the government has absolutely no right to fundamentally alter the definition of a religious ceremony to begin with. But since that argument has little chance of succeeding in an age where the government outstripping the powers given to it by the Constitution is the rule, not the exception, I think it's worth pointing out that state legislatures & voters, not imperious judges or a mayor acting like the head of a banana republic, should be the ones to make this sort of momentous decision. (I agree with that point for anyone who said send it to the Supreme Court)

Since that is the reality we face, I think Bush's decision to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to preserve marriage is the right one because this issue is not going away. Given the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, it's entirely possible that we're one SCOTUS decision away from having marriage irrevocably transformed, no matter what the American people believe or desire.

Despite the situation we're in, some people who are against gay marriage will assert that a Constitutional Amendment is the wrong way to address this issue. But, we must deal with things as they are, not as we wish them to be. If our choices are either to allow the courts to impose an iconoclastic change to the institution of marriage or to amend the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the vast majority of the American people, and those do appear to be our choices, then the latter is without question preferable.

But of course, the debate is not just about the "how," it's about "why"? Why should President Bush attempt to push through a Constitutional Amendment that will block gay marriages? Well, let's be honest here, this isn't JUST about gay marriage. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, polygamy and marriages between adult members of the same family are not going to be far behind. In fact, because of historical precedence, I believe you can actually make a better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. Many people will deny that, but throughout the years, as we've slid further and further down the slippery slope towards gay marriage, the obvious truth about what was happening was always staunchly denied by most of the liberal establishment. So what of it some people may say? If two men want to marry, a man wants 10 wives, or if an adopted brother and sister want to be joined together in holy matrimony, what's the problem with that?

I think for Christians, "it's against my religion" would be an entirely appropriate response. However, while that response may be appropriate, it does not sufficiently convey the scope of the problem presented by gay marriage.

We must remember that marriage is the bedrock upon which not only our society, but societies across the world are founded. Men and women, bound together through marriage, working as a team to raise their children, have proven absolutely essential to the success of our nation. This becomes obvious when we ponder the price our society has paid for allowing institution of marriage to be weakened in the past. Poverty, surging crime rates, drug abuse, violence, and the mental anguish often suffered by illegitimate children or kids who go through a divorce have cost our society dearly and will continue to do so. When one considers the horrific cost of illegitimacy and divorce to our society, the rational response would be to try to strengthen the institution of marriage. But instead, we're talking about making subversive changes that will quite likely have a devastating negative impact on our society down the road.

There are of course those who scoff at that notion and in one sense, they have a point. I sincerely doubt if you're going to see a lot of long lasting, stable, marriages break-up if the definition of marriage is altered. However, as marriage continues to lose it's "specialness," as it changes from a sacred, once in a lifetime event that little girls start planning from the time they're young, to just something the government makes you do if you want benefits at work, less people will bother to get married. You simply cannot fundamentally metamorphose a tradition more than a millenia old in the courts without producing this effect.

Moreover, the attempts by advocates of gay marriage to denigrate the institution as it exists today are not only callow & colossally arrogant, they are quite telling. If someone wants to make the case that everyone from Jesus, to George Washington, to practically every American who ever lived up until say 20 years ago, is a racist, bigot, pig because they believed marriage is between a man and woman, so be it. But, everyone from polygamists, to adults engaged in incest, to even those who want to marry the dead, could effectively make the same claim using that sort of logic. So why go down that road? Because we're talking about myopic people who are more concerned with getting their way than the consequences of their actions. If trashing the institution of marriage is the price of getting their way, that's a price they're willing to pay.

In any case, Americans who believe it's essential to preserve marriage have to decide whether they're going to support a Constitutional Amendment or whether they're going to stand by and allow the definition of marriage to be arbitrarily changed by our judiciary. That's a decision that each person will have to make individually. But, before you decide which way you're going to come down on this issue, ask yourself an important question; if marriage isn't worth fighting for with every tool the US Constitution provides to us, then what is?

[Galleazzo]

Hulk, who the fuck are you talking to? I haven't said Word 1 about tax breaks. If you're going to get all pompous on us, get the right guy, anyway.

Next thing while we're talking pompous. Of COURSE the government asserts the right to define marriage. When we say "The government has no right" we mean that the government should HAVE no right. It takes a real goober to distort that.

Next thing, and I'll try to use small words and sentences here.

When we ask "What's the difference here?" we mean "What is there about gays that should disqualify them for civil marriage?"

When you reply "Heterosexuals can procreate" you're drawing what the eggheads call a logical inference, and suggesting that marriage is for procreation.

Alright, we reply, if you say that the ability to procreate is the lynchpin of marriage, then it stands to reason if you can't then you shouldn't be able to get married, just like you believe with gays.

Ball's in your court, guy.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Please, show how a homosexual couple, who love and cherish each other, and want to raise kids together, are not fulfilling the requirements of marriage?I just don't believe it's possibly the same. :shrug: There's really no way you (or Harm) can convince me otherwise until I go through it myself.

That is just so dumb I can't even believe you said it.



Originally posted by Caiylania
I loved my Mother as much as my child. I want to make this very clear: I was not comparing the two quantitatively (I love my child more). I was comparing them qualitatively (love for my child is different). You said that only through having a child can someone know real love. That is false.


Oh wait, he's back in prison Clearly, the re-education system is flawed. Once we fix that, I will be happy to call up your friend myself and tell her.
You are fucked up. I'm sorry. So do you think someone who beats their children and puts them in the hospital ever has the right to get them back? Same scenario with marriage removed. HELL NO. But because the guy FAKED WHO HE WAS and didn't start beating his wife until after he got married he has all rights to her future??? Go get the shit beat out of you please, and then live with that person for the rest of your life. Then I will listen to you. Thx.



Two gay people getting married does not hurt you unless you continue to get anal over it.I never said it hurt me. You said they weren't asking anyone to change. I pointed out that I was being asked to change. That's all.
Lordy help me. Someone is asking me to educate my self and grow up!!! To not push my beliefs on other people. I mean, you are so much more important because you want to infringe on other people's rights. Ugh.


If the point of men and women was to go forth and multiply, have we not done so?I meant to answer that more clearly: No. We have not.
How have we not?? 6 billion people not enough for you???


Why don't you go adopt a child to make up for the one who won't get a loving home because most gays aren't allowed to adopt. When did I ever say they couldn't adopt?!? Did I miss something? I thought we were talking about using the term marriage. :fret:
If you and others want to deny them marriage based on sanctity and believe its wrong, but its ok to let them adopt? If they can adopt and raise children, why can't they marry? Its all seeking family.


Now, I ask this again. How would you feel if Jewish people tried to get a bill passed only allowing Kosher food? Or that all boys have to be circumsised no matter what. Or Hindu's tried making the eating of beef illegal?? Etc..... and so forth.

Those are there beliefs! Cows are SACRED! If you eat beef you are just as wrong as gay people are to YOUR beliefs. But you would fight the GOvt giving into Jewish people, Hindu's, etc......

So why are YOUR beliefs more important than theirs?

[Galleazzo]

Oh, on the Faulkner rant? The guy's got a glimmer of truth. He says that supporting the institution of marriage is essential in our society. Right on.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE GAYS ARE DOING HERE. They're saying No to the bullshit civil union ghetto, because that spits in the face of marriage. It says that you can have a la carte, split level pseudo-marriages, and that's just not right.

And you know something? Three people want to get married? Sure, why not. THat example of an adopted brother and sister? Sure, why not. Get the fucking religion out of our lawbooks.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
and the whole mixed-marriage law deal revolved around "We don't associate with those kind of people."Generation Y is color blind. :D
I'm really still missing something, here, I guess. Suppose you explain to me why the definition of marriage should hinge on what bedroom practices I do?Gay sex is incapable of producing children. Marriage is designed to produce children, because it's when you're married that you have sex. (I realize that the last sentence is a minority opinion. We've been over the "infertile" argument before, scroll back if you really want to go over it again.) Thus, a gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. Diffusing the term marriage is a bad idea, in my eyes, and I would much rather have a different term (for an essentially different relationship) with whatever legal benefits marriage gives.

If you, in a heterosexual relationship, choose to have sex that doesn't involve producing children, I think that my disagreeing with that is going to necessitate bringing my religion to bear, and that's really not going to fly, so I'll have to ask you to excuse me from that. :)