Gay Marriage page 80

Wow....you guys (< includes gals) really covered some ground on this since I last posted. I've read every last word of it and found it as sad as it was interesting. My sadness comes from how very one poster continuously demonstrated--shall I say--ignorantance, delusion, inability to process actual strong rebuttals to an ideology, and a very similarity to very "trollish" behavior.

I'll comment on all of that after I "extoll the virtues" of Jake-0. Yes, he did, FINALLY, join the discussion. BUT, as usual, made NO effort to present anything of any real significane to it,,,other than make some ridiculous statement (was it sarcasm or not...the immediately below shows MY "confusion" on this) that we all know we couldn't drag (w/ the Budwieser Clysdales) a disertation on why he believes it. Instead, upon being challenge....he mere went into his "mirth-mode" and made a ridiculous rejoinder about "being on TV".

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by jhco50:

It would be horrible for those of you who claim atheism as your religion. :)

OH….and just WHY is that?
Give me PROOF of why it would be so.
Tell me what makes YOU an “expert” on such matters.
I have a “friend” who RELIGIOUSLY believes THIS life is actually Hell.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Originally posted by jhco50:

It would be horrible for those of you who claim atheism as your religion. :)

Any idiot that claims atheism a religion deserves an apocalypse. :)

I’ll “pray” for that to happen.
OR, as the song goes: I swear there’s no Heaven, but I pray there’s no Hell. (Blood, Sweat, & Tears).

Wow! You mean you couldn’t get a whole rant out of that sentence? You are slipping me boy. Actually it was just a bit of sarcasm, but I wouldn’t expect you to pick up on that.

With YOU, Jake-0....ya have so many strangely obtuse stances that it is usually difficult to separate "fact from fiction". For instance:

Originally posted by jhco50:
I would say the same thing about homosexuality. It is a disease, a mental disorder.

However, since ya've made THIS statement several times already....and since ya've called homosexuals and ABOMINATION,,,I'm gonna pretty much go w/ "NOT sarcasm" on this one. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now, w/ that "bit of business" out of the way, I would hugely luv to have been in the throes of the "battle of wits" being waged against My Tie's prediliction for the (mildly??) absurd.

Instead, my (sometimes "jaded") luv affair w/ Real LIfe, precludes me from being able to comment on the often salient points being made....both the ones being made by the "sane" side & the typcially "confused" ones being made by My Tie. Plus, I've recieved many PM's & Shouts "requesting" that I refrain from sharing such "rants"....Huge LOL.

But, I will share my "synopsis" of what I managed to gather from all of it....though the posts by My Tie soon began to make MY head "hurt",,,,and my "heart" even moreso.

I'm most glad that My Tie does acknowledge the (Constitution Rights?) to not be discriminated against becasue of their sexuality. He agreed w/ most posters that Gays have a right to redress the discrimination currently being "heaped" unpon them. Yet, he made some very odd points about how Gays are going about this.

First, he talked of "near-militant" action//behavior of Gays in their endeavor to achieve what is ALREADY rightfully theirs. A huge thanks to ya FlabbyWW for managing to constantly remind My Tie that this EQUALITY is what is relevant here,,,rather than the HOW OF it is being denied,, and about the efforts--by BOTH Gays & "straights"--are well within reasonable, lawful, & mostly NECESSARY activity rather than the hyperbole My Tie was presenting.

Now, to address My Tie's hyperbole that boiled down to lumping ALL GAYS into a generic group that is responsible for activity, behaivor, ideology, representation that is--in reality--being the domain of ONLY A FEW of them. Again, I feel a "need" to remind the concept of the "bell-shaped-curve-of-distribution"....one that clearly demonstrates huge & varying areas of "gray".

My Tie not only wanted to lump Gays together,,,s/he wanted to see most situations in ONLY terms of Black-&-White....which took the--very limited in numbers--(Black, dark??)negative activities of the few and assigned them to (hugely MOST??) all Gays and their "agenda" to seek their Constitutional Rights. I was a bit "surprised" to see no one really point this out to him/er. I did see someone rightfully point out to him/er how narrow-mindedly he was using the "on-off switch" on the issue of Gay "activities" surrounding their efforts of redress.

Of course, he ignored it and saw no need to deter from his (near maniacal??) obsession that ALL Gays are hugely wrong in how they are going about seeking their Constitutional (< a very seriously established means of social conduct) RIGHTS. He even went so far as to whine about how Gays are sooooo wrong when they use litigation (or FINALLY HAVE TO RESORT TO) as a means to thwart illegitamate laws prohibiting them their RIGHTS.

My Tie (and I might as well remind Jake-0), just becasue there is a "law"...this doesn't mean it is Constitutional. This is why we have a SUPREME Court. It decides the merit of such laws and can strike them down if deemed UN-Constitutional. This process takes time (a lot of it) and I predict that all of these state Constitutional Amendments,,defining "marriage" as being ONLY between a man & woman,,will be challenged and struck down.

Of course, as Jake-0 so aptly reminds us, bigots such as he--though they will (mostly??) observe this new tenet--will STILL HARBOR & continue their ("morally" induced??) their vile contempt for Gays.....which is, sadly, their right to do so. AND, it is the right of Gays & their supports to feel the same way about the bigots.

The central crux My Tie pushes is that--while ignoring the harm//hurt to Gays by bigots--the exercising of this right by Gays & their supporters is wholely detrimental to their cause (of obtaining equal rights) and "turns reasonable ppl off" were they to initially feel support for the efforts. He (weirdly??) supports this proposition by making three very ludicrous suppositions: (1) that ALL Gays are involve//engaged in protesting and that (2) this protesting is horrendously, "extreeeemely" militant and that (3) often it takes such measures to "speed up" highly necessary societal changes.

As Ketsy so aptly point out, My Tie appears to (ala Jake-0) relish ignoring essential rebuttals to his rather obtuse logic. He certainly is highly capable of ignoring the many comparisons of life situations that show the relevancy of the "militancy" of how Gays are protesting the usurpation of their RIGHTS as being very subdued. I don't know if My Tie is American or not...regardless, obviously knows little about American history. Ya wanna talk about MILITANT PROTESTATION....the colonies certainly kicked up a hell of a "protest" about how Mother England was treating them. A "protest" that lead to our Constitution which FORMALLY decreed our RIGHT to protest in a lawful manner in order to redress grieviences.

Speaking of "protesting",,,the one thing I found My Tie doing that most "disturbed" me was that s/he kept harping on a duplicity of how Cathy (owner of Chick-fil-A) et al has a right to his opinion & to hugely present it to society. YET, My Tie relentlessly presents an opinion that Gays & their supporters don't possess the same right to meet his opinion w/ an equally widespread, LEGAL protest of it.

My Tie even goes to further lenghts to "disqualify" the rights of Gays to protest because he absurdly associates this protest as being an effort of extemity in that they want to ruin Cathy's business and to "shut him up". Simply fucking amazing. I guess I should add how My Tie also assigns these erroneous assumptions to ALL Gays.

Hint to My Tie & Jake-0: Someone merely disagreeing w/ another person and stating so and doing it in great "detail" doesn't mean they are trying to "shut them up". It (propably??) might mean they wish they would....BUT, a rational person understands this is immaterial to the process of rational disagreement intercourse.

Hey…sorry about the double post. My first one was already long enuff. But, there are points made in this one that I have wanted to comment about for some time now on this issue.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Originally posted by Arbitor165:

Originally posted by Crash301:

I had a thought. In most cases, the government allows civil unions between gay partners, so maybe we can just get rid of marriage as a government thing and everybody have civil unions, and if they want a marriage then they can have a celebration on their own time or in the church, synagogue, temple, home of their choosing. Just a thought.

This would be acceptable, but I really doubt this would come to pass anytime soon.

I agree, if the religious are so worried about the ownership of the term ‘marriage’ then give it back to them…and take all legality of it away…replace the term with civil union and let the Government use that for all couples.

The religious can still have their ‘sanctified marriage’ (of course if they want it recognised by the state they’ll still have to get a civil union).
Problem solved?

Excellent!

My rejoinder here isn’t to “challenge” what is said above,,,but rather to offer some “alternatives” to them. AND, I’ll be mostly focusing on FlabbyWW’s view.

In the past, I’ve pointed out this maligned dichotomy of government civil unions and the more “religious” usage of the word marriage. AND, in this very thread (& probably in any other “Gay-thread”), this dichotomy has been hugely stressed….w/ very little impact on My Tie and his “understanding” of the two.

FlabbyWW, ya kinda “contradicted” yerself when ya proposed the “return” of the term marriage to the “religious sector” and (thereby??) take away all legality of it. Because in your second paragraph, ya said that if they (or ANYONE for that matter) wanted to have “sanctified marriage”….such “marriage” would have to have “legality”—via being sanctioned by the state as being a civil union.

I totally agree w/ your first paragraph. The separation of “marriage” and civil union has to become recognized in America….if any “healing” of the issue & acceptance of Gays as human beings who have (as YOU have pointed out) EQUALITY OF RIGHTS & will help further establish the concept of “Wall-of-Separation”.

I’ve already commented on how one name can come to represent a generic concept. For the most part, marriage has always been of a “contractual” nature (see dowry).

I’ve come to understand that the “church” interjected itself into the area of marriage because of several reasons: (1) It already existed in the Bible. (2) During the Dark Ages, many one man-one woman unions weren’t sanctioned by the church and a lot of inheritance issues arose (because of lack of “legal contract”…which we have even today w/ children beget someone other than husband…ala Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al). (3) The heightened concept of civil union is the result of this whole Gay marriage debacle.

I have NO problem w/ two (or more??) ppl making a very personal commitment and calling it a “marriage”….a union-of-souls. It beats the shit out of calling a 37 year old: my “boyfriend” or my “girlfriend”. Significant other is just silly. Fiancee for ppl who have lived together for 7 years is a little “bonkers”.

AND, then there are asshole like Dr. Laura Schlesinger who want to put a vitriolically negative spin on it and call it a “shack job”…as in shacking up

I also have no problem w/ ppl who have availed themselves of a legal union calling it a marriage. The “church” doesn’t “own” the term. I imagine two ppl who have made the LEGAL commitment of a civil union have also made one of “soul” commitment.

Interestingly enough,,,in looking for something on the “religious” proposal for two “degrees of marriage”,,,I cam across this relevant bit of info. What I was looking for is a proposal by some “religious proponents” that there be LEGALLY two levels of marriage: One "typical and the other of a much “deeper nature” (where divorce would be harder to obtain, etc.). That “notion” didn’t get very far. BUT, former Senator Sam Brownback and now Kansas Governor proposed a law that would make divorce much harder to obtain by stipulation of there being some “religious form” of counseling before it could happen.

“Religion” has often made this same proposal for those women seeking abortions….cramming down their throats a mandate that they must receive counseling before being allowed their abortion. Ppl, religion is (can be most of the time??) a good thing. HOWEVER, give very much lack of attention, it can grow much like a malignant cancer. BEWARE. BE VILIGANT.

@karmakoolkid -

Ok, I’m just going to give you a few points here:

I never said “all gays”.
I never said gays shouldn’t protest.
The actions toward Chick Fil A, by the homosexual supporters in keeping them out of a city was illegal.
I don’t ignore the harm to gays. I addressed it directly. I acknowledged it, first off.
I never said I harbor any vile contempt for gays. I simply disagree with that lifestyle. The people themselves are great.
I don’t mind them using legal or “litigation” as you said, means to get their rights. I never said I do.

This kind of post is what I’m talking about. I’ve really said two core things about the homosexual marriage debate: 1) They should have equal rights. 2) They should work toward those rights without trying to infringe on the rights of others, regardless of the correctness of those other people.

In return, I get a wall of poorly written ad hominem. As expected, “bigot” was in there liberally, but there were some other gems: odd, obsession, “near maniacal” (lol), etc. The strawmen abound as well. I’ve never seen anything like it. The point of your post seems to point out that I want to, as you put it, “disqualify” the rights of gays to protest. I simply said that some of the protesters have been inappropriate, and some of the actions have been damaging to their public image.

When a group of Christians does something wrong, I condemn their actions. I want to make sure everyone knows that that isn’t how Christians act, nor is it condoned. That doesn’t make me any less of a Christian. The same should go for the supporters of the homosexual movement. When people in that movement, or politicians that support it, act inappropriately, they should be called out for it. The opposite seems to happen. Any questioning that anyone might have gone too far, and I’m immediately labeled a maniacal ludicrous harmful obsessed bigot. And you wonder why more people don’t jump on board with you?

Hearts and minds.

By the way, I’m an American, and I’m a male, and I’m well aware of the US’s revolutionary war. lol

Originally posted by MyTie:

@karmakoolkid -

Ok, I’m just going to give you a few points here:

Okay….I’m running a little low on tham ATM.

I never said “all gays”.

OH? Such was the “inferrence” I got from what I read…both of YOUR posting AND that of the others responding TO IT.

I never said gays shouldn’t protest.

OH? Again, inferences.

The actions toward Chick Fil A, by the homosexual supporters in keeping them out of a city was illegal.

OH? I think ya probably ought to go back and REALLY READ some (all?) of the posts….including YOURS (ya just might see some of those “inferrences” I mention. BUT, ya’ll see that it wasn’t at all the Gays who were blocking the location of CFA in the two cities.

I don’t ignore the harm to gays. I addressed it directly. I acknowledged it, first off.

OH? I musta “missed” it,,,,and, I’ve made it a point to well keep up w/ this thread. HOWEVER, ya did fail to address MY touching on a very, VERY important factor because YOU were so intent on disparaging the “militant” efforts of Gays to see address of their usurped rights. Others were assailing YOU for doing it, also.

I never said I harbor any vile contempt for gays.

I never asked. Had I done so, I wouldn’t have implied “vile contempt”….as such wasn’t what I observed.

I simply disagree with that lifestyle.

Do ya think this might in any way at all cause ya to be at least a tab “biased”?

The people themselves are great.

Ya see….RIGHT THERE. You are, once again, LUMPING THEM ALL TOGETHER.
They are merely PEOPLE….some good,,,some bad,,,most of them “somewhere in between”.
Perhaps YOU ARE a “little more biased” than ya’re able “to see”….eh?

I don’t mind them using legal or “litigation” as you said, means to get their rights. I never said I do.

Do I really have to go retreive the quote? YOU did piss & moan how they “up-&-sue” when they don’t “get their way”. (quotations indicate MY understanding of what was said by YOU).

This kind of post is what I’m talking about. I’ve really said two core things about the homosexual marriage debate: 1) They should have equal rights. 2) They should work toward those rights without trying to infringe on the rights of others, regardless of the correctness {or politically INcorrestness} of those other people.

NO…YOU didn’t at all make your position this clear. If such were so, why was there so much discussion on the matter? Those two core things most certainly weren’t all that easy to FINALLY have YOU state for us. Just maybe it does take a post like mine to blow away the bullshit YOU smarmed around for several hours last night….eh?

BUT, as far as YOUR “…work toward those rights…” goes….it’s totally as Dark & Fwoofwoof have been trying&trying&trying to get YOU to understand: Gays SHOULD NOT HAVE TO “work toward” RIGHTS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE. Dude, they HAVE BEEN “working” on JUST acceptance & exercise of their Constitutional RIGHTS for years now. How hard is it for ppl such as YOU to NOT understand that when YOU finally “see the light” of the issue…..all YOU can see the the extremity of how the process has HAD TO EVOVLE just in order to be “taken seriously”,,,,and to have the asshole bigots be exposed for just what they are.

Yeah, I said BIGOT: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

Are all ppl who are “opposed to Gays” bigots? Of course not….don’t be stoooopid. I’m not much concerned w/ this “element-of-opposition”. What they think about homosexuality is totally on them. WHAT THEY DO ABOUT IT is when I become “involved”. I find either very ignorant or odiously biased (or both…they do seem to be “paired”) even the ppl who voted for state Constitutional amendments banning Gay “marriage”. Can ya imagine how I feel about ppl who do actual harm//hurt to them?

All that said,,, I am most happy to NOW know that YOUR feelings on the issue aren’t near as “bad” as I was interpretating them to be. Ya might note one change (in bold) I made to YOUR statement above.

In return, I get a wall of poorly written ad hominem.

Yeah…yeah…yeah. SO? It looked as if THAT WAS ABOUT ALL YOU WERE GETTING. I didn’t want to be “different”. LOL

As expected, “bigot” was in there liberally, but there were some other gems: odd, obsession, “near maniacal” (lol), etc.

SO? Bitch..bitch…bitch. Did I DIRECTLY call YOU any of those. Remember, “alluding” is not the same as “allusion”. Plus, ya might wanna look for the shifts from my speaking about YOU personally and the “et al” nature.

The strawmen abound as well. I’ve never seen anything like it.

YOU like to bandy about that term a lot,,,dontchya? The problem there is that it is YOU who fosters the situation w/ all of your misch-mashing around the issue and other posters’ attempts to address them.

The point of your post seems to point out that I want to, as you put it, “disqualify” the rights of gays to protest.

I’m glad ya said ""SEEMS"" because I NEVER even implied such was a possiblility of “being on the table”.

I simply said that some of the protesters have been inappropriate, and some of the actions have been damaging to their public image.

Well….DUH. Ya don’t say? Well,,,FINALLY ya DO say. BUT, ya greatly avoided (ignored??) the many attempts to have YOU understand that—by comparison to other factors in this issue—such “public image damage” is NOTHING.

When a group of Christians does something wrong, I condemn their actions. I want to make sure everyone knows that that isn’t how Christians act, nor is it condoned. That doesn’t make me any less of a Christian. The same should go for the supporters of the homosexual movement. When people in that movement, or politicians that support it, act inappropriately, they should be called out for it.

SO? Yes, they should. Your point?

The opposite seems to happen. Any questioning that anyone might have gone too far, and I’m immediately labeled a maniacal ludicrous harmful obsessed bigot.

I’m,,,once again,,,glad ya put in that ""SEEMS"". I didn’t really take your stance on “militant protests” as a form of “questioning”…..rather a statement of fact and how horrendously “damaging it was to their public image.” AND, get down off of your whiney-horse. I (nor anyone else??) was as harsh on ya as ya just stated. Good grief.

And you wonder why more people don’t jump on board with you?

Hearts and minds.

It appears there are faaaarrrr more ppl aligned on the side I am on than are on yours….eh? That is speaking of ON THIS FORUM. As far as society in general…..well, that heavily depends on location & age.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t think we can continue the debate, as it has spiraled down into ad hominem even deeper, despite my requests to keep things on topic.

Anyway, as a parting comment, your highlights to text (bolding, ellipsis, repetitive commas, excessive quotations, cap locks, etc) make your posts hard to read. Perhaps you can just type what it is you wish to communicate. Further, there is no need to respond to my posts line by line. You can just communicate your main point.

In fact, several people on this board are badly in need of an English composition course. I’m not normally a stickler for grammar, especially on the internet, but this stuff is genuinely difficult to read.

Originally posted by MyTie:

I’m sorry you feel that way. I don’t think we can continue the debate, as it has spiraled down into ad hominem even deeper, despite my requests to keep things on topic.

LOL…nice “back-out”. I’m not sure of just who this “we” is (YOU gave NO antecedent…tsk, tsk, tsk), but I NEVER actually was in a “debate”. I prefer to DISCUSS. AND, I really had little to say either TO or ABOUT you. There really wasn’t much to say…esp. since YOU basically said very little,,,,just a bunch of “trollish crap”. <<< Ad hominem THAT. Except is ain’t no ad hominen….cuz it ain’t no PERSONAL, it’s merely a comment on what ya dun brung to da table.

Anyway, as a parting comment, your highlights to text (bolding, ellipsis, repetitive commas, excessive quotations, cap locks, etc) make your posts hard to read.

No shit? Ya should see how hard it is to type that way.

Perhaps you can just type what it is you wish to communicate.

I’ll get right on that….perhaps YOU could do the same…eh?

Further, there is no need to respond to my posts line by line.

WHY? What the fuck are YOU now trying “to pull”? If YOU knew ANYTHING about this forum, YOU would see that this form of response//rebuttal is the norm. To do otherwise is to invite confusion and “problems”.

You can just communicate your main point.

Yeah, I probably could….BUT, howzzabout YOU tell me just why I should do this…..because YOU think it should be so? Are YOU not able to see just how selfish YOU are….and how that is likely to translate to the merit of YOUR “opinions”?

In fact, several people on this board are badly in need of an English composition course.

FACT: several ppl on this board use English as a second language.
FACT: several ppl on here just might be very young & haven’t YET developed adequate syntax skills.
FACT: Just as some ppl have dyslexia….some very intelligent ppl do poorly in grammatical areas.
FACT: It is a “special kind” of ad hominem when one stoops to commenting on how the message is delivered rather than the message itself.

I’m not normally a stickler for grammar, especially on the internet, but this stuff is genuinely difficult to read.

Like I said….nice “back out”. Why not bitch about something….work on finding a solution to the “problem”. Diddgya ever wonder if I type the way I do in order to see who can find a “solution” and who can only bitch about the “problem”? It’s ONLY one of many methods I employ to “measure-the-merit” of ppl so that I can better function around//with them. We all have some “method” for social intercourse….some “methods” work well for some ppl,,,,others work well for other ppl,,,,some ppl have NO method whatsoever.

By the way….how much do ya charge for English tutoring lessons?
Can we get a “group rate”?

What does everyone think about the presidential candidates positions on this issue? I haven’t looked at them much, but I believe Obama to be much more friendly toward homosexual issues. Thoughts?

Originally posted by MyTie:

What does everyone think about the presidential candidates positions on this issue? I haven’t looked at them much, but I believe Obama to be much more friendly toward homosexual issues. Thoughts?

Can YOU Google?
Try here
THEN, come back and ask some meaningful questions….eh?

Originally posted by MyTie:

What does everyone think about the presidential candidates positions on this issue? I haven’t looked at them much, but I believe Obama to be much more friendly toward homosexual issues. Thoughts?

I think it is awesome that at least one of those guys finally decided to handle a secular issue secularly.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
-snip-

Would you please try be nice? I’m asking politely.

Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by MyTie:

What does everyone think about the presidential candidates positions on this issue? I haven’t looked at them much, but I believe Obama to be much more friendly toward homosexual issues. Thoughts?

I think it is awesome that at least one of those guys finally decided to handle a secular issue secularly.

I don’t think so. First, I don’t believe the idea of marriage is secular. I think it can be treated such, if people want to, but I don’t believe that since some people treat marriage as secular that means that marriage is therefore a completely secular issue.

Let’s look at something I think we would both agree (most people would) is a completely religious issue. Let’s talk about baptism. Let’s say that some atheists wanted to be baptized. They wanted to make sure that homosexuals could be baptized. You would probably have some religious folk who would fight against that. I know you’d say that baptism carries no government benefits and marriage does. Even if baptism carried government benefits, I don’t think that would ease the minds of religious people. You might also say that atheists find some moral or social, or SOME benefit to getting married, beyond religious reasons. You’d be right, and I couldn’t argue against that. But, if atheists were to see some benefit to being baptized, and wanted to fight for a homosexual’s right to be baptized, that still wouldn’t ease the minds of the religious community, who hold baptism near and dear.

Then you’d have me. I will never vote to allow unrepentant homosexuals to get baptized, outright. That would undoubtedly offend my God. However, the simple act of a homosexual getting baptized has no effect on me personally. The burning question on my mind would be: Why does government need to bestow benefits onto baptism. You can see that is why I would argue first and foremost for the deregulation of marriage, but if that wouldn’t work, I would argue for the least invasive form of regulation possible. I would argue that the law read “anyone who wants to get baptized can”. This would solve the problem of discrimination, but wouldn’t offend my religion.

However, none of that would make it a secular issue. Marriage isn’t solely for the religious, but to define it as an issue absent of religion is to go to the other extreme. Government must accommodate all the beliefs of people, or none of them. Either everyone receives benefits, or no one does. That does not mean that the individual’s beliefs about the matter are void and the issue is secular.

Let’s look at something I think we would both agree (most people would) is a completely religious issue. Let’s talk about baptism. Let’s say that some atheists wanted to be baptized. They wanted to make sure that homosexuals could be baptized. You would probably have some religious folk who would fight against that. I know you’d say that baptism carries no government benefits and marriage does. Even if baptism carried government benefits, I don’t think that would ease the minds of religious people

Because this is a completely religious ceremony, it depends entirely on the church. There are churches who are accepting of homosexuality, so the entire argument is null.

That is, there wouldn’t be a political battle over it because there would be no reason to have one. There would only be normal social forces.

Then you’d have me. I will never vote to allow unrepentant homosexuals to get baptized, outright. That would undoubtedly offend my God. However, the simple act of a homosexual getting baptized has no effect on me personally. The burning question on my mind would be: Why does government need to bestow benefits onto baptism. You can see that is why I would argue first and foremost for the deregulation of marriage, but if that wouldn’t work, I would argue for the least invasive form of regulation possible. I would argue that the law read “anyone who wants to get baptized can”. This would solve the problem of discrimination, but wouldn’t offend my religion.

It isn’t really something to be voted on, as the state shouldn’t interfere with the church. Also, it is to the governments advantage to have people get married. Offering benefits helps encourage that. I’d prefer if a “state marriage” was completely different from a “church marriage,” though.

Marriage isn’t solely for the religious, but to define it as an issue absent of religion is to go to the other extreme. Government must accommodate all the beliefs of people, or none of them. Either everyone receives benefits, or no one does. That does not mean that the individual’s beliefs about the matter are void and the issue is secular.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say. Our government is secular, so marriage should be secular. You cannot accommodate the beliefs of all because they tend to conflict.

Why can’t reprocriation itself be encouraged and subsidized by government? Why can’t all aspects that are associated with marriage be dealt with without government actually regulating marriage (taxes, insurance, etc)? I mean, to be honest, yes, I can admit that marriage isn’t only adopted by religious people. On the other hand, can you admit that it is a religious one?

On a side note, your point that some churches baptize homosexuals isn’t applicable, as some churches marry homosexuals and it is still an issue.

Why can’t reprocriation itself be encouraged and subsidized by government? Why can’t all aspects that are associated with marriage be dealt with without government actually regulating marriage (taxes, insurance, etc)? I mean, to be honest, yes, I can admit that marriage isn’t only adopted by religious people. On the other hand, can you admit that it is a religious one?

Because having children should only be encouraged when there is a stable environment to raise them in. Part of the role of government is to help provide stability, and encouraging marriage encourages stability.

“Can you admit that it is a religious one?” Do you mean “Can I admit that marriage is a religious thing?” It might have been, but I don’t really see it as one now. When I talk about it, I don’t think of the religious ceremony people go through. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a minor part. To me, marriage is a social contract between two people.

On a side note, your point that some churches baptize homosexuals isn’t applicable, as some churches marry homosexuals and it is still an issue.

Not quite what I meant. Churches themselves have all the power they need to baptize people. They don’t have the power to provide legal marriages if the government does not allow them to. If one church baptizes homosexuals and another church finds that inappropriate, the second church doesn’t have any politically direct way to do anything about it. All they can do is apply social forces.

What is coming across in this argument is the bottom dollar. Gays don’t seem to think they are getting enough government money and feel if they can break the marriage is a religious cycle, they could possible get more money from the taxpayer. That makes the idea of gay marriage even more disgusting. Destroy a traditional ceremony performed by the church according the the bible, so they can get more money. Yes, that is disgustingly greedy. Can you guys prove to me that is a wrong assumption?

Originally posted by jhco50:

What is coming across in this argument is the bottom dollar. Gays don’t seem to think they are getting enough government money and feel if they can break the marriage is a religious cycle, they could possible get more money from the taxpayer. That makes the idea of gay marriage even more disgusting. Destroy a traditional ceremony performed by the church according the the bible, so they can get more money. Yes, that is disgustingly greedy. Can you guys prove to me that is a wrong assumption?

W H A T ? ?

What idiot “conservative” talking head pundit have YOU been listening to now?

YOU have some very “out there” ideas,,,,
BUT, this one tops them all.
Wow….just W O W O W O W O W O W.

It’s a juxtapose of your post. It’s a caricature of your logic. It’s also hilarious. Well done, jhco.

You’re reaction to his post is exactly how we react to your post. The difference is, his is done in jest. You were being serious about your irrational.

Originally posted by jhco50:

What is coming across in this argument is the bottom dollar. Gays don’t seem to think they are getting enough government money and feel if they can break the marriage is a religious cycle, they could possible get more money from the taxpayer. That makes the idea of gay marriage even more disgusting. Destroy a traditional ceremony performed by the church according the the bible, so they can get more money. Yes, that is disgustingly greedy. Can you guys prove to me that is a wrong assumption?

I wasn’t aware that married couples got government money. More than that, the fact that marriage has government benefits while being considered a Christian ritual seems to be against the first amendment and the separation of Church and State.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by MyTie:

What does everyone think about the presidential candidates positions on this issue? I haven’t looked at them much, but I believe Obama to be much more friendly toward homosexual issues. Thoughts?

Can YOU Google?
Try here
THEN, come back and ask some meaningful questions….eh?

Stop being such a butt to everyone and chill out.

Originally posted by Ketsy:

Originally posted by jhco50:

What is coming across in this argument is the bottom dollar. Gays don’t seem to think they are getting enough government money and feel if they can break the marriage is a religious cycle, they could possible get more money from the taxpayer. That makes the idea of gay marriage even more disgusting. Destroy a traditional ceremony performed by the church according the the bible, so they can get more money. Yes, that is disgustingly greedy. Can you guys prove to me that is a wrong assumption?

I wasn’t aware that married couples got government money. More than that, the fact that marriage has government benefits while being considered a Christian ritual seems to be against the first amendment and the separation of Church and State.

They don’t, in fact there is what is called a marriage penalty when you file taxes as a married couple. I was just being facetious. There is a separation between church and state according to the 1st Amendment. Not quoting the document, it basically says the government will not make any laws that hinder freedom of religion. This is why I have said marriage is not a Constitutional decree (in so many words). It is not a right either.

Originally posted by MyTie:

It’s a juxtapose of your post. It’s a caricature of your logic. It’s also hilarious. Well done, jhco.

You’re reaction to his post is exactly how we react to your post. The difference is, his is done in jest. You were being serious about your irrational.

Sigh. Your not long enough here to understand that jhco was not jesting, he generally really believes the shit he posts.

Got to go to work, more later.

First, I don’t believe the idea of marriage is secular. I think it can be treated such, if people want to, but I don’t believe that since some people treat marriage as secular that means that marriage is therefore a completely secular issue.

This is your position that either the government should fully recognise marriages (in all types and forms) or none at all. This is a respectable position, as there is no discrimination.

Let’s look at something I think we would both agree (most people would) is a completely religious issue. Let’s talk about baptism. Let’s say that some atheists wanted to be baptized. They wanted to make sure that homosexuals could be baptized. You would probably have some religious folk who would fight against that. I know you’d say that baptism carries no government benefits and marriage does. Even if baptism carried government benefits, I don’t think that would ease the minds of religious people. You might also say that atheists find some moral or social, or SOME benefit to getting married, beyond religious reasons. You’d be right, and I couldn’t argue against that. But, if atheists were to see some benefit to being baptized, and wanted to fight for a homosexual’s right to be baptized, that still wouldn’t ease the minds of the religious community, who hold baptism near and dear.

Government benefits should not be presented for issues that are inherently discriminatory. It’s fine if only religious people can get baptised, it’s fine if homosexuals cannot get a religious wedding. It’s ridiculous if the government then started giving benefits to those religious people. That isn’t only not secular, it is discrimination.

Can you guys prove to me that is a wrong assumption?

Prove it is the right assumption! You’re putting up so much crap about homosexuals, then assume it is the default position, and tell us to prove you wrong. I reject your claim. It is false. No evidence. Nothing. Prove it. Then we’ll talk.

This is why I have said marriage is not a Constitutional decree (in so many words). It is not a right either.

So what exactly lets different-sex couples marry when same-sex couples can’t?

Let’s say that some atheists wanted to be baptized.

Why would atheists want to be baptized? That’s not logical.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by MyTie:

What does everyone think about the presidential candidates positions on this issue? I haven’t looked at them much, but I believe Obama to be much more friendly toward homosexual issues. Thoughts?

Can YOU Google?
Try here
THEN, come back and ask some meaningful questions….eh?

Stop being such a butt to everyone and chill out.

Yeah, sure….I’m the one who calls ppl here: amoral, immoral, killers, etc.,,,,,when YOU have NO proof of their being ANY of that. AND, when they DEMAND proof, YOU weenie out. And, there ya have his ideology & methodology….in a nutshell.

Let me add something else he manifests here: What really bothers me is unpatriotic boobs {Americans} who take their {foreigners to America} side because they can’t fit in with society in a normal way.

In other words,,,he’s saying that ANYONE who disagrees w/ him is either an UnAmerian, abnormal boob or a “buttinski”, mettlesome foreigner.

I found that Darkruler feels much the same as I:

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

What really bothers me is unpatriotic boobs who take their side because they can’t fit in with society in a normal way.

Really? Foreigners can’t argue because it isn’t their country and those Americans that argue against you are “unpatriotic” and “abnormal”? Is that how you dismiss all logical arguments about crap happening in your country?

ANNNNnnnnd,,,of course, Jake-0 didn’t respond & “defend”.
BUT, had he done so….it likely would have been in the form of a whine: Everyone picks on me cuz they disagree w/ me….boo hoo.

Originally posted by MyTie:

Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by MyTie:

What does everyone think about the presidential candidates positions on this issue? I haven’t looked at them much, but I believe Obama to be much more friendly toward homosexual issues. Thoughts?

I think it is awesome that at least one of those guys finally decided to handle a secular issue secularly.

I don’t think so. First, I don’t believe the idea of marriage is secular. I think it can be treated such, if people want to, but I don’t believe that since some people treat marriage as secular that means that marriage is therefore a completely secular issue.

There are two kinds of marriage: legal marriage and religious marriage.
Religious marriage is regulated by churches. Legal marriage is a legal bond between two people that is regulated by a state or country. The thing I am talking about in this thread is legal marriage. If gay were fighting for getting the right to be baptised in a religion that does not allow them to get baptised I would disagree with them, just as I am disagreeing with gays fighting for the right to be married in churches that don’t want them to marry there because they don’t consider homosexual marriages valid under their beliefs.
It’s just about legal marriage, no matter whether it carries any benefits or not. As legal persons (of age) they should have the right to enter a legal bond with another legal person, just as everyone else.