This had better not pass

Justin98 wrote: my good reason for not agreeing for **edited** marriage is good enough for me and many others.

Care to share with the class?

brihard wrote: Fundanmentally, homosexuals are humans, and thus are entitled to human rights, ...and freedom to enter contract if adult and metnally sound.

I dont have enough time to rebuke everyons post or even every part from your post.. I'll have to do that later. But I'll go head on into this one.


Lets take the off chance that you ARE born like that.

It's your brain, for lack of a better word, screwing up, correct? It isnt 'natural' because the purpose of sex is to reproduce.


So, born with it, brain screwed up. Where am I going with this?

If the brain is screwed up, it's a mental disability.

If it's a mental disability, they arent mentally sound.

If they aren't mentally sound, they cant enter into a contract.




I love loop-holes. (A stretch, I know.. but you guys do it too)

Brihard wrote: You can be against homosexual marraige becuase you choose to be, but you cannot claim that you can justify it or ratioanlize it by any moral standards notdependent on a religious blind faith. Morality must have some tangible foundation in the good and harm that it does people, and your views cannot in any way be justified. You simply hold them for whatever ignorant reason you do.

You go from being rational to being a bigoted asshole.

Not once did I say anything about morals in my post. Not once did I say anything about religion in my post.

Please.. show me where I said I hold my values on this from a moral or religious standpoint in any of my post in this thread.

Brihard wrote: You claim that there is 'proof' that it is a choice, when in the vast majority of situations, it is not. Certainly some women choose to be lesbians, but that is free will as opposed to biological determinism.

Buddy.. I will say it once again.

Just becasue SOME scientist say they have proof that people are born with it doesnt make it so. Just as many say there is no proof to back up that claim.


It goes both ways and I'm surprised you are blind to that FACT. You are a smart guy and youre letting something so obvious slip by your logical mind.



PS--- I'm hearing Alabama just passed a ban on it....

Edited by Linus - 07 June 2006 at 8:27am

There is an easy solution to this

Mairrage was originally a function of the church. Why not return it to the church? Let the church decide who marries and who doesn't.

From a government point of view, all legal implications of mairrage would be handled through legal unions. Mairrage would no longer have any legal implications, it would essentially be replaced by civil unions.

The right would be happy because the sanctity of mairrage would be preserved, the left would be happy because everybody would have equal rights under the law.

Yes the state did vote it in, unfortunately. I voted against it, but apparently most of the Christians here don't understand why they shouldn't pass laws like that.

Your Jesus preached love and tolerance for those outside his beliefs. The ONLY time he ever got upset (that I can find reference to, biblically) was when believers were abusing the house of god. Do you comprehend the precident your SAVIOR set? Love and compassion for those outside of your faith, and firm dealings with those inside your faith.

Jesus would have hung out with homosexuals, and would have told them "go, and sin no more." if and ONLY IF they came to him and asked for salvation, he wouldn't force himself or his moral stances on anyone not claiming to be of his faith.

The plain facts are that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone in the general sense(society is a different beast all together), doesn't affect on our government's international standings, and doesn't affect internal trade. It shouldn't be "governed" one way or another federally. It shouldn't be an issue at all at the national level. Bush and the GOP are just drumming up mid-term voters after the horrible job done by-and-by by the incumbents.

Personally, I think the government should just remove the word marriage from its vocabulary. Make all Civil Unions the same, as long as its two people of legal age and sound mind they shouldn't care who is applying for the license. Leave the "Marrying" up to the local churches and their own moral standings. After all, "Marriage" in its contemporary form is a Christian thing, isn't it? If I were an active Christian, I would be pissed that the government was regulating a religious ceremorny, even if I agreed with it. It sets a frightening precident.

Edited by Dazed - 07 June 2006 at 10:14am

^Not to mention the fact that he had better not ever have sex unless he is actively trying to reproduce.

We won't even bring up the thought of heterosexual couples that can't reproduce for one reason or another. That just doesn't happen.

Question for the supporters of <**edited**> Marriage. What is the next established social norm that will be deemed discrimination and judicially sanctioned.

How about pedophia, there are those discriminated by established law who by choice prefere young children as sexual pardners, why do we discriminate against them. The same arguements that are used for <**edited**> marriage could be used in this case also.

As for the seperation of church and state, still have not found that passage in the US Constitution, unfortuanately for many our government is based on judeo-christian fundimentals of law and behavior.

There is a book out there which I will find the title that documents the fall of all of histories great "empires" and the destruction of established social norms is found to be the start of the downward spiral of that society.

mbro wrote: . Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of my ass.

fixed

 

Actually OS the age of consent in Canada is 14 or something like that, so lowering our age of consent would have precedent.

The slippery slope idea is what concerns me. I have no problem with the couple down the road who've lived together for 20 years being married(This is MA, so they are). They can run their pottery shop and fly their rainbow flag all they want.

However, if a court is going to interpret this as "The government has no right to question a marrige" instead of "The government cannot discriminate against marriges based on race, ethnicity or gender" we could have other problems. I mean, if the libs can have homo marrige, the fundamentalist hillbillies will want legalized incest to keep their bloodlines pure. Slippery slope stuff scares the crap out of me.

Also, I totally agree that this is a non-issue. And an old non-issue at that. Brought up solely to motivate the evangelicals to vote in the mid terms. Apparently the only way the republicans can think of to get their evangelical base to vote is by exploiting their intolerance.

People bring up "People were for slavery at one time" arguement.. but think about it like this.

Slavery was wrong because it forced people to hard labor for nothing but a minimum amount of food and harsh physical punishment for petty things.

Not allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that).

Only "bad" thing is you cant wear a ring and say your married.   Oh noez!

Live together! Many hetereo couples decide never to get married, yet they love eachother and stay with eachother for life and have children. Why can't **edited**s do that?

Gatyr wrote: I'm hoping you can agree on that.

One can only hope he will agree.

Savage93fvss wrote: Linus wrote: People bring up "People were for slavery at one time" arguement.. but think about it like this. Slavery was wrong because it forced people to hard labor for nothing but a minimum amount of food and harsh physical punishment for petty things. Allowing **edited** marriage, what does it do? Nothing. No one gets physical pain. No one loses money. No one is kept down (though your definition will vary from mine on that). Only "bad" thing is.....nothing

So why do you care so much that they not be allowed to do it?