Thanks for twisting my words, leaves a lot less work for others who want to.

What I understand most people to want, is not necessarily 'marriage' under the traditional definition of things (although I personally see no problem with it) but a civil union that will allow same sex couples to have the same benefits as a heterosexual couple (adoption, insurance, spousal benefits, etc). Some people see that this is a perversion of the word marriage - but are content to allow a civil union. Some people don't care either way, some folks won't accept the concept at all.

I'm _well_ aware that this is the United States, having been born here, raised here, and educated here. I also understand the separation of church and state, and believe that this is _not_ the issue at hand.

Small tidbit of advice, but I know you won't be taking it, seeing that you're an all knowing idiotic asshat -

Pull your head out of your rectum, the universe and how it operates does not revolve around you. Our opinions are JUST as valid as yours, again, if you feel the need to vehemently argue with anyone who won't kowtow to your "I rule the world" attutude - perhaps you need to check yourself. For me, it is definitely amusing - I love watching people make fools of themselves. (and I needed a laugh today)

Until you can prove to me you're the god you seem to think you are, my opinion of you will not change for the better.

(Definitely siding with Dave on this one....yer a fucknut)

Give me a break. Don't strawman or sippery slope the argument into absurdidty.

Marriage - Union between two concenting adults. Period.

The keyword is "CONSENT". Cow's cant consent. Thats already been mentioned in this post by ME. (Thats also why screwing animals is considered rape by PETA and other animal rights activists, cause see they can't say "NO!")

There are several reasons that gays want legal marriages:

Ability to take time off from work for carring of loved one.

Ability to file taxes as married.

Equal treatment/acceptance of gays into society.

I see NOTHING wrong here. If you can't explain it, then it's not there. (Kind of like god's not there)

How is this affecting you. How is the definition change hurting you? Is your marriage something other than a union between two consenting adults? Do you want to say "sacred union between two consenting adults"? Why?

Your whole argument is such a personal soap box that it's not even funny. Why don't I start a personal soap box of my own based on the fact that to get a marriage license I have to put my hand on the bible and swear "I do". Being an athiest I find this offensive and see it as a way to discourage me from getting married. It's such an insignificant inconvinience that it's abusrd to argue about it - as is your resistance to the change of the definiton of the word "marriage"

If the culture goes that way there will be little you can do about it. But that's not likely.

If you want a serious answer to your question, for the purposes of the state, marriage is a legal contract, and a cow cannot enter into such a contract, partly because they have hooves and can't hold the pen to sign it.

Re: Nope
 

Marriage is also between two halves of a woodworking joint. Words have multiple definitions, and definitions change. There are already two definitions of marriage being used: civil and religious marriage.
Only RELIGIOUS marriage is 'sacred' to anybody. Civil marriage already exists, independent of any religion. Civil authorities recognise marriages performed by recognised religious authorities, but religious participation is not required for the civil marriage to be performed.

The only issue up for debate here is CIVIL marriages for gays. Nobody is trying to get the government to force any religion to perform the marriages. A church can, if it wants, refuse to marry anybody for any reason, and always will be able to. However, if a church DOES perform a gay marriage, the government should recognise it.I'm no fan of PC, either. As a nonreligious pro-gay former Boy Scout myself, I think their policies are idiotic, but the government should not be involved. Just as churches should not be forced to perform marriages they find sinful. But remember: the US Government is not a private organization. An inequity performed by the government is not protected freedom. Correcting it is not 'PC'. It is just C.If the laws are rewritten for their benefit, what is the problem? They are not being rewritten to ANYBODY's detriment. No matter how yucky they may find it, a gay marriage does not hurt a heterosexual. There is no special treatment here - the new rule will be just as available to heterosexuals as heterosexual marrage has been available to gays. We should always take every opportunity to write laws that benefit some and harm none.So is being non-Christian. Neither fact is relevant to lawmaking.

Slippery slope is a good way to describe this, so where WILL the line be drawn then?

Your reply to my first post on this board was an immediate "If you don't like it, I can suggest a way to leave" and you're giving me shit about being on a personal soapbox?

You're a funny one to be preaching tolerance and open mindedness.

Yeah sure whatever, somebody thinks I'm a fucknut. The terror. I'm heartbroken I'll go cry now...ok I'm all better.


If you know that the bible SHOULD have NO effect on laws why bring it up?

I don't care where you were raised, half the people raised in the US wouldn't know the difference between Thanksgiving and Day of Independance and probably think that Mayflower is a type of bush or something.

Gays want the right to marry. Instead of giving them this, people are out playing word games and trying to give them something else. This is seperating them from the rest of society and making them outcasts. It'll turn into "Straight people marry - Gay people have Unions". Thats not fair and equal treatment. How will a gay man answer to "Are you married?" "No I'm in a civil union...". Thats idiotic.

I didn't ask you what some people want to do. The levels of resistance are obvious to even April - well maybe not April...

Still I'm curious how I twisted your words? You drag the bible into a legal discussion and I tell you to shove it because it has no place here and that is twisiting your words?

Please note: Nobody is trying to make gay marriage mandatory. People who think it is a sin will retain the ability and fundamental right to not marry people of their own sex.

What's the slippery slope? I don't see how it's a slippery slope.

Is your first name Rick, and your last name Santorum?

I'm not preaching tolerance or open mindedness. I never said I was.

I am preaching equal treatment. I don't care if you can't tolerate gays or can't accept them as long as you manage to treat them equaly.

I TOLD you where the line is drawn. Read my post and you'll see. Tip: "Consenting adults"

Good point there, sometimes forget to look at it in that light.

Of course, they are a private organization and should be allowed to set their own standards, right or wrong.


In my opinion it does, it cheapens something that I strongly believe in and weakens an institution that's already on thin ice.

How does allowing gay people to marry the man/woman they he/she loves cheapen marriage?

And which institution are your refering to?

How does marriage become weakened by allowing gay people to marry? Does it weaken the "institution" or just your perception of what marriage is?

:applause:
Very well stated, UT.

- pie

I knew you'd go there eventually, thing is I do tolerate and accept them. In fact I have no problem whatsoever with them or any group. This is about gay marriage, not discrimination.

And for what it's worth, no I don't really understand the gay lifestyle and will admit it. The sex part I can understand, the lifestyle and desire to spend your life with a same sex partner somewhat baffles me.

But, it is their choice and their business. Every individual on this planet deserves the right to be treated decently and not be discriminated against. They do not however have the right to demand that society accomodate there every demand.

As far as I can see, the absolute furthest that this slippery slope could go is polygamy. All of the other bugaboos being brought up in the general debate, such as bestiality, marriage to "poltergeists" or inanimate objects, or incest, are sufficiently different to be separate slopes. And there is no major push down those slopes. There's not even much for polygamy.

Ironically, all of these conservatives making the spurious slippery slope arguments actually may be weakening their future cases against them. If many of these arguments end up on the record, like Scalia's dissent in the Texas case, they may end up being used by people with much less legitimate issues than gay marriage.

Essentially, if arguments were made against gay marriage itself, rather than theoretical future issues, it would be much more likely to stop there. Instead, slippery slope arguments are pouring oil on the slope.