The shameful gay marriage ban.

[JoshuaB]

The problem with condoms is that they used to be more effective than they are now. Granted, if you're not abstinent, and you're going to have sex, they are the most effective thing to use, period. However, over the years, the virus has mutated, as any virus does, and some strains are amazingly small, even for viruses. Some strains, not all, but some are so small that can fit through the pores in latex. That's why a lot of nurses/doctors in the Emergency Department are now "double-gloving."

[Sir Tim Drake]

I suppose there is wiggle room in the terms "help" and "harm". Helping prevent AIDs with a condom can be likened to eradicating poverty by putting a dime in the Salvation Army bucket outside the K-mart. A help but not a preventive and certainly not a significant help.

What a ridiculous analogy. There is a zero percent chance that the act of putting ten cents in a Salvation Army bucket will prevent anyone from becoming poor. Donating a dime to the Salvation Army is not a preventative measure. It's an attempt to rectify a harm that already exists. By contrast, there is at least an 85 to 90 percent chance that the act of wearing a condom will prevent the wearer from getting AIDS, even if this act doesn't help the overall problem of AIDS.

Do you really believe that these two situations are analogous, or are you deliberately trying to fool us?

[Spackling Compound]

Do you really believe that these two situations are analogous, or are you deliberately trying to fool us?

Condoms don't stop AIDS.

Dimes don't destroy poverty.

If I wanted to fool you, I'd say "HEY A MONKEY" and look up and then you'd look up and then I'd say, "Fooled ya!"

[Pixies Chick]

Briareos did not lie. He repeated some information that may or may not be accurate.
Uh-huh. It's not HIS original lie - it's somebody else's lie, and he's just repeating it and therefore has no responsibility for whether it's true?

Odd sense of honesty y'all have. I thought you guys were in the responsibility party.
It just is inaccurate on the "right" side of the argument whereas "gay marriage is not harmful to society" is deemed to be "truth".

Condoms don't prevent AIDS is as true as Gay Marriage is not harmful to society.
In bizarro world. Condoms DO prevent the spread of AIDS; Gay marriage does not...

you know what? Keep it. I give up on you. You have all the knowledge you will ever have. Welcome to the rest of your life -- a monotonous existence of repeating the answers that people who are manipulating you want you to say, as you dwell in a state mental stagnation.

There's no point to this. Canada will lead, and we will see this played out.

You really ought to be ashamed. People who need information may read this and believe you. How can you live with that? Don't bother replying. I really don't want to know.

[stealthwise]

Condoms don't stop AIDS.

Dimes don't destroy poverty.

I've only been loosely following this thread, but this post is just all kinds of incorrect.

If I have sex with someone using a condom, and later find out that the person had HIV, then I'll be damned glad at the very least that I wore a condom. It's not guaranteed to save me, but it strongly increases my odds of not getting it. It's a basic case of HIV being a Sexually Transmitted Disease, and condoms being a device that prohibits the majority of sexual fluids being passed from person to person. If the condom breaks or is used improperly, then the odds that it will be of any help will go down, but there is a distinct difference between wearing and not wearing one.

You could destroy poverty for a person with enough dimes too though.

[Cam63]

I'd stick with the condoms, Spack'. There's a chance one may fail, but taking cold showers for the rest of their life may not be an attractive proposition to many.

[the4thpip]

The problem with condoms is that they used to be more effective than they are now. Granted, if you're not abstinent, and you're going to have sex, they are the most effective thing to use, period. However, over the years, the virus has mutated, as any virus does, and some strains are amazingly small, even for viruses. Some strains, not all, but some are so small that can fit through the pores in latex. That's why a lot of nurses/doctors in the Emergency Department are now "double-gloving."
Yeah, but as far as I'm aware, the latex used in the studies is glove-quality, and not condom quality. It's one of those pseudo-facts the vatican likes to spread.

[the4thpip]

Condoms don't stop AIDS.

"
Yes they fricken do.
They stopped me from getting AIDS.
Stop being a fool, ok? You'll live better.

[the4thpip]

85-90% is the prevention rate I've heard.

And it gets even higher than that when a condom is
properly used .
Condom failure results (for example) when the condom is used with an oil-based lubricant which breaks up the latex. Failure results when a condom is used over genital piercings. Failure results when a condom is applied with an air bubble in it.

If you stay away from those errors, there is only a tiny risk of infection left.

Which is why condom education is such an important part of sex education, and why "abstinence only" and "condoms aren't safe" education kill people.

[Samurai]

And it gets even higher than that when a condom is
properly used .
Condom failure results (for example) when the condom is used with an oil-based lubricant which breaks up the latex. Failure results when a condom is used over genital piercings. Failure results when a condom is applied with an air bubble in it.

If you stay away from those errors, there is only a tiny risk of infection left.

Which is why condom education is such an important part of sex education, and why "abstinence only" and "condoms aren't safe" education kill people.
Except abstinence is 100% effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, and the fact is condoms AREN'T 100% safe... people need to know that, or else they'll wrongly believe it to be an infallible, impervious shield against infection....

[Spackling Compound]

So far I've been called in this thread:
The responsibility party member.
Fool.
Little turd.
Ass.

I'm a bit shocked that otherwise understanding and non-judgemental people would resort to such arguments.

And personally, a dime will be a boon to one man with no money. A condom may stop HIV to a man having sex with an HIV infected man. BUT..dimes and condoms do not eradicate the problem.

There is a valid ideology that homosexuality is just as much a social problem as poverty. Social problem in the sense that it is particular to some countries and/or cultures. In some cultures neither is a problem or even both may be a virtue.

[Pixies Chick]

So far I've been called in this thread:
The responsibility party member.
Fool.
Little turd.
Ass.

I'm a bit shocked that otherwise understanding and non-judgemental people would resort to such arguments.

Well, this is all about YOU, isn't it? Poor baby.
Oops, now I've just added to the list.

You can read. You have the internet. You could know the truth, but you refuse. Not for you the burden of learning and growing. No, your ignorance must be tolerated and hailed sacred.

Bullshit. Grow up. You choose not to use your powers for good, and you're getting called on it. If you had integrity, you wouldn't search for the barest threads of plausible deniability to help you spread misinformation; you'd want people to have the facts.

But you don't care. You don't care that people will suffer and die from misinformation. What's truly ironic is that probably more people will get pregnant from this same misinformation. More abortions. From your works you will know them.

[Spackling Compound]

Uh-huh. It's not HIS original lie - it's somebody else's lie, and he's just repeating it and therefore has no responsibility for whether it's true?

Odd sense of honesty y'all have. I thought you guys were in the responsibility party.

In bizarro world. Condoms DO prevent the spread of AIDS; Gay marriage does not...

you know what? Keep it. I give up on you. You have all the knowledge you will ever have. Welcome to the rest of your life -- a monotonous existence of repeating the answers that people who are manipulating you want you to say, as you dwell in a state mental stagnation.

There's no point to this. Canada will lead, and we will see this played out.

You really ought to be ashamed. People who need information may read this and believe you. How can you live with that? Don't bother replying. I really don't want to know.

Sad.
Actually, I'm not saying Gay Marriage will prevent/promote AIDS. I am saying that Gay Marriage will be harmful to society.

The rest of your response is just not like you and I'm disappointed.

Personally, to bring "shame" into the equation, you drop the better part of you that I have respected. A bit puritanical.

I won't give up on you. And I respect you and like your presence here and there's nothing you can do to change that.

[Spackling Compound]

Well, this is all about YOU, isn't it? Poor baby.
Oops, now I've just added to the list.

You can read. You have the internet. You could know the truth, but you refuse. Not for you the burden of learning and growing. No, your ignorance must be tolerated and hailed sacred.

Bullshit. Grow up. You choose not to use your powers for good, and you're getting called on it. If you had integrity, you wouldn't search for the barest threads of plausible deniability to help you spread misinformation; you'd want people to have the facts.

But you don't care. You don't care that people will suffer and die from misinformation. What's truly ironic is that probably more people will get pregnant from this same misinformation. More abortions. From your works you will know them.

What misinformation am I disseminating? And who the hell would make sexual choices from reading a COMICS BOARD??? And who, in the name of Circe, would dare say that they will consult a faceless poster with the moniker SPACKLING COMPOUND when it comes to their information on human sexuality?

The first portion of your response here, again, disappoints me. You're a better woman than that. Whoever you are, you are much much better.

[Pixies Chick]

Sad.
Actually, I'm not saying Gay Marriage will prevent/promote AIDS. I am saying that Gay Marriage will be harmful to society.

The rest of your response is just not like you and I'm disappointed.

Personally, to bring "shame" into the equation, you drop the better part of you that I have respected. A bit puritanical.

I won't give up on you. And I respect you and like your presence here and there's nothing you can do to change that.Asking that your information be correct is puritanical? You live on the top of the world, and you are diseminating information that could ruin lives. You think it's polite to pretend that you're not doing it? I think it's harmful to you that you are so unconcerned about the way you hurt people. It would be unkind to not mention it.

[Spackling Compound]

Asking that your information be correct is puritanical? You live on the top of the world, and you are diseminating information that could ruin lives. You think it's polite to pretend that you're not doing it? I think it's harmful to you that you are so unconcerned about the way you hurt people. It would be unkind to not mention it.



Suggesting that I should be ashamed is puritanical.
Reading sinister motives into my valid, legitimate and common ideology concerning homosexuality is also unfair.

I am polar opposite to many of your opinions but I respect that you represent a worldview informed by sources that are legitimate and sound. As are mine.

[Tom]

There is a valid ideology that homosexuality is just as much a social problem as poverty.Could you explain that one? Social problem in the sense that it is particular to some countries and/or cultures. In some cultures neither is a problem or even both may be a virtue.Homosexuality is found in all cultures. The only cultures where it's "not a problem" are those cultures that seek to eradicate it completely by outlawing it and/or killing homosexuals.

[Spackling Compound]

The only cultures where it's "not a problem" are those cultures that seek to eradicate it completely by outlawing it and/or killing homosexuals.


Or those who openly embrace gay lifestyles.

[Tom]

Or those who openly embrace gay lifestyles.
Like Oz or Wonderland? Sorry, there are some cultures where it's easier to be gay than others but there aren't any that "openly embrace" it.

And I was hoping you could answer my question.

[Spackling Compound]

Like Oz or Wonderland? Sorry, there are some cultures where it's easier to be gay than others but there aren't any that "openly embrace" it.

And I was hoping you could answer my question.

Canada is coming to some tolerance of homosexual lifestyles. Certainly Holland, Germany and many of the countries of Europe are also either accepting of gay lifestyles if not outright encouraging of it.

If you're looking for a place where it's easy being gay, then I don't know where that would be. I don't anyplace where it's "easy" to be anything.

[Tom]

Canada is coming to some tolerance of homosexual lifestyles. Certainly Holland, Germany and many of the countries of Europe are also either accepting of gay lifestyles if not outright encouraging of it.

If you're looking for a place where it's easy being gay, then I don't know where that would be. I don't anyplace where it's "easy" to be anything.
I didn't say I was looking for anything, but it's incorrect to say that there are any cultures that "openly embrace" homosexuality.

Still wondering if you could answer the first question.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I am saying that Gay Marriage will be harmful to society.

And you base this on what, exactly? What is the basis for you stating this? I can say that invisible fairies are responsible for the effects we call gravity, but unless I can offer some evidence, there's no reason why anyone should pay any attention to such a proposition. What evidence or reason do you present why anyone should agree with you?

[Spackling Compound]

I didn't say I was looking for anything, but it's incorrect to say that there are any cultures that "openly embrace" homosexuality.

Still wondering if you could answer the first question.

There are some cultures, primitive ones, that men engage in intercourse with younger men as a rite of passage. Maybe that's not "homosexual" but it is openly embraced in that it is not challenged, derided or punished.
Also in some religious communities, there is a wide acceptance of gays.

And Homosexuality is a social problem for people who see the gay lifestyle as undermining the natural order of a union between a man and a woman in marriage based solely on their ability to procreate. The gay union is not directed toward procreation and therefore does not enjoy the same status as heterosexual marriage. To make "gay" a normative lifestyle is an affront to the understanding of the makeup of the human family based on a male and female parent committed to one another exclusively for a lifelong union and to raise children if they have children.

Gay marriage would be a social problem if the above is accepted as a "popular" cultural understanding.
Then again, a militaristic offensive government is also for some a social problem.

[TCJohnson]

So, by that same token, people who are not able to procreate (men and women who are sterile) should not be allowed to get married. Or, couples who just do not want to have children ever should not be allowed to get married. Because in your ideology, the only reason to get married is to procreate. Anything else would be "an affront to the understanding of the makeup of the human family based on a male and female parent committed to one another exclusively for a lifelong union and to raise children if they have children."

[JeffreyWKramer]

And Homosexuality is a social problem for people who see the gay lifestyle as undermining the natural order of a union between a man and a woman in marriage based solely on their ability to procreate. The gay union is not directed toward procreation and therefore does not enjoy the same status as heterosexual marriage. To make "gay" a normative lifestyle is an affront to the understanding of the makeup of the human family based on a male and female parent committed to one another exclusively for a lifelong union and to raise children if they have children.

Gay marriage would be a social problem if the above is accepted as a "popular" cultural understanding.
Then again, a militaristic offensive government is also for some a social problem.


That isn't a social problem - it is a problem for some segments of society, which feel society as a whole must validate and follow the rules of that segment. Such thinking equates to either totalitarian tendencies or severe insecurities on the part of those people for whom diversity of opinion is a problem.

There's no evidence that homosexuality, gay marriage, etc. are innately problematic for society. The rule of law still applies, people can still vote and worship as they wish, the trains still run on time.

You might as well state that racial equality is a social problem because it disturbs Klansmen and Nazis.

[Spackling Compound]

.

You might as well state that racial equality is a social problem because it disturbs Klansmen and Nazis.
In a society of Klansmen and Nazis, it would be.

I'm talking about the common good.

[Spackling Compound]

That isn't a social problem - it is a problem for some segments of society, which feel society as a whole must validate and follow the rules of that segment.

In the USA, the segment is a majority.
There is no "feeling" that the whole society must validate and follow the rules of the majority. It comes out as protecting the overriding sensus populi.

[Pixies Chick]

Suggesting that I should be ashamed is puritanical.
Reading sinister motives into my valid, legitimate and common ideology concerning homosexuality is also unfair.

I am polar opposite to many of your opinions but I respect that you represent a worldview informed by sources that are legitimate and sound. As are mine.
I didn't say you were sinister. I said you lack original thought. Very different thing. Even this argument is a cliche. Have you missed the last 10 years of political action? I'd rather be rude than have more people die. Nothing is gained by treating false claims as true.

I've never claimed to be polite, but I try to be honest.

[Spackling Compound]

I didn't say you were sinister. I said you lack original thought. Very different thing. Even this argument is a cliche. Have you missed the last 10 years of political action? I'd rather be rude than have more people die. Nothing is gained by treating false claims as true.

I've never claimed to be polite, but I try to be honest.

Killing people is sort of sinister.
How am I promoting the death of people? Koko not understand.

[JeffreyWKramer]

In the USA, the segment is a majority.
There is no "feeling" that the whole society must validate and follow the rules of the majority. It comes out as protecting the overriding sensus populi.

You seem to miss the point that in the US, minorities have rights also. While the majority can get their way in many things, all are supposed to be treated with fairness and dignity. If "majority rules" was always the guiding principle, then things like desegregation would never have occurred.

Of course, if the religious right and the social conservatives were more organized, they would have derided the US Supreme Court, back during Brown v. the Board of Education as "activist judges."

[Tom]

There are some cultures, primitive ones, that men engage in intercourse with younger men as a rite of passage. Maybe that's not "homosexual" but it is openly embraced in that it is not challenged, derided or punished.
Also in some religious communities, there is a wide acceptance of gays.I would have to say that I don't share your definition of "openly embracing" something. Allowing and accepting something is not the same things as openly embracing it.
And Homosexuality is a social problem for people who see the gay lifestyle as undermining the natural order of a union between a man and a woman in marriage based solely on their ability to procreate. The gay union is not directed toward procreation and therefore does not enjoy the same status as heterosexual marriage. To make "gay" a normative lifestyle is an affront to the understanding of the makeup of the human family based on a male and female parent committed to one another exclusively for a lifelong union and to raise children if they have children.

Gay marriage would be a social problem if the above is accepted as a "popular" cultural understanding.
I also do not share your definition of a "social problem." In fact I'll go so far as to say your definition is wrong because it doesn't demonstrate any harmful effects on society. It only demonstrates the fact that people have philosophical differences. Poverty causes overt, easily demonstrable harm to society. Gay marriage and homosexuality do not.

[Spackling Compound]

In fact I'll go so far as to say your definition is wrong because it doesn't demonstrate any harmful effects on society. It only demonstrates the fact that people have philosophical differences. Poverty causes overt, easily demonstrable harm to society. Gay marriage and homosexuality do not.

That's because we don't have gay marriages and the reason we don't is that there has been a perception (to use a light term) that it is harmful to society.

And then the circle continues..

[Spackling Compound]

You seem to miss the point that in the US, minorities have rights also. While the majority can get their way in many things, all are supposed to be treated with fairness and dignity. If "majority rules" was always the guiding principle, then things like desegregation would never have occurred.

Of course, if the religious right and the social conservatives were more organized, they would have derided the US Supreme Court, back during Brown v. the Board of Education as "activist judges."
I don't think that's correct.

The majority never was against segregation. a small minority (southern states) were told by the majority to allow segregation. In some segments, those southerners feel like the majority has done great harm to them and been intolerant of their way of life.

[Tom]

That's because we don't have gay marriages and the reason we don't is that there has been a perception (to use a light term) that it is harmful to society.

And then the circle continues..
No, no. Pay attention. You said that it was a valid point of view that homosexuality was as serious a social issue as poverty. My point is that since there are no demonstable bad effects on society, such as there are with poverty, that this is not a valid point of view. This applies to gay marriage as well. The fact that there are people who philosophically disagree with gay marriage does not make it a social problem. Otherwise, all disagreements would be labeled social problems and I would be free to make the ridiculous statement that "It is a valid view that conservatives are as big a social problem as drug dealers."

[JeffreyWKramer]

That's because we don't have gay marriages and the reason we don't is that there has been a perception (to use a light term) that it is harmful to society.

Some of my clients perceive that they have super powers, or that the CIA is monitoring their thoughts via laser satellites. Since there's no proof that gay marriage would be objectively harmful to anything, there's no more reason we should give credence to that perception than we should to the perceptions of those who worry about gay marriage.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't think that's correct.

Then you're wrong.

The majority never was against segregation. a small minority (southern states) were told by the majority to allow segregation. In some segments, those southerners feel like the majority has done great harm to them and been intolerant of their way of life.


Yep, you're wrong. While some of the Southern states were the worst offenders, and the places where segregation was codified into law, there were places through the US - not just the south - that resisted desegregation of schools. The fact that such segregation occurred by forces other than statute didn't make it any less true, nor did the absence of cops with dogs and firehoses.

[TCJohnson]

I would still like to know that if gays shouldn't marry because their focus is not reproducing, what about heterosexual couples that are incapable of reproducing? Should they not be allowed to get married?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I would still like to know that if gays shouldn't marry because their focus is not reproducing, what about heterosexual couples that are incapable of reproducing? Should they not be allowed to get married?

Interestingly, I've yet to see any vaguely coherent justification from a religious conservative about this one that doesn't come down to "homosexuality is a sin, because the Bible says so, but it doesn't say heterosexual marriage is a sin." But then they keep bringing up the nonsense "reproduction" argument anyhow, even though it clearly doesn't apply to all heterosexual marriages.

[stealthwise]

I'm talking about the common good.


Please define in detail.

[Spackling Compound]

No, no. Pay attention. You said that it was a valid point of view that homosexuality was as serious a social issue as poverty. My point is that since there are no demonstable bad effects on society, such as there are with poverty, that this is not a valid point of view. This applies to gay marriage as well. The fact that there are people who philosophically disagree with gay marriage does not make it a social problem. Otherwise, all disagreements would be labeled social problems and I would be free to make the ridiculous statement that "It is a valid view that conservatives are as big a social problem as drug dealers."

All problems of human society are thought out philosophically. The way the USA handles poverty with our philosophy is probably different from the way Iraq handles the problem or even sees it as a problem. Those who oppose homosexual unions see that this is destructive to the basic human family and sexual orientation appropriate to a man or woman.They are saying that there are great ills (based, albeit on Judeo-Christian theology) that will result.

And you know actually, you may think it ridiculous, but conservatives are as big a social problem as drug dealers. That is, if you think drug dealing is "a problem".

[Spackling Compound]

I would still like to know that if gays shouldn't marry because their focus is not reproducing, what about heterosexual couples that are incapable of reproducing? Should they not be allowed to get married?
Shorthand answer, no. The norm sets the standard and the law isn't particular. So if the man and woman are incapable as individuals, they still are capable by nature of their gender.

I think in some states, however, it may be grounds for annulment if there is an inability on the part of either spouse to have children. I may not be correct but I think that was once true, anyway.

[Tom]

All problems of human society are thought out philosophically. The way the USA handles poverty with our philosophy is probably different from the way Iraq handles the problem or even sees it as a problem. Those who oppose homosexual unions see that this is destructive to the basic human family and sexual orientation appropriate to a man or woman.They are saying that there are great ills (based, albeit on Judeo-Christian theology) that will result.

And you know actually, you may think it ridiculous, but conservatives are as big a social problem as drug dealers. That is, if you think drug dealing is "a problem".
You've moved the goal posts. A social problem is by definition a problem that has a harmful effect on society. Since no one has ever been able to point to any demonstrable ill effects that gay marriage or even homosexuality cause to society, then it is not a social problem. Simply "saying" that great ills will result doesn't make it so.

[Spackling Compound]

You've moved the goal posts. A social problem is by definition a problem that has a harmful effect on society. Since no one has ever been able to point to any demonstrable ill effects that gay marriage or even homosexuality cause to society, then it is not a social problem. Simply "saying" that great ills will result doesn't make it so.

For our Judeo-Christian society, gay marriage is harmful in that it is not what the Christian concept of God, nor nature will permit and to have the state override both is a harm.

The majority ascribes to that view and therefore make up the Common Good. The harm is to undermine the will of God and nature.

That's all I got, so if you promise not to put a hex on me, I promise not to burn you at the stake.

[Tom]

For our Judeo-Christian society, gay marriage is harmful in that it is not what the Christian concept of God, nor nature will permit and to have the state override both is a harm.

The majority ascribes to that view and therefore make up the Common Good. The harm is to undermine the will of God and nature.

That's all I got, so if you promise not to put a hex on me, I promise not to burn you at the stake.
Demonstrable effects, spackling. These don't apply.

[TCJohnson]

Shorthand answer, no. The norm sets the standard and the law isn't particular. So if the man and woman are incapable as individuals, they still are capable by nature of their gender.

I think in some states, however, it may be grounds for annulment if there is an inability on the part of either spouse to have children. I may not be correct but I think that was once true, anyway.

Ok, Gay marriage is not the norm. But since when should the norm decide the law? Since when should the law demand people to conform. America was based on the idea of individuality. If you are saying that something outside of the norm is harmful to society, then that means that society will have no room to grow.

[Yoda]

But since when should the norm decide the law? Since when should the law demand people to conform.

Isn't that what the law does demand of people? That they conform to the norms of society?

[TCJohnson]

Protecting individual rights is a large part of what the law is created to do. Most of the laws concentrating on preventing people from taking away the rights of others. It does not, or at least should not, prevent people from from deciding how to live their lives.

If the laws were there to force people to conform to the norm, we would not have home schooling since the norm is to send people to public school. We would not have hindu or wiccan marriages, or any other marriages that were not outside the judeo-christian norms. We would never have rock'n'roll music since it was so far out from the norm at the time. At one point we had laws against inter-racial marriages since they were not the norm, but they were removed because they were unconstitutional.

The laws are supposedly set up so we can function as individuals while living together in a society.

[Spackling Compound]

Demonstrable effects, spackling. These don't apply.

The demonstrable harm is that the value of marriage between a man and woman that is the ultimate expression of complimentary relationships with the production of children as a benefeit of the union is undermined by the frustrated act of sexuality that is not open nor capable of the transmission of life.

The undermining of the value of sex with the necessary commitment to children born of the union is harmful because it seperates further the sense that sex is personal.

The body of a man is complimented sexually by the body of a woman. Any same sex intercourse has to "customize" that which is lacking. Nature abhors a vacuum. Which also explains that in a gay relationship one becomes the man and the other the woman.

You will deride me about this, I'm sure then in other posts "gay friendly" posters will start talking about what looks gay or who dresses gay which legitimizes that, for men, there is a feminine feature that is prominent only in gay men.

Demonstrable: Gay relationships model the sexual act frustrated by the natural form and shape and function of the body.

I can't prove "harm" in necrophilia, pedophilia, or beastiality either except in the terms of the disunion of sex and the act of procreation.

[Ian Boothby]

I can't prove "harm" in necrophilia, pedophilia, or beastiality either except in the terms of the disunion of sex and the act of procreation.

Well the argument could then be extended to rape because like pedophilia and beastiality there's no consent for sex. So using that logic there's no harm in rape.

[Spackling Compound]

If the laws were there to force people to conform to the norm, we would not have home schooling since the norm is to send people to public school. We would not have hindu or wiccan marriages, or any other marriages that were not outside the judeo-christian norms. We would never have rock'n'roll music since it was so far out from the norm at the time. At one point we had laws against inter-racial marriages since they were not the norm, but they were removed because they were unconstitutional.



The norm is not public school. The law instructs that children be educated not necessarily where they may be educated. The law also says what they need to know at a certain age or rather taught at a certain age but not how or where they are taught.

Hindu and Wiccan marriages occur outside the law. There is a civil document and a religious ceremony. Law does not legislate the validity of a religious wedding. Gay marriages are performed in some churches but not legally recognized.

The law doesn't legislate rock and roll. The norm of music is undefinable. The law defined decency in music and entertainment based as it does today. Exhibit A: Superbowl half time show.

Constitutional laws are about rights and they are about preserving a culture as well as protecting individuals.

[Spackling Compound]

Well the argument could then be extended to rape because like pedophilia and beastiality there's no consent for sex. So using that logic there's no harm in rape.

Rape is a crime because it is forceable unconsentual sex.

Pedophilia may or may not be consentual. Under our laws now, we paint a wide brush over people from infancy to age 17 and assume they cannot consent.

Beastiality? Animals have limited rights. The laws protect them from sex with humans only because of the same purtianical Judeo-Christian view we have on homosexuals.

[That JonoGuy]

So, by that same token, people who are not able to procreate (men and women who are sterile) should not be allowed to get married. Or, couples who just do not want to have children ever should not be allowed to get married. Because in your ideology, the only reason to get married is to procreate. Anything else would be "an affront to the understanding of the makeup of the human family based on a male and female parent committed to one another exclusively for a lifelong union and to raise children if they have children."

And by that same token Love shouldn't even be a primary in the equation. It's just for procreation after all. So Any Man and women can marry as long as they procreate.

[That JonoGuy]

That's because we don't have gay marriages and the reason we don't is that there has been a perception (to use a light term) that it is harmful to society.

And then the circle continues..

Perception and fact are two different things. There is no facts that say Gay Marriage is harmfull to society. It just isn't.

[Spackling Compound]

And by that same token Love shouldn't even be a primary in the equation. It's just for procreation after all. So Any Man and women can marry as long as they procreate.

Yes and the law doesn't require love for marriage.

You can't "prove" love.

[That JonoGuy]

Yes and the law doesn't require love for marriage.

You can't "prove" love.


Of course. yet, I'm sure many would be offended if a couple entered into a union without any type of caring relationship toward one another.

You can change the rules around as much as you want to fit your point of view, but it still doesn't make it right.

[Spackling Compound]

Perception and fact are two different things. There is no facts that say Gay Marriage is harmfull to society. It just isn't.

Ok, let me back up a bit.

I vote against Gay legal marriage based on my religious convictions. If I can keep my religion uncompromised by the state by a vote, then I vote for what is best for the expression of my faith.

So to be married gay isn't a problem to me in the libertine society we have but it does concern the expression of my religion.

Gay marriage is harmful to the religious society that I belong to.
Abortion, Capital Punishment, Unilateral strikes on civilians in war are harmful to my religious society.

Aside from gay marriage, they are all legal. And my religion is intact. However, you let me vote on any of the issues? I'm voting on the basis of my faith.

[Spackling Compound]

Of course. yet, I'm sure many would be offended if a couple entered into a union without any type of caring relationship toward one another.

You can change the rules around as much as you want to fit your point of view, but it still doesn't make it right.

I don't know if anyone would be offended. People marry for reasons of finance, status and parentage all the time without a modicum of love for one another. Offensive or not, it's legal.

The marriage law is built to protect the family from desertion of responsibilities to another person and in particular the children of the union.

I'm not changing rules. Look in any LEGAL document on marriage and see if love is required.
What have I changed to fit my point of view?

[Pixies Chick]

Ok, let me back up a bit.

I vote against Gay legal marriage based on my religious convictions. If I can keep my religion uncompromised by the state by a vote, then I vote for what is best for the expression of my faith.

So to be married gay isn't a problem to me in the libertine society we have but it does concern the expression of my religion.

Gay marriage is harmful to the religious society that I belong to.
Abortion, Capital Punishment, Unilateral strikes on civilians in war are harmful to my religious society.

Aside from gay marriage, they are all legal. And my religion is intact. However, you let me vote on any of the issues? I'm voting on the basis of my faith.


Which is your right, no question. You can be against gay marriage, or condoms, or cheese if it violates your faith. But know it for what it is - a belief, not a fact. No one has to agree with your belief. Me, I'll look at the facts.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Spackling, you apparently have no concept of what "demonstrable" means.

As to not being able to demonstrate the harm of pedophilia, well, I can do that very, very well... namely, creation of trauma and disruption of psychological and sexual development. These are things which can be directly observed and empircally demonstrated.

So, demonstrate some actual, tangible harm caused by gay marriage or homosexuality and specific to either or both of those. Until you can do that, you have demonstrated absolutely nothing other than the ability to spout bullshit.

Reproduction? Irrelevant. Nobody seriously considers heterosexual sex which does not produce offspring to be harmful, after all.

[Tom]

The demonstrable harm is that the value of marriage between a man and woman that is the ultimate expression of complimentary relationships with the production of children as a benefeit of the union is undermined by the frustrated act of sexuality that is not open nor capable of the transmission of life.

The undermining of the value of sex with the necessary commitment to children born of the union is harmful because it seperates further the sense that sex is personal.
Spackling, these are not demonstrable effects - at all. Your argument comes down to "people don't like it and it might make them feel bad about themselves." The first part is absolutely true but not an ill effect on society and the second part is something you're surmising and still doesn't have an ill effect on society.
The body of a man is complimented sexually by the body of a woman. Any same sex intercourse has to "customize" that which is lacking. Nature abhors a vacuum. Which also explains that in a gay relationship one becomes the man and the other the woman.This is a very sad and very untrue account of what gay relationships are. Homosexuality is about anal sex about as much as marriage is about spousal abuse.
You will deride me about this, I'm sure then in other posts "gay friendly" posters will start talking about what looks gay or who dresses gay which legitimizes that, for men, there is a feminine feature that is prominent only in gay men.I'm not even sure what you're saying here.
Demonstrable: Gay relationships model the sexual act frustrated by the natural form and shape and function of the body.Even if this statement were true (it's not), this is not a demonstrably bad effect on society.

[TCJohnson]

Gay marriage is harmful to the religious society that I belong to.
Abortion, Capital Punishment, Unilateral strikes on civilians in war are harmful to my religious society.

The problem I have with this is that America is made up of MANY religious society, and deciding law based on just one of those religious, or several, or even an majority seems...un-american.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Ok, let me back up a bit.

I vote against Gay legal marriage based on my religious convictions. If I can keep my religion uncompromised by the state by a vote, then I vote for what is best for the expression of my faith.

So to be married gay isn't a problem to me in the libertine society we have but it does concern the expression of my religion.

Gay marriage is harmful to the religious society that I belong to.
Abortion, Capital Punishment, Unilateral strikes on civilians in war are harmful to my religious society.

Aside from gay marriage, they are all legal. And my religion is intact. However, you let me vote on any of the issues? I'm voting on the basis of my faith.

So, you're saying you're okay with forcing others to comply with the docrine of your faith, essentially.

It's nice to know you have so little regard for individual liberties.

So, would you be okay with being forced to live under the doctrine of some faith antithetical to yours, if the other faith did that via vote?

If not, you're a hypocrite of the worst sort. Just like everyone else who lives in a nation that is founded on the concept of liberty but would vote to force their own standards onto others' relationships and private lives.

[Spackling Compound]

Rind Study (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm) Spackling, you apparently have no concept of what "demonstrable" means.

As to not being able to demonstrate the harm of pedophilia, well, I can do that very, very well... namely, creation of trauma and disruption of psychological and sexual development. These are things which can be directly observed and empircally demonstrated.

So, demonstrate some actual, tangible harm caused by gay marriage or homosexuality and specific to either or both of those. Until you can do that, you have demonstrated absolutely nothing other than the ability to spout bullshit.

Reproduction? Irrelevant. Nobody seriously considers heterosexual sex which does not produce offspring to be harmful, after all.

Pedophilia? Traumatic? Disruptive psychologically and sexually?
That used to be what they said about homosexuality. Rind Study (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm)

Actually, using the same data that was used to remove homosexuality from the psych. disorders list, this research shows there is no real long lasting trauma to adults who have had adult-child sexual relations.

I explained my point from my own faith perspective. In the community of faith, there is harm.

[Spackling Compound]

So, you're saying you're okay with forcing others to comply with the docrine of your faith, essentially.

It's nice to know you have so little regard for individual liberties.

So, would you be okay with being forced to live under the doctrine of some faith antithetical to yours, if the other faith did that via vote?

If not, you're a hypocrite of the worst sort. Just like everyone else who lives in a nation that is founded on the concept of liberty but would vote to force their own standards onto others' relationships and private lives.

My faith actually isn't forced on others. It seems to be in line with a majority of this country.

And actually , I do live under a doctrine antithetical in many ways to my own.

[Samurai]

Some of my clients perceive that they have super powers, or that the CIA is monitoring their thoughts via laser satellites. Since there's no proof that gay marriage would be objectively harmful to anything, there's no more reason we should give credence to that perception than we should to the perceptions of those who worry about gay marriage.
Are you trying to say that anyone who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman is as clinically insane as someone who thinks the CIA is after them because they have super powers?

[Spackling Compound]

The problem I have with this is that America is made up of MANY religious society, and deciding law based on just one of those religious, or several, or even an majority seems...un-american.

You just said that laws shouldn't be based on a majority...

Please explain how laws should be constructed?

[Mia]

So, you're saying you're okay with forcing others to comply with the docrine of your faith, essentially.

It's nice to know you have so little regard for individual liberties.

So, would you be okay with being forced to live under the doctrine of some faith antithetical to yours, if the other faith did that via vote?

If not, you're a hypocrite of the worst sort. Just like everyone else who lives in a nation that is founded on the concept of liberty but would vote to force their own standards onto others' relationships and private lives.

How is one's voting on an issue, having a disregard for individual liberties?

[Spackling Compound]

Which is your right, no question. You can be against gay marriage, or condoms, or cheese if it violates your faith. But know it for what it is - a belief, not a fact. No one has to agree with your belief. Me, I'll look at the facts.

No one has to agree with my belief but I am grateful that many do agree with it!
And my beliefs are strengthened by the facts not in spite of.

[JeffreyWKramer]

How is one's voting on an issue, having a disregard for individual liberties?

If you are voting to discriminate against others, and to remove choices from availability to them - particularly choices like those in this case, which really don't affect anyone other than those involved in them - then that is not showing regard for the rights of those people to choose for themselves.

[Spackling Compound]

If you are voting to discriminate against others, and to remove choices from availability to them - particularly choices like those in this case, which really don't affect anyone other than those involved in them - then that is not showing regard for the rights of those people to choose for themselves.

Absolutely. If what you percieve to be going on is wrong and the government gives you the opportunity to vote for or against it, then you have the right to vote against others.

[TCJohnson]

You just said that laws shouldn't be based on a majority...

Please explain how laws should be constructed?

The pilgrims came to this country because of religious freedom. In England they were the minority and therefor were not allowed to practice their religion. So they came to this country to do it.

We need laws so that we can live together, we need well defined rules. But this should not be majority rules. The minority rights MUST be recognized and upheld for us to remain true to the principlas America was founded on. If the majority, the majority religion in this case, forces their beliefs on the minority, then we would be guilty of the same things that caused the pilgrims to flee their country. Only now it won't be pilgrims, it will be gays, and it won't be the new land, it would be Canada.

Our laws should protect our individual freedoms. Being robbed, raped, murdered, beaten...these are all things that are denying you your individual freedom, your freedom to live, to decide who to have sex with, to even live. Individual freedoms is one of the most important concepts of American society. And not allowing gays to married is denying them their individual freedom.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Rind Study (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm)

Pedophilia? Traumatic? Disruptive psychologically and sexually?
That used to be what they said about homosexuality. Rind Study (http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.htm)

Actually, using the same data that was used to remove homosexuality from the psych. disorders list, this research shows there is no real long lasting trauma to adults who have had adult-child sexual relations.

I'll read and critique it later, when I have time. I strongly suspect what you're saying and what this paper says are not congruent. Meanwhile, there are literally thousands of pieces of evidence that demonstrate the negative impact of child sexual abuse. Beyond that, even if trauma is not evident by the time the kids are adults, it is very much evident in kids.

In other words, if a broken bone will eventually heal, and the person who experienced it regains function, does that mean it would be okay for me to come over and break several of your bones?


I explained my point from my own faith perspective. In the community of faith, there is harm.

And I say that's nonsense. Harm has to be something that can be demonstrated empirically. If I try to sue someone, claiming they harmed me, I have to provide proof. No proof = no harm.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Are you trying to say that anyone who believes marriage should be between a man and a woman is as clinically insane as someone who thinks the CIA is after them because they have super powers?

I'm saying neither belief is based in any sort of verifiable evidence.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Absolutely. If what you percieve to be going on is wrong and the government gives you the opportunity to vote for or against it, then you have the right to vote against others.

A very unAmerican sentiment when it comes to the issue at hand.

[Spackling Compound]

And I say that's nonsense. Harm has to be something that can be demonstrated empirically. If I try to sue someone, claiming they harmed me, I have to provide proof. No proof = no harm.

Fine. Then prove how the ban on gay marriage is harmful.

[TCJohnson]

And I say that's nonsense. Harm has to be something that can be demonstrated empirically. If I try to sue someone, claiming they harmed me, I have to provide proof. No proof = no harm.

Well, actually I disagree with this...in that if a religious group thinks that is harmful, then it probably is harmful to them...just because it is all in their head does not mean it is not true.

However, should we base law on what a religious group thinks? Should the rights of one group of people outweight the rights of others? (And I think the answer is no).

[Samurai]

I'm saying neither belief is based in any sort of verifiable evidence.
So why would one be deemed "insane" and the other not? It seems to me you are saying you see no real difference between the 2. Heck, "belief in a God/Gods" is not scientifically verifiable either, so are all religious people insane too? If the criteria is "Are they a danger to themself or others", certainly I could see the gay community making an argument that religous folks who don't believe in gay marriage are "harming" them...

[Evan Waters]

Fine. Then prove how the ban on gay marriage is harmful.

Gay couples are denied the tax benefits, legal rights, etc. that accompany marriage.

[Mia]

If you are voting to discriminate against others, and to remove choices from availability to them - particularly choices like those in this case, which really don't affect anyone other than those involved in them - then that is not showing regard for the rights of those people to choose for themselves.


I don't follow. I saw nothing in that posters message saying that was their aim or purpose.

[Mia]

Gay couples are denied the tax benefits, legal rights, etc. that accompany marriage.

Can they not be given those rights without changing the definition of marriage?

[TCJohnson]

They also don't have the right to visit their sick ones in hospitals because they are not married, or have the right to sign any emergency documents when they do go to the hospital.

It is also segregating society...which causes resentment which is always harmful to society.

[Samurai]

Gay couples are denied the tax benefits, legal rights, etc. that accompany marriage.
So are those people who want to marry their dog, 3 women at once, their brother/sister, a dead body, or a water cooler... Every person in this country has the same right: to marry 1 adult consenting person of the opposite gender. Period. Some people want to expand that to include other things, but how is not expanding it harmful to society as a whole?

[Samurai]

They also don't have the right to visit their sick ones in hospitals because they are not married, or have the right to sign any emergency documents when they do go to the hospital.

It is also segregating society...which causes resentment which is always harmful to society.
If gay marriage is legalized, there will be a great deal of resentment from the religious community... which is more damaging to society, 2% resentful or 70% resentful?

[Evan Waters]

So are those people who want to marry their dog, 3 women at once, their brother/sister, a dead body, or a water cooler...

Wow, in one post you've managed to compare homosexuality to bestiality, incest and necrophilia.

Go for broke, throw pedophilia in there.

[Evan Waters]

If gay marriage is legalized, there will be a great deal of resentment from the religious community... which is more damaging to society, 2% resentful or 70% resentful?

Except the 2% aren't just "resentful", they're essentially second-class citizens.

[Evan Waters]

Can they not be given those rights without changing the definition of marriage?


I don't see why "changing the definition" would be more harmful than denying basic equality to homosexual relationships.

[Samurai]

Wow, in one post you've managed to compare homosexuality to bestiality, incest and necrophilia.

Go for broke, throw pedophilia in there.
Someone else already did all of those and pedophilia earlier, I'm not breaking ground here. And I never said they are all the same thing, or equal in any way. I just said many people would like to expand the definition of marriage, and why will we draw a hard, immutable line after the precedence of permitting gay marriage is established? On what grounds will other attempts at expanding the definition be denied, and will it be "fair" to those who complain "But gays and straights can all marry now, why should WE be discriminated against?"

[Samurai]

I don't see why "changing the definition" would be more harmful than denying basic equality to homosexual relationships.
Because A) marriage is sacred to a ton of people in the US and worldwide, and they'll do whatever that can to stop govt from mucking about in their sacrament, B) it sets a very bad precedent for further changes, and C) we can give gay couples equal legal rights without touching marriage at all. New Zealand just legalized civil unions, NOT gay marriage, and most see it as a great victory. We could do the same here and appease most of the combatants on each side (though not all, I'm sure...)

[TCJohnson]

If gay marriage is legalized, there will be a great deal of resentment from the religious community... which is more damaging to society, 2% resentful or 70% resentful?

For one thing, you are saying that all the religious community would be against this, and that is not true. Only part of the religious community would be against it.

Secondly, the statistics I have seen on people who are gay are closer to 10%.

But that is only one part of the equation. Individual rights must be protected in this country. The right of the individual is extremely important in American law.

[Mia]

I don't see why "changing the definition" would be more harmful than denying basic equality to homosexual relationships.


What equality is missing?

[Samurai]

For one thing, you are saying that all the religious community would be against this, and that is not true. Only part of the religious community would be against it.

Secondly, the statistics I have seen on people who are gay are closer to 10%.

But that is only one part of the equation. Individual rights must be protected in this country. The right of the individual is extremely important in American law.
Polls have consistently shown about 65-70% of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. About 45% are opposed to civil unions.

Not the 10% myth again... that was debunked earlier... it is a myth based on 1 flawed study decades ago by Dr. Kinsey. Over 35 more recent studies have shown the real number is about 2%.

Individuals have equal rights now... to marry a single adult person of the opposite gender. We are talking about expanding those rights to give new legal status to a currently unrecognized form of union.

[Mia]

They also don't have the right to visit their sick ones in hospitals because they are not married, or have the right to sign any emergency documents when they do go to the hospital.

It is also segregating society...which causes resentment which is always harmful to society.


What segragration?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Fine. Then prove how the ban on gay marriage is harmful.

I don't need to. From a civil liberties viewpoint, people should be able to do what they wish unless it can be shown to be harmful to society in general. The burden of proof is on those who would restrict or ban gay marriage.

[TCJohnson]

Segregating people into those who have the right to marry their loved ones and those who do not.

And if the polls showed that many people think that interactial couples should not be allowed to marry, then that should be the law?

[TCJohnson]

If a poll shows that Christianity is the most common religion, should we make that the state religion and force everybody to conform?

[JeffreyWKramer]

So why would one be deemed "insane" and the other not? It seems to me you are saying you see no real difference between the 2. Heck, "belief in a God/Gods" is not scientifically verifiable either, so are all religious people insane too? If the criteria is "Are they a danger to themself or others", certainly I could see the gay community making an argument that religous folks who don't believe in gay marriage are "harming" them...

You're the one bringing in the insanity issue here, not me.

My point is that making policy on the basis of beliefs which cannot be verified or shown to be based in fact is a very, very bad idea.

Hell, if someone was stating that we shouldn't maintain a military based on the belief that God watches out for the US, and thus we should place our trust in God, would you consider that sound public policy?

Fact is, it makes *every bit as much sense* as this idea that gay marriage would somehow cause harm society. How? What tangible harm? In the absence of proof, there is no grounds for taking such claims any more seriously than the ranting of some schizophrenic individual.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I don't follow. I saw nothing in that posters message saying that was their aim or purpose.

People who vote to ban gay marriage are voting to not allow gays to make their own decisions to live in the sort of relationship they wish, and to deny gay relationships the same legal status and benefits accorded to committed straight relationships.

[That JonoGuy]

Because A) marriage is sacred to a ton of people in the US and worldwide, and they'll do whatever that can to stop govt from mucking about in their sacrament,

Goverment marriage and religious marriage are two different things. There is nothing "sacred" about what the government gives out.

B) it sets a very bad precedent for further changes,

And of course change is bad. :rolleyes:

C) we can give gay couples equal legal rights without touching marriage at all. New Zealand just legalized civil unions, NOT gay marriage, and most see it as a great victory. We could do the same here and appease most of the combatants on each side (though not all, I'm sure...)

Or we could do a more logical thing and take the term marriage out of the government and issue Civil unions instead. Leaving Marriage back where it can keep its sacredness, in it religious context.

But of course that would be too easy.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Can they not be given those rights without changing the definition of marriage?

Probably not, unless one specifically draws up wording to a civil unions statute that specifically states that civil unions carry all of the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities inherent in marriage.... and the gay marriage opponents will try to prevent that, too, as they did in the recent ballot initiatives, which invalidated both gay marriage and civil unions.

[TCJohnson]

I am not sure I approve of gay marriages either (although full support civil unions with FULL rights). But what right do I have to force my values on anybody else? What rights does the majority to enforce their values on the minority?

[Mia]

Segregating people into those who have the right to marry their loved ones and those who do not.




Okay then.

If that is the case, then is a person who is prevented by law from marrying a blood relative facing segration too?

[JeffreyWKramer]

So are those people who want to marry their dog, 3 women at once, their brother/sister, a dead body, or a water cooler... Every person in this country has the same right: to marry 1 adult consenting person of the opposite gender. Period. Some people want to expand that to include other things, but how is not expanding it harmful to society as a whole?

So, once again you want to equate homosexuality with bestiality and necrophilia.

Do you honestly believe that? If not, then you really should stop making such comparisons. They are wrong-headed, insulting and disgusting.

[Corrina]

If gay marriage is legalized, there will be a great deal of resentment from the religious community... which is more damaging to society, 2% resentful or 70% resentful?

Yes, well, when Harry Truman integrated the U.S. Military, the figure was probably close to 90 percent resentful.

There were lots of very resentful people about women getting the right to vote. It still surprises me that a change occured, but then again, it was an very close vote, and the deciding vote was cast by a man whose mother called him up just before, insisting he approve the amendment.

The point is that the resentment of the majority is not always a good reason to not do something.

[TCJohnson]

Or we could do a more logical thing and take the term marriage out of the government and issue Civil unions instead. Leaving Marriage back where it can keep its sacredness, in it religious context.

But of course that would be too easy.


yes! Yes! Yes! This is exactly what I have been saying, and I was told I was a bigot because of it in another thread!

[JeffreyWKramer]

If gay marriage is legalized, there will be a great deal of resentment from the religious community... which is more damaging to society, 2% resentful or 70% resentful?


When desegregation became the law of the land, an awful more whites were unhappy than there were blacks who benefitted. Yet it was right.

Same here.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Someone else already did all of those and pedophilia earlier, I'm not breaking ground here. And I never said they are all the same thing, or equal in any way. I just said many people would like to expand the definition of marriage, and why will we draw a hard, immutable line after the precedence of permitting gay marriage is established? On what grounds will other attempts at expanding the definition be denied, and will it be "fair" to those who complain "But gays and straights can all marry now, why should WE be discriminated against?"
Bestiality and necrophilia innately involve nonconsent - or, at very least, misuse of another's property, in the case of necrophilia.

This is not true of homosexuality.

As to polyamorous relationships, there's nothing inherently wrong with those, either.

[TCJohnson]

Okay then.

If that is the case, then is a person who is prevented by law from marrying a blood relative facing segration too?

The laws are more to prevent them from having children, which will mean the child will probably be deformed and is therefor harmful to the child. That shouldn't be encouraged and harming children should be unlawful.

How is gay marriage harming children?

[Mia]

People who vote to ban gay marriage are voting to not allow gays to make their own decisions to live in the sort of relationship they wish, and to deny gay relationships the same legal status and benefits accorded to committed straight relationships.


Still don't follow. Are gays and lesbians (in the US) not already making descisions to be in relationships?


And like I said in a previous post, if it is a question of affording gays the same legal status and benefits accorded to committed to straight relationships. Then that can be done without changing the definition of marriage.

[JeffreyWKramer]

If that is the case, then is a person who is prevented by law from marrying a blood relative facing segration too?

So, you are equating homosexuality and incest. Neat.

How do you like being the moral equivalent of a Klansman?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Still don't follow. Are gays and lesbians (in the US) not already making descisions to be in relationships?


And like I said in a previous post, if it is a question of affording gays the same legal status and benefits accorded to committed to straight relationships. Then that can be done without changing the definition of marriage.

Can you not fucking read? Or not read past the first sentence?

[TCJohnson]

Still don't follow. Are gays and lesbians (in the US) not already making descisions to be in relationships?


When you enter into a marriage, you are giving your partner certain rights. By not allowing gays to marriage, that means they cannot make the decision to give their partners those rights.

[Mia]

The laws are more to prevent them from having children, which will mean the child will probably be deformed and is therefor harmful to the child. That shouldn't be encouraged and harming children should be unlawful.

How is gay marriage harming children?



Okay.

Let's say that the couple is not interested in having children. They get themselves 'fixed' in order that a child is not conceived. Is is it still segregation to to prevent blood relatives from marrying.

[TCJohnson]

So you are saying that there should be a law requiring some people to be fixed in order to be married?

And you still haven't explained why you think homosexuality is the same as incest.

[Mia]

When you enter into a marriage, you are giving your partner certain rights. By not allowing gays to marriage, that means they cannot make the decision to give their partners those rights.

Once again...then let the laws be changed to afford gays and lesbians the rights and privalages they are looking for. Why does the definition of marriage have to be changed?

[That JonoGuy]

Why does the definition of marriage have to be changed?

Why does it NOT have to be changed?

[Mia]

So, you are equating homosexuality and incest. Neat.

How do you like being the moral equivalent of a Klansman?


No, I made no such assertion. You did.

The previous poster said

"Segregating people into those who have the right to marry their loved ones and those who do not.

So I would like to know is someone who is prevented from marrying a blood relative facing "segregation" as well.

[Mia]

And you still haven't explained why you think homosexuality is the same as incest.


I made no such assertion at all. In a post above you said (in relation to gay marriage):

"Segregating people into those who have the right to marry their loved ones and those who do not.


Then if this is the case, I would like to know if someone who is prevented from marrying their blood relative facing segration as well?

[Evan Waters]

What equality is missing?

Legal equality- being treated equally by the government.

[TCJohnson]

Actually, you did imply it by comparing the two. If you thought the things were completely different you would not have made the comparison, would you?

Now let me ask you this...what gives you the right to tell other people what rights they should have or shouldn't have?

[Spackling Compound]

Gay couples are denied the tax benefits, legal rights, etc. that accompany marriage.
So are single people...

[Spackling Compound]

Except the 2% aren't just "resentful", they're essentially second-class citizens.
I'd say 2% of the posters here are conservatives and we're pretty much lower than second class citizens.

Homosexuals aren't classified by orientation...yet.

[Spackling Compound]

I don't need to. From a civil liberties viewpoint, people should be able to do what they wish unless it can be shown to be harmful to society in general. The burden of proof is on those who would restrict or ban gay marriage.
For the Muslim, it is harmful to have a barbeque pork sandwich.
For the Jew, it is harmful to work on the Sabbath.
For the Christian, it is harmful for a man to marry another man.

Harm? In a shorthand sense, eternal damnation and the loss of heaven.

For those of us who believe in that sort of thing, pretty harmful.

[StoneGold]

Yes, well, when Harry Truman integrated the U.S. Military, the figure was probably close to 90 percent resentful.

There were lots of very resentful people about women getting the right to vote. It still surprises me that a change occured, but then again, it was an very close vote, and the deciding vote was cast by a man whose mother called him up just before, insisting he approve the amendment.

The point is that the resentment of the majority is not always a good reason to not do something.
ZING!!!

No, seriously, good post.

[Samurai]

So are single people...
Yeah, I'm single, and I'm being unfairly denied those benefits... why should I HAVE to find a life-partner in order to pay fewer taxes, etc? That's discrimination! :)

[TCJohnson]

For the Muslim, it is harmful to have a barbeque sandwich.
For the Jew, it is harmful to work on the Sabbath.
For the Christian, it is harmful for a man to marry another man.



So, by your logic, we should also make it unlawful for people to eat a ham sandwhich (Muslims can still eat barbeque, just not ham.) And we should make it illegal to work on the Sabbath.

[TCJohnson]

Yeah, I'm single, and I'm being unfairly denied those benefits... why should I HAVE to find a life-partner in order to pay fewer taxes, etc? That's discrimination! :)


And on this I agree with you.

[Samurai]

The point is that the resentment of the majority is not always a good reason to not do something.
... and the resentment of a tiny minority is not always a good reason to do something drastic, like redefine marriage, either...

[Spackling Compound]

If a poll shows that Christianity is the most common religion, should we make that the state religion and force everybody to conform?
There is a separation of Church and State. It is the values that are derived from the religion that animate the law.
If there was just a decision in congress to allow gay marriage and everyone agreed and the president agreed that's one thing. However, the govt. ASKED us what we wanted and we voted. Most of us voted as Christians.
And I daresay, Muslims, Jews and Hindus probably voted on that issue in the same way.

As far as interracial couples, there is a difference from being defined as a human being and as a human being who identifies him/herself by their sexual preference.

Racism is NO way close to the gay issue.

[TCJohnson]

Actually, this issue and racism is exactly the same. How is it possibly different? What is the difference between somebody who is born black and somebody who is born gay?

[StoneGold]

However, the govt. ASKED us what we wanted and we voted.
What you mean we, white man? I had nothing that looked anything close to a gay marriage vote on my ballot.

[fly on the wall]

What you mean we, white man? I had nothing that looked anything close to a gay marriage vote on my ballot.

Aww!

Stone called Spack a white man!

[Spackling Compound]

So, by your logic, we should also make it unlawful for people to eat a ham sandwhich (Muslims can still eat barbeque, just not ham.) And we should make it illegal to work on the Sabbath.
No...
First, I am not imposing my ideals on anyone.
I vote by my ideals and beliefs.

Here's the point:
THE UNITED STATES ASKED FOR PEOPLE'S OPINION ON GAY MARRIAGE
So therefore they gave us the ability to put our own PERSONAL values to the polls!
If you ask me if abortion should be legal, I VOTE NO. No one asked, the Supreme Court made it law and there it is. NO ONE ASKED US.
WHEN THEY ASK, THEY GET AN ANSWER and for some reason
lots of gay people were sick on that Tuesday in November of 2004 to vote the constitutional amendment out.

Again, I vote on my faith. My Christian faith. The harm done by gay marriage, in my little medievalist Bosch painted world has damnation and tortue as the end. The vote was basically, do I want to vote sin in or out. I voted out. If the courts made the decision without me, I'd still have my opinion. And just live with the law.
The United States asked me what I wanted in the constitution and I told them. And several folks told them the same thing.
The majority told them.
Interesting enough, I live in Mississippi where the flag has the rebel flag in the canton corner. The legislature did not want to make the decision to change the flag so the state voted. The Rebel flag stays.
People are mad but they can't say they weren't asked. If they went and changed it without a vote, we'd live. THEY ASKED However.

I voted against the rebel flag, by the way.

[Spackling Compound]

Actually, this issue and racism is exactly the same. How is it possibly different? What is the difference between somebody who is born black and somebody who is born gay?
Born black is being born human.
Born gay is being born human.
No one is denying Human Rights.

Also, you can't choose to be Black.
You can choose to be Gay.
The gay from birth issue is still not resolved.

[JeffreyWKramer]

For the Muslim, it is harmful to have a barbeque pork sandwich.
For the Jew, it is harmful to work on the Sabbath.
For the Christian, it is harmful for a man to marry another man.

Harm? In a shorthand sense, eternal damnation and the loss of heaven.

For those of us who believe in that sort of thing, pretty harmful.

The thing is, Muslims and Jews don't try to control others' dietary or work habits. For that matter, nobody is forcing Christians - or anyone - to marry another man.

In contrast, regarding gay marriage, some Christians are trying to force others to live by their standards.

As to the heaven, damnation, all that - again, not a shred of evidence any of that exists. If those who believe in it want to let that belief guide them, more power to them... but to try to force others to act in accordance with that belief is disrespectful and un-American.

[Spackling Compound]

Aww!

Stone called Spack a white man!
WHITE MAN???!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I will call him a food eater!
Eat some food, food eater.
Hey food eater..want some FOOOOOD?
Food..you like food, don't you food eater?

Now, I feel better.

Actually, someone told me a while back due to my ethnic origin that I'm not as white as others.
White man..haha.

[TCJohnson]

So if it is not resolved, it can't be true?

And you did not vote on your own rights. You voted on the rights of other people. You were deciding their rights for them. How the hell is that american or christian? I thought it was God's job to judge people. How is you judging people at all christian? I mean, do you really think God wants you judging people for him?

[JeffreyWKramer]

So are single people...
Who obviously aren't couples, so - like virtually everything else you write - this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[StoneGold]

WHITE MAN???!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr


Nothing personal, just a phrase.Usually in jokes about Tonto and the Lone Ranger.

[JeffreyWKramer]

... and the resentment of a tiny minority is not always a good reason to do something drastic, like redefine marriage, either...

And again, you continue with this false argument.

There is no redefinition. Marriage is not specifically a religious concept, and really never has been - even within those parts of the world dominated by Christianity.

You know, saying the same wrong thing over and over again doesn't make it look any more true... it just makes you look continually ignorant.

Try making a valid argument, as opposed to ones which have been invalidated again and again.

[Spackling Compound]

The thing is, Muslims and Jews don't try to control others' dietary or work habits. For that matter, nobody is forcing Christians - or anyone - to marry another man.

In contrast, regarding gay marriage, some Christians are trying to force others to live by their standards.

As to the heaven, damnation, all that - again, not a shred of evidence any of that exists. If those who believe in it want to let that belief guide them, more power to them... but to try to force others to act in accordance with that belief is disrespectful and un-American.


Then the government shouldn't ask us to vote on these issues. They didn't ask us about abortion. They ddn't ask us about capital punishment and they didn't ask us about a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. And they went against my own Christian convictions each time.

So if they want gay people to marry, then don't ask a nation where Christians will vote against it. It's not force if you ask.

And you asked about harm, I told you that the fear of hell and the loss of heaven drives Christians each and every day, usually to do some really good stuff. To prove that there is or isn't, is a matter of faith, not sight.

Again, don't ask Christians to vote if you want to bring up something that we will resist. We usually vote because we hold to that old silly book about that big icky creature in the sky who kills puppies and burns Arabs or we wait for a feeble old man in Rome to tell us what to do.

[Spackling Compound]

So if it is not resolved, it can't be true?

And you did not vote on your own rights. You voted on the rights of other people. You were deciding their rights for them. How the hell is that american or christian? I thought it was God's job to judge people. How is you judging people at all christian? I mean, do you really think God wants you judging people for him?

I voted on gay marriage because I, like yourself, don't like the term marriage in the sense of what it means religiously. I also have the right to judge based on my faith what is right or wrong. If you hit a child, I'll beat the crap out of you. I judge you to be wrong.
Christians judge all the time. We just don't condemn to hell. That's God's job. And that being his job, I voted against gay marriage.

[Spackling Compound]

So if it is not resolved, it can't be true?

It can't be permanent.

Black is permanent.

Someone can pull an Anne Heche and be gay for a while and then ungay. I think this is also, for me, a reason to watch what the gay culture accepts as gay.

There's also the cross-over of bisexual which, unless like some who believe in polygamy, can complicate the other guarantee of marriage..monogamy. If you're into guys today and then into girls tomorrow and can exercize that option, I don't know how well that would play.

Again, I vote as a Christian and that was pretty much thrown out when Jesus pulled that whole two become one flesh bit. Even Moses was shocked at that one.

[anthony!]

There is no redefinition. Marriage is not specifically a religious concept, and really never has been - even within those parts of the world dominated by Christianity.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Though there might be minor exceptions, marriage is predominantly a religious and/or spiritual event in ones lives. And this is someone who really doesn't care if gay people get married or not, and would rather the government get out of the marriage biz all together.

I would even make the argument that some who go to a justice of the piece all dressed up are attempting to place some sort of quasi-spritual status on what really only amounts to a legal agreement.

The only true way for all sides of this battle to be even remotely pleased is for goverment to drop the issue. Let the churches marry whom they wish, gay or straight, and let those who don't go to church make legal nuptual agreements. Done and done.

-A!

[JeffreyWKramer]

Regarding that study Spackling linked to earlier.

Spackling - either you need to learn more carefully, or you intentionally lied about the study's conclusion. Either way, as I suspected, the study's conclusions are pretty much not at all like Spackling wrote, including this research shows there is no real long lasting trauma to adults who have had adult-child sexual relations.

Said study - which was actually a meta-analysis of previous studies, not any sort of new data - noted that one should not compare consensual minor-adult sexual behavior, such as an adult having sex with a teenager, with nonconsensual abuse of children. Also, nowhere did the writers say sexual abuse of kids is not harmful. What they did say is that teens who have consensual sex with adults are not as impacted as are kids who have sex - consensual or otherwise - with adults.

Beyond that, the studies from which this data were correlated were done with non-clinical, college-age adults... not kids, and not those who are in treatment (and thus, not the full range of people who are survivors of abuse).

So, what it comes down to is not that sexual abuse is not harmful, but that some people - particularly those who are older - often don't demonstrate a lot of impact... and again, particularly when the sex was consensual. The authors conclude that the general concept of "child sexual abuse" should be broken down, and considered separately based on maturity level and consent. Which is only logical.

NOWHERE in the study is there any evidence or assertion that pedophilia (which, by the way, refers specifically adults having sex with prepubescents) is not harmful.

So, the question, Spack, is were you trying to intentionally mislead, or do you just need to learn to read more carefully?

[JeffreyWKramer]

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Though there might be minor exceptions, marriage is predominantly a religious and/or spiritual event in ones lives. And this is someone who really doesn't care if gay people get married or not, and would rather the government get out of the marriage biz all together.

Civil marriage has existed in the US for the entirety of the existence of the US. It had precedent in Christian Europe dating back several centuries. Thus, it is obviously not a concept specific to religion.

[Rallura]

There's also the cross-over of bisexual which, unless like some who believe in polygamy, can complicate the other guarantee of marriage..monogamy. If you're into guys today and then into girls tomorrow and can exercize that option, I don't know how well that would play.
Spack, that's not how it works. Bisexuals don't flip flop, they are interested in both girls and boys today and tomorrow and all the tomorrows after that. And that doesn't in any way make them incapable of committing to a single person.

[Spackling Compound]

Regarding that study Spackling linked to earlier.

Spackling - either you need to learn more carefully, or you intentionally lied about the study's conclusion. Either way, as I suspected, the study's conclusions are pretty much not at all like Spackling wrote, including

Said study - which was actually a meta-analysis of previous studies, not any sort of new data - noted that one should not compare consensual minor-adult sexual behavior, such as an adult having sex with a teenager, with nonconsensual abuse of children. Also, nowhere did the writers say sexual abuse of kids is not harmful. What they did say is that teens who have consensual sex with adults are not as impacted as are kids who have sex - consensual or otherwise - with adults.

Beyond that, the studies from which this data were correlated were done with non-clinical, college-age adults... not kids, and not those who are in treatment (and thus, not the full range of people who are survivors of abuse).

So, what it comes down to is not that sexual abuse is not harmful, but that some people - particularly those who are older - often don't demonstrate a lot of impact... and again, particularly when the sex was consensual. The authors conclude that the general concept of "child sexual abuse" should be broken down, and considered separately based on maturity level and consent. Which is only logical.

NOWHERE in the study is there any evidence or assertion that pedophilia (which, by the way, refers specifically adults having sex with prepubescents) is not harmful.

So, the question, Spack, is were you trying to intentionally mislead, or do you just need to learn to read more carefully?

Why would I intentionally mislead if I gave you a link?
You read correctly. My point, obtusely, was that there is no clear definition of "child" for pedophilia or adult-minor sex, therefore possibly validating such a relationship.
You're correct and I agree, pedophilia is for prepubescent-adult sex. However, the popular phrasology and use may not be as clear and I think the document pointed that out.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Then the government shouldn't ask us to vote on these issues.

That I agree on. Issues of civil liberties are not something that should be subject to vote.

[TCJohnson]

It can't be permanent.

Black is permanent.

Someone can pull an Anne Heche and be gay for a while and then ungay. I think this is also, for me, a reason to watch what the gay culture accepts as gay.


For the majority of gay people, however, it is pretty permanent.

There's also the cross-over of bisexual which, unless like some who believe in polygamy, can complicate the other guarantee of marriage..monogamy. If you're into guys today and then into girls tomorrow and can exercize that option, I don't know how well that would play.

I like red heads. I also like women with black hair. Does this complicate my chances of having a monogamous relationship?

[That JonoGuy]

Born black is being born human.
Born gay is being born human.
No one is denying Human Rights.

Also, you can't choose to be Black.
You can choose to be Gay.
The gay from birth issue is still not resolved.

Well, i can say for certainty I did NOT choose to be gay. I was born this way. You can believe what you will, but i know my truth. And it's kidna hard to be "turned" gay when nothing in my surrounding in my youth had any thing to do with homosexuality.

Furthermore, why the heck would I CHOOSE it when I was raised Catholic, went to a catholic grade school and was an altor boy. The teaching I was raised with talk of it as a sin. Yeah. I "chose' to be gay. :rolleyes:

[anthony!]

Civil marriage has existed in the US for the entirety of the existence of the US. It had precedent in Christian Europe dating back several centuries. Thus, it is obviously not a concept specific to religion.

Legally, true. Culturally, gimme a break.

-A!

[Spackling Compound]

I like red heads. I also like women with black hair. Does this complicate my chances of having a monogamous relationship?


I have no idea what that would do to a relationship. Maybe your boyfriend could wear a wig? I don't know.
But if you wanted a penis one night and a vagina the next, that may not be as accessible.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Legally, true. Culturally, gimme a break.

The point, once again, is that until the concept of civil marriage was applied to the possibility of gay marriage, nobody in the religious community had any issue with civil marriage. Once it was thus applied, *then* all these religious folk start claiming that marriage is specifically a religious concept - despite all evidence to the contrary. Obviously this wasn't about religion at all, but rather about continuing to deny legal status to gay relationships.

It's really no different than someone has something they consider worthless junk, and throws that something away - then clamors to get it back when someone digs it out of the garbage, recognizes it for a valuable antique, and sells it for a half-million.

[That JonoGuy]

I have no idea what that would do to a relationship. Maybe your boyfriend could wear a wig? I don't know.
But if you wanted a penis one night and a vagina the next, that may not be as accessible.

That's called giving into temptastion. If a man commits himself to a woman in marriage, it doesn't make him NOT attracted to other women. He choses to abide by his commitment. Same with a Bisexual. A Man may be in a commited relationship with another man, and choose not to act on a temptation from a women. Same thing in a straight relationship.

[Spackling Compound]

Legally, true. Culturally, gimme a break.

-A!
Ok, I'm going to give this one to Kramer.
If you look at the cultural ritual of weddings, they are all the same. White veils. Bridesmaids. Groomsmen.
Jewish, Catholic, Episcopal, and secular, the same themes.

For the Jews, marriage and religion were all the same. Christians made marriage a sacrament about 500 years into the game. The other sacraments were established by either Jesus or the apostles. However, marriage was later as many Christians who married secularly wanted the Church to "bless" the union.
So the Church did some work, made it a sacrament and here we are.
There is more to the story but it's not worth telling.

However, the state and the Church both saw marriage as a way of giving dignity to the woman (a name) and giving parentage to the child (a father's surname) and ensuring that the children would be cared for (making the marriage indisoluble).

[Spackling Compound]

That's called giving into temptastion. If a man commits himself to a woman in marriage, it doesn't make him NOT attracted to other women. He choses to abide by his commitment. Same with a Bisexual. A Man may be in a commited relationship with another man, and choose not to act on a temptation from a women. Same thing in a straight relationship.

But what about bisexual marriage? Would you force them to make a choice?

[That JonoGuy]

But what about bisexual marriage? Would you force them to make a choice?

If A bisexual man enters into a relationship with a man And a women that called polygamy.

[Spackling Compound]

If A bisexual man enters into a relationship with a man And a women that called polygamy.
Right, very good, grasshopper.
Now that you have the term, should that be allowed?

[That JonoGuy]

Right, very good, grasshopper.
Now that you have the term, should that be allowed?

I personally don't see why not. If people can adequately work within the situation and keep it stable, I say sure. Although, I am not too sure how stable Polygamous relationships are. I see no harm in it.

[TCJohnson]

But what about bisexual marriage? Would you force them to make a choice?

Can you force a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman to make a choice to be with one person? No...but they can still make that choice on their own.

If a bisexual person wants to sleep around, then they won't get married...or they will get married but have an understanding with their spouse (which happens a lot today). If a bisexual person is in love with another person and wants to make a commitment to that person, then why shouldn't s/he? Love is love, no matter what the sex.

My girlfriend is bisexual. But she has decided to be with me and doesn't want to sleep with anybody else. There are a lot of women I am attracted to and a few of them are attracted to me. There is nothing stopping me from cheating on my girlfriend except for one thing...my choice.

How would that be any different in a gay marriage?

[Spackling Compound]

Can you force a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman to make a choice to be with one person? No...but they can still make that choice on their own.

If a bisexual person wants to sleep around, then they won't get married...or they will get married but have an understanding with their spouse (which happens a lot today). If a bisexual person is in love with another person and wants to make a commitment to that person, then why shouldn't s/he? Love is love, no matter what the sex.

My girlfriend is bisexual. But she has decided to be with me and doesn't want to sleep with anybody else. There are a lot of women I am attracted to and a few of them are attracted to me. There is nothing stopping me from cheating on my girlfriend except for one thing...my choice.

How would that be any different in a gay marriage?

Cheating? I don't think it's cheating if you have permission.
I am asking should marriage extend..again...to polygamy?

Marriage is the union of men to women.
Easy enough?

[anthony!]

Well, i can say for certainty I did NOT choose to be gay. I was born this way. You can believe what you will, but i know my truth. And it's kidna hard to be "turned" gay when nothing in my surrounding in my youth had any thing to do with homosexuality.

Furthermore, why the heck would I CHOOSE it when I was raised Catholic, went to a catholic grade school and was an altor boy. The teaching I was raised with talk of it as a sin. Yeah. I "chose' to be gay. :rolleyes:

Well according to the catechism homosexuality is generally considered not to be a choice. I suppose its possible for someone to choose to engage in gay sex regardless of the sexuality, but thats something entirely different.

Even the Catholic Catechism states "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

So even the church, though scientifically remaining unproven, believes that a homosexual does not choose to be one.

-A!

By the way...it was only a matter of time, no matter what your opinion is.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/10/gay.divorces.ap/index.html

[Rallura]

I am fairly sure there are more non Christians in the world then Christians, so holding the Christian idea of marriage up as some absolute, especially when it itself has undergone many changes in definition, just seems to me to be a bit, snotty.

[anthony!]

My girlfriend is bisexual. But she has decided to be with me and doesn't want to sleep with anybody else.

Just out of curiosity, are th