Re: Re: I'm not surprised
 

I do live up to mine, and I don't see the problem coming from the wide range of beliefs, I see the problem stemming from the rampant hypocrisy in those beliefs.

Like I said Chris closed-minded . :rolleyes: He has to be homophobic! He is one of the main reasons why I left this joint when he was moderator. He was an aszhole then and he is still an aszhole now. Really Jim are you that fuked up in the head to realize that their might be more than your beliefs out there? Keeping beliefs to yourself is fine. Telling people they are wrong cause they dont fall into your guidelines of belief is truly pitifull. You can throw all those nifty political slogans at me all you want, what it comes down to is you really dont know your asz from a hole in a ground.

Jim, it looks like "they" have invaded your state!! RUN!!! Go HERE

James :cool:

Re: Re: re
 

She is alot more attractive than she gives herself credit for.. [/B][/QUOTE]
Congrats on having a one of the kind woman. In my experience most women who are nice looking, usually know it and are hard to deal with. You must of find that one of the kind down to earth woman that we all dream of having. Hang on to her because you won't find another one like that. They are rare!

Gay oppinion: for everyone, it is out there and you can't change anyone minds. What you may think is not right, might be the right thing for those particular people. It is a way of life.

Internet circus games
 

Originally posted by RBatson :

Quote:

Whoa Jim! Didn't you and mustangjohn just get done calling me a communist in another thread?

No, no one called you a 'communist', Rick. I said you appeared to favor socialism. There is a difference as I think you now know.

Quote:

Don't get pissed and go anywhere either! I'm still trying to learn from you.

Internet tough guys who are too immature to have a civil discussion will always be with us on almost any website. Whether I choose to bother with their nonsense is problematic. I only have so much time to spend on the net each day and I hate to waste it on the belligerently ignorant.

Glad if I can help educate anyone, Rick. I wanted to help the BOL come back to life but I won't do so at the expense of having to tolerate drivel from internet bully-boys who haven't a clue and just parrot the latest PC lines. Life is too short to put up with this kind of BS from the 'Bevis and Butthead' crowd.

Same-sex marriage
 

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Quote:

Jim, you're becoming a conspiracy theorist, and you sound scared. For the life of me, though, I can't understand why. You have nothing to fear, you know perfectly well that you can't turn gay because your neighbor is. You surely also know that no matter who else gets married, anywhere on the face of this earth, it couldn't possibly affect the marriage you share with your wife. So what are you afraid of? Why are you so bent on denying others what you, and many other folks have? You've built this up into an 'us versus them' situation, where they're plotting against you, trying to twart your happiness with their hidden agenda. That's so ridiculous, I have trouble believing you'd imply it. No one is trying to take anything away from you. No one is trying to infringe upon your rights. And the only reason the polls and opinions are the way they are is because no one started including homosexuals in their teaching of tolerance until very recently.

You know Chris, I had almost forgotten how good you are are turning arguments inside out and getting your opponent on the defensive by erecting strawmen. I'm not 'scared' (that's a great tactic too use, though...bravo to you for coming up with it) nor do I fear 'turning gay' so let's drop the schoolyard nonsense, shall we, Chris? Please. It's me, not some high school kid you can pull this over on by inferring that their opposition to homosexual 'marriage' stems from a perceived threat to their masculinity. Lame, Chris, really lame but I suppose it's worked for you in the past so you had to give it a try, here. As I've stated, the emotional approach ("they just want to be haaaapppppy') is a waste of time. Pedophiles and poygamists just 'want to be happy', too. So what? Marriage is an ancient social structure intended to confer social approval on a man and a women committing themselves to each other with the expectation that they will bear and raise children and contribute to the greater good of society by doing so as they further the species. Homosexuals simply do not qualify for that designation and rightly so. Attempts to attack my motives and pretend that I'm a conspiracy-theory nut is beneath you, Chris. At least I thought it was. It's obvious that social and legal acceptance for a sexual devient behavior is at the heart of the 'gay marriage' movement. Once homosexual sex is considered legally equal to hetrosexual sex and their couplings are considered equal to hetrosexual marriage we have started down a path that will lead to true corruption of our society as we cannot throw away all social mores and expect to remain intact as a people. History shows this. Allowing sexually deviant behavior to be considered legally equal to heteosexual marriage and to base it on the faulty premise of 'non-discrimination' is absurd. It''s sad how intelligent people like you are so easily drawn into this and eager to defend it, while criticizing opponents with false accusations and a misguided attack on their motives. Poygamists want to have a dozen 'wives'. is it 'discrimination' to not allow it? I think not.

Quote:

The only thing shallow there was the point you were trying to make. The odds are exactly the same that someone would do away with any age requirement for marriage whether gays can get married or not. Don't be ridiculous.

Really, Chris? Twenty years ago anyone claiming that two homosexuals should have the right to be legally married would have been laughed out of the room. Now, it's being vigoriously defended by folks who should know better, like you. NAMBLA is quite serious about the age of consent being lowered and will probably prevail in a few more decades, just as the homosexuals prevailed to get their sexual couplings called 'marriage' by the law. It just takes time, good PR and calling it 'discrimination' long enough and loud enough until a majority of mushy-headed but well-intentioned people buy into it.

Quote:

Your arguments are your personal opinions, and just don't make any sense, Jim, which is not like you. You chose instead to ad-lib my post, which was written in plain and simple English. There were no hidden meanings, no ulterior motives, it was just exactly what it was. I tried no "routines", and had no "ploys". Calling your friend an "EX-homosexual" is too funny for words. It's not a light switch under your hair that you can flip at any time. I can't even imagine any circumstances that would make me want to be gay, but with your logic, anyone could, overnight. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Of course you don't Chris. If you did, it would destroy your whole argument, wouldn't it? Self-serving at best but I understand your position and how you have to defend it by your denial that homosexuality is anything less than innate, even if no proof is ever shown to back that up. I called your post as I saw it, just as you have mine. We're even on that point, we just disagree.

Quote:

Have you read any of the other replies to this post? Don't even blame me for someone else's church telling them that homosexuality is a sin. The author of this thread was alerted to the situation at a meeting at her church. And I'm sorry again, Jim, but that was no "attempt" at anything. I'd prefer you read what I wrote, rather than turning it into some twisted interpretation of it. There was nothing inbetween the lines. This conspiracy thing goes deep with you, it would seem.

Attempts to demean logical and rational opposition to a bad idea are not all generated by fear and hate, as you would have us believe. I resent the implication.

Quote:

You said yourself that religion has nothing to do with this, which is refreshing to hear. Most of the arguments I've seen and heard against gay marriage revolves around someone's interpretation of their God, and what they felt was right and proper. I'm glad to see that you are past that, although that does shoot down most of the other peoples arguments in this thread. You also acknowledged that gay people are 'nice'. lol. I'm guessing that's your way of saying it's not their personalities, or their flamboyant behavior that keeps you objecting to them being allowed to marry. We both know that that would be blatant discrimination, though, so I'm not surprised. They have loud and obnoxious parades because they no longer feel they have to lie about their sexuality. They're proud of what they are. So are the Irish, every March 17th. So what? If you don't like it, don't go to see it. I do my best to avoid both.

I hold no animus toward homosexuals as people and care not what they choose to do in private. That should be obvious by now. That does not mean that I wish to change the law defining what marriage is to make them happy with me, either. It's a bad idea and emotional attempts to cast gays as 'victims' fall flat with me and many others.

Quote:

I'm heterosexual, and I call it discrimination. And I'm not the only one.

You've bought into the 'gay discrimination' ploy quite fully, that's clear. Getting what you demand and calling it 'discrimination' if you don't works well, today, in our PC nation. I don't buy it.

Quote:

You talk of a long history of marriages being between women and men, but you should also know that in many civilizations, older than ours, homosexuality was not only accepted, it was encouraged. The primary purpose for the union between men and women was for procreation, which brings us to another of your points. I don't recall ever reading where the ability to procreate was a requirement for a marriage license. If that's the case, there's a whole bunch of married couples out there who's license is null and void. And as far as the point of being natural, and of being anatomically compatible, I hate to say it, for many reasons, but gay couples have worked that out, too. There are many heterosexual couples that are no longer "naturally compatible", are they to be denied as well?

Another lame 'gay marriage' talking point. 97% of married couples have children. The few who do not are often aunts and uncles and sometimes surrogate parents to relatives - or even foster parents. The fact that marriage is universally assumed to mean hetrosexuals having children isn't undercut by the few hetrosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children. Nice try.

Quote:

Once again, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't know how to make it any more clear; EVERYONE should be entitled to the same rights and restrictions Any two legal adults, of sound mind, should have the same rights as any other adults of sound mind. And according to the US Supreme Court, in 1964, declared that the freedom to marry was a basic right of all Americans. The constitution protects everyone, not just the majority. When it comes to defining criminal offenses, the majority rules, but under no circumstances can the majority maintain a right while taking it away from the minority. If it's a right for you, it's a right for every other legal adult. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. That's what makes this country as great as it is; EVERYONE of equal status is entitled to the same rights.

Nice try at flag-waving in defense of gay 'marriage' Chis but you're still wrong. If 'marriage' as a word and an institution as well as a social foundation is to retain it's meaning, it has to have some borders. Hetrosexuality is a natural one. Don't even try to drag the black civil rights argument into this Chris, as not allowing 'negros' to marry whites was a shoddy segregationist tactic and has no relation to homosexuals, as homosexuality, unlike race, is not innate or immutable.

Quote:

IMO, the bottom line here Jim is you personally object to it, for whatever personal reasons you have, but your personal feelings don't justify denying the right of marriage to a gay couple. Everything you may or may not hate and detest about a gay couple being together is going to continue to happen, even in your neighborhood, whether we like it or not. All that is being accomplished by trying to deny the right of marriage to those couples, is denying them equal (not special) rights.

Still beating the dead horse of attacking my motives, eh, Chris? Too bad. I had hoped for better. You've disappointed me here. Oh well, live and learn. Let's just say that we agree to disagree and let it go at that as this could go on forever. Feel free to have the last word here, as I know you will. I'm about finished with this for now.

......And people wonder why their is hardly ever any regulars around here anymore.....:rolleyes:

Internet tough guys...hmmm:eek: Seems like we have an internet politician on our hands:D

You know everyone here who replied was cool enough to agree and disagree without being an asz. Why do you have to take peoples words and twist them around and make them sound like they dont know jack? Always have to be the know it all of this forum ever since I got here. I got to admit, Chris and others did a wonderful thing by creating RHC. I don't have to deal with a tool like you Jim. I stood back and watched for awhile now and then you have the nerve to attack Chris's post being that he is a very helpful person to this site and still is, you treat him like some newbie or an idiot. :rolleyes:

Does gay marriage "effect" anyone here in any way, shape or form? If it does, explain.

James:cool:

Decorum and respect on the forums
 

Originally posted by srv1 :

Quote:

You know everyone here who replied was cool enough to agree and disagree without being an asz.

Except you, James. You erupted at me with a string of name-calling that added nothing to the discussion except to demonstrate your inability to communicte intelligently.

Quote:

Why do you have to take peoples words and twist them around and make them sound like they dont know jack?

It's called: 'deconstructing your opponents argument', James and it's a standard form of debating. Chris uses the same tactics so there is no inequity.

Quote:

Always have to be the know it all of this forum ever since I got here. I got to admit, Chris and others did a wonderful thing by creating RHC. I don't have to deal with a tool like you Jim.

Still name-calling in lieu of an intelligent response, I see. Ah well. Some things never change. If you love Chris and RHC so much, why are you even here? To whine? You claim to be so annoyed with me yet you continue to reply to my posts, even when they are not addressed to you. Interesting bit of schizophrenia you're demonstrating here.

Quote:

I stood back and watched for awhile now and then you have the nerve to attack Chris's post being that he is a very helpful person to this site and still is, you treat him like some newbie or an idiot.

I 'treat' Chris like someone I disagree with and I reject most of his arguments for 'gay marriage' with my own cogent points. Guys like you personalize everything on the internet and get bent out of shape when you can't sustain an argument. Chris is more mature than that and understands that we're just two strangers on opposite sides of the country posting messages on a Mustang messageboard. Neither of our reputations, friendships or self-images are in any danger if we have a disagreement over some culture-war issue and whether we agree or disagree, we are not changing the course of history here, just exchanging our views. Sarcasm is the coin of the realm on the net, James. Get used to it.

Although I find his liberal, anti-religion, hedonist attitudes to be sadly typical of many today, I do respect Chris' mechanical talents and his years of help to others on this site. You apparently forget that I also spent over five years here as a moderator and administrator and answered hundreds of questions as moderator of the Windsor Power forum, helping many in the process. I gave many hours to this site as a volunteer and whatever respect I've received from anyone here, I've earned, as has PKRWUD. We are quite equal there, too. You simply don't realize that. Your loss.

Quote:

Does gay marriage "effect" anyone here in any way, shape or form? If it does, explain

.

I already have, in detail. You are apparently unable to grasp it. Your loss, again.

I just want to weigh in on one comment that was made in defense against gay marriage:


"However, I fail to see why expanding the ancient and time-tested legal definition of marriage to now include same-sex couples is going to do one thing to strengthen the institution of marriage"


Let us not forget that not too long ago that very same "time-tested legal definition of marriage" also precluded white folks marrying black folks, black folks marrying asian folks, and asian folks from marrying white folks. Also that same definition (but a little earlier in time) precluded people of different national origins from marrying each other, and let's not even bother to touch on the subject of arranged marriages. So personally I think that argument is full of more holes than swiss cheese.


Oh one other thing I wanted to touch on. Someone hinted at "looking at the flowers and animals" because they got it "right". I would like to point that poster to the fact that sea lions, sea gulls, grey wolves and numerous other animals have been known to have homosexual relationships. Heck, I could point you to the fact that your common domesticated dog will hump ANYTHING regardless of whether it's alive or inanimate, male or female, or even of a DIFFERENT species all together. There are also certain flowers that have been found to only propagate through the interaction of pollen from TWO female flowers of that species... oh, and what about all the androgynous/asexual species of animals/insects that are out there? Care to touch on that subject?

Jim, you hurt my feelings:( I'm going to cry now you internet bully. You wait and see, I will get my internet friends after you!:eek: Just because you answer alot of questions and helped people out doesnt mean you are correct. Anyone can spout out crap. I rather be a schizo than homophobic. Well water ever floats your boat, bully:D I really do hope that gay marriage gets accepted across the U.S. so they can have a gay wedding right in your home town and you can chase them with your bible:D

Oh yeah just because you were administrator, moderator or aszkisser, that doesnt mean squat. That doesnt prove your knowledge or anything else for the matter. One more thing, dont talk shit about Chris. He has made one if not the best, forum on the net, than any place I have been so far and has made more friends in the past year than you probably in your whole lifetime. He has a wonderful personality something you lack highly of.

Have a good day!

James:cool:

I do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to legally marry. That would IMHO, degrade the entire "family" unit that this country supposedly holds so dear.

-Will

Hey Jim, De Ja Vu:cool:

-Will:D

Invalid comparisons
 

Originally posted by XR1stang :

Quote:

Let us not forget that not too long ago that very same "time-tested legal definition of marriage" also precluded white folks marrying black folks, black folks marrying asian folks, and asian folks from marrying white folks. Also that same definition (but a little earlier in time) precluded people of different national origins from marrying each other, and let's not even bother to touch on the subject of arranged marriages. So personally I think that argument is full of more holes than swiss cheese.

You may think what you wish but your contention is completely false. First of all, one cannot compare two essentially different realities. There is simply no analogy between interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex. Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior, which describes homosexuality. Artificial barriers to marriage based on race or origin were attempts to preclude people of different races from marriage, a manifestation of past racial discrimination in America that still florishes in other parts of the world where certain races, tribes and ethnic groups are not legally allowed to intermarry. What homosexuals demand is that we radically alter the legal definition of 'marriage' to now include people who are biologically the same: homosexuals. That is absurd and the fact that homosexual activists try to sell the idea by tying it to past racial discrimination that precluded black and white races from marriage is clever but a totally false premise. As much as 'gay marriage' advocates want to believe it, there is no comparison because race is genetic and immutable but homosexuality is not.

Quote:

Oh one other thing I wanted to touch on. Someone hinted at "looking at the flowers and animals" because they got it "right". I would like to point that poster to the fact that sea lions, sea gulls, grey wolves and numerous other animals have been known to have homosexual relationships. Heck, I could point you to the fact that your common domesticated dog will hump ANYTHING regardless of whether it's alive or inanimate, male or female, or even of a DIFFERENT species all together. There are also certain flowers that have been found to only propagate through the interaction of pollen from TWO female flowers of that species... oh, and what about all the androgynous/asexual species of animals/insects that are out there? Care to touch on that subject?

Yes, I do. You're simply making the case that exceptions in nature prove the rule in a lame attempt to defend the indefensible. In Homo Sapiens hetrosexuality is the norm due to simple biology. Same-sex male partners seeking something akin to normal male sexual gratification are forced to use a male anus as a (poor) substitute for the female vagina. Two females must use artificial applicances to simulate male-female copulation, proving their same-sex sexual practices are clearly unnatural. While oral and anal sex is also practiced by hetrosexuals, only a male and a female have congruent physical bodies that compliment each other sexually. Male and female humans are made to copulate, conceive and bear children, which is obvious and undisputable. Same-sex couples cannot do this and their attempts to copulate are biologically unnatural. In addition, homosexuals attraction to the same sex has never come close to being proven the result of a genetic component. All of which make the attempt to compare some animals and plants reproductive activity to human sexuality an invalid premise but one is trotted out by 'gay marriage' advocates every time, no matter how often it's shot down. Again: you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

James rides off into the sunset. Bye.
 

Originally posted by srv1 :

Quote:

Jim, you hurt my feelings:( I'm going to cry now you internet bully. You wait and see, I will get my internet friends after you!:eek:

James:, a review of the messages on this thread will show that you entered it with a wild attack on me, my morals, my motives and my intelligence. I simply responded by calling you on your unwarranted belligerence and inability to tolerate dissent from what you choose to believe. No need for hostility or hurt feelings.

Quote:

Just because you answer alot of questions and helped people out doesnt mean you are correct. Anyone can spout out crap. I rather be a schizo than homophobic. Well water ever floats your boat, bully:D I really do hope that gay marriage gets accepted across the U.S. so they can have a gay wedding right in your home town and you can chase them with your bible:D

James, you make this too easy. :D

Quote:

Oh yeah just because you were administrator, moderator or aszkisser, that doesnt mean squat. That doesnt prove your knowledge or anything else for the matter. One more thing, dont talk shit about Chris. He has made one if not the best, forum on the net, than any place I have been so far and has made more friends in the past year than you probably in your whole lifetime. He has a wonderful personality something you lack highly of.

I think Dan McClain might disagree with your dismissiveness toward my contributions here. I'm sure you're convinced that Chris is a wonderful human being and a very cool guy that you all know and love. He may be for all I know. Unfortunately, that is totally irrelevant to anything that has been discussed here.

Quote:

Have a good day!

Somehow I detect a note of insincerity in that wish but I'll have a good day anyway. I usually do.

Anyone need a wedding dress? Look at this one

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ayphotohosting

James-
Thanks for the kind words (I never knew you felt that way, sniff-sniff), but it's cool.


Jim-
I really wasn't trying to twist or contort anything, and I'm sorry you see everything as a tactic. That's why I said you seem like a scared conspiracy theorist. As far as the legal similarities between gay marriages and black/white marriages, this article was in the paper the other day, and I thought it was interesting...

Another marriage ban

In dealing with gay unions, court has a precedent

By Timm Herdt
April 28, 2004

As California's Supreme Court justices move toward the day when they will be forced to confront the most unsettling civil rights issue of the day - gay marriage - they will find themselves on a path their predecessors have trod before.

One thing they will find along that path is an eloquent expression of the prevailing justification for a ban on gay marriages, written by former California Supreme Court Justice John W. Shenk.

In an opinion written in a landmark case, Shenk declared: "The right of the state to exercise extensive control over the marriage contract has always been recognized. The institution of matrimony is the foundation of society, and the community at large has an interest in the maintenance of its integrity and purity."

Shenk wrote that on Oct. 1, 1948, in defense of a California marriage law that stated "no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person to a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race."

Shenk was one of three dissenters in the court's historic decision in Perez v. Lippold, which legalized interracial marriages in California.

At the time, it was quite a radical repudiation of a cultural ethic, which, the court declared, was in utter conflict with the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence.

The decision came 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion and a generation before interracial marriages attained broad social acceptance.

Perez v. Lippold has been cited by courts in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts, and in each case those justices have come to the same conclusion about gay marriages that the California justices did about interracial marriages in 1948: There is no valid legal reason to tell an American citizen that he or she must exclude a class of people as potential marriage partners.

The case of Perez v. Lippold was prominent last week in the debate before the Assembly Judiciary Committee before it approved a bill to legalize gay marriage in California.

It is likely that is as far as the legislative effort will advance this year, but the debate made clear how difficult it will be for state Supreme Court justices to fashion a legal justification for a gay-marriage ban.

As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has noted, even the most strident opponents to gay marriage seem to recognize this. If they didn't fear that the Constitution would lead courts to strike down statutes barring gay marriage, he asks, why are they proposing to amend it?

Newsom may have recklessly decided earlier this year to claim for himself the authority to interpret the Constitution, but the precedents do suggest that his legal instincts were correct.

In 1948, 30 states banned interracial marriages. In his dissent, Shenk noted, "the ban on mixed marriages in this country is traceable from the early colonial period."

The court majority firmly held that such restrictions on marriage do not hold up against post-colonial American views of personal liberty.

Andrea Perez, a white woman, and Sylvester Davis, a black man, sued Los Angeles County Clerk Earl Lippold on the grounds that his refusal to grant them a marriage license violated their right to freedom of religion.

Both were Roman Catholics, and the church had no restriction on interracial marriage. The state ban, thus, prevented them from participating in the sacrament of marriage.

The court's decision was based on broader grounds.

Intrinsic in the right of personal liberty, the court said, is "the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, and bring up children."

Since the individual right to marry is fundamental, the justices held, "Legislation infringing upon such rights must be based on more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws."

The California Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on the narrow question of the legality of marriage licenses issued to gay couples this winter in San Francisco.

It will likely take years before a couple of cases challenging the constitutionality of the state's gay-marriage ban move up the judicial pipeline. By then, the justices must privately hope, the issue will have somehow resolved itself politically.

It is not likely that any of the current justices wants to write an opinion that, 56 years into the future, will seem to be what Shenk's 1948 dissent seems to be today: an archaic defense of the socially indefensible.

The fallacy of gay marriage as a 'civil right'
 

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Quote:

Jim- I really wasn't trying to twist or contort anything, and I'm sorry you see everything as a tactic. That's why I said you seem like a scared conspiracy theorist. As far as the legal similarities between gay marriages and black/white marriages, this article was in the paper the other day, and I thought it was interesting.

Once again, this is an attempt to link same-sex demands for special rights for homosexuals (to redefine marriage) with the civil rights movement that was an effort to give African-Americans their full constitutional rights, denied for centuries, and in the process, help others, including women, claim their full rights under the law. Those were true 'civil rights' movements. The same-sex 'marriage' movement is simply a legally unjustified demand for 'special rights' for one small group of people who chose to be defined by their sexuality. Blacks do not have the option of choosing their skin pigmentation but there is no genetic proof of homosexuality being innate and until it can be scientifically proven that homosexuality is truly innate and immutable, those who call for a drastic change in the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex 'couples' are simply demanding special treatment they do not deserve.

Homosexuals have all the legal benefits of society they claim to want and need, including the right to share medical and insurance benefits via new laws, power of attorney, wills and such. They now seek to reach the final step and force 'normalization' of a deviant sexual behavior on a hetrosexual society by having the law changed to recognize same-sex 'marriage' as co-equal to hetrosexual marriage. They call it a 'civil rights' issue to gain sympathy and gather hetrosexual supporters who believe supporting gay 'marriage' is so 'compassionate' and 'fair'. The advocates figure: how does this hurt me? It's a freebie. They can appear to be compassionate at no cost to them whatsoever. Tempting then, to become an advocate for same-sex marriage and burnish your sensitivity credentials in the process.

The sad fact remains that once you knock down a pillar of society such as the definition of marriage it will rapidly become corrupted by having any number of 'consenting adults' demanding they too, be legally allowed to 'marry'. The authorities will have no choice but to grant the demands because the definition of marriage will have been permanently altered. It will then mean whatever we want it to mean and thus be rendered meaning-less. In other nations where this has been tried, the marriage rate drops considerably. Co-habitation and children with permanently absent fathers abound because men and women have little incentive to legally 'marry' when the term itself has become empty and can include polygamists, relatives and of course, homosexuals. None of this is good for a stable society based on families.

Legalization of same-sex 'marriage' is a foolish and ultimately destructive concept that flies in the face of human biology and common sense. It bears no relation to the drive for 'civil rights' once fought by African-Americans who were denied a multitude of human rights because they were dark skinned - and for no other reason. African-Americans qualify - then and now - for marriage no matter what the race of the person they chose to marry because marriage only requires a man and a women, regardless of race. Segregrationists successful attempts to preclude blacks and whites from marriage were simply that: segregationist, with no basis in natural law or biology. Homosexuals do not qualify under this perfectly logical and time-tested definition (marriage requires a male and a female) that no culture has ever seriously questioned because it's simply a recognition of who we are and how we are made.

Emotional appeals to 'fairness' and against so-called 'discrimination' along with attempts to disparage the motives of those, like me, opposed to this unjustified demand for recognization of same-sex marriage with ridicule, questioning of my intelligence or trying to place the opposition to same-sex marriage on religious concepts the same-sex marriage advocate has long rejected, personally, are typical but remain devoid of intellectual honesty. I believe that championing same-sex marriage, while well-intentioned by most, is defending the indefensible and calling it a 'civil rights issue' is a total mischaracterization of the issue which amounts to a demand for special 'rights' by those who believe that calling rejections of their demands 'discrimination' will make their demands acceptable. That doesn't work for me or a majority of Americans and calling us names and trying to ridicule our motives won't help any, either, no matter who does it.

I think we've all enjoyed an interesting, informative discussion and I believe both sides of the issue have been debated fully here. I have little to add and no wish to engage in a drawn-out battle of internet stamina as to who can keep posting the longest (and saying the same things, different ways). So, I'll leave the thread at this point, confident that I've been fully heard on the issue and presented the 'other side' of gay 'marriage'to the best of my ability so I leave the thread to you, Chris, or anyone else who wishes to continue the discussion, for whatever it's worth. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss it. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.

I wish you the best. :)

You used to ridicule people that wanted to leave a thread topic if you still had something to say.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. Any "man" that wouldn't be a responsible father and marry his child's mother, simply because he feels that the act of marriage has been tainted by gay people being allowed to do so is beyond ridiculous. He puts more value in his version of what the word means than in the well being of his child and it's mother. And you want to blame that on gay marriages. Oh my God, Jim. You can't be serious. I've given you valid, legal reasoning, and you come back with that. You know what, you come up with scientific "proof" that everyone is born heterosexual, and maybe some folks will agree to let your amendment go forward so that you can custom taylor things to suit your beliefs. You can't do it because the simple fact is that some people are born homosexual, whether you like it or not. If you are too afraid to admit this fact, then that's your personal issue. Heterosexuals are no better than homosexuals, and vise-versa. You are still going on the idea that homosexuals are bad, and even refer to their behavior as "deviant". Who the hell died and gave you the right to decide what kind of sexual behavior between legal American citizen adults is deviant? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's deviant. What makes this a great country is that someone like you, with a very narrow view of what is and is not acceptable, cannot dictate your beliefs over the masses. This country offers equal rights to all, INCLUDING their consensual sexual behavior among adults. There are a few oddball 19th century laws that haven't been overturned yet in a few remote southern counties, which every man I know has broken (including you, I'd be willing to bet), but by and large, sexual behavior between consenting adults is a matter of choice, and whether or not you agree with it doesn't make any one form better, or more or less deviant than the other.


That's a nice theory, but the justices have already spoken. Again, "Intrinsic in the right of personal liberty,the court said, is "the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, and bring up children."

Since the individual right to marry is fundamental, the justices held, "Legislation infringing upon such rights must be based on more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws."

Individual means individual, it does not mean man and woman.

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

I wish you and yours nothing but the best as well, Jim. I truly hope 2004 is your best year yet.

Take care,
~Chris

:)

Beating the dead horse of same-sex marriage
 

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Quote:

You used to ridicule people that wanted to leave a thread topic if you still had something to say.

I had hoped you had matured to the point where you could rest on your prior comments and not use my leaving the thread as a vehicle for a snide comment. But no. That isn't going to happen, I see. You are who you are. So be it.

Quote:

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. Any "man" that wouldn't be a responsible father and marry his child's mother, simply because he feels that the act of marriage has been tainted by gay people being allowed to do so is beyond ridiculous.

Tell that to the Dutch, where same-sex marriage has been legal for some time and marriage rates are down, noticably. As it is, in America, the percentage of (hetro) couples cohabitating has increased near-exponentially over the past decade. Once you take the sanctity and specialness out of marriage by calling almost any adult coupling 'marriage' you will inevitably weaken it in many ways. Playing games with the legal definition of one of the basic building blocks of society and expecting this will 'make no difference' is naive - and ridiculous.

Quote:

He puts more value in his version of what the word means than in the well being of his child and it's mother. And you want to blame that on gay marriages. Oh my God, Jim. You can't be serious.

Save the puerile dramatics for someone who is impressed with them, Chris. They're wasted on me.

Quote:

've given you valid, legal reasoning, and you come back with that.

You gave me the standard talking points for same-sex marriage Chris, nothing more, and I've responded with a host of valid and cogent answers for my point of view, most of which you ignore, totally, and try to find one point that you assume is weak and then hammer it. Nice try, buddy.

Quote:

You know what, you come up with scientific "proof" that everyone is born heterosexual, and maybe some folks will agree to let your amendment go forward so that you can custom taylor things to suit your beliefs. You can't do it because the simple fact is that some people are born homosexual, whether you like it or not. If you are too afraid to admit this fact, then that's your personal issue.

Oh, Chris, you're so off here. Homosexuals demand that they be accorded the legal right to marry and call it 'discrimination' when it's refused. They try to co-opt the black civil-rights movement to do it but, as I explained in great detail - and you were quite careful to ignore - homosexuality is not close to race because race is determined by genes and homosexuality is not. That, whether you and the other same-sex advocates agree with it or not, is a scientific fact, Chris. Not my opinion. A fact. Your side just yells: we ARE SO born that way!!! I say: fine, prove it, scientifically, and I'll join the same-sex marriage side. You can't do it, Chris. That you are too 'afraid' to admit this fact - a scientific fact, at that, is apparently your 'personal issue'.

Quote:

Heterosexuals are no better than homosexuals, and vise-versa. You are still going on the idea that homosexuals are bad, and even refer to their behavior as "deviant". Who the hell died and gave you the right to decide what kind of sexual behavior between legal American citizen adults is deviant? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's deviant.

Chris, you make this too easy for me. First, the same-sex marriage issue isn't about who is 'better'. That's junior-high school thinking and pure emotion with no basis in reality. It isn't about 'liking' or not liking people and for you to attempt to reduce the argument to that level is indicative of the inherent weakness of the whole argument for permitting same-sex 'marriage'. Homosexual sex is termed 'deviant' because it deviates from normal male-female sexual behavior, as I patiently explained - and again, that you carefully ignored in your reply.

Quote:

What makes this a great country is that someone like you, with a very narrow view of what is and is not acceptable, cannot dictate your beliefs over the masses. This country offers equal rights to all, INCLUDING their consensual sexual behavior among adults. There are a few oddball 19th century laws that haven't been overturned yet in a few remote southern counties, which every man I know has broken (including you, I'd be willing to bet), but by and large, sexual behavior between consenting adults is a matter of choice, and whether or not you agree with it doesn't make any one form better, or more or less deviant than the other.

See above reply. Also, despite your blustering about it, I never said homosexual sex acts between consenting adults should be illegal (under a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, they aren't), only that we should not alter the legal definition of marriage because one group of people, homosexuals, simply say we should. It isn't about whether I find homosexuality 'acceptable' but whether I believe that America should change the legal definition of marriage. I do not, and for logical, sound reasons, all of which I've described and explained to you - and which you have carefully ignored and insisted on continuing to debate this issue even after we've said all we really have to say. Now you're devolving into personal attacks and name-calling, which I'm willing to hand right back to you but which I know you don't really want to get into, Chris. Do you?

Quote:

That's a nice theory, but the justices have already spoken. Individual means individual, it does not mean man and woman.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court justices, in a 5-4 vote, handed down an interpretation of the state constitution that you happen to agree with. That does not make it correct. 'Negros' were once ruled to be seven-eights human by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bet you wouldn't have agreed with that, Chris, so don't try to pretend that a slim majority of liberal state judges settle the issue. They, like you, are playing the 'discrimination card' and trying to sell the idea that since marriage is fundamental to society (true) any adult who wants to be married to another adult must be allowed, legally, to do so, regardless of gender and to not allow it is 'discrimination'. The ruling flies in the face of logic, not to mention human biology. The majority of the residents of Massachusetts disagree, for good reason, and that is one of the most politically liberal states in the union, having both John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy as it's Senators. That should tell you something about this foolishly biased ruling, written by a woman judge who was a featured speaker at a gay rights conference in the not too distant past. By the court's interpretation, anyone can do almost anything in Massachusetts and call it a 'right'. That's wrong.

Meanwhile, the legislators of Massachusetts are going to hold a referendum to change this distortion of the Massachusetts constitution so badly used by biased judges pushing an agenda. No wonder special-interest groups run to the liberal courts when they know they can't get their ridiculous ideas passed by legislators, answerable to the citizens. Judges, appointed for life, can hand down these absurd rulings with no personal consequence and make drastic changes in the laws of society and do great damage to that society while the people have no voice. That isn't democracy and the fact that most of our bad laws came to us this way is also telling.

Quote:

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

You're preening as some caring, compassionate lover of freedom is getting tiresome, Chris. You wanted to continue the discussion so don't complain about it. I'm more than willing to drop it at this late date - I've made my case - but you apparently won't let it go. Why? I'm not going to agree with you (nor you with me) and launching personal attacks on each other do nothing to sell our point of view, so why keep the debate going? Let your points speak for you and stop trying to beat this to death. I've made it clear that I have little interest to further engage in this thread but I won't allow you to call me 'ridiculous' and attack me and my positions with no reply. I ask you now to knock it off.

Quote:

I wish you and yours nothing but the best as well, Jim. I truly hope 2004 is your best year yet. Take care, ~Chris

A great way to finally end this discussion once and for all.

Ahhhh.....this type of thread brings back some fond memories...:D


My 2 cents if anyone cares....

Sufice it to say that I oppose legalizing same-sex marriages. Why? Well, I'm morally opposed to homosexuality. I believe it is wrong. Yep, I said it. It's WRONG. That's what I believe and that's what I stand for.

Even not counting for all of the religious reasons that I oppose homosexuality, nature itself selects against it. XR1stang points to examples in nature of homosexual acts. Guess what. If you take all of those "homo" creatures and put 'em together in furry animal marriages, guess how may kiddo's they'd have. Yep, you guessed it. Not a one. Of course, that is if some crazy wacko furbie court doesn't give them someone elses normal animal baby to raise in an abnormal way.

In nature, if a male critter digs doing it with another male critter for whatever reason, that male critter will not be able to reproduce. That is the entire idea for the male-female scheme on this earth. We're not mushrooms. We gotta hook up with the other sex to contribute to the furthering of our species. Homosexuals contribute nothing to our race except crazy butt-lovin' (or whatever the ladies are calling it now days).

On this issue of the definition of marriage....

The institution of marriage has its very beginnings in the church. The idea is to create a stable family unit for having and rearing children. It should not even be a decision of the state to determine what marriage is. If some queer folk want to live together as a couple, fine. Go ahead. It won't bother me. But IT'S NOT A MARRIAGE!!!

That's pretty much all I've got to say.

Good to see you guys again.

--nathan

As defined by Websters Dictionary:
marriage - 1. The state of being married: wedlock. 2. The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married. 3. Close union.

marry - 1. to take as a husband or wife. 2. to unite in matrimony. 3. to become closely united.

matrimony - 1. marriage

husband - a man who is married.

wife - a married woman

(all above definitions came from websters dictionary)

I dont know about y'all, but I see no where in the definition of the word marriage that requires it to be a man and a woman.

silver_pilate - Are you married? Have you ever had sex? Did you do so with the intentions of having a kid, every time you did so? If not, your argument (and everyone else who says it is not right because they cant reproduce) is invalid. Period.

Then I ask you this: Why do you have to have the approval of the state to enter into a LEGAL marriage? Its not a moral marriage, its not a religuios marriage, but it IS a LEGAL marriage. Without that little piece of paper called a marriage liscense, you ARE NOT married. When people decide to end the marriage, you dont semply move one person out and call it done. You have to go to COURT (not church) and LEGALLY divorce.

I'm with those who say, it effects me in no way, shape, form, or fashion.

Interesting comments I get in email these days...

Obviously the reader is offended... so, what would be your (those here debating) reaction to this offender readers correspondence.

Homosexuality is a disease in my opinion and should be dealt with the same way.....find a way to get rid of it!!
If this offends anyone I don't care. It 's my opinion and you may not always like it.
I don't sugar coat anything and I don't intend to start now.

Hey, it's a no-brainer. Civil unions, "life partners", shared benefits, I guess that's all there legally already, isn't it? But..... Marriage? Well....that's been the tradition of religious rituals worldwide for many millenium, bringing procreative partners into the fold....and at heart most of the religions, at the core moral base they not only see fixated buggery/bullldykery as unnatural (usually symptomatic of incipient-to-developed moral/ character sickness, actually) but surely not worthy of a 'sanctified union'. No Muslim would do this- no real Jew-nor any Christian who's read Scripture at all. Even Bhuddists and Amerinds would walk away ashamed, let alone Aboriginals or 'Pagans'. It's a legal battle for faggotry. I'm married to a woman...I resent anyone attempting to cheapen a thing I hold in great reverance. Why force something that's universally condemned as a religious issue? Take your civil unions and go away, sez me. Leave marraige alone, no-one's god would have a union like that. Show me one religion that approves, in its doctrine, that gays should be wed, or has it in it's history. I'll show you a road paved to hell w/stupid intentions.

That might be a decent argument, if laws were based on religion. But they arent, and its not. This is not a religious/moral debate, so throw out all the talk of how much your gods would hate it. No one cares. This is a legal issue, and last I remember the seperation of church and state was still big in this country. So, go to church and gay bash all you want, but, remember that laws cant be created on a religious backround in this country.

Gay Marriage/ Sep. of Church and State etc.
 

Interesting arguments abou this topic. I stand against the idea of gay marriage obviously because of my religious beleifs as do some others who have stated their opinion on this board. I beleive that the traditional family is still the best environment for the raising of children. I believe in the beginnging it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I do not hate people who are gay, but I do not have to accept nor approve of the lifestyle. That is my free choice. You do not have to accept my opinion.
And as far as "separation of church and state " is concerned,
that concept was coined by Thomas Jefferson based on the way he viewed the 1st ammendment of the US Constitution which DOES state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." The constitution nowhere contains the phrase "separation of church and state" but it is implied by the "establishment clause" of the 1st ammendment. What the framers of the constitution wanted to prevent was excessive entanglement between politics and religion and to not have an official state church like many European countries had (France:Roman Catholic, England:Anglican,etc.) It never intended for religion to be ignored in any type of lawmaking. Do you think for a moment that laws against murder aren't based on Judeo-Christian ethics found in the 10 Commandments? Religion has shaped our legal system and every legal system in the world in some way or another and will continue to do so, like it or not.

Egalitarianism at MW
 

Originally posted by Dan McClain :

Quote:

Interesting comments I get in email these days... Obviously the reader is offended... so, what would be your (those here debating) reaction to this offender readers correspondence.

The debate isn't over whether anyone here happens to be 'gay' or not, it concerns 'gay marriage', currently a very hot topic in the ongoing culture wars. Most of the discussion has been pointed but generally civil. We do have rules here. The Blue Oval Lounge is a place where Mustang lovers - who are assumed to have a life outside of the drivers seat of their cars - can discuss non-car topics if they wish. The operative phrase here is: if they wish. Participation is optional. If the subject 'offends' you don't open the thread. While everyone has a right to their personal opinion as well as the right to defend and explain it, no one is forced to read posts they don't like or care about. Other members may find it very interesting; more so than discussing the virtues of this or that rear end ratio for the thousandth time. That's why we have multiple and varied forums on the messageboard; to better serve all of our members. If that offends anyone, they should re-assess their sensitivity threshold because it's probably set WAY too high.

That would be my reaction.

My opnion of the gay marriage debate is... If it doesnt concern you... why let it bother you. Some people choose to pursue a gay relationship (not meaning this in a offensive way). But if that kinda relationship isnt your personal choice why even let it bother you. That is just my very own personal opinion on the marriage debate.

Taking the lead form 5.0's last post...

"The debate isn't over whether anyone here happens to be 'gay' or not, it concerns 'gay marriage', currently a very hot topic in the ongoing culture wars."

Many here are too young to remember the Viet Nam War or the reasoning behind fighting it. A much discussed line of reasoning was the "Domino Theory". By that theory if we did not stop communisn in Viet Nam or Southeast Asia other dominos would fall and it would spread further from China.

Gay marriage reminds me of this in a cultural sense. If permisive behavior gos unchecked, it will spread to many areas that today would seem to be unaffected by Gay Marriage. So the cultural war is fought on that battlefield to hold back the wholesale change out of cultural values that have been/are the norm. Other battles lost have been school prayer, etc. Many casualties have been piled up in places like Political Correctness and Excessive Tort litigation.

So althought the current battle may not affect you directly, as was said of Viet Nam, the war if lost will have an impact.

The current fight in Middle East is much more threatening than Viet Nam seemed to be but I am sure there are those that would say let the middle east folk do what they want to it doesn't affect me. The threat to cultural norms is in some ways very similar.

A question about the last post:

Are you comparing Gay Marriage to the DOMINO THEROY!! I am so dissapointed in some of the people on this website. How can one persons personal sexual preferance upset you so much. Just because someone is gay doesnt mean that if people see or associate with the person that they will become gay to *if that makes sense* If you are so scared that you or the rest of the population may be pursuaded by the gay population that just shows that you are infact uncomfortable with your sexuality. If you believe you are heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual whatever your choice may be (personally i would never be in a homosexual relationship) then being associated with a gay or bisexual person shouldnt affect you in any way. You shouldnt be a follower be a leader. Your decison should not be based on what john doe did. And if it is then that just shows what a weak person you are. Once again... if it doesnt affect you WHY WOULD YOU EVEN CARE! im not saying gay marriage is right... but if 2 people are happy, why bother them. They have rights too.

Show me two homos that can together create a child and they can get married all they want.

Until then, they can shut the ****** up.

Case closed.

So, by that logic, the only reason to get married is to have kids? Thats pretty stupid man. But hey, you are entitled to your own stupid opinions.

No.

Gay Marriage as domino in the cultural wars to change the moral order in America. As the dominos fall the culture changes. School prayer, gay marriage, everyone is a victim law suits, no personal accountability, no honor rolls are a few of the dominos that have or are falling. No one domino, e.g., Gay Marriage, alone affects everyone directly but the sum of the change does.

Sorry you misunderstood me.

No, we're not afraid that we will become gay if we are around them. The simple fact is that when most people see gays together it makes us sick to our stomachs!!
For instance...how can any man in his right mind be walking down a beach and see some others guys hairy ass and say "Oh yeah...I gotta have that!!"
Like I said before, homosexuality is a disease and should be treated as one......find away to get rid of it.
Bigred90GT , I guess that's a stupid opinion too.
I guess in your opinion, being heterosexual is stupid. Is that what you are trying to say?
Are you coming out of the closet and admitting you are gay?
Be a leader like stang_girl says and lead your other gay friends out of the closet too. Come on now...don't be afraid...no is going to hurt you(evil grin)

I am curious where you get that I have the opinion that being heterosexual is stupid? Since you have never met me, and know nothing about me, I truley take no offence to wether or not you think I am gay. But since you think I am, I'll set the record straight now. No, I am not a homo. I have never given a BJ, taken it in the ass, or had any attraction to any male. I just dont understand what everyone is afraid of. What ever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If giving a man a bj makes another man happy, so be it. As long as they arent trying to blow me, its their business. I truely hope they legalize it, and your church (if you go) allows it to happen there. Wouldnt that be somethin?:cool:

BTW - Hatred toward others (for no good reason) is a disease also, and those who hate someone because of their personal preferences should be treated as such. Find a way to get rid of y'all.

Pot, Kettle, Black syndrome
 

Originally posted by bigred90gt :

Quote:

As long as they arent trying to blow me, its their business. I truely hope they legalize it, and your church (if you go) allows it to happen there. Wouldnt that be somethin?

Episcopalians already have. Isn't that precious?

No one said that homosexuals don't have a right to express their sexuality anyway they choose. Your sarcastic comments are assuming something not in evidence. Why do folks always make the leap that equates logical opposition to changing the legal definition of marriage into 'hating' homosexuals? Oh, I know, then they can post stuff like this:

Quote:

BTW - Hatred toward others (for no good reason) is a disease also, and those who hate someone because of their personal preferences should be treated as such. Find a way to get rid of y'all.

Pot, kettle, black syndrome. This self-serving: "I'm so tolerant - and you're not" claptrap is hypocrisy on a stick. You see it when people sneer and rant at anyone who disagrees with them on something as important - and devisive - as 'gay marriage' while they pretend to be 'open-minded'. The same folks will go ballistic over a Christian expressing their beliefs and will post vile comments against 'religion' - but still think they're 'tolerant' because they support gay marriage in the mistaken belief that it won't affect them. Easy to be 'tolerant' when you think it's at no cost to you, isn't it? Take a good look at the severe limits of your own 'tolerance' and what and whom YOU 'hate' before presuming to lecture anyone here on 'hatred'.

Re: Pot, Kettle, Black syndrome
 

Absolutely.

You and everyone else that says gay marriage (and gays in general) shouldnt be, are saying just that. Marriage is a form of self expression, showing the world that a person is straight (or in some cases gay). It is a commitment between two people. I have already posted the definition of marriage, marry, husband, and wife, and in none of the definitions does it say that it has to be between a man and a woman. Please show me where the "legal definition" of marriage specifies that it only applies to male/femal unions, and I wont post in this thread again.

I have been civil until some schmo fired off at me about being gay because I have no problems with gay marriage. I have no problems with relgion, and people's right and abilities to practice it. I was raised in a strong christian family. I went to church twice a week every week. I prayed every day, sometimes several times a day. I made my peace with god, and what did it do for me? Not a whole lot of much. I choose to steer clear of the whole religious thing. Religion is a tool to give the weak minded something to believe in. God (as percieved in the bible) is a fictitional character devised to give the faithless something to have faith in, becaue they have no faith in themselves. That doesnt mean in any way that I have a roblem with people expressing their religious beliefs. And believe me, gay marriages wont affect me in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

BTW - Just so you know, because you assume you know me, the only person on this planet that I hate, to the point that if I ever cross paths with him again one of will die, is my ex stepfather. 10 years of hell, and he cheated on my mother for about the last 6 or 7 of those 10, and then threw us out of the house on my graduation day. I am by far not a hateful person. This guy makes a comment about a genocide type abolishment of the gay community, and I get lectured about me being hateful? Ya. OK.

Re: Re: Pot, Kettle, Black syndrome
 

Originally posted by bigred90gt

Quote:

Absolutely.

Somehow I knew you would say that. Advocates and defenders of homosexuality, often religion-haters, are so predictable it's almost funny.

Quote:

You and everyone else that says gay marriage (and gays in general) shouldnt be, are saying just that. Marriage is a form of self expression, showing the world that a person is straight (or in some cases gay). It is a commitment between two people. I have already posted the definition of marriage, marry, husband, and wife, and in none of the definitions does it say that it has to be between a man and a woman. Please show me where the "legal definition" of marriage specifies that it only applies to male/femal unions, and I wont post in this thread again.

Unfortunately - for your argument - dictionary definitions are not law. The 'discrimination' ploy used by advocates of same-sex marriage is admittedly effective and gives a lot of folks legal as well as assumed moral 'cover' to promote and defend the indefensible. Any sentient being understands that 'marriage' was is and always will be the union of a man and a woman with a family usually not far behind. Millions and millions of marriages over thousands of years attest to that simple fact, now disputed by a tiny group of people. Marriage is not a statement of anyone's 'self-expression'. That's simply absurd. Where do you get this stuff?

Tell you what: lets look at how we got to where we are today with this issue:

Each state has it's own legal definition of marriage. It's not a federal law but a law specific to each state. State marriage law, as in Massachusetts, never mentions anything but 'man' and 'woman' when outlining the requirements to be legally married. It was obvious to all, for centuries, that only a man and a woman married or even qualified for marriage. Now, homosexuals have decided that they should be included in the legal definition of 'marriage'. They have no basis for this demand other than that to not do as they say is 'discrimination'. They went to court and were rebuffed, as homosexuality is not an inate condition, such as race, and as such, it is not 'discrimination' to disallow homosexuals to 'marry'. Finally, the liberal Supreme Court of Appeals of Massachusetts, in a 5-4 decision, granted that the marriage law in Massachusetts had to include homosexuals because to not do so would be 'discrimination' and contrary to the state constitution. In short, homosexuals found a loophole in the law. Since it didn't specifically exclude homosexuals (but inferred that marriage meant a man and a woman) to not include homosexual 'partners' as eligible to be defined as married was now called: 'discrimination'. The court then ordered the state legislature to change the law.

Even in liberal Massachusetts, the majority of the citizens disagreed with this too-cute play on words and legal end-run around the democratic legislative process, not to mention the violation of the Separation of Powers act. The Massachusetts legislature is attempting to change the state constitution to specifically state that marriage in the state of Massachusetts is limited to a man and a woman - but that will take a few years. Meanwhile, homosexuals will be legally allowed to marry in Massachusetts starting next week.

Quote:

I have been civil until some schmo fired off at me about being gay because I have no problems with gay marriage. I have no problems with relgion, and people's right and abilities to practice it. I was raised in a strong christian family. I went to church twice a week every week. I prayed every day, sometimes several times a day. I made my peace with god, and what did it do for me? Not a whole lot of much. I choose to steer clear of the whole religious thing.

I always know what's coming when a poster starts to offer a long autobiography about how he or she was raised in a 'religious' home. An attack on 'religion' and religious people. Here it comes, right on schedule:

Quote:

Religion is a tool to give the weak minded something to believe in. God (as percieved in the bible) is a fictitional character devised to give the faithless something to have faith in, becaue they have no faith in themselves. That doesnt mean in any way that I have a roblem with people expressing their religious beliefs. And believe me, gay marriages wont affect me in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

Atheism is a tool to give the weak-minded something to replace the God they know exists but that they refuse to honor, much less acknowledge because they wish to do as they please and set their own standards of morality and right and wrong, changed to suit their situation and whims. They have faith in themselves as long as everything goes well and they can take credit for it but blame the God they say they don't believe in if anything bad happens to them. I've seen this happen and it's as sad as it is amusing.

I have no problem with atheists expressing their disbelief and, FYI, I've never used 'religion' in my arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage. You must have missed that.

Quote:

BTW - Just so you know, because you assume you know me, the only person on this planet that I hate, to the point that if I ever cross paths with him again one of will die, is my ex stepfather. 10 years of hell, and he cheated on my mother for about the last 6 or 7 of those 10, and then threw us out of the house on my graduation day. I am by far not a hateful person. This guy makes a comment about a genocide type abolishment of the gay community, and I get lectured about me being hateful? Ya. OK.

I don't assume to know you at all but I know the mind-set same-sex marriage advocates usually have, which is a deep animosity toward anything remotely 'religious'. You just proved me correct.

The personal situation you describe going through is a tough one and I can understand your anger but the fact remains that you and many that hold the same views as you do on same-sex marriage are quick to label any opposition to to it as based in 'hate', a very strong word, usually misused. I don't 'hate' anyone either, including relatives, atheists or homosexuals. My opposition and the opposition of millions to legalizing same-sex marriage is based on a belief that such legalization is detrimental to the institution of marriage, to society and ultimately to our nation. Marraige was never intended to be anything but a joining of a man and a woman on the basis that this is both biologically normal (society acknowledging what already exists) and a benefit to building a strong society of families, something homosexuals cannot do (without adoption - which depends on hetrosexual procreation). The generally accepted belief in your crowd seems to be that opposition to same-sex marriage is (a) religion-based and, (b) if same-sex marriage law is enacted, that it won't effect anyone but homosexuals are both mistaken, as I've gone to great lengths to point out in my many long posts on the issue on this thread. I see no need to re-argue the point all over again again with you. My posts are there to read, if you wish. If not, so be it. Whether you happen to agree with it or not, my point has been made.

Re: Re: Pot, Kettle, Black syndrome
 

I'm assuming you're refering to me. I don't recall ever saying to "abolish" or suggest "genocide" to any group of people.
Hitler tried that approach and it didn't work out...did it?
I'm suggesting to find a way to fix the "short circuit" that makes people gay. That's the disease I was referring to.
Admit it...there's a problem somewhere in the brain that makes people gay just like people who are insane, pedifiles, retarded, alcoholics....the list goes on.
Should we keep those people the way they are or find a way through modern science to help them?
Let's face it...a mans genitalia was meant to go into one place and that's not up another mans ass.
Am I right or am I wrong?

Oh well people can believe what they want to believe. Fact is gay people will most likely be here until the sun burns out. My suggestion; deal with it!

James:rolleyes:

Man... such hatred in this thread. The bottom line is, gays are PEOPLE. Human beings. Just like you and me. Let them live their lives, without having to be morally or religiously unacceptable. Life is hard enough all by itself. Who knows... some day, someone YOU care about may "come out of the closet". Will you hate them and abolish them like all those other gays? I hope not. It's a shame to see so much hatred, makes me sad. I am not gay, and I also do not want to hear or see what they do in private. But these are people, with feelings, dreams, and emotions, like all of us. Why should it bother you what they do with their own lives? :confused:
Like I said before, live and let live.

This is just my opinion, of course, and I will not be replying again. I know that my opinion will never be changed like yours won't, so it is senseless to banter back and forth about this.

Tolerance does not mean acceptance
 

Originally posted by joe4speed :

Quote:

Man... such hatred in this thread.

Man...such nonsense in this post. Once again, logical and clear opposition to changing the legal definition of marriage is instantly equated to 'hate'. I'm so sick of the uninformed making this knee-jerk assumption despite manifest evidence that it's a lie. Maybe if the same-sex marriage advocates keep saying it enough it'll seem like a fact to them but that won't ever change reality.

Quote:

The bottom line is, gays are PEOPLE. Human beings. Just like you and me.

Brilliant observation and a wonderful example of stating the obvious. Of course, no one ever said that 'gays' were not PEOPLE....human beings. We said that the legal definition of marriage should not be changed to include same-sex couplings. Apparently you missed that part in the six pages of posts on the subject.

Quote:

Let them live their lives, without having to be morally or religiously unacceptable.

Excuse me? Religion and morality have not been a part of this discussion, at least as far as I'm concerned, but to say religion (and it's natural by-product, morality) should simply ignore the Bible, Koran or whatever source they use for their basis of belief, is simply absurd and beyond naive. I'm sure you mean well but you have no idea of what you're proposing so I'll assume you have little grasp of the core beliefs of 'religion', especially Christianity.

Quote:

Life is hard enough all by itself. Who knows... some day, someone YOU care about may "come out of the closet". Will you hate them and abolish them like all those other gays? I hope not.

Yes, life is hard enough but we all make our choices and in America, homosexuals have some rights hetrosexuals don't have. Financially, they are generally in the upper-income brackets. Few gays have a 'hard time', today, unlike decades ago. They are legally protected on every level and socially accepted in almost all quarters of society. Even the schools promote 'acceptance' of homosexuality. From 'Queer Eye For The Straight Guy' to 'Will and Grace', the homosexual is far, far from oppressed in this country and their 'life' is not all that 'hard' for them. I'm fine with that but it doesn't mean that I have to agree with their demands for legalizing 'gay marriage'. You apparently failed to grasp that fact.

Quote:

It's a shame to see so much hatred, makes me sad.

Boo hoo and as a former president once said: "There you go again!" Equating opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage with 'hate'. Do you even have a clue here or do you just post the standard PC babble with no thought to what you're actually stating?

Quote:

I am not gay, and I also do not want to hear or see what they do in private. But these are people, with feelings, dreams, and emotions, like all of us. Why should it bother you what they do with their own lives? Like I said before, live and let live.

Thanks for sharing your sexuality with us, not that anyone asked. Homosexuals live as they please...who's stopping them? From the many gay bars in every big city to the excesses of NAMBLA they are free to do as they wish. Your continued reminder that they are PEOPLE is a Non Sequitur and means little in the context of the issue at hand.

Quote:

This is just my opinion, of course, and I will not be replying again. I know that my opinion will never be changed like yours won't, so it is senseless to banter back and forth about this.

Hit and run, eh? Well, I can see why. I disagree with your contention that debating the issue won't change anyone's mind. Maybe, maybe not but it's worth having the discussion, as I see it. I will agree with you that that continued re-stating of the same basic points - pro or con - again and again is mostly a waste of time. Unfortunately, after all the posts here, you still ignore the reality that opposition to changing the legal definition of marriage is not automatically a manifestation of 'hatred' toward homosexuals. That's truly sad and why I replied to your post. What you and others who are falling all over themselves to show how open-minded they (think) they are seem to forget, often willfully, is that tolerance (of homosexuality) does not mean acceptance (of gay marriage) and mere opposition (to gay marriage) is not 'hate'. I hope that some day you'll get that. At least try to think about it.

In all honesty, if people get offended by some of the replies made in these posts then maybe they should think twice before starting a thread like this one.
If you can't handle the personal feelings and opinions which are sometimes outright cruel and unfair then why even bother asking how the rest of us feel...especially a controversial one like gay marriages?
We(all of us) get pisssed off at someone who makes a remark we might not like or agree with and what do we do......start bashing on that person because he/she put their two cents in.
I admit...even I've done it.
That's why I don't start controversial threads like this because I know how cruel the replies can be and quite frankly would be afraid to hear some people's opionions.
My advice to anyone in the future about posting highly debatable subjects like this one is to put your bullet proof vest on befoe you do because this can be a very tough board.

Dammit... I didn't want to reply, but just had to say, I am not offended at all. It doesn't really bother me about what you guys think, chances are very slim that I will ever meet you anyways, and even if I did, the differences we have on this topic would never influence my judgement of you.

Jim, dude, why do ya have to pick apart everything that everyone says?? Maybe I am misinformed, sorry about that. I merely stated my opinion and didn't ask for yours(just like you didn't ask for my sexuality), I already know your opinion after 6 pages. 6 pages that I skimmed through alot, which apparently made me "misinformed". I knew I should have said I didn't read through the whole thread when I wrote that. I am not picking a fight, there's nothing to fight about. Sorry my post was such "nonsense", so "uninformed", "absurd and beyond naive", and full of "PC babble". After all, it was just my opinion.

I have thought about the things that you have said here. I think you have some very valid points, but it still doesn't change my opinion. I hope you'll just respect it, and leave it at that.

And I really didn't want to reply again either. I have to say though, Jim, you have a great talent for working someone up! I haven't experienced the "Mr 5.0" debate personally till now.

I love it when someone gets me "worked up"!! That's the best part. It's what gets my juices flowing!!

After the brawl is over....
 

Originally posted by joe4speed :

Quote:

Dammit... I didn't want to reply, but just had to say, I am not offended at all. It doesn't really bother me about what you guys think, chances are very slim that I will ever meet you anyways, and even if I did, the differences we have on this topic would never influence my judgement of you.

There is a distinct difference between opposition to your opinions and a personal dislike of you. A big difference. We're all at least semi-anonymous on the web and as you say, will probably never know each other face to face so a personal animus is almost impossible. What's debated here are opinions, not personalities.

Quote:

Jim, dude, why do ya have to pick apart everything that everyone says?? Maybe I am misinformed, sorry about that. I merely stated my opinion and didn't ask for yours(just like you didn't ask for my sexuality), I already know your opinion after 6 pages. 6 pages that I skimmed through alot, which apparently made me "misinformed". I knew I should have said I didn't read through the whole thread when I wrote that. I am not picking a fight, there's nothing to fight about. Sorry my post was such "nonsense", so "uninformed", "absurd and beyond naive", and full of "PC babble". After all, it was just my opinion.

Joe, dude, why are you surprised that when you post your opinion on a public messageboard those who disagree with you will deconstruct your contentions? You made the standard PC equasion that any opposition to so-called 'gay marriage' automatically means that one opposed to it 'hates' homosexuals. That's a foolish fallacy I'm tired of seeing in these arguments and I no longer sit still for it or chalk it off to ignorance. You should consider your words carefully when you post and be prepared to defend any broad-brush smears you choose to make here or on any message board. You casually threw around the word 'hate' as your reaction to the posts. I saw no 'hate', only opposition and some revulsion with the physical act of sodomy and the homosexual 'lifestyle' but no one claimed they 'hated' homosexuals. That was a knee-jerk assumption YOU made, with little to no basis in fact and I resented it. I'm certainly not 'looking for a fight' either, just some honesty and civility instead of PC babble about 'hate' whenever anyone objects to changing the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex 'partners'.

Quote:

I have thought about the things that you have said here. I think you have some very valid points, but it still doesn't change my opinion. I hope you'll just respect it, and leave it at that.

Of course, just as you'll equally respect my diametrically opposed opinion, I'm sure. I only present the case against 'gay marriage'. What you do with it is your decision. It's a messageboard, not a court and no one 'wins' or 'loses' here.

Quote:

And I really didn't want to reply again either. I have to say though, Jim, you have a great talent for working someone up! I haven't experienced the "Mr 5.0" debate personally till now.

Here's a tip I've learned over many years of posting on controversial topics on internet messageboards: Never say you won't post again on a thread. It's the 'kiss of death' and almost guarantees you WILL post again. Been there, done that. I don't suffer fools gladly but I try to be civil and reasonable unless I'm attacked; then I attack right back in kind. I always know that no matter how hot the exchanges get they'll be mostly forgotten in a few days and few will remember them at all in a month. After all, it's just the internet. ;)

You know I thought it was just me. Guess not.

You know Jim in real life I bet your one of the nicest guys to meet who is open minded, right? Hmmm...

Another question I wanted to ask you. If gay marriage was legal today, how would it affect you?

James:confused:

One could expect the price of health insurance to go higher......

And why would that be? And dont even pull out the BS card about AIDS being a gay disease. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

Lessons learned, lessons still to be taught
 

Originally posted by srv1 :

Quote:

You know I thought it was just me. Guess not.

Consider my messages to you as a learning experience that will help you be better informed on current issues.

Quote:

You know Jim in real life I bet your one of the nicest guys to meet who is open minded, right? Hmmm...

Yes, James, I am. I have some liberal friends who know I'm conservative in my politics (and a Christian) but they don't discuss these issues with me. We usually talk about cars, instead. I don't go around broadcasting my opinions on same-sex marriage or telling people about my spiritual beliefs unless I'm asked or I'm already part of a conversation where the subject comes up. I'm sure that when people talk about their religion and how glad they are to be a Christian or say they'll vote for Bush in November you, the open-minded guy that we all know you are (because you tell us so) just smile and remain 'open minded' about it. Yes, I'm sure you do.

Quote:

Another question I wanted to ask you. If gay marriage was legal today, how would it affect you?

It would dilute the meaning of the term and thus weaken the importance of being married in the legal sense. When any two adults, no matter what their sex or relationship to each other can be called 'married' then in effect, the term is rendered near-meaningless. Of course my personal life would not be harmed by a change in the legal definition of marriage but then, thoughtful adults don't support or oppose important issues simply on the basis of what may or may not affect us, personally. Allowing adults to legally have sex with 10 year olds wouldn't affect me, either, but I would still oppose it. What you obviously fail to understand (in your self-centered world) James, is that some things are too important to ignore simply on the basis of how it personally affects me. Some day, you'll understand that. Well, one hopes. :)


bigred90gt:

Contrary to your uninformed blustering, CDC statistics show that homosexuals represent the majority of AIDS patients (50% - out of less than 3% of the total population) so of course health insurance rates will most certainly go up as same-sex couples are given health coverage by law. Although the death rate for AIDS has dropped considerably, the drugs needed to sustain good health for a person with AIDS cost big bucks and the treatments literally never end. Homosexuals also are the biggest carriers (and spreaders) of STD's with around 75% of homosexuals having some form of STD, primarily syphilis (60%). Homosexuals are also one of largest groups of Hepatitis 'B' ('gay bowel syndrome') carriers and have other intestinal diseases not normal to most hetrosexuals. On the other hand, the average age at death for homosexual men is 42 while an average hetrosexual married man in America lives to be 75. Homosexuals can propagandize all they want but the cold, hard statistics don't lie and prove that actions still have consequences.

Before you start calling people 'stupid', you might want to stop believing gay propaganda that tells you AIDS is not a predominantly 'gay' disease and check out a few documented facts, first. Your absurd contention that AIDS is not a 'gay disease' is dead wrong and makes you look 'stupid' for trying to sell that fallacy here. Wise up.

Maybe we could argue this from the other side for a while. If gay marriage in a legal sense is not important and dosen't affect anyone, why would someone want to have it? Normally, people want things that do matter, legally.

And lets don't argue the moral or emotional side of this lets stick to the legal side. So why would some one want to make someting that does not affect them or is not important to others legal. There must be a legal reason. What would it be?