<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 15 2005, 05:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 15 2005, 05:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Caboose+Mar 15 2005, 07:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Caboose @ Mar 15 2005, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Going back on the dolphin/cyborg/trashcan thing and concenting adults.
Say by chance that an alien spices came to Earth, and had simalar anatomy/genes to a human. Also, asume that those two species could breed and produce offspring, but they were asexual-ish, had a **** and were impregnated via anal-sex. Also asume they had the same lifespan as a human and matured at the same rate.
Now assume that one of them and a human fall in love (male or female. They can go both ways and produce offspring). Would it be bad for those 2 to be married? Or even considered homosexual? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As long as mutual consent is there, it should be allowed. No one is getting harmed, even though it sounds disgusting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And the aliens have to be sexy. If they aren't sexy, its completely immoral.
I hereby declare Teddy Grahams to be immoral due to the way they are packaged. All those male bears...naked...in a bag together...in sexual suggestive positions...its corrupting our youth and turning me on...I mean...
Edit: *in a noticeably fake British accent* This topic is absurd.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Mar 15 2005, 06:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Mar 15 2005, 06:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting fact: The judge who made the decision was appointed by a republican. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To add on to that point, the judge is Republican, as well as Catholic.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Mar 15 2005, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Mar 15 2005, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hereby declare Teddy Grahams to be immoral due to the way they are packaged. All those male bears...naked...in a bag together...in sexual suggestive positions...its corrupting our youth and turning me on...I mean...
Edit: *in a noticeably fake British accent* This topic is absurd. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you've seen the advert, you'll realise that the bear on the front of the packet is actually duping the naked bears; he is like a judas goat, leading the other bears to bloody destruction in order to spare his own life. The naked bears think they're going on holiday or something, not that they're going to be delivered into the maw of doom.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
It just goes to show you how logic plays no part in the decision process in everyday life.
Refusing to allow **** marriage effectively stigmatises homosexuality. Stigmatising homosexuality leads to people suppressing it and getting married to "fit in". Assuming at least a partially genetic basis for homosexuality, that just leads to more **** people.
I mean come on, what are people afraid of?
"OMG! If we let t3h homoz marry they'll breed like wildfire!!11!!!"
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 16 2005, 11:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 16 2005, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It just goes to show you how logic plays no part in the decision process in everyday life.
Refusing to allow **** marriage effectively stigmatises homosexuality. Stigmatising homosexuality leads to people suppressing it and getting married to "fit in". Assuming at least a partially genetic basis for homosexuality, that just leads to more **** people.
I mean come on, what are people afraid of?
"OMG! If we let t3h homoz marry they'll breed like wildfire!!11!!!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not only that, but we'll see men, clad in pink, humping each other's hineys on parkbenches. Because, you know, homosexuals have no discretion at all. And now that we're trolling anyway: Note how it's always the men that are crucified in debates like this? Because we all know that lesbians are hot. Nobody minds THEM. Hypocrisy ftw.
theclam posts the most important question of them all, the one that is consistently ignored by those it's directed at because they don't have the guts to answer it honestly: <b>How does homosexual marriage reduce the quality of life for you or anyone else?</b>
No, we keep getting answers like "they'll allow cyborgs to marry next" or "they'll allow trashcans to marry next" or "babies will be raped consistently." Answers that are constructed, completely unfounded, unrelated to the issue at hand and obviously coverups for the real reason. Allow me, then, to answer the question on behalf of those who will not:
You are scared of the homosexuals. The men in particular. You believe it to be a contagious disease. The thought of men going at it with other men disgusts you so much that you can hardly sleep at night. You are afraid to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning, afraid that you might turn yourself on. You view the homosexuals as freaks of nature, as abominations. But this is irrational behaviour, and you know it. You can't proclaim these things openly, because instead of easing your fears, people will pounce on you with mockery and ridicule. You don't know who to turn to for help, because if you speak to the wrong person, he will expose you to public ridicule. Your only resort, in this situation, is to wage war on the homosexuals. The more you can suppress them, the more you can suppress your own fears. Anything else you tell us is just posturing.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
edited March 2005
I fear homosexuals because in the final analysis, I know I'm happy just as long as <i>someone</i> is touching my beef bayonet. Thus if it was OK, I'd be bent as a £3 note.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Mar 16 2005, 06:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Mar 16 2005, 06:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But what do I know. I'm married to a trashcan. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a harsh way to talk about me.
For all those people who like to scream about "separation of church and state" here is a perfect discussion for it.
Lets start with figuring out what these **** people want that they don't have. First, they probably want to be formally recognized by the government as being "together". Second - they want the same tax privelages as married people. Third, they want to be able to raise a young person in their "alternative lifestyle" home. Fourth, they want to feel as though their union is "church sanctified"
So now we have (loosely) established the "wants" of the **** community - things that are "rights" for everyone else. So how do we deal with them?
In terms of what the government can / should do - the limit of its (the governments) authority should extend over want #1, #2, and part of #3. Strict separation of church and state prohibits them from doing anything about #4.
So what can be done about this? I think the government should stop recognizing marriage all together. It is rather a scam after all - and far more meaningless today than ever before (anyone seen the latest divorce rate statistics?) Rather, the government should recognize a "civil union" of sorts - forget this whole "life partner" crap too - it should be available to everyone... college students living together with 8 people in the house, the guy and his wife and his girlfriend who all live together, the mormons out in utah who still practice polgamy. That is what society wants - they want to be able to be joined to ... whoever - even the family pet if they feel like it.
But as for it being "marriage"... hehe - No way. Sorry, I'm holding you to separation of church and state, and "church" as it stands today says NO to ****, poligamous, bestial, "marry your roommate" marriage. They are not withholding rights from anyone. They are a religious institution with their own set of laws and a much different standard than what government can claim to have. If you want to battle a right to "marry" you are fighting a religious battle - and government law has no place in the discussion.
So do I stand behind the decison in CA? No - that judge violated the separation of church and state - taking a religious matter and trying to settle it in a court system. Rather, he (and the activists pushing for "equal rights") should spend their time getting marriage out of government and civil union in government.
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
Whilst i agree with most of Pepe's points, I would take issue with the idea that many homosexual individuals wish for any form of religious blessing. Certainly, my homsexual friends care nothing for the views of organised religion, except where its bigotry affects their human rights.
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 16 2005, 09:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 16 2005, 09:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Whilst i agree with most of Pepe's points, I would take issue with the idea that many homosexual individuals wish for any form of religious blessing. Certainly, my homsexual friends care nothing for the views of organised religion, except where its bigotry affects their human rights. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In which case, they shouldn't be arguing for a religious term anyway (which is what marriage ultimatly is). Civil Union would be the better argument.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Also, there are many religions which still use the term 'marriage', but do not restrict it to a male and a female. Marriage is not simply a judeochristian-based term. And I find it funny how religious nutjobs from related sects are running around, essentially screaming 'OURS!!!!' about it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sandstorm+Mar 16 2005, 10:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sandstorm @ Mar 16 2005, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Although it would be best to remove marrage as a legal term, it would be far easier to allow homosexual marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Perhaps "easier" - but it doesn't mean it is the right decision. From a conservative standpoint, it appears as though activist judges are forcing the will of the minority on the will of the majority.
By using words like "rights" to describe a religious institution (marriage) you are in affect putting the will of man over and above the will of God - specifically when talking about homosexual marriage (something God specifcally abhors). You can't legislate what God likes / dislikes.
Seriously, those in the homosexual movement need to take a page out of their own playbook. Fight all you want for legal status - but use the words that say you want legal status and nothing more (civil union).
As soon as you cross that church / state line by using the word marriage (the same line that is removing ten commandments from gov. facilities) you are entering into a fight that can only be won by activist judges against popular opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Mar 16 2005, 01:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Mar 16 2005, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pepe, marriage isn't really a religious institution anymore... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree. The government already marries people without consulting a church. Two Satanists could be married by the government. Even if you take the right of granting marriages away from government, two people of any sex could get married to each other in, say, the Unitarian church. If you want your proposal to happen (I proposed a similiar thing earlier in the thread, so I obviously support it), then you'll have to admit that there's nothing stopping *** from being married in a church.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 16 2005, 01:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 16 2005, 01:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Mar 16 2005, 01:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Mar 16 2005, 01:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pepe, marriage isn't really a religious institution anymore... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree. The government already marries people without consulting a church. Two Satanists could be married by the government. Even if you take the right of granting marriages away from government, two people of any sex could get married to each other in, say, the Unitarian church. If you want your proposal to happen (I proposed a similiar thing earlier in the thread, so I obviously support it), then you'll have to admit that there's nothing stopping *** from being married in a church. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Were doing a great job here at pointing out a limitation in government.
Government decides that it wants to extend tax-breaks etc. to various "households". It looks for a standard that it can apply to separate families from non-families. It adopts the religious institution of marriage as that standard - a standard by definition that is religious and is exclusive of homosexual unions.
Fast forward, and now we have a problem. Homosexuality (regardless of religious belief) is on the rise, and is starting to demand "rights" from the government, but they are attempting to change a religious instituion in the effort to attain these rights.
Ok, now set that matter asside and we have the matter of various religions who will marry homosexuals, and some that don't. If we accept that marriage is indeed a religious institution, then our standard for who is to be married becomes God - as the head of "religion" be it Unitarianism, or whatever. So God decides who can / can not be married.
As for how to find out what God decides, our best way is to look to inspired writings - Bible being the main one. If you don't accept the Bible, then you shouldn't accept it's main tennants / sacrements - and the desire to be married would have no significance for you - Civil Union being your best alternative.
*Edit - relative material from previous post deleted.*
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited March 2005
Pepe, again. OTHER religions use the word 'marriage', too. It is NOT related specifically to bible-based religions. There are many gods that don't care if you're homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, multisexual, or transsexual for that matter. And ALL of them can grant marriages, under their own religion.
Again, there's that little nutjob running around screaming 'OURS!!!!!!'. Marriage is NOT a christian-only word. So take care when you list what 'god' abhors.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 16 2005, 01:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 16 2005, 01:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Were doing a great job here at pointing out a limitation in government.
Government decides that it wants to extend tax-breaks etc. to various "households". It looks for a standard that it can apply to separate families from non-families. It adopts the religious institution of marriage as that standard - a standard by definition that is religious and is exclusive of homosexual unions.
Fast forward, and now we have a problem. Homosexuality (regardless of religious belief) is on the rise, and is starting to demand "rights" from the government, but they are attempting to change a religious instituion in the effort to attain these rights.
Ok, now set that matter asside and we have the matter of various religions who will marry homosexuals, and some that don't. If we accept that marriage is indeed a religious institution, then our standard for who is to be married becomes God - as the head of "religion" be it Unitarianism, or whatever. So God decides who can / can not be married.
As for how to find out what God decides, our best way is to look to inspired writings - Bible being the main one. If you don't accept the Bible, then you shouldn't accept it's main tennants / sacrements - and the desire to be married would have no significance for you - Civil Union being your best alternative.
*Edit - relative material from previous post deleted.* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So, it doesn't bother you that every religion and every sect of every religion has a different view of God, meaning that any couple can find a way to get married, because the Unitarians (or some other sect) recognizes **** marriage? But, it bothers you that the government is marrying **** people, because it changes a "religious institution"?
As for civil union vs. marriage. Marriage exists in most cultures, in some form. They still use the term marriage, even when it doesn't coincide with the Christian view of marriage. It seems you're just being semantic when you say that civil unions are ok, but marriages are not.
I support your goal of having government granted civil unions with the same rights as government granted marriages today, while restricting marriage to the church, if only because this solution would do a good thing (equalizing *** and straights) while minimizing bad things (the outrage of religious and social conservatives). I don't support your reasoning behind doing this goal, however.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 16 2005, 02:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 16 2005, 02:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the outrage of religious and social conservatives <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, that can easily be handled by sending to fight in the Middle East to vent the anger in a holy war!
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
To state the obvious:
The only way that such a decision would be forcing the will of the minority on the majority, would be if the law required you to marry people of the same gender. As it stands, the law has no impact whatsoever on the majority. Californians are still free to marry people of the opposite sex.
<!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+Mar 16 2005, 03:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Mar 16 2005, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To state the obvious:
The only way that such a decision would be forcing the will of the minority on the majority, would be if the law required you to marry people of the same gender. As it stands, the law has no impact whatsoever on the majority. Californians are still free to marry people of the opposite sex. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree (as usual). Your idea of "impact" is very diffent from mine. I believe such a decision / choice in words is to the degredation of society - directly affecting me as I try to raise my children (which I don't have yet, but the point remains) in a God-honoring fassion.
Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.
Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality.
Just because it doesn't hurt me directly doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it (sounds a lot like a reason to free Iraq).
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 16 2005, 03:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 16 2005, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I disagree (as usual). Your idea of "impact" is very diffent from mine. I believe such a decision / choice in words is to the degredation of society - directly affecting me as I try to raise my children (which I don't have yet, but the point remains) in a God-honoring fassion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You have a right to bring up your children in a God-honoring fashion. You don't have a right to force that God-honoring fashion on everyone else. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->My personal religious beliefs state that the Christian God was the one who caused the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to worship the Christian God in America, because of what will happen. Right. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->We can't dispute your reasons for forcing your moral authoritarianism on others?<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Really? There's a flow of morality in homosexuality? Just because God says it's wrong doesn't mean that you can apply that to the general populace in the form of laws. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because it doesn't hurt me directly doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it (sounds a lot like a reason to free Iraq).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Iraq can be justified for these reasons: 1. To free people from oppression. (Helping others who can't help themselves) 2. To secure an America-friendly country in an area with a noticeable deficit of America-friendly countries. (Self-Interest) 3. To secure a supply of oil. (Self-Interest) 4. To keep Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons. (Self-Interest)
It isn't in your self-interest to ban or legalize homosexual marriage, because it doesn't affect you unless you're ****. Banning homosexual marriage is a small amount of oppression exerted, unnecessarily, on the populace.
Also: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts interracial marriage as a normal thing and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.
Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in interracial marriage there is a definite flow of morality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll tell you what that makes me feel a lot better then those other states banning **** marriage.
What is quite disturbing from what I can see, is that even in the lovely VERY conservative state of SD, there is no law banning homosexuals from being married, and since our lovely state has the basic law of "If there isn't a law against it, it is legal" I could theoritically marry a girl and/or transexual, which says something for such a conversative state. :-)
Go california, south dakota, and the other states who have similiar laws!
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Mar 16 2005, 04:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Mar 16 2005, 04:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll tell you what that makes me feel a lot better then those other states banning **** marriage.
What is quite disturbing from what I can see, is that even in the lovely VERY conservative state of SD, there is no law banning homosexuals from being married, and since our lovely state has the basic law of "If there isn't a law against it, it is legal" I could theoritically marry a girl and/or transexual, which says something for such a conversative state. :-)
Go california, south dakota, and the other states who have similiar laws! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just wait until the SD legislature creates a law retroactively banning all **** marriages in the state.
One thing I think should be discussed in this thread is this: US. Constitution, Article 4, Section 1 <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public act, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This means that any state has to recognize marriages made in any other state in the union. Therefore, if a **** couple gets married in CA or MA, then TX or GA has to recognize it, no matter how objectionable the state legislature finds it.
I do not believe the peons in the government of this state will ban **** marriage anytime soon. Sadly we usually wait to act on such matters untill a majority of the US has made a decision, or if the Surpreme court has made a decision. One of the many benifits and downfalls of living in a small state. Population wise, not land mass. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Mar 16 2005, 09:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Mar 16 2005, 09:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For all those people who like to scream about "separation of church and state" here is a perfect discussion for it.
Lets start with figuring out what these **** people want that they don't have. First, they probably want to be formally recognized by the government as being "together". Second - they want the same tax privelages as married people. Third, they want to be able to raise a young person in their "alternative lifestyle" home. Fourth, they want to feel as though their union is "church sanctified" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your forgetting other spousal privilages. Such as being able to see your lover when they're on their death bed. Honestly I don't think most of them care about their togetherness being church sanctified, if thats all they wanted there are churches that will do it. Not all christian churches believe that homosexuality is a sin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So now we have (loosely) established the "wants" of the **** community - things that are "rights" for everyone else. So how do we deal with them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree, you're missing some key points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In terms of what the government can / should do - the limit of its (the governments) authority should extend over want #1, #2, and part of #3. Strict separation of church and state prohibits them from doing anything about #4.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, thats about right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So what can be done about this? I think the government should stop recognizing marriage all together. It is rather a scam after all - and far more meaningless today than ever before (anyone seen the latest divorce rate statistics?) Rather, the government should recognize a "civil union" of sorts - forget this whole "life partner" crap too - it should be available to everyone... college students living together with 8 people in the house, the guy and his wife and his girlfriend who all live together, the mormons out in utah who still practice polgamy. That is what society wants - they want to be able to be joined to ... whoever - even the family pet if they feel like it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It shouldn't be government defined at all. Having "civil unions" as open as what you define would lead to a whole mess of problems I can't even begin to contemplate. The government should have nothing to do with marriage at all, and let people call themselves whatever they want. The only reason I see replacing the term marriage with "civil union" that is defined as the union of 2 people as a good one is because it won't require a total reworking of the law to work.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But as for it being "marriage"... hehe - No way. Sorry, I'm holding you to separation of church and state, and "church" as it stands today says NO to ****, poligamous, bestial, "marry your roommate" marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not all of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are not withholding rights from anyone. They are a religious institution with their own set of laws and a much different standard than what government can claim to have. If you want to battle a right to "marry" you are fighting a religious battle - and government law has no place in the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all. The government has recognized marriage, making it a government term now. It is no longer solely a religious idea. Therefore, it should be extended as need be to ensure equal rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So do I stand behind the decison in CA? No - that judge violated the separation of church and state - taking a religious matter and trying to settle it in a court system. Rather, he (and the activists pushing for "equal rights") should spend their time getting marriage out of government and civil union in government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Like I said, no violation of church and state occured, the government defines the term marriage without regard to religion, as evidenced by the fact that atheists agnostics satanists and whatnot can all get married without even setting foot inside a church.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps "easier" - but it doesn't mean it is the right decision. From a conservative standpoint, it appears as though activist judges are forcing the will of the minority on the will of the majority.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How many times must I say this? The judge enforced the RIGHTS of a minority over the DESIRE of a majority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By using words like "rights" to describe a religious institution (marriage) you are in affect putting the will of man over and above the will of God - specifically when talking about homosexual marriage (something God specifcally abhors). You can't legislate what God likes / dislikes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Marriage is not solely a religious term anymore. Also, only certain versions of God abhor homosexuality. Are you going to argue that marriage is a solely fundamentalist christian term now too?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were doing a great job here at pointing out a limitation in government.
Government decides that it wants to extend tax-breaks etc. to various "households". It looks for a standard that it can apply to separate families from non-families. It adopts the religious institution of marriage as that standard - a standard by definition that is religious and is exclusive of homosexual unions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And as soon as it adopts it it is no longer a religeous term, it becomes a government recognized status. As such the rights of homosexuals must be protected under it. Besides which, as I've been saying, NOT ALL RELIGIONS ARE ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, now set that matter asside and we have the matter of various religions who will marry homosexuals, and some that don't. If we accept that marriage is indeed a religious institution, then our standard for who is to be married becomes God - as the head of "religion" be it Unitarianism, or whatever. So God decides who can / can not be married.
As for how to find out what God decides, our best way is to look to inspired writings - Bible being the main one. If you don't accept the Bible, then you shouldn't accept it's main tennants / sacrements - and the desire to be married would have no significance for you - Civil Union being your best alternative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There are other religions with other definitions of who God will allow to be married and with other scriptures. Why do you pretend that Christianity (and only your version of it) is the only religion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree (as usual). Your idea of "impact" is very diffent from mine. I believe such a decision / choice in words is to the degredation of society - directly affecting me as I try to raise my children (which I don't have yet, but the point remains) in a God-honoring fassion.
Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We've been over this before, its sad to see that your memory is so short term. There was a whole thread detailing how the fall of rome and other civilisations had absolutely nothing to do with its acceptance of homosexuality, especially since they accepted homosexuality long before they fell.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is not the governments responsibility to protect YOUR VERSION of morality, or anyone elses for that matter. Get off your friggen high horse.
Comments
Say by chance that an alien spices came to Earth, and had simalar anatomy/genes to a human. Also, asume that those two species could breed and produce offspring, but they were asexual-ish, had a **** and were impregnated via anal-sex. Also asume they had the same lifespan as a human and matured at the same rate.
Now assume that one of them and a human fall in love (male or female. They can go both ways and produce offspring). Would it be bad for those 2 to be married? Or even considered homosexual? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As long as mutual consent is there, it should be allowed. No one is getting harmed, even though it sounds disgusting. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the aliens have to be sexy. If they aren't sexy, its completely immoral.
All those male bears...naked...in a bag together...in sexual suggestive positions...its corrupting our youth and turning me on...I mean...
Edit: *in a noticeably fake British accent* This topic is absurd.
To add on to that point, the judge is Republican, as well as Catholic.
All those male bears...naked...in a bag together...in sexual suggestive positions...its corrupting our youth and turning me on...I mean...
Edit: *in a noticeably fake British accent* This topic is absurd. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you've seen the advert, you'll realise that the bear on the front of the packet is actually duping the naked bears; he is like a judas goat, leading the other bears to bloody destruction in order to spare his own life. The naked bears think they're going on holiday or something, not that they're going to be delivered into the maw of doom.
Refusing to allow **** marriage effectively stigmatises homosexuality. Stigmatising homosexuality leads to people suppressing it and getting married to "fit in". Assuming at least a partially genetic basis for homosexuality, that just leads to more **** people.
I mean come on, what are people afraid of?
"OMG! If we let t3h homoz marry they'll breed like wildfire!!11!!!"
Refusing to allow **** marriage effectively stigmatises homosexuality. Stigmatising homosexuality leads to people suppressing it and getting married to "fit in". Assuming at least a partially genetic basis for homosexuality, that just leads to more **** people.
I mean come on, what are people afraid of?
"OMG! If we let t3h homoz marry they'll breed like wildfire!!11!!!"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not only that, but we'll see men, clad in pink, humping each other's hineys on parkbenches. Because, you know, homosexuals have no discretion at all.
And now that we're trolling anyway: Note how it's always the men that are crucified in debates like this? Because we all know that lesbians are hot. Nobody minds THEM. Hypocrisy ftw.
theclam posts the most important question of them all, the one that is consistently ignored by those it's directed at because they don't have the guts to answer it honestly: <b>How does homosexual marriage reduce the quality of life for you or anyone else?</b>
No, we keep getting answers like "they'll allow cyborgs to marry next" or "they'll allow trashcans to marry next" or "babies will be raped consistently." Answers that are constructed, completely unfounded, unrelated to the issue at hand and obviously coverups for the real reason. Allow me, then, to answer the question on behalf of those who will not:
You are scared of the homosexuals. The men in particular. You believe it to be a contagious disease. The thought of men going at it with other men disgusts you so much that you can hardly sleep at night. You are afraid to look at yourself in the mirror in the morning, afraid that you might turn yourself on. You view the homosexuals as freaks of nature, as abominations.
But this is irrational behaviour, and you know it. You can't proclaim these things openly, because instead of easing your fears, people will pounce on you with mockery and ridicule. You don't know who to turn to for help, because if you speak to the wrong person, he will expose you to public ridicule. Your only resort, in this situation, is to wage war on the homosexuals. The more you can suppress them, the more you can suppress your own fears. Anything else you tell us is just posturing.
But what do I know. I'm married to a trashcan.
That's a harsh way to talk about me.
Lets start with figuring out what these **** people want that they don't have. First, they probably want to be formally recognized by the government as being "together". Second - they want the same tax privelages as married people. Third, they want to be able to raise a young person in their "alternative lifestyle" home. Fourth, they want to feel as though their union is "church sanctified"
So now we have (loosely) established the "wants" of the **** community - things that are "rights" for everyone else. So how do we deal with them?
In terms of what the government can / should do - the limit of its (the governments) authority should extend over want #1, #2, and part of #3. Strict separation of church and state prohibits them from doing anything about #4.
So what can be done about this? I think the government should stop recognizing marriage all together. It is rather a scam after all - and far more meaningless today than ever before (anyone seen the latest divorce rate statistics?) Rather, the government should recognize a "civil union" of sorts - forget this whole "life partner" crap too - it should be available to everyone... college students living together with 8 people in the house, the guy and his wife and his girlfriend who all live together, the mormons out in utah who still practice polgamy. That is what society wants - they want to be able to be joined to ... whoever - even the family pet if they feel like it.
But as for it being "marriage"... hehe - No way. Sorry, I'm holding you to separation of church and state, and "church" as it stands today says NO to ****, poligamous, bestial, "marry your roommate" marriage. They are not withholding rights from anyone. They are a religious institution with their own set of laws and a much different standard than what government can claim to have. If you want to battle a right to "marry" you are fighting a religious battle - and government law has no place in the discussion.
So do I stand behind the decison in CA? No - that judge violated the separation of church and state - taking a religious matter and trying to settle it in a court system. Rather, he (and the activists pushing for "equal rights") should spend their time getting marriage out of government and civil union in government.
In which case, they shouldn't be arguing for a religious term anyway (which is what marriage ultimatly is). Civil Union would be the better argument.
Perhaps "easier" - but it doesn't mean it is the right decision. From a conservative standpoint, it appears as though activist judges are forcing the will of the minority on the will of the majority.
By using words like "rights" to describe a religious institution (marriage) you are in affect putting the will of man over and above the will of God - specifically when talking about homosexual marriage (something God specifcally abhors). You can't legislate what God likes / dislikes.
Seriously, those in the homosexual movement need to take a page out of their own playbook. Fight all you want for legal status - but use the words that say you want legal status and nothing more (civil union).
As soon as you cross that church / state line by using the word marriage (the same line that is removing ten commandments from gov. facilities) you are entering into a fight that can only be won by activist judges against popular opinion.
I agree. The government already marries people without consulting a church. Two Satanists could be married by the government. Even if you take the right of granting marriages away from government, two people of any sex could get married to each other in, say, the Unitarian church. If you want your proposal to happen (I proposed a similiar thing earlier in the thread, so I obviously support it), then you'll have to admit that there's nothing stopping *** from being married in a church.
I agree. The government already marries people without consulting a church. Two Satanists could be married by the government. Even if you take the right of granting marriages away from government, two people of any sex could get married to each other in, say, the Unitarian church. If you want your proposal to happen (I proposed a similiar thing earlier in the thread, so I obviously support it), then you'll have to admit that there's nothing stopping *** from being married in a church. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Were doing a great job here at pointing out a limitation in government.
Government decides that it wants to extend tax-breaks etc. to various "households". It looks for a standard that it can apply to separate families from non-families. It adopts the religious institution of marriage as that standard - a standard by definition that is religious and is exclusive of homosexual unions.
Fast forward, and now we have a problem. Homosexuality (regardless of religious belief) is on the rise, and is starting to demand "rights" from the government, but they are attempting to change a religious instituion in the effort to attain these rights.
Ok, now set that matter asside and we have the matter of various religions who will marry homosexuals, and some that don't. If we accept that marriage is indeed a religious institution, then our standard for who is to be married becomes God - as the head of "religion" be it Unitarianism, or whatever. So God decides who can / can not be married.
As for how to find out what God decides, our best way is to look to inspired writings - Bible being the main one. If you don't accept the Bible, then you shouldn't accept it's main tennants / sacrements - and the desire to be married would have no significance for you - Civil Union being your best alternative.
*Edit - relative material from previous post deleted.*
Again, there's that little nutjob running around screaming 'OURS!!!!!!'. Marriage is NOT a christian-only word. So take care when you list what 'god' abhors.
Government decides that it wants to extend tax-breaks etc. to various "households". It looks for a standard that it can apply to separate families from non-families. It adopts the religious institution of marriage as that standard - a standard by definition that is religious and is exclusive of homosexual unions.
Fast forward, and now we have a problem. Homosexuality (regardless of religious belief) is on the rise, and is starting to demand "rights" from the government, but they are attempting to change a religious instituion in the effort to attain these rights.
Ok, now set that matter asside and we have the matter of various religions who will marry homosexuals, and some that don't. If we accept that marriage is indeed a religious institution, then our standard for who is to be married becomes God - as the head of "religion" be it Unitarianism, or whatever. So God decides who can / can not be married.
As for how to find out what God decides, our best way is to look to inspired writings - Bible being the main one. If you don't accept the Bible, then you shouldn't accept it's main tennants / sacrements - and the desire to be married would have no significance for you - Civil Union being your best alternative.
*Edit - relative material from previous post deleted.* <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, it doesn't bother you that every religion and every sect of every religion has a different view of God, meaning that any couple can find a way to get married, because the Unitarians (or some other sect) recognizes **** marriage? But, it bothers you that the government is marrying **** people, because it changes a "religious institution"?
As for civil union vs. marriage. Marriage exists in most cultures, in some form. They still use the term marriage, even when it doesn't coincide with the Christian view of marriage. It seems you're just being semantic when you say that civil unions are ok, but marriages are not.
I support your goal of having government granted civil unions with the same rights as government granted marriages today, while restricting marriage to the church, if only because this solution would do a good thing (equalizing *** and straights) while minimizing bad things (the outrage of religious and social conservatives). I don't support your reasoning behind doing this goal, however.
Well, that can easily be handled by sending to fight in the Middle East to vent the anger in a holy war!
The only way that such a decision would be forcing the will of the minority on the majority, would be if the law required you to marry people of the same gender. As it stands, the law has no impact whatsoever on the majority. Californians are still free to marry people of the opposite sex.
The only way that such a decision would be forcing the will of the minority on the majority, would be if the law required you to marry people of the same gender. As it stands, the law has no impact whatsoever on the majority. Californians are still free to marry people of the opposite sex. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree (as usual). Your idea of "impact" is very diffent from mine. I believe such a decision / choice in words is to the degredation of society - directly affecting me as I try to raise my children (which I don't have yet, but the point remains) in a God-honoring fassion.
Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.
Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality.
Just because it doesn't hurt me directly doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it (sounds a lot like a reason to free Iraq).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have a right to bring up your children in a God-honoring fashion. You don't have a right to force that God-honoring fashion on everyone else.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->My personal religious beliefs state that the Christian God was the one who caused the downfall of Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, people shouldn't be allowed to worship the Christian God in America, because of what will happen. Right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->We can't dispute your reasons for forcing your moral authoritarianism on others?<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Really? There's a flow of morality in homosexuality? Just because God says it's wrong doesn't mean that you can apply that to the general populace in the form of laws.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because it doesn't hurt me directly doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about it (sounds a lot like a reason to free Iraq).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Iraq can be justified for these reasons:
1. To free people from oppression. (Helping others who can't help themselves)
2. To secure an America-friendly country in an area with a noticeable deficit of America-friendly countries. (Self-Interest)
3. To secure a supply of oil. (Self-Interest)
4. To keep Saddam Hussein from obtaining nuclear weapons. (Self-Interest)
It isn't in your self-interest to ban or legalize homosexual marriage, because it doesn't affect you unless you're ****. Banning homosexual marriage is a small amount of oppression exerted, unnecessarily, on the populace.
Also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts interracial marriage as a normal thing and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.
Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in interracial marriage there is a definite flow of morality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is quite disturbing from what I can see, is that even in the lovely VERY conservative state of SD, there is no law banning homosexuals from being married, and since our lovely state has the basic law of "If there isn't a law against it, it is legal" I could theoritically marry a girl and/or transexual, which says something for such a conversative state. :-)
Go california, south dakota, and the other states who have similiar laws!
What is quite disturbing from what I can see, is that even in the lovely VERY conservative state of SD, there is no law banning homosexuals from being married, and since our lovely state has the basic law of "If there isn't a law against it, it is legal" I could theoritically marry a girl and/or transexual, which says something for such a conversative state. :-)
Go california, south dakota, and the other states who have similiar laws! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just wait until the SD legislature creates a law retroactively banning all **** marriages in the state.
One thing I think should be discussed in this thread is this:
US. Constitution, Article 4, Section 1
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public act, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This means that any state has to recognize marriages made in any other state in the union. Therefore, if a **** couple gets married in CA or MA, then TX or GA has to recognize it, no matter how objectionable the state legislature finds it.
Lets start with figuring out what these **** people want that they don't have. First, they probably want to be formally recognized by the government as being "together". Second - they want the same tax privelages as married people. Third, they want to be able to raise a young person in their "alternative lifestyle" home. Fourth, they want to feel as though their union is "church sanctified"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your forgetting other spousal privilages. Such as being able to see your lover when they're on their death bed. Honestly I don't think most of them care about their togetherness being church sanctified, if thats all they wanted there are churches that will do it. Not all christian churches believe that homosexuality is a sin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
So now we have (loosely) established the "wants" of the **** community - things that are "rights" for everyone else. So how do we deal with them? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, you're missing some key points.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In terms of what the government can / should do - the limit of its (the governments) authority should extend over want #1, #2, and part of #3. Strict separation of church and state prohibits them from doing anything about #4.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, thats about right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So what can be done about this? I think the government should stop recognizing marriage all together. It is rather a scam after all - and far more meaningless today than ever before (anyone seen the latest divorce rate statistics?) Rather, the government should recognize a "civil union" of sorts - forget this whole "life partner" crap too - it should be available to everyone... college students living together with 8 people in the house, the guy and his wife and his girlfriend who all live together, the mormons out in utah who still practice polgamy. That is what society wants - they want to be able to be joined to ... whoever - even the family pet if they feel like it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It shouldn't be government defined at all. Having "civil unions" as open as what you define would lead to a whole mess of problems I can't even begin to contemplate. The government should have nothing to do with marriage at all, and let people call themselves whatever they want. The only reason I see replacing the term marriage with "civil union" that is defined as the union of 2 people as a good one is because it won't require a total reworking of the law to work.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But as for it being "marriage"... hehe - No way. Sorry, I'm holding you to separation of church and state, and "church" as it stands today says NO to ****, poligamous, bestial, "marry your roommate" marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not all of them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They are not withholding rights from anyone. They are a religious institution with their own set of laws and a much different standard than what government can claim to have. If you want to battle a right to "marry" you are fighting a religious battle - and government law has no place in the discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. The government has recognized marriage, making it a government term now. It is no longer solely a religious idea. Therefore, it should be extended as need be to ensure equal rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So do I stand behind the decison in CA? No - that judge violated the separation of church and state - taking a religious matter and trying to settle it in a court system. Rather, he (and the activists pushing for "equal rights") should spend their time getting marriage out of government and civil union in government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said, no violation of church and state occured, the government defines the term marriage without regard to religion, as evidenced by the fact that atheists agnostics satanists and whatnot can all get married without even setting foot inside a church.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps "easier" - but it doesn't mean it is the right decision. From a conservative standpoint, it appears as though activist judges are forcing the will of the minority on the will of the majority.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How many times must I say this? The judge enforced the RIGHTS of a minority over the DESIRE of a majority.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By using words like "rights" to describe a religious institution (marriage) you are in affect putting the will of man over and above the will of God - specifically when talking about homosexual marriage (something God specifcally abhors). You can't legislate what God likes / dislikes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marriage is not solely a religious term anymore. Also, only certain versions of God abhor homosexuality. Are you going to argue that marriage is a solely fundamentalist christian term now too?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Were doing a great job here at pointing out a limitation in government.
Government decides that it wants to extend tax-breaks etc. to various "households". It looks for a standard that it can apply to separate families from non-families. It adopts the religious institution of marriage as that standard - a standard by definition that is religious and is exclusive of homosexual unions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And as soon as it adopts it it is no longer a religeous term, it becomes a government recognized status. As such the rights of homosexuals must be protected under it. Besides which, as I've been saying, NOT ALL RELIGIONS ARE ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, now set that matter asside and we have the matter of various religions who will marry homosexuals, and some that don't. If we accept that marriage is indeed a religious institution, then our standard for who is to be married becomes God - as the head of "religion" be it Unitarianism, or whatever. So God decides who can / can not be married.
As for how to find out what God decides, our best way is to look to inspired writings - Bible being the main one. If you don't accept the Bible, then you shouldn't accept it's main tennants / sacrements - and the desire to be married would have no significance for you - Civil Union being your best alternative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are other religions with other definitions of who God will allow to be married and with other scriptures. Why do you pretend that Christianity (and only your version of it) is the only religion?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree (as usual). Your idea of "impact" is very diffent from mine. I believe such a decision / choice in words is to the degredation of society - directly affecting me as I try to raise my children (which I don't have yet, but the point remains) in a God-honoring fassion.
Combine that with the knowledge of what happens when a culture openly accepts homosexuality as a normal thing (think Sodom and Gomorrah, Fall of Rome, etc.) and you can effectively establish an "impact" on my own life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've been over this before, its sad to see that your memory is so short term. There was a whole thread detailing how the fall of rome and other civilisations had absolutely nothing to do with its acceptance of homosexuality, especially since they accepted homosexuality long before they fell.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even if you feel like disputing the above statements (save it for another thread) I still feel as though "no impact" is far from accurate. It would be analogous to a "no impact" welfare system, or a "no impact" education system... In those two there is a definate flow of money - in homosexuality there is a definite flow of morality.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is not the governments responsibility to protect YOUR VERSION of morality, or anyone elses for that matter. Get off your friggen high horse.
Thank God.