Bush to back constitutional amendment banning...

[Jeremy 0]

they the have the same rights as everyone else. it's not legal for me marry another man either.

 

I can marry a woman. Other people can't. That's discrimination.

[Bigtraine 35]

they the have the same rights as everyone else. it's not legal for me marry another man either.

 

You can marry who you want (assuming it's consentual). Gay people cannot. Not the same.

[GobbleDog 1,012]

if it really IS socially acceptable, why has it been shot down EVERYTIME it's come to a state vote?

 

Probably cause polititians fear losing religious votes or something stupid like that.

 

But there's no doubt, homosexuality in America today is definately socially acceptable. Heck, it's against the law to discriminate against people because they're gay. Look at all the gay tv shows and personalities.

[surferskin 31]

You can marry who you want (assuming it's consentual). Gay people cannot. Not the same.

 

what if i want a marry a 14 year old, should i have that right?

[torridjoe 48]

what if i want a marry a 14 year old, should i have that right?

 

14 year olds can't consent, legally.

[surferskin 31]

Probably cause polititians fear losing religious votes or something stupid like that.

 

But there's no doubt, homosexuality in America today is definately socially acceptable. Heck, it's against the law to discriminate against people because they're gay. Look at all the gay tv shows and personalities.

 

 

i'm not talking about politicans voting, i'm talking about "the people" voting in ballot intiatives.

[GobbleDog 1,012]

i'm not talking about politicans voting, i'm talking about "the people" voting in ballot intiatives.

 

I don't know. Probably because a lot of people were raised as biggots.

[Strike 6,030]

I don't know. Probably because a lot of people were raised as biggots.

 

Do you think EVERYONE who votes no on legalizing marriage is a bigot? Is that the only possible reason someone might vote that way?

[MDC 8,001]

In the longrun the constitutional amendment could be the best thing to happen for gay marriage rights. For one thing, the fact that we're even having this discussion is evidence that things are moving in the right direction - no way twenty years ago we'd be having a serious debate about whether gay couples could marry. Massachussetts is already marrying same sex couples and to my knowledge society there hasn't collapsed. And the constitutional ban was already shot down once - every time they trot that tired horse out it gets weaker and weaker. According to polls fewer people today oppose same-sex marriage than even in '04 - MA is the testing ground and the results have been fine. There will always be some people like surferskin but they're a dying breed. No need in even getting worked up about it. I've got a grandma who still hates blacks and Jews - we just smile and humor her. Same thing here.

[GobbleDog 1,012]

Do you think EVERYONE who votes no on legalizing marriage is a bigot? Is that the only possible reason someone might vote that way?

 

No, probably not.

 

There will always be some people like surferskin but they're a dying breed.

 

Thumbs up surferskin.

 

In a thread that he was totally outnumbered and being called every name in the book, he kept putting up a debate. Unfortunately for him, there just aren't any reasonable anti-gay-marriage arguments.

[Bigtraine 35]

Do you think EVERYONE who votes no on legalizing marriage is a bigot? Is that the only possible reason someone might vote that way?

 

If your definition is the same as dictionary.com - "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" - then I'd say yes. I guess there could be some other reason, but I just can't think of one. Anyone that I've seen oppose it has done so on moral or religious grounds, and that sure sounds to me like someone supporting their own religion and not being tolerant to a different viewpoint (homosexuality).

 

However, I would be willing to listen to arguments against that.

[torridjoe 48]

No, probably not.

Thumbs up surferskin.

 

In a thread that he was totally outnumbered and being called every name in the book, he kept putting up a debate. Unfortunately for him, there just aren't any reasonable anti-gay-marriage arguments.

 

Except for the whole "no reasonable argument" thing, I know how he feels.

[GobbleDog 1,012]

Except for the whole "no reasonable argument" thing, I know how he feels.

 

 

Yeah, I bet you do.

[Korben Dallas 0]

Since Surferskin is getting stomped in this discussion, I thought I'd help him out.

 

Before I do:

Moral perversion? What a stupid argument is today's world. So you don't like the public display of the woman's body at all? Or touching out of wedlock, and of course, you were a virgin at marriage?

 

Or do you set the bar arbitrarily to indict others and not yourself?

 

OK.

 

My disclaimer is this: I understand the objection to the spiritual institution of "marriage" by the average ignorant joe. Therefore, I am not really in favor of the use fo the word marriage to describe the relationship in legal terms. However, I am fully supportive of the legal civil union, not different than my wife and I. Now what they choose to call the ceremony, I could give a flying crap. Seems like a reasonable conclusion to me.

 

However, I know of a couple of concerns that are real.

 

Medical Coverage- The ability to create civil obligation to others outside of traditional marriage creates cost in and of itself. Add on the potential high risk beahaviors (not-immoral, just a bit more risky) and will have another upswing in medical costs. It may be real, more likely perceived, but I have already heard RW outcry over it, I'm guessing it would be much worse in the Surferskin worlds. It is also more likely that gay men and less so women, would join into unions with others simply to help get them insurance in cases like HIV.

 

Adoption- I'm sure surfer and RP chaffed at the idea of any gay person having an influence over a child. But my concern is more about outright adoption, not when the children are the offspring of one member. My primary concern is that we have no bench mark for the length of a civil union and I expect the lack of religious fear might make divorce of the unions more likely. Which is unstable for the children. And I assure you that children add stress to the union as it is.

 

I initially wasn't sure about early exposure for children to the gay model, but I've abandoned that because its just stupid. A stable and loving home is much more important. And since I am nearly totally convinced that homosexuality is genetic, the only think I can think would happen is more tolorant people.

[Jeremy 0]

In the longrun the constitutional amendment could be the best thing to happen for gay marriage rights. For one thing, the fact that we're even having this discussion is evidence that things are moving in the right direction - no way twenty years ago we'd be having a serious debate about whether gay couples could marry. Massachussetts is already marrying same sex couples and to my knowledge society there hasn't collapsed. And the constitutional ban was already shot down once - every time they trot that tired horse out it gets weaker and weaker. According to polls fewer people today oppose same-sex marriage than even in '04 - MA is the testing ground and the results have been fine. There will always be some people like surferskin but they're a dying breed. No need in even getting worked up about it. I've got a grandma who still hates blacks and Jews - we just smile and humor her. Same thing here.

 

I think our grandkids and great grandkids are going to be pretty embarrassed by our thoughts and behaviors regarding issues like this, much like our generation looks at segragation now. It's hard to imagine how that could have be rationalized, but it apparently didn't seem wrong to a lot of people at the time.

 

I can see the day years down the road where my grandchild comes up to me and asks, "is it true that gay people weren't allowed to be married when you were young?"

[Strike 6,030]

If your definition is the same as dictionary.com - "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" - then I'd say yes. I guess there could be some other reason, but I just can't think of one. Anyone that I've seen oppose it has done so on moral or religious grounds, and that sure sounds to me like someone supporting their own religion and not being tolerant to a different viewpoint (homosexuality).

 

However, I would be willing to listen to arguments against that.

 

I don't fit that definition at all. I've made my case on this issue before so I'm not going to go into it yet again. However, I would offer that when people make blanket statements such as "the only reason you can have to vote against gay marriage is you're a bigot" people are making themselves look foolish. I doubt there is any issue you can come up with where there is only ONE reason, and one with such a negative connotation, that someone might be opposed to it.

[torridjoe 48]

I think our grandkids and great grandkids are going to be pretty embarrassed by our thoughts and behaviors regarding issues like this, much like our generation looks at segragation now. It's hard to imagine how that could have be rationalized, but it apparently didn't seem wrong to a lot of people at the time.

 

I can see the day years down the road where my grandchild comes up to me and asks, "is it true that gay people weren't allowed to be married when you were young?"

 

Bingo, Jeremy. Look at any poll on this issue, and you'll see a very strong correlation between age and sentiment. The older you are, the more likely you're against it. I think for those under 40, a majority typically support marriage. I don't have any examples for proof, but I bet if you looked at polls on interracial marriage in 1965, you'd see the same breakdown--and here we are.

[surferskin 31]

Since Surferskin is getting stomped in this discussion, I thought I'd help him out.

 

i knew this would happen, actual "work" would come up at the office and i'd get owned.

 

I don't know. Probably because a lot of people were raised as biggots.

 

so they're biggots if they vote based on their morals?

[GobbleDog 1,012]

Medical Coverage- The ability to create civil obligation to others outside of traditional marriage creates cost in and of itself. Add on the potential high risk beahaviors (not-immoral, just a bit more risky) and will have another upswing in medical costs. It may be real, more likely perceived, but I have already heard RW outcry over it, I'm guessing it would be much worse in the Surferskin worlds. It is also more likely that gay men and less so women, would join into unions with others simply to help get them insurance in cases like HIV.

 

Adoption- I'm sure surfer and RP chaffed at the idea of any gay person having an influence over a child. But my concern is more about outright adoption, not when the children are the offspring of one member. My primary concern is that we have no bench mark for the length of a civil union and I expect the lack of religious fear might make divorce of the unions more likely. Which is unstable for the children. And I assure you that children add stress to the union as it is.

 

I've heard the medical coverage argument before and it seems weak to me. "Gee, we'd love to allow yall to marry, since that's the fair thing to do and all, but economically it would just cost us too much money." What kind of argument is that?

 

As for gay adoption.... you've got me. I'm against it, but I can't really back it up with great reasons. However, I don't think that issue goes hand in hand with the gay marriage issue. You can have one without the other.

[Korben Dallas 0]

i knew this would happen, actual "work" would come up at the office and i'd get owned.

so they're biggots if they vote based on their morals?

 

I think you've been getting owned all day in this one, work probably saved you.

 

Yes, you are a biggot if you vote based on a perceived "moral" that is unsupported and likely hypocritical.

 

I am firmly convinced that no one knows what a moral is anymore. Go read some Kant and get back to me.

[Toro 3]

It's bigot.

[surferskin 31]

I think you've been getting owned all day in this one, work probably saved you.

 

Yes, you are a biggot if you vote based on a perceived "moral" that is unsupported and likely hypocritical.

 

I am firmly convinced that no one knows what a moral is anymore. Go read some Kant and get back to me.

 

thus the problem with libs...they don't even know what being "moral" is anymore. everyone right, do whatever feels good...blah, blah and all that bull shiat. there is a moral right and wrong. i feel sorry for you that you can't see that.

[Korben Dallas 0]

I've heard the medical coverage argument before and it seems weak to me. "Gee, we'd love to allow yall to marry, since that's the fair thing to do and all, but economically it would just cost us too much money." What kind of argument is that?

 

As for gay adoption.... you've got me. I'm against it, but I can't really back it up with great reasons. However, I don't think that issue goes hand in hand with the gay marriage issue. You can have one without the other.

 

I don't think much of it either, but we make those kind of decisions based on fiscal reasoning all the time. Just this spring we heard, "Gee, we'd love to help poor children get out of their abusive and severely neglected homes for a couple hours each day, since that's the fair thing to do and all, but economically it would just cost us too much money".

 

As for adoption, I think the argument is that they are hand in hand because the denial becomes substantially weaker if there is a court approved agreement.

[torridjoe 48]

thus the problem with libs...they don't even know what being "moral" is anymore. everyone right, do whatever feels good...blah, blah and all that bull shiat. there is a moral right and wrong. i feel sorry for you that you can't see that.

 

yeah, because Republicans have a lock on moral decency:

 

Republican Jim Galley, who is running for Congress as a “pro-traditional family” candidate, was married to two women at the same time, defaulted on his child support payments and has been accused of abuse by one of his ex-wives.

[surferskin 31]

yeah, because Republicans have a lock on moral decency:

 

sorry, i don't hitch my wagon to EVERYONE that calls themselves a republican. am i supposed to shocked that some politican is a doosh? you might have harder time trying find link to one that isn't.

[Korben Dallas 0]

thus the problem with libs...they don't even know what being "moral" is anymore. everyone right, do whatever feels good...blah, blah and all that bull shiat. there is a moral right and wrong. i feel sorry for you that you can't see that.

 

 

Actually, that’s the problem with people like you. You think YOU know what right and wrong is, and base it on whatever your imagination tells you it is. The difference is you hate and discriminate against those you don't agree with.

I do have the ability to determine morality for my own behavior and my perception of others behavior. I'm betting that you can't. I'm more likely to think that you think morality has something to do with church. And I know that you have no idea, because you have already developed an imaginary world where they did know it. Would that be during slavery, or maybe before woman had rights? Or I'm betting it was during fiefdoms? When was this "anymore" you refer to?

 

You can feel sorry for me all day. Because I feel sorry for people that can't think for themselves like you and have to be told stories about some magical past that never existed and fear those they don't understand.

[Jeremy 0]

Medical Coverage- The ability to create civil obligation to others outside of traditional marriage creates cost in and of itself. Add on the potential high risk beahaviors (not-immoral, just a bit more risky) and will have another upswing in medical costs. It may be real, more likely perceived, but I have already heard RW outcry over it, I'm guessing it would be much worse in the Surferskin worlds. It is also more likely that gay men and less so women, would join into unions with others simply to help get them insurance in cases like HIV.

 

Wouldn't entering into a marriage increase the likelyhood of monogomy, which would likely decrease the spread of AIDS. If a gay person wants to get married for the sake of insurance benefits, they could just as easily find a single woman who would help them out.

[torridjoe 48]

sorry, i don't hitch my wagon to EVERYONE that calls themselves a republican. am i supposed to shocked that some politican is a doosh? you might have harder time trying find link to one that isn't.

 

no, you're supposed to realize that generalizing about "libs" is stupid, when so many republicans have proven to have their own serious ethical problems. Remember that Denny Hastert is only Speaker because the previous guy, AND the guy who sought to replace him, were moral reprobates.

[surferskin 31]

no, you're supposed to realize that generalizing about "libs" is stupid, when so many republicans have proven to have their own serious ethical problems. Remember that Denny Hastert is only Speaker because the previous guy, AND the guy who sought to replace him, were moral reprobates.

 

many republicans are not socially conservative...

 

 

HTH

[torridjoe 48]

Wouldn't entering into a marriage increase the likelyhood of monogomy, which would likely decrease the spread of AIDS. If a gay person wants to get married for the sake of insurance benefits, they could just as easily find a single woman who would help them out.

 

You're on a roll today, mate. It used to be that conservatives attacked gays for their hedonistic, many-partnered lifestyle. So when gays want to act like straights--settle down, raise a family, buy a house--now they're attacked for wanting to fit into society.

[Korben Dallas 0]

many republicans are not socially conservative...

HTH

 

yes, they are the corrupt, filthy rich or moronic.

[MDC 8,001]

many republicans are not socially conservative...

HTH

 

Many of them aren't fiscally conservative either.

[Franknbeans 46]

does this mean i'm really gay?

 

yes