just when i think bush can't possibly get anymore retarded..

noel · Post by **noel** » February 9, 2004, 4:06 am

This entire discussion started because there is a group that would like to change the legal definition, and there is another group that wants to lock it down and not allow them to change it ever.

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » February 9, 2004, 4:11 am

I realize that, thanks. I'd more than likely identify with the former of those two groups. However, based on Drasta's post, he didn't know the current definition of marriage from a "legal" standpoint. So I explained it. Perhaps I misunderstood his reasoning for wanting to slap Brotha. If I did, my apologies.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » February 9, 2004, 4:57 am

Hrmmm actually the definition includes members of the opposite sex in 37 states in 3 others it is mandatory that same sex marriages are given the same legal recognition. While this is an area not explicitly included in the constitution and there fore the legislation devolves to the states and the people, Article IV Sec 2 however mandates that "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."...

So this may need to become a constitutional issue...Essentially a couple married legally in one state moving to another state where their privleges are not recognized seems to present a constitutional issue...

Clearly the bulk of current washington politiicians are remnants from an era of intolerance...In the 50's Interracial marriages were illegal in many states...So while I feel that same sex marriage is an inevitability in terms of the evolution of law (ie as ours and following generations come to power)...It is incumbent upon us to begin flexing our political muscle towards that goal...Certainly use your vote to discourage intolerance in politicians...and get out there and protest when you feel something is wrong...let the dinosaurs know that the mammals are coming as it were...

I have a number of friends who are homosexuals and bisexuals...I will not wait on the sidelines for the inevitable...I will actively fight for their rights because a violation of anyone's rights is a violation of my rights...

When the rights of one are endangered...the rights of all are endangered...

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » February 9, 2004, 10:10 am

Not to mention that for years inter-religion marriages were not allowed either.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 9, 2004, 10:16 am

Sueven wrote:Brotha: Would you be satisfied if the negro leagues still existed separately from major league baseball? Both blacks and whites would still be able to play baseball, earn a living through it, have the status of ballplayers, and so on. Similar rights, different institutions, completely unacceptable.

Marriage- in the legal sense of the United States- is NOT a sacred institution. That is a simple fact. Look it the fuck up.

Bullshit on the comparison. Why is there an LPGA golf tour.....you are separating the women from the men. Why are men not able to compete on the LPGA, but the women are able to compete on the men's tour?

I will call bullshit on the water fountain argument as well. Blacks were not allowed to use certain things that were "white only". I have yet to see a business not allow a gay man or woman to use any facility or refuse service. They have every right that anyone on this planet has except for one....and that is to get special privileges that are given to married couples. Understand that it is "special privileges". Nowhere in the constitution are you granted the right to be covered by someone's insurance.

Now tell me this, oh great wise liberals:

Why is it ok to have a gay marriage, yet you STILL argue against polygamy? Why do you find it unproper for someone to have the RIGHT to marry more than one person? Why are you such fucking hypocrites?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 10:24 am

I think polygamy is fine, given the typical restrictions on consenting adults and so on.

There is a stark difference between male and female athletes: males naturally tend to be much better at sports. If seperate leagues weren't maintained, women wouldn't be able to compete. Not so with whites and blacks.

Psyloche · Post by **Psyloche** » February 9, 2004, 10:33 am

Not so with whites and blacks.

Heh, I've kinda wondered the spread between black and white players in like the NFL or the NBA. Then you can look at sports like Hockey, is there what... like 3 black guys who play?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » February 9, 2004, 10:57 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Bullshit on the comparison. Why is there an LPGA golf tour.....you are separating the women from the men. Why are men not able to compete on the LPGA, but the women are able to compete on the men's tour?

Equal but not identical. In that example, there exist two institutions that allow both men and women to compete at a professional level in golf.

In the case of gay marriages, there is a legal standing that is available to heterosexual couples of all religions that is not available to gay couples. In your analogy, this would be the equivalent of NOT having an LPGA organization and attempting to prevent the creation of such an organization because it challenges the convention that "golf is a sacred game that allowing women to play would ruin".

This is a classic example of why religious arguments should not be allowed to control our constitution. There is no logical reasoning to deny gay couples this legal standing. The people most vocally opposed to it are those people that rely on archaic religious doctrine.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 9, 2004, 11:05 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Now tell me this, oh great wise liberals:

Why is it ok to have a gay marriage, yet you STILL argue against polygamy? Why do you find it unproper for someone to have the RIGHT to marry more than one person? Why are you such fucking hypocrites?

Polygamy is a system that can be easily abused. If it could be kept in check by some means, the wise and understanding liberals wouldn't have a problem with it. It's called putting a little thought into a policy. Nothing hypocritical about it, flapjack

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 9, 2004, 11:16 am

Sueven wrote:I think polygamy is fine, given the typical restrictions on consenting adults and so on.

There is a stark difference between male and female athletes: males naturally tend to be much better at sports. If seperate leagues weren't maintained, women wouldn't be able to compete. Not so with whites and blacks.

I just want to make sure that I am understanding.....you are saying that women are inferior atheletes and deserve to play for much less prize money than men? So you are also saying that it is ok that they are not granted the rights by the constitution to have someone force their payouts to be equal?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 9, 2004, 11:27 am

They play for less money for a lot of reasons, namely sponsorship. you already know this, what is your point?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 9, 2004, 11:33 am

archeiron wrote:Equal but not identical. In that example, there exist two institutions that allow both men and women to compete at a professional level in golf.

In the case of gay marriages, there is a legal standing that is available to heterosexual couples of all religions that is not available to gay couples. In your analogy, this would be the equivalent of NOT having an LPGA organization and attempting to prevent the creation of such an organization because it challenges the convention that "golf is a sacred game that allowing women to play would ruin".

Actually, my point is that there is no way anyone would be able to force the payouts to be the same between the LPGA and the PGA. In previous examples, there existed two institutions...one that allows men and women to be married and get the higher payouts (bonuses for being married and assumed to be childbearing) and the same sex covenant that would not get as many rights.

Let me reiterate one reason why things have always been as they are.....couples have traditionally had their spouses eligible for insurance due to the fact that (in the past) the female was staying at home to raise children. She was therefore not working and eligible for insurance from her own employer. Now you show me how a gay couple can conceive their own children in a coupling with each other, and I will insure you myself.

Maybe companies should just eliminate covering spouses entirely and this entire issue would be moot. I mean...why should they cover something that is based on tradition. In this day and age, there are no stay at home mothers.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 9, 2004, 11:38 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:...They have every right that anyone on this planet has except for one....and that is to get special privileges that are given to married couples. Understand that it is "special privileges". Nowhere in the constitution are you granted the right to be covered by someone's insurance...

Health care benefits are but one part of the issue. This is about the things that the traditional straight couples take for granted. Things like having right to be with a dying loved one in hospital as opposed to it being up to the whim of the staff on duty. It's about the legal rights and protections regarding property and - this will make you anti-gay folks cringe - child custody if / when a relationship fails.

Imagine not being allowed to care for your wife if she were ever unable to care for herself. Imagine not having any legal rights to see your children if she ever decided to leave you. Imagine being unable to sit by your dying wife's bedside and simply say goodbye. Imagine your wife's parents and siblings divvying the real and personal property that you two accumulated over the years of your relationship. There are gay couples that have to deal with these things every day, simply because they lack the legal rights and protections granted by marriage, and that is just plain wrong.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 9, 2004, 11:41 am

Xatrei wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:...They have every right that anyone on this planet has except for one....and that is to get special privileges that are given to married couples. Understand that it is "special privileges". Nowhere in the constitution are you granted the right to be covered by someone's insurance...
Health care benefits are but one part of the issue. This is about the things that the traditional straight couples take for granted. Things like having right to be with a dying loved one in hospital as opposed to it being up to the whim of the staff on duty. It's about the legal rights and protections regarding property and - this will make you anti-gay folks cringe - child custody if / when a relationship fails.

Imagine not being allowed to care for your wife if she were ever unable to care for herself. Imagine not having any legal rights to see your children if she ever decided to leave you. Imagine being unable to sit by your dying wife's bedside and simply say goodbye. Imagine your wife's parents and siblings divvying the real and personal property that you two accumulated over the years of your relationship. There are gay couples that have to deal with these things every day, simply because they lack the legal rights and protections granted by marriage, and that is just plain wrong.

Couldn't agree more - If These Walls Could Talk 2 covers that quite nicely

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 9, 2004, 11:46 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: Maybe companies should just eliminate covering spouses entirely and this entire issue would be moot. I mean...why should they cover something that is based on tradition. In this day and age, there are no stay at home mothers.

It's funny you should say that; my previous company, a hospital network mind you, wouldn't be the primary care physician for my spouse if she was eligible for insurance where she worked.

But none of this goes to explain why exactly you feel same sex couples shouldn't have the right to get married save for "morality" issues. What does there being "two institutions" have anything to do with a court ruling both should be lawful, and worse, why the federal gov't feels the need to pass an unconsitutional law to forbid courts from doing this in the future?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 9, 2004, 12:00 pm

Xatrei wrote:
Imagine not being allowed to care for your wife if she were ever unable to care for herself. Imagine not having any legal rights to see your children if she ever decided to leave you. Imagine being unable to sit by your dying wife's bedside and simply say goodbye. Imagine your wife's parents and siblings divvying the real and personal property that you two accumulated over the years of your relationship. There are gay couples that have to deal with these things every day, simply because they lack the legal rights and protections granted by marriage, and that is just plain wrong.

You are aware that hetero married couples have some of these exact sme issues? How many fathers have extremely limited rights to see their children? How many estates are contested? There are hetero couples dealing with these things every day.....what makes you think same sex marraige is going to fix that?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » February 9, 2004, 12:15 pm

Kilmoll, I read your posts and I can't help but think of La Rochefoucauld's famous quote:

"We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people."

People who claim to know the hardships of others have usually never had to share those same hardships. Once you mature in life, hopefully you will see the bigger picture. Unfortunatley, what is required to make people like you to wake up is some kind of personal hardship or tragedy.

Empathy and compassion have no racial or cultural barriers. You need a healthy dose of both.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 9, 2004, 12:19 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote: You are aware that hetero married couples have some of these exact sme issues? How many fathers have extremely limited rights to see their children? How many estates are contested? There are hetero couples dealing with these things every day.....what makes you think same sex marraige is going to fix that?

Yes, having gone through a divorce I'm rather well aware that us heteros can run into similar issues. They're not "the exact same issues" though for one very simple reason. As one half of a legally married couple, I have the right to contest such things legally, and thus the opportunity for legal remedy. Compare that to the situation of a gay couple where there is generally no legal right to claim / contest such things. Matters of care, visitation, custody, etc. are simply denied to many gays with no legal options.

Marriage is certainly not a magic pill that will fix all of the issues, but it will at least place the individuals involved onto the same legal footing as the rest of us, and they deserve no less.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » February 9, 2004, 12:52 pm

Drinsic Darkwood wrote:I'd be slapping Brotha for his opinions, not his facts.

Parrots have no opinions of their own.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 1:25 pm

Drinsic: Just so you know, I have no idea what the legal definition of marriage is. I can tell you that it is not the definition that you have been quoting. Legal definitions come from law, not dictionaries.

Kilmoll: The two institutions are entirely different when it comes to such nitpicky details, and thus the analogy is really entirely irrelevant. Employment compensation is largely a performance-based thing, and there is absolutely no such element in marriage. However, yes, I am saying that it is OK that female athletes are generally paid less than men, for a variety of reasons, most of which stem from, but are not directly, the physical abilities of the women.

Your insurance/children argument would be meritorious if there was not so much inherent hypocrisy in denying the rights of marriage to gay couples, but giving those rights to hetero couples where both spouses work. Your argument would lead to me to believe that there are a few acceptable conclusions:
1. Insurance and related benefits should be eliminated for all couples, and then homosexual marriage would be acceptable.
2. Insurance and related benefits should only be available when the couple is having children, and one member is staying home to care for the children. This means that gays should be allowed to marry, since they will not receive any of the benefits that you claim are applicable only to child-producing, stay-at-home mom families.
3. Gays should be allowed to marry and all married couples should receive all benefits.
I view any other conclusion based on your arguments to be entirely hypocritical.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 1:56 pm

The problem I have with gay marriage is that it is another step to "normalize" the gay people. Being gay isn't normal. It is a genetic defect. All the television shows with gays on it sickens me. The love fest that the media has for gays now is repulsive. It is the same sickening lovefest they have with every minority, every criminal, etc. Banning gay marriage is an attempt by some to try and put a stop to this dumbing down of America. An attempt to put a stop to this fucked up notion that anything and everything is okay. That nothing should be off limits.

As a parent of two young children it scares me where the world is going. Last week there were 2 murders in schools in America. Last week a young girl was kidnapped, on camera, by a 16 time past offender. Last week they busted a family two blocks away from me who were selling heroine out of there house. Last week an activist supreme court in Massachusetts basically said fuck you to George Bush's state of the union address and said gay marriage is fine.

You go ahead and look at things one issue at a time, but you don't see the connections. Everything is connected. Every action has a reaction, a consequence. Everything is tied in together.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » February 9, 2004, 1:58 pm

A question for everyone who believes that the "defination" of Marriage should be changed.

Where does this stop?

How many special interest groups are going to be applying for a change in status to the defination?

The slippery slope theory should have some bearing on this discussion.

Does allowing every single group the rights to marriage define us as an enlightened society?

Just some questions I would like to see answered.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 1:58 pm

Mid: Explain it to me then: What exactly does gay marriage have to do with the man who was arrested for dealing heroin down the street?

Atokal: I think any person can marry any other person if there is informed consent. That means age limits (18+ probably), it means that animals and plants are off-limits (they can't give consent, not that i don't think the argument that allowing gays to marry is going to cause a rush of farmers going to marry their cows is the stupidest thing i've ever heard), and so on. If two consenting adults want to get married, what the fuck do I care?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 2:07 pm

Sueven wrote:Mid: Explain it to me then: What exactly does gay marriage have to do with the man who was arrested for dealing heroin down the street?

The continuing loss of any sort of morality. Not really that hard to figure out what I'm saying. It's not encrypted.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 9, 2004, 2:09 pm

Drinsic Darkwood wrote:
Drasta wrote:
Brotha wrote:
Aranuil wrote:
kyoukan wrote:I don't even understand how he gets away with it. Amending the fucking constitution based around your own backwards religious morality is such a flagrant disregard for the way the country was founded that it very seriously should be grounds for impeachment.
Totally agree, and fortunately there are checks and balances in place for exactly this type of bullshit. Of course it's a crapshoot as to whether or not 3/4 congress will lose their fucking minds too. Did I mention I hate politicians?
Bush isn't the one trying to impose his "backwards morality"- it's the seven juges in Mass. who are trying to impose their "backwards morality." Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Two men or two women saying they love each other is NOT marriage. That's not "morality"- that's fact. There should never need to be any kind of amendment to state this, but unfortunately some people are on a moral crusade, determined to change how we think of homosexuality by changing the law, not by changing our hearts and minds.
i should slap you for that post

A fucking dictionary wrote:marriage
mar·riage n.

1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
Slap yourself while you're at it. Brotha's opinion's might be stupid, but his facts aren't. If you don't agree with the definition of marriage as it stands, have the law re-write it. But as it stands, that is the current definition and the original.

Do I agree with Bush? Not in the slightest. I think Voronwe(?) put it best, when saying something along the lines of "how does Bruce and Steve's marriage affect my own?" Honestly, for those of you agreeing with Bush, why do you care? I'm religious; but I'm not some fanatical close-minded moron. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm not going to judge you based on it, or hate you because of it. As mentioned before though; don't try to use bible references if you have no idea of what they're about. If you honestly think the relationship between Jonathan and David was sexual/marital you're just fucking stupid. I could ramble on a while, but it's late and I'd rather not, considering most of my opinions have already been stated.

2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

4. Any intimate or close union.

take a look at number 4

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 2:11 pm

Atokal wrote:A question for everyone who believes that the "defination" of Marriage should be changed.

Where does this stop?

How many special interest groups are going to be applying for a change in status to the defination?

The slippery slope theory should have some bearing on this discussion.

Does allowing every single group the rights to marriage define us as an enlightened society?

Just some questions I would like to see answered.

Yeah good question.

If man + man = ok and woman + woman = ok, then does:

man + 3 women = ok?

woman + 3 men = ok?

man + goat = ok?

If they love eachother then is it okay to legally allow them to marry? Why not make beastiality and polygamy normalized as you are asking we make gays?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 2:25 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yeah good question.

If man + man = ok and woman + woman = ok, then does:

man + 3 women = ok?

woman + 3 men = ok?

man + goat = ok?

If they love eachother then is it okay to legally allow them to marry? Why not make beastiality and polygamy normalized as you are asking we make gays?

You're just trying to appeal to the emotional side of us at the moment. This has nothing to do with our 'gut feelings.' Many of us would shudder to see men kiss. But...It's their right.

As far as I'm concerned...

man + 3 women = ok? Yes.

woman + 3 men = ok? Yes.

man + goat = ok? No, it's an issue of consent as well as hygene. Very odd STDs could start to appear even...The goat wouldnt even know what's going on at the ceremony... "Do you, goat take this man to be your..." "Baaaahhhhhh *munches on some grass.*"

man/woman + corpse = ok? No, it's an issue of consent as well as hygene. It's also an issue of respect for the dead. Even if the deceased puts it in their will that they'd like to get some after the fact, corpses become full of bacteria and maggots.

There's also the issue of Taxes. Goats and Corpses do not have need of such things, so there is no reason to change their legal status...

-=Lohrno

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 2:28 pm

Lohrno wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yeah good question.

If man + man = ok and woman + woman = ok, then does:

man + 3 women = ok?

woman + 3 men = ok?

man + goat = ok?

If they love eachother then is it okay to legally allow them to marry? Why not make beastiality and polygamy normalized as you are asking we make gays?
You're just trying to appeal to the emotional side of us at the moment. This has nothing to do with our 'gut feelings.' Many of us would shudder to see men kiss. But...It's their right.

As far as I'm concerned...

man + 3 women = ok? Yes.

woman + 3 men = ok? Yes.

man + goat = ok? No, it's an issue of consent as well as hygene. Very odd STDs could start to appear even...The goat wouldnt even know what's going on at the ceremony... "Do you, goat take this man to be your..." "Baaaahhhhhh *munches on some grass.*"

man/woman + corpse = ok? No, it's an issue of consent as well as hygene. It's also an issue of respect for the dead. Even if the deceased puts it in their will that they'd like to get some after the fact, corpses become full of bacteria and maggots.

There's also the issue of Taxes. Goats and Corpses do not have need of such things, so there is no reason to change their legal status...

-=Lohrno

Who are you to draw the line? Once you start saying anything but normal is normal you can't stop.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 2:33 pm

It is very fucking simple. The line is "consenting adults."

A corpse does not consent. An animal does not consent. A plant does not consent. Three men do consent. Three women do consent. A man and a woman consent. A man and a man consent.

What is so fucking difficult about that blatantly obvious concept?

Separately, how is someone dealing heroin down the street from you a continued loss of morality? Are you saying that people haven't been dealing drugs for hundreds of years? Around 1850, gay people were not allowed to marry (or even really exist, pretty often) but Britain still went to war with China to force the Chinese to accept hundreds of pounds of opium. Exactly how has morality eroded since then? Further, how exactly is homosexuality immoral? I do not know if you are religious or not, but either way, please answer the question without appealing to religion, otherwise your answer is irrelevant.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 9, 2004, 2:34 pm

mid: do you consider me a devient from playing with you in everquest? i am morally fucked up and a genetic defect that should be smiten from this earth? well?

and man + 3 women ... sure why not? if they all feel comfy with it go for it ... how is it directly effecting how you are stickin your wife at night in the bed?

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 2:38 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote: Who are you to draw the line? Once you start saying anything but normal is normal you can't stop.

I've given you logical responses to all of your questions and even added one for you. I personally wouldn't get into any of those, but I respect the differing views of others. Do you have respect for your fellow humans?

But if you really want to press that question, then put it to Bush. Who is he to draw the lines when taking away our freedoms? Once we say that's normal we won't stop...

-=Lohrno

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 9, 2004, 2:39 pm

how about this question .. what really is normal?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » February 9, 2004, 2:39 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If they love eachother then is it okay to legally allow them to marry? Why not make beastiality and polygamy normalized as you are asking we make gays?

Polygamy was answered above. Beastility isn't between two consenting adults and even referring to beastiality in the same breath as homosexuality further proves how utterly stupid you are.

The continuing loss of any sort of morality.

Right. So you're saying that the world hasn't been populated with homosexuals during it's existance? And yes, this is your own opinion so it should have nothing to do w/ law.

It is a genetic defect.

Keep telling yourself that.

All the television shows with gays on it sickens me. The love fest that the media has for gays now is repulsive.

Big fucking deal, another show not aimed at your kkk mentality. It shouldn't be a surprise to you but since you're so fucking retarded it probably is: homosexuals spend money too.

Banning gay marriage is an attempt by some to try and put a stop to this dumbing down of America.

Irony personified

You go ahead and look at things one issue at a time, but you don't see the connections. Everything is connected. Every action has a reaction, a consequence. Everything is tied in together.

Deep Thoughts by Midnyte Ragebringer

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » February 9, 2004, 2:41 pm

Drasta wrote:how about this question .. what really is normal?

As far as I'm concerned that's a worthless question since everyone will agree and disagree on some aspects of everything. Basically it's all relative. We just have to make sure people aren't getting hurt is all.

-=Lohrno

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 9, 2004, 2:49 pm

im wanting to see how mid replies to my ... am i fucked up should i be smiten am i a devient and a defect question ...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 3:12 pm

Drasta wrote:im wanting to see how mid replies to my ... am i fucked up should i be smiten am i a devient and a defect question ...

I was at lunch sorry for the delay.

Drasta, I do not consider you a deviant. Nor do I consider homosexuals deviant. They cannot help who they are, no more than a straight man can help who he is. I just don't like how the media machine is trying to force everyone to accept it as normal.

(Answering the "what is normal" question) Normal is a man and a woman. If you argue that, then you are an asshole who cannot see simple truths.

Why is a man and a woman normal? Well, how the fuck did you come to exsist? hmmmm, well a man and a woman had sex and reporoduced is how.

If homosexuality were to grow beyond 6% of the population to lets say 50%, how small would the world become you think? Where would the babies come from? Use your fucking heads.

To answer previous comments...no I am not religious, in fact, I am anti-religion. I find it humorous that millions of people pray to invisible men in the sky and believe in some all powerful being, yet they have not one shred of proof. Not a sliver.

And someone mentioned the KKK. I do not subscribe to such violent, prejudice groups. I only speak and feel and think in common sense and truths.

My religion and philosophy is what I call Realism.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 9, 2004, 3:15 pm

Aranuil none of the things you stated can even compare to what we're talking about. Yes, at one time people thought the world was flat but it was proven otherwise. No one will ever "discover" that two men being together is the same as a man and woman being together for very obvious reasons. No one is saying two men can't get "joined" and live together in happiness forever and ever or whatever bullshit. People are saying that "marriage" just does not include this. IMO the law should treat everyone equally, but the law should not change what marriage is. And face it, this isn't about gays getting equal rights and benefits under the law, this is about some "progressive" people trying to shove their morality down our throats by forcing us to equivocate a gay relationship with a heterosexual one.

Arundel wrote:We hear Oklahoma is nice, and that mortgages are cheap there, the people are God-fearing

More "god-fearing" stereotyping. Where have I even hinted at me being Christian ever on this board?

And Sueven, as I said before, native-americans did a lot of things we didn't. Thankfully our society isn't based on them. Furthermore, did any Indians ever get "married?" Or did they get "joined" under a different ceremony, which I think would be perfectly acceptable for anyone who feels like it?

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » February 9, 2004, 3:20 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:

man + 3 women = ok?

Are you at all in touch with the world you live in? In some cultures not only is it ok, it is (to use your own word) "normal" and the idea of having one wife is absurd. So does that mean their entire belief structure and way of living should change because of YOUR beliefs? Does that make them wrong and you right? Fuck no. It just means you have different beliefs, respect that and don't assume yours is right for everyone just because it is YOURS.

Your belief that marriage existing between only 2 members of the opposite sex is based on religion. I don't BELIEVE in religion, I believe "normal" is whatever works for two consenting adults. Many others either don't believe in a religion, might follow a different religion or have totally different ideas of "normal". We are all governed by the same LAWS so stop trying to get the "law" to govern the rest of us according to YOUR beliefs.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 9, 2004, 3:26 pm

Atokal wrote:A question for everyone who believes that the "defination" of Marriage should be changed.

Where does this stop?

How many special interest groups are going to be applying for a change in status to the defination?

The slippery slope theory should have some bearing on this discussion.

Does allowing every single group the rights to marriage define us as an enlightened society?

Just some questions I would like to see answered.

It stops where you and others want it to.

As many as want to.

No, what defines us as an enlightened society is the ability to take into consideration all requests from all interest groups seeking recognition in any aspect of life and then deciding as a society which changes would be best for our people.

But considering you live in Canada - not sure why you care

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 3:35 pm

Lynxe wrote:Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
man + 3 women = ok?
Are you at all in touch with the world you live in? In some cultures not only is it ok, it is (to use your own word) "normal" and the idea of having one wife is absurd. So does that mean their entire belief structure and way of living should change because of YOUR beliefs? Does that make them wrong and you right? Fuck no. It just means you have different beliefs, respect that and don't assume yours is right for everyone just because it is YOURS.

Your belief that marriage existing between only 2 members of the opposite sex is based on religion. I don't BELIEVE in religion, I believe "normal" is whatever works for two consenting adults. Many others either don't believe in a religion, might follow a different religion or have totally different ideas of "normal". We are all governed by the same LAWS so stop trying to get the "law" to govern the rest of us according to YOUR beliefs.

Yeah....no.

Your philosophy is often shared by people who have fucked up views on life. There is a normal. You mgiht not like, but there is. Yes, there are cultured who think multiple wives is normal, but they are wrong. Let's try not to talk about fucked up third world countries cultures when discussing a topic in an advanced society such as America. Should we really compare what the fucking mormons do to our society? Should we really compare what Iraqi's, Iranians or whatever other fucked up third world countries beleieve in that, to our society? They live in fucking huts and torture people to death for having premarital sex. Come on man, use your fucking head.

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » February 9, 2004, 3:41 pm

Brotha said:

this isn't about gays getting equal rights and benefits under the law

Yes it is.

In most areas of the world Gays couples are not recognized by insurance the same as a male/female married or common-law couple. They do not get benefits such as health coverage, accidental death insurance, dental and more.

In the eyes of the law, a gay couple could live together for years and if one of the couple dies, their property/assists such as their home, furniture, bank accounts risk being awarded to the deceased's family instead of the spouse living there because their union is not recognized as a legal marriage or common-law. Imagine making a home with someone for 20 years and having it ripped away from you because you were not allowed to be "married".

At some jobs, people get company benefits such as "family leave" when their loved one is ill or bereavement leave if that loved one or a close family member dies but gay couples may not qualify. Imagine if your wife's father died and you could not get time off work to be there for her.

I could go on but you should see the point, this is very much a legal bond.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » February 9, 2004, 3:44 pm

some tribes in africa do weird piecing shit..... should we brand them as not normal? even though in their tribe it is the thing to do? they do arranged marriages as well ... thats normal everyday pratices to them just like drinking coffee to some people

and i wasn't asking what normal is in reguards to men and woman i mean ... what is normal in general? and how do you tell people from other cultures what your normal is if their normal is different from theirs? if you go to japan i think are you gonna be walkin all over their floors with shoes?

and if you don't think homosexuals are devient .. why do you compare them to selling herion?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 9, 2004, 3:46 pm

Furthermore, did any Indians ever get "married?" Or did they get "joined" under a different ceremony ... ?

It's hard to say, since languages don't literally translate from one to another.

Additionally, I think your objection that "the native americans did lots of things that we don't do" is ludicrous. Americans 50 years ago did lots of things we don't do. If that's a valid argument, then how the fuck do you justify arguing tradition as a primary reason for maintaining the marital status quo?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » February 9, 2004, 3:46 pm

Lynxe wrote:Yes it is.

Like I said before, the senators of Mass. asked the Mass. Supreme Court for a compromise- attach all the legal benefits and rights of a marriage to civil unions, and they were refused. And do you see people protesting that gays should be allowed to marry or that the benefits/rights of marriage should be attached to civil unions?

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 9, 2004, 3:47 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynxe wrote:Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
man + 3 women = ok?
Are you at all in touch with the world you live in? In some cultures not only is it ok, it is (to use your own word) "normal" and the idea of having one wife is absurd. So does that mean their entire belief structure and way of living should change because of YOUR beliefs? Does that make them wrong and you right? Fuck no. It just means you have different beliefs, respect that and don't assume yours is right for everyone just because it is YOURS.

Your belief that marriage existing between only 2 members of the opposite sex is based on religion. I don't BELIEVE in religion, I believe "normal" is whatever works for two consenting adults. Many others either don't believe in a religion, might follow a different religion or have totally different ideas of "normal". We are all governed by the same LAWS so stop trying to get the "law" to govern the rest of us according to YOUR beliefs.
Yeah....no.

Your philosophy is often shared by people who have fucked up views on life. There is a normal. You mgiht not like, but there is. Yes, there are cultured who think multiple wives is normal, but they are wrong. Let's try not to talk about fucked up third world countries cultures when discussing a topic in an advanced society such as America. Should we really compare what the fucking mormons do to our society? Should we really compare what Iraqi's, Iranians or whatever other fucked up third world countries beleieve in that, to our society? They live in fucking huts and torture people to death for having premarital sex. Come on man, use your fucking head.

Mid, you're a friend of mine and I respect you but..

What the fuck? That is the most arrogant thing I've ever heard - just because America happens to be the most powerful nation on the earth does NOT give it the power to decide who is and who isn't the right society...

If this country were truly based so heavily and so methodically on the Catholic religion or fuck, most if not any religion - it would truly understand the concept that no one country or society is right...people use religion as a cover up for the reason they really don't want things to change: they cannot comprehend a man marrying a man

As for your comments about third world countries - my family is entirely from Venezuela and I resent that shit...I've been to many many third world countries in my eighteen years on this earth and I'll tell you right now - they are not the way you describe them...if anything some of them, imo, psychologically and socially are more advanced than America ever will be

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 9, 2004, 3:48 pm

Drasta wrote:some tribes in africa do weird piecing shit..... should we brand them as not normal? even though in their tribe it is the thing to do? they do arranged marriages as well ... thats normal everyday pratices to them just like drinking coffee to some people

and i wasn't asking what normal is in reguards to men and woman i mean ... what is normal in general? and how do you tell people from other cultures what your normal is if their normal is different from theirs? if you go to japan i think are you gonna be walkin all over their floors with shoes?

It's funny how every one is always concerned about other countries cultures. No, we shouldn't go into a different country and expect them to change their culture for us. Then why is it so easy for America to have to change it's culture? Why must America continue to bend over and take it in the ass for the gays? huh?

If it is completely inconceivable for someone to ask the bone in lip retards to change their culture, then why should we change our laws?

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » February 9, 2004, 3:53 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Being gay isn't normal. It is a genetic defect. All the television shows with gays on it sickens me. The love fest that the media has for gays now is repulsive.

So don't watch those shows. Being retarded/handicapped isn't normal either. Sometimes it's even a genetic defect. Do handicapped people sicken you too? Should they be disallowed marriage?

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:As a parent of two young children it scares me where the world is going. Last week there were 2 murders in schools in America. Last week a young girl was kidnapped, on camera, by a 16 time past offender. Last week they busted a family two blocks away from me who were selling heroine out of there house. Last week an activist supreme court in Massachusetts basically said fuck you to George Bush's state of the union address and said gay marriage is fine.

Well obviously the "family" selling heroine wasn't gay because families come from marriage and gays can't be married. So why is this even relevant?

Perhaps the murders in schools have to do with repressed children living in fear of their gayness. Having to tell their intolerant parents that they aren't normal - and having their parents sickened by them? You don't know.

The world has never been a wonderful happy-go-lucky place to live - which is probably why many people look to religion has hope for a wonderful fantasy life beyond. Regardless, and to reiterate my point, you can't blame the state of the world (murder, kidnappings, drugs, etc.) on gays and their desire to be recognized as legally joined.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Drasta, I do not consider you a deviant. Nor do I consider homosexuals deviant. They cannot help who they are, no more than a straight man can help who he is. I just don't like how the media machine is trying to force everyone to accept it as normal.

No you just see them as sickening repulsive genetic defects. Course everyone is entitled to an opinion. One of the perks to the world we live in today..

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:(Answering the "what is normal" question) Normal is a man and a woman. If you argue that, then you are an asshole who cannot see simple truths.

Why is a man and a woman normal? Well, how the fuck did you come to exsist? hmmmm, well a man and a woman had sex and reporoduced is how.

What does normal have to with legal anyways? It's completely irrelevant. Handicapped people aren't necessarily normal - yet legal building regulations require us to have handicapped access ramps, elevators, parking spaces. To cater to the few who may need. It's called being considerate and tolerant - and respecting your fellow humans who may be a bit different, but not any less human than you.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:If homosexuality were to grow beyond 6% of the population to lets say 50%, how small would the world become you think? Where would the babies come from? Use your fucking heads.

You certainly are naive if you think babies have anything to do with marriage. I certainly wasn't a product of my parent's marriage. But they still cared for me.

So to answer your question, babies would still come from the 50% of the heterosexual (married or not) population. As it is now, the world is overly populated. There are more babies than I care to think about that no one even wants, who are thrown away and/or abused - who certainly weren't conceived by gay copulation.

Life will go on if gays are allowed legal rights as a couple. Would be nice if they were allowed adoption rights as well. Afterall, someone needs to care for all the heterosexually produced abandoned children.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Should we really compare what Iraqi's, Iranians or whatever other fucked up third world countries beleieve in that, to our society? They live in fucking huts and torture people to death for having premarital sex. Come on man, use your fucking head.

How about you using yours?

You already posted about all the school murders, kidnappings, drug busts we have in our society. Are we really all that better? Would more governmental control and anti-tolerance campaigns really improve us? Or would less control be preferable? Then the gays might marry!

These countries you speak of are ruled by their religious, moral and "normal" beliefs. Those that don't conform are abused. Intolerance does not breed a healthy society.

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Should we really compare what the fucking mormons do to our society?

They are as much of a part of our society as you are. The KKK was formed off of a form of hate and intolerance very similar to the one you are demonstrating right here. And you say you don't believe in hate groups.. (yet)

The best part of our society.. is that I can say that you disgust me. And your intolerant and repressive views are sickening. And how I feel sorry for your children being forced to grow up with such a close-minded parent.

... And you can keep having your views - without fear of being beaten, abused and dominated by our government.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » February 9, 2004, 3:54 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Drasta wrote:some tribes in africa do weird piecing shit..... should we brand them as not normal? even though in their tribe it is the thing to do? they do arranged marriages as well ... thats normal everyday pratices to them just like drinking coffee to some people

and i wasn't asking what normal is in reguards to men and woman i mean ... what is normal in general? and how do you tell people from other cultures what your normal is if their normal is different from theirs? if you go to japan i think are you gonna be walkin all over their floors with shoes?
It's funny how every one is always concerned about other countries cultures. No, we shouldn't go into a different country and expect them to change their culture for us. Then why is it so easy for America to have to change it's culture? Why must America continue to bend over and take it in the ass for the gays? huh?

If it is completely inconceivable for someone to ask the bone in lip retards to change their culture, then why should we change our laws?

Why? Because this entire country, the entire institution that you so adore is completely and utterly based on ADAPTATION, CHANGE and EVOLUTION (not in science terms you bible thumping freaks)...this country was built on change and adapting to our surroundings - all of it, every single godamn line in that constitution validates that ideal..

We, as the most powerful nation in the world, must realize that it is OUR duty to set the example for the rest of the planet - as well as realizing that because we -are- the most powerful and diverse nation in the world, we need to been open to that fact and accept that we are not all the same, culture changes, life changes and countries change - and no matter how much you may want it to...America will never stay the same, it will always be in a state of continuous change and with that, we as a country need to adapt to that change and conform to it - or it will eventually be our own downfall

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » February 9, 2004, 3:55 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:
Atokal wrote:A question for everyone who believes that the "defination" of Marriage should be changed.

Where does this stop?

How many special interest groups are going to be applying for a change in status to the defination?

The slippery slope theory should have some bearing on this discussion.

Does allowing every single group the rights to marriage define us as an enlightened society?

Just some questions I would like to see answered.
It stops where you and others want it to.

As many as want to.

No, what defines us as an enlightened society is the ability to take into consideration all requests from all interest groups seeking recognition in any aspect of life and then deciding as a society which changes would be best for our people.

But considering you live in Canada - not sure why you care

We have the same issues before our legislature right now called bill C250 IIRC.

Right now it seems that the consensus is that marriage could/should be defined by consenting ADULTS.

My question is that at some point (perhaps even now) someone somewhere has an agenda to marry kids, pets, barnyard animals. In the 1950's if you had told anyone that in the year 2004 Homosexuals would have gay pride days, be on television, and be openly challenging the government regarding the right to marriage you would have been called an idiot. Yet here we are. Do I think that being gay should be criminalized? No.
Do I have gay friends? Yes
Do I have a difference of opinion on how far society should bend to accommodate all the "special interest groups"? Yes

My question speaks to the road of erosion, on that road where does the erosion of morals begin, where does it end. Can you state catagorically that the acceptance of the gay lifestyle by mainstream society will not lead to acceptance of other forms of "love"?

How people choose to live their lives is their business, when the rights of the few begin to infringe on the rights of the many I have a problem. The fact that having a differing opinion (anti-gay marriage) leads to be shouted down as a bigot, intolerant, etc is the mark of an intolerant gay agenda and their supporters.

Look at the bashing people take on this board for having religious beliefs. They are told it is OK to be a christian but do not carry those beliefs outside your church or home. I would say that is intolerance at its finest.

My real question is are we moving towards a more enlightened society or a society where desires fuel the decisions being made on our behalf.

Waiting on Aaeamdar to jump on this thread

masteen · Post by **masteen** » February 9, 2004, 4:01 pm

The whole problem I have with this is that the federal government IS trying to legislate "normalcy." The concept this country is based on gives cities and states power over this kinda stuff BECAUSE minorities were persecuted by the majority in whatever shithole (Europe included) they came from.

The beauty of this country is the fact that both intolerant rednecks and assfucking queers can find a community to accept them. I'm opposed to the Fed doing something EITHER WAY on this issue. This is something that should be handled by the states.