# Supreme Court on Gay Marriage



## HDRider

*What happens to the laws written into the State Constitutions stating that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman if the SC rules in favor of gay marriage?*

Some interesting facts and this IS a test. Which of these tidbits seem incongruent with the others, or for our Sesame Street viewers, which of these things is not like the others?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...BERS?SITE=MOCAP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to begin hearing two days of arguments Tuesday in cases involving gay marriage. A look at the gay marriage issue by the numbers:

- About 9 million: The number of Americans who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, according to a 2011 study by a scholar at the UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute.

- 9 plus the District of Columbia: The number of states that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The states are Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and Washington.

- 30: The number of states, including California, that ban same-sex marriage in their state constitutions. Ten states bar them under state laws. New Mexico law is silent on the issue.

- Almost 9: The number of years gay couples have been marrying in Massachusetts, the first state to allow same-sex couples to wed. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November 2003 that it was unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marrying in the state. The court allowed weddings to start May 17, 2004.

- 49: The percentage of Americans who now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in mid-March. Forty-four percent are opposed.

- 142: The number of days in 2008 that gay marriage was legal in California before voters banned it with Proposition 8.
- About 18,000: The number of gay couples that married in California during the window when it was legal.

- 9: The number of justices on the Supreme Court. Six of the justices are married, all of them to people of the opposite sex. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a widow, Justice Sonia Sotomayor is divorced and Justice Elena Kagan has never married.


----------



## mmoetc

I'll go with number nine. The personal lives of the Supremes has nothing to do with the law of the land.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> I'll go with number nine. The personal lives of the Supremes has nothing to do with the law of the land.


What about my real question in blue?


----------



## JJohnson

I dont know for sure but I believe the justice department would file lawsuits against the states with those laws on the books like they have done in Arizonia with the immigration bills and what they are doing to states to force them to implement obamacare. Then most likely they will have to change to coincide with federal law.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> What about my real question in blue?


It depends on how broadly they structure their decision. Most narrow and it only affects California. Most broad and federal law trumps state and gays are free to marry and have it legally recognized in all 50 states.

Best case- I'll have a few wedding presents to buy.


----------



## HDRider

So the SCOTUS can rule a State Constituional amendment unconstitutional???


----------



## pancho

Might as well go ahead and make all people the same in the eyes of the govt.
It is just a matter of time anyway. It don't take a genius to figure that one out.


----------



## mekasmom

I don't really understand your exact question.... But, to how they will or should rule? The tenth amendment should stand. If the state allows gay marriage then it is allowed. And, according to the Constitution, then all the states have to honor that marriage that occurred in another state whether they allow gay marriage in their state or not. That is how they should rule, and they will rule that way.
I'm not saying that I like that or that I think God is pleased with gay marriage. But it is correct according to the Constitution.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> So the SCOTUS can rule a State Constituional amendment unconstitutional???


Read Article 6 of the US Constitution.


----------



## Nevada

mekasmom said:


> If the state allows gay marriage then it is allowed.


There is so much momentum for this issue right now that I don't think it makes a lot of difference how the Supreme Court rules in this case. Without a sweeping decision mandating that states provide for gay marriage, which I think is unlikely, I believe that the states will be taking this issue up and allow gay marriage virtually everywhere in the country.


----------



## Shrek

What happens? The same thing that happened to the many state laws prohibiting interracial marriages. Regardless if they were left on the various state codes or eventually symbolically repealed by special elections at a waste of millions of dollars, the laws were rendered moot decades ago by SCOTUS decision and the resulting change in U.S. Code by Congress.


----------



## HDRider

Isn't there a big difference between a state law and an amendment on the books within a State Constitution?


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> Isn't there a big difference between a state law and an amendment on the books within a State Constitution?


With respect to a conflict with the US Constitution there is no difference. Either way the conflict makes the provision ineffective.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> With respect to a conflict with the US Constitution there is no difference. Either way the conflict makes the provision ineffective.


I think the current case before the court is only ruling on CA Prop 8, not for other states and their own Constitutional Amendments. I think they would each need to come before the courts individually..

"The substantive issues revolve around whether Proposition 8, or bans on same-sex marriage generally, violate the 14th Amendment&#8217;s guarantee of equal protection under the law. Usually, the courts apply one of three tests when determining whether an unconstitutional rights violation has occurred: rational-basis review, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny."
From:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-the-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-cases/


Per
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_the_S...ndment_to_North_Carolina's_state_constitution


*Can the Supreme Court repeal a constitutional amendment to North Carolina's state constitution?*


Answer:



NO. The Supreme Court can only review cases brought before it after the litigants exhaust their remedies in lower state or federal courts. State constitutions are governed by state law.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> I think the current case before the court is only ruling on CA Prop 8, not for other states and their own Constitutional Amendments. I think they would each need to come before the courts individually..


From what I heard about the remarks in court this morning, I don't think the supreme court wants to make a sweeping decision. They could, but it doesn't look like they will. They will probably leave it to the states to decide.



HDRider said:


> *Can the Supreme Court repeal a constitutional amendment to North Carolina's state constitution?*
> 
> Answer:
> 
> NO. The Supreme Court can only review cases brought before it after the litigants exhaust their remedies in lower state or federal courts. State constitutions are governed by state law.


The supreme court can't repeal a provision in a state constitution, but they can render it ineffective. We know this to be true because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2).

_This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme law of the land*; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding._

There is really no way around that.


----------



## JJohnson

Its interesting though because many states have recently passed laws to ignore federal gun control laws if passed. Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana against federal law. South Carolina said they were going to ignore federal regulations on light bulbs. 

So what recourse then would the federal gov't take if they made same-sex marriage the law of the land but states continued to ingore it? They seem very hypocritical in enforcing some and ignoring others.


----------



## mmoetc

JJohnson said:


> Its interesting though because many states have recently passed laws to ignore federal gun control laws if passed. Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana against federal law. South Carolina said they were going to ignore federal regulations on light bulbs.
> 
> So what recourse then would the federal gov't take if they made same-sex marriage the law of the land but states continued to ingore it? They seem very hypocritical in enforcing some and ignoring others.


The gun control overrides are at this point still hypothetical. Federal drug laws can and are still being enforced. Ignoring a federal law as it pertains to gay marriage would likely lead to a lot of costly lawsuits which the states would lose. If you're expecting any govt not to be hypocritical in enforcing laws you haven't driven the speed limit on a highway lately.


----------



## mekasmom

Nevada said:


> From what I heard about the remarks in court this morning, I don't think the supreme court wants to make a sweeping decision. They could, but it doesn't look like they will. They will probably leave it to the states to decide.


Ok, so let's say they do. Then when gays marry in Hawaii or Illinois or other states that allow it, all the states still have to honor that marriage due to Constitutional provisions, yes?
That is what I think will happen. The Supreme Court will ignore the DOMA and rule in favor of the tenth that allows states to marry gays if they pass the law to do so.


----------



## poppy

mekasmom said:


> Ok, so let's say they do. Then when gays marry in Hawaii or Illinois or other states that allow it, all the states still have to honor that marriage due to Constitutional provisions, yes?
> That is what I think will happen. The Supreme Court will ignore the DOMA and rule in favor of the tenth that allows states to marry gays if they pass the law to do so.


But the states already do not honor every law passed in another state. Bring a gun and a concealed carry permit from another state into Illinois and see what happens.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I believe that the states will be taking this issue up and allow gay marriage virtually everywhere in the country.


I think most will fool you on that.
Support isn't as high as some like to imply


----------



## Nevada

mekasmom said:


> Ok, so let's say they do. Then when gays marry in Hawaii or Illinois or other states that allow it, all the states still have to honor that marriage due to Constitutional provisions, yes?
> That is what I think will happen. The Supreme Court will ignore the DOMA and rule in favor of the tenth that allows states to marry gays if they pass the law to do so.


My take on what the supreme court seems to be leaning towards (from their remarks, of course) is that they are unsure if this is the right case to base a national decision on. They might or might not be willing to go along with gay marriage, but the first question is whether this case is the case to do it with. They might, but it doesn't seem like it.


----------



## Oldcountryboy

HDrider, you forgot one! 


1 The number one God who hates sin and who will smit those who practice it and support it.


----------



## Nevada

Oldcountryboy said:


> HDrider, you forgot one!
> 
> 
> 1 The number one God who hates sin and who will smit those who practice it and support it.


Should we also get smit for eating seafood?

But seriously, what is the sin here? Having a physical homosexual relationship is already legal. If that's what you are trying to stop, that ship has already sailed. These people just want to get married. I don't see how same sex marriage, in itself, can be considered a sin.


----------



## willow_girl

Polyester-cotton blend ... my bad!


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I say this in all seriousness.......

Don't we as a country have more important issues that need to be resolved?

I don't understand why this issue is not a 'states issue' only?


----------



## Nevada

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I don't understand why this issue is not a 'states issue' only?


Because it's a constitutional issue.


----------



## HDRider

As it has been said in many threads, follow the money (love of money and so on).

Gays want access to the same monetary benefits as regular people. Spouse insurance, survivor benefits, and all the things a wife has related to being married to her husband, and vice versa. Gays want that legal contract and protection.

Some are militant about it. The MSM wants it. Liberals use them as another constituent. It will happen. Some gays think their lifestyle is fine in the eyes of God, most maybe don't care.

Gays make up less than 10% of the population, but their representation in many aspects is out sized. They have the minds of the young convinced. Our public education system is being used to indoctrinate to ideas that in times past were viewed as wrong.

In God's law there are absolutes. In man's law there are no absolutes. The definitions of right and wrong are pliable and can be changed.


----------



## willow_girl

> In God's law there are absolutes.


But thankfully we live in a free country where we all are free to worship or not as we choose.

And personal religious beliefs should have no bearing upon a legal system that serves people of many faiths, or no faith at all.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> As it has been said in many threads, follow the money (love of money and so on).
> 
> Gays want access to the same monetary benefits as regular people. Spouse insurance, survivor benefits, and all the things a wife has related to being married to her husband, and vice versa. Gays want that legal contract and protection.
> 
> They'd also like things like hospital visitation rights, medical decision making power, and the ability to take advantage of the 1100+ benefits that married federal employees have.
> 
> Some are militant about it. The MSM wants it. Liberals use them as another constituents. It will happen. Some gays think their lifestyle is fine in the eyes of God, most maybe don't care.
> 
> Gays make up less than 10% of the population, but their representation in many aspects is out sized. They have the minds of the young convinced. Our public education system is being used to indoctrinate to ideas that in times past were viewed as wrong.
> 
> And Blacks make up a little over 12% of the population. I guess civil rights laws shouldn't have been enacted either.
> 
> In God's law there are absolutes. In man's law there are no absolutes. The definition of right and wrong are pliable and can be changed.


My god only cares that two people love and care for each other. He doesn't check their plumbing.


----------



## NoClue

mmoetc said:


> My god only cares that two people love and care for each other. He doesn't check their plumbing.


Ok, you've got me curious. Which God is this?


----------



## mmoetc

NoClue said:


> Ok, you've got me curious. Which God is this?


The one who doesn't care what a person's sexual preference is. If you need to get more personal, I was raised in the UCC tradition. I have attended weddings between same sex couples in UCC churches, a Jewish Temple, and in the back field of a very pretty farm. No lightening bolts just loving caring people celebrating the union of good souls.


----------



## plowjockey

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I say this in all seriousness.......
> 
> Don't we as a country have more important issues that need to be resolved?
> 
> I don't understand why this issue is not a 'states issue' only?


For those who do not have them, this fight is about civil rights , not state's rights.

Maybe it's not important to you, because you already have your's.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

plowjockey said:


> For those who do not have them, this fight is about civil rights , not state's rights.
> 
> Maybe it's not important to you, because you already have your's.


Forgive my ignorance, but what "rights" do homosexual couples want that they do not have?
If I am wrong, please correct me:

What I see is that homosexual couples want the ability to be 'legally' married, meaning they go before an authority that deems them a 'married couple'. They will pay for the license. When they have this paper, they then can receive benefits (med ins, their mates SS when they die, etc) If they choose not to be married anymore, they will have to file the same paper work to divorce, paying the courts and lawyers the same fees as man and wife couples.

Is there something more I am unaware of?


----------



## NoClue

mmoetc said:


> The one who doesn't care what a person's sexual preference is. If you need to get more personal, I was raised in the UCC tradition. I have attended weddings between same sex couples in UCC churches, a Jewish Temple, and in the back field of a very pretty farm. No lightening bolts just loving caring people celebrating the union of good souls.


I had to look up "UCC", and I'm assuming you mean the United Church of Christ. I've heard of them but otherwise know nothing of them. Interesting... I'd like to meet and have a conversation with a member some day.


----------



## plowjockey

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what "rights" do homosexual couples want that they do not have?
> If I am wrong, please correct
> 
> Is there something more I am unaware of?


CA Prop 8. It's been in the news.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

plowjockey said:


> CA Prop 8. It's been in the news.


In a sentence or two, what is CA Prop. 8?
(I don't watch the news


----------



## mmoetc

NoClue said:


> I had to look up "UCC", and I'm assuming you mean the United Church of Christ. I've heard of them but otherwise know nothing of them. Interesting... I'd like to meet and have a conversation with a member some day.


There are somewhere around 1,000,000 registered members of the church in the US. There are many more like me who attend services but are no longer registered church members. We're not that hard to find. Go to UCC.org and you can find a church near you. Good luck.


----------



## HDRider

plowjockey said:


> For those who do not have them, this fight is about civil rights , not state's rights.
> 
> Maybe it's not important to you, because you already have your's.


The chicanery is the acquiescence to the moral proprietary of homosexual behavior. 

If homosexual behavior is proper then the rights of the practitioners are brought into question. 

Over time a tolerance of homosexual behavior developed. What is done behind closed doors is the individuals business not mine. Now the door is flung wide open and the question of the behavior is no longer being asked. 

NOW it is a civil rights question because society as a majority accepts homosexual behavior.


----------



## HDRider

Married by the Judge
By Mark Steyn
March 26, 2013 2:23 P.M.​ 

Three weeks ago, I wrote:
An institution that predates the United States by several millennia will be defined for a third of a billion people by whichever way Anthony Kennedy feels like swingin&#8217; that morning. The universal deference to judicial supremacism is bizarre and unbecoming to a free people.​Paul Mirengoff says today over at _Powerline_:
The fact that the Supreme Court may be about to pass judgment on the age-old definition of marriage is the reductio ad absurdum of American constitutional jurisprudence. That we have reached this point tells us that the Supreme Court has taken some terribly wrong turns.

The fact that, until very recently, marriage has universally been deemed to require an opposite sex component doesn&#8217;t mean that this component must be required forevermore. But a decent appreciation of democracy, human history, and the fallibility of the individual means that nine glorified lawyers shouldn&#8217;t be the ones who make the change. Nor should they be in a position where they might make it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343984/married-judge-mark-steyn
​


----------



## HDRider

I just read this transcript from the SC case. They are making the same point I made about accepting homosexual behavior.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Iâm curious, when â when did â when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes â some time after _Baker_, where we said it didnât even raise a substantial federal question? When â when â when did the law become this?

​MR. OLSON: When â may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools? 
JUSTICE SCALIA: Itâs an easy question, I think, for that one. At â at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. Thatâs absolutely true. But donât give me a question to my question.
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional?
MR. OLSON: When the â when the California Supreme Court faced the decision, which it had never faced before, is â does excluding gay and lesbian citizens, who are a class based upon their status as homosexuals â is it â is it constitutional â
JUSTICE SCALIA: That â thatâs not when it became unconstitutional. Thatâs when they acted in an unconstitutional matter â in an unconstitutional matter. When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying?
MR. OLSON: That â they did not assign a date to it, Justice Scalia, as you know. What the court decided was the case that came before it â
JUSTICE SCALIA: Iâm not talking about the California Supreme Court. Iâm talking about your argument. You say it is now unconstitutional.
MR. OLSON: Yes.
*JUSTICE SCALIA: Was it always unconstitutional?*
*MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we â as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that â*
*JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?*
*MR. OLSON: Thereâs no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.*
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, how am I supposed to know how to decide a case, then â
MR. OLSON: Because the case thatâs before you â
JUSTICE SCALIA: â if you canât give me a date when the Constitution changes?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344022/tying-gordian-knot-daniel-foster?pg=1


----------



## CesumPec

gay marriage is not a civil right issue just because someone claims it is a civil rights issue. What rights (benefits are not rights) are being denied, withheld, or infringed? If gays were persecuted as in years past, that would be a civil rights issue. 

Gays tell me I can marry anyone I want and they can't. Really? Someone is going to force Jennifer Aniston to except my proposal? Gays can cohabit, merge finances, and care for one another in their old age, and do what ever else one might deem marriage in the eyes of God. They have those rights. What they want is gov't recognition and benefits.

The civil rights thing is one of those lies that has been told for so long that now many believe it is true. 

That being said, I think there are more important things to worry about and if I was a pol, I would tell folks, I will not take a stand on either side of this issue because I'm working on making the gov't smaller and less expensive and nothing else. If God doesn't like gay unions, God can sort it out later.


----------



## HDRider

A good comment from the same article.....

A bear and a lion are two different animals, but they both have fur, so the USSC should declare that bears will be called lions. That's the basic reasoning of the same-sex marriage argument. 


Marriage, as defined by God and man for centuries, is the union between one man and one woman, but same-sex marriage advocates argue that because some characteristics of a same-sex relationship are the same as those of a heterosexual relationship, both relationships should be called marriages.

What I find most interesting about the Prop 8 case is the lack of concern emanating from the left side of the aisle about disenfranchising the nine million California voters who expressed their will on the subject of same-sex marriage via the ballot box. While Democrats insist Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise minority voters with photo I.D. laws, they aren't at all concerned that same-sex marriage advocates are asking the USSC to retroactively revoke the right of California voters to decide how marriage should be defined in their state.


There is much more at stake here than the definition of a word; there is the freedom of the people to express their will through the Democratic process and determine what kind of country they want America to be. If same-sex marriage advocates can convince the USSC to disregard the votes of nine million Californians, other citizens with enough money and clout to make their way through the judicial process will be encouraged to request the assistance of nine unelected men and women to reverse the outcome of elections that are contrary to their minority positions. It is called the tyranny of the minority and we should resist the effort to surrender - even if it seems the nice thing to do.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344022/tying-gordian-knot-daniel-foster?pg=2


----------



## mmoetc

My god says it is just fine for two people who happen to share the same plumbing to get married. Care to trample on my religous freedom some more. Why should the state recognize your religous practice and not mine. I seem to remember a document declaring all men being created equal cited numerous times on this forum. It doesn't matter how many people support ideas contrary to those in the constitution. Those ideas are still unconstitutional and cannot be the law of the land. If you dislike the idea of nine unelected citizens making decisions like this maybe you should work to amend the Constitution to remove them from power. I haven't always agreed with their decisions but I agree with their right to make those decisions.


----------



## mmoetc

CesumPec said:


> gay marriage is not a civil right issue just because someone claims it is a civil rights issue. What rights (benefits are not rights) are being denied, withheld, or infringed? If gays were persecuted as in years past, that would be a civil rights issue.
> 
> Gays tell me I can marry anyone I want and they can't. Really? Someone is going to force Jennifer Aniston to except my proposal? Gays can cohabit, merge finances, and care for one another in their old age, and do what ever else one might deem marriage in the eyes of God. They have those rights. What they want is gov't recognition and benefits.
> 
> The civil rights thing is one of those lies that has been told for so long that now many believe it is true.
> 
> That being said, I think there are more important things to worry about and if I was a pol, I would tell folks, I will not take a stand on either side of this issue because I'm working on making the gov't smaller and less expensive and nothing else. If God doesn't like gay unions, God can sort it out later.


I'm sorry you can't live out your Jennifer Anniston fantasy. That is none of the govt's business. The actual fact is that if you somehow convinced ms. Anniston that you were the man of her dreams you could get married in any state and have it recognized by all state and federal offices. Not the same priviledge given to my friend, Judy, who you seem to share a fantasy with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why should the state recognize your religous practice and not mine


There's nothing "religious" about the traditional definition of "marriage".

Same sex relations have NEVER been accepted as "normal" for the vast majority of people* throughout history.*


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> My god says it is just fine for two people who happen to share the same plumbing to get married. Care to trample on my religous freedom some more. Why should the state recognize your religous practice and not mine. I seem to remember a document declaring all men being created equal cited numerous times on this forum. It doesn't matter how many people support ideas contrary to those in the constitution. Those ideas are still unconstitutional and cannot be the law of the land. If you dislike the idea of nine unelected citizens making decisions like this maybe you should work to amend the Constitution to remove them from power. I haven't always agreed with their decisions but I agree with their right to make those decisions.


Can you share the rule book or manual of your god with me?


----------



## mmoetc

CesumPec said:


> gay marriage is not a civil right issue just because someone claims it is a civil rights issue. What rights (benefits are not rights) are being denied, withheld, or infringed? If gays were persecuted as in years past, that would be a civil rights issue.
> 
> Gays tell me I can marry anyone I want and they can't. Really? Someone is going to force Jennifer Aniston to except my proposal? Gays can cohabit, merge finances, and care for one another in their old age, and do what ever else one might deem marriage in the eyes of God. They have those rights. What they want is gov't recognition and benefits.
> 
> The civil rights thing is one of those lies that has been told for so long that now many believe it is true.
> 
> That being said, I think there are more important things to worry about and if I was a pol, I would tell folks, I will not take a stand on either side of this issue because I'm working on making the gov't smaller and less expensive and nothing else. If God doesn't like gay unions, God can sort it out later.





HDRider said:


> Can you share the rule book or manual of your god with me?


The Bible. If you'd like more clarification I suggest you go to www.ucc.org. You might just learn something.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> What I find most interesting about the Prop 8 case is the lack of concern emanating from the left side of the aisle about disenfranchising the nine million California voters who expressed their will on the subject of same-sex marriage via the ballot box. While Democrats insist Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise minority voters with photo I.D. laws, they aren't at all concerned that same-sex marriage advocates are asking the USSC to retroactively revoke the right of California voters to decide how marriage should be defined in their state.http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344022/tying-gordian-knot-daniel-foster?pg=2


Public opinion should not be a factor in deciding constitutional issues. Taking a popular vote to deny a class of Americans a fundamental right is not a valid way to get around the constitution. It isn't valid to take a vote to legalize slavery, and it isn't valid to take a vote to deny gays rights.

The people of California have no right to persecute a class of people they don't approve of.


----------



## MJsLady

mmoetc said:


> My god only cares that two people love and care for each other. He doesn't check their plumbing.



Then why does He specifically say those who do this are condemned? 
Humans can argue the issue among themselves all they want to but the facts are it is not normal, it is not natural. Even the islamic Allah agrees with the Christian Yahweh on this one. 

God brought down 2 cities in the old testament in part because of this issue. Then in the new He again stated that it was unseemly and an abomination. It is condemned in the new testament 3 times. 

We can argue with God all we want to. In the end He wins. 
My theory is, leave it to the states. then folks who want it can go where it is allowed and folks who don't can go where it is not.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> My god says it is just fine for two people who happen to share the same plumbing to get married. Care to trample on my religous freedom some more. Why should the state recognize your religous practice and not mine. I seem to remember a document declaring all men being created equal cited numerous times on this forum. It doesn't matter how many people support ideas contrary to those in the constitution. Those ideas are still unconstitutional and cannot be the law of the land. If you dislike the idea of nine unelected citizens making decisions like this maybe you should work to amend the Constitution to remove them from power. I haven't always agreed with their decisions but I agree with their right to make those decisions.





mmoetc said:


> The Bible. If you'd like more clarification I suggest you go to www.ucc.org. You might just learn something.


I admit the Bible be pro homosexual surprises me. Can you tell where it does?

I see at the website where an Executive Minister of the church promotes same sex marriage. 

Help me find something in Bible condoning homosexual practices. 
I see Jude, Timothy, Corinthians, Romans, Kings, Judges, Leviticus and Genesis speak against it. I can't find where it promotes or condones it.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> Public opinion should not be a factor in deciding constitutional issues. Taking a popular vote to deny a class of Americans a fundamental right is not a valid way to get around the constitution. It isn't valid to take a vote to legalize slavery, and it isn't valid to take a vote to deny gays rights.
> 
> The people of California have no right to persecute a class of people they don't approve of.


Public opinion is what is driving homosexuals to seek protected class status.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> Public opinion is what is driving homosexuals to seek protected class status.


They're only asking for the same equal protection under the law that the rest of us have.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> I admit the Bible be pro homosexual surprises me. Can you tell where it does?
> 
> I see at the website where an Executive Minister of the church promotes same sex marriage.
> 
> Help me find something in Bible condoning homosexual practices.
> I see Jude, Timothy, Corinthians, Romans, Kings, Judges, Leviticus and Genesis speak against it. I can't find where it promotes or condones it.


I'm not a biblical scholar and I'm not qualified to argue the various interpretations of biblical writing. My beliefs and the beliefs of the church I was raised in don't discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation. Your beliefs and those of your church obviously differ. It is not my place to try to change your beliefs. It is (IMHO) a fruitless discussion as the only true answer to who, if anyone, is correct will not be found in this world. If you'd like to continue the discussion as it pertains to the constitution, continue on.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> They're only asking for the same equal protection under the law that the rest of us have.


What is the next group possibly requesting protected class status? Who decides the behavior that is one step too far?


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> Who decides the behavior that is one step too far?


Conservative republicans have evidently self-appointed themselves to the task of passing judgment on the behavior of all Americans. While they probably have good intentions, I doubt that Christ sees it that way. He was pretty specific about that.

_"Judge not, that you be not judged."_ Matthew 7:1 

But I'm sure they have a logical reason why that doesn't apply to them.


----------



## pancho

It isn't like marriage between a man and a woman is something religious or even lawful.
Just look at the mess man and woman marriages have caused.
It would be very hard for anyone else to mess up marriage more that it already is.


----------



## JJohnson

"If marriage is a right, then the government needs to start hooking people up"

"Anyway, we both agree that gay marriage cannot be an equal rights issue for the simple reason that no one has a right to get married. Marriage is a union freely entered into between two parties. Gay or straight, no one can be married unless another person freely agrees to enter into the union with them. That means, by definition, marriage is not a right because a right is something that cannot be denied to you. 

"Otherwise all these single people who are looking but coming up empty could claim that their rights were being violated, and could petition the government for redress of their grievance. And the government would have to provide redress - if marriage were a right."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001267/posts?page=30


They make valid points.


----------



## Nevada

JJohnson said:


> "If marriage is a right, then the government needs to start hooking people up"


It's not marriage that's a right, it's equal protection under the law. We all have a right to equal protection under the law.

This is why the DOMA hearing today will have a much better chance of sweeping success than the issue heard yesterday. There will always be resistance to creating the kind of fundamental right that a sweeping decision on the Prop8 issue might create, but I think the court will find it much easier to provide for equal protection under the law that DOMA denies.


----------



## mmoetc

JJohnson said:


> "If marriage is a right, then the government needs to start hooking people up"
> 
> "Anyway, we both agree that gay marriage cannot be an equal rights issue for the simple reason that no one has a right to get married. Marriage is a union freely entered into between two parties. Gay or straight, no one can be married unless another person freely agrees to enter into the union with them. That means, by definition, marriage is not a right because a right is something that cannot be denied to you.
> 
> "Otherwise all these single people who are looking but coming up empty could claim that their rights were being violated, and could petition the government for redress of their grievance. And the government would have to provide redress - if marriage were a right."
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001267/posts?page=30
> 
> 
> They make valid points.


Except their premise is false. Marriage is not the right involved. Free access to marriage is. I don't care if any individual chooses to marry or not , but it should be their choice, not the govt's.


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> I'm sorry you can't live out your Jennifer Anniston fantasy. That is none of the govt's business. The actual fact is that if you somehow convinced ms. Anniston that you were the man of her dreams you could get married in any state and have it recognized by all state and federal offices. Not the same priviledge given to my friend, Judy, who you seem to share a fantasy with.


So you agree it is a privilege and not a right.


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> The Bible. If you'd like more clarification I suggest you go to www.ucc.org. You might just learn something.


The Bible is not a document to define the laws of this country. One day muslims might be the majority in the US and I sure don't want any interpretation of the Koran to be the law.


----------



## JeffreyD

plowjockey said:


> CA Prop 8. It's been in the news.


The one that the majority of Californians passed? That one?


----------



## Tiempo

MJsLady said:


> Then why does He specifically say those who do this are condemned?
> Humans can argue the issue among themselves all they want to but the facts are it is not normal, it is not natural. Even the islamic Allah agrees with the Christian Yahweh on this one.
> 
> God brought down 2 cities in the old testament in part because of this issue. Then in the new He again stated that it was unseemly and an abomination. It is condemned in the new testament 3 times.
> 
> We can argue with God all we want to. In the end He wins.
> My theory is, leave it to the states. then folks who want it can go where it is allowed and folks who don't can go where it is not.


I'm of the opinion that it's insanity to Allow mythology to dictate law


----------



## plowjockey

> Originally Posted by *plowjockey*
> _CA Prop 8. It's been in the news._





JeffreyD said:


> The one that the majority of Californians passed? That one?


That's the one, but just because voters passed it, does not make it right or even fair.

You would not fight, against something, that effected _your_ civil rights, just because voters approve it?

Really?


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Public opinion should not be a factor in deciding constitutional issues. Taking a popular vote to deny a class of Americans a fundamental right is not a valid way to get around the constitution. It isn't valid to take a vote to legalize slavery, and it isn't valid to take a vote to deny gays rights.
> 
> The people of California have no right to persecute a class of people they don't approve of.


But it's ok to ignore the 2nd amendment because of "public opinon"? Since when did gays become a seperate "class"? Does the bill of rights or Constitution even mention marrage?

People and the government have no right to dismiss the parts of the Constitution they don't approve of either.


----------



## plowjockey

Laura Zone 5 said:


> In a sentence or two, what is CA Prop. 8?
> (I don't watch the news


CA ban on any legal same-sex marriages.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> But it's ok to ignore the 2nd amendment because of "public opinon"? Since when did gays become a seperate "class"? Does the bill of rights or Constitution even mention marrage?
> 
> People and the government have no right to dismiss the parts of the Constitution they don't approve of either.


Gun regulation doesn't ignore the second amendment. The supreme court has ruled that the right to posses firearms is not absolute, just like the right to free speech isn't absolute.


----------



## JeffreyD

plowjockey said:


> That's the one, but just because voters passed it, does not make it right or even fair.
> 
> You would not fight, against something, that effected _your_ civil rights, just because voters approve it?
> 
> Really?


The 2nd amendment is being trampled too, but liberals don't seem to care about that! Why not?

Look, my fear is that gays will sue those religious institutions that refuse to marry them. I keep hearing that they won't, but a lot of them don't seem to be to rational. I remember seeing gays attack pro prop 8 supporters. I also have many experinces with gays that were less than pleasent! I'm not gay by the way!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Gun regulation doesn't ignore the second amendment


Actually, it does, since it's an "infringement"

Banning gay marriage doesn't affect ANY amendment, since it's NOT a "right"


----------



## mmoetc

JJohnson said:


> "If marriage is a right, then the government needs to start hooking people up"
> 
> "Anyway, we both agree that gay marriage cannot be an equal rights issue for the simple reason that no one has a right to get married. Marriage is a union freely entered into between two parties. Gay or straight, no one can be married unless another person freely agrees to enter into the union with them. That means, by definition, marriage is not a right because a right is something that cannot be denied to you.
> 
> "Otherwise all these single people who are looking but coming up empty could claim that their rights were being violated, and could petition the government for redress of their grievance. And the government would have to provide redress - if marriage were a right."
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3001267/posts?page=30
> 
> 
> They make valid points.





CesumPec said:


> The Bible is not a document to define the laws of this country. One day muslims might be the majority in the US and I sure don't want any interpretation of the Koran to be the law.


We agree. I was answering a direct question on the foundations of my belief.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> Banning gay marriage doesn't affect ANY amendment, since it's NOT a "right"


Equal access to marry the person of your choice is a right, because it's an equal protection under the law issue.


----------



## mmoetc

CesumPec said:


> So you agree it is a privilege and not a right.


Yes I do. But I also believe that equal access is a right.


----------



## plowjockey

HDRider said:


> The chicanery is the acquiescence to the moral proprietary of homosexual behavior.
> 
> If homosexual behavior is proper then the rights of the practitioners are brought into question.
> 
> Over time a tolerance of homosexual behavior developed. What is done behind closed doors is the individuals business not mine. Now the door is flung wide open and the question of the behavior is no longer being asked.
> 
> NOW it is a civil rights question because society as a majority accepts homosexual behavior.


You are, of course, fully aware, that homosexuality, is fully legal, so what type of "chicanery", is involved here?

Gays are fully aware of the moral objections, they just don't care, they want equal rights, which silly them, for some reason, think they are entitled to, under the U.S. Constitution.

Segregated whites, were perfectly fine, when blacks, could not drink out of the same drinking fountain. No big deal, right?

Maybe it's a matter of perspective.



> What is done behind closed doors is the individuals business not mine.


Fair enough, but what a marriage license, have to do with this?


----------



## plowjockey

JeffreyD said:


> The 2nd amendment is being trampled too, but liberals don't seem to care about that! Why not?
> 
> Look, my fear is that gays will sue those religious institutions that refuse to marry them. I keep hearing that they won't, but a lot of them don't seem to be to rational. I remember seeing gays attack pro prop 8 supporters. I also have many experinces with gays that were less than pleasent! I'm not gay by the way!


Sorry, but I fail to see, where one part of the Constitution, is important and another is not. 2nd amendment is a completely different fight, as is should be.

The law suit fear, seems moot, since currently, churches regularly turn away heterosexual couples, who want to be married in their church, for various reasons, usually, becasue one (or both) parties are not church members. Even Catholics used to give the ole' heave-ho, when a divorced member, wanted another wedding in the church.

I'm not seeing where Gays want special rights - just equal ones.


----------



## poppy

Nevada said:


> Equal access to marry the person of your choice is a right, because it's an equal protection under the law issue.


Nonsense. Marriage is and has always been defined as between a man and woman. There are limits to even that. In most states, maybe all, you as a man cannot marry your mother for instance. There are restrictions to every right we have. A gay marriage ban is just another one.


----------



## MJsLady

Nevada said:


> Conservative republicans have evidently self-appointed themselves to the task of passing judgment on the behavior of all Americans. While they probably have good intentions, I doubt that Christ sees it that way. He was pretty specific about that.
> 
> *"Judge not, that you be not judged." Matthew 7:1 *
> 
> But I'm sure they have a logical reason why that doesn't apply to them.


Taking verses out of context can prove just about anything. 
For example:
Luk_12:57 "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
Joh_7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment."
Act_4:19 But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 

We are not judging anyone. We are standing behind what God, who will judge the world says. Just because public opinion changes, which BTW is predicted in the Bible, does not mean God does. 

For those who do not believe fine. Have your own way but quit trying to force those of us who live following the standard that was set up centuries ago to accept a standard that as Justice Alito says, is newer than cell phones. .

They already have civil unions which come from the state. 
Marriage comes from the church and as such should not be subject to the state.


----------



## mooman

Its simple. Eliminate any and all mention, benefit or judgement of marraige by any government regardless of sex. ITS NOT GOVERNMENTS JOB!! 

I'm pretty dissapointed in republicans for constantly talking about freedom except for issues they find morally reprehensible (gay marraige). That's the kind of crap I expect from liberal dems. If your for freedom then by God BE FOR FREEDOM. If it isn't hurting anyone let it go.

The republican party is dooming itself. I just hope enough of thier base realizes they are actually Libertarain (and start voting that way) BEFORE the liberal Dems step up to fill the vacuum.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

plowjockey said:


> CA ban on any legal same-sex marriages.


On what grounds.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Gun regulation doesn't ignore the second amendment. The supreme court has ruled that the right to posses firearms is not absolute, just like the right to free speech isn't absolute.


I've asked you several times what does "shall not be infringed" mean to you? Where is the term marriage even used in the bill of rights? If the supreme court ruled that gays were not entitled to be married, you would accept that ruling without comment? I hardly think so!


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Equal access to marry the person of your choice is a right, because it's an equal protection under the law issue.


Please point to the section of the bill of rights that states that right specificaly please. So equal protection applies to those that want to marry an animal?


----------



## JeffreyD

plowjockey said:


> Sorry, but I fail to see, where one part of the Constitution, is important and another is not. 2nd amendment is a completely different fight, as is should be.
> 
> The law suit fear, seems moot, since currently, churches regularly turn away heterosexual couples, who want to be married in their church, for various reasons, usually, becasue one (or both) parties are not church members. Even Catholics used to give the ole' heave-ho, when a divorced member, wanted another wedding in the church.
> 
> I'm not seeing where Gays want special rights - just equal ones.


Of course it applies across the board. You can't ignore one amendment and enforce the rest. That's what liberals are always trying to do. Can YOU guarrantee that no gay person will ever sue any church or minister, pastor that refuses to marry them? I think you won't!


----------



## JeffreyD

mooman said:


> Its simple. Eliminate any and all mention, benefit or judgement of marraige by any government regardless of sex. ITS NOT GOVERNMENTS JOB!!
> 
> I'm pretty dissapointed in republicans for constantly talking about freedom except for issues they find morally reprehensible (gay marraige). That's the kind of crap I expect from liberal dems. If your for freedom then by God BE FOR FREEDOM. If it isn't hurting anyone let it go.
> 
> The republican party is dooming itself. I just hope enough of thier base realizes they are actually Libertarain (and start voting that way) BEFORE the liberal Dems step up to fill the vacuum.


When it goes against one's moral values, it doesn't matter what political affliliation one has! It's moraly wrong.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Of course it applies across the board. You can't ignore one amendment and enforce the rest. That's what liberals are always trying to do. Can YOU guarrantee that no gay person will ever sue any church or minister, pastor that refuses to marry them? I think you won't!


No I can't guarantee it. I also can't guarantee that a jury wouldn't rule in their favor. Conservatives are the ones that keep telling us we can't guarantee outcomes but everyone has the same opportunities, right?


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> I'm not a biblical scholar and I'm not qualified to argue the various interpretations of biblical writing. My beliefs and the beliefs of the church I was raised in don't discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation. Your beliefs and those of your church obviously differ. It is not my place to try to change your beliefs. It is (IMHO) a fruitless discussion as the only true answer to who, if anyone, is correct will not be found in this world. If you'd like to continue the discussion as it pertains to the constitution, continue on.


You go in circles. You tell me the Bible condones homosexual behavior. I ask you to show me then you tell me you don't know where it does or if it does. 

This whole discussion is off the rails.


----------



## mooman

First off, its morally wrong IN YOUR VIEW. Its morally wrong in a Jewish person's view to eat pig meat. We don't enact laws to ban it. Morality is not absolute except on an individual basis. As a country we agree that certain acts are so universally immoral that we ban them (murder, theft, rape), but homosexuality and gay marriage are no longer universally accepted as immoral. I'm sorry, you had it your way for a couple hundred years. Now your outnumbered or will be soon. Deal with it.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> You go in circles. You tell me the Bible condones homosexual behavior. I ask you to show me then you tell me you don't know where it does or if it does.
> 
> This whole discussion is off the rails.


No, I said my faith and beliefs allow for same sex marriage as do many others. I am not going to get into a my verse is more powerful than your verse debate. Greater minds than mine have not resolved these questions. My point was that religion should have no bearing on what is a constitutional arguement. My arguments are rarely chided for being to subtle but I guess this one was.


----------



## plowjockey

JeffreyD said:


> Of course it applies across the board. You can't ignore one amendment and enforce the rest. That's what liberals are always trying to do. Can YOU guarrantee that no gay person will ever sue any church or minister, pastor that refuses to marry them? I think you won't!


Anybody can sue, anybody else, over absolutely anything, as we speak.

Any real arguments, against gay marriage, get weaker, by the day. This one won't really help, IMO.

I have not heard once, where Gays - who want equal rights, even care, about even being married in, let alone excepted, by the churches. Their opposition, is really the only ones, who care - at all.

Now it's going from protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, to protecting the church from litigation. 

At least their priorities are in order.


----------



## plowjockey

Laura Zone 5 said:


> On what grounds.


It was voter approved.


----------



## JeffreyD

mooman said:


> First off, its morally wrong IN YOUR VIEW. Its morally wrong in a Jewish person's view to eat pig meat. We don't enact laws to ban it. Morality is not absolute except on an individual basis. As a country we agree that certain acts are so universally immoral that we ban them (murder, theft, rape), but homosexuality and gay marriage are no longer universally accepted as immoral. I'm sorry, you had it your way for a couple hundred years. Now your outnumbered or will be soon. Deal with it.


More people world wide still think being a homosexual is immoral! By far! Those that support it are truely a small minority with the media on their side. It also shows how far our sociaty has fallen moraly!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> More people world wide still think being a homosexual is immoral! By far! Those that support it are truely a small minority with the media on their side. It also shows how far our sociaty has fallen moraly!


So now were going to let a bunch of foreigners tell us what to do? Conservatism really is changing.


----------



## JeffreyD

plowjockey said:


> Anybody can sue, anybody else, over absolutely anything, as we speak.
> 
> Any real arguments, against gay marriage, get weaker, by the day. This one won't really help, IMO.
> 
> I have not heard once, where Gays - who want equal rights, even care, about even being married in, let alone excepted, by the churches. Their opposition, is really the only ones, who care - at all.
> 
> Now it's going from protecting the "sanctity" of marriage, to protecting the church from litigation.
> 
> At least their priorities are in order.


So your answer is NO, I won't guarentee they won't sue! Then why make an exeption for a group of people that want special treatment for choices they made in their lives?The case the gays make gets weaker everyday and the things that their suppoters bring up are just so hellarious some times! I thought there were laws against sodomy!


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> So now were going to let a bunch of foreigners tell us what to do? Conservatism really is changing.


Where did I say that? You seem to like to read a lot of things differently that what what was actually said! Why is that? But, actually your right. The UN keeps telling America what to do and the liberals oblige them at every turn!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Where did I say that? You seem to like to read a lot of things differently that what what was actually said! Why is that? But, actually your right. The UN keeps telling America what to do and the liberals oblige them at every turn!


You were the one that brought up what people world wide think. I'm concerned with what those in this country want.


----------



## plowjockey

JeffreyD said:


> So your answer is NO, I won't guarentee they won't sue! Then why make an exeption for a group of people that want special treatment for choices they made in their lives?The case the gays make gets weaker everyday and the things that their suppoters bring up are just so hellarious some times! I thought there were laws against sodomy!


What "special treatment", are they asking for?




> I thought there were laws against sodomy!


Careful there, sir. breaking laws against "Sodomy", is a _heterosexual_ offense, also.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> You were the one that brought up what people world wide think. I'm concerned with what those in this country want.


But I didn't say what you attributed to me! I was responding to another poster and you interjected yourself. The majority of folks in this country don't want gay marriages regardless of what some of the polls say! Just ask folks and see!


----------



## JeffreyD

plowjockey said:


> What "special treatment", are they asking for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Careful there, sir. breaking laws against "Sodomy", is a _heterosexual_ offense, also.


Their asking to be a "special class" based on a choice they made and to allow them to be married, when all they really need is just like we have here.......civil unions! They want to change something that's been the way it is for ever. Change the law about benifit dispersions and problem solved without gays getting married. Simple.


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> But I didn't say what you attributed to me! I was responding to another poster and you interjected yourself. The majority of folks in this country don't want gay marriages regardless of what some of the polls say! Just ask folks and see!


That is what pollsters do . They ask people. The latest polls I've seen cited show support for allowing gay marriage to be between 48% and 58% while the largest number I've seen attributed to those opposed is 44%. If you have different numbers I'd be interested to see them.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> That is what pollsters do . They ask people. The latest polls I've seen cited show support for allowing gay marriage to be between 48% and 58% while the largest number I've seen attributed to those opposed is 44%. If you have different numbers I'd be interested to see them.


What polls are you looking at? If it's one of the major polling companies, I wouldn't pay much attention since their pretty much told what outcome is desired. Stand in front of a bank or market and ask yourself. That's what I do.(as time allows) why did the people of California vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage! That IS what this is all about!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> What polls are you looking at? If it's one of the major polling companies, I wouldn't pay much attention since their pretty much told what outcome is desired. Stand in front of a bank or market and ask yourself. That's what I do.(as time allows) why did the people of California vote overwhelmingly against gay marriage! That IS what this is all about!


The Pew Research center poll was the 58% figure. Gallup released a poll earlier today showing a 54%-44% divide in favor of ga


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> The Pew Research center poll was the 58% figure. Gallup released a poll earlier today showing a 54%-44% divide in favor of ga


What were the questions asked, and how were they phrased? Who did they target? Makes a HUGE difference. Anything I see from Pew, Times-dornsithe, Field poll, Gallup, Rasmuson are all to be taken with a grain of salt untill the statistics of those polls are studied. My polls are more concise than theirs are. Mine are free too!


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> What were the questions asked, and how were they phrased? Who did they target? Makes a HUGE difference. Anything I see from Pew, Times-dornsithe, Field poll, Gallup, Rasmuson are all to be taken with a grain of salt untill the statistics of those polls are studied. My polls are more concise than theirs are. Mine are free too!


And what question(s) do you ask. What is your sampling size? What demographics are you polling? Where do you publish your results? I can go to any of these organizations and find these answers. Where can I go to find yours?


----------



## Old Vet

I say abide by the constitution but since it was not in the constitution abide by the 10 amendment. For those that didn't read the constitution the 10 amendment says 
*Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People*

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>​
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> And what question(s) do you ask. What is your sampling size? What demographics are you polling? Where do you publish your results? I can go to any of these organizations and find these answers. Where can I go to find yours?


"Do you support the right for gays to marry"?

1854 people over the age of 18

Anyone who walks by!

I don't publish them.

Can you post those answers here since you brought them up? Thanks!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> 
> Equal access to marry the person of your choice is a right, because it's an equal protection under the law issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Please point to the section of the bill of rights that states that right specificaly please.
Click to expand...

It's called the Equal Protection clause, and you'll find it in the 14th Amendment.

_All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*._


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> It's called the Equal Protection clause, and you'll find it in the 14th Amendment.
> 
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*._


What protection are they being denied? The government doesn't like this amendment. That have already made laws against most of it. Not sure what you point is! Where does it say "marriage"? It doesn't. Due process was served and prop 8 won! The government here was supposed to defend it as required by law, but they didn't. Why not? What is their agenda?


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> "Do you support the right for gays to marry"?
> 
> 1854 people over the age of 18
> 
> Anyone who walks by!
> 
> I don't publish them.
> 
> Can you post those answers here since you brought them up? Thanks!


www.pewresearch.org
www.gallup.com

Knock yourself out.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> What protection are they being denied?


You can't deny retirement and other survivor benefits to a class of people and still claim they have equal protection under the law.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> You can't deny retirement and other survivor benefits to a class of people and still claim they have equal protection under the law.


But their not a class of people. What an absurd notion! Where do you come up with this nonsense? Class refers to ethnicity, not sexual preference! Gays come in different shapes, styles, color and sizes, not classes! Also, you didn't point out where the term "marriage" was used.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> www.pewresearch.org
> www.gallup.com
> 
> Knock yourself out.


Did you even read any of the poll results? I don't think you did. You wouldn't have brought them up if you did! There are other questions they asked that clearly show a majority don't agree with gay marriage! I can't cut and paste from my phone, but I will later. They only posted what they really wanted you to believe. Clearly, they have an agenda.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> But their not a class of people. What an absurd notion! Where do you come up with this nonsense? Class refers to ethnicity, not sexual preference! Gays come in different shapes, styles, color and sizes, not classes! Also, you didn't point out where the term "marriage" was used.


Of course they are a class of people. Class, in the legal sense, does not refer to ethnicity. We see class-action lawsuits all the time where the class filing suit is of mixed race, such as a group of customers who purchased a particular product.

But the government can exclude a class from equal protection for good reason. For example, people who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are denied the right of gun ownership as a class. But the government believes they have a valid reason for keeping guns out of the hands of that class.

I don't see any good reason for excluding gays, as a class, from marital benefits.


----------



## Pops2

Can't really trust polls anyway. Most are conducted by phone by people working from home. My MIL did this and just made up the answers because she didn't want to call people.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Of course they are a class of people. Class, in the legal sense, does not refer to ethnicity. We see class-action lawsuits all the time where the class filing suit is of mixed race, such as a group of customers who purchased a particular product.
> 
> But the government can exclude a class from equal protection for good reason. For example, people who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are denied the right of gun ownership as a class. But the government believes they have a valid reason for keeping guns out of the hands of that class.
> 
> I don't see any good reason for excluding gays, as a class, from marital benefits.


Then why not just change the law? Civil union partners get the same benifits! Simple, no?


----------



## Txsteader

Look, Republicans weren't the ones who initially prohibited homosexuality. In fact, the prohibition didn't even begin in American. It began centuries ago, as mankind advanced and became more civilized. People understood that certain behaviors were 'harmful' to society where people have to live alongside one another. 

If it were simply a 'Christian' issue, then why is homosexual behavior considered taboo in other religions as well?


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> It's called the Equal Protection clause, and you'll find it in the 14th Amendment.
> 
> _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws*._


That applies to children, too, right?


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Then why not just change the law? Civil union partners get the same benifits! Simple, no?


You know what, I wouldn't mind expanding civil unions to have the same benefits of marriage. I don't really care what they call it. But for some reason they won't do it. If congress changes the law to give civil unions the same benefits then we'll talk.


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> That applies to children, too, right?


Yes, it does apply to children. But remember that a class can be treated differently if there is a good and reasonable reason for doing so, similar to denying gun ownership to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> Yes, it does apply to children. But remember that a class can be treated differently if there is a good and reasonable reason for doing so, *similar to denying gun ownership to people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.*


But that's nor the only thing that's being proposed/pushed in the gun legislation, is it? It's not enough to deny gun ownership to certain people, liberals want to restrict *everyone *as to what type of guns they can own.

Like I said before, it won't stop with the marriage benefits issue. 

It didn't stop at the school prayer issue. It didn't stop with the abortion issue.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> Equal access to marry the person of your choice is a right, because it's an equal protection under the law issue.


Incorrect. As previously stated, I want to marry Jennifer Anniston. Is the gov't going to force her to accept my proposal? 

We all can marry the person of the opposite sex, assuming they also want to. That is equal. 

I'm not hard and fast against gay marriage, I just don't like the illogic used to justify it.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> You can't deny retirement and other survivor benefits to a class of people and still claim they have equal protection under the law.


Gays have always been able to get married and have for millenia, but perhaps not their first choice of spouse. The spouses of gays have all the same rights as the spouses of straights. When you apply for survivor benefits, SSI doesn't ask you if your spouse was REALLY straight, bi-curious, or an out of the closet flamer. 

What you are asking for is to redefine marriage to something else and then demanding the same privileges and benefits as under the prior definition.


----------



## ErinP

To the issue of sin and sinners, according to my Bible, we're ALL sinners. 
Fortunately, _my_ sin was socially acceptable and therefore I was allowed to marry the person of my choice. 
It's just too bad those gays can't pick more agreeable sins! :yuck:


For that matter, if we're going to be legislating based on God's judgement, the first commandment is the restriction of faiths. "Thou shalt have no other god's before me."
So I'm not really understanding how those Buddhist and atheists and Muslims are getting away with not showing up in church on Sunday like they're supposed to!!!


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> Incorrect. As previously stated, I want to marry Jennifer Anniston. Is the gov't going to force her to accept my proposal?
> 
> We all can marry the person of the opposite sex, assuming they also want to. That is equal.
> 
> I'm not hard and fast against gay marriage, I just don't like the illogic used to justify it.


You might as well know, this is an issue that's going to happen. Gay rights has the high ground, both in popular opinion and in constitutionality.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> You might as well know, this is an issue that's going to happen. Gay rights has the high ground, both in popular opinion and in constitutionality.


Pedophile rights are next I suppose! I don't see why any liberal would object. The only reason the gay marriage issue has become more popular is the push for it by liberals. You know, the same liberals running the schools, (we know their doing just great), the same liberals who want ban soda, or Chic-Fil-A, or restrict or Constitutional rights. Maybe a lot more of them are closet gays so they push for a more gay agenda!


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> Pedophile rights are next I suppose! I don't see why any liberal would object. The only reason the gay marriage issue has become more popular is the push for it by liberals. You know, the same liberals running the schools, (we know their doing just great), the same liberals who want ban soda, or Chic-Fil-A, or restrict or Constitutional rights. Maybe a lot more of them are closet gays so they push for a more gay agenda!


Hey, I'm just telling you how it is.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> You might as well know, this is an issue that's going to happen. Gay rights has the high ground, both in popular opinion and in constitutionality.


While I don't agree it has a constitutional basis, I agree it is going to happen and that those that fight it are losing ground. On a Libertarian basis, I think the gov't has no grounds for taking a stand either way.


----------



## bluesky

JeffreyD said:


> Pedophile rights are next I suppose! I don't see why any liberal would object. The only reason the gay marriage issue has become more popular is the push for it by liberals. You know, the same liberals running the schools, (we know their doing just great), the same liberals who want ban soda, or Chic-Fil-A, or restrict or Constitutional rights. Maybe a lot more of them are closet gays so they push for a more gay agenda!


Support gay rights = closeted gay (a pretty weak insult but you use what you've got).

Support civil rights for blacks in the 60s = ???

Support the vote for women = ???


----------



## Tiempo

JeffreyD said:


> Pedophile rights are next I suppose! I don't see why any liberal would object. The only reason the gay marriage issue has become more popular is the push for it by liberals. You know, the same liberals running the schools, (we know their doing just great), the same liberals who want ban soda, or Chic-Fil-A, or restrict or Constitutional rights. Maybe a lot more of them are closet gays so they push for a more gay agenda!


Pure silliness.

Speaking for myself and I know a lot of my liberal friends would agree, I support gay marriage, hate pedophiles, I don't want to ban soda in any size, I don't want to ban Chick-fil-a or restrict constitutional rights.

I'm also 100% straight, even though I've touched Debbie Harry's naked boobs


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> On a Libertarian basis, I think the gov't has no grounds for taking a stand either way.


How does the government not make a stand? The government is either going to pay spousal SS & Medicare benefits or it isn't. Where's the middle ground?


----------



## CesumPec

JeffreyD said:


> Pedophile rights are next I suppose! I don't see why any liberal would object.


Perhaps the age of informed consent will be redefined down to something more in line with historical norms and those of many other 1st world countries. My mother got married at 14 to a 23 year old man. It was a pretty normal thing in the 1950s and for several millennia prior; today it is a heinous crime. Those who use the Bible as an argument against gay marriage will find little support to keep a 15 year old from saying I do. 

More likely will be that plural marriage will be next in line for gov't approval. You can marry the number of people you want to so so should a Mormon or any other group of people. Most of the arguments for gay marriage hold with groups of 3 or more. And the Bible has plenty of support for polygamy. 

When 3 or 15 people can get married and divorced and it takes a score card more complex than one for baseball to know who is married, when, and to whom, recognition of marriage becomes meaningless and a major annoyance. I think this eventually ends up with no recognition or benefits of marriage from gov't or industry. 

But even if the above holds true, I still don't think that is a valid argument against gay marriage.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> How does the government not make a stand? The government is either going to pay spousal SS & Medicare benefits or it isn't. Where's the middle ground?


Perhaps no recognition or benefits of marriage. Or perhaps just as I can make you the beneficiary of my life ins policy and it makes no matter if we are married, having sex, or even like each other, why can't SS and Medicare simply allow me to designate one, two, or twenty beneficiaries who divide what ever benefit I have been designated (I won't use the word "earned")? 

It does change the actuarial math for SS but so will gay marriage.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> Hey, I'm just telling you how it is.


Me too!


----------



## JeffreyD

bluesky said:


> Support gay rights = closeted gay (a pretty weak insult but you use what you've got).
> 
> Support civil rights for blacks in the 60s = ???
> 
> Support the vote for women = ???


What party freed the slaves?


----------



## Pops2

Tiempo said:


> I'm also 100% straight, even though I've touched Debbie Harry's naked boobs


You are my hero.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Can someone help me, please.

Gays want the right to marry because?

Is it as simple as "they want to have the same insurance / ss / benefits, and that's it?


----------



## Pops2

CesumPec said:


> Perhaps the age of informed consent will be redefined down to something more in line with historical norms and those of many other 1st world countries. My mother got married at 14 to a 23 year old man. It was a pretty normal thing in the 1950s and for several millennia prior; today it is a heinous crime. Those who use the Bible as an argument against gay marriage will find little support to keep a 15 year old from saying I do.
> .


That's not true. It wasn't normal for that long time period. In fact church records from the colonial period indicate most women's first marriage occurred in their early 20s. Same for Britain during that time period. In Anglo countries but especially the USA the average marrying age drops mostly during periods of prolonged economic depression & goes back up after the economy recovers.


----------



## mrsgcpete

Gay couples want to marry because they want to their relationships to be equal and they want their relationships to be just as important as their straight neighbors. They want to be able to adopt children. They want to be able to file taxes together. and they want to be able to visit their spouses in the hospital, they want to be protected so that if something terrible happens and family that may or may not really know the patient swoops in and starts making decisions, they have a legal footing to stand on. (my aunt is in the medical field, and it happens all the time)


----------



## CesumPec

Pops2 said:


> That's not true. It wasn't normal for that long time period. In fact church records from the colonial period indicate most women's first marriage occurred in their early 20s. Same for Britain during that time period. In Anglo countries but especially the USA the average marrying age drops mostly during periods of prolonged economic depression & goes back up after the economy recovers.


you may be right about that narrow time, I'll take your word for it. But for thousands of years, across many cultures, girls have been married off within a few years post puberty.


----------



## Evons hubby

HDRider said:


> So the SCOTUS can rule a State Constituional amendment unconstitutional???


Yes.... Constitutional rights guaranteed by the US Constitution cannot be trumped by state laws, or state Constitutions.

Article six of US Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, *anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."*


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Can someone help me, please.
> 
> Gays want the right to marry because?
> 
> Is it as simple as "they want to have the same insurance / ss / benefits, and that's it?


In most cases that I've seen it's for the same reasons straight people get married. They love the partner they're with, want to have a celebration of that love and announce it and their commitment to each other to the world at large, and take advantage of the benefits govt's accrue to the union. Everyone, straight or gay, has their reasons not all of which are evident from the outside looking in.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

So if gays just want to marry, so they can have the same benefits as a married couple (visit in the hosp, social security bennys, insurance, etc) AND THAT'S IT......other than the moral issue, what is the big deal? (gays can adopt kids now.)

They will have to pay for the license to marry.
They will have to pay for the lawyer and court costs for the divorce.
So the government makes their money. God knows that's all they care about.

In a sentence or two, what's the big deal?


----------



## unregistered168043

CesumPec said:


> Perhaps no recognition or benefits of marriage. Or perhaps just as I can make you the beneficiary of my life ins policy and it makes no matter if we are married, having sex, or even like each other, why can't SS and Medicare simply allow me to designate one, two, or twenty beneficiaries who divide what ever benefit I have been designated (I won't use the word "earned")?
> 
> It does change the actuarial math for SS but so will gay marriage.



Thats exactly how it should be. I have always found it curious that we are supposed to report the status of our personal relationships to the government, who then 'legitimizes' them with a piece of paper and a tax break. It is not an appropriate role for the government. The government is an administrative servant, fix the roads, protect against violence and fraud. They have no place presiding over the personal relationships of the individuals they serve

Likewise I would find it equally outrageous to have to inform the post office of my sex life, or my diet, or read them excerpts from my journal.


----------



## Txsteader

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So if gays just want to marry, so they can have the same benefits as a married couple (visit in the hosp, social security bennys, insurance, etc) AND THAT'S IT......other than the moral issue, what is the big deal? (gays can adopt kids now.)
> 
> They will have to pay for the license to marry.
> They will have to pay for the lawyer and court costs for the divorce.
> So the government makes their money. God knows that's all they care about.
> 
> In a sentence or two, what's the big deal?


The argument being put forth is that homosexual marriage is a *civil right*. So, now that this Pandora's box has been opened, what else can be demanded as a 'civil right'? 

Where do we draw the line in terms of moral issues and their influence on our society/nation?


----------



## ErinP

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So if gays just want to marry, so they can have the same benefits as a married couple (visit in the hosp, social security bennys, insurance, etc) AND THAT'S IT......other than the moral issue, what is the big deal? (gays can adopt kids now.)
> 
> They will have to pay for the license to marry.
> They will have to pay for the lawyer and court costs for the divorce.
> So the government makes their money. God knows that's all they care about.
> 
> In a sentence or two, what's the big deal?


Just a quick interjection: Gay couples _can't_ adopt in many states...


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> The argument being put forth is that homosexual marriage is a *civil right*. So, now that this Pandora's box has been opened, what else can be demanded as a 'civil right'?
> 
> Where do we draw the line in terms of moral issues and their influence on our society/nation?


To my way of thinking we should all be entitled to do pretty much anything we can dream up... as long as... and thats the important part... as long as it has no negative affects on the next fellers rights to do the same.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Txsteader said:


> The argument being put forth is that homosexual marriage is a *civil right*. So, now that this Pandora's box has been opened, what else can be demanded as a 'civil right'?
> 
> Where do we draw the line in terms of moral issues and their influence on our society/nation?


Help me understand what a 'civil right' is?


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> To my way of thinking we should all be entitled to do pretty much anything we can dream up... as long as... and thats the important part... as long as it has no negative affects on the next fellers rights to do the same.


agreed, but gay marriage isn't about the right of free association between two consenting adults. While Yvonne and my DW might object, you and I can cohabitate and do whatever. It is when we demand gov't recognition and benefits that this becomes a public issue.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Civil Right:
basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law. These rights as conceived in _*U.S. law are set forth in the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution*_ and in some congressional acts.



*[SIZE=+1]Constitutional Grants of Powers to Congress under the Civil War Amendments[/SIZE]* *AMENDMENT XIII*
* [SIZE=-1]Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. [/SIZE]* * Section 1. * 
* Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. * 
* Section 2. * 
* Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. * 
*AMENDMENT XIV*
* [SIZE=-1]Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. [/SIZE]* * Section 1. * 
* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. * 
* Section 2-4 [omitted]. * 
* Section 5. * 
* The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.* 



Ok, with this information, can someone tell me why this gay marriage is a "civil rights" issue?


----------



## ErinP

> Ok, with this information, can someone tell me why this gay marriage is a "civil rights" issue?


because one class of people is given the right marry the adult of their choosing, but another is not. 

"or to receive *fair treatment from the law*."


----------



## Evons hubby

CesumPec said:


> agreed, but gay marriage isn't about the right of free association between two consenting adults. While Yvonne and my DW might object, you and I can cohabitate and do whatever. It is when we demand gov't recognition and benefits that this becomes a public issue.


I a pretty sure you will get a bit of resistance from me on this one too.... probably more than from my Yvonne!  

It is not a public issue... or shouldnt be anyway if John and Joe want to get married.... any more than it is if Jane and Joe want to get married..... Equal protection under the law does have a meaning. If the state is going to recognize Jane and Joe as a married couple, and grant them privileges and or immunities, they need to recognize John and Joe in the exact same manner.


----------



## MJsLady

They already have the same protections in civil unions. They are not satisfied with that.


----------



## ErinP

No, they _don't_. 
That's why this is in front of the Supreme Court.


----------



## bluesky

MJsLady said:


> They already have the same protections in civil unions. They are not satisfied with that.


"They" are not satisfied because separate but equal is _not_ equal. See Brown v. Board of Education, 1954.


----------



## Evons hubby

MJsLady said:


> They already have the same protections in civil unions. They are not satisfied with that.


If only that were true.


----------



## Nevada

MJsLady said:


> They already have the same protections in civil unions.


Evidently you don't understand the issues.


----------



## pancho

It would seem like if a person was a true christian they would not have any complaints about same sex marriage. I can see not being part of it myself but just my opinion, a true christian will not try to force their beliefs on another person or deprive another person of their rights.
Looks like there isn't many true christians.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It is not a public issue... or shouldnt be anyway if John and Joe want to get married.... any more than it is if Jane and Joe want to get married..... Equal protection under the law does have a meaning. If the state is going to recognize Jane and Joe as a married couple, and grant them privileges and or immunities, they need to recognize John and Joe in the exact same manner.


I mentioned this in the other thread. 

It IS a public issue because there was a REASON for the state to define and recognize marriages. There were benefits not only to the couple, but to the state/society as well.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> I mentioned this in the other thread.
> 
> It IS a public issue because there was a REASON for the state to define and recognize marriages. There were benefits not only to the couple, but to the state/society as well.


Ok, now I am curious..... what benefits do the states receive from a married couple?


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, now I am curious..... what benefits do the states receive from a married couple?


I'm surprised you don't know this, YH.

Procreation. Defining 'marriage' and granting financial benefits encourages procreation, which in turn benefits the state via a more stable social fabric and the production of more taxpayers.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> I'm surprised you don't know this, YH.
> 
> Procreation. Defining 'marriage' and granting financial benefits encourages procreation, which in turn benefits the state via a more stable social fabric and the production of more taxpayers.


Thats and interesting theory.... but need I remind you that in todays world procreation produces more and more criminals, and deadbeats... who will eventually become elderly and place even heavier demands upon the few productive citizens? Hardly a benefit!


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats and interesting theory.... but need I remind you that in todays world procreation produces more and more criminals, and deadbeats... who will eventually become elderly and place even heavier demands upon the few productive citizens? Hardly a benefit!


So.....the solution is to be found in homosexual marriages???


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> So.....the solution is to be found in homosexual marriages???


I dunno.... they dont seem to produce as many criminal offspring though do they? 

Charles Manson.... hetero parents

John Gacey.... hetero parents

Adolf Hitler.... hetero parents

Oba.... naw lets not go there today.


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I a pretty sure you will get a bit of resistance from me on this one too.... probably more than from my Yvonne!
> 
> It is not a public issue... or shouldnt be anyway if John and Joe want to get married.... any more than it is if Jane and Joe want to get married..... Equal protection under the law does have a meaning. If the state is going to recognize Jane and Joe as a married couple, and grant them privileges and or immunities, they need to recognize John and Joe in the exact same manner.


which brings me back to eliminating all gov't benefits based on marital status.


----------



## Tiempo

CesumPec said:


> which brings me back to eliminating all gov't benefits based on marital status.


What about immigration and spousal privilege?

VA spousal benefits?

Family and medical leave?


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> I'm surprised you don't know this, YH.
> 
> Procreation. Defining 'marriage' and granting financial benefits encourages procreation, which in turn benefits the state via a more stable social fabric and the production of more taxpayers.


So there should be an age limit on marriage? Women of a certain age can no longer procreate so they should not be allowed to wed?


----------



## Evons hubby

Tiempo said:


> What about immigration and spousal privilege?
> 
> VA spousal benefits?
> 
> Family and medical leave?


yep, do away with it all. level the playing field a bit.


----------



## bluesky

mmoetc said:


> In most cases that I've seen it's for the same reasons straight people get married. They love the partner they're with, want to have a celebration of that love and announce it and their commitment to each other to the world at large, and take advantage of the benefits govt's accrue to the union. Everyone, straight or gay, has their reasons not all of which are evident from the outside looking in.


Well said. :thumb:


----------



## CesumPec

Tiempo said:


> What about immigration and spousal privilege?
> 
> VA spousal benefits?
> 
> Family and medical leave?


once you've destroyed the concept of family, that's where things will lead.


----------



## bluesky

CesumPec said:


> once you've destroyed the concept of family, that's where things will lead.


If you destroy the concept of the family it leads to what? You lost me.


----------



## CesumPec

bluesky said:


> If you destroy the concept of the family it leads to what? You lost me.


please see prior messages to which you replied. I'm not charged up enough about this subject to prepare a synopsis of all that has proceeded this.


----------



## bluesky

CesumPec said:


> please see prior messages to which you replied. I'm not charged up enough about this subject to prepare a synopsis of all that has proceeded this.


 I got lost and thought you might be able to give a quick synopsis. If not - no problem.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dunno.... they dont seem to produce as many criminal offspring though do they?
> 
> Charles Manson.... hetero parents
> 
> John Gacey.... hetero parents
> 
> Adolf Hitler.... hetero parents
> 
> Oba.... naw lets not go there today.


Well, considering the miniscule number of children living in homosexual households, and the short time frame that homosexuals have been adopting, I'd say your logic is rather weak......and more than a little bizarre. :shocked:


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Oy.

Ok, so here's what I get.
Gays want the right to 'marry', pay for a license, be 'married', receive benefits, etc. just like a man and wife couple. *That's it.*
No other agenda.

Gay marriage is NOT a stepping stone, to FORCE pastors/preists/preachers who do not condone homosexualtiy to preform wedding ceremonies.
Gay marriage is NOT a stepping stone for FORCED cirriculum in the schools.
Gay marriage is NOT about FORCING their ways onto everyone else.

First, let me say, that I am a Believer and follower of Jesus Christ.
I clearly understand what Scriptures say about the act of homosexuality and the person connected with the act.
Love the human, hate the sin.

HOWEVER, HEAR ME CLEARLY WHEN I SAY:

How dare people get up on their holy high horse about gay marriage and call it a MORAL ISSUE when they permit AND EVEN CONDONE partial birth abortions.
You can deliver a baby, A VIABLE LIFE, 1/2 way out of the mother, slit his spine and rip his brains out thereby MURDERING HIM........and it's called CHOICE.
And this country permits it. 
Condones it. 
Chooses it.
So don't get on your holy high horse about gay marriage if you are not equally OR MORE hopped up and furious about abortion.
:soap:

I am not a gay couples Judge.
I can discern right from wrong, but I am no one's Judge.
My job is to love. Not condone, love.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Well, considering the miniscule number of children living in homosexual households, and the short time frame that homosexuals have been adopting, I'd say your logic is rather weak......and more than a little bizarre. :shocked:


oh well, I wasnt talking about adoptive parents.... I was talking about offspring actually being produced by homosexual parents. To my knowledge, thus far there have been no criminals born to a purely homosexual couple. There always seems to be a person of the opposite sex involved somewhere in the process.


----------



## HDRider

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Oy.
> 
> Ok, so here's what I get.
> Gays want the right to 'marry', pay for a license, be 'married', receive benefits, etc. just like a man and wife couple. *That's it.*
> No other agenda.
> 
> Gay marriage is NOT a stepping stone, to FORCE pastors/preists/preachers who do not condone homosexualtiy to preform wedding ceremonies.
> Gay marriage is NOT a stepping stone for FORCED cirriculum in the schools.
> Gay marriage is NOT about FORCING their ways onto everyone else.
> 
> First, let me say, that I am a Believer and follower of Jesus Christ.
> I clearly understand what Scriptures say about the act of homosexuality and the person connected with the act.
> Love the human, hate the sin.
> 
> HOWEVER, HEAR ME CLEARLY WHEN I SAY:
> 
> How dare people get up on their holy high horse about gay marriage and call it a MORAL ISSUE when they permit AND EVEN CONDONE partial birth abortions.
> You can deliver a baby, A VIABLE LIFE, 1/2 way out of the mother, slit his spine and rip his brains out thereby MURDERING HIM........and it's called CHOICE.
> And this country permits it.
> Condones it.
> Chooses it.
> So don't get on your holy high horse about gay marriage if you are not equally OR MORE hopped up and furious about abortion.
> :soap:
> 
> I am not a gay couples Judge.
> I can discern right from wrong, but I am no one's Judge.
> My job is to love. Not condone, love.


America is haunted by the ghost of 53,000,000 unborn aborted babies. 53 million spirts and souls.


----------



## CesumPec

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Oy.
> 
> 
> How dare people get up on their holy high horse about gay marriage and call it a MORAL ISSUE when they permit AND EVEN CONDONE partial birth abortions.


Bizarre, illogical, not related issues at all. There is no equivalency at all. I could just as easily say, HOW DARE YOU CONDONE killing innocent cows just so you can eat roast beef. It would be nutty and has no relation to abortion or gay marriage.


----------



## HDRider

CesumPec said:


> Bizarre, illogical, not related issues at all. There is no equivalency at all. I could just as easily say, HOW DARE YOU CONDONE killing innocent cows just so you can eat roast beef. It would be nutty and has no relation to abortion or gay marriage.


Killing beef to eat is the same as killing an unwanted baby in your mind???


----------



## CesumPec

HDRider said:


> Killing beef to eat is the same as killing an unwanted baby in your mind???


Geesh, did you read my post? Try again.

Let me put it anther way...there are lots of important issues for different people. I might want to campaign to get the pot holes filled on the road to the local orphange. That doesn't mean I am condoning abortion because I'm not spending all my time and resources on that topic. I may or may not think abortion is more important, people can have different valuie systems. And I might think abortion is WAY more important but beyond my ability to change, so I deal with something more local and doable.


----------



## HDRider

CesumPec said:


> Bizarre, illogical, not related issues at all. There is no equivalency at all. I could just as easily say, HOW DARE YOU CONDONE killing innocent cows just so you can eat roast beef. It would be nutty and has no relation to abortion or gay marriage.


You are missing LZ5's point. Both abortion and gay behavior are immoral by the definition of many. To condone one and condemn the other is inconsistent.


----------



## HDRider

CesumPec said:


> Geesh, did you read my post? Try again.
> 
> Let me put it anther way...there are lots of important issues for different people. I might want to campaign to get the pot holes filled on the road to the local orphange. That doesn't mean I am condoning abortion because I'm not spending all my time and resources on that topic. I may or may not think abortion is more important, people can have different valuie systems. And I might think abortion is WAY more important but beyond my ability to change, so I deal with something more local and doable.


Sure I read what you wrote and showed you how convoluted your point was and still is.


----------



## Tiempo

> To condone one and condemn the other is inconsistent.


Not at all, they are completely different issues.


----------



## HDRider

Tiempo said:


> Not at all, they are completely different issues.


The constant is the immorality of them both..


----------



## Laura Zone 5

CesumPec said:


> Bizarre, illogical, not related issues at all. There is no equivalency at all. I could just as easily say, HOW DARE YOU CONDONE killing innocent cows just so you can eat roast beef. It would be nutty and has no relation to abortion or gay marriage.


Sorry, cows were not created in the Image of God......so it is NOT bizzare and illogical at all.
It's 100% hypocritical.

TO tolerate, and condone the slaughter of human beings, in the name of 'choice' then throw stones at gay marriage?
Are you kidding me?

Sorry. If Americans can condone the slaughter of innocent babies I seriously think gay marriage is a total non-issue.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Tiempo said:


> Not at all, they are completely different issues.


Yes ma'am totally different issues, but my point is those that have their "holy panties in a wad" over gay marriage (it's wrong, it's sinful, it's.......) 
BUT
Are at the very worst, pro-choice (last time I checked, murder is a sin)
or
They turn a blind eye to the abortion issue.

BUT BUT BUT

Will pop off Scripture, and arguments on how gay marriage is a sin, or it's wrecking our society, bla bla bla.....

That's what I mean.....you can't get all holy and sanctimonious about gay marriage and turn a blind eye to abortion.

I hope that better explains.


----------



## CesumPec

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Sorry, cows were not created in the Image of God......so it is NOT bizzare and illogical at all.
> It's 100% hypocritical.
> 
> TO tolerate, and condone the slaughter of human beings, in the name of 'choice' then throw stones at gay marriage?
> Are you kidding me?
> 
> Sorry. If Americans can condone the slaughter of innocent babies I seriously think gay marriage is a total non-issue.


with that kind of absurd logic you can justify anything. Aboriton has no place in this discussion.


----------



## CesumPec

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yes ma'am totally different issues, but my point is those that have their "holy panties in a wad" over gay marriage (it's wrong, it's sinful, it's.......)
> BUT
> Are at the very worst, pro-choice (last time I checked, murder is a sin)
> or
> They turn a blind eye to the abortion issue.
> 
> BUT BUT BUT
> 
> Will pop off Scripture, and arguments on how gay marriage is a sin, or it's wrecking our society, bla bla bla.....
> 
> That's what I mean.....you can't get all holy and sanctimonious about gay marriage and turn a blind eye to abortion.
> 
> I hope that better explains.


A. the people against gay marriage because of religious reaons are probably also anti - abortion, so that makes no sense
B. There are people against gay marriage suimply because it is not a natural definition of family and (Me) don't want to expand gov't intrusions and benefits any more than they already are.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

CesumPec said:


> A. the people against gay marriage because of religious reaons are probably also anti - abortion, so that makes no sense


Take a poll.
I think you will be shocked at how many are vehemently against gay marriage, but support a woman's right to choose.
They will jump up on their holy soap box and tear into gay marriage, but will turn a blind eye to the 'sin of their choice'.
That is the point I am making.
This behavior makes the person and ultra, oober hypocrite.



> B. There are people against gay marriage suimply because it is not a natural definition of family and (Me) don't want to expand gov't intrusions and benefits any more than they already are.


Ok, what is natural about delivering a baby 2/3's of the way out of the mother, and then murdering him, in the birth canal?
There is NOTHING natural about that??
*YET my tax dollars, from my pay check, that I go to work and EARN*.....pays for that procedure (and others like it IE: any abortion) because the babies 'mama' has the right to choose, *AND she doesn't have a job to pay for it.*

If the 'holy' person is against gay marriage on the grounds it's not natural / sinful / destroys the normal family..........and that SAME 'holy' person is not equally or MORE appalled on the issue of abortion......

ON THE GROUNDS THAT BOTH ARE SIN
Then they are grade A number one hypocrites.

My argument makes perfect sense.
If you are against one sin, but you are perfectly ok with another, one can say that person practices 'cafeteria christianity' meaning, take what you like and leave what you don't.....
Which is not how God operates.

This gay marriage issue is nothing but a smoke screen for the carp they are passing into law on the down low. 
The majority doesn't give a poop about gay marriage. 
The media is fanning the fire so that people can bicker back and forth, *distracting us from the real issues*, AND we are too stupid to see what the government is passing into law while we are fighting like 4 year olds......

America falls for the banana in the tail pipe trick, every time.


----------



## CesumPec

Talk about distracting from the issues. You are making up stats, bringing in a completely unrelated topic, and then going down the rat hole of Christian hypocrisy. No thanks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Take a poll.
> I think you will be shocked at how many are vehemently *against gay marriage, but support a woman's right to choose.*
> They will jump up on their holy soap box and tear into gay marriage, but will turn a blind eye to the 'sin of their choice'.


Are you only going to poll "religious" people?
Otherwise you're just ranting aimlessly


----------



## HuskyBoris

HDRider said:


> As it has been said in many threads, follow the money (love of money and so on).
> 
> Gays want access to the same monetary benefits as regular people. Spouse insurance, survivor benefits, and all the things a wife has related to being married to her husband, and vice versa. Gays want that legal contract and protection.
> 
> Some are militant about it. The MSM wants it. Liberals use them as another constituent. It will happen. Some gays think their lifestyle is fine in the eyes of God, most maybe don't care.
> 
> Gays make up less than 10% of the population, but their representation in many aspects is out sized. They have the minds of the young convinced. Our public education system is being used to indoctrinate to ideas that in times past were viewed as wrong.
> 
> In God's law there are absolutes. In man's law there are no absolutes. The definitions of right and wrong are pliable and can be changed.


and why shouldn't they be entitled to the same treatment as straights?,,I don't think they want special treatment just equal treatment.
I also think their lifestyle is between them and God and no one else so if they wanna get married,,let them !
what makes their rights less then ours?
my life and what I do won't be affected by it
Yes the Church is against it,, this I know but the Church does not dictate the law of the land.

edit ;;I can't judge because I am not perfect either.


----------



## Truckinguy

HDRider said:


> The constant is the immorality of them both..


Only to Christians. I have my issues with abortion but the Bible is irrelevant to me so homosexuality is neither a "sin" or wrong in my eyes. Gay marriage is not a moral issue to me or many others.



> once you've destroyed the concept of family, that's where things will lead.


I think the mistake here is the assumption that "family" has to be blood related. I know some biological families that I wouldn't classify as family in any way due to the way they treat each other and leach off society. On the other hand, I know a few gay couples who have either adopted a child (or more) or who treat other people's children with as much love and compassion as if they were their own child.


----------



## Nevada

Truckinguy said:


> HDRider said:
> 
> 
> 
> The constant is the immorality of them both..
> 
> 
> 
> Only to Christians.
Click to expand...

Christian value or not, is there justification for creating ANY laws that regulate morality? Clearly, that's what DOMA has done. Congress was clear about that when DOMA was enacted. Look at this from the House Report.

_Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality._
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf

That leaves no doubt that congress had regulating Christian values in mind when DOMA was proposed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> _Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and honor a* collective moral judgment *about human sexuality. This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality,* moral conviction* that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) *morality.
> *__http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-10...104hrpt664.pdf_
> 
> _That leaves *no doubt that congress had regulating Christian values* in mind when DOMA was proposed._



So you're saying only Christians have morals


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> Christian value or not, is there justification for creating ANY laws that regulate morality?


Federal laws, absolutely not.

But then there's no justification for creating federal laws concerning health care, education, housing, labor and a whole slew of other issues either.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

CesumPec said:


> Talk about distracting from the issues. You are making up stats, bringing in a completely unrelated topic, and then going down the rat hole of Christian hypocrisy. No thanks.


Nope, just comparing apples to apples in the eyes of those who oppose based upon their opinion that it is sin, and that being their only reason they oppose.
Totally logical.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Are you only going to poll "religious" people?
> Otherwise you're just ranting aimlessly


Yes.
Poll those who claim to Believe and Follow Jesus Christ.
Yes. 
Of those who 'claim' Christ as their Savior, and walk in the Spirit, yes poll those folks. 
Ask the question: Are you for or against gay marriage; if you are against, why.
THEN
Ask the question; Are you pro-life (conception begins at birth, and no matter if the woman is raped or her life is in danger, pro-life period) 
OR
are you pro-choice (morning after pill is ok / abortion for rape or endangerment to the mother, or simply stated it's a woman's body she can do what she wants w/ it)

I think you would be shocked (as I have been) by the amount of "christian" people who vehemently against gay marriage, and can spout all the Scriptures
BUT
are 100% pro-choice.
I say this because of the handful of in real life conversations I have had, I was in total shock at how staunchly against gay marriage they are, but maintain a pro-choice status.

I am no ones Judge.
Not the woman having her 4th abortion.
Not the two men who want to marry.
But I absolutely will not throw in the 'christian card' and say one is wrong and condone the other. 
By doing that it makes me a hypocrite.

I hope this better explains my point.

You can exchange the words "gay marriage" and "abortion" with:
Adulterers and Murders
Pornographers and Idolaters 
Pedifiles and Thieves
Blasphemers and Drunks.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're saying only Christians have morals



I never suggested anything of the kind.


----------



## Nevada

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I think you would be shocked (as I have been) by the amount of "christian" people who vehemently against gay marriage, and can spout all the Scriptures
> BUT
> are 100% pro-choice.


I've never met anyone with that view. Can you give me an example of a conservative with that view? I mean, there are a lot of conservatives around here so if it's that common there should be at least one.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Nevada said:


> I've never met anyone with that view. Can you give me an example of a conservative with that view? I mean, there are a lot of conservatives around here so if it's that common there should be at least one.


Help me understand your definition of "conservative", then I can better explain.

If you mean 'conservative' like:

They want prayers in school
Go to church every time the doors swing open
Vote Republican

Then I have had (3) conversations (2 woman 1 man) who hold the views I posted above.
Staunchly against gay marriage based on "morality" but 100% pro-choice.

(I hope I answered the question)


----------



## Nevada

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Help me understand your definition of "conservative", then I can better explain.
> 
> If you mean 'conservative' like:
> 
> They want prayers in school
> Go to church every time the doors swing open
> Vote Republican
> 
> Then I have had (3) conversations (2 woman 1 man) who hold the views I posted above.
> Staunchly against gay marriage based on "morality" but 100% pro-choice.
> 
> (I hope I answered the question)


I don't ask for definitions, nor do I follow self-identified conservatives around to see what they do. People around here tell me that they're conservative so I take them on their word.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Nevada said:


> I don't ask for definitions, nor do I follow self-identified conservatives around to see what they do. People around here tell me that they're conservative so I take them on their word.


Gottcha, so yeah, what I posted up above....yes I have had face to face with folks who say they are 'conservative' and 'christian', and held the views I talked about!!


----------



## unregistered41671

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Help me understand your definition of "conservative", then I can better explain.
> 
> If you mean 'conservative' like:
> 
> They want prayers in school
> Go to church every time the doors swing open
> Vote Republican
> 
> Then I have had (3) conversations (2 woman 1 man) who hold the views I posted above.
> Staunchly against gay marriage based on "morality" but 100% pro-choice.
> 
> (I hope I answered the question)


I don't doubt you Laura but I hope that view above is not common. I reckon I would be called a Super Ultra Conservative.


----------



## CesumPec

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Nope, just comparing apples to apples in the eyes of those who oppose based upon their opinion that it is sin, and that being their only reason they oppose.
> Totally logical.


Can you identify anyone who opposes gay marriage ONLY because it is a sin? It certainly isn't me. Once again, my opposition is only because of how it affects the expansion of gov't and gov't expenditures.


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> Can you identify anyone who opposes gay marriage ONLY because it is a sin? It certainly isn't me. Once again, my opposition is only because of how it affects the expansion of gov't and gov't expenditures.


Honestly, you are the first person I've heard that has voiced that reason. I suspect that the reason we don't hear that gay marriage is bad because it expands government benefits is because it's such a bad line of logic. After all, gay people contribute just as much to government programs as straight people contribute, so they're deserving of the same benefits.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> Honestly, you are the first person I've heard that has voiced that reason. I suspect that the reason we don't hear that gay marriage is bad because it expands government benefits is because it's such a bad line of logic. After all, gay people contribute just as much to government programs as straight people contribute, so they're deserving of the same benefits.


Gays have the same benefits. Marriage has certain benefits and no one in gov't asks if your spouse (traditional definition) was your first choice. What they want is to redefine marriage and to attach benefits to that new thing. 

We're going in circles. Marriage benefits are meant to encourage families - something else gays want to redefine. 

I know this will pass, if not now, the sometime later. I'm OK with that. But you can't get around the fact that spouse, marriage, and family have to be redefined to accomplish this.


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> Gays have the same benefits.


The woman who brought the DOMA lawsuit believes differently. She had to pay $380,000 in inheritance taxes to the IRS that a hetero spouse wouldn't have had to pay. It doesn't seem like she got the same benefits.



CesumPec said:


> Marriage has certain benefits and no one in gov't asks if your spouse (traditional definition) was your first choice. What they want is to redefine marriage and to attach benefits to that new thing.
> 
> We're going in circles. Marriage benefits are meant to encourage families - something else gays want to redefine.


What definition of marriage? The one in the dictionary?


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> The woman who brought the DOMA lawsuit believes differently. She had to pay $380,000 in inheritance taxes to the IRS that a hetero spouse wouldn't have had to pay. It doesn't seem like she got the same benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> What definition of marriage? The one in the dictionary?


like I said, we are going in circles. If you want to have the same argument over again, reread the entire thread. 

And yeah, the dictionary definition of marriage. Call me crazy. And yes, I know you can find same sex "marriage" in a modern dictionary but we both know that is a recent invention.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *What definition of marriage*? The one in the dictionary?


The REAL definition.
Not the pretend, trendy, modified version


----------



## CesumPec

Bearfootfarm said:


> The REAL definition.
> Not the pretend, trendy, modified version


Just for laughs I found something I haven't used for years, a hardcopy Webster's Unabridged dictionary, 1989 version. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, no allowance was made for same sex marriage because just that short time ago, it was inconceivable. 

I'm not anti-gay. I think it is appalling that in some states I can fire an employee for nothing more than I find out he is gay. Or deny him an apartment.


----------



## Truckinguy

The traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman would carry with it the presumption of producing offspring. If that could not happen due to one or the other not having the ability or there was no intention to have children that would make the requirement to have marriage be between a male and a female irrelevant. If marriage was all about procreation of the species then those who couldn't or don't plan to have children would not be eligible for marriage.

What's the difference between a childless heterosexual couple and a gay couple? Both are equally capable of adopting and child and raising them with as much love, care and support as the other. Shouldn't they both be eligible for the same benefits as the other?


----------



## primal1

Just to add people have been playing with the definition of marriage for a long time and the reason is marriage as a word, logically, should define all variations of this union in all the varying cultures.. so IMO redefining is long over due.

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[4] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[5] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[6]

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[7] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[8]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"[9] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.[10]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.[4]
Etymology

The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250&#8211;1300 CE This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin mar&#299;t&#257;re meaning to provide with a husband or wife and mar&#299;t&#257;ri meaning to get married. The adjective mar&#299;t-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[11] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin m&#257;trim&#333;nium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[12]


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> The traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman would carry with it the presumption of producing offspring. If that could not happen due to one or the other not having the ability or there was no intention to have children that would make the requirement to have marriage be between a male and a female irrelevant. If marriage was all about procreation of the species then those who couldn't or don't plan to have children would not be eligible for marriage.
> 
> What's the difference between a childless heterosexual couple and a gay couple? Both are equally capable of adopting and child and raising them with as much love, care and support as the other. Shouldn't they both be eligible for the same benefits as the other?


Because the common belief has always been that marriage _usually_ will produce offspring. How could someone know beforehand if they were unable to conceive? I wouldn't hazard a guess but I'm sure the percentage of marriages that produce offspring is well above 50%.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Just to add people have been playing with the *definition of marriage* for a long time


All your examples say* a man and a woman*


----------



## mmoetc

Txsteader said:


> Because the common belief has always been that marriage _usually_ will produce offspring. How could someone know beforehand if they were unable to conceive? I wouldn't hazard a guess but I'm sure the percentage of marriages that produce offspring is well above 50%.


At what age should we limit a woman's right to marry? Or should she have to produce a certificate from her doctor that she hasn't gone through menopause and is still potentially fertile?


----------



## pancho

What about all of those people who have been spayed or nutered?
Will they be allowed to marry?


----------



## Truckinguy

Txsteader said:


> Because the common belief has always been that marriage _usually_ will produce offspring. How could someone know beforehand if they were unable to conceive? I wouldn't hazard a guess but I'm sure the percentage of marriages that produce offspring is well above 50%.


So if a couple get married and fail to produce children should their marriage be revoked?

I'm sure there are people who are aware they will not be able to have children due to one reason or another, either due to a medical condition or injury. 

People can commit their lives to each other outside the constrictions of religion and government. They can also have children and raise other people's children without the blessing of either institution. However, when a government extends benefits to one group for doing the exact same things the other group is capable of it only seems fair to extend those benefits to everyone.

People should be judged by the way they conduct themselves in society, not by whether they have the right plumbing or not.


----------



## HDRider

Get serious.


----------



## CesumPec

Truckinguy said:


> What's the difference between a childless heterosexual couple and a gay couple? Both are equally capable of adopting and child and raising them with as much love, care and support as the other. Shouldn't they both be eligible for the same benefits as the other?


Wrong. I'm for homosexual adoption, because that is better than a child not being adopted, but it is not the equal of a loving mother and father. Just because you want otherwise does not make it so.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> All your examples say* a man and a woman*


Well, only if you dont count that one that says "a woman and one or more other persons."


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> I'm for homosexual adoption, because that is better than a child not being adopted, but it is not the equal of a loving mother and father.


What do you base that on?


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> What do you base that on?


40,000 years of history. What do you base the contrary assertion on?


----------



## pancho

CesumPec said:


> 40,000 years of history. What do you base the contrary assertion on?


I thought the world was only about 10,000 years old.
I was told that by a christian person.


----------



## primal1

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, only if you dont count that one that says "a woman and one or more other persons."


You mean this one?:


> Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. *Leach expanded the definition and proposed* that
> 
> "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that *a child born to the woman* under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"[9]
> 
> Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to *all cultures*.


Seems there's a man in there somewhere, and *OUR culture* has always been pretty specific about that point.

Also note that was *HIS definition* and *HIS OPINION*, and NOT an example from a previous society

From the *same source* as the quote:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
> In terms of legal recognition, *most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to **opposite-sex** couples* or two persons of opposite gender in the gender binary, and a diminishing number of these permit polygyny, child marriages, and forced marriages


----------



## primal1

All i was pointing out is that the definition has been questioned for a long time and it is due for a change because as a word it falls short of defining all unions.
Anyway there is historical evidence but i doubt you will see it that way as I have mentioned it before in other threads but seems to get forgotten or ignored.

While gender identity defined Native American gender roles the expectations upon a two spirits or berdache differed. Native American philosophy welcomed the third gender and openly encouraged the behavior. Virtually every tribe in the Midwest, Great Plains and Southwest found a comfortable co-existence with the two spirits. Considered holy men and women, the tribes deemed the two spirits a considerably blessed person. Female two &#8211;spirits often conducted sexual relations with other females while male two-spirits enjoyed both sexes. Tribe members encouraged unions between two-spirits and non two spirits.


----------



## Truckinguy

CesumPec said:


> Wrong. I'm for homosexual adoption, because that is better than a child not being adopted, but it is not the equal of a loving mother and father. Just because you want otherwise does not make it so.


Are you seriously saying that a male/female couple can show a child more love than a male/male or female/female couple?


----------



## CesumPec

primal1 said:


> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
> Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children


I would happily read the article but I won't register on the site.


----------



## CesumPec

primal1 said:


> All i was pointing out is that the definition has been questioned for a long time and it is due for a change because as a word it falls short of defining all unions.


Well there's the problem. Thanks for pointing out your own error. "Marriage" is not meant to define all unions. That's the point. It is meant to define the union of a man and a woman.


----------



## CesumPec

Truckinguy said:


> Are you seriously saying that a male/female couple can show a child more love than a male/male or female/female couple?


Of course not. Are you seriously intentionally missing the point? A child benefits from a good mom and a good dad. That can't happen in a 2 man or 2 woman civil union. But I'll say again, I favor adoption by single parents, gay couples, traditional families, anything that gets kids in a stable, loving home. While I applaud those who do the extremely tough job of foster parenting, it is too often a lousy long term solution for a kid.

In spite of the taxpayer funded incentives to destroy the traditional family, and the many failings of selfish or uncaring parents, we still should favor the optimum situation. You can be for gay marriage and still agree with that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> All i was pointing out is that the definition has been questioned for a long time


It's not been questioned by the VAST majority. 
*"Marriage"* means a man and a woman, and all the "spirit unions" in the world don't change that


----------



## primal1

and as a word in the english language there are those who would disagree with you and they have been pointing it out since the early 1920's and continue to do so



CesumPec said:


> Well there's the problem. Thanks for pointing out your own error. "Marriage" is not meant to define all unions. That's the point. It is meant to define the union of a man and a woman.


----------



## primal1

It is now.



Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not been questioned by the VAST majority.


----------



## primal1

I didn't have to register, sorry if it's not working.



CesumPec said:


> I would happily read the article but I won't register on the site.


----------



## CesumPec

primal1 said:


> and as a word in the english language there are those who would disagree with you and they have been pointing it out since the early 1920's and continue to do so


And? 

English is older than the 1920s as is the institution of marriage. Pick any moral, legal, or ethical position and you can generally find someone who questions the norm. That doesn't meant he is right or wrong.


----------



## Txsteader

primal1 said:


> All i was pointing out is that the definition has been questioned for a long time and it is due for a change because as a word it falls short of defining all unions.
> Anyway there is historical evidence but i doubt you will see it that way as I have mentioned it before in other threads but seems to get forgotten or ignored.
> 
> While gender identity defined Native American gender roles the expectations upon a two spirits or berdache differed. Native American philosophy welcomed the third gender and openly encouraged the behavior. Virtually every tribe in the Midwest, Great Plains and Southwest found a comfortable co-existence with the two spirits. Considered holy men and women, the tribes deemed the two spirits a considerably blessed person. Female two &#8211;spirits often conducted sexual relations with other females while male two-spirits enjoyed both sexes. Tribe members encouraged unions between two-spirits and non two spirits.


Again, the point most of you are missing is the slippery slope of declaring marriage a fundamental right for anyone and everyone.

Even Justice Sotomayor asked what state restrictions could be placed against polygamy and incest if homosexual marriage were deemed a fundamental right. 

What she's suggesting is that there are none. If we open the door to homosexual marriage, then we'll have to accept incest and polygamy as well. 

It is precisely the same point that Ben Carson made, except he got lambasted for it, Sotomayor got a pass.


----------



## CesumPec

Txsteader said:


> It is precisely the same point that Ben Carson made, except he got lambasted for it, Sotomayor got a pass.


Nope, it was completely different. What Ben Carson said was mean spirited, bigoted, and evil because he's a conservative. Sotomayor said something insightful and shrewd because she's a liberal. Surely you see the difference. :huh:


----------



## Truckinguy

CesumPec said:


> Of course not. Are you seriously intentionally missing the point? A child benefits from a good mom and a good dad. That can't happen in a 2 man or 2 woman civil union. *But I'll say again, I favor adoption by single parents, gay couples, traditional families, anything that gets kids in a stable, loving home.* While I applaud those who do the extremely tough job of foster parenting, it is too often a lousy long term solution for a kid.
> 
> In spite of the taxpayer funded incentives to destroy the traditional family, and the many failings of selfish or uncaring parents, we still should favor the optimum situation. You can be for gay marriage and still agree with that.


Yes, I do agree with that. However, the sentence in bold indicates that you agree that gay couples can provide a stable loving home. I fail to see the difference between a traditional stable loving home and a gay stable loving home. The key words there are "stable loving home".
Regardless of how a dictionary, government or religion defines a "marriage", isn't the point of a government recognizing the union of two people to allow them access to things like spousal medical coverage, for instance, that would allow them to better care for children?


----------



## CesumPec

Truckinguy said:


> I fail to see the difference between a traditional stable loving home and a gay stable loving home.


A mother and a father. In spite of what the NOW says, there are differences between men and women. Kids benefit from having both role models and were it in my power, I would make sure every child grew up in a loving home with a father and a mother, not a bottom and a top. :lookout: 

I've grown tired of this topic again. I know I'm fighting a losing battle. Gay marriage isn't a crisis, it isn't going to destroy the USA. Faced with the choice of either getting our gov't to live within the confines of the constitution and a balanced budget or stopping gay marriage, I would march naked in a Key West gay pride parade. :run: :ashamed:


----------



## kasilofhome

CesumPec said:


> Well there's the problem. Thanks for pointing out your own error. "Marriage" is not meant to define all unions. That's the point. It is meant to define the union of a man and a woman.


 
Yep, thats the problem just like there is a jewish word and event for comming of age and there is a Hispanic word for and event for comming of age and there is a catholic word for and event for comming of age----and they are NOT interchangable --they mean something more specific than just comming to age. Marriage means more than just a commitment it means one man and one woman. 

Now, is the time to come up with a word for a union that is a union that is not one man and one woman.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It is now


No. it's not, since the majority is still heterosexual, and same sex marriage is illegal in MOST places.

Why do you keep denying reality?


----------



## Truckinguy

CesumPec said:


> A mother and a father. In spite of what the NOW says, there are differences between men and women. Kids benefit from having both role models and were it in my power, I would make sure every child grew up in a loving home with a father and a mother, not a bottom and a top. :lookout:
> 
> I've grown tired of this topic again. I know I'm fighting a losing battle. Gay marriage isn't a crisis, it isn't going to destroy the USA. Faced with the choice of either getting our gov't to live within the confines of the constitution and a balanced budget or stopping gay marriage, I would march naked in a Key West gay pride parade. :run: :ashamed:


I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately I've seen too many traditional marriages produce some pretty messed up kids. To me it seems more important that those raising the children give them love, support and security then that they be of a specific gender. There will be gender role models all through a person's life and if the child is raised to be confident and open minded they will make the right decisions.

I haven't made it down to Toronto's Gay Pride parade yet but I might some day. There are a lot of hot women down there but unfortunately they don't play for my team.


----------



## Zilli

Txsteader said:


> Because the common belief has always been that marriage _usually_ will produce offspring. *How could someone know beforehand if they were unable to conceive? *I wouldn't hazard a guess but I'm sure the percentage of marriages that produce offspring is well above 50%.


Oh.....I don't know.

How about women who are past child bearing age (such as myself), or women who have had some medical issue that makes it impossible for them to conceive and/or to carry a child to term?

Should we be denied the right to marry (not that I ever would - again - but you know....)?

And what about the couples who make a conscious decision to not have children? Not everyone wants to be a parent - and not everyone SHOULD be a parent.

Should couples who choose not to procreate be denied the right to marry?

I'm sorry, but that whole "marriage is for producing offspring" argument is just so......out-dated, and frankly, imo, immoral.


----------



## Zilli

JeffreyD said:


> Pedophile rights are next I suppose! I don't see why any liberal would object.


Oh, sure, and right after that, us liberals will fight for the right for you to marry your pet hamster!

Because, after all, homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality are really all the same anyway, right?


----------



## Zilli

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Can someone help me, please.
> 
> *Gays want the right to marry because?*
> 
> Is it as simple as "they want to have the same insurance / ss / benefits, and that's it?


It's simple.

Why did you, as a heterosexual, want to marry?

There's your answer.


----------



## Zilli

kasilofhome said:


> Now, is the time to come up with a word for a union that is a union that is not one man and one woman.


No......because SEPARATE is NOT EQUAL.

Why should same sex couples have to "settle" for something different than what heterosexual couples call their union?

To call it anything but marriage is just a way for you to make sure same sex couples think their relationship, which is based on the same things that heterosexual relationships are - love, respect, commitment, a desire to make a home with the person they love, and to possibly have a family with that person - is not "equal" to yours.


----------



## Nevada

Zilli said:


> No......because SEPARATE is NOT EQUAL.
> 
> Why should same sex couples have to "settle" for something different than what heterosexual couples call their union?
> 
> To call it anything but marriage is just a way for you to make sure same sex couples think their relationship, which is based on the same things that heterosexual relationships are - love, respect, commitment, a desire to make a home with the person they love, and to possibly have a family with that person - is not "equal" to yours.


Hypothetical anyway. I've never seen a proposal to provide for the same benefits of marriage for anything except marriage itself. If the right was serious about providing benefits for gay unions then they would have proposed it by now.


----------



## kasilofhome

*No......because SEPARATE is NOT EQUAL.

Why should same sex couples have to "settle" for something different than what heterosexual couples call their union?* 

_For the same reason you had to make clear that it was for hetrosexual not sexual active people is the rational that clarification is needed for communication --since you felt the need to disstingue the sexual preference it would make sence to do that for that type of union_.





*To call it anything but marriage is just a way for you to make sure same sex couples think their relationship, which is based on the same things that heterosexual relationships are - love, respect, commitment, a desire to make a home with the person they love, and to possibly have a family with that person - is not "equal" to yours. *


Look==I have a marriage and it is not equal or the same as anyone else... It is one man and one woman yet each marriage is different and not the same and not equal. 

It is like some non same sex marriage pushers suffer from a self imposed inferior complex when it comes to relationships. Some people will never be happy because of themselves. Marriage is already defined as is dog and if your landlord only allow cats simply redefining and claiming that your dog is really a cat trapped with in a dogs body should only result in having to seek a new place to live.

A ***** was a stick of wood--a *** was a smoke- gay was happy ---communication only works when words have meanings that we all understand. Sure seems like there are people in search of a lable that is already accepted as a way to feel accepted.


----------



## HDRider

Homosexuals can steal a word, but they cannot change its meaning.

The word bellyfeel means a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea.

Blackwhite is the willingness to say that black is white when cultural pressure demands this.

Crimethink thoughts that are are outside the official government platform.

Duckspeak is to speak without thinking. 

George told our future. He just missed the date a little. He did miss this one though,,,

Goodsex is any form of sex considered acceptable by the Party; specifically, this refers only to married heterosexual sex for the exclusive purpose of providing new children for the Party. All other forms of sex are considered sexcrime.


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> Oh.....I don't know.
> 
> How about women who are past child bearing age (such as myself), or women who have had some medical issue that makes it impossible for them to conceive and/or to carry a child to term?
> 
> Should we be denied the right to marry (not that I ever would - again - but you know....)?


Then you would have no expectation of reproducing, would you?

But, using your argument that everyone has the right to 'marry' (and leaving the reproducing equation out), then I'll ask why the same right should not apply to cases of incest or polygamy?


----------



## painterswife

It is laughable to argue that because the "meaning" of the word marriage was at one time, one man one women there can not be same sex marriages.

Meanings change and evolve. The meaning of marriage has already changed. Make up a new word for heterosexual marriages if this bothers you so much. This battle has already been lost. Same sex marriage exists and is here to stay.


----------



## HDRider

painterswife said:


> It is laughable to argue that because the "meaning" of the word marriage was at one time, one man one women there can not be same sex marriages.
> 
> Meanings change and evolve. The meaning of marriage has already changed. Make up a new word for heterosexual marriages if this bothers you so much. This battle has already been lost. Same sex marriage exists and is here to stay.


The evolution and meaning normally change slowly, almost imperceptibly. This change is abrupt and brought on by a vocal and militant group that has convinced SOME in this country that their behavior is somehow natural and should be accepted, when in fact it is any thing but acceptable to many.


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> The evolution and meaning normally change slowly, almost imperceptibly. This change is abrupt and brought on by a vocal and militant group that has convinced SOME in this country that their behavior is somehow natural and should be accepted, when in fact it is any thing but acceptable to many.


Abrupt or slow, it would make no difference to those that are against same sex marriage. It was the same with interracial marriage. It still is not a basis for others to impose their will or bias on others.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Make up a new word for heterosexual marriages if this bothers you so much.


But why should a new word be made up for something that is already established?

Why can't a new word be made up for homosexual unions? Not like using the word 'gays' to refer to homosexuals; again, that's just changing an established definition.

I would think liberals are smart enough to invent new words.


----------



## primal1

Homosexuality is only not natural since religion or invaders decided it so. India's courts are now deciding why they still follow some of the british colonist laws like forbidding homosexuality while in their long history is was never even a taboo.
So while i completely agree that for followers of a religion that has the last word on the subject, you should absolutely NOT BE GAY if thats how you interpret it.
However for those who are gay, it is absolutely our right to re-establish our place as full and equal citizens.. call it militant if you want.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> But why should a new word be made up for something that is already established?
> 
> Why can't a new word be made up for homosexual unions? Not like using the word 'gays' to refer to homosexuals; again, that's just changing an established definition.
> 
> I would think liberals are smart enough to invent new words.


*No need for a new word. Marriage works just fine.*

"Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry &#8212; J. T. Shawcross>"


PS, you do not have to be Liberal to accept same sex marriage.


----------



## willow_girl

> Why can't a new word be made up for homosexual unions?


If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not just call it a duck and be done with it?


----------



## CesumPec

willow_girl said:


> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not just call it a duck and be done with it?


Because it is a chicken that desperately wants the benefits of being a duck, but it isn't a duck and never will be a duck.


----------



## HDRider

painterswife said:


> Abrupt or slow, it would make no difference to those that are against same sex marriage. It was the same with interracial marriage. It still is not a basis for others to impose their will or bias on others.


It is in no way the same as interracial marriage. Many Americans are a progeny of multiple races. Many, if not most, especially if your family has been in this country for many years, and even more likely if your family is from the South. Indians, Whites, Blacks, Latin and more have commingled for centuries. 

Name one natural progeny in the history of mankind of two homosexuals. 

Interracial marriage and homosexual marriage bear no resemblance.


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> It is in no way the same as interracial marriage. Many Americans are a progeny of multiple races. Many, if not most, especially if your family has been in this country for many years, and even more likely if your family is from the South. Indians, Whites, Blacks, Latin and more have commingled for centuries.
> 
> Name one natural progeny in the history of mankind of two homosexuals.
> 
> Interracial marriage and homosexual marriage bear no resemblance.


Only when the marriage license asks for proof of your ability and your plan to produce offspring within the marriage will that matter.

Marriage is not about progeny.


----------



## HDRider

painterswife said:


> Only when the marriage license asks for proof of your ability and your plan to produce offspring within the marriage will that matter.
> 
> *Marriage is not about progeny*.


And upon that statement our differences are irreconcilable, and my position implacable..

*It is all about progeny...*


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> And upon that statement our differences are irreconcilable, and my position implacable..
> 
> *It is all about progeny...*


Then I guess I should not have been allowed to marry in your world. Thankfully that is not in any way the basis for marriage in this country.


----------



## Tiempo

HDRider said:


> And upon that statement our differences are irreconcilable, and my position implacable..
> 
> *It is all about progeny...*


I got married at 42 with no intention of creating any progeny, I guess I shouldn't have been allowed?


----------



## mrsgcpete

HDRider said:


> And upon that statement our differences are irreconcilable, and my position implacable..
> 
> *It is all about progeny...*



Despite the repeated attempts to drag these supreme court cases in to the religious realm. :smack These cases are about CONTRACT LAW. there are 1100 laws that apply to marriage, there is NO reason for this country to deny 2 people over the age of majority the ability to enter in to a marital contract. 

Its not about animals, or incest, reproduction or any other red herring that will be pulled out of your pocket. The marriages that your churches decide to perform are on them, but the federal and state governments should not be dictating which adults can enter this contract and which adults dont qualify, we call that discrimination, where i come from.


----------



## HDRider

Tiempo said:


> I got married at 42 with no intention of creating any progeny, I guess I shouldn't have been allowed?


That is not my point and you know full well that is not my point. You are not stupid.


----------



## HDRider

mrsgcpete said:


> Despite the repeated attempts to drag these supreme court cases in to the religious realm. :smack These cases are about CONTRACT LAW. there are 1100 laws that apply to marriage, there is NO reason for this country to deny 2 people over the age of majority the ability to enter in to a marital contract.
> 
> Its not about animals, or incest, reproduction or any other red herring that will be pulled out of your pocket. The marriages that your churches decide to perform are on them, but the federal and state governments should not be dictating which adults can enter this contract and which adults dont qualify, we call that discrimination, where i come from.


And so Homosexuals could choose any word they want to contactually equate to the word marriage. But instead they choose to corrupt the word marriage. 

I have no doubt that homosexuals are born with that predisposition. Just as others are born with unnatural compulsions. It is unfortunate that homosexuals choose not to restrain themselves. Being pragmatic I will concede that.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> And so Homosexuals could choose any word they want to contactually equate to the word marriage. But instead they choose to corrupt the word marriage.
> 
> I have no doubt that homosexuals are born with that predisposition. Just as others are born with unnatural compulsions. It is unfortunate that homosexuals choose not to restrain themselves. Being pragmatic I will concede that.


Since my Christian denomination already performs wedding ceremonies involving same sex couples and calls the results marriage do you propose a law changing their definition?


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Since my Christian denomination already performs wedding ceremonies involving same sex couples and calls the results marriage do you propose a law changing their definition?


38 states already have laws and Constituional amendments doing just that. 

I support the remaining states doing the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Its not about animals, or incest, reproduction or any other red herring that will be pulled out of your pocket.


Those aren't "red herrrings"
If it's not limited by *gender*, how can you justify limiting it to just TWO people?
Why NOT allow "incest" if that's *what people want*?

I thought it is supposed to be about the "right to marry who you want to"


----------



## CesumPec

mrsgcpete said:


> Despite the repeated attempts to drag these supreme court cases in to the religious realm. :smack These cases are about CONTRACT LAW. there are 1100 laws that apply to marriage, there is NO reason for this country to deny 2 people over the age of majority the ability to enter in to a marital contract.
> 
> Its not about animals, or incest, reproduction or any other red herring that will be pulled out of your pocket. The marriages that your churches decide to perform are on them, but the federal and state governments should not be dictating which adults can enter this contract and which adults dont qualify, we call that discrimination, where i come from.


I agree 100%. gay unions are about a contract between 2 people and no gov't should deny them that right to free association. But the gay marriage thing isn't about what 2 people do, it is about demanding a contract with the gov't to get financial benefits.


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> Since my Christian denomination already performs wedding ceremonies involving same sex couples and calls the results marriage do you propose a law changing their definition?


Nope. Religious freedom. marry who or anything you want within your beliefs. Just don't demand gov't benefits and make me pay for them.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> And so Homosexuals could choose any word they want to contactually equate to the word marriage. But instead they choose to corrupt the word marriage.
> 
> I have no doubt that homosexuals are born with that predisposition. Just as others are born with unnatural compulsions. It is unfortunate that homosexuals choose not to restrain themselves. Being pragmatic I will concede that.





CesumPec said:


> Nope. Religious freedom. marry who or anything you want within your beliefs. Just don't demand gov't benefits and make me pay for them.


As long as the same rules apply to all, I agree.


----------



## Txsteader

mrsgcpete said:


> Despite the repeated attempts to drag these supreme court cases in to the religious realm. :smack These cases are about CONTRACT LAW. there are 1100 laws that apply to marriage, there is NO reason for this country to deny 2 people over the age of majority the ability to enter in to a marital contract.
> 
> Its not about animals, or incest, reproduction or any other red herring that will be pulled out of your pocket. The marriages that your churches decide to perform are on them, but the federal and state governments should not be dictating which adults can enter this contract and which adults dont qualify, we call that discrimination, where i come from.


If that were true, why would one of the Supreme Court Justices (Sotomayor) bring up the issues of incest and polygamy?

The answer is, the argument being put before the court is about the *fundamental right to marry*. There is nothing in the arguments about the number of people or any other limitations.

Much like the issue of health care, it seems that those who support the argument don't seem to have all the facts.


----------



## Zilli

painterswife said:


> Make up a new word for heterosexual marriages if this bothers you so much. .


I think this is a great idea! Since they are so horrified at the idea of sharing the word with homosexuals, then they can create their own word and let same sex couples "have" the word "marriage."


> This battle has already been lost. Same sex marriage exists and is here to stay.


When you have people like Portman changing his mind, and even Limbaugh reluctantly accepting the inevitable, then there really is no going back.

The anti-gays may not like marriage equality, and they may think it is a sin, but they WILL have to accept it as law.

And I have a feeling that as it becomes more and more accepted, and more and more states approve marriage equality, and more and more gays are comfortable about "coming out" that a lot of the most vocal anti-gays will find out that there are people they love, maybe within their own families, who are gay and they just never knew. And wouldn't they want that person to be happy and to be able to marry the person of their choice (much like Portman)?

I suspect that what we used to call "confirmed bachelors" and "spinsters" were probably often gay.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that some of the people right here on HT who are the most strident critics of marriage equality have someone in their life who they love and respect, maybe even their own child, who they will some day find out is gay. And I would hope that they would continue to love and to respect that child, cousin, brother, aunt, or whoever, and would want that person to be happy and to have the same rights they have.


----------



## Zilli

mmoetc said:


> Since my Christian denomination already performs wedding ceremonies involving same sex couples and calls the results marriage do you propose a law changing their definition?


I think this is awesome!

While I personally would never have the need to have a wedding in a church, I am pleased as punch that there are churches out there who are opening their doors to same sex couples and who are performing these ceremonies for those for whom the religious validation is important.

Good for them!

I suspect we will see a lot more of this as time goes by as well.


----------



## Zilli

Txsteader said:


> Then you would have no expectation of reproducing, would you?


Oh, brother. So, since you can't use the excuse of marriage is for procreation legitimately, you think if you throw in a word ("expectation") that that fixes it?

Why should expectation of reproducing have anything to do with it? People get married for a number of reasons - for most, it's about love and commitment (as long as it lasts anyway), but for others it might be security or companionship. "Expectation" of reproducing has very little to do with it nowadays.



> But, using your argument that everyone has the right to 'marry' (and leaving the reproducing equation out), then I'll ask why the same right should not apply to cases of incest or polygamy?


I actually have no problem with polygamy - as long as everyone involved is of the age of consent (no creepy Warren Jeffs crap). It could even cut down on some of the welfare fraud that exists with some polygamous families - where the husband is only on the hook for his "legal" wife and the other wives, with their children, are supported on the tax payer's dime. 

I do think there are some issues about things like survivor benefits that would need to be worked out.

As for incest - there ARE real and valid concerns about close family relationships reproducing, and while I don't think whether a couple reproduces has any bearing on straight or gay marriage, because of the implications that a marriage between close family members could have, then that should be a concern. Also, incestuous relationships are often born of power - such as a father over a daughter or an older brother over a younger sister - and often start when one is under the age of consent - then that should be considered, as well.

Besides, incest, I believe, is illegal - although I think in some states, it is legal for first cousins to marry. As far as I know, incest between a father and daughter, a mother and son, or between a brother and sister, is ILLEGAL.

Being gay is not illegal and should therefore not be comparable to incest, which is.

But all that aside - I'm not sure that what two consenting adults (brother/sister), who are past childbearing age (for the woman) do behind closed doors is any of my business, nor is it any of yours. While I may be repulsed by it when I think about it, it really isn't hurting me at all.


----------



## HDRider

Zilli you are correct almost any behavior can become acceptable over time. History has proven that over and over. That is the basic premise and the crux of my position. As is the belief of absolutes when I can find them. 

You maybe assume that there is no one in my life, that I care for that is a homosexual. There is. I have been around many, many homosexuals, day in day out. I don't hate them or offer scorn. I simply want them to love life as I do. 

That said, my beliefs still remain absolutes to me.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> But instead they choose to corrupt the word marriage.


Why do you care? What attachment do you have to the word marriage?


----------



## mmoetc

Zilli said:


> I think this is awesome!
> 
> While I personally would never have the need to have a wedding in a church, I am pleased as punch that there are churches out there who are opening their doors to same sex couples and who are performing these ceremonies for those for whom the religious validation is important.
> 
> Good for them!
> 
> I suspect we will see a lot more of this as time goes by as well.


The United Church of Christ, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalists, and Reformed Jews all allow same sex marriage. Episcopal priests are allowed to bless a ceremony but not to sign official documents and Lutherans leave it up to the congregation. Just thought you'd like to know.


----------



## HDRider

Nevada said:


> Why do you care? What attachment do you have to the word marriage?


The same attachment I have to all words. They mean something. To change that meaning should evolve not change with a Big Bang or a court ruling. 

Brother, father, mother, sister, wife. I have attachment to many words.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> The United Church of Christ, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalists, and Reformed Jews all allow same sex marriage. Episcopal priests are allowed to bless a ceremony but not to sign official documents and Lutherans leave it up to the congregation. Just thought you'd like to know.


The church and its many forms and ceremonies are mostly a product of man, not God.


----------



## Zilli

mmoetc said:


> The United Church of Christ, Quakers, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalists, and Reformed Jews all allow same sex marriage. Episcopal priests are allowed to bless a ceremony but not to sign official documents and Lutherans leave it up to the congregation. Just thought you'd like to know.


I know there are a number of churches in my state (Washington) who immediately made it known after marriage equality was passed here in November that they would welcome same sex couples. :thumb:


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> The same attachment I have to all words. They mean something.


The meanings of words evolve all the time. Look at how the word "gay" has changed.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> The church and its many forms and ceremonies are mostly a product of man, not God.


Hence religous beliefs and rituals should have no place in this discussion.


----------



## stef

Zilli said:


> Oh, brother. So, since you can't use the excuse of marriage is for procreation legitimately, you think if you throw in a word ("expectation") that that fixes it?
> 
> Why should expectation of reproducing have anything to do with it? People get married for a number of reasons - for most, it's about love and commitment (as long as it lasts anyway), but for others it might be security or companionship. "Expectation" of reproducing has very little to do with it nowadays.
> 
> I actually have no problem with polygamy - as long as everyone involved is of the age of consent (no creepy Warren Jeffs crap). It could even cut down on some of the welfare fraud that exists with some polygamous families - where the husband is only on the hook for his "legal" wife and the other wives, with their children, are supported on the tax payer's dime.
> 
> I do think there are some issues about things like survivor benefits that would need to be worked out.
> 
> As for incest - there ARE real and valid concerns about close family relationships reproducing, and while I don't think whether a couple reproduces has any bearing on straight or gay marriage, because of the implications that a marriage between close family members could have, then that should be a concern. Also, incestuous relationships are often born of power - such as a father over a daughter or an older brother over a younger sister - and often start when one is under the age of consent - then that should be considered, as well.
> 
> Besides, incest, I believe, is illegal - although I think in some states, it is legal for first cousins to marry. As far as I know, incest between a father and daughter, a mother and son, or between a brother and sister, is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Being gay is not illegal and should therefore not be comparable to incest, which is.
> 
> But all that aside - I'm not sure that what two consenting adults (brother/sister), who are past childbearing age (for the woman) do behind closed doors is any of my business, nor is it any of yours. While I may be repulsed by it when I think about it, it really isn't hurting me at all.


According to Scriptures both violate the law of God. Hence they are both immoral. 
Man ( i.e. cultures, societies) tinker with human laws to please themselves, to excuse themselves, to justify themselves, but God does not change.

Jesus said He did not come to _break_ the law, but to fulfill it. He went so far as to say that not one jot or title of fulfilling the law would go undone.

Desecration in a church building is not a new thing: Blasphemers, barbarians, infidels, the sacrilegious have always been drawn to act out their sins and perversions on sanctified ground (the ultimate acting out and proof of the corruption of their souls)...as if that actually would change the laws and precepts of a holy God! There have been human sacrifices in church buildings, there have been sexual acts in churches, there have been sacrifices of pigs in temples...so 'marrying' lesbian women and homosexual men in a church building is just another act of blasphemy and rebellion acted out in a vain attempt to justify a sin and persuade ignorant and fearful people that what they are doing is right because they 'love' each other.

It matters tremendously what people 'do behind closed doors'. _Who and what they are permeates their whole world view_ and makes them sympathetic to those who share that world view. If you have people in authority who believe that cheating, lying, fornication, lesbianism and homosexuality, child molestation, pornography, kidnapping, theft, spousal abuse, adultery, et. al., are personal choices and have the power to implement laws that moderate and/or negate the penalty against such actions you, by default and design, affect society. That is after all, what this law suit is all about: the, 'ask for an inch in order to gain a mile' strategy. 


The Supreme Court may very well render a verdict in favor of civil unions, perhaps as far as forbidding the denying of a church ceremony to those who seek it. 

But it will not change the Word of God. It says in the New Testament that those who fall on the Rock (Christ), will be saved, but those on whom the Rock falls, will be destroyed.

The thing with sin is, the more you do it, the more you dull your own conscience and after a while the conscience can be seared so that nothing you do produces any sense of guilt or wrong anymore. 

That is a dreadful, dreadful ( in the strongest definition of 'dread' [aweful, terrible, fearful, dangerous, unpleasant, serious, extremely frightening and terrifying] place to be. Because it says in the Bible, "it is accounted (scheduled without exception) unto man once to die, and after that the judgement."

We are going to have to give an account of our time here on Earth before a God who does not change to please the lusts of our flesh. And we're not going to be able to plead ignorance, because the word of God is so freely available. 


My post will not change anyone's mind. It will probably make some people angry. Some will be dismissive, others sarcastic or accusatory. That's their prerogative. My responsibility is to speak the truth, in love. Love is not always a warm and fuzzy, touchy, feely thing. Sometimes love is hard and cutting if it sees the need to expose the putrid, dying flesh to the light of fresh air and sunshine. 
Thereby some may still recover themselves and live, while others are so (willfully) dead in their corruption it will kill them. The Scriptures describes them as 'being dead while they live'. Their bodies still function, but their souls are dead.


----------



## Zilli

Not all of us believe in god.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> The meanings of words evolve all the time. Look at how the word "gay" has changed.


Classic example. Liberals take a word, distort it's meaning and then squeal about hate if someone uses it in any way other than what liberals deem acceptable.

So now, to say something is 'gay' is considered hate speech.

How is that logic even considered rational?


----------



## Nevada

Stef said:


> According to Scriptures both violate the law of God. Hence they are both immoral.


But plural marriage is documented in the Bible. How can you sit by and allow the government to outlaw plural marriage when it is consistent with the Biblical definition of marriage?



Stef said:


> The Supreme Court may very well render a verdict in favor of civil unions


That won't happen. The court can't create legislation, it can only decide if existing legislation is constitutional. In the absence of legislation granting similar benefits to civil unions, the court has no alternative but to rule on gay marriage.


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> Classic example. Liberals take a word, distort it's meaning and then squeal about hate if someone uses it in any way other than what liberals deem acceptable.


Yeah, and I've also noted how conservatives have taken the terms "liberal" and "mainstream media" and turned them negative. In fact the term "liberal" has pushed many on the left to self-describe themselves as progressives to avoid the conservative negative meaning if "liberal."


----------



## primal1

@Stef, I don't disagree with most of what you said if one is a Christian. I am not, and when I look at your list I see 3 things that have zero impact on another person in terms of directly creating a victim. So I do agree with your list, aside from Lesbianism and homosexuality and fornication. These 3 things stand out as very different from the rest of your list.
And as I am not a Christian, I can assure you my conscience is free and not dulled in any way


----------



## kasilofhome

People who elope are just as married as those who have weddings.

So, why use the word elope --is it to put one or the other down or is it to communicate a fact.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> People who elope are just as married as those who have weddings.
> 
> So, why use the word elope --is it to put one or the other down or is it to communicate a fact.


Eloping is how they got married. Pretty simple actually. A civil ceremony and a religious ceremony are other ways of getting married.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Besides, incest, I believe, is* illegal *


So is gay marriage in most places


----------



## Zilli

Bearfootfarm said:


> So is gay marriage in most places


Not for much longer. :thumb:


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> So is gay marriage in most places


Gay sex is not illegal. Incest is sex between family members of a certain blood relationship. So not the same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Not all of us believe in god


Not all believe in gay marriage


----------



## painterswife

Zilli said:


> Not for much longer. :thumb:


And not everywhere!:thumb:even now. 

Yes, you can pass a law to make it illegal but that law can and will be struck down when challenged.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> *Gay sex is not illegal*. Incest is sex between family members of a certain blood relationship. So not the same thing.


That depends on where you are


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not all believe in gay marriage


So don't participate, just as I don't participate in your belief in God. That is what the constitution is all about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Zilli said:


> Not for much longer. :thumb:


I highly doubt that, since there's never been a majority acceptance throughout human history


----------



## Zilli

painterswife said:


> And not everywhere!:thumb:even now.
> 
> Yes, you can pass a law to make it illegal but that law can and will be struck down when challenged.


Oregon is working on getting it on the ballot for next year and I would be extremely surprised if it doesn't get approved.

With so many Oregonians crossing the river now to get married in Washington, it only makes sense to make it legal in Oregon, too.

Besides, there has always been a bit of a competition thing between Oregon and Washington and I'm sure the good voters of Oregon don't want to appear to be less progressive than those of us in Washington. 

I know there are other states that are also "on the cusp," so to speak, and I expect several others to also approve it soon.

And, of course, we are all waiting to see what the Supreme Court decides on DOMA.,


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> Yeah, and I've also noted how conservatives have taken the terms "liberal" and "mainstream media" and turned them negative. In fact the term "liberal" has pushed many on the left to self-describe themselves as progressives to avoid the conservative negative meaning if "liberal."


No, it's the fact that liberals cannot deal with any sort of negative opinions directed at them.......IMO, because they cannot argue (logically) against the negative opinions.

And believe me, the term 'progressive' carries far more negative connotations than the term 'liberal' ever did. 

As our illustrious President once remarked, 'You can put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig'.


----------



## primal1

I'm pretty sure lying is a sin



Bearfootfarm said:


> I highly doubt that, since there's never been a majority acceptance throughout human history


----------



## Zilli

Bearfootfarm said:


> I highly doubt that, since there's never been a majority acceptance throughout human history


58% isn't "majority" in your world? 

And, with 80% of those under the age of thirty believing same sex marriage should be legal, then surely the next generation will make it right, even if this generation doesn't get the job completely done.

It makes me very hopeful for the world that my grandchildren will be inheriting.


----------



## Zilli

Txsteader said:


> And believe me, the term 'progressive' carries far more negative connotations than the term 'liberal' ever did.





> *proÂ·gresÂ·sive *
> 
> /pr&#601;&#712;gresiv/
> Adjective
> Happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.
> 
> Noun
> A person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.


https://www.google.com/search?q=pro...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Sounds good to me! :thumb:

Certainly better than being "REgressive."


----------



## willow_girl

> Because it is a chicken that desperately wants the benefits of being a duck, but it isn't a duck and never will be a duck.


I find it curious that while gay people and their supporters are attempting to have marriage defined on the basis of love, commitment, faithfulness, stability, family, and other good things, the Christian right wing insists upon reducing its basis to nothing more than a sex act that can be performed only by people with the 'right' kind of plumbing. 

Who is the 'depraved' one in this equation? 

Should the right to marriage hinge solely on one (but only one) partner's ability to pee standing up?


----------



## painterswife

willow_girl said:


> I find it curious that while gay people and their supporters are attempting to have marriage defined on the basis of love, commitment, faithfulness, stability, family, and other good things, the Christian right wing insists upon reducing its basis to nothing more than a sex act that can be performed only by people with the 'right' kind of plumbing.
> 
> Who is the 'depraved' one in this equation?
> 
> Should the right to marriage hinge solely one (but only one) partner's ability to pee standing up?


That is why they have already lost the war of popular opinion.


----------



## Txsteader

willow_girl said:


> I find it curious that while gay people and their supporters are attempting to have marriage defined on the basis of love, commitment, faithfulness, stability, family, and other good things, the Christian right wing insists upon reducing its basis to nothing more than a sex act that can be performed only by people with the 'right' kind of plumbing.
> 
> Who is the 'depraved' one in this equation?
> 
> Should the right to marriage hinge solely one (but only one) partner's ability to pee standing up?


Then, you're missing the point. The argument for homosexual marriage is being based on the 'fundamental rights' and 'civil rights' to marriage benefits.......specifically, monetary benefits.

And the counter-argument is based on the fact that, originally, marriage benefits were for the purpose of encouraging/rewarding procreation. And procreation requires very specific 'plumbing'.


----------



## Zilli

willow_girl said:


> I find it curious that while gay people and their supporters are attempting to have marriage defined on the basis of love, commitment, faithfulness, stability, family, and other good things, the Christian right wing insists upon reducing its basis to nothing more than a sex act that can be performed only by people with the 'right' kind of plumbing.
> 
> Who is the 'depraved' one in this equation?
> 
> Should the right to marriage hinge solely one (but only one) partner's ability to pee standing up?


It's like this on every forum that I participate in these discussions on - the focus is always on "THE ACT."

They spend most of their time and energy worrying/obsessing about what a couple does in their most private moments and forget (or ignore) the fact that same sex couples have the same responsibilities as heterosexual couples - jobs, housekeeping, grocery shopping, paying bills (as well as paying taxes), attending parent/teacher conferences (if there are children involved), perhaps taking care of elderly parents, yardwork......

"THE ACT" is a very small part of their lives, as it is with straight couples.

Someone earlier in this thread asked why gays want to marry and I woke up this morning thinking and wondering about why anyone would even ask that question. It seems like some people can't fathom that gays have the same feelings for their partners that straights have for theirs - that they want to marry for the same reasons (love, commitment, security, the desire to make a home with and to possibly raise a family with).

You know, in the days after marriage equality was passed in my state, I watched the news follow this as these couples were finally able to walk into the courthouse and get their marriage licenses. I saw couples that had been together for thirty or forty years finally be able to have their commitments to each other validated legally and some of these people were in their seventies and eighties! Do you all really think "THE ACT" is the biggest thing in their lives?

In fact, in kind of a weird twist of irony, the guy in Clark County (Washington) who works for the county and whose job it is to oversee the marriage licenses for that county was finally able to marry the man he had been with for over forty years - it was prearranged that they would be first in line to apply for their license on December 6.

Watching some of those couples, who had loved each other and lived together and who had been together for over half their lives, finally be able to become "legal" (at least in Washington State) brought tears to my eyes.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Then, you're missing the point. The argument for homosexual marriage is being based on the 'fundamental rights' and 'civil rights' to marriage benefits.......specifically, monetary benefits.
> 
> And the counter-argument is based on the fact that, originally, marriage benefits were for the purpose of encouraging/rewarding procreation. And procreation requires very specific 'plumbing'.


You do understand that the fact is you can not discriminate based on plumbing. Those are the laws.


----------



## Nevada

primal1 said:


> I'm pretty sure lying is a sin


Judging sin has always been an interesting and contradictory topic to me. I recall being astounded that the most reliable support for GWB's torture programs came from evangelical Christians, almost as if they were drawn to the practice. It always seemed like a sin to me. Perhaps Christians found some Bible reference they could rely on.

Still, it is interesting to me that the support for torture came from evangelical Christians.


----------



## CesumPec

willow_girl said:


> I find it curious that while gay people and their supporters are attempting to have marriage defined on the basis of love, commitment, faithfulness, stability, family, and other good things, the Christian right wing insists upon reducing its basis to nothing more than a sex act that can be performed only by people with the 'right' kind of plumbing.
> 
> Who is the 'depraved' one in this equation?
> 
> Should the right to marriage hinge solely on one (but only one) partner's ability to pee standing up?


Nope, don't go there. I'm pretty much on the same page as you when it comes to religious values being enforced by law. Family Values, besides being a cute TV show from the ?80s?, often coicide with Xian values, but not always. 

While I think it is better that gov't promote the traditional family, I would be just fine with the gov't getting completely out of providing benefits for marriage and having kids. Then there is no need for us to debate which values are right, you do your thing, I do mine regardless of whether or not we approve of the other's choices.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> Nope, don't go there. I'm pretty much on the same page as you when it comes to religious values being enforced by law. Family Values, besides being a cute TV show from the ?80s?, often coicide with Xian values, but not always.
> 
> While I think it is better that gov't promote the traditional family, I would be just fine with the gov't getting completely out of providing benefits for marriage and having kids. Then there is no need for us to debate which values are right, you do your thing, I do mine regardless of whether or not we approve of the other's choices.


Due to the number of things that the marriage license effects in the US that are not monetary benefits you can not take the government out of the marriage equation.

Legal rights from property to children. The ability to immigrate based on your spouses citizenship are just a couple. It is not just about taxes and spousal benefits.


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> While I think it is better that gov't promote the traditional family, I would be just fine with the gov't getting completely out of providing benefits for marriage and having kids.


Family values or not, I see the benefit to society for the contribution stay-at-home moms make. In recognition for that contribution, widows inherit the SS & Medicare benefits earned by their husbands. That's a good thing for society.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> You do understand that the fact is you can not discriminate based on plumbing. Those are the laws.


I don't make the rules. I'm merely stating the facts.


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> https://www.google.com/search?q=pro...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
> 
> Sounds good to me! :thumb:
> 
> Certainly better than being "REgressive."


Hmm. Perhaps you should delve a little deeper into the movement's platform......and ties. :whistlin:


----------



## Nevada

Zilli said:


> And the fact is that regardless of your own personal objections, marriage equality is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, that 58% overall now support it (80% for those under thirty), and it will likely soon be coming to a neighborhood (state) near you.
> 
> YOU are in the minority.
> 
> Get over it.


It's not really a question of republicans getting over it. It's more the question of evolving to keep the republican party competitive in the new American political landscape.

But conservatives believe this is just a temporary swing to the left in response to Obama's popularity. They think there is another Ronald Reagan in the wings who will awaken a sleeping moral majority, like in the early 1980s. The 80% of the under 30 figure is revealing that perhaps there is a sleeping liberal majority about to dominate American politics.


----------



## Zilli

Nevada said:


> It's not really a question of republicans getting over it. It's more the question of evolving to keep the republican party competitive in the new American political landscape.


And many of them are evolving - whether they actually support marriage equality because it is the right thing to do or because they see that it is politically advantageous to do so - many conservative politicians are now saying they would support a republican presidential candidate who supports marriage equality.

I don't think these same politicians would have said that a year ago.


----------



## Zilli

Nevada said:


> The 80% of the under 30 figure is revealing that perhaps there is a sleeping liberal majority about to dominate American politics.


I hope so.

I have two sons over the age of thirty and three under the age of thirty and it is interesting to see how they have each come to their opinion about same sex marriage.

I think, for the two oldest ones, it has been more of a journey - that they have had to re-think preconceived ideas. They both now support marriage equality.

For the three under thirty, they tend to not "get" why it is even an issue; my youngest will be eighteen in two months and has two friends (males) who are gay and one friend (female) who considers herself "bi" and he doesn't understand why there should even be a problem with it at all. And he is quite religious - goes to church and has been very active in a church youth group since he was twelve, and in fact, for some time wanted to be a youth pastor.

I am proud of the younger generation; my kids aren't exceptional in their acceptance of those "different" from themselves - I see the same attitudes in their friends.


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> Family values or not, I see the benefit to society for the contribution stay-at-home moms make. In recognition for that contribution, widows inherit the SS & Medicare benefits earned by their husbands. That's a good thing for society.


I'm glad to see your acknowledgement of the value of the traditional family. But do you see what trouble the gov't doing something unconstitutional causes? 

If SS was a real insurance program, the widow, you, me, or whoever could be the designated beneficiary.


----------



## Nevada

Zilli said:


> For the three under thirty, they tend to not "get" why it is even an issue


That's the attitude I hear from the 20-somethings I know. They just don't understand why gay marriage is an issue.


----------



## Nevada

CesumPec said:


> If SS was a real insurance program, the widow, you, me, or whoever could be the designated beneficiary.


You are mistaken about that. You can buy annuities from private insurance companies that work the same way. They offer retirement annuities because people like them.


----------



## fernando

painterswife said:


> That is why they have already lost the war of popular opinion.


so moral codes should hinge on popularity ?

they're called the ten COMMANDMENTS - not the ten random suggestions -


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I find it curious* that while gay people and their supporters are attempting to have marriage defined on the basis of *love, commitment, faithfulness, stability, family, and other good things*, the Christian right wing insists upon reducing its basis to nothing more than a sex act that can be performed only by people with the 'right' kind of plumbing.


I don't fiind it curious they try to *define it* that way, when what they REALLY complain about most is TAX BENEFITS.
What you're suggesting is "based on sex acts" is actually the FACTUAL historical reason for the establishment of "marriage" which was to provide for a STABLE basis for a *FAMILY and children*


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> That's the attitude I hear from the 20-somethings I know. They just don't understand why gay marriage is an issue.


Agreed. 20-somethings and Democrats tend to be much more childlike in not recognizing the costs of social programs.


----------



## Nevada

fernando said:


> so moral codes should hinge on popularity ?


If you want a moral code then start a church. If you want a political party then you need public support on your side.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> 58% overall now support it (80% for those under thirty)


Polls have been known to be incorrect
If support is REALLY so high, you'd think a PROGRESSIVE state like Cali wouldn't have VOTED to ban gay marriage


----------



## CesumPec

Nevada said:


> You are mistaken about that. You can buy annuities from private insurance companies that work the same way. They offer retirement annuities because people like them.


You are soooo mistaken. I said if SS was like real INSURANCE, not an annuity. They are similar but not the same thing. And not to get sidetracked, but annuities are a TERRIBLE investment except for the companies that offer them. They are right for few people in very specific situations.


----------



## fernando

Nevada said:


> If you want a moral code then start a church. If you want a political party then you need public support on your side.


your opinion is noted - i find it has no merit - when this nation mattered and was the peak of civic achievement we had a genuine national moral code - 

the reason you champion moral decay is self-evident - it's all part of uncle karl's script -


----------



## HDRider

Zilli said:


> I know there are a number of churches in my state (Washington) who immediately made it known after marriage equality was passed here in November that they would welcome same sex couples. :thumb:


Which translates to "show me the money".


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> And the fact is that regardless of your own personal objections, marriage equality is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, that 58% overall now support it (80% for those under thirty), and it will likely soon be coming to a neighborhood (state) near you.
> 
> YOU are in the minority.
> 
> Get over it.


Yes, I keep forgetting.....the Republic is dead.

My own personal objections have nothing to do w/ homosexuality, per se. 

My objections have to do w/ *federal policy* and whether this country can keep from becoming a 3rd world cesspool due to moral decay.


----------



## Zilli

Bearfootfarm said:


> Polls have been known to be incorrect


Let me guess.....

You believed the polls that said Romney was going to win. :hand:


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Hence religous beliefs and rituals should have no place in this discussion.


Church and the God's word are two very different things. I believe in God's word, but not so much in the church. That is why it has a place in this discussion for me..


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Church and the God's word are two very different things. I believe in God's word, but not so much in the church. That is why it has a place in this discussion for me..


But your beliefs have no more validity than mine and neither set of beliefs should be the basis of discriminatory laws. Many people once believed that whites and blacks shouldn't share drinking fountains. Just because there were separate drinking fountains didn't make it right.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> But your beliefs have no more validity than mine and neither set of beliefs should be the basis of discriminatory laws. Many people once believed that whites and blacks shouldn't share drinking fountains. Just because there were separate drinking fountains didn't make it right.


Water fountains? Let me check on that and get back to you.


----------



## Zilli

Txsteader said:


> Yes, I keep forgetting.....the Republic is dead.
> 
> My own personal objections have nothing to do w/ homosexuality, per se.
> 
> My objections have to do w/ *federal policy* and whether this country can keep from becoming a 3rd world cesspool due to moral decay.


Not all of us think that allowing same sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples will cause this country to become a "3rd world cesspool."

In fact, quite the opposite.

Your opinion is no more valid than ours.


----------



## willow_girl

> What you're suggesting is "based on sex acts" is actually the FACTUAL historical reason for the establishment of "marriage" which was to provide for a STABLE basis for a *FAMILY and children*


We have never reserved marriage licenses solely for couples capable of, or intending to, produce children.


----------



## Nevada

HDRider said:


> Water fountains? Let me check on that and get back to you.


I recall seeing that sort of thing during the 1950s as my family traveled through the deep south.


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> And the fact is that regardless of your own personal objections, marriage equality is now legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, that 58% overall now support it (80% for those under thirty), and it will likely soon be coming to a neighborhood (state) near you.
> 
> YOU are in the minority.
> 
> Get over it.





Zilli said:


> Not all of us think that allowing same sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples will cause this country to become a "3rd world cesspool."
> 
> In fact, quite the opposite.
> 
> Your opinion is no more valid than ours.


Of course it's not, I never thought it was. 

This place is called a '*discussion* board'. It is where people come to *discuss*....and in this case, debate......topics. 

The issue hasn't been settled yet. There is still room for debate. I've tried to debate based on the points brought before the Supreme Court, including points raised by the Justices.....while attempting to leave religion out of the discussion. They're valid points, but as usual, liberals can only scoff while failing to see the slippery slope they're about to drag everyone down. The same thing happened in the health-care debates. How's that issue working out?

So don't get your panties in a bunch because someone has a different opinion. To quote you, 'get over it'.


----------



## fernando

Zilli said:


> Not all of us think that allowing same sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples will cause this country to become a "3rd world cesspool."
> 
> In fact, quite the opposite.
> 
> Your opinion is no more valid than ours.


i'd say his opinion was based upon experience, observation and common-sense -
whereas yours seems to be based upon emotion and media hype - 

so, there may be some question as to validity - remember, just because everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, not all opinions are necessarily valid, in fact, with some issues some opinions are worthless -


----------



## Evons hubby

HDRider said:


> Water fountains? Let me check on that and get back to you.


Whats to check? During the early half of the last century "separate but equal" was the law of the land... blacks and whites had separate facilities, public restrooms, water fountains, schools, hotels, restaurants, bars, pretty much everything was segregated. Even the busses were segregated... blacks in one section, whites in another. The color barrier was just as silly as the gender barrier thats still being clung to by some today. I find it amazing that so many people cant seem to get passed their desire to control other peoples lives, just because they can.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Water fountains? Let me check on that and get back to you.


There's a movie coming out about Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in major league baseball. Go watch it and learn some history. I've had the good fortune to talk to a couple of players from the old ***** Leagues. Interesting guys.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I recall seeing that sort of thing during the 1950s as my family traveled through the deep south.


Yep, and there was plenty of racial prejudice in the northern states too. It wasnt just the "deep south". There were lynchings beatings, and all the rest of ignorance based hate crimes being committed in northern and western states too.


----------



## HDRider

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Whats to check? During the early half of the last century "separate but equal" was the law of the land... blacks and whites had separate facilities, public restrooms, water fountains, schools, hotels, restaurants, bars, pretty much everything was segregated. Even the busses were segregated... blacks in one section, whites in another. The color barrier was just as silly as the gender barrier thats still being clung to by some today. I find it amazing that so many people cant seem to get passed their desire to control other peoples lives, just because they can.


The water fountain analogy was so absurd I thought my comment would go unnoticed. I expected no attention to it. 

It appears there is no shortage of those that want to wallow in muddy absurdity. 

My position on homosexuality is based on my understanding of the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less. It don't dislike homosexuals. I just view homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle. 

No where in the Bible have I found that black people are commanded to use a different water fountain.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> The water fountain analogy was so absurd I thought my comment would go unnoticed. I expected no attention to it.
> 
> It appears there is no shortage of those that want to wallow in muddy absurdity.
> 
> My position on homosexuality is based on my understanding of the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less. It don't dislike homosexuals. I just view homosexuality as a sinful lifestyle.
> 
> No where in the Bible have I found that black people are commanded to use a different water fountain.


Your biblical arguments have no bearing on the legality of same sex marriage. The historical example of seperate water fountains does. It demonstrates that identical actions by two groups of people cannot be treated differently under the law. All things are not decided by the Bible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We have never reserved marriage licenses solely for couples capable of, or intending to, produce children.


I never said *we* did
I was talking about the HISTORICAL reason for the institution of "marriage", which was to provide a STABLE FAMILY


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said *we* did
> I was talking about the HISTORICAL reason for the institution of "marriage", which was to provide a STABLE FAMILY


Something that same sex couples can provide also. Another objection eliminated.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Something that same sex couples can provide also. Another objection eliminated.


And just HOW can they provide CHILDREN?


----------



## kasilofhome

There already is a presedent for a union that is not one man and one woman on the books --This union is a life time commitment vow, where love and a devote willingness to remain faithfull. 

It is historically and socially accepted.

It is not looked apond as one type of Union is better than another --It is not call a marriage.

Yet, just as Bar mitza defines and limits a comming of age event-- No bacon-- no cheese burgers. Vs other (and there are many types of comming of age events-milestones)

I have yet to ever hear anyone complain about a bias against this union having a different word/title.


----------



## kasilofhome

Marriage lic's were the effort to block and control inter racial marriages in a time when there was true racism and those in office set in place a way to block and to keep people separated by classification of looks, and ancetry.

Prior to that marriage was anything a culture and sub culture accepted.

Jump a broom, just moving in together or after an event at a faith base under the customs of that leadership.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> There already is a presedent for a union that is not one man and one woman on the books --This union is a life time commitment vow, where love and a devote willingness to remain faithfull.
> 
> It is historically and socially accepted.
> 
> It is not looked apond as one type of Union is better than another --It is not call a marriage.
> 
> Yet, just as Bar mitza defines and limits a comming of age event-- No bacon-- no cheese burgers. Vs other (and there are many types of comming of age events-milestones)
> 
> I have yet to ever hear anyone complain about a bias against this union having a different word/title.


So what if there is a precedent. They want to be married. It is not constitutional to discriminate on the basis of sex. You do not get to change that because you don't like how others use a word.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> And just HOW can they provide CHILDREN?


You said nothing about providing children. You stipulated stable family. That family can be present with children from previous relationships, artificial insemination, or adoption. The same ways millions of heterosexual couples have.


----------



## HDRider

mmoetc said:


> Your biblical arguments have no bearing on the legality of same sex marriage. The historical example of seperate water fountains does. It demonstrates that identical actions by two groups of people cannot be treated differently under the law. All things are not decided by the Bible.


Your certainty is misplaced and misguided. You can find many references to the contrary, but then, I know you do not want to change your mind.

*Judeo-Christian Roots of America's Founding Ideals and Documents*​ 

Listed below are a few principles or ideals to which the Founders adhered.

Given immediately following each one are passages showing Judeo-Christian roots of that principle and then passages reflecting the use of the principle in America's founding documents. 

This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, but only to exemplify the concept that America's Founding ideals have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition. 

It should not be surprising that the Bible is quoted often as the source of the Founders' thinking for studies have shown the Bible is by far the most often quoted source in all of the publications and speeches of the founding era. 
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Marriage lic's were the effort to block and control inter racial marriages in a time when there was true racism and those in office set in place a way to block and to keep people separated by classification of looks, and ancetry.
> 
> Prior to that marriage was anything a culture and sub culture accepted.
> 
> Jump a broom, just moving in together or after an event at a faith base under the customs of that leadership.


If there were not certain legalities in this country that did not require a marriage license then most would get married in any way they wanted and not care. However the fact that a couple of many years who share their children, their finances and their lives can lose access to any of those things in the case of death or accident because they have no legal claim is horrendous. That is one of the things these people are fighting for.


----------



## mmoetc

HDRider said:


> Your certainty is misplaced and misguided. You can find many references to the contrary, but then, I know you do not want to change your mind.
> 
> *Judeo-Christian Roots of America's Founding Ideals and Documents*​
> 
> Listed below are a few principles or ideals to which the Founders adhered.
> 
> Given immediately following each one are passages showing Judeo-Christian roots of that principle and then passages reflecting the use of the principle in America's founding documents.
> 
> This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive, but only to exemplify the concept that America's Founding ideals have their roots in Judeo-Christian tradition.
> 
> It should not be surprising that the Bible is quoted often as the source of the Founders' thinking for studies have shown the Bible is by far the most often quoted source in all of the publications and speeches of the founding era.
> http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/may03nl.html


It's an interesting read and I have no doubt that the religous beliefs of the founding fathers influenced their thinking. It is, to me, most telling that in the end they established no state religion and, in fact, explicitly prohibited that action. This, to me, says they knew you could be influenced by religion but should not govern by it. To quote your post:"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".


----------



## Truckinguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> And just HOW can they provide CHILDREN?


Why do they have to provide children? This again begs the question: If marriage was about having children, what about childless hetero couples, by choice or ability?

Family does not have to mean blood related. A family is a group of people who live together, love and support each other and provide the aforementioned stable home. A couple, gay or straight, who adopts one or more children is no less a family than the couple next door who give birth to their own children. I don't believe that a family has to include a stereotypical male or female figure, as long as the children are raised with love, compassion and an open mind and provided with a safe and secure environment.


----------



## Evons hubby

Truckinguy said:


> Why do they have to provide children? This again begs the question: If marriage was about having children, what about childless hetero couples, by choice or ability?
> 
> Family does not have to mean blood related. A family is a group of people who live together, love and support each other and provide the aforementioned stable home. A couple, gay or straight, who adopts one or more children is no less a family than the couple next door who give birth to their own children. I don't believe that a family has to include a stereotypical male or female figure, as long as the children are raised with love, compassion and an open mind and provided with a safe and secure environment.


I dont think marriage even has to include children! If that was the case... I would be sorta up a stump myself. I dont recall the preacher or the judge or the guy running the little 24/7 wedding chapel asking either myself or any of my wives if we had, or planned to have children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *You said nothing about providing children*. You stipulated stable family. That family can be present with children from previous relationships, *artificial insemination*, or adoption. The same ways millions of heterosexual couples have.


Or maybe you just don't pay attention:


> What you're suggesting is "based on sex acts" is actually the FACTUAL historical reason for the establishment of "marriage" which was to provide for a STABLE basis for a *FAMILY and children*


So which of the TWO MEN gets inseminated to PROVIDE (not "provide for") CHILDREN?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why do they have to provide children?


You're not FOLLOWING the *whole *conversation



> What you're suggesting is "based on sex acts" is actually the FACTUAL *historical reason for the establishment of "marriage*" which was to provide for a STABLE basis for a *FAMILY and children*


All the *excuses* about "adoption" and "artificial insemination" and "previous relationships" are modern day concepts that ignore the fact it still takes *a man and a woman* to MAKE those families.

Gay "marriages" do nothing to benefit SOCIETY, since they don't* create* anything, and if they were the norm humanity would be *extinct*


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're not FOLLOWING the *whole *conversation
> 
> 
> 
> All the *excuses* about "adoption" and "artificial insemination" and "previous relationships" are modern day concepts that ignore the fact it still takes *a man and a woman* to MAKE those families.
> 
> Gay "marriages" do nothing to benefit SOCIETY, since they don't* create* anything, and if they were the norm humanity would be *extinct*


You say that all the time. Yes it does take something from a man and something from a women to make a child. No where does it say that it takes those things from a man and a women in the same family to make it a family. No where does it say that the parents and the children have to be of the same blood to make a family. Heterosexual unions do not make a family. People who care and commit make a family. The rest is just sex and it does not make a family.


----------



## stanb999

Nevada said:


> From what I heard about the remarks in court this morning, I don't think the supreme court wants to make a sweeping decision. They could, but it doesn't look like they will. They will probably leave it to the states to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> The supreme court can't repeal a provision in a state constitution, but they can render it ineffective. We know this to be true because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2).
> 
> _This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made,  under the authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme law of the land*; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding._
> 
> There is really no way around that.


State law isn't made under the authority of the federal government. Look to the tenth...


IMHO State marriage should be abolished. Then the points made above are moot. Contracts are the notions of mans laws. Have them. Marriage is gods law. Give that to him.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> All the *excuses* about "adoption" and "artificial insemination" and "previous relationships" are modern day concepts that ignore the fact it still takes *a man and a woman* to MAKE those families.
> 
> Gay "marriages" do nothing to benefit SOCIETY, since they don't* create* anything


So what you are saying then is that my marriage to Yvonne doesnt provide any benefit whatsoever to society? What about my first marriage? Did it not benefit society for me to provide her three waifs' with a "father figure" even though she had already been spayed.... therefor I wouldnt be "producing" any offspring? Does my love for them, my guidance, my support of them count for naught? Would society be just as well off had I not taken them into my heart and taught them right from wrong, and to become responsible adults? I think I "created" something there, even if I wasnt a dna donor.


----------



## primal1

The APA would disagree, same-sex families have already created homes for 25% of the children up for adoption in the 'undesirable age' range.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Gay "marriages" do nothing to benefit SOCIETY, since they don't* create* anything, and if they were the norm humanity would be *extinct*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> You say that all the time. Yes it does take something from a man and something from a women to make a child. No where does it say that it takes those things from a man and a women in the same family to make it a family. No where does it say that the parents and the children have to be of the same blood to make a family. Heterosexual unions do not make a family. People who care and commit make a family. The rest is *just sex and it does not make a family*.


You just made my point about gay "marriage", while STILL ignoring what I really said


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So what you are saying then is that my marriage to Yvonne doesnt provide any benefit whatsoever to society?


I don't know you nor HER.
If you were gay, and had never married a woman, what would you have provided?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The APA would disagree, same-sex families have already created homes for 25% of the children up for adoption in the 'undesirable age' range.


You're confusing "provide FOR" with "provide".
A society that has zero population growth is doomed, so gay "marriage" ADDS NOTHING to it


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing "provide FOR" with "provide".
> A society that has zero population growth is doomed, so gay "marriage" ADDS NOTHING to it


So your ok with lesbians because they can have children?


----------



## primal1

reproduction is not a requirement in marriage, nobody is stopping heterosexual reproduction so your point is irrelevant.
You said it yourself, marriage was to create a stable family and that is why the APA now supports same-sex marriage


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing "provide FOR" with "provide".
> A society that has zero population growth is doomed, so gay "marriage" ADDS NOTHING to it


I dont think there is much danger of "Zero population growth" coming to our country anytime soon. I also dont think that procreation is the only thing marriage provides. (lots of babies are born every day minus marriage certificates) 
That being said.... married couples such as myself have "provided" a lot to our good country. I provided a good home for three youngsters whose wonderful biological fathers opted out of raising, caring for or providing for. (and one of them had actually married their mother) There is absolutely no reason that a woman could not have provided that same level of care for those three children than I did, and to have provided society with three productive adults had their mother opted to marry a woman instead of me. That was my first wife and her three. During my second marriage there were no children involved, so I guess that marriage provided nothing for society. Now, my Yvonne had a fine young lad when we got married, and I also lent a hand to her in his upbringing.... but again.... had my Yvonne opted to marry a woman instead of me.... whoever that woman might have been could easily have contributed huge benefits to society.... again, by PROVIDING society with a fine upstanding young adult who is now earning his own living.... the old fashioned way.... he works and earns it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know you nor HER.
> If you were gay, and had never married a woman, what would you have provided?


I dunno.... since I am not gay, and i have always married women... but hypothetically I "MIGHT" have provided lots of things.... I "MIGHT" have gotten wealthy enough to run for president and been in a position to actually solve some of our nations problems. I "MIGHT" have not done quite that much.... maybe just been able to become a state governor and solved some of the problems we have here in our state... maybe I "MIGHT" have not done squat beyond providing a good home to a couple of poor orphans via adoption. What might you have done in the same hypothetical position?


----------



## painterswife

There are enough breeders shooting out those kids that don't benefit society in any real way. While the rest of us none breeders pay for, educate, foster, adopt and mentor therefore providing more benefit to society then some of those breeders do.


----------



## Tiempo

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing "provide FOR" with "provide".
> A society that has zero population growth is doomed, so gay "marriage" ADDS NOTHING to it


You're really grasping at straws here.


----------



## primal1

LOL... i always feel like saying POPPYCOCK


----------



## lordoftheweeds

mmoetc said:


> So your ok with lesbians because they can have children?


I'm OK with lesbians because 2 hot chicks having. oops sorry wrong forum :happy2:


----------



## Tiempo

primal1 said:


> LOL... i always feel like saying POPPYCOCK


One of the more polite expressions I grew up with is CODSWALLOP.

A good word


----------



## primal1

not sure i've ever heard that one but i like it!



Tiempo said:


> One of the more polite expressions I grew up with is CODSWALLOP.
> 
> A good word


----------



## primal1

somebodies lookin to get spanked lol



lordoftheweeds said:


> I'm OK with lesbians because 2 hot chicks having. oops sorry wrong forum :happy2:


----------



## bluesky

painterswife said:


> There are enough breeders shooting out those kids that don't benefit society in any real way. While the rest of us none breeders pay for, educate, foster, adopt and mentor therefore providing more benefit to society then some of those breeders do.


Good point! :rock:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So your ok with lesbians because they can have children?


Explain how TWO lesbians can have children


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You're really grasping at straws here


Not if you take what I say *in context*.
Several have mentioned past cultures that supposedly accepted gay unions
*Where are they NOW?*


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> Explain how TWO lesbians can have children


The same way a woman with an infertile husband can.


----------



## primal1

they are currently picking up the pieces to rebuild their culture that was destroyed by having been found by white man and his God.. come on you know your history. The fact that a culture loses a war has NOTHING to do with this anyway, any culture can be exterminated for any number of reasons.



primal1 said:


> While gender identity defined Native American gender roles the expectations upon a two spirits or berdache differed. Native American philosophy welcomed the third gender and openly encouraged the behavior. Virtually every tribe in the Midwest, Great Plains and Southwest found a comfortable co-existence with the two spirits. Considered holy men and women, the tribes deemed the two spirits a considerably blessed person. Female two âspirits often conducted sexual relations with other females while male two-spirits enjoyed both sexes. Tribe members encouraged unions between two-spirits and non two spirits.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Not if you take what I say *in context*.
> Several have mentioned past cultures that supposedly accepted gay unions
> *Where are they NOW?*


----------



## Truckinguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing "provide FOR" with "provide".
> A society that has zero population growth is doomed, so gay "marriage" ADDS NOTHING to it


Ahhh, I think I see where your going with this. You're talking about gay marriage completely replacing hetero marriage and mankind dying out when no one produces children.

Rest assured that gay marriage will never become the norm simply due to the fact that, indeed, it does take a male and female to create children. I don't think anyone on this thread is disputing that. What gays want is to have their unions work alongside and in conjunction with straight marriages. As has been pointed out numerous times there are many variations of family and gay unions (call them marriages, unions, whatever) are perfectly capable of having a contributing role to society by adopting children, lesbians can have children by IVF or they can simply contribute to society by being good citizens, working and paying taxes and generally living their lives like anybody else.

Those of us who don't have children still contribute to society by helping others, babysitting and paying taxes which pay for, among other things, social programs which benefit families with children, some of which shouldn't have had children in the first place.


----------



## Tiempo

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not if you take what I say *in context*.
> Several have mentioned past cultures that supposedly accepted gay unions
> *Where are they NOW?*


Can you show us an example of a single society that died out because it was so chock full of homosexual people that there was not enough reproduction?


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Explain how TWO lesbians can have children


Any number of ways.... as has been pointed out numerous times... Now I have a question for you... What does having kids have to do with two (or more) adults getting married? Are you of the opinion that procreation is somehow the only issue at hand when it comes to marriage? Some marriages produce children, that part is true, but there are many other reasons for people to get married. For a great many years the primary purpose of marriage was to provide a living for women. In a great many cases this is still the primary reason for marriage today.


----------



## fernando

Tiempo said:


> Can you show us an example of a single society that died out because it was so chock full of homosexual people that there was not enough reproduction?


inadequate reproduction is not the singular cause for a failed society - moral decay across the board, in all it's filthy aspects, is the primary reason that individual standards for acceptable behavior tanked and when enough individuals fail the national standards for acceptable behavior fail soon after - it's all spelled out in the communist manifesto -


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> The same way a woman with an infertile husband can.


You don't need a "marriage " for that, and it still has nothing to do with the ORIGINAL reason for marriage


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> For a great many years the primary purpose of marriage was to *provide a living for women. *


And the CHILDREN they would *normally* produce


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The fact that a culture loses a war has NOTHING to do with this anyway, any culture can be exterminated for any number of reasons.


One that can't reproduce exterminates ITSELF.
You still can't show a society where same sex "marraige" was ever really more than an oddity


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> And the CHILDREN they would *normally* produce


Actually the original reason for marriage was to establish legal or historical connections for purposes of ownership with regards to property within a relationship and to establish family obligations to the offspring. Exactly why people want same sex marriage now.

It was never about producing offspring. They were doing that long before there ever was a reason for marriage.


----------



## primal1

an oddity to you maybe.. i have no need to relive history, it's way more fun making it



Bearfootfarm said:


> One that can't reproduce exterminates ITSELF.
> You still can't show a society where same sex "marraige" was ever really more than an oddity


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> Actually the original reason for marriage was to establish legal or historical connections for purposes of ownership with regards to property within a relationship and to establish family obligations to the offspring. Exactly why people want same sex marriage now.


Marriage is a legal state of being, where two people can operate as a single marital community. I'm concerned that a lot of people here in GC don't fully understand the rights and obligations of marriage, as evidenced by how so many think it's a contract.

If you just want to make a commitment without the rights & obligations of marriage, then have a wedding ceremony without a license. Just say your vows and commit to the relationship. But I don't see a lot of people doing that.


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> Marriage is a legal state of being, where two people can operate as a single marital community. I'm concerned that a lot of people here in GC don't fully understand the rights and obligations of marriage, as evidenced by how so many think it's a contract.
> 
> If you just want to make a commitment without the rights & obligations of marriage, then have a wedding ceremony without a license. Just say your vows and commit to the relationship. But I don't see a lot of people doing that.


It is a contract in regards to why you get a marriage license. It is also more to some but not all. I would have said my vows without the license but I would not have then be able to co-mingle my assets with my husband or be able to share my life with him here in the US where he wished to stay.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> It is a contract in regards to why you get a marriage license. It is also more to some but not all. I would have said my vows without the license but I would not have then be able to co-mingle my assets with my husband or be able to share my life with him here in the US where he wished to stay.


There is no contract involved. If you have one, show it to me.

Marriage is a license, issued by the government, that creates a marital community so two people can operate as a single unit.


----------



## painterswife

Nevada said:


> There is no contract involved. If you have one, show it to me.
> 
> Marriage is a license, issued by the government, that creates a marital community so two people can operate as a single unit.


I guess you could see it that way. I see it as a bit of both. That is why there is not only a dividing of the martial estate but also the the requirement of ongoing payments for spousal and offspring support.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> also the the requirement of ongoing payments for spousal and offspring support.


It's of no consequence at all. You can still be required to pay palimony to someone you lived with out of wedlock, and child support is awarded regardless of marital status.


----------



## unregistered168043

Nevada said:


> Marriage is a license, issued by the government, that creates a marital community so two people can operate as a single unit.


If you are a socialist, and you see government has the arbiter of all legitimacy. If government is the center and heart of all society and all individuals are merely units of a giant collective....then your response makes perfect sense.

If you see government as an administrative office, whose role is strictly limited, and the individual as the presiding authority of his own life...then your response seems...foreign and strange.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Can you *show us* an example of a single society that died out because it was so chock full of homosexual people that there was not enough reproduction


No, because people were either smart enough to know it's a bad idea to begin with, or they all died out before recorded history


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm concerned that a lot of people here in GC don't fully understand the rights and obligations of marriage, as evidenced by how so many *think it's a contract*.


It IS a contract, as you said yourself:


> If you just want to make a commitment without the rights & obligations of marriage, then have a wedding ceremony without a license. Just *say your vows and commit* to the relationship. But I don't see a lot of people doing that.


That constitutes a* verbal contract*


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> It IS a contract, as you said yourself:
> 
> 
> That constitutes a* verbal contract*


It's not a contract, and I never said it was a contract. Any language used during a wedding ceremony has no effect on the marriage license.

If you also do a prenuptial agreement along with the marriage then I agree that you entered into a contract, but I don't see how the marriage license can be considered a contract.


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> It's not a contract, and I never said it was a contract. Any language used during a wedding ceremony has no effect on the marriage license.
> 
> If you also do a prenuptial agreement along with the marriage then I agree that you entered into a contract, but I don't see how the marriage license can be considered a contract.


In its broadest definition it is a contract. It is an agreement entered into by two or more parties, in this case the happy couple and the govt body issuing the liscense. There is an exchange of money for the promise of access to govt. services or benefits which are otherwise inaccessible. It is enforceable. It meets the criteria for a simple contract.


----------



## kasilofhome

mmoetc said:


> Your biblical arguments have no bearing on the legality of same sex marriage. The historical example of seperate water fountains does. It demonstrates that identical actions by two groups of people cannot be treated differently under the law. All things are not decided by the Bible.


 

It is done all the time --never have I seen a urinal in the ladies room we are not even treated equal--men have a bowl so do we but the get a urinal --we should protest---something I mean really just because it might be difficult to use for some should not allow a whole class of people to be treated differently. Even it is logical, practical or socially unaccepted ---Life must be equal and fair---Do I get a trophy?


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> One that can't reproduce exterminates ITSELF.
> You still can't show a society where same sex "marraige" was ever really more than an oddity


Welll there ya go.... lettem all get married, and they will soon die out.... problem solved!


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> It's not a contract, and I never said it was a contract. Any language used during a wedding ceremony has no effect on the marriage license.
> 
> If you also do a prenuptial agreement along with the marriage then I agree that you entered into a contract, but I don't see how the marriage license can be considered a contract.


The marriage license is not a contract.... its the act of getting married that forms the legal contract. And if you think for one heartbeat that our legal system is going to allow you out of that contract without a judges signature.... and normally minus at least half of your worldly possessions.... you will find out all too quickly just how strong, legal and binding the marriage contract really is. You dont wanna sign the deed to the farm over to her? thats ok too, the judge will be all to happy to sign it for you. BTDT, got the Tshirt and wore that sucker out!


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> It is done all the time --never have I seen a urinal in the ladies room we are not even treated equal--men have a bowl so do we but the get a urinal --we should protest---something I mean really just because it might be difficult to use for some should not allow a whole class of people to be treated differently. Even it is logical, practical or socially unaccepted ---Life must be equal and fair---Do I get a trophy?


But there are no laws saying that the placement of a urinal in the ladies room is illegal. That would be the difference. There were laws mandating seperate facilities for blacks. Feel free to complain to anybody you wish about your hygiene issue. Let me know the response. No trophy, but I'll send you a participation ribbon. Don't be offended, it's rainbow.


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> There is an exchange of money for the promise of access to govt. services or benefits which are otherwise inaccessible. It is enforceable. It meets the criteria for a simple contract.


The marital contract is actually not enforceable. The classic provisions of a license are 1) that it can be revoked, and 2) the provisions of the license can be changed. If the government decided to stop allowing married people to file joint tax returns, there wouldn't be a lot you could do about it. Likewise, you can't enforce your right to collect Social Security & Medicare benefits that your spouse earned.

I don't see how the marriage license can be enforced when the government has the right to change or revoke the license at any time.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> I don't see how the marriage license can be enforced when the government has the right to change or revoke the license at any time.


I dunno if the government "enforces" a license or not..... but sure as ice is cold they will enforce the marriage contract between two people. Dont believe me? Get yourself married, and try to duck out of it without the judges ok on the deal. Depends on the state, lots of variables, but with the wedding vows a contract is formed, and in that contract there are all sorts of legal rights, and responsibilities conveyed.... far more than is verbally exchanged in front of a preacher.


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> The marital contract is actually not enforceable. The classic provisions of a license are 1) that it can be revoked, and 2) the provisions of the license can be changed. If the government decided to stop allowing married people to file joint tax returns, there wouldn't be a lot you could do about it. Likewise, you can't enforce your right to collect Social Security & Medicare benefits that your spouse earned.
> 
> I don't see how the marriage license can be enforced when the government has the right to change or revoke the license at any time.


I would expect there to be some very interesting lawsuits were the govt. to do things you postulate. There is nothing to stop anyone from breaching any contract other than the threat of whatever penalties may follow.


----------



## Zilli

kasilofhome said:


> It is done all the time --never have I seen a urinal in the ladies room we are not even treated equal--men have a bowl so do we but the get a urinal --we should protest---something I mean really just because it might be difficult to use for some should not allow a whole class of people to be treated differently. Even it is logical, practical or socially unaccepted ---Life must be equal and fair---Do I get a trophy?


I'm sorry.....but this makes no sense whatsoever and is a totally irrelevant argument.


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> I would expect there to be some very interesting lawsuits were the govt. to do things you postulate.


Don't discount the possibility. How many times have republicans proposed eliminating public administrated Social Security & Medicare?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *It's not a contract*, and *I never said it was a contract*. Any language used during a wedding ceremony has no effect on the marriage license.


The marriage is a "contract".
The license is a legal document

I SHOWED you where *you* talked about a "vow" which is a "promise" which IS a "contract", so you *did *say it's a contract.
Denying it now doesn't erase what's there 



> For most of Western history, marriage was *a private contract* between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of *a coupleâs declarations*.
> 
> If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital* vows*âeven without witnessesâthe Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.


----------



## bluesky

kasilofhome said:


> It is done all the time --never have I seen a urinal in the ladies room we are not even treated equal--men have a bowl so do we but the get a urinal --we should protest---something I mean really just because it might be difficult to use for some should not allow a whole class of people to be treated differently. Even it is logical, practical or socially unaccepted ---Life must be equal and fair---Do I get a trophy?


What on earth? You're talking about plumbing??? Way to trivialize.


----------



## Tiempo

kasilofhome said:


> It is done all the time --never have I seen a urinal in the ladies room we are not even treated equal--men have a bowl so do we but the get a urinal --we should protest---something I mean really just because it might be difficult to use for some should not allow a whole class of people to be treated differently. Even it is logical, practical or socially unaccepted ---Life must be equal and fair---Do I get a trophy?


Comparing how we pee to who we love? No trophy for you!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The* marital contract is actually not enforceable*. The classic provisions of *a license* are 1) that it can be revoked, and 2) the provisions of the license can be changed. If the government decided to stop allowing married people to file joint tax returns, there wouldn't be a lot you could do about it. Likewise, you can't enforce your right to collect Social Security & Medicare benefits that your spouse earned.
> 
> I don't see how the marriage license can be enforced when the government has the right to change or revoke the license at any time.


Now you're just rambling, since the CONTRACT (which you first said didn't exist) and the LICENSE are two different things.
You should quit before the hole gets deeper


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Don't discount the possibility. How many times have *republicans* proposed eliminating public administrated Social Security & Medicare?


LOL
The* telltale sign* you've backed yourself into a corner on the actual topic, and need to redirect attention


----------



## Zilli

bluesky said:


> What on earth? You're talking about plumbing??? Way to trivialize.





Tiempo said:


> Comparing how we pee to who we love? No trophy for you!


lolol.........


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Don't discount the possibility. How many times have republicans proposed eliminating public administrated Social Security & Medicare?


Not nearly as often as the dems and Obama has offered to cut those bennies, and as I recall the dems are the ones who pulled three quarters trillion out of Medicare to help finance Obamacare.


----------



## kasilofhome

But we all have to be the same --we must all get anything that someone else has. I simply trying to come around to the idea that if someone has something --even if they earned it and I do not I should scream racist, or discrimination or blame Bush. If it is a business that is privatly owned and they must serve me. If it is a group that has an event for a milestone in a person life they can't exclude me. This goes against my values.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> But we all have to be the same --we must all get anything that someone else has. I simply trying to come around to the idea that if someone has something --even if they earned it and I do not I should scream racist, or discrimination or blame Bush. If it is a business that is privatly owned and they must serve me. If it is a group that has an event for a milestone in a person life they can't exclude me. This goes against my values.


This is not about anyone earning something and I am sure you know that. Red herrings galore.


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> But we all have to be the same --we must all get anything that someone else has. I simply trying to come around to the idea that if someone has something --even if they earned it and I do not I should scream racist, or discrimination or blame Bush. If it is a business that is privatly owned and they must serve me. If it is a group that has an event for a milestone in a person life they can't exclude me. This goes against my values.


I'll ask you a simple question that pertains to your post. What did you do to earn the privelidge of marrying the person of your choice that a gay male or lesbian female didn't?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What did you do to earn the privelidge of marrying the person of your choice that a gay male or lesbian female didn't?


Follow the current as well as HISTORICAL laws and traditions.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Follow the current as well as HISTORICAL laws and traditions.


Which laws and traditions would that be? Did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual.... or was that by luck of the draw so to speak.... as in.... were you born that way?


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which laws and traditions would that be? Did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual.... or was that by luck of the draw so to speak.... as in.... were you born that way?


People have no ability to control their behavior/actions? We don't have the ability to choose how we behave? 

Using the excuse that someone was 'born that way' doesn't justify wrong behavior.....whether it's homosexuality or murder.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> People have no ability to control their behavior/actions? We don't have the ability to choose how we behave?
> 
> Using the excuse that someone was 'born that way' doesn't justify wrong behavior.....whether it's homosexuality or murder.


So what is so very wrong with being in love? or getting married? I was always sorta under the impression that these were considered good things? :shrug:

And no.... I didnt have much "choice" when I fell in love with my Yvonne. I knew right away that I wanted to share my life with her. Sure am glad she meets with your approval as a life mate for me.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So what is so very wrong with being in love? or getting married? I was always sorta under the impression that these were considered good things? :shrug:
> 
> And no.... I didnt have much "choice" when I fell in love with my Yvonne. I knew right away that I wanted to share my life with her. Sure am glad she meets with your approval as a life mate for me.


And if you had fallen in love w/ your sister? Would/should you have the right to marry simply on the basis of 'love'?

Why do you refuse to go down the rabbit-hole that your (and liberals') argument has opened?


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> And if you had fallen in love w/ your sister? Would/should you have the right to marry simply on the basis of 'love'?
> 
> Why do you refuse to go down the rabbit-hole that your (and liberals') argument has opened?


I dunno... I never fell in love with my sister. 

I am not quite sure I understand that last part of your question? what rabbit hole? :shrug:


----------



## Zilli

Typical - when they start to run out of arguments, the incest card gets pulled.

What next? The bestiality card?


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dunno... I never fell in love with my sister.
> 
> I am not quite sure I understand that last part of your question? what rabbit hole? :shrug:


The rabbit hole of the right to marry whomever you chose based solely on the criteria of 'love'. 

Using that criteria, shouldn't a brother and sister have the right to marry?


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> Typical - when they start to run out of arguments, the incest card gets pulled.
> 
> What next? The bestiality card?


Typical - when they can't make logical arguments in the discussion, the mockery card gets pulled.

What's next? The hate card?


----------



## primal1

There is 12 years of legal same-sex marriage history already, please give us an example of this rabbit hole you speak of.



Txsteader said:


> Typical - when they can't make logical arguments in the discussion, the mockery card gets pulled.
> 
> What's next? The hate card?


----------



## Txsteader

primal1 said:


> There is 12 years of legal same-sex marriage history already, please give us an example of this rabbit hole you speak of.


State history, not federal. 

One step at a time, in the proper order, so as not to rock the boat _too_ radically.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Typical - when they start to run out of arguments, the incest card gets pulled.


That's what happens when you start *changing definitions*, and making silly arguments about a "right to marry whoever you WANT"

It's simply YOUR "logic" applied to a different scenario :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There is *12 years* of legal same-sex marriage history already, please give us an example of this rabbit hole you speak of


There are thousands of years of history that *disallows* it, as MOST places in the world stiil do.
Why should *your *12 years override those?


----------



## willow_girl

> There are thousands of years of history that *disallows* it, as MOST places in the world stiil do.


Most nations are or were not founded on the principle that people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> Typical - when they start to run out of arguments, the incest card gets pulled.
> 
> What next? The bestiality card?


BTW, I'll remind you and anyone else who agrees w/ your comment that Justice Sotomayor, one of the more liberal Justices of the SC, asked the same question that I posed.

So, your mockery and insults missed their mark. 'They' includes even some liberal Democrats.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> The rabbit hole of the right to marry whomever you chose based solely on the criteria of 'love'.
> 
> Using that criteria, shouldn't a brother and sister have the right to marry?


based "soley" on that criteria? sure why not? But then in the real world we know there are other criteria to be factored into the equation now dont we?


----------



## primal1

Thousands of years and most places?? as i have said before, only since certain religions.. why shouldn't 12 years override a wrong I am not Catholic and i am not asking Catholics to marry gays 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[1] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[2]

Cicero mentions the marriage (using the Latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder, but he does it in a metaphorical form to criticize his enemy Antonius. Cicero states thus that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius.[3] Martial also mentions a number of same-sex marriages, but always in derisory terms against people whom he wants to mock at.[4]

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.[5] The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines,[6] named Sporus.

Child emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.[7] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.[8]

These same-sex marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.[9][10]

In the Middle Ages, a same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro DÃ­az and MuÃ±o Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[11]

In ancient India same-sex marriage was more common. One example being a Princess named Shikhandi (born Shikhandini) who was married off to another princess by her father King Drupada.[citation needed] According to traditions in South India, Krishna married Iravan to fulfill one of his three last wishes.[citation needed]



Bearfootfarm said:


> There are thousands of years of history that *disallows* it, as MOST places in the world stiil do.
> Why should *your *12 years override those?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Most nations are or were not founded on the principle that people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!


That has little to do with *marital laws and traditions* throughout history


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *as i have said before*, only since certain religions


Your saying it doesn't make it reality



> why shouldn't 12 years override *a wrong *


The majority in the world still think same sex marriage is wrong

You can drag up *a very few* examples from the past, no doubt drug up before by some other gay person attempting to rationalize and justify *their own behavior.*

It doesn't change anything
It's still a TINY minority


----------



## primal1

and you can go right ahead and ignore everything you want


----------



## Ohio Rusty

Get rid of ALL discrimination and have no restrictions on Marriage. Marriage is marriage as long as you have a marriage certificate. Period. Then there won't be any arguments. Legally married is legally married. 
No restrictions means a Man can marry his Daughter ..... A man can have plural wives .... guys can marry guys ... girls can marry girls,... you can marry the squid in your fish tank if you wish !! If you aren't allowed to marry anyone or anything ... then that is a restriction and a discrimination. 
If the law allow restrictions -- then just leave everything alone the way it is now ..... Either all or nothing .... It would be unfair to say one party can marry and others can't. That is discriminitory. All or nothing like it is now.
Maybe people should be able to legally marry their pets so they can leave their estates to them ...... There will be rich cats and weiner dogs everywhere !!!! (getting tired of all the arguing and sillyness) It's no wonder the U.S. is the butt of all the jokes around the world.
Ohio Rusty ><>

The concept of slaves is most welcomed and encouraged by the system of masters. The accumulation of wealth by the thieving, corrupt Bankers and Ruling Elite at one end is at the same time, the accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation for the common working man at the other end.​


----------



## Zilli

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your saying it doesn't make it reality
> 
> 
> The majority in the world still think same sex marriage is wrong
> 
> You can drag up *a very few* examples from the past, no doubt drug up before by some other gay person attempting to rationalize and justify *their own behavior.*
> 
> It doesn't change anything


In this country, 58% of the overall population support it, with 80% of those under thirty supporting it.

Just because you don't want to believe it will not change the facts of those numbers.


> It's still a TINY minority


 :doh:


----------



## primal1

a tiny minority that predates Christianity..


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> The rabbit hole of the right to marry whomever you chose based solely on the criteria of 'love'.
> 
> Using that criteria, shouldn't a brother and sister have the right to marry?


Marriage is about a commitment, it is not a license that allows you to have sex. Preventing siblings to marry will not stop any sex they may be having. Therefore trying to stop people that can legally have sex by not granting them a marriage license just so siblings can not have sex is not relevant.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Marriage is about a commitment, it is not a license that allows you to have sex. Preventing siblings to marry will not stop any sex they may be having. Therefore trying to stop people that can legally have sex by not granting them a marriage license just so siblings can not have sex is not relevant.


But.......in the context that this issue is being framed.....legal/financial benefits, 'civil rights', 'the right to marry who you love'.......siblings and polygamists would be entitled under those justifications. That's why Sotomayor brought it up; because of the specific way the issue is being justified and presented.

Otherwise, as Rusty stated, the federal govt is legislating discriminative policy....not to mention, selective morality.

My question is, would those who support homosexual marriage equally support polygamist or incestuous marriages? And if not, why?


----------



## willow_girl

> My question is, would those who support homosexual marriage equally support polygamist or incestuous marriages? And if not, why?


As long as the parties are consenting adults, I have no objections.

(I really don't think we're going to see of slew of brothers and sisters marrying.)


----------



## Txsteader

willow_girl said:


> As long as the parties are consenting adults, I have no objections.
> 
> (I really don't think we're going to see of slew of brothers and sisters marrying.)


I never imagined I'd see the day that homosexuals were allowed to marry. But here we are. 

Never say never.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> you can go right ahead and *ignore everything you want*


That's *exactly* what you're doing
Why pretend it's different?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> In this country, *58% of the overall population support it*, with 80% of those under thirty supporting it.
> 
> Just because you don't want to believe it will not change *the facts of those numbers*


And yet VOTERS banned it in one of the most LIBERAL states in the nation
What about the facts of *those *numbers?

How do you explain it?
Could it be your POLL is *wrong*?


----------



## Elffriend

Txsteader said:


> My question is, would those who support homosexual marriage equally support polygamist or incestuous marriages? And if not, why?


I don't have a problem with marriage between consenting adults. 

Unfortunately there are polygamist sects that force young girls to marry against their will. Most cases of incest you hear about are older people forcing themselves on younger family members. There's no consent there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> a tiny minority that predates Christianity


So does *marriage *between a man and a woman


----------



## Zilli

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet VOTERS banned it in one of the most LIBERAL states in the nation
> What about the facts of *those *numbers?


Yes, and in my state, the voters approved it by a rather substantial margin. :thumb:

Nine states (and the District of Columbia).......and counting.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Unfortunately there are polygamist sects that *force young girls* to marry against their will. Most cases of incest you hear about are older people forcing themselves on younger family members. There's no consent there.


Jump over to the "morning after pill", and you'll learn a *12 year old* who decides to have sex is "A woman who has a right to buy the pill"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Zilli said:


> Yes, and in my state, the voters approved it by a rather substantial margin. :thumb:
> 
> *Nine states* (and the District of Columbia).......and counting.


Still a tiny minority.
You *claimed* "58% support nationwide"


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Jump over to the "morning after pill", and you'll learn a *12 year old* who decides to have sex is "A woman who has a right to buy the pill"


There is a difference between being a women and being an adult.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Bearfootfarm said:


> Jump over to the "morning after pill", and you'll learn a *12 year old* who decides to have sex is "A woman who has a right to buy the pill"


First "we want to have abortions if we are raped or our lives are in danger"
Then "it's our bodies, we can do with it what we choose"
Then "we want to have abortions past 12 weeks"
Then "we want to deliver the baby 2/3 of the way, then slice his neck and suck out his brains and kill him in the birth canal".
Then " we want a pill to take that will abort a baby conceived during rape"
Then "we want to take this pill whenever we feel like it"
NOW LET'S MAKE THIS PILL AVAILABLE TO 12 YEAR OLD CHILDREN, OVER THE COUNTER.

Am I the ONLY one that sees the progression for what "made sense" in the first step, but now is wildly out of control?????


----------



## CesumPec

Zilli said:


> deleted was here due to reasons below.


That is an ugly, bigoted, evil comment. Can you not accept that someone can disagree with a policy you advocate without accusing them of wanting such as evil thing?


----------



## Zilli

Laura Zone 5 said:


> First "we want to have abortions if we are raped or our lives are in danger"
> Then "it's our bodies, we can do with it what we choose"
> Then "we want to have abortions past 12 weeks"
> Then "we want to deliver the baby 2/3 of the way, then slice his neck and suck out his brains and kill him in the birth canal".
> Then " we want a pill to take that will abort a baby conceived during rape"
> Then "we want to take this pill whenever we feel like it"
> NOW LET'S MAKE THIS PILL AVAILABLE TO 12 YEAR OLD CHILDREN, OVER THE COUNTER.
> 
> Am I the ONLY one that sees the progression for what "made sense" in the first step, but now is wildly out of control?????


I thought this was a thread about same sex marriage.

I didn't realize I had wandered into an anti-choice thread.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Zilli said:


> I thought this was a thread about same sex marriage.
> 
> I didn't realize I had wandered into an anti-choice thread.


I was just addressing the comment about the MAP. 
I had mentioned earlier in the thread about how progressions happen and where they happen!:grin:


----------



## Zilli

CesumPec said:


> That is an ugly, bigoted, evil comment. Can you not accept that someone can disagree with a policy you advocate without accusing them of wanting such as evil thing?


No......what is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to take a segment of our population and try to lump them with pedophiles and people who practice incest or bestiality.

What is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to use religion as an excuse to deny what is fair and right to people who really only want what all of us want - the right to marry the person they love and to make a home with that person and to perhaps raise a family with that person.

What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to say one minute that you don't care if they marry - as long as you don't have to pay for it, which I take to mean that they shouldn't get the same financial benefits that heterosexual married couples get (Social Security survivor benefits, tax benefits, etc.).

What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to be so clueless that you have to ask why homosexuals want to get married, like it is impossible for them to feel for someone of the same sex and to love someone of the same sex in the way heterosexual couples do, practically implying that they're lesser people, maybe more on the level of animals.

What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to keep your heads in the sand and pretend that things are going to stay the same, regardless of what is happening, just because you don't like, or don't understand, something.


----------



## CesumPec

Zilli said:


> No......what is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to take a segment of our population and try to lump them with pedophiles and people who practice incest or bestiality.
> 
> What is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to use religion as an excuse to deny what is fair and right to people who really only want what all of us want - the right to marry the person they love and to make a home with that person and to perhaps raise a family with that person.
> 
> What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to say one minute that you don't care if they marry - as long as you don't have to pay for it, which I take to mean that they shouldn't get the same financial benefits that heterosexual married couples get (Social Security survivor benefits, tax benefits, etc.).
> 
> What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to be so clueless that you have to ask why homosexuals want to get married, like it is impossible for them to feel for someone of the same sex and to love someone of the same sex in the way heterosexual couples do, practically implying that they're lesser people, maybe more on the level of animals.
> 
> What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to keep your heads in the sand and pretend that things are going to stay the same, regardless of what is happening, just because you don't like, or don't understand, something.


So your answer to my question is no. You have to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you. Disgusting.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> There is a difference between being a women and being an adult.


She was "adult" enough in the other thread to buy her own birth control :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> As much as you try to twist it or claim it isn't true, those are the numbers/facts. Like it or not


And as much as YOU try to claim "it's a fact", its *just* ONE POLL, like it or not



> practically implying that they're lesser people, maybe more on the level of *animals.
> *


I think you should doublecheck on *who *keeps bringing up homosexual animals


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> thought this was a thread about same sex marriage.
> 
> I didn't realize I had wandered into an *anti-choice* thread.


Isn't anyone who doesn't agree with you on gay marriage "anti choice"?
Isn't it about "choosing" who you want to marry?

Why is it the *SAME* arguments one side uses in one situation aren't accepted as valid when used AGAINST them in another?


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> She was "adult" enough in the other thread to buy her own birth control :shrug:


 I never said or implied that anyone has too be an adult to buy birth control , ever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No......what is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to take a segment of our population and try to lump them with pedophiles and people who practice incest or bestiality


Sotomayor did that.
Send her an E mail


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You have to personally attack anyone who disagrees with you. Disgusting.


But it's all in the name of "tolerance for other lifestyles"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> *I never said* or implied that anyone has too be an adult to buy birth control , ever.


Did someone say *you* said it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Dude! You are in such serious *denial*!


Nope.
You showed ONE POLL
Other polls have *lower* results
No denial at all, just, as you like to say, the numbers/facts:
*Reality* is, with margin of error, it's pretty much* 50/50*

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm


> I'm actually kind of worried about you because you are in for some pretty big shocks in the next couple of years. I hope you can handle it


You'd be mistaken if you think *anything* "shocks" me, and there's very little I can't handle, so no need to worry about me.


> Your life won't change one iota because your neighbors, Steve and Dennis, can legally marry. Maybe they will even invite you to the wedding!


All my neighbors are married to the opposite sex already, and I don't foresee any changes in that situation


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> No......what is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to take a segment of our population and try to lump them with pedophiles and people who practice incest or bestiality.


From Justice Sotomayor, during oral arguments:



> JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:
> Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and the child, assuming they are of age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting the a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?


Ugly, bigoted and evil?

It seems to me that you're simply afraid of the discussion, afraid to admit that these things are a possibility. And so you criticize and attack anyone who raises the question. But there it is, being asked in the Supreme Court......because of it's relevance due to the way the argument is being presented to the court.

It is not in our best interest, as a nation, to be afraid to discuss the subject. In fact, it is *imperative* that we have this discussion.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Zilli said:


> No......what is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to take a segment of our population and try to lump them with pedophiles and people who practice incest or bestiality.


Agree



> What is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to use religion as an excuse to deny what is fair and right to people who really only want what all of us want - the right to marry the person they love and to make a home with that person and to perhaps raise a family with that person.


Religious freedom should not be used as a weapon.
Bashing someone because they hold to Scriptural values, is evil, ugly and bigoted.



> What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to say one minute that you don't care if they marry - as long as you don't have to pay for it, which I take to mean that they shouldn't get the same financial benefits that heterosexual married couples get (Social Security survivor benefits, tax benefits, etc.).


I would call this "two faced, misinformed" not evil, ugly or bigoted.
Filing taxes as a married person sucks. There is no advantage there.
Sending kids to college as married folks, no advantage there....



> What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to be so clueless that you have to ask why homosexuals want to get married, like it is impossible for them to feel for someone of the same sex and to love someone of the same sex in the way heterosexual couples do, practically implying that they're lesser people, maybe more on the level of animals.


Nope not evil ugly or bigoted to ask a question about a topic that you are not familiar with. That's how people learn. By asking questions and then someone actually answering.




> What is evil and ugly and bigoted is to keep your heads in the sand and pretend that things are going to stay the same, regardless of what is happening, just because you don't like, or don't understand, something.


Nope again.
Not evil 
Not ugly 
and 
Not bigoted.

It is unfortunate that those who abhor being called names and treated like 2nd class citizens, are the first to lash out, call names, and pull out their broad brush of accusation and paint the "anyone and eveyone" crowd with it.

I should be able to ask a gay man, a serious question, for the purpose of gaining insight and an answer to a question JUST LIKE an atheist should be able to ask me a question about Jesus without me crucifying him.

I keep hearing tolerance, tolerance, tolerance......yet right behind that is "ugly evil and bigoted".

Evil, my friend, is what John Wayne Gacy did.
Evil, my friend, is when parents beat and starve their own children.
Evil is a strong word that should be reserved for the deed it fits, not when someone simply disagrees with you.


----------



## Txsteader

Zilli said:


> No......what is ugly and bigoted and evil is to try to take a segment of our population and try to lump them with pedophiles and people who practice incest or bestiality.


One more point------nobody is 'lumping' anyone together. What you *fail to understand* is that the case being presented before the Supreme Court....the way the argument is worded.......opens the door for those other segments of our population to have the same rights as homosexuals.

For someone who accuses others of being in denial, you're the one that seems to be in denial.


----------



## Truckinguy

Homosexuality has been a part of pretty much every society through history in one form or another, at times it has been taboo and persecuted and at other times has been fully accepted and openly practiced. Many prominent historical figures were gay or bi-sexual and it was common in many cultures to have a wife (or wives) and have male lovers on the side. It's a bit breathtaking to me why some people just seem to refuse to see that. With all this information right at our fingertips it's just a quick Google away and will bring up unlimited articles from a variety of sources.

I don't have a religious viewpoint so, for me, this becomes a logistical issue. How will this affect me and my life? From a sexual point of view, what anyone, gay or straight, does in their own bedroom, is none of my business and does not affect any other citizen in any way, unless they try something extra adventurous and end up in the ER, at which point it becomes a health care issue, lol.  So, when they come out of their figurative bedroom, they become just like anybody else, and, with some very flamboyant exceptions, you can't tell most gay or lesbian people apart from anyone else.

As to gay marriage opening up doors to polygamy and incest, these each have their unique issues. Polygamy, as the general public seems to see it, seems to be linked to underage girls being forced to marry against their will. If consenting adults were involved, why not? It would also bring up logistical issues like benefits to multiple partners but that could be sorted out by the courts.

Regarding incest, if two consenting adults want to participate, why not? However, as I understand it, there are possible biological and health consequences to the children to consider.

Anyone bringing up bestiality is just being ridiculous. We're talking about two consenting parties here, animals cannot give consent. I guess we could get Doctor Dolittle to translate...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It's a bit breathtaking to me why some people just seem to refuse to see that.


No one had denied there are EXAMPLES.

The denial comes from ignoring the fact that the *MAJORITY* don't *ACCEPT* it when it comes to the matter of changing the *definition of marriage*.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one had denied there are EXAMPLES.
> 
> The denial comes from ignoring the fact that the *MAJORITY* don't *ACCEPT* it when it comes to the matter of changing the *definition of marriage*.


I see no proof of that, but then again no proof is needed. The majority does not get t decide that the minority does not get the same rights based on gender.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I see no proof of that


Then you're not looking around you, nor using simple logic
If the* majority* ACCEPTED gay marriage, it would be the norm all over the world


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you're not looking around you, nor using simple logic
> If the* majority* ACCEPTED gay marriage, it would be the norm all over the world


Well on it's way. We are talking about the laws of this country. Good try at a misdirect.


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> Homosexuality has been a part of pretty much every society through history in one form or another, at times it has been taboo and persecuted and at other times has been fully accepted and openly practiced. Many prominent historical figures were gay or bi-sexual and it was common in many cultures to have a wife (or wives) and have male lovers on the side. It's a bit breathtaking to me why some people just seem to refuse to see that. With all this information right at our fingertips it's just a quick Google away and will bring up unlimited articles from a variety of sources.


But what is at issue here is our history and our culture. IMO, it's not that people refuse to see history, it's that it's irrelevant in this instance.



> I don't have a religious viewpoint so, for me, this becomes a logistical issue. How will this affect me and my life? From a sexual point of view, what anyone, gay or straight, does in their own bedroom, is none of my business and does not affect any other citizen in any way, unless they try something extra adventurous and end up in the ER, at which point it becomes a health care issue, lol.  So, when they come out of their figurative bedroom, they become just like anybody else, and, with some very flamboyant exceptions, you can't tell most gay or lesbian people apart from anyone else.
> 
> As to gay marriage opening up doors to polygamy and incest, these each have their unique issues. Polygamy, as the general public seems to see it, seems to be linked to underage girls being forced to marry against their will. If consenting adults were involved, why not? It would also bring up logistical issues like benefits to multiple partners but that could be sorted out by the courts.
> 
> Regarding incest, if two consenting adults want to participate, why not? However, as I understand it, there are possible biological and health consequences to the children to consider.
> 
> Anyone bringing up bestiality is just being ridiculous. We're talking about two consenting parties here, animals cannot give consent. I guess we could get Doctor Dolittle to translate...


We can completely leave the religious aspect out of the discussion. But what cannot be ignored is the part of the discussion that pertains to *ethics*. These are ethical issues and we need to a) not be afraid to look at reality/admit where this could potentially lead and b) decide if this is what is best for our nation. 

We're so busy whining about the rights of this group or that group and we're neglecting to even _consider_ what impact these issues will have on the entire country, if these things will make us a stronger or weaker nation.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> But what is at issue here is our history and our culture. IMO, it's not that people refuse to see history, it's that it's irrelevant in this instance.
> 
> We can completely leave the religious aspect out of the discussion. But what cannot be ignored is the part of the discussion that pertains to *ethics*. These are ethical issues and we need to a) not be afraid to look at reality/admit where this could potentially lead and b) decide if this is what is best for our nation.
> 
> We're so busy whining about the rights of this group or that group and we're neglecting to even _consider_ what impact these issues will have on the entire country, if these things will make us a stronger or weaker nation.


So, would you say the if the majority seems religion not to be best for this country, it would be fine to outlaw it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We are talking about the laws of this country


If "the *majority* support it" why is it only *legal *in 9 states?
You keep repeating it, but the truth remains it'e really more like 50/50


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So, would you say the if the majority seems religion not to be best for this country, it would be fine to outlaw it?


The Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that can't be done
It never even MENTIONS "marriage"


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then you're not looking around you, nor using simple logic
> If the* majority* ACCEPTED gay marriage, it would be the norm all over the world


And yet it would appear that gay marriage has been accepted "all over the world" by a lot of different cultures throughout history. A lot of that seems to depend upon the particular religious factions that happen to be "in control" at a particular time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> And yet it would appear that gay marriage has been accepted "all over the world" by a lot of different cultures throughout history


Once again, you're trying to use a VERY FEW examples to imply *wide* acceptance, when it's simply *not true*

Recycling the *same arguments* won't change them


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Constitution SPECIFICALLY says that can't be done
> It never even MENTIONS "marriage"


Our Constitution never mentions privacy either, nor the first word about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it didnt mention alcohol either until it was first amended to that affect many years after it was adopted. What it does happen to include however is the ninth amendment, (that would be the next to the last of the bill of rights) which covers ALL of our basic human and civil rights, whether they happened to have been specifically named or not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Our Constitution never mentions privacy either, nor the first word about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and it didnt mention alcohol either *until it was first amended *to that affect many years after it was adopted


And it *STILL *doesn't mention "MARRIAGE"


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Once again, you're trying to use a VERY FEW examples to imply *wide* acceptance, when it's simply *not true*
> 
> Recycling the *same arguments* won't change them


I agree with your last line here quite heartily. So let me try one more way to get you to see the light here. 

We do not live in a pure democracy.... (two wolves and a sheep deciding the lunch menu)... we live in a republic designed to protect everyones rights, not just the majority. We operate under the rule of law... the supreme law being those laws laid out in our Constitution. Those laws state quite clearly that even the tiniest minorities rights are to be protected with the very same zeal and enthusiasm that the rights of the majority are. I just cant stand okra or eggplant... and a lot of other folks feel the same way... but even if 90 percent of our population hated the nasty stuff we are NOT allowed to deny the other ten percent the right to raise it or eat it. It doesnt affect me what you eat, any more than it affects you who someone else marries. You get to enjoy your okra and eggplant, why cant Jane marry Jill? We have already established the fact that Jane can marry Joe.... even though he has had a vasectomy and can never reproduce.... We have already established the fact that homosexuality in itself is legal, and natural, (as evidenced throughout nature) so whats the problem here with two consenting adults getting married, and being able to share their lives together with the exact same perks, privileges and benefits everyone else has?


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> And it *STILL *doesn't mention "MARRIAGE"


Quite true, it never mentions marriage directly....

However 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage *others retained by the people.*"

I am fairly certain that "the people" retained the basic right of marriage to the person of their choosing. One state, possibly even more, went so far as to allow their good citizens to marry the persons of their choice.... multiples of spouses at the same time.... sounds almost like spice dont it!


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> And it *STILL *doesn't mention "MARRIAGE"


Yeah well, and the amendment I was referring to was later repealed too.... so maybe it could be argued that it doesnt mention alcohol. Doesnt mean we dont have the right to manufacture, buy, sell and consume it now does it? Cept in this backward, bigoted county I live in. :buds:


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> So, would you say the if the majority seems religion not to be best for this country, it would be fine to outlaw it?


Outlaw......religion?????

Absolutely not. It is a constitutionally-protected right.

I do have to ask though, out of curiosity......does your outlawing of religion include Islam or just Christianity?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Outlaw......religion?????
> 
> Absolutely not. It is a constitutionally-protected right.
> 
> I do have to ask though, out of curiosity......does your outlawing of religion include Islam or just Christianity?


I would not outlaw any religion. I don't have that right but I can not see that anyone would have the right to discriminate based on the type of religion. The same goes for marriage, the laws of this land do not allow discrimination based on gender. That is the simple reason the supreme court will rule for same sex marriage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We have already *established the fact* that homosexuality in itself is legal, and natural, (as *evidenced throughout nature*) so *whats the problem here with two consenting adults getting married,* and being able to share their lives together with the exact same perks, privileges and benefits everyone else has?


You've ASSERTED that, but it's not "established" since obviously some disagree.

As to the question, the problem is IT'S ILLEGAL in most places.
I've yet to see any proof of a "right" for ANYONE to get married


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Doesnt mean we dont have the right to manufacture, buy, sell and consume it now does it?


Try manufacturing and selling some without Govt PERMISSION and we will see how much of a "right" you have


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> I would not outlaw any religion. I don't have that right but I can not see that anyone would have the right to discriminate based on the type of religion. The same goes for marriage, the laws of this land do not allow discrimination based on gender. That is the simple reason the supreme court will rule for same sex marriage.


Okay. Like I said earlier, leaving religion out of the argument, do you believe that ethics should be a factor in determining what is acceptable behavior in *civil *society?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Okay. Like I said earlier, leaving religion out of the argument, do you believe that ethics should be a factor in determining what is acceptable behavior in *civil *society?


My ethics do have a problem with same sex marriage. Yours might. However marriage is already ethical in our society so you can not discriminate based on sex.


----------



## Truckinguy

Txsteader said:


> But what is at issue here is our history and our culture. IMO, it's not that people refuse to see history, it's that it's irrelevant in this instance.
> 
> We can completely leave the religious aspect out of the discussion. But what cannot be ignored is the part of the discussion that pertains to *ethics*. These are ethical issues and we need to a) not be afraid to look at reality/admit where this could potentially lead and b) decide if this is what is best for our nation.
> 
> We're so busy whining about the rights of this group or that group and we're neglecting to even _consider_ what impact these issues will have on the entire country, if these things will make us a stronger or weaker nation.


Ok, that's fair enough since the OP was about the US Supreme Court. So, I suppose point B in your question should be answered first before the question of where it could lead. 

Why would same sex marriages make any country a weaker nation? Would the potential added cost to government due to the benefits extended to a spouse make a significant dent in the budget? We have same sex marriage here and I don't think anyone has given it a second thought since it was legalized, no rise or dip in the economy and it's actually given a boost to the wedding industry by adding potential weddings to the market. As to the ethical question, the only difference between a gay and straight couple is what goes on in the bedroom and I think most people agree that's nobody's business.

As to where it could lead, we haven't had a big jump in incestuous or polygamous marriages since we allowed gay marriage. Gay marriage will never be the "norm" due to the fact that it does take a man and a woman to procreate. However, marginalizing and demonizing a minority group only causes the group to operate in the shadows of society and causes a lot of anxiety, pain and grief which can result in mental illness and suicide. It actually makes a nation stronger to embrace tolerance and compassion and provides an atmosphere that promotes love and commitment rather than discrimination and judgement.

I think if gay couples can fully take part in society with all the benefits and perks which, by the way they already pay for through their taxes, they will add to society by adding more stable family units and all the benefits that brings with it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've yet to see any proof of a "right" for ANYONE to get married


you must have missed my previous post #483 above. 

The ninth amendment pretty well proves we all have the right to marry, since people had had that right for not just centuries..... but many thousands of years before the founding of our own nation. 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Try manufacturing and selling some without Govt PERMISSION and we will see how much of a "right" you have


Well, I reckon that would depend upon how one goes about the manufacturing process, and who he might sell it to. Theys plenty of good old boys around who do seem to be able to exercise that particular right. I have even been known to exercise some of those rights right here in my own county where I werent exactly sposed to myself, but that was a good many years and several sheriffs ago. I have long since learned the error of my ways.


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> you must have missed my previous post #483 above.
> 
> The ninth amendment pretty well proves we all have the right to marry, since people had had that right for not just centuries..... but many thousands of years before the founding of our own nation.
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


While i agree with that, your reasoning argues against your position. we had the right to marry many thousands of years, between a man and a woman. 

But I really like your philosophy in re the Constitution. I hate it when people say the cons doesn't say you have that right. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the cons - to define and limit the powers of the gov't, not describe and limit the rights of the people.


----------



## Txsteader

Well, bottom line, if the court decides to rule in favor of homosexual marriage, then it stands to reason that polygamy and incestuous marriage won't be far behind. It is, after all, about love and commitment.....and we certainly can't discriminate based on those points.

And judging by some of the uninformed responses in this discussion, we're obviously doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Like I said in another discussion, we're going backwards. And that's a real shame.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> I would not outlaw any religion. I don't have that right but I can not see that anyone would have the right to discriminate based on the type of religion. The same goes for marriage, the laws of this land do not allow discrimination based on gender. That is the simple reason the supreme court will rule for same sex marriage.


Until recently, our ethics were rooted in religion. It (religion) served as the foundation and guide for our moral 'compass'.

Truthfully, ethics.......the understanding of right and wrong, the standard for acceptable conduct and behavior within a society.......cannot be separated from religion. 

So I wonder, if we're to cast off religion as the foundation of ethics, then what do we replace it with? For without some code of ethics, civilized society cannot exist. 

Who, exactly, gets to decide what ethics we will follow? Must we repeat the mistakes of the past and learn all over again why some things are forbidden?

It truly amazes me, what a success the dumbing-down agenda has been.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Until recently, our ethics were rooted in religion. It (religion) served as the foundation and guide for our moral 'compass'.
> 
> Truthfully, ethics.......the understanding of right and wrong, the standard for acceptable conduct and behavior within a society.......cannot be separated from religion.
> 
> So I wonder, if we're to cast off religion as the foundation of ethics, then what do we replace it with? For without some code of ethics, civilized society cannot exist.
> 
> Who, exactly, gets to decide what ethics we will follow? Must we repeat the mistakes of the past and learn all over again why some things are forbidden?
> 
> It truly amazes me, what a success the dumbing-down agenda has been.


Actually, I and millions other do not need to believe in a God to know right from wrong.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Actually, I and millions other do not need to believe in a God to know right from wrong.


What makes your ideas of right and wrong more valid than those who use God's word as their foundation?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> What makes your ideas of right and wrong more valid than those who use God's word as their foundation?


Did I say they were?


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> My ethics do have a problem with same sex marriage. Yours might. However marriage is already ethical in our society so you can not discriminate based on sex.


Marriage......as _currently _defined, between a man and a woman, who become husband and wife......is already ethical in our society. 

Prohibiting it based on sex (gender) is not discriminative, because by definition, a homosexual union is not a marriage. A husband and a husband do not form a marriage. They form a *union*, but not a marriage.

It strikes me that this must be what Michelle Obama meant when she said we'd have to change our conversation. Who knew that she was referring to the very definitions of words. 

IMO, that's not being intellectual or progressive, that's being out of touch w/ reality; IOW, insanity.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Marriage......as _currently _defined, between a man and a woman, who become husband and wife......is already ethical in our society.
> 
> Prohibiting it based on sex (gender) is not discriminative, because by definition, a homosexual union is not a marriage. A husband and a husband do not form a marriage. They form a *union*, but not a marriage.
> 
> It strikes me that this must be what Michelle Obama meant when she said we'd have to change our conversation. Who knew that she was referring to the very definitions of words.
> 
> IMO, that's not being intellectual or progressive, that's being out of touch w/ reality; IOW, insanity.


Not my definition, not millions of others definition.


----------



## JeffreyD

painterswife said:


> Not my definition, not millions of others definition.


You have changed the historical definition to fit YOUR agenda!


----------



## primal1

For those who think only a man and woman had the right to marry thousands of years ago...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_note-firstmarriage-42
Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

According to Robin Lane Fox, among the unusual customs of the isolated oasis of Siwa (now Egypt, once Libya), one of great antiquity which survived to the 20th c was male homosexuality and same-sex marriage.[31]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> According to Robin Lane Fox, among the* unusual* customs of the* isolated oasis* of Siwa (now Egypt, once Libya), one of great antiquity which survived to the 20th c was male homosexuality and same-sex marriage.[31]


Hardly proof it was *widespread*


> *Same-sex marriage* is currently* legal in eight* European countries*: **Belgium**, **Denmark**, **Iceland**, **the Netherlands**, **Norway**, **Portugal**, **Spain**, and **Sweden**;*





> * On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide *




If it's been so "accepted" forever, why did *only 4 countries* allow it such a short time ago?

What about the other *192*?


----------



## primal1

I'm not sure where in my post i was trying to prove how widespread it was but you can find that answer in the link i provided.
Thanks for showing me how support is growing



Bearfootfarm said:


> Hardly proof it was *widespread*
> 
> 
> 
> If it's been so "accepted" forever, why did *only 4 countries* allow it such a short time ago?
> 
> What about the other *192*?


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> You have changed the historical definition to fit YOUR agenda!


Don't you wish. Historical definition has not changed. Present day definition has. That is what happens in this world. Change and progress. It may not fit your agenda but it is reality.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Not my definition, not millions of others definition.


:hysterical:

Just because you *choose* to reject the historical and current scholastic definition doesn't change the definition. It just means you choose to live in an alternate reality.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> :hysterical:
> 
> Just because you *choose* to reject the historical and current scholastic definition doesn't change the definition. It just means you choose to live in an alternate reality.


Here is a dictionary definition. Reality! No alternate. Change happens and some of us keep up.

"Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : *the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage *<same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry &#8212; J. T. Shawcross>
See marriage defined for English-language learners Â»
See marriage defined for kids Â»"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage


----------



## Evons hubby

CesumPec said:


> While i agree with that, your reasoning argues against your position. we had the right to marry many thousands of years, between a man and a woman.
> 
> But I really like your philosophy in re the Constitution. I hate it when people say the cons doesn't say you have that right. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the cons - to define and limit the powers of the gov't, not describe and limit the rights of the people.


According to historians same sex marriage has been practiced and acceptable in quite a few places and cultures over the years too. 

As to my philosophy re the Constitution... its a fairly easy document to read and understand. It requires a pretty good scholar with an agenda to twist its meanings into what a lot of folks like to believe today.


----------



## Txsteader

DOMA has not been repealed. 

And the legal definition is
*MARRIAGE*



> A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.


and


Marriagehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage


> In the English common law tradition from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> DOMA has not been repealed.
> 
> And the legal definition is
> *MARRIAGE*
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> Marriagehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriage


Legal? You keep trying to move the goal post in your attempt to be right. I will say that several states have already changed that definition. You will say but it has not been changed Federally. I will respond but it is on it's way and soon to be reality under the the constitution.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Well, bottom line, if the court decides to rule in favor of homosexual marriage, then it stands to reason that polygamy and incestuous marriage won't be far behind.


And wouldnt that just be awful! I can just see it now... consenting adults going about their daily lives not bothering any one else... thats just... just despicable! It'd be downright unAmerican!


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> .. consenting adults going about their daily lives not bothering any one else...


That is disputable.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> That is disputable.


What is disputable? Do you not believe that people are capable of tending to their own business, and carrying on with their own lives without interfering in the lives of others? Quite a few of us believe thats how its supposed to work. 

I should be free to do as I durn well please.... as long as.... (and this is important) I aint interfering with the next fellers right to do the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *Legal? *
> You keep trying to *move the goal post* in your attempt to be right


Isn't "Legality" the *entire reason* for this thread?


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't "Legality" the *entire reason* for this thread?


No it isn't. Neither the California law nor DOMA make gay marriage illegal. They are just not recognized by the govt as it pertains to benefits or priviledges granted by the state. Just as two heterosexuals can jump the broom and refer to themselves as married without incurring any penalty by the state , so can gays. Any illegality would occur if the couple misrepresented to a govt or private agency the exact status of their relationship for the purpose of fraudulently gaining benefits they were not due.


----------



## CesumPec

mmoetc said:


> No it isn't. Neither the California law nor DOMA make gay marriage illegal. They are just not recognized by the govt as it pertains to benefits or priviledges granted by the state. Just as two heterosexuals can jump the broom and refer to themselves as married without incurring any penalty by the state , so can gays. Any illegality would occur if the couple misrepresented to a govt or private agency the exact status of their relationship for the purpose of fraudulently gaining benefits they were not due.


Which is exactly why this is not a civil rights issue.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't "Legality" the *entire reason* for this thread?


Yep, usually anytime the Supreme Court gets involved it is to test the legality of some law or another against the words of our Constitution in order to determine if that particular "law" is indeed legal. If I am not mistaken this whole thing is about laws that would deny some folks their right to get married to the person of their choice. It will be interesting to see if the Supremes go with majority rule based on emotion as they have so often in the recent past... or adhere to the rule of law as spelled out by our Constitution.


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, usually anytime the Supreme Court gets involved it is to test the legality of some law or another against the words of our Constitution in order to determine if that particular "law" is indeed legal. If I am not mistaken this whole thing is about laws that would deny some folks their right to get married to the person of their choice. It will be interesting to see if the Supremes go with majority rule and emotion as they have so often in the past... or rule of law as spelled out by our Constitution.


regardless of our sexual preference,we all have the same rights, so it isn't about discrimination. Even if either of you were agreeable, I can't marry you or your wife. Does that violate our civil rights? No. So just because I can't marry someone does not mean my civil rights are violated. 

Can you quote the text spelled out in the constitution to which you refer?


----------



## Evons hubby

CesumPec said:


> Can you quote the text spelled out in the constitution to which you refer?


Yep. you need look no further than the ninth amendment, and the 14th amendment. 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

and

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*"

Those two pretty well cover it.

(bolding mine)


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep. you need look no further than the ninth amendment, and the 14th amendment.
> 
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> 
> and
> 
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*"
> 
> Those two pretty well cover it.
> 
> (bolding mine)


But gays and straights have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. People are free to pursue wants, just because the gov't doesn't validate their wants does not mean their rights are infringed.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> But gays and straights have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. People are free to pursue wants, just because the gov't doesn't validate their wants does not mean their rights are infringed.


I am sure that is what they said about interracial marriages as well when they were fighting that.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> I am sure that is what they said about interracial marriages as well when they were fighting that.


as your example is in reference to a prohibition rather than a validation, it is an irrelevant comment.


----------



## painterswife

CesumPec said:


> as your example is in reference to a prohibition rather than a validation, it is an irrelevant comment.


Please explain. They prohibited interracial marriages based on skin color, they prohibited same sex marriage based on gender, both not allowed by the laws of the US.


----------



## CesumPec

painterswife said:


> Please explain. They prohibited interracial marriages based on skin color, they prohibited same sex marriage based on gender, both not allowed by the laws of the US.


same sex marriage is not prohibited, except maybe in a few states that have failed to remove unenforceable sodomy laws. if there are still prohibition laws, I will fully support any pol who wants to make it legal for any two people to have consensual sex in private. 

Your side has already admitted this is about recognition and benefits from the gov't for same sex marriage. It is not about prohibition.


----------



## Evons hubby

CesumPec said:


> same sex marriage is not prohibited, except maybe in a few states that have failed to remove unenforceable sodomy laws. if there are still prohibition laws, I will fully support any pol who wants to make it legal for any two people to have consensual sex in private.
> 
> Your side has already admitted this is about recognition and benefits from the gov't for same sex marriage. It is not about prohibition.


You seem to be confused between people having sex and marriage. There is a vast difference between the two concepts. Marriages are definitely being prohibited in many states based solely upon the gender of the partners.... that my friend is indeed unequal treatment under the law.... which is not allowed by our Constitution.


----------



## HDRider

Eighteen pages and I do believe no one has changed their opinion or position. 

The idea of same sex marriage may not be settled here, but the idea of being married to one's idea is.


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You seem to be confused between people having sex and marriage. There is a vast difference between the two concepts. Marriages are definitely being prohibited in many states based solely upon the gender of the partners.... that my friend is indeed unequal treatment under the law.... which is not allowed by our Constitution.


Nope, you are wrong. This has nothing to do with sex, it is about marriage. There are 4 groups that define marriage

1. Your religion - I think we can agree that each religion should be allowed to define what is right with its god. For instance, even if the gov't approves of a marriage of a christian and a jew, but the couple's respective churches do not, that is not a crime of law by the church. 

2. By gov't. Again, the church can accept the gov't interpretation or not, the gov't can not invalidate the church's interpretation and the church can not invalidate the gov't's

3. By the couple. Many couples over the decades have chosen an informal marriage, not recognized by the state or church, but merely by themselves. The church called it living in sin, the gov't has called it at various times either common law marriage or two single people living together. For the most part, the gov't just didn't care unless the couple asked for a gov't benefit. Many homosexual couples have said something along the lines of - We are married to one another but the gov't will not acknowledge that. Some churches have disapproved of common law marriage, some haven't cared. But there is no law that 2 people can not declare their love and claim marriage regardless of the approval of gov't or the church. 

4. By other uninvolved people. I can say you and Yvonne are not married because IMO you don't care for her properly. Of course,that would be none of my business, I'm guessing I would be wrong, and you, Yvonne, your church, and the gov't can ignore my completely irrelevant opinion. 

So, as you can see, this is not about the church's opinion. This is not about the couple's opinion. This may incidentally be about the opinion of uninvolved people because gays may believe gov't approval gives them some ammo against people who disapprove or are bigoted against gays. What this is not about is the ability to join households and finances, it is about gov't approval and benefits. Marriages that the gov't does not give a stamp of approval is not prohibition.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No it isn't. Neither the California law nor DOMA make gay marriage illegal.


Now you're playing word games



> They are just *not recognized by the govt* as it pertains to benefits or priviledges granted by the state.


They are not recognized as a LEGAL marriage under the law, hence, it is "illegal"

*



Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Txsteader

HDRider said:


> Eighteen pages and I do believe no one has changed their opinion or position.


No, but a lot has definitely been _revealed_.


----------



## Truckinguy

HDRider said:


> Eighteen pages and I do believe no one has changed their opinion or position.


Lol, not just this one thread either... it's a compliment to this forum that people can have a heated debate on one thread and friendly banter on another.

I"ve been socially involved with many members of the gay community here since my sister came out a few years ago and I don't see them as any different than anyone else, if anything, more tolerant of others, likely because of what many of them have gone through. Many of them have been in long term relationships and a lot of them are married. I have no problem with them getting the same financial benefits due to being married as straight couples. In fact, since gay marriage was allowed here it's really become a non issue and everyone has gone about their lives. Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada since about 2005 and as far as I recall there has been no cases of polygamy or incestuous relationships brought up. I think if they were even the tiniest bit relevant they would have been brought up by now. I don't think there are large groups of polygamous or incestual relationships waiting in the wings to see how the gay marriage thing works out.

I say live and let live. We have a lot more pressing issues such as the economy and world events to worry about.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're playing word games
> 
> 
> They are not recognized as a LEGAL marriage under the law, hence, it is "illegal"


I don't consider everything not authorized by law to be illegal. In fact, my independent streak tells me that if the law doesn't specifically forbid an action it must be legal. Example: my dd had a couple of friends in high school that became very close to our family. Close enough that they called me "Dad" and I referred to them as "daughter 2 and daughter 3.". They still live close and when I see them in public we use the same terms to address each other. No "legal" standing but unless I tried to claim them as dependents on my taxes, nothing illegal either. The same as a gay couple having a ceremony and referring to themselves as married. Not illegal in most places unless they try to collect some benefit only available to legally liscensed married couples.


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> Lol, not just this one thread either... it's a compliment to this forum that people can have a heated debate on one thread and friendly banter on another.


Or the fact that it didn't get locked. Kudos to everyone!

I love a good debate!


----------



## Evons hubby

Truckinguy said:


> I say live and let live.


Seems simple enough to me, but for whatever reasons best known to themselves there are a lot of folks who just aint havin any of that. :shrug:


----------



## fernando

"long-term abnormal sexual behavior" - doesn't sound good for someone with an agenda.-

the solution - "let's just start calling it 'marriage' " - so the agenda-driven are capitalizing on wide-spread stupidity in the population that accepts emotion over logic - 

the very same tactic worked very well in their successful campaign to infect the presidency with marxism -


----------



## Evons hubby

CesumPec said:


> Nope, you are wrong. This has nothing to do with sex, it is about marriage. There are 4 groups that define marriage
> 
> 1. Your religion - I think we can agree that each religion should be allowed to define what is right with its god. For instance, even if the gov't approves of a marriage of a christian and a jew, but the couple's respective churches do not, that is not a crime of law by the church.
> 
> *2. By gov't. Again, the church can accept the gov't interpretation or not, the gov't can not invalidate the church's interpretation and the church can not invalidate the gov't's*
> 
> 3. By the couple. Many couples over the decades have chosen an informal marriage, not recognized by the state or church, but merely by themselves. The church called it living in sin, the gov't has called it at various times either common law marriage or two single people living together. For the most part, the gov't just didn't care unless the couple asked for a gov't benefit. Many homosexual couples have said something along the lines of - We are married to one another but the gov't will not acknowledge that. Some churches have disapproved of common law marriage, some haven't cared. But there is no law that 2 people can not declare their love and claim marriage regardless of the approval of gov't or the church.
> 
> 4. By other uninvolved people. I can say you and Yvonne are not married because IMO you don't care for her properly. Of course,that would be none of my business, I'm guessing I would be wrong, and you, Yvonne, your church, and the gov't can ignore my completely irrelevant opinion.
> 
> So, as you can see, this is not about the church's opinion. This is not about the couple's opinion. This may incidentally be about the opinion of uninvolved people because gays may believe gov't approval gives them some ammo against people who disapprove or are bigoted against gays. What this is not about is the ability to join households and finances, *it is about gov't approval and benefits. Marriages that the gov't does not give a stamp of approval is not prohibition.*


Very good.... except... in the first portion I bolded you addressed only the issue of church sanctioned marriages VS government sanctioned marriages... you seem to have overlooked those marriages other than those of religious basis. In this thread we are discussing marriages of same sex couples, religion set to one side, and those couples being denied that basic right to be recognized by government based solely on a single criteria of "gender". When the government refuses to accept a marriage of this type on an equal basis of acceptance of the same type marriage (non religious) by refusing to provide or accept a marriage license.... that is indeed prohibition. Its also illegal according to our Constitution. No state can deny equal protection of the laws. Yeah, I know they do it all the time, and have since our nation came into being, but it dont make it right, nor Constitutional. This certainly isnt the first time this type of thing has come up.... that whole slavery thing..... millions of citizens being denied equal protection for decades. Millions of Native Americans pushed off their land onto reservations.... because of their race, Women denied and equal vote... thanks to their gender.... the list goes on and on.... but one by one things are being made right... someday we may actually see equality in this great land.


----------



## Evons hubby

fernando said:


> "long-term abnormal sexual behavior" - doesn't sound good for someone with an agenda.-
> 
> the solution - "let's just start calling it 'marriage' " - so the agenda-driven are capitalizing on wide-spread stupidity in the population that accepts emotion over logic -
> 
> the very same tactic worked very well in their successful campaign to infect the presidency with marxism -


Perhaps we need to define "normal" and "abnormal" sexual behavior before casting stones at FDR and his introduction of Marxism to the presidency. 

Is there a particular act that you think is abnormal?


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps we need to define "normal" and "abnormal" sexual behavior before casting stones at FDR and his introduction of Marxism to the presidency.
> 
> Is there a particular act that you think is abnormal?


There are lots of ways people are getting their groove on that would not be my cup of tea. As long as they are two consenting human adults and I don't have to watch, I don't get to have a opinion on whether is aberrant or not.


----------



## fernando

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps we need to define "normal" and "abnormal" sexual behavior


afraid that's not up to me ....or to you - 
mother nature made that decision long ago - and you can defy logic all day long but it will still stand - they call it "biology" -


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> *Very good.... except... in the first portion I bolded you addressed only the issue of church sanctioned marriages VS government sanctioned marriages... you seem to have overlooked those marriages other than those of religious basis. In this thread we are discussing marriages of same sex couples, religion set to one side, and those couples being denied that basic right to be recognized by government based solely on a single criteria of "gender".* When the government refuses to accept a marriage of this type on an equal basis of acceptance of the same type marriage (non religious) by refusing to provide or accept a marriage license.... that is indeed prohibition. Its also illegal according to our Constitution. No state can deny equal protection of the laws. Yeah, I know they do it all the time, and have since our nation came into being, but it dont make it right, nor Constitutional. This certainly isnt the first time this type of thing has come up.... that whole slavery thing..... millions of citizens being denied equal protection for decades. Millions of Native Americans pushed off their land onto reservations.... because of their race, Women denied and equal vote... thanks to their gender.... the list goes on and on.... but one by one things are being made right... someday we may actually see equality in this great land.


Ummm, I know it was a long post, but did you stop reading after #2 where I specifically address the bold part above?

Obfuscating the issue with gov't wrongs not related to this issue does nothing to convince me. This isn't about slavery, all pafrties are entering into the deal by choice. This isn't about voting, all parties can still vote. This isn't about prohibition, which I proved above. This isn't about segregation or forced reloaction or Japanese concentration camps because no one (at elast lately) has been foricbly imprisoned or relocated because of sexual orientation. 

And I'll add to the list of words you need to redefine to win this debate: marriage, family, spouse, and prohibition. You have now defined prohibition to mean that if the gov't doesn't give you something, they are prohibiting it. Wow, the gov't is prohibiting me from being a billionairre.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I don't consider* everything not authorized by law to be illegal.


You're entitled to any OPINION you wish to hold, but it doesn't change *definitions* of words


> *Not illegal* in most places *unless *they try to collect some benefit only available to legally liscensed married couples.


See, I KNEW you knew it's *REALLY* "illegal" under Federal laws


----------



## Evons hubby

CesumPec said:


> You have now defined prohibition to mean that if the gov't doesn't give you something, they are prohibiting it. Wow, the gov't is prohibiting me from being a billionairre.


Nope The government is "prohibiting" (by most anyones definition... two people of the same sex getting married in quite a few states.... they are not prohibited from living together, or buying property together, but they are being prohibited from having the *same legally recognized relationship* that other folks are allowed to have, that of a marriage recognized by the state, with all the benefits, advantages, and disadvantages thereof. 

proÂ·hibÂ·it (pr-hbt)
tr.v. proÂ·hibÂ·itÂ·ed, proÂ·hibÂ·itÂ·ing, proÂ·hibÂ·its
1. To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. See Synonyms at forbid.
2. To prevent; preclude: Modesty prohibits me from saying what happened.


Sorry about your not having obtained your billion dollars yet, as handy as that might have been, but I dont think that is the governments fault.... last I looked everyone has the right to earn money.... even gay people. The government likes people to make money.... lots of money... so they can tax it!


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to any OPINION you wish to hold, but it doesn't change *definitions* of words
> 
> 
> See, I KNEW you knew it's *REALLY* "illegal" under Federal laws


Gay marriage is not illegal under federal laws. No one has been prosecuted for the thousands of same sex marriages that have taken place in those states that liscense it nor has anyone been prosecuted for being married when they have returned from their weddings in Canada or other foreign counties. DOMA does not outlaw same sex marriage. It simply denies federal benefits from those legally married.


----------



## Evons hubby

fernando said:


> afraid that's not up to me ....or to you -
> mother nature made that decision long ago - and you can defy logic all day long but it will still stand - they call it "biology" -


I see.... so anything beyond the minimum biological reproduction requirements is abnormal behavior in your opinion then? It that works for you,,,, cool beans,,,, but it sounds a wee bit boring for this ol country boy. I kinda get into that kissin and huggin stuff myself.... but that would be beyond the scope of "biology" now wouldnt it? I believe its not me who is attempting to defy logic here.


----------



## ErinP

And that would be discrimination...
Why does my legal marriage deserve federal benefits, but a lesbian couple's in MA doesn't?


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> It simply denies federal benefits from those legally married.


And how does that hold up to "equal protection of the laws" there in the fourteenth amendment?


----------



## Evons hubby

ErinP said:


> And that would be discrimination...
> Why does my legal marriage deserve federal benefits, but a lesbian couple's in MA doesn't?


Prezacalutely!


----------



## mmoetc

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And how does that hold up to "equal protection of the laws" there in the fourteenth amendment?


It doesn't and I think I've made that point before. We're on the same side here, bro!


----------



## painterswife

ErinP said:


> And that would be discrimination...
> Why does my legal marriage deserve federal benefits, but a lesbian couple's in MA doesn't?


I do not understand that as well. These are the same people that think no one should pay more than their fair share but I guess if you are same sex couples you should pay more than your fair share?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Gay marriage is* not illegal* under federal laws


More *word games*
It's not "criminally punishable"
It's also not RECOGNIZED under FEDERAL LAW as a "*legal* marriage"

Until that law is *changed,* it's "illegal" even if you choose to not *acknowledge* it
(Although you *did *just a few posts back)


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> More *word games*
> It's not "criminally punishable"
> It's also not RECOGNIZED under FEDERAL LAW as a "*legal* marriage"
> 
> Until that law is *changed,* it's "illegal" even if you choose to not *acknowledge* it
> (Although you *did *just a few posts back)


If it is not listed in the criminal code and there are no laws prohibiting it, it is not illegal. Not recognized for the purpose of according benefits does not equal illegal. You are smarter than this. Prove it.


----------



## Evons hubby

mmoetc said:


> If it is not listed in the criminal code and there are no laws prohibiting it, it is not illegal. Not recognized for the purpose of according benefits does not equal illegal. You are smarter than this. Prove it.


Ok, so gay marriage is not illegal according to your explanation. If that is the case then its legal... right? If its indeed legal in even one state.... then the Constitution requires the federal government to provide equal protection under the law, and therefor it MUST recognize these marriages, and provide for the full benefits it provides for any other legal marriage.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> More *word games*
> It's not "criminally punishable"
> It's also not RECOGNIZED under FEDERAL LAW as a "*legal* marriage"
> 
> Until that law is *changed,* it's "illegal" even if you choose to not *acknowledge* it
> (Although you *did *just a few posts back)


From the reaction of the Supreme Court, I doubt DOMA has a prayer of surviving constitutional muster.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> From the reaction of the Supreme Court, I doubt DOMA has a prayer of surviving constitutional muster.


That remains to be seen.
*Until then* it's not "legal"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Not recognized for the purpose of according benefits does not equal illegal. You are smarter than this. *Prove it*.


You already said it"
*



Not illegal

Click to expand...

*


> in most places *unless* they try to collect some benefit only available to legally liscensed married couples.


It's pointless to keep repeating this

They are *not LEGALLY* qualified for those benefits



> *Illegal,* or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited *or not authorized by **law**.*


Same sex marriage is *NOT AUTHORIZED* under *FEDERAL* LAW.
Simple, straightforward English


----------



## fernando

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I see.... so anything beyond the minimum biological reproduction requirements is abnormal behavior in your opinion then? It that works for you,,,, cool beans,,,, but it sounds a wee bit boring for this ol country boy. I kinda get into that kissin and huggin stuff myself.... but that would be beyond the scope of "biology" now wouldnt it? I believe its not me who is attempting to defy logic here.


every once in awhile your posts exhibit some vague degree of validity, usually about a non-issue, but then you go and post something as silly as this as set yourself back to the starting line -


----------



## fernando

CesumPec said:


> as your example is in reference to a prohibition rather than a validation, it is an irrelevant comment.


it's also irrelevant because it lacks who, when, where, why and limits participants to "they" - maybe irrelevant is an incorrect word since it suggests an unfocused or meaningless logical view when, in truth, the post should more accurately be considered nonsense -


----------



## CesumPec

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope The government is "prohibiting" (by most anyones definition... two people of the same sex getting married in quite a few states.... they are not prohibited from living together, or buying property together, but they are being prohibited from having the *same legally recognized relationship* that other folks are allowed to have, that of a marriage recognized by the state, with all the benefits, advantages, and disadvantages thereof.
> 
> proÂ·hibÂ·it (pr-hbt)
> tr.v. proÂ·hibÂ·itÂ·ed, proÂ·hibÂ·itÂ·ing, proÂ·hibÂ·its
> 1. To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. See Synonyms at forbid.
> 2. To prevent; preclude: Modesty prohibits me from saying what happened.
> 
> 
> Sorry about your not having obtained your billion dollars yet, as handy as that might have been, but I dont think that is the governments fault.... last I looked everyone has the right to earn money.... even gay people. The government likes people to make money.... lots of money... so they can tax it!


Nope, they are not prohibited from having the same legally recognized relationship as me. They are not given legal recognition of a different relationship as mine. 

And the gov't wants people to be married and have kids who will grow up to pay taxes. That is why there are benefits given by the gov't. 

We are going in circles again. I am back on the farm after a 2 week absence so it's time for me to get something productive done. I'm going to dig up stumps in my soon to be orchard and stack them and call it my heterosexual marriage memorial. You can come light candles and destroy my monument.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> You already said it"
> *
> 
> It's pointless to keep repeating this
> 
> They are not LEGALLY qualified for those benefits
> 
> 
> 
> Same sex marriage is NOT AUTHORIZED under FEDERAL LAW.
> Simple, straightforward English*


*

Simple , straightforward English. Same sex couples are not authorized to receive benefits under federal law. That is all the law addresses. It does not address the legality of the marriage itself. I'm glad you want to live in a world where every action not specifically spelled out as being authorized under federal statute must therefor be illegal. I'm not. No more time for this as I apparently have a lot of illegal activity to partake in today.*


----------



## painterswife

This back and forth on what is legal and what is illegal, what one word means is mute.

The first case in the Supreme court regarding Prop 8 is because certain fractions are trying to get Prop 8 reinstated. It has already been struck down ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.

*Unconstitutional *to have a law that restricts marriage to "one man one women".

Yes, you can not have a law that makes it illegal for same sex marriage. I think that means that if there is no law restricting it it is legal.

Those are the facts no matter how you nitpick the words.


----------



## willow_girl

At the end of the day, this is an argument about who gets to define marriage: the state or the federal government?

Up until now, the feds have left it in the states' hands. If the state of West Virginia said a couple of 14-year-olds could tie the knot, the feds also gave the union their blessing, and everything was groovy.

Now some states have said that Adam and Steve can get married, too, but the feds are saying, "Whoa ... wait a minute!" 

I don't see anything in the Constitution that allows the feds to set the standards for marriage, so I would interpret that as meaning it is one of the rights left to the states and/or the people.

Following that logic, it would seem the feds are beholden to recognize any marriage legally sanctioned by a state. The "Full Faith and Credit" clause likewise would require states to recognize all marriages (including gay marriages) legally contracted elsewhere.

Personally, I'm OK with some states refusing to allow gay people to get married, as long as they recognize gay marriages legally contracted elsewhere, and the feds do the same. 

I think that's a nice balance between the will of the people and civil rights.


----------



## fernando

painterswife said:


> *Unconstitutional *to have a law that restricts marriage to "one man one women".
> 
> .


you do, of course, have some idea just where the founding fathers would suggest you stuff that concept ?


----------



## painterswife

fernando said:


> you do, of course, have some idea just where the founding fathers would suggest you stuff that concept ?


Like you really know. They had the foresight to write a constitution that took into account that each individual can not discriminate on such a thing.


----------



## Evons hubby

fernando said:


> every once in awhile your posts exhibit some vague degree of validity, usually about a non-issue, but then you go and post something as silly as this as set yourself back to the starting line -


I just love getting a fresh start.... dont you?


----------



## Evons hubby

fernando said:


> you do, of course, have some idea just where the founding fathers would suggest you stuff that concept ?


Yep, they would file that concept right in there with a woman being allowed to vote, and slaves being entitled to a share of the farm. What ridiculous notions!


----------



## fernando

painterswife said:


> Like you really know. They had the foresight to write a constitution that took into account that each individual can not discriminate on such a thing.


utter nonsense - you write what you wish instead of what is -


----------



## fernando

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, they would file that concept right in there with a woman being allowed to vote, and slaves being entitled to a share of the farm. What ridiculous notions!


finally - something we can agree on - slavery and abnormal sex are both evil -


----------



## willow_girl

Where did you get the idea that slavery was evil? Certainly not from the Bible -- it endorses it, as long as you don't treat your slaves too harshly. :shrug:


----------



## fernando

willow_girl said:


> Where did you get the idea that slavery was evil? Certainly not from the Bible -- it endorses it, as long as you don't treat your slaves too harshly. :shrug:


thinking people know that liberalism and leftists are also evil - yet neither is specifically mentioned in the Bible -


----------



## Evons hubby

fernando said:


> finally - something we can agree on - slavery and abnormal sex are both evil -


I dunno about evil..... but one of them is illegal and the other is not, well at least until one gets really really "out there".


----------



## Evons hubby

fernando said:


> thinking people know that liberalism and leftists are also evil - yet neither is specifically mentioned in the Bible -


Those are not really evil concepts in and of themselves. Its only when someone attempts to impose a particular behavior upon others.... against their will... that evil comes into play.


----------



## Truckinguy

fernando said:


> finally - something we can agree on - slavery and *abnormal sex* *are both evil* -


(sigh)... still trying to wrap my head around that one...

First, heterosexual couples are quite capable of any sexual act that gay couples are capable of in addition to "straight sex for the purpose of procreation". Do you propose to restrict straight couples to the missionary position only?

Second, whatever people do in the privacy of their own home for their own sexual pleasure does not affect anyone else's life in any way. Why are some people so hung up on something that has nothing to do with them? 

This has nothing to do with sexual preference and what people do for pleasure and has everything to do with two people who care deeply enough for each other that they want to commit their lives to each other. You would think that people would be happy that a segment of the population is trying to get into committed relationships in view of the high divorce rate and children from broken homes in the traditional population. Straight couples can have children but a lot of them sure aren't doing a very good job raising them.


----------



## JeffreyD

Truckinguy said:


> (sigh)... still trying to wrap my head around that one...
> 
> First, heterosexual couples are quite capable of any sexual act that gay couples are capable of in addition to "straight sex for the purpose of procreation". Do you propose to restrict straight couples to the missionary position only?
> 
> Second, whatever people do in the privacy of their own home for their own sexual pleasure does not affect anyone else's life in any way. Why are some people so hung up on something that has nothing to do with them?
> 
> This has nothing to do with sexual preference and what people do for pleasure and has everything to do with two people who care deeply enough for each other that they want to commit their lives to each other. You would think that people would be happy that a segment of the population is trying to get into committed relationships in view of the high divorce rate and children from broken homes in the traditional population. Straight couples can have children *but a lot of them sure aren't doing a very good job raising them*.


Neither are gay couples! Read the news lately?


----------



## primal1

are you referring to Mark Regnerus controversial study or do you have another link?
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...gay-marriage-debate/politics/2013/04/10/64911


----------



## JeffreyD

primal1 said:


> are you referring to Mark Regnerus controversial study or do you have another link?
> http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...gay-marriage-debate/politics/2013/04/10/64911


Nope, this was just in the news a few days ago.

Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...pe-face-trial-article-1.1310010#ixzz2Q7gv2wMc

Not saying this happens all the time, not saying tha at all, but it does happen! Just pointing that out.

About that study, i don't need to read some anti-gay dudes reason he believes gay people are more likely to do whatever. Other than being over the top at times, i truley don't believe gay folks are anymore predisposed to harming their kids than a hetero couple is. I do believe that they are loving and caring just as much as anyone else. I just don't like having it shoved at me from every direction, which is what's happening now and for the last few years. Everyone.....keep your sex lives private, i really don't want to know about it. There's no good reason to flaunt it in everybodies faces, is there?​


----------



## primal1

That is just scary beyond belief! How can anybody adopt 9 kids!?
I don't get the flaunting and shoving in your face, anything in our private lives, but how else would we be able to attain any sort of equality without fighting for it?
I remember hearing my grandmother being annoyed with womens lib protests on the news all the time.. strangely she was more annoyed that men were protesting with women.. but i don't really see much difference here.
Anyhow glad to know you don't see us all as scum.


----------



## Truckinguy

JeffreyD said:


> Neither are gay couples! Read the news lately?


Heterosexual couples are the only ones who can actually bring children into this world so the primary responsibility of raising the children falls to them. When a child is adopted it is usually because of the failure of the child's biological parents to raise them, with some exceptions due to death or incapacitation of the parents. Just because people CAN bring children into this world doesn't mean they SHOULD.

Gays aren't flaunting their sex lives any more than straight people are and, again, people's sex lives have nothing to do with it. This is about two PEOPLE who want to be recognized as having a loving and committed relationship and all the benefits that go along with that like anyone else. Of course there is the financial aspect of it and straight couples gladly embrace those quite happily too. However, there is more to this than money including not having to testify against your spouse.

You can see any two people together in a relationship and draw your own conclusions as to what they do in the bedroom which has absolutely nothing to do with anybody else anytime, anywhere.


----------



## HDRider

Truckinguy said:


> Heterosexual couples are the only ones who can actually bring children into this world so the primary responsibility of raising the children falls to them. When a child is adopted it is usually because of the failure of the child's biological parents to raise them, with some exceptions due to death or incapacitation of the parents. Just because people CAN bring children into this world doesn't mean they SHOULD.
> 
> Gays aren't flaunting their sex lives any more than straight people are and, again, people's sex lives have nothing to do with it. This is about two PEOPLE who want to be recognized as having a loving and committed relationship and all the benefits that go along with that like anyone else. Of course there is the financial aspect of it and straight couples gladly embrace those quite happily too. However, there is more to this than money including not having to testify against your spouse.
> 
> You can see any two people together in a relationship and draw your own conclusions as to what they do in the bedroom which has absolutely nothing to do with anybody else anytime, anywhere.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> This is about two PEOPLE who want to be recognized as having a loving and committed relationship and all the* benefits* that go along with that like anyone else


It's *all* about the *benefits*, since they are no more "committed" than heterosexual couples and their 50% divorce rates


----------



## primal1

So you pick one out of 1100, as you proof??



Bearfootfarm said:


> It's *all* about the *benefits*, since they are no more "committed" than heterosexual couples and their 50% divorce rates


----------



## primal1

I so wanna go to Mardi Gras some day!



HDRider said:


>


----------



## Evons hubby

HDRider said:


>


An interesting photo... but I am not sure just what the significance is? Are we to presume this is a happy couple? As apposed to what appears to be an affectionate straight couple in the background? What??? Somewhere buried in my computers picture files I know I have lots better photos than this.... (that the mods would never allow to be posted here in HT).... and they are just pics of friends and family members havin a good time at ordinary social gatherings. :shrug:


----------



## Tiempo




----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So you pick *one out of 1100*, as you proof??


What is it you're talking about?
I didn't "pick" anything at all
I just stated a fact
It's about the BENEFITS


----------



## primal1

sorry, i assumed you meant monetary as opposed to all 1100 statutes.


----------



## mmoetc

Bearfootfarm said:


> What is it you're talking about?
> I didn't "pick" anything at all
> I just stated a fact
> It's about the BENEFITS


So what if it is. Aren't all citizens entitled to have access to all benefits or should things like tax breaks( you conservatives love those) be given only to those you deem morally righteous?


----------



## JeffreyD

Tiempo said:


>


A 50 year old picture, really?


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> So what if it is. Aren't all citizens entitled to have access to all benefits or should things like tax breaks( you conservatives love those) be given only to those you deem morally righteous?


Change the laws. You don't take advantage of the tax laws? I'll bet you do! And yes, liberals absolutly love tax breaks, so why mention conservatives? Just being mean I guess! I'm used to that coming from liberals. You have no thoughtful response, so you insult. Typical.


----------



## HDRider

Tiempo said:


>


----------



## mmoetc

JeffreyD said:


> Change the laws. You don't take advantage of the tax laws? I'll bet you do! And yes, liberals absolutly love tax breaks, so why mention conservatives? Just being mean I guess! I'm used to that coming from liberals. You have no thoughtful response, so you insult. Typical.


That's exactly what they're trying to do, change an unconstitutional law. I'm glad you're finally starting to come around. And yes, I take advantage of every tax break legally available to me and I don't decry anyone else who does the same. I think some of the tax breaks offered should be done away with, but that is another discussion. As Bearfoot would say, some people try hard to be insulted.


----------



## Tiempo

JeffreyD said:


> A 50 year old picture, really?


Sure, why not? It was a lot more HT friendly than many of the more modern pictures of heterosexual couples showing pda


----------



## Truckinguy

What has posting a picture of a gay couple have to do with anything? Have you never seen any straight couples expressing affection in public? If people were having sex in the middle of the street it wouldn't matter if they were straight or gay, they would get charged like anyone else.

Nobody is saying that financial benefits aren't involved. Are straight couples refusing any financial benefits they get with being married because it's only for love or procreation? Gay couples aren't asking for more benefits than straight couples, they are asking for the same things everyone else gets, no more or no less. There are other benefits to marriage, end of life decisions, funeral decisions, adoption eligibility, these would be as important to a gay couple as a straight couple.



> It's *all* about the *benefits*, since they are no more "committed" than heterosexual couples and their 50% divorce rates


Funny thing, a few pages ago I thought people were saying it was about providing a stable family unit for the creation and raising of children? If it's all about the benefits, shouldn't we just call it a civil union, offer it to everybody and leave marriage to the churches or whatever spiritual path people choose to follow?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> So what if it is. *Aren't all citizens entitled to have access to all benefits* or should things like tax breaks( you conservatives love those) be given only to those you deem morally righteous?


No,they aren't, if they don't meet the LEGAL requirements


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Funny thing, a few pages ago I thought people were saying it was about *providing a stable family unit for the creation and raising of children?*
> 
> *If it's all about the benefits*, shouldn't we just call it a civil union, offer it to everybody and leave marriage to the churches or whatever spiritual path people choose to follow?


The first is in referrence to the HISTORICAL reason for *heterosexual* MARRIAGE

The second is about SAME SEX "marriage"
But you knew that


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There are other benefits to marriage, end of life decisions, funeral decisions, adoption eligibility, these would be as important to a gay couple as a straight couple.


All those can be done without a "marriage"
You just need a *lawyer*


----------



## primal1

We've already established HISTORICALLY same-sex and heterosexual marriage existed before Christianity, what you seem to be referencing is only HISTORICAL Christian heterosexual marriage 



Bearfootfarm said:


> The first is in referrence to the HISTORICAL reason for *heterosexual* MARRIAGE


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> We've already established HISTORICALLY same-sex and heterosexual marriage existed before Christianity, what you seem to be referencing is only HISTORICAL Christian heterosexual marriage


I know you keep *repeating *that.
It *changes* NOTHING about the true *REASON* for "marriage".
You're pretending heterosexual marriage didn't exist until Christians came along


----------



## primal1

I'm not saying any such thing, I am saying you seem to be confusing the 2.
Marriage evolved out of monogamous commitment, that is historically the true reason and wasn't exclusive to heterosexuals... little to do with procreation.
What you are claiming as the true reason is the Christian reason...because the agenda was procreation, which excluded gays.
One justifies accepting same-sex marriage and one doesn't so when you keep looking to history i think it's kind of important to be specific thats all.



Bearfootfarm said:


> I know you keep *repeating *that.
> It *changes* NOTHING about the true *REASON* for "marriage".
> You're pretending heterosexual marriage didn't exist until Christians came along


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> All those can be done without a "marriage"
> You just need a *lawyer*


How would your lawyer help you if you didnt want to testify against your spouse?


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know you keep *repeating *that.
> It *changes* NOTHING about the true *REASON* for "marriage".
> You're pretending heterosexual marriage didn't exist until Christians came along


The true reason for marriage was to establish ownership of children and property.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Marriage evolved out of monogamous* commitment*, that is historically the true reason and wasn't exclusive to heterosexuals... *little to do with procreation.*


You keep making the claim, but that doesn't make it true.



> What you are claiming as the true reason is the *Christian* reason...because the agenda was procreation,


You're the only one claiming it's got something to do with religion

What BENEFIT is there *to society* for two of the SAME sex to have a "commitment"?

For heterosexuals, the benefit is for the PROGENY


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How would your lawyer help you if you didnt want to testify against *your spouse*?


If you're LEGALLY married, it already applies
And there's always the 5th Amendment.


----------



## primal1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Marriage#History_of_marriage
History of marriage
Anthropology
Monogamy, the predecessor of formal marriage, may have evolved as recently as 20,000 years ago.[13][14]

What benefit is there to society for hetero couples who know they don't want kids, to marry? COMMITMENT or whatever reason they want, so why would same-sex be questionable?



Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep making the claim, but that doesn't make it true.
> 
> 
> You're the only one claiming it's got something to do with religion
> 
> What BENEFIT is there *to society* for two of the SAME sex to have a "commitment"?
> 
> For heterosexuals, the benefit is for the PROGENY


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What benefit is there to society for hetero couples who know they *don't want kids*, to marry?


That's an irrelevent red herring
"Marriage" wasn't established for them


> *Monogamy*, the predecessor of formal marriage, may have evolved as recently as 20,000 years ago


There's only benefit to that IF there are children to be provided for.
Otherwise, it means nothing


----------



## primal1

ain't no red herring, what establishment of marriage are you talking about? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Marriage#History_of_marriage
While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time.[16]

marriage between 2 people means nothing if they don't have kids? Since when??



Bearfootfarm said:


> That's an irrelevent red herring
> "Marriage" wasn't established for them
> There's only benefit to that IF there are children to be provided for.
> Otherwise, it means nothing


----------



## bluesky

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's only benefit to that IF there are children to be provided for.
> Otherwise, it means nothing


You're actually saying that my marriage means nothing because we have no children to provide for? Wow do I disagree with you (surprise).


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> what establishment of marriage are you talking about?


Scroll back, because I'm tired of* repeating* it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You're actually saying that* my marriage* means nothing because we have no children to provide for? Wow do I disagree with you (surprise).


*YOURS *means something to YOU.
To society as a whole, not so much.
And you're taking it out of *context*


----------



## bluesky

Bearfootfarm said:


> *YOUR *means something to YOU.
> To society as a whole, not so much.
> And you're taking it out of *context*


OMGound: The bolding certainly makes me sit up and take notice. :hysterical:

It sure as heck means something to me - and context? Seriously? What context? 

Marriage is marriage. Period. An adult should be able to marry another consenting adult. Period. Get over it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It sure as heck means something to me - and context? Seriously? *What context?
> *


Scroll back and figure it out.
It's really not that hard to undertand, so I'm not explaining it yet again



> Marriage is marriage. Period. An adult should be able to marry another consenting adult. Period. Get over it.


You're entitled to that OPINION
*Most* of the world disagrees


----------



## Truckinguy

Well, after more than 600 posts we seem to have come to an impasse. 

BFF, I understand where you're coming from in a purely anthropological point of view. We, as biological beings, are programmed to survive and multiply. However, I believe that those who can't or won't have children have as much to contribute to society by providing stability with as many stable relationships as possible, paying taxes which provide programs that help those raising children, contributing to societal advancements in health, technology and other fields or simply filling a job that is just another cog in the machine that makes civilization work. In addition, those who don't have children can adopt or simply help raise those children who had the misfortune to be born to people who can't or won't raise them.

There is more to contributing to society that simply having children. In fact, there are a lot of people who have children that end up on the public dole which, I would argue, is a detriment to society. At the very least, a gay couple who have the intention of getting married and having a stable relationship will not be a detriment to society even though they are not capable of reproducing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> BFF, *I understand* where you're coming from in a *purely anthropological* point of view


You seem to be the ONLY one capable of understanding it.


----------



## Txsteader

bluesky said:


> OMGound: The bolding certainly makes me sit up and take notice. :hysterical:
> 
> It sure as heck means something to me - and context? Seriously? What context?
> 
> *Marriage is marriage. Period. An adult should be able to marry another consenting adult. Period. Get over it.*


Then perhaps we need to put limitations on who can have children. Because, in your world, a brother can marry his sister and a father can marry his daughter. The question is, should they be allowed to procreate?


----------



## willow_girl

> Then perhaps we need to put limitations on who can have children.


Please don't give the government any ideas!


----------



## primal1

just wait, we saw how china dealt with overpopulation of females.. government will have to do something if people keep pushing marriage and procreation!



willow_girl said:


> Please don't give the government any ideas!


----------



## bluesky

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to that OPINION
> *Most* of the world disagrees



It makes not one whit of difference what the majority thinks when determining civil rights. If left up to the majority, the Civil Rights act would likely have failed in 1964.


----------



## Truckinguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to be the ONLY one capable of understanding it.


Well, I think everyone here understands it but I believe the point that is trying to be made is that we are long past the point of needing to procreate to survive as a species and we can change and grow to be better by embracing an atmosphere of inclusion, tolerance and compassion. As the saying goes "the only thing constant is change". or something like that. 

The concept of marriage has meant different things to different cultures throughout history. Although there was usually the procreation aspect to it, some marriages had a financial purpose to them through dowries and the exchanging of money. Marriages at certain times in history and in certain cultures treated women as little better than property to be bought for a price. Marriage was also used in alliances between countries and for the settlement of debts. The concept of modern Christian monogamous marriage as we know it is relatively new in the whole scheme of things. At times marriage has allowed mistresses and same sex lovers on the side.

While we will never change biologically in regard to needing a male and female to reproduce, our cultural definitions will continue to change as they have over history.


----------



## CesumPec

Truckinguy said:


> Well, I think everyone here understands it but I believe the point that is trying to be made is that we are long past the point of needing to procreate to survive as a species



ound:


Perhaps we need to pause this discussion and cover a few of the basics.


----------



## willow_girl

I think he left out the word "everyone." As in, "_everyone_ needing to procreate ..."



> *YOURS *means something to YOU.
> To society as a whole, not so much.


Hang on a sec. There are lots of societal benefits to marriage.

Married people tend to be healthier, happier and to live longer.

Somewhere I read that married men earn more than single ones. Perhaps this is due to having the support of a significant other ... or maybe it's _to support_ a SO! Either way, it's all good, right?

While two people can't live quite as cheaply as one, there are economies of scale, and studies show that marrying one person, and staying married, is usually optimal for one's financial situation (thus making both parties less likely to be dependent on the state).

Husbands and wives frequently take care of one another through illnesses and in old age, again reducing dependency upon society at large.


----------



## Truckinguy

CesumPec said:


> ound:
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need to pause this discussion and cover a few of the basics.


Ok, fair enough, let me explain this way. Early in our history our only priority was to procreate so we could have enough numbers to survive. We have now covered most of the earth so procreation has proved successful and will continue to be successful. Now we can concentrate on other areas of life to make ourselves a better species by moving away from our bigoted intolerant ways and become more open minded and accepting of others. We have made some great strides in minority and women's rights and accepting gays as full members of society would be another step in the right direction. There is enough hate in this world, enough wars and poverty, why don't we try encouraging something that promotes love and stable families? If we put as much effort into trying to work on problems like war, poverty and human rights around the world as we put into the debate on gay marriage we would have a much better world in which to raise our children.


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> Ok, fair enough, let me explain this way. Early in our history our only priority was to procreate so we could have enough numbers to survive. We have now covered most of the earth so procreation has proved successful and will continue to be successful. Now we can concentrate on other areas of life to make ourselves a better species by moving away from our bigoted intolerant ways and become more open minded and accepting of others.


But what do we do about those whose religions condemn certain behaviors as sinful? Must they be silenced? Can tolerance be forced?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> But what do we do about those whose religions condemn certain behaviors as sinful? Must they be silenced? Can tolerance be forced?


Those of us who do not believe in God live with intolerance from those religions who believe we are wrong every day. Should we silence them?


----------



## JeffreyD

painterswife said:


> Those of us who do not believe in God live with intolerance from those religions who believe we are wrong every day. Should we silence them?


And those of us who believe in a god have to live with the intolerance from those who's religion doesn't have a god, and tell us were wrong everyday, take us to court to have historic religious displays taken down because "they offend".
Should we silence them too?


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> And those of us who believe in a god have to live with the intolerance from those who's religion doesn't have a god, and tell us were wrong everyday, take us to court to have historic religious displays taken down because "they offend".
> Should we silence them too?


Did I not just say the same thing?


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> But what do we do about those whose religions condemn certain behaviors as sinful? Must they be silenced? Can tolerance be forced?


Those whose religions condemn certain practices are not being asked to participate. Nor should they be. I think it would be rather rude of me to require a Hindu to eat beef, or those of the Islamic faith to eat pork, however I think I have every right to eat whatever foods I happen to like. Vegans to me are an annoyance when they try to convince me how wrong I am to eat meat, but I am not asking them to eat animal products at all. If a vegan were to attempt to actually deny me my right to a steak.... I can see where problems would develop rapidly.... Just like when a T-totaler tells me I cant have a drink, or some of those other meddlers tell me I cant smoke a cigarette. Its none of their business what I do as long as I aint denying them their rights. Tolerance simply means being tolerant of others habits, not conforming to those habits.


----------



## JeffreyD

painterswife said:


> Did I not just say the same thing?


No, you did not!


----------



## painterswife

JeffreyD said:


> No, you did not!


Actually I did. I am just standing on the other side of the fence. I am have to sit through others prayers at public functions. I have to be told over and over that I have no morals because I do not believe in God. This list is endless, just like your is.

That however is the price we pay to allow everyone to practice their own religion. It is a price I have no problem paying as long as your religion does not impact my ability to live my private life.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Those whose religions condemn certain practices are not being asked to participate. Nor should they be.


No, but they're being forced into silence. To speak out against certain behaviors/practices results in being accused of hate speech or belonging to a hate group.


> Tolerance simply means being tolerant of others habits, not conforming to those habits.


Well, this seems to be the definition that most are using these days....
from Merriam-Webster:
_a_ *:* to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction 

Silence.


----------



## primal1

there is a huge difference between what the bible says about a sin and what people can and do say in a hateful way.
Ain't nobody saying you don't have the right to think or say it's a sin.. go further than that and we have a problem. I don't really see how you see that as being silenced.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> No, but they're being forced into silence. To speak out against certain behaviors/practices results in being accused of hate speech or belonging to a hate group.
> 
> Well, this seems to be the definition that most are using these days....
> from Merriam-Webster:
> _a_ *:* to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
> 
> Silence.


Well, I cant speak for others, but I personally am not requiring silence.... not even from Vegans.... or PETA... they have the same right to express their opinions as anyone else.... what they do not have the right to do is to deny others the same privileges that they themselves hold. I believe that a public fountain should be available to the entire public... not just a select few.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, I cant speak for others, but I personally am not requiring silence.... not even from Vegans.... or PETA... they have the same right to express their opinions as anyone else.... what they do not have the right to do is to deny others the same privileges that they themselves hold. I believe that a public fountain should be available to the entire public... not just a select few.


I agree, I do not expect silence. Conversation is how we move forward and educate ourselves. Just don't try to legislate my life based on your religion.


----------



## Truckinguy

Txsteader said:


> But what do we do about those whose religions condemn certain behaviors as sinful? Must they be silenced? Can tolerance be forced?


This is a very good point and is a big reason why church and state need to be separate. Government is supposed to provide a framework within which we can all live our lives according to our beliefs but not tread on the beliefs of others. Maybe marriage in the traditional sense should be left up to the churches and a civil union with all the government benefits should be available to everyone who can demonstrate to the government that they are in a committed relationship?

Nobody should be silenced, ever. Discussion and debate is an important part of how we grow and mature as humans. Some believe that homosexuality is a sin, some don't, so why not leave that determination up to the religious organizations of which membership is voluntary? Government should not determine morality, it should just provide the basic social infrastructure, available to everyone, that would allow citizens to live their lives by their own moral code.


----------



## painterswife

Truckinguy said:


> This is a very good point and is a big reason why church and state need to be separate. Government is supposed to provide a framework within which we can all live our lives according to our beliefs but not tread on the beliefs of others. Maybe marriage in the traditional sense should be left up to the churches and a civil union with all the government benefits should be available to everyone who can demonstrate to the government that they are in a committed relationship?
> 
> Nobody should be silenced, ever. Discussion and debate is an important part of how we grow and mature as humans. Some believe that homosexuality is a sin, some don't, so why not leave that determination up to the religious organizations of which membership is voluntary? Government should not determine morality, it should just provide the basic social infrastructure, available to everyone, that would allow citizens to live their lives by their own moral code.


Civil marriage and church marriage is what we have now. No need to change that.


----------



## Txsteader

primal1 said:


> Ain't nobody saying you don't have the right to think or say it's a sin.. go further than that and we have a problem. I don't really see how you see that as being silenced.


Not quite sure what you mean by 'go further than that'. Activism? Protests? What?

Why is the word 'homophobe' being thrown around so much these days, if not to silence all opposition?


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> *This is a very good point and is a big reason why church and state need to be separate. *Government is supposed to provide a framework within which we can all live our lives according to our beliefs but not tread on the beliefs of others. Maybe marriage in the traditional sense should be left up to the churches and a civil union with all the government benefits should be available to everyone who can demonstrate to the government that they are in a committed relationship?
> 
> Nobody should be silenced, ever. Discussion and debate is an important part of how we grow and mature as humans. Some believe that homosexuality is a sin, some don't, so why not leave that determination up to the religious organizations of which membership is voluntary? Government should not determine morality, it should just provide the basic social infrastructure, available to everyone, that would allow citizens to live their lives by their own moral code.


That's pretty much the bottom line of my argument; government has no place in this debate.


----------



## primal1

I haven't read up on the specifics of the hate crime laws so i am not the best person to answer that question accurately. Interesting point about activism and protests, my guess would be that unless the bible demanded it then it is just an interpretation which could be considered offensive(not sure it would meet hate crime status or not though!)... don't quote me on that i really have no idea lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe
My guess is, it's an easy and very generalized term covering a wide range from general aversion to complete and total fear.



Txsteader said:


> Not quite sure what you mean by 'go further than that'. Activism? Protests? What?
> 
> Why is the word 'homophobe' being thrown around so much these days, if not to silence all opposition?


----------



## Truckinguy

Txsteader said:


> That's pretty much the bottom line of my argument; government has no place in this debate.


The OP was about the Supreme Court on gay marriage, don't you mean that religion has no place in this debate?


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> The OP was about the Supreme Court on gay marriage, don't you mean that religion has no place in this debate?


No sir. Freely exercising one's religion is covered by the 1st Amendment. Speaking in opposition based on one's religious beliefs/principles is part of that freedom.

But it's interesting that you agree that no one should be silenced and then turn right around and say that religion has no place in the debate. 

This is as much of a moral/ethics issue as it is a civil rights/financial/legal issue. My religion is the foundation of my moral beliefs whereas yours may be based on humanistic foundations. Does that mean that your ethics are more legitimate than mine and that I, thus, have no voice in the debate?


----------



## CesumPec

Txsteader said:


> That's pretty much the bottom line of my argument; government has no place in this debate.


Oh the irony...this debate is about asking the gov't to acknowledge and provide benefits for gay marriage. That's like a dozen people arguing over how to spend the contents of a wallet but the wallet owner doesn't have a say.


----------



## Truckinguy

Txsteader said:


> No sir. Freely exercising one's religion is covered by the 1st Amendment. Speaking in opposition based on one's religious beliefs/principles is part of that freedom.
> 
> But it's interesting that you agree that no one should be silenced and then turn right around and say that religion has no place in the debate.
> 
> This is as much of a moral/ethics issue as it is a civil rights/financial/legal issue. My religion is the foundation of my moral beliefs whereas yours may be based on humanistic foundations. Does that mean that your ethics are more legitimate than mine and that I, thus, have no voice in the debate?


Not at all, your religious views are perfectly legitimate in a moral discussion but I don't see this as a moral/ethics issue which is why I don't think it is relevant to *this* discussion.  I"m not trying to suppress your freedom of speech, I just don't think that religion has anything to do with the subject matter.


----------



## Txsteader

Truckinguy said:


> Not at all, your religious views are perfectly legitimate in a moral discussion but I don't see this as a moral/ethics issue which is why I don't think it is relevant to *this* discussion.  I"m not trying to suppress your freedom of speech, I just don't think that religion has anything to do with the subject matter.


Oy. You don't see it as a moral issue perhaps because your focus is too narrow. 

As I've said, Justice Sotomayor questioned how incest and polygamy would not fall within the arguments being used to justify this case.

Those behaviors are moral/ethical issues. Now you can scoff at the idea (the idea of homosexual marriage would have been scoffed at 30 years ago) but the real clincher is that they, too, would have to be included under the 'civil rights' heading. IIRC, there is already a case making it's way through the courts on that issue.

The truly shocking part is the number of people who have no idea *why* laws against incest exist today. But because of ignorance, they're willing to open that door.

So regardless of whether you call them morals or ethics, and regardless if they're based on religious principles or not, they are highly relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Oy. You don't see it as a moral issue perhaps because your focus is too narrow.
> 
> As I've said, Justice Sotomayor questioned how incest and polygamy would not fall within the arguments being used to justify this case.
> 
> Those behaviors are moral/ethical issues.
> 
> The truly shocking part is the number of people who have no idea *why* laws against incest exist today. But because of ignorance, they're willing to open that door.
> 
> So regardless of whether you call them morals or ethics, and regardless if they're based on religious principles or not, they are highly relevant to this discussion.


I think we are all very well aware of how things go when we try to legislate morals and ethics. Dismal failure for the most part.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Oy. You don't see it as a moral issue perhaps because your focus is too narrow.
> 
> As I've said, Justice Sotomayor questioned how incest and polygamy would not fall within the arguments being used to justify this case.
> 
> Those behaviors are moral/ethical issues. Now you can scoff at the idea (the idea of homosexual marriage would have been scoffed at 30 years ago) but the real clincher is that they, too, would have to be included under the 'civil rights' heading. IIRC, there is already a case making it's way through the courts on that issue.
> 
> The truly shocking part is the number of people who have no idea *why* laws against incest exist today. But because of ignorance, they're willing to open that door.
> 
> So regardless of whether you call them morals or ethics, and regardless if they're based on religious principles or not, they are highly relevant to this discussion.


Marriage is not a license to have sex. Therefore to deny anyone marriage so as to prevent them having sex makes no sense at all.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think we are all very well aware of how things go when we try to legislate morals and ethics. Dismal failure for the most part.


And I think we are also all well aware (or perhaps not ) of how things go when morals and ethics are completely thrown out the window. 

If history is any indication, it ain't no utopia.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Marriage is not a license to have sex. Therefore to deny anyone marriage so as to prevent them having sex makes no sense at all.


Then why do you think Sotomayor brought up the subject? Perhaps because the *majority* of people in marriage relationships do have sex?

Honestly, to insinuate/argue that intimate relationships aren't predominantly about sex is laughable. If that were true, AIDS/HIV wouldn't be the greatest threat w/in the male homosexual community.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Then why do you think Sotomayor brought up the subject? Perhaps because the *majority* of people in marriage relationships do have sex?
> 
> Honestly, to insinuate/argue that intimate relationships aren't predominantly about sex is laughable. If that were true, AIDS/HIV wouldn't be the greatest threat w/in the male homosexual community.


She brought it up because she knew it would become( and was) the rally point of those against same sex marriage. She was doing her job looking at all the arguments. 

Intimate relationships are most often about sex but marriage is a step beyond an intimate relationship. I did not need to get married to have sex nor does anyone else. 

Incest happens without marriage not because of it.


----------



## primal1

What example from history are we talking about?



Txsteader said:


> And I think we are also all well aware (or perhaps not ) of how things go when morals and ethics are completely thrown out the window.
> If history is any indication, it ain't no utopia.


----------



## Txsteader

primal1 said:


> What example from history are we talking about?


Well, let's see...........examples dating back to ancient societies would include Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc. etc.

A more modern example would be our own society. You don't think a lack of morals/ethics has anything to w/ why we're in the chaotic mess we're in today?

(You do understand that morals/ethics includes more than sexual behavior, right?)


----------



## primal1

you do understand that your morals and ethics are not necessarily mine, right?
Once again, you are entitled to live by your morals and ethics.. should they infringe on somebody else's civil rights?

And yes i do to a degree that morals and ethics have had something to do with where we are but I would sooner blame bad moral/ethical behavior that directly impact others in a negative way and there is plenty of that without going after something that ONLY SOME find immoral.


----------



## Truckinguy

Txsteader said:


> Oy. You don't see it as a moral issue perhaps because your focus is too narrow.
> 
> As I've said, Justice Sotomayor questioned how incest and polygamy would not fall within the arguments being used to justify this case.
> 
> Those behaviors are moral/ethical issues. Now you can scoff at the idea (the idea of homosexual marriage would have been scoffed at 30 years ago) but the real clincher is that they, too, would have to be included under the 'civil rights' heading. IIRC, there is already a case making it's way through the courts on that issue.
> 
> The truly shocking part is the number of people who have no idea *why* laws against incest exist today. But because of ignorance, they're willing to open that door.
> 
> So regardless of whether you call them morals or ethics, and regardless if they're based on religious principles or not, they are highly relevant to this discussion.


Incest and polygamy are generally frowned upon because more often then not they involve child abuse including child brides being married against their will and people in a position of influence taking advantage of young family members.

Interracial marriages were taboo not too long ago and people felt as strongly about it as people do about gay marriage. 

I have no problem with *consenting adults* entering into whatever relationship they would like to if they are doing it willingly.

Personally, I find it immoral to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> And I think we are also all well aware (or perhaps not ) of how things go when morals and ethics are completely thrown out the window.
> 
> If history is any indication, it ain't no utopia.


Perhaps you can educate me as to which society, nation, or group of folks it was that has ever achieved anything close to utopia? There is nothing wrong with ethics or morals... but those are things that are best taught.... not legislated.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps you can educate me as to which society, nation, or group of folks it was that has ever achieved anything close to utopia? There is nothing wrong with ethics or morals... *but those are things that are best taught.... not legislated.*


I agree, but what happens when those things aren't taught?

Would you agree that there must be certain social boundaries in order for civilized society to function......and remain civilized? How are those boundaries to be decided and by whom? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not?


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> I agree, but what happens when those things aren't taught?
> 
> Would you agree that there must be certain social boundaries in order for civilized society to function......and remain civilized? How are those boundaries to be decided and by whom? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not?


Yes, and those boundaries should be at the end of one fellers reach.... just before your own nose. IE... We should all be free to do as we durn well please... as long as... those activities do not interfere with the next feller being able to do as he durn well pleases. A system of laws can accomplish this goal, we honestly do not need a board of ethics or a moral compass imposed by the government. Laws are quite sufficient... as long as those law protect me from thee. Laws imposed attempting to protect me from me is just meddlin.


----------



## HDRider

22 pages and the asininity continues on and on.....and on


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> 22 pages and the asininity continues on and on.....and on


I wonder how many have changed their minds on it?


----------



## HDRider

Bearfootfarm said:


> I wonder how many have changed their minds on it?


None, we were born that way.

I have not changed mine. Their displays and now understanding why they publicly made such a spectacle of themselves makes me dislike homosexuals more as people than I did before. Before I was live and let live. They acted like deviants and I took it at face value. They call it normal now, and that changes the definition of the word normal. Don't like it, not one little bit. No sir.


----------



## primal1

Yup i have. I used to think I wouldn't marry unless my lover absolutely wanted to, but now i think it would be wiser to marry and have the full protection of the law.
cheers


----------



## Truckinguy

Txsteader said:


> I agree, but what happens when those things aren't taught?
> 
> Would you agree that there must be certain social boundaries in order for civilized society to function......and remain civilized? How are those boundaries to be decided and by whom? Who decides what is acceptable and what is not?


Yes, of course there should be social boundaries but they should protect us from things that have a negative effect on society. Murder, theft, fraud, assault, these all have a victim (or victims) and a general negative effect on society. Two men or two women living together and accepting the benefits of being married in the eyes of the government has no effect on anyone. If someone thinks that what they do in the bedroom is "icky" they have that right but it doesn't provide a basis to deny them their civil rights.



> I have not changed mine. Their displays and now understanding why they publicly made such a spectacle of themselves* makes me dislike homosexuals more as people than I did before*. Before I was live and let live. They acted like deviants and I took it at face value. They call it normal now, and that changes the definition of the word normal. Don't like it, not one little bit. No sir.


The bolded part is a bit sad to me but again, you have the right to like or dislike whomever you want but it doesn't give you the right to deny them their rights.


----------



## painterswife

HDRider said:


> None, we were born that way.
> 
> I have not changed mine. Their displays and now understanding why they publicly made such a spectacle of themselves makes me dislike homosexuals more as people than I did before. Before I was live and let live. They acted like deviants and I took it at face value. They call it normal now, and that changes the definition of the word normal. Don't like it, not one little bit. No sir.


There are just as many heterosexuals that make a spectacle of themselves that I dislike. I do not dislike all heterosexuals because of a few. Way more really deviant heterosexuals than there ever could be homosexuals just because of the percentages in society. I do not think same sex relationships are deviant just because they are same sex. I am worried about the pedophiles not the consenting adults.


----------



## AngieM2

HDRider said:


> 22 pages and the asininity continues on and on.....and on


 
I check in every so often to see if anything has been decided...
So far, doesn't appear to be decided...


----------



## mrsgcpete

HDRider said:


> None, we were born that way.
> 
> I have not changed mine. Their displays and now understanding why they publicly made such a spectacle of themselves makes me dislike homosexuals more as people than I did before. Before I was live and let live. They acted like deviants and I took it at face value. They call it normal now, and that changes the definition of the word normal. Don't like it, not one little bit. No sir.


wow. just wow. 

i have changed my mind completely about the people on this board after reading on and off for the past few days. and its not good.


----------



## unregistered5595

AngieM2 said:


> I check in every so often to see if anything has been decided...
> So far, doesn't appear to be decided...


You have such high expectations!!!  We will decide it, sometime after the supreme court decides it, many years later, maybe many decades later--when we can see in hindsight.


----------



## mmoetc

I didn't ever expect anyone here to change their mind. I don't expect a SCOTUS decision to change anyone's mind. If my intuition is correct and the supremes strike down DOMA and kick Cali's decision back to the lower courts conservatives will knash their teeth and wail about a supreme court out of touch and in need of control. If I'm wrong, the roles will be reversed and liberals will lead the outcry.


----------



## Truckinguy

Feather In The Breeze said:


> You have such high expectations!!!  We will decide it, sometime after the supreme court decides it, many years later, maybe many decades later--*when we can see in hindsight*.


That's probably right. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for quite some time now and it's really not even brought up in conversation anymore. It seems to be a non-issue now.

As far as I know there hasn't been a stampede of people into the courts to try to legalize polygamy or incest although, by the way, those are very common in nature. I don't know what's going on in every court in the country though so I guess we'll see what happens in the future.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> As far as I know there hasn't been a stampede of people into the courts to try to legalize polygamy or incest although, by the way, those are *very common in nature*


That's the most LAME argument that keeps being repeated

Cannibalism is "common in nature"
Should it be legal too?


----------



## Truckinguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the most LAME argument that keeps being repeated
> 
> Cannibalism is "common in nature"
> Should it be legal too?


Since that would require the crime of murder and involve a victim, of course not.

We are talking about relationships between consenting adults here which, if entered into willingly, do not create a victim.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Since that would *require the crime of murder* and involve a victim, of course not.


There have been examples of WILLING participants 
You wouldn't *have to* kill anyone at all.



> We are talking about *relationships between consenting adults* here


No you aren't when you say "very common in Nature" as a justification
You're talking about* animals*


----------



## Truckinguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> There have been examples of WILLING participants
> You wouldn't *have to* kill anyone at all.
> 
> Well, I guess you answered your own question then, didn't you? Why should I stop someone who is a WILLING participant?
> 
> 
> No you aren't when you say "very common in Nature" as a justification
> You're talking about* animals*


It was pointed out earlier about unnatural compulsions and I'm simply pointing out that these things (male/male or female/female relationships, incest, polygamy) can and do happen in Nature and are, in fact, quite common in some species.


----------



## primal1

Best to just leave some alone with their moral prejudices. they will not even try to see past what they believe to be true.
Best examples so far are, victim vs. victimless, natural vs. unatural, normal vs. abnormal, nature vs. humans(like we are not part of nature, which is strange for a so called homesteader) and by far number 1 is the fact that they are here just to deny equality because they are stuck still trying to prove homosexuality is wrong in the first place.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the most LAME argument that keeps being repeated
> 
> Cannibalism is "common in nature"
> Should it be legal too?


I dunno that it is illegal... and cannot imagine why it would be? :shrug:

Well... besides the fact that most of us have been taught since we were quite young that its "icky". But then I was told a lot of food sources were icky, but many societies around the world would find it strange that dogs, cats and rats were not on the menu.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm simply pointing out that these things (male/male or female/female relationships, incest, polygamy) *can and do happen in Nature* and are, in fact, quite common in some species.


Repeating a lame argument doesn't make it more valid


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating a lame argument doesn't make it more valid


True. And yet this thread is how many pages long, and I have yet to see a single good argument for not allowing same sex marriages.


----------



## Truckinguy

Ok, let me put it this way. I (and many others I talk to) feel that organized religions who discriminate against gays and tell women they must be subject to men are immoral and yet the government extends churches tax free status which I highly disagree with. 

I feel that what organized religions do is immoral and some think homosexuality is immoral and we each have a right to our opinions. However, the government has an obligation to recognize both of them without discrimination. Just because one group of people disagree with what another group of people does is not a basis to withhold basic human rights from them. If a church can be recognized by the government and enjoy the benefits that go along with that then gay couples have the right to that too.

Christianity has had devastating and life altering effects on me and my family. However, gay people have done nothing but give love, compassion and friendship, comforted our family when my Dad died, have supported my Mom and our family in the time since then and everything else I would expect from any other human beings. Yet, I have to accept the government recognizing churches with a tax free or charitable status while good people have to fight for the right to be recognized like everyone else?

The problem with morality is that everyone has a different view of it which is why you can't have laws based on morals. The government must recognize everyone equally, after that everyone can make the moral decisions to participate or not participate in any activity they want. No one is forcing me to go to church and no one is being forced to be involved in a relationship they aren't comfortable in (well, I know some straight married people who might debate that, lol).


----------

