On gay marriage or in general? I'm going by the latter.
I'm not. I'm looking at the way people generally vote. Some counties that normally vote liberal voted yes on Prop 8. Still, the biggest Prop 8 areas are the normally conservative places that I've named, and they all are inland.

Think about Santa Barabara, Monterey, Ventura, San Diego... these all very commonly go blue.
Have you been to Cal Berkeley? The reputation it has is just as well earned today as it was 30 years ago.
Berkeley freshmen are more liberal and less religious than their national counterparts

Not only that, but I believe that California has more unions than New England. That's pretty liberal.
It's relative. If California were in Europe or were a state in Canada, we'd be conservative, but in the US? We're liberal overall.

I named the issues that we vote conservative on.
at the local level, we are conservative and do not vote "blue"
our governor is republican, and our past governors were conservative

all those places you mentioned are extremely wealthy
the people may vote however they do, but when it comes to business and the actual movers of industry, we are conservative
you can talk to students, but I'm discussing the departments, where the research is conducted, the policies that are recommended, the thinktanks like RAND, these are the things that drive our prison industry, our crime policies, the way governance should operate, this shit is conservative bro

now I'm asking you to name some liberal policies, not tell me how many people express that they're liberal.
just this most recent election, the drug rehabilitation programs failed, the victims crime rights that decimates our criminal justice system passed, the abortion notification of minors failed by like 400,000 thousand votes and abortion is something most people agree should be legal in limited ways from both political spectrums, and then prop 8 passed.

now please go look up the mayors for the cities you mentioned and let me know what liberal policies they espouse.
in fact, did you even follow last mayor election in San Diego? It was a fiasco....you should read about it or I'll post it after I play some Ratchet and Clank.

Police brutality.

WOW Report: Exclusive Footage of Police Brutality at the Prop 8 Protest in Hollywood

Our governor is a celebrity, and our previous governor was a Democrat that didn't know what he was doing. Since WW2, it's been pretty even.
Again, we've got a ton of unions. Unions are, by their very nature, liberal. The movers of industry are the workers, after all. :thumbsup:
But it doesn't effect the students. Cal, SF, SJ, SD, SC... they all turn out liberal grads. Those grads turn into the white collar, blue voting liberals.
Liberal policies? Like pro-choice, anti-war, pro-civil rights, pro-social programs, freedom of speech, religion, and press, transparent government, accountable business, environment and such?
Who was it that said organizing liberals is like herding cats? It's naturally difficult to organize progressives because we're not all pulling for the same things. Some progressives are obsessed with healthcare, some abortion, some war, etc. Not everyone agrees on where we should be pushing the hardest, and it's there where conservatives have an advantage; they're fighting for what already is.
Oh, I was naming counties, but I'll take a crack at them (mind you about 3/4 of this is from google, I could tell you all about Chuch Reed though).
Santa Barabara: Marty Bloom is very involved in addressing homelessness, pro civil rights (especially women's rights), and she's very pro-teacher's unions
Monterey: Chuck Della Sala is heavily involved in city beautification. I don't know much more about him.
Ventura: Christy Weir? No clue.
San Diego: Yeah, not so good there.

Our governors have not been pretty even.
Going backwards:
Swartzenegger R
Davis D (it's interesting that the only democrat governor in the last 30 years and you classify him as a failure; the main reasons for his recall were that he signed into law rights for domestic partners and granting licenses for illegal aliens and requiring business to shoulder the medical insurance costs of their workers...sounds like the people were pretty liberal on those ideas, right?)
Wilson R (signed into law three strikes and resumed the death penalty after 25 years)
Deukmajian R
Jerry Brown D (actually was a liberal, elected in 75 on an anti-war platform)
Reagan R
Pat Brown (Ran first as a R, then as a D)
Knight R
Earl Warren R

I don't know about the ton of unions; you went from thinking you remembered hearing somewhere that we had the most unions, and then from there to now using that "fact" as the basis for us being most liberal.
even if either of those premises were true, how does being a union worker translate to voting for progressive policies? the votes tallied do not support your conclusion.
Workers are not directing capital, I don't even know what to say at that statement.
Millions of workers are not even in labor positions; all students and student workers are part of the auto union, for example. Teachers are in a separate union, they don't have anything to do with capital. Law enforcement is unionized here, they are far from progressive in their policies and use their union to muscle higher wages and more prisons from our state.


these are the same majority that vote for regressive policies every time they are on the budget. I asked you to give me some progressive policies that the people have been supportive of, and you give me a list of ideals.

Free choice is not a liberal issue. Yes, liberals support it, but mainstream and even many Republicans refuse to make it illegal. Across the nation bills to criminalize it failed this cycle, California is not liberal compared to the rest of the nation on this issue. It's simply not as large an issue to most Americans you seem to believe it is. What policies in regards to abortion do you see us practicing that other states do not?

The coast and southern regions of California are nearly completely militarized. The largest stretch of coast is Camp Pendleton, and San Diego is home to the Navy Sub Base and Marine Basic training. SF has a huge military presence, as well. We are home to the largest beneficiaries of military contracts, too. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that we're "anti-war". At least, not anymore than the rest of the country, which was your claim. The entire country is 90%+ against the current war in Iraq, but there is very little argument over war in Afghanistan or the "War on Terror."

And speaking of "wars", we're one of the largest beneficiaries of the war on drugs in regards to our southern border and drug interdiction. we're definately not opposed to that war. the most recent example was the refusal to pass the bill authorizing drug treatment for drug offenders. our drug policies are regressive, not just conservative.

pro civil rights in what way? we recalled our democratic governor in part because he gave marriage rights to homosexual partners, we passed a bill banning gay marriage, after the court said it was not constitutional we amended our constitution. what pro civil rights agenda do we support as a state that the rest of the country doesn't support?

freedom of religion, speech, and press?
black people can vote in our elections, too. that may have been progressive 100 years ago, but wtf. where are these policy issues anywhere in the US?

the environment is an interesting point. we have such a large state, we have some issues that tend to overlap with environmentalists. I would agree that californians seem to be environmentally conscious. I don't know how much that's represented on the whole, however. our environmentally safe energy package didn't pass, but there were problems in that bill. it's hard to know if it failed because people don't want it, or because they knew it was flawed.

I don't know how transparent government is a liberal issue, but I also don't know how we exemplify the nation in that regard.


I already wrote that I consider laws and crime to be where every day citizens brush up against their rights. I'd like you to look at those policies and point out to me where we are progressive. For example, if you mention someone's "work" with homelessness, maybe it'd be a good idea to see just how that mayor's city handles homelessness. Have they abolished anti-loitering laws? provide adequate shelters? criminalize panhandling? what kinds of mental health services are provided? needle exchanges?

it may be that organizing liberals to push an issue is like herding cats. but if the voters actually were progressively minded, they would still vote accordingly when an issue is on the ballot. they vote conservatively on this issues, however, even if they vote for their pet issue. that's not being liberal, that's having a specific agenda and we're not unique in that aspect compared to the rest of the US at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Candle. And well said, IMO. Thank you!

It sickens me when I see governemnet stopping intelligent adults from having their rights respected in court and I get tired of all the so-called "Godly Christians" being so political that they forget that people are created equal in God's eyes and deserve to be respected and heard. I am so sick and tired of the governement pretending to be fair about church and state when you know they are just spreading negative energy around in the Court System - and trying to prevent families from forming - and being legally joined for future protection from extremism. It's a new day Folks...

As an adoptee, I wouldn't care if mom & mom raised me or dad & dad as long as I had a happy, loving home and got out of the foster home program.

Different titles is a concession to the bigots. If there is a difference, it should be that churches and individuals grant marriages and the state grants civil unions, and even then it leaves a dirty taste in my mouth. Separate is never equal. It's not for race or creed or hair color or sexuality.

There's no reason why the state can't have one standard and religion has another. I really have a hard time seeing what's so controversial about limiting the state to only grant "civil unions" - and granting them without discrimination - and leaving "marriages" to the realm of religion. That there is even a question about doing this speaks volumes about where our "separation" is right now.

I am very disappointed with the state I live in. I am a white male who is married to a white female. I would like to say that I am a rational person. The very idea that a marriage should be banned period, is ridiculous! Marriage, by legal definition is a contract between two people. By religious definition, man and woman. This is a legal issue not a religious one. No person should have the right to enter into a legal contract "banned". What goes on behind closed doors is nobody's buisness. Why do you think the Morman church has given thousands of dollars for the yes cause. They rely on marriage and child bearing to increase their monetary worth.

All I'd like to know is how it affects the lives of ANYBODY outside of the marriage itself. If you get married to Jenna Jameson, and Frosstbite gets married to Bill Clinton, and I get married to a piece of carrot cake, how do our various relationships affect one another? The answer is NOT AT ALL (unless you happen to be related to said piece of carrot cake or ex-president or pornstar). If the carrot cake and I decide to have kids, there is no better chance that our children will grow up to be the next bin Laden than you and Jenna's kids will grow up to be porn stars.

America is not a theocracy. PERIOD. We are not a government based on religion we are based on secular, logical laws, hence the first amendment. If a marriage is, therefore, a secular rather than religious institution, then rational, non-religion-based arguments need to be presented as to why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, or, for that matter, two people. Using the sanctity argument opens the door up for us to use that argument on any legal institution. For example, I believe that criminalizing marijuana destroys the sanctity of humanity and its relationship with the Earth. Isn't the "sanctity" of marriage destroyed when the pres gets a BJ in the oral office (haha freudian slip) or when characters in national and international TV shows and movies are depicted as cheating on their spouses? Doesn't divorce destroy the "sanctity" of marriage by ...destroying marriage? Should we outlaw divorce? what the hell is going on in this country? We elect Obama and in the same breath condemn gay marriage? WTF??

rant over.

Logic x 1000!! Serious, great rant.

should this kill the CofLDS' tax exempt status? I thought religious organizations aren't supposed to get involved in politics...

It's been my understanding that churches are allowed to promote particular issues that come up on ballots, just not candidates.

Anyone know the rule? Am I right?

Jesus, smooth. I was mostly speaking in generalities which can easily be tracked, such as the way people vote in presidential elections. When things get that specific, there are no "liberal" or "conservative" areas. There are tons of liberals in the most conservative-ish areas. Even areas like Provo Utah, which is considered to be the most conservative city in North America, have plenty of liberals.

The reason I speak in generalities in this case is simply to prevent the discussion from falling apart. Is it totally honest? No, but changing just a few minds in those traditionally red areas can't be a bad thing. That was the ultimate point I was shooting for. Going into Riverside to try and demonstrate that gay marriage isn't a threat could mean the difference between the next Prop 8 passing or failing.

I'm not sure if asking for specific liberal policies or examining whether we are liberal in general like you claim risks causing the conversation to fall apart.

Well anyway, the reason I think it's important is because many groups agitate for more regressive policies across the country on the back of California's mythical "liberal" policies. We don't have them. But whatever, the other problem is what happened in your statement above.

Relying on the stereotype of a liberal California with a conservative or backwards inland population jeopardizes effective political campaigning. Why would it be a better idea to campaign in Riverside (266,000 votes for prop 8) where people are less densely populated than San Diego or Orange County (both over 550,000 votes for prop 8)? Orange County went for McCain, while Riverside went for Obama, btw. Orange County is also home to Saddleback Church, one of the largest churches in the country and a vocal supporter of prop 8.

Yes, you are right.

I cannot understand how a country that talks so much about the values of liberty and freedom would have a problem with same sex legal unions. If a church does not wish to have the ceremony under their roof, fine, that's their right. But the gov't needs to represent the people, and gays are... duh!
It makes financial sense, more than anything, to allow it. Why should only straights be able to do their taxes a certain way. For that reason alone I think it's a violation of human rights.
Mind you, you guys voted for Bush twice so I have no idea what the HELL is going on down there.

Well, there is the argument that Californians just plain don't like it when their state supreme court reverses a statute that the popular vote made happen just a few years before.

A weak argument, but one none the less.

Also there's the argument that that same-sex unions under any name other than marriage would be a-ok, that the word "marriage" just pulls on some heart strings.

GG, The first part I'm not up on, but for the second, it comes down to semantics?

Those arguments don't hold up under the fact that prop 22, which was the reason the courts rendered a decision, passed by 61% and prop 8 passed by 52.2% of the voters. A smaller proportion of the population voted for prop 8 (responding to the court's decision) than voted for prop 22 (the cause of the court's involvement).

-----Added 11/11/2008 at 03 : 29 : 35-----
It's not merely a semantic difference. In California, same-sex couples already have the right to domestic partnerships, which are protected under the law with the same rights as married couples within the state. They are not marriages, however, which have federal rights and obligations extending beyond the state's concerns.

Damnit to hell, where are the people supporting Prop 8 on this board? I've become so frustrated with it that I came to this thread looking for someone to argue with, and what do I see? We all agree that it was a terrible decision.

So in the interests of discussion, I'm going to start.

This is REDEFINING WHAT MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS MEANT! How can we erode the foundation of our country just so some sexual deviants can marry? What's next? We allow bestiality and incest? We can't afford to erode the clear foundation of this country. Am I right or what?

Prop 8 in a nutshell: Hey, gays! So, here's the thing....we need you to pay your taxes and abide by the law and all that stuff, right, but...well....you're sorta loving the wrong people, know what I mean? So I'm afraid that we're not going to let you get married anymore. Sorry, thought you understood. Love always, 52% of California

smooth, thanks for clearing that up!

I always interpreted it as more like this:
"Just fyi, there's a verse in Dueteronomy sandwiched in between a ban on shellfish and a ban on bastards in church that says you're love is an abomination. What we're going to do is enjoy eating shellfish and allow people without fathers to attend church, but when it comes to your love, we're going to hate you with the fire of a thousand suns. You're lucky we can't vote to kill you!" Inconsistent literalism is quite frankly everything that's wrong with religious people.

Edit: to clarify that last sentence, those religious people that are flexible and filter the Bible through common ethics and morality are awesome and I have no problem with them. I'll even offer them the last slice of pizza.

What's so bad about guy on guy, or girl on girl love?
What's the objection?

A few words in an old book that a whole lot of people believe contains the words of an invisible man in the sky who has chosen them as his people, which makes them better than us.

edit: and for some reason don't have to pay taxes when they preach out of that book

More like, "Hey, gay people--you can have all of the rights and responsibilities of married people, but you can't call it marriage, because it isn't. Call it something else, and everything is fine."

Gays: "If I can't have things exactly my way, I'm going to scream and cry and disrupt traffic, and otherwise act like infants. And I can't figure out why you don't like me!"

there are federal rights and responsibilities that state-sanctioned civil unions don't provide. Other states aren't required to honor civil unions as they used to have to honor marriages, too. They aren't literally the same, even in the best of interpretations, so that's not a fair paraphrase, Necrosis.

smooth has it right.

With marriage comes rights that are otherwise denied...so NO, calling it something else does not "guarantee all the rights and responsibilities of married people."

no, not even close. and the assholes who don't want gay marriage come across as the crybabies to me

in the interest of conversation and actual debate, I'm going to quote and further argue this point. As the devil's advocate I too support proposition 8, not only because gay marriage encourages deviant behavior, but also because it encourages sexually deviant people to raise children who no doubt will become as sexually off-course as their parents. Furthermore, the sexual promiscuity rampant in the gay (and) sexually deviant community is what led the outbreak of AIDS in the first place. Marriage is an institution for the morally righteous, God-fearing Christian Americans - and no one else.

Second: civil unions have all the same rights as marriages. Therefore it is childish for a gay (deviant) couple to want to say that they are "married" when being in a civil union is the exact same thing. They are confusing religion with politics. Marriage is a religious rite and the joining of two happy christian adults - one male, and one female. A civil union is a legally-binding union between two (deviant) people and affords them the same rights, so they have no ground to stand on and no merit-worthy complaints.


Ok, go.

I may be using an outdated source, but having gay parents does not guarantee the children will grow up with the same "sexual deviation." Study: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Kids

I'm also going to need someone to clarify this for me, but I don't think civil unions grant the same rights as marriage. I was told it mostly applied to state laws but not federal, especially regarding taxes, social security and insurance benefits. What happens if you find a job in another state that doesn't grant the same rights?

Last and fairly off-topic: I always think about the horror stories about people marrying for money, leaving the spouse and taking half of everything they own. Or loveless couples who stay together because they don't believe in divorce. Doesn't this do more harm for the righteousness of marriage than having same sex couples marry? Shouldn't more attention be spent on fixing opposite sex marriages?

Sounds good, lets here a good argument for Prop 8.
Ok I get it. Gays are evil, evil people raise evil children. While were at it we need to make sure to take children away from murders, adulterers, slanders, gossips, liars, cheaters, thieves, people who don't honor their parents, jealous people, people who misuse the lords name.. . and i'm sure there are a few people. After all these people are evil to according to the bible for the children of course...

Yes what a terrible gay disease AIDS is. God sent the virus to get them because of their deviant ways.

Good thing all of us married folk fit this bill exactly.

Yes this country has proven time and time again how good we are at having two separate systems that are entirely equal. I mean look at how good black schools were in the south. To bad the rest of the country doesn't understand how good separate but equal is. I mean if we were to give gays their own water fountains then we wouldn't have to worry about catching any gay diseases...




ps. I could not tell if the post I responded to was real or a snark so I assumed real. Mine is of course a snark.

Sorry to come to this late, but I personally find it astonishing that a single state is allowed to pass such laws which effect the human rights of those who live there. Surely the law is a matter for the nation state, not local government?

The US has two different sets of laws, one of the nation (US constitution and all of its enumerated powers) and one of the states (State constitutions and all of its enumerated powers).

For over 150 years, we've been fighting over which ones are supposed to be supreme.

Prop 8 wasn't an amendment to either the federal or a state constitution. It's an attack using the weapon of semantics. Prop 8 redefined California legal language.

I find it astonishing, too. Maybe there's room in the UK for one more old Labourer.

For the life of me, I cant understand why anyone who isnt gay would object to gay people getting married. I cant tell how it effects them or what right they have to decide anything about it. There isnt even a religious argument, because this isnt about religious ceremony, its about legal recognition of people's right to choose another sane and consenting adult as a life partner and for this to be treated with legal dignity.

I wouldnt oppose any church applying any arbitrary restrictions it chooses - thats a moral question.

Denying one group of people something that is considered a basic human right on the basis of their sexual inclination is a legal question, and I cannot imagine how it is legal under the US constitution.

In my opinion the rule of law must be enforced on California and any other rebel state which wishes to act unilaterally in this manner.

What do you mean it wasn't an amendment to the State Constitution? I thought that's exactly what Prop 8 was?

Either way, for the moment gay rights and marriage fall squarely within the realm of state rights and action. The other suspect classes have been incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause in the federal constitution. When it's come up to SCOTUS, they've deftly avoided adding sexuality to the federal standard of protected class (for any number of reasons). As the federal constitution does not have any language referring to marriage or to sexuality, it falls within the 10th Amendment and is therefore reserved for the states.

Much of the impact of Prop 8 could be negated if Congress repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in that any federal rights (more than 1,000 specific rights) guaranteed to married couples would be extended to civil unions.

Obama supports its repeal, but it would be a bold step for many Democrats from swing districts.

However "separate but (almost) equal" is only a short-term remedy, at best.

Mmm, yes, there is that little pesky detail, true. I meant more that the definition of marriage as being anything specific is still within the realm of the states, not that the feds don't have any legislation on it.

Also, separate is never equal, see Brown etc.

I should be more clear. Prop 8 adds a sentence to Article 1 of the California Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Sec. 7.5). It changes the legal definition of "marriage".

If gay marriage is allowed, what's going to stop bigamy or incestual marriage from being on the next ballot? Bigamy or incestual marriage seems to be the next logical step in this progression. Is bigamy or incestual marriage a bad thing? If not, the next logical step would probably be marriage to an animal or a child. Is that a bad thing? You have to put a limit on marriage somewhere, and I think it's just fine where it is - the same institution that's lasted for a long time.

Setting aside the "slippery slope" issue...

If consenting adults of sound mind (notice that this is very different from what we see with Warren Jeffs, et al) want to participate in polygamous relationships, then who are we to deny them that right? We can debate about whether children should be brought up in such environments - I have my own opinion, but I do recognize it as a worthwhile debate - but I fail to understand why anyone should have a problem with what consenting adults of sound mind do to or with other such adults.

Yes, letting Adam and Steve marry will lead to the legalization of bestiality and child molestation. What an asinine argument.

As far as polygamy goes I could care less. I had one wife for 25+ years I wouldn't want more then one at a time. But there's a lot of religions and cultures around the world that widely accept polygamy. Heck, in Iraq the guy we supported for President has three wives. For you Christians out there using the Bible to prop up your contention and unbending disapproval of gays go check out what Deuteronomy says about having more then one wife. I'm not even sure the New Testament makes any statements about forbidding polygamy. In fact I think if you read through Matthew you'll find Jesus taking about multiple spouses without disapproval.

As for...

Lots of institutions lasted for a long time, didn't make them right. Slavery comes to mind. Another issue I believe you'll find addressed in the Bible.

Following your "logical" progression.....we should probably begin at a higher starting point with constitutional amendments to prohibit adultery and divorce, since the "logical" next downward spiraling step of those sinful and immoral acts is entering into a gay relationship.

This same apples to oranges comparison is constantly used here in Utah. Children and animals CAN NOT GIVE CONSENT to sexual activities or marriage. Gay adults can. Adults who want more than one spouse or want to share a spouse can. And as squicky as I find it, related people can too.

Heterosexuals are doing enough to damage the sacred institution of marriage - I don't think we need to worry about how gay people are going to threaten ours.

Do I come off as religious? I'm conservative, sure, but not overly religious. My viewpoints have nothing to do with religion. That's a strange assumption that a lot of liberals make, probably from watching too much TV. I don't assume that all liberals go around handing out other people's money to vagrants and criminals, throw red paint on fur coats, or wish that communists would take over the American government. Your broad brush may be too broad sometimes.

I don't think incest, bigamy, bestiality, or pedophilia should ever be legally recognized as marriage in this country. If gays can marry, why wouldn't these other minority groups try to gain the same thing in the future? I'd love to hear a logical argument that discredits this idea. Incest, bigamy, bestiality, and pedophilia are illegal now, so you would think they could never result in marriage because they are illegal. But homosexual behavior used to be illegal and is still on the books in some places.

I don't care what other countries do with their citizens. I don't live in other countries. Personally I'd love to import some ideas from the Middle East, like cutting off the hand of a thief. The problem is that we in the West have certain values and constituitional rights that don't allow such things.
-----Added 27/11/2008 at 10 : 39 : 14-----
Who says that children and animals can't give consent? What is consent? Who determines what consent is? Are you relying on the opinions of a bunch of senior citizens dressed in black (judges) who hand down these opinions? If that's the case, change the senior citizens and the opinions can change.

Maybe one day some combination of senior citizens will say that children and animals CAN give consent. I mean, there were plenty of guys fucking kids in the ancient world right? This was socially acceptable behavior and those civilizations did OK, so why can't we go back to the good ole days of kid fucking?

Say we do recognize gay marriage. And then people start having sex with rocks? And what if a super race of rock-humans are born and kill all the regular people?

Guys, this is gay marriage thing is a bad idea.

i share your concern about the super-race of rock-people, but was more worried about sex with lunch meats becoming acceptable, and then you'd have lunch-meat people who would be raised in special camps and slaughtered and sliced for food. soylent pink.

put a stop to this now before everything goes haywire.

Why are some people so against officiating the life-long friendship of two people whose only difference from traditional married couples is that they're both of the same sex?

More important, why is this friendship compared to the acts of bigots, pedophiles, and the incestuous? They aren't the same. There are already many healthy homosexual relationships in the world; the same cannot be said, necessarily, about the other things brought up here, especially within the context of the legitimacy of marriage.

Gay marriage is far closer to heterosexual marriage than any of these other things. People need to get their head around that.

Don't worry guys, I have a perfect plan to stop the rock people. Allow people to marry paper bags and produce paper bag offspring since we all know paper beats rock. Problem solved!

Oh I dunno...science?

I'm thinking if you have your pants around your ankles and you hear a chicken squawk "Do me now big boy." You've more problems going on then the fact you're about to screw a chicken.:oogle:

I must be a masochist, because for some reason, I have spent a lot of time debating this issue on more conservative and even religious forums recently. There really is this self supporting propaganda machine when it comes to homosexuals... I guess for the benefit of many of these people who never actually met a real live homosexual.

If you look at conservative/Christian news sources you will find non-stop demonizing articles and stories about misdeeds of homosexuals... especially if the story can in any way conjure up fear regarding what they feel is an ever increasing persecution of their religion/beliefs. Some place, somewhere, a homosexual forgets to say "God bless you" when a Christian sneezes its all over their media. Another place, some place a homosexual says "God bless you" to a child who sneezes and he's a paedophile trying to abduct your kid. Endless supplies of these hit pieces get posted and passed around the conservative/religious media sphere.... over and over. It's all designed to reinforce anti-homosexual feelings while propping up religious beliefs. It's really no wonder they are so afraid.

To many, paedophilia is a severe case of 'homosexuality'. I've talked with many who literally would be afraid to leave their children etc alone with a gay man because of this. You act gay long enough, and you'll become a paedophile... I can't tell you how many times I've run across that myth and they will argue with me till we're both blue in the face. They'll trot out some hit piece article from a bigoted site as proof of their claim and I'll show them dozens of peer reviewed studies about paedophilia and sexual orientation and they still don't believe it..


With all the imagery and protests against the churches after the prop 8 pass, I've seen more end-of-days rapture conversations than I can believe myself. Even I didn't think the absurdity could get as extreme as it did... and its still going on, but at least it seems to have died down a bit. I really don't know how such madness can be defeated.
-----Added 28/11/2008 at 10 : 18 : 37-----
If the only reason, as a society, we can come up with to keep paedophilia and bestiality illegal... is that gays cannot marry.... well, then we are just screwed. That's basically what you are saying here... there are no good reasons against paedophile marriage and animal marriage if we allow homosexuals to marry.

Not really. You comes off more as an extremely ill informed, illogical person. I mean seriously... animals giving consent? To who Dr. Doolittle?

There is nothing wrong with having fantasies about Foghorn Leghorn.

Guess not. But I've always been more of a Jessica Rabbit guy myself.

While I appreciate the comments about being ill informed and illogical, that doesn't really do anything to advance any kind of logical argument about the origins of consent.

You do realize that consent can be non-verbal right? There are people in the world who would argue that an animal CAN give consent by not running away or fighting somebody who is trying to fuck them. I think this argument is absurd, but all it would take is a few of the wrong judges to make up a court (9th Circuit?) and before you know it, people are marching through the streets demanding the legal right to marry Fido.

Look at how homosexuality was looked at a few decades ago. It was looked at as immoral, nasty, and a deviant act, much like pedophilia and bestiality are looked at today. Times change and attitudes change, and not always for the better.

Can a minor child give consent? Legally right now, no. But there are some groups of people in the world that claim that a child can give consent by making a verbal statement. While the current state of the law goes against this view, the law can change.

The marriage between two consenting adults has absolutely nothing in common with pedophilia or bestiality. The argument is merit less.

If a state wants to enact constitutional amendments as a reaffirmation of a ban on pedophilia or bestiality, then they should take that route.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Origins of consent? Umm, either a person gives consent or they don't.

The argument is absurd and anyone claiming an animal can give consent is being absurd. People usually resort to absurd arguments like this when logic and reason fail them. Much like your entire position on this subject.

True and a few decades ago people made the same claims regarding interracial marriage.

Laws do in fact change. Hopefully reason and logic will prevail and people wanting to marry other adults they love will win out over pedophiles wanting to have sex with children.

Marriages of siblings, animals or children won't happen because society won't let them happen. Gay marriage won't lead to anything but gay marriage. Enough with the slippery slope arguments

Yeah, well done.

Should we be worried about the legalizing of indiscriminate murder as well?

Did you guys see about the SUPER RACE OF ROCK-HUMANS?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

Rocks can't give consent, but what these gays want to do anyway is make it legally required for each woman (even white ones) of childbearing age (that includes 11 year olds) to get pregnant with the child of a rock man EVEN THOUGH ROCKS CAN'T CONSENT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITIES111!!!!!

Guys, we have to do something about this, and really, if you believe in freedom, Ron Paul is the only patriot we can truly count on at this point.

When America's chickens and sheep and goats form their own political action committee comparable to the Family Research Council or Concerned Women of America...I might be concerned about legalizing their consent to marry.

Yeah. People marching through the streets demanding the right to marry animals. That is happening.

What does fucking animals have to do with gay marriage? Are you really equating the verbal consent of an adult human being to the perceived consent of a non-human animal?

Look at how African Americans were looked at a few decades ago. Times change and attitudes change, and human decency and civil rights replace close-mindedness and bigotry.

I'm sure that anti-abolitionists argued at one point or another that allowing black men and women to walk free, work for themselves, and enter into Christian matrimony, would bring upon the end of the civilization. The concept would threaten the "racial purity" of the white man. Your illogical stance here is creepily reminiscent of that mindset.

A child can answer "yes" if you ask them if they want candy. They know what candy is, they know it tastes good, and so they want to eat it. A pre-adolescent or adolescent child has not reached sexual maturity. That does not happen until around 17 or 18 years of age on the average.

You cannot ask a 12-year-old to give consent on matters which they cannot understand due to incomplete cognitive, physical, psychological, and psychosexual development. Therefore engaging in a sexual act with a child, whose body doesn't even produce the hormones required for sexual desire to begin with, is rape regardless of whether the child was a willing participant, because the psychological capacity to give that consent is not there. You cannot give consent to what you don't understand. The same applies to animals - a man having intercourse with an animal is in fact raping it. Just because the animal isn't resisting it, doesn't constitute as consent - it means the animal is incapable of consent.

Two adult homosexual human beings are perfectly capable of understanding and giving consent to marriage or sexual relations. You have every right to not approve of their marriage, but you have no right to deny them the same basic rights that you take for granted. Of course, it is always much easier to rally for the denial of basic civil rights when you are not the one affected by those legislative changes.

In the interest of levity, behold: Prop 8: The Musical...

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from FOD Team, Jack Black, Craig Robinson, John C Reilly, and Rashida Jones

Hahahaha... Jack Black plays a convincing Jesus Christ.

Also, it's wonderful to see Alison Janey from West Wing.

ah lets keep the government out of the bedroom --

the Jon Stewart vs. Mike Huckabee interview on the Daily Show a while back was very good. I felt like Stewart was very respectful, but got his point of view across pretty clearly

If you really think that, then you have a misinformed view of who Jesus was, i.e. what his original message/purpose was, as presented in the New Testament. Jack Black is a slouch and a buffoon, and he plays just about every one of his characters that way, and Jesus was in no way presented as a slouch or a buffoon, in the New Testament. Thus, Jack Black as Jesus was not in any way "convincing", even if it was meant to be a lampoon.

I found that video to be insipid and sophomoric, especially considering the work experience (if not professional talent) of the actors/entertainers involved. And, mind you, I would've voted against Proposition 8, if I was a California resident. (I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. And I think that if religion is taken out of the decision-making process, then there is no good reason why homosexuals should be disallowed legal marriages.)

Really, if the makers of that video wanted a personage to lampoon, to deliver that Biblical argument about homosexual acts and the eating of shellfish as both being an "abomination", then they should've used Moses instead of Jesus, since it's the Book of Leviticus (which is one of the five books of Moses, a.k.a. the Pentateuch) where that argument is taken from. Of course, nowadays in Hollywood, Jesus is far more a target for lampooning than Moses is.

I have two teenage daughters, and From what LIFE has taught me, I want to know where you get your information about the statement I have highlighted? If you TRUELY believe that statement, then YOU are misinformed. The human body begins it's ability to physiologically desire to reproduce at the onset of puberty. that is EXACTLY what puberty is. Go back and talk to some professors and see what they have to say. I am sure they will agree with me.

As far as the OP, I really do get upset when the government gets involved in peoples personal desires for happyness. If two men or two women love each other and wat to get married, then let them! Who is it going to hurt?

So in your opinion, a 12-year-old child has completed their psychosexual development to the point where they can make an informed decision as to whether or not to engage in sexual activity? No, I don't agree with you. There is a difference between having started puberty and having developed enough to be able to decide on whether or not to have sex. I am rather disturbed and repulsed by your conclusion to the opposite.

I laugh at the whole "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage" BS. Fine. Let's remove the government privileges granted by marriage and watch just how many gays and lesbians want to be wed (The answer? Not many). Of course they want the government involved: They just want it on their terms.

Anywho, marriage is not a "right" nor is it an act of God. It's a social construct created by society for society and thusly regulated by society. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is no different than banning persons from marrying on account of age, number of partners wanting to be wed to, consanguinity or even species. And, before someone says it, gay marriage is not equatable to interracial marriage. Anti-miscegenation denied a specific group of men and woman (Blacks) a right afforded to another group of men and women (Whites). Neither gays nor lesbians are being denied any "rights", as no man nor woman currently is allowed to marry about man or woman, respectively. If a certain group of gays and lesbians were allowed to marry yet another group of gays and lesbians weren't, you might have a case. But they aren't. So you don't. You can't claim discrimination over a "right" no one has.

(Yup. I'm late to the party. Sue me.)

Woah, and gay marriage is not equatable to marrying children, multiple partners, or animals!

A specific group of men and women (homosexual) are being denied a right afforded to another group of men and women (heterosexual). But is this really about rights, or is this more about a social denial of a legitimate form of romantic relationship?

You mean like the married gays and lesbians here in Canada, or Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge, and others in the U.S.? (Oh, wait, Prop 8 might quash those marriages. So sad.)

The bottom line: this sends a message to homosexual couples that they aren't viewed as having a legitimate relationship. To many (of either sexual orientation), marriage is viewed as a way to make a family "official." Times change, and so does marriage. For example, it isn't as acceptable anymore to marry off one's 12-year-old daughter. Now that many people are willing to accept the "normalcy" of homosexual relationships, they too should be afforded the right to marry. To continue to deny this right (or privilege or whatever) is to continue to deny the very existence of homosexuality.

Really? You're going to cite a 27 yr old Mn case as legal precedent? Anyone could easily go back a couple years from then and find any number of cases that prove no one has the right to engage in interracial marriage, laws known as antimiscegenation laws such as Loving V. Virginia (1958.) Since no one had that right, at the time, to engage in interracial marriage, no one could have claimed discrimination then either? In 1967 16 states were finally forced (by the SCOTUS over turning Loving V. Virginia) to remove such laws.

So there's that hole in your logic. Plus I don't even know what this means-

Never said it was. I did say, however, that gays are not being "discriminated" against any more than a person in any of those other groups are.

What do you mean by "a legitimate form of romantic relationship"? It's not considered legitimate, otherwise it would be legal (In the U.S.).

Nope. As far as I understand it, it's not retroactive so it wouldn't invalidate those couples who have already married. It simply won't allow for new couples to marry.

I didn't know that "having a relationship" meant "being married". The only "message" this sends is that marriage is defined as one man and one woman, thus prohibiting persons who want to engage in a marriage outside of these parameters from doing so.

I thought they were after marriage for the legal benefits.

I'm pretty sure this has been asked a gazillion times now, but why should they be allowed to marry?

It was implied. By saying their discrimination is categorically the same as the discrimination against those who want to marry children, multiple partners, or animals, but is categorically different than the previously discriminated interracial couples, it implies that you are comparing homosexual marriage more to the marriage of children, multiple partners, and animals than you are to interracial marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Socially and sexually legitimate.

So "marriage" means "heterosexual marriage." This is what is at issue: this antiquated definition of marriage.

Although I'm sure this is a common desire, it is a faulty generalization to assume that this is all they want.

Because it legitimizes their families. It allows for the state and/or religious acceptance of their monogamous interpersonal relationships so that they can maintain their families with the same status as everyone else.

It's a case in which SCOTUS reaffirmed a state's right to prohibit who can and cannot marry. Seeing as how people like to quote Loving v. Virginia (1967) as establishing marriage as a right, I thought it'd be apt to quote a more recently occurring case which quashes that notion.

...Okay. So you either ignored what I wrote out or didn't understand it.

Rights are (generally) universal. The problem with anti-miscegenation laws is that they took a right which everyone had and restricted it to those people who wanted to marry within their race. Henceforth, discriminatory and why they were struck down. As I said earlier, it'd be the same issue if one group of men, for example, were allowed to marry men while another group was not afforded this same right. That would be discriminatory.

What hole?

It means that gays and lesbians aren't being denied a "right" as the only right involved in marriage is the ability to marry a person of the other gender (Provided they are old enough and are not directly related to yourself). For example:

A straight male can marry a female. A straight female can marry a male. A gay male can marry a female. A gay female can marry a male.

Conversely, a straight male cannot marry a male. A straight female cannot marry a female. A gay male cannot marry male. A gay female cannot marry a female.

See? No one, regardless of orientation, has the "right" to marry a person of the same gender as them. Thus, no one is being discriminated against.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 04 : 08 : 49-----
I'm not comparing it to pedophilia or bestiality in the whole slippery-slope sense, but I am comparing them in the way that marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", which equally discriminates against people who:

1.) Want to marry multiple men and woman (Polygamists).
2.) Want to marry a person of the same gender (Homosexuals).
3.) Want to marry an animal (Bestiality).
4.) Want to marry an inanimate object (Dunno' what that's called).
5.) Etc.

Simply because you take offense to the categorization doesn't make it any less valid. Homosexuals are NOT being singled out and discriminated again, whereas anti-miscegenation laws were CLEARLY aimed at one group of people.

But what does that have to do with marriage?

Obviously, it's not too antiquated as it still continues to persist.

So what else to do they want? I'm quite positive in asserting that if we were to remove the privileges involved in marriage that the issue of gay marriage would all but cease to exist.

To me, this sounds like a fancy way of saying "It gives the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples", in which case I really don't see why they should care what it's called as long as they receive the same benefits.

No one is being discriminated against?

"Sorry, sir, you can't be recognized as having a long-term, monogamous relationship worthy of our blessing because you love a Jimmy instead of a Jenny. If you want to be accepted as such, you need to be less gay."

"But I'm gay."

"Then stop being gay."

"I'll stop being gay if you stop being straight."

"Fair enough, but this means it's impossible for you to ever be married."

"Look, I just want a spouse and a loving family just like everyone else. That's how I was raised."

"Sorry...we don't serve gays here."


Sure....

Marriage is a social act that legitimizes a relationship. By denying gays and lesbians this access, you send the message that the relationship is invalid.

That's a good non-sequitur, but has nothing to do with what I'm actually written out thus far.

:shakehead:

No one is calling their relationship invalid. If anything, we (And I mean society as a hole) deems it to not have the same value to society as a relationship between a man and a woman. Now, if your relationship is only "legitimized" or "validated" by a marriage license, then your relationship was a farce, anyway.

I disagree. I don't see it as quashing that notion at all. I'd say the case affirms the right that adults have the right to marry any other adult they choose.



I didn't ignore it and I understand you. I disagree with you.

And "rights are (generally) universal?" Are there some rights that are not universal? Again not sure I understand your point. Or at least your point as it pertains to this topic.



The hole where you seem to think anti-miscegenation laws were struck down due to discrimination but seem to think discrimination based on sexual orientation are legal and just. Apparently because they're somehow not socially and sexually legitimate. Why or how someone decides what's socially and sexually legitimate for someone else is beyond me.



So if gays want to marry they should marry people they don't love or simply not get married? No, that doesn't sound like discrimination at all. Heck that sounds down right socially and sexually legitimate to me.

Will you demonstrate how it's a non-sequitur?

Okay, so homosexual relationships aren't as good as "normal" ones, eh? Nice.

I sincerely doubt the typical gay couple would view marriage as the only way to legitimize the relationship, especially since (even to this day) many of them can't even marry in the first place. The effect, however, is that by denying them that access, it sends the message you've already sent: You aren't as good as us because you're gay. Which is utter bullshit.

But the ruling doesn't say that and, even if it did, that ruling was clarified four years later. So, either way, adults do not have the right to marry anyone of their choice.

Rights can be rescinded, such as a prisoner's right to vote. That's why I said "generally".

There is no law which stops gay people from marrying on account of being gay. Rather, the law stops people from marrying who do not fit into the "one man, one woman" category which targets more than just gays. Now, I do know of one law which specifically mentioned gays, and that was struck down as being discriminatory as it singled out on group of people (Homosexuals), which was the same reason y which anti-miscegenation laws were also structk down.

What's with the mention of legitimacy? No one is protesting gays and lesbians right to exist or to be gay. Rather, they're protesting gays and lesbians wishes to want to be married (And marriage has nothing to do with establishing a relationship as legitimate, unless you're talking about legal privileges).

Well, society could always just stop gays from marrying period. Now THAT would be pure discrimination.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 04 : 44 : 51-----
Because, once again, your comment didn't have anything to do with what I've been writing out for the past-- I dunno'-- At least 40'ish minutes, almost like you're intentionally misconstruing what it is I'm writing to make it seem as if there's a crusade against the gays and lesbians when, in fact, this is wholely untrue.

Yes, most of the stuff going on now is in response to the GLBT movement, but it is not aimed at marginalizing gays and lesbians to the point where most people claim.

Even though that's not exactly what I said and was written in a way to make what I said worse than how it was actually intended, yes.

So, anyone who doesn't hold the same "right" as another person is considered inferior? I can't become U.S. president. Does that make me inferior to a person born in the U.S.? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

What are you talking about? How were miscegenation laws discriminatory? They were applied equally to all races-- that was kind of their point. Everyone could still get married, they just couldn't marry someone of another race.

For example:

A white male can marry a white female. A white female can marry a white male. A black male can marry a black female. A black female can marry a black male.

Conversely, a white male cannot marry a black female. A white female cannot marry a black male. A black male cannot marry a white female. A black female cannot marry a white male.

See, no one, regardless of race, had the "right" to marry a person of another race. Thus, no one was being discriminated against.

Which group of people? Did you know that they applied equally to both whites and blacks? That was the point. It wouldn't make sense to allow white people to marry blacks, but not allow blacks to marry whites.


Furthermore, I think that proponents of homosexual marriage recognize the fact that it isn't a codified right in most places. I think they generally tend to think that it should be, and that the recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry each other is in keeping with the general principles upon which this nation was ostensibly founded. The opponents of gay marriage in California know this; that is why they had to go so far as to amend their state constitution because *whooopseeee* whoever wrote it was so not concerned about the encroaching national threat to morality that is gay marriage that they failed to mention it anywhere.

The only reason gay marriage isn't a right in many of the places where it isn't a right is that confused individuals* have been very proactive about altering state constitutions before that right can be recognized.

*anyone who is really concerned about the sanctity of marriage would have attempted to amend the constitution to outlaw divorce. Fact:most opponents of homosexuality are only pretending to be concerned about the sanctity marriage.

Arguments against gay marriage collectively resemble a crowd of cockroaches congregating in darkness on a kitchen floor. Shed any light on them and they scatter. You can never seem to get rid of them, though.

Ooo... I see what you did there.

Yes, I do believe in one place I wrote "white" and "black". That was an error on my part. However, what I wrote out still stands. The problem with anti-miscegenation laws were that they denied one group of men and woman a right afforded to another group of men and woman. The issue of gay marriage, however, is not in the same vein. The issue being debated, allowing a man to marry another man or a woman a woman, is currently not a right afforded to ANYONE, regardless of race, gender, orientation etc.. Henceforth, denying gays and lesbians the "right" to marry a person of the same gender as themselves cannot be discriminatory, else it would have long been struck down by SCOTUS.

Marriage, itself, isn't a right (That includes both heterosexual and homosexual marriage). I believe I said in my first post on this thread. As marriage is not a right established anywhere in the Constitution, then how does the allowance or denial of a certain group of people to enter into a marriage either fall in line or conflict with the Constitution?

Banning divorce wouldn't make make marriage any more sacred. Remember, most people believe that marriage was created by God to between a man and a woman-- Nothing more and nothing less.

All right. I'll bite. How so?

Got a ruling I can go look up so I have some idea of what you're talking about?




In this case convicts have done some to lose that right, right? Again is there some right that isn't universal?




No, but there are some laws that stop homosexuals from marrying the person they love and want to have a family with, that's discriminatory. Gay aren't trying to stop anyone else rights they just want the same rights as others.





You brought up the issue of 'socially and sexually legitimate" in your previous post. I'm simply responding to your post, in fact I copied and pasted the term out of your post. I don't see it now. Which means I'm either missing it or you've edited your post. If you edited your post that's a cute move.

So, what is with the mention of legitimacy? You brought it up.



Again just stops them from marrying who they love. Which is pure discrimination.

As I see it, most people who oppose gay marriage do so because 1) they believe that homosexuality is a choice and a sin, and 2) they do not want to raise their children in a society which condones homosexuality. When you cut through all the pseudo-legalese bullcrap about "rights that don't exist" and whatnot, that's basically what it comes down to: religious beliefs.

Marriage may have started out as a religious institution, but many people no longer see it that way. People get married and divorced whimsically, with no qualms about ending it when things get rough. They may bring God up during the matrimonial ceremony, but there's hardly much consideration for the great deity during the divorce proceedings.

To me, God had nothing whatsoever to do with my decision or desire to get married. Marriage didn't mean being able to bang my wife with the blessings of some dude in the sky. I wanted to get married, because to me it it symbolizes commitment that is intended to be lifelong. That may not be the reality, but it is the ideal. Aside from the legal rights that are given to those who are married as opposed to unmarried individuals, many see married people as a "real" couple. A serious couple. I wanted the symbolism, the acknowledgment, and the right to call my beloved my wife.

Religion, for me, had nothing whatsoever to do with it. As such, I find it difficult to give a single valid excuse as to why other adult human beings who love each other should be refused the right to do the same.

I think that in our society we still encourage couples to marry before they have and raise children. I assume that the ideal of the nuclear family with loving parents and cared-for children is still alive today. If that is the case, then why would we not want homosexuals to raise their children in a home protected by that "sanctity" of marriage? Oh, I forgot - we don't want them raising children at all.

Granted, I don't remember my Bible too well, but I don't recall any passage that spoke against homosexuals raising children. Then again it is probably wise not to raise the subject of the Bible at all, since its teachings are riddled with discrepancies anyway. It's just hard not to consider it, since presumably the Bible is the basis for many of these narrow-minded values that people refer to as their justification for attempting to dictate and define valid adult relationships.

As for children learning about homosexuality... I remember seeing on CNN a man talking about why he was all for Prop 8. He said he didn't want schools to teach his children "about homosexuality." I would not be too concerned about it - history has taught us that bigotry and hatred are successfully passed on from generation to generation in the comfort of one's own home. I don't think allowing gay couples to retain basic human rights is equal to "shoving gay" down anyone's throat.

The religious "values" of a number of fanatic nutcases is hardly sufficient basis for prejudiced and discriminatory legislation, but I guess we need to evolve a bit more as a society before we can grasp that concept.

Erm... It was in the Baker v. Nelson link I gave you earlier.

The group labeled as "convicts" never possessed the right. People entering in that group lose the rights they once had.

Laws, by their nature, are "discriminatory" (They have to be) but that does not mean that Prop 8 discriminates against homosexuals, as it doesn't. Or, I should say, it does not single out homosexuals.

Someone else brought it up. I merely responded to it.

No, it isn't.

I'll be back in a bit.

We are talking state constitutions here. Proposition 8 changed a state constitution. And actually, the right for gays to marry is afforded in several places. It will be afforded in more and more places.

I don't know. Why don't you consult one of any of the number of state supreme court decisions which have affirmed that denying gays the right to marry is problematic. If it wasn't a constitutional issue, then why would proposition 8 need to change California's constitution?

From what I can tell, most marriage vows use the term "forever". Marriages are essentially a way to formalize your eternal commitment to someone before god. Divorce cheapens marriage by turning each one of those promises into lies. Gay people just want that same opportunity to lie directly to god's face.

Because they all boil down to contrived justifications for being a busybody.

Let's play finish the sentence:

It's not that I hate gays, its that:
--marriage is only for reproduction, and gays can't reproduce
--my god thinks gays are sinners
--homosexuality is unnatural
--they never had the right in the first place, and don't deserve it now
--the definition of marriage is immutable, and has always been exactly the same as it is now
--allowing them to get married would cheapen the institution of marriage
--if we let them marry, then soon people are going to be marrying animals

These are all ridiculous, and that ridiculousness is easy to demonstrate for anyone to doesn't feel the need to rationalize their dislike of homosexuality.

All these justifications really do is serve as the spoonful of sugar that helps the bigotry go down.

"From what I can tell, most marriage vows use the term "forever". Marriages are essentially a way to formalize your eternal commitment to someone before god. Divorce cheapens marriage by turning each one of those promises into lies. Gay people just want that same opportunity to lie directly to god's face."

This is not what you think marriages essentially are Filth - and you know that. This was just a weak attempt to stereotype the position of anyone that disagrees with gay marriage, and take a cheap shot at the concept of God (come on, you can capitalize it). That little finish the sentence game was just as pathetic. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a reminder,barack hussein obama agrees with this statement.

Marriage is "essentially" an acknowledgment of this union by the society in which they live, and it's definition of it. Society doesn't really give a shit about how long this marriage lasts. The religious people that get married "in the eyes of god", probably take the forever part a bit more seriously, and I'd also imagine their divorce rate is less that your average male/female left winger who gets married because their hiking partners petrouli was irresistible, for better or worse. To factor those divorcees into the those you consider lying in the fact of god is disingenuous.

So who is being the busybody? Gay people insisting that the rest of society acknowledge their eternal commitment to one another, when what they could do is respect the definition, fight for equal rights, and formalize their eternal commitment to each other in whatever other way they want.

At the very least, have respect for the other position. It doesn't need to be demonized, and people that believe in God don't need to be belittled and simplified. As long as that's the case I have no problems thinking to myself "ya know, these people can go fuck themselves".

PS - still haven't learned what "lying" means, eh?

Okay, maybe I'll take another direction.

First let's see what marriage is, generally:

A legal contract (i.e. recognized by the state and/or a religious group) between two people in a romantic relationship with the purpose of one or more of the following:

• legal, social, and economic stability;
• the formation of a family unit;
• procreation and the education and nurturing of children;
• legitimizing sexual relations;
• public declaration of love;
• or to obtain citizenship.

Source: Wikipedia.

Now, then, for what practical reason should we deny gay and lesbian couples contracts that seeks any or all of these things?

That's the definition of why people may get married, but none of them are required by marriage, except for arguably the nurturing of children. In that case, if you have a completely stable loving heterosexual relationship, and a completely stable loving homosexual relationship - do you think theres any advantage to a being raised in a traditional family? I think absolutely, positively YES.

There are advantages to living in non-traditional families too, but what is the answer to my question? Is there a practical reason why we should deny gays and lesbians contracts that seek any of the above points? Sure, marriage isn't required to attain all of them, but they are reasons why people want to get married, gays and lesbians included.

No I guess not. Lets call it a "gay contract" and we can all be happy.

I was thinking "joyage." They can propose with phrases such as, "Will you joyate me?"

The nonsense that marriage amendments are designed to protect marriage from lots of people not just gays is one of the most intellectually bankrupt arguments you have ever posted on this topic on this forum, IL, and you know it. At no point during any political campaign for a marriage amendment has anyone involved in it made any mention of anything but its application to homosexuals.

The point remains, arguments against gays marrying have everything to do with religious bigotry, just as every argument against blacks and whites marrying had everything to do with with racism. If more people would fess up to that, we'd have a better starting place for this conversation instead of these absurd quasi-legal justifications.

As for "let's just give it a different word," so long as the word applied by the state is different for a different-sex marriage than it is for a same-sex marriage, it's not equal. And it never will be. And you can all go read Brown v. Board of Education to learn why.

Now...if the STATE performed, let's say, legal marriages or civil ceremonies or civil unions on EVERYONE and NON-STATE ACTORS (i.e. churches) performed ceremonial marriages or marriages or what have you, that might be something to talk about, because then the split is not based on who is getting married but rather who is doing the marrying. That system would allow people who hate gays for whatever arbitrary reason to prevent them from getting married by their chosen church or what have you and allow others who don't hate people for no reason to allow them to get married, and the state-the great equalizer-wouldn't care who you are, so long as you followed the legal formalities.

Frosstbyte's last paragraph is the best solution to this problem that I've seen.

For the record I find it disgusting we're even discussing it :P

Except that if one is going to get all religiously pedantic about the definition of marriage, one must acknowledge that for many folks the primary religious significance of marriage has traditionally been the fact that it is a promise before god. I'm sorry you think that that's a stereotype. If I said that religious people go to church, would you accuse me of stereotyping there too?

In some places marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Other places allow for homosexuals to marry each other.

There are several communities which acknowledge homosexual marriages. That isn't an issue. The problem is that these marriages aren't given any sort of legal recognition.

Here's a list of the states with 10 highest divorce rates (via StateMaster - Divorce Rate (most recent) by state

#1 Nevada
#2 Arkansas
#3 Alabama
#4 Wyoming
#5 Idaho
#6 West Virginia
#7 Kentucky
#8 Tennessee
#9 Florida
#10 Mississippi

All clearly bastions of liberalism. Everybody knows that Baptists have significantly higher divorce rates when compared with other the divorce rates of other Christian faiths.

Perhaps it has something to do with them getting together over conspiracy theories about how the KKK was actually started by liberals to make conservatives look bad... Wait. Never mind. That's ridiculous.

I was under the impression that gay people were presently attempting to "fight for equal rights, and formalize their eternal commitment to each other in whatever other way they want." This includes changing the legal definition, because while there are churches that will preside of the marriage of two men and/or two women, there are few states that will recognize that marriage.

That doesn't make them busybodies. Unless you don't know what a busybody is. Let me help: A busy body is someone who goes out of their way to stop two guys from getting married.

Actually, I do respect the other position. I just wish that the people who held the other position had enough respect for their own position to just come out and say it. Instead, they contrive ridiculous covers for their bigotry. I would prefer these folks just admit their bigotry; it saves me the trouble of trying to reason with them.

I still haven't learned what the hell you're talking about here.

This reminds me of username Ronnocomot/Mooney from the Trucker's Report Forum. Maybe it's just common among extreme right wingers to make cryptic statements about the honesty of an adversary in an internet forum debate.

See, THIS is where people take a comment or statement COMPLETELY out of content efore asking for a clarification. At NO point did I EVER say that a 12 year old child has "completed their psychosexual development". I never said they could make an INFORMED decision. I simply stated that contrary to YOUR statement, at the onset of puberty the human body has the aility to have physical sexual desires..it is part of NATURE and if we are EMOTIONALLY ready or not is a different situation. At no time did I say they were able to make an informed decision. You are taking my stement out of context, and I am sorry that you feel "disturbed and repulsed" by your OWN misunderstanding. Can we NOT have an intelligent conversation here without coming down on other people? I am merely stating what ANY doctor would say as far as a PHSICAL condition. I was refering to their PYSIOLOGICAL condition which has to do with their PHYSICAL condition, NOT their PSYCHOSEXUAL development, which is COMPLETELY different. Make sure you read a post properly and ask for claification on something before you go ripping into them.