Never fear. I would only give them a serious verbal tonguelashing. ;)

Depend on who you are "educating", IMO. It'll only stick if the person has somewhat of an open mind. If their mind is fixed on one concept and is not open to other ideas, then the education, I think, would be wasted.

I love the ACLU!

Elected officials reflecting the family value of hate.
I'm going to hope and guess, that even in this Louisiana parish there are teachers that could/would counter the board/community but dont want to lose their jobs. Lots of schools battling this out.

Here's some stuff for teachers

Re: Gay Marriage
 

first men and men...then women and women...then farmers and sheep.....poor people and dogs...white people and cows...black people and cows... (notice non racial cow reference)............

puh-Leeze.

freaky. sorry if it wasn't written the way you like it. get over it.

I never had a dog. I always wanted one, but I either lived in the city or didn't have time for one.

I had a friend who had a dog. His dog always loved him, never complained, it was always happy when he came home. He admited to screwing the dog and said that it felt quite good.

At times I wonder if being married to a dog would be such a bad thing...

the worst part would probably be the fleas.

Nah I got cats and fleas are not a problem. Those little things you drop on their neck once every few months work great. No fleas or ticks...funny smell for a day but nothing bad.

      I concede the point openly. Still, you don't know untill you try. Which I mean to say, I hope someone there will stand up and try.
      I guess this means you don't drink? Oh wait... You meant the actual animal... My bad.

      Fleas... Hmm... I wonder who would win a war between fleas and crabs... Ack... I need to go find another thread now...

Re: Re: Gay Marriage
 

Well, the difference is that non-human animals can't consent to sex or marriage. A man <i>can</i> consent to sex with another man.

I suppose the question really is: Do you believe there are enough bad consequences to gay marriage that their consent should be overruled?

Re: Re: Re: Gay Marriage
 

yeah. i do.

okay...before anyone BLASTS me for stereotyping, i'm only writing from what i know. of my MANY gay friends, i have only met one couple who was interested in being a couple -- that is, only the two of them. they have been together 30 years, and are as married as any hetero couple i know.

that being said, every other gay man-man couple i've known were interested in short term. inevitably, one or both were sleeping with other people. that's NOT the case in most hetero couples i've met, although, again, some....

okay. so marriage is all about benefits. and it seems to me, that in any infidelity issue, you run all kinds of risks....lawyers for divorces. suits tying up courtrooms. medical benefit expenses...from stds or related issues.

so in the cases *I've* seen......... i would think that these particular gay men would treat marriage lightly..and cause legal hassles.

darclauz. Your argument is selfdefeating:


So why would they ever marry?

Benifits? BS.

There are plenty of heterosexual people out there who screw a new girl/guy every week if not day with no intention for a long term relationship. They don't get married for a month then break it off.

Neither would the homosexuals. Getting married is as much a hassle as getting divorced, if not more so.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dar, um... not to be a jerk, but how is that different than hetero marriges. Those are failing in droves for years... Point is, don't they have the same rights to make idiotic mistakes as the rest of us?

Ok then with that iron logic, lesbian unions should be the most sought after and righteous. The MANY dykes I know are real homebodies and supportive nurturers. They also dont have all those pesky and self-inflicted medical expenses, you know "...stds or related issues".

i don't know ANY lesbian couples, but i'm SURE they're different from the gay men i have known.

this wasn't an iron logic issue.... just my opinion. as such, i don't have any well-researched or documented facts to back me up.
read it, discard it. it's only an opinion.............

And well reasoned too!

And what your opinion demonstrates is that you consider the homosexual men you know, like cattle, not worthy of basic human rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Gay Marriage
 

Can I blast you for being an idiot then?
Which makes "them" different from hetros how? Because some hetros like to settle down?

Uh huh. You've never heard the term 'one night stand' in relation to hetrosexuals I suppose right? No? All hetrosexuals are purely interested in getting married and raising lots of screaming brats, right?

Because somehow hetrosexuals have moral superiority and have their priorities straight. Pun not intended.
I'd venture a guess that numerous people get married because it's the ... what's the word ... "moral" way to fuck. Because otherwise it's wrong to as stated to them by their tome of religious enlightenment.

Oh come on, you know it happens. Where else would the concept of no sex before marriage originate?

And as it's been stated already in this thread, marriages fail all the time. People cheat on eachother married or not. It's hardly a gay problem.

I suppose you think HIV is a "gay disease" also? I suppose I shouldn't have mentioned that, it'll only dilute the thread further.

Quzah.

To look at it another way, you can't complain about gay behavior going against social norms as a reason to deny them the very constructs that define and reinforce those norms.

(where's my goobledygook xlator)

Ain't nothin' like stopping ya from fucking around when ya got both names on a 30-year mortgage.

C'mon Whit. One, just one little handgrenade. Pleeeezee!?!??;)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, okay Bruce, one. But make sure all targets are of the same race and gender as you so that no one assumes that you're a bad person.

Oh I get it. They won't be so offensive to normal people if you let them mimic normal people.:haha:

But being gay is normal... there are a whole lot of people that are gay.

How does one know what's "normal" behavior. It's because the culture tells us, educates us how to talk and dress and stuff. If does that partly by having big ol' rites of passage and schools and official events and laws and stuff.

The culture frowns on heteros who sleep around. To inform them of what the culture defines as "normal", it developed a whole set of rituals, language, laws, etc. that tell people what to do.

The culture has not dealt with homosexuality because it is more rare. There are few cultural thingies to tell gays how to behave. There is no marriage to encourage them to create long-term relationships. No rings to symbolize such a relationship, no historical connection, not even soap operas on TV to show how relationships might operate and what the positive and negative repercussions might be.

Some parts of gay culture have created their own set of cultural thingies, and some parts have adopted the hetero cultural thingies. A gay couple I know has been together for 15 years. At one of their anniversaries, they had an official ceremony at a swanky downtown place and had a celebration in front of all their friends to acknowledge their relationship. This is the equivalent of a wedding and they wear rings on the ring finger of their right hands Their relationship is stronger than almost every hetero relationship I have ever seen.

The only way it is NOT stronger is that it is not officially accepted. So, would gay marriage weaken hetero marriage? I say no, I say it would strengthen it and give it MORE meaning if people who can't possibly procreate can get married. If marriage is only for creating kids it will eventually weaken and die. That is my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.

And that neatly paraphrases my response to the "gay men just want to sleep around" opinion someone presented earlier in this thread.

Of course gay men will flock towards short-term relationships... if they're not given the same sanctioned-long-term-relationship options as straights. For gays, marriage isn't currently an option, so why should they spend major time and effort pursuing something that they're not legally allowed to have?

Naturally, they can choose to pursue either short-term or long-term relationships outside of marriage... just like straights can. Regardless of orientation or gender, that's a conscious choice. But straights have that one additional option, which happens to be the one that's the current societal norm. (Ironically, if the 15-year gay couple Tony mentioned were hetero, they wouldn't HAVE to have been formally married to be considered married in most places, thanks to the wonders of common-law statutes.)

I'm not sure this is true anymore, or at least, not sure if it's true for unmarried people.

It's less true than it used to be, but there are still some people who take exception to that. (And when I say "take exception to that," I mean write great honking essays about how "AMERICA'S LOSING THE CULTURE WAR" and how Murphy Brown caused 9/11 and crap like that.)

Unmarried heteros sleeping around is pretty much matter-of-fact these days to the average person... unless it's their daughter doing it, of course, and then someone has to die. ;) Unmarried heteros _breeding_ and remaining unmarried also has less of a stigma than it used to, though the approval rate isn't as high on that one.

Thats just it, many gay people and can and do procreate. They desire that right as well. For the majority of people, marriage means family, which usually involves kids. The image of a stable and permanent a gay family lifestyle is very threatening. The real fear here is that homosexual couples will be formally welcomed to live among us, to reproduce and/or parent, where they will brainwash and abuse kids into their deviant sex...then the ranks will swell and there will be gay world domination?

Seems to me marriage was a religious thing before it became a civil thing. There was a time when everyone was straight and got married if there was any mate available.
Oh, oh, I hear panties bunching and hackles snapping to attention. OK, what if Raul had flounced off the Mayflower on to Plymouth Rock and said "Marvy, what a scrumptous place for a tea room". Raul would have been a casualty, that's what. So everyone played straight, whether they liked it on not.
So anyway, the laws were created around the existing norm. As Radar will attest, the laws grew like topsy and all centered around marriage and family which reinforced said same. Queers were outlawed and outlaws.
Now we have to let them marry in order to integrate them into the community because of the way the legal sysytem was created.
My gut still tells me the children are another matter. Hey, I'm an old man, give me time, give me time.

I'm not so sure. I expect concerns about property (including the bride), inheritance, and clan alliances were around before any theologians started mumbling about holy matrimony.

You may be right Steve. I wasn't thinking organized churchs but the ceremonial type of formal marriage. You know, village feast, dancing and maybe a sacrifice or two. The next thing after the bonk with a club and drag to the cave period.:)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I dunno... Some of the chics I've met will still pull out the club and bonk you with it. So that's not gone either.

translation?: because it is just

We should be "letting them marry" because whether it's "natural" or not, whether it's "bad" to us as individuals or not, if America wants to maintain it's "high horse" as a bastion of freedom and equality, gender and sexual preference cannot and SHOULD not be considered when making laws.

Let me throw this out there:

In the workplace, laws have been passed to prohibit employers from discriminating against individuals for shit that does NOT affect their job.

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 states, in part:

Quote:

PART 2--WHAT IS PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION? 6. AttributesThe following are the attributes on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited in the areas of activity set out in Part 3-- (a) age; (b) impairment; (c) industrial activity; (d) lawful sexual activity;** (e) marital status; **** (f) physical features; (g) political belief or activity; (h) pregnancy; (i) race; (j) religious belief or activity; (k) sex;

Quote:

8. Direct discrimination (1) Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, someone with an attribute less favourably than the person treats or would treat someone without that attribute, or with a different attribute, in the same or similar circumstances. (2) In determining whether a person directly discriminates it is irrelevant-- (a) whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination or considers the treatment less favourable; (b) whether or not the attribute is the only or dominant reason for the treatment, as long as it is a substantial reason. 9. Indirect discrimination (1) Indirect discrimination occurs if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, a requirement, condition or practice-- (a) that someone with an attribute does not or cannot comply with; and (b) that a higher proportion of people without that attribute, or with a different attribute, do or can comply with; and (c) that is not reasonable. (2) Whether a requirement, condition or practice is reasonable depends on all the relevant circumstances of the case, including-- (a) the consequences of failing to comply with the requirement, condition or practice; (b) the cost of alternative requirements, conditions or practices; (c) the financial circumstances of the person imposing, or proposing to impose, the requirement, condition or practice. (3) In determining whether a person indirectly discriminates it is irrelevant whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination. 10. Motive is irrelevant to discriminationIn determining whether or not a person discriminates, the person's motive is irrelevant.

So any law that states a marriage MUST be between a man and a woman, is discrimatory, based upon this Act.

** States determine what "lawful sexual activity" is, but even if we take this part out, it's still dicrimination based on sex.

****You can't discriminate on marital status, but it's ok to discriminate when it comes to what sexes can get married?? WTF?

Again, this pertains to employment, and I'm trying to get groceries put away right now or else I'd look up others, but I'm sure any gay website will have relevant links.

If it's illegal to discriminate in the workplace, why is it legal to discriminate when making laws?

The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 states, in part:
quote:
(1) Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, someone with an attribute less favourably.....

(a) whether or not that person is aware of the discrimination or considers the treatment less favourable;

favourable/favourably since when do they use this spelling in American law?

No, because it is less trouble than changing the legal system which is more pragmatic than just.

This is all very interesting, How many times has the bible been mentioned here, when it comes to being
a basis for law. Well guess what… the bible is the reference for law. Without religion… you have no definitions for morality or human worth. You are left with the pleasure principle, which defines the daily
activities of the lower animal kingdom. Personally I could care less what gay people do, until they start throwing their life style in my face every ten minutes. No one thinks beyond their nose, has anyone thought
about legal precedent, people wanting to marry their pet mouse and such! Sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law, as is bestiality etc. When you sanctify gay marriage under law, you by necessity sanctify the acts performed, and those acts like others are considered unnatural under established law, you will open the floodgates…get it. The ideas behind the words “Civil Union” address the problems that would arise from some of the things I’ve mentioned.

The Bible is not always the reference for laws. And morality and human worth can be determined by individuals who don't necessarily subscribe to or consider religion.

And I'm sure gays and lesbians appreciate you rubbing your lifestyle in their face every ten minutes as well.

Looks like we've got Santorum lite here. Why the hell do people start bringing shit like beastiality and incest into the whole argument against gay marriage? That seems pretty fucking ridiculous to me.

As far as natural or unnatural, I'm sure plenty of people throughout the ages have been participating in oral and anal sex...who is to say that it's unnatural? Not the law anymore, it seems, as sodomy laws were pretty much struck down in the Supreme Court recently.

They are both points lower down on the slippery slope, syc.

(and is part of how the argument is usually presented in conservative media/talk radio.)

What about bi-sexuals and try-sexuals*

What if a bi-sexual man is married to a man, but ocassionally wants a little pussy? Is it not out of his control he lusts sexual activities with men and women? Can the man's husband file for divorce if he has sex with a woman? Can a hetero man file for divorce if his wife has sex with another woman? There are some legal cases now being handed down that deal with these issues but they lead to even more questions. Much of the legal thought has to be tested and made consistent. This will take time. Rushing into a whirlwind of court battles is counter productive for the gays, in my opinion.

Are a man's rights being violated because he cannot legally marry a man and a woman at the same time ( a man to work on the car and a woman to keep the house up* )? Can anyone else see this argument being made in the future?

* - Please dont be offended at my attempt to be humorous and leave the forum.

It would go something like this; in this day and age of increasingly longer work schedules and demands for quality time for children, couples and individuals, it is only logical ( and fair ) that more than two people should be allowed to marry. That would decrease the chances of divorce, which we know is a bad influence on the children, by allowing another person to contibute to the "family unit", thus lessening each person's stress. Think about it. If we are going to fiddle with the definition of marriage, doesnt this make sense, to allow more than 2 people to join in this non religious, "civil contract"? Just think of the long term benefits. To decrease divorce and it's ill effects, legally allow the couples to enter the legal contract and have sex with the other "consenting family members" by increasing the potential number from two, to say, three or four. A communal family structure, what could be better? Since the population is having such fertility and financial difficulites nowdays, doesnt this make sense?

You may not imagine people adopting and promoting this idea, but I sure can. If you can alter one major aspect of the definition of marriage, the door is wide open for more. I can see it now, the psychiatric community citing a study of foursomes over a thirty year period and the rosy development of the children in this new "progressive" family structure.

It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what the judge and jury thinks. And by the way, I don’t care what gay people think about my life style, they are a small minority in nature and the country. Minorities don’t get to rule over majorities’… simple fact of nature. In addition, Sodomy and such are the topics when it comes to the law, whether you like it or not. As for the comment concerning human worth and such…you are missing the essential point, you logic has no primary foundation to examine the idea of the word worth used in this context. You can’t even define the word without religion. The very fundamental idea of good and bad come from religion. When you say “good people”, then you must define what you mean by good, and then your definition is open to further definitions.

I think that there is no God, and I'm one of the most moral people you'll meet.

I think there are many gods, and am one of the most immor...

(just kidding. seemed funny at the time.)

It wouldn’t be ridiculous if you were standing in front of judge, would it. It is convenient to overlook all the problems associated with this topic isn’t it. However, a lawyer looking to become lawyer of the month wouldn’t… would he? Let me ask you a very simple question…. Do you promote the ideas of socialism or are you an FDR Democrat?

Are you some sort of troll?

Can you explain your sudden move toward name-calling?

I'm reserving judgment at this time. He has thus far only indicated that he is clearly too self-involved to bother reading more than the last response on a couple of threads, and has nary a clue about the people he's attempting to interact with.

He called me a socialist. I don't think I've heard anything so funny in years.

Jim, welcome, but you don't have to be adversarial in every thread, you know, unless that really does reflect your actual beliefs/opinions.

1. It's what we do here.

2. You started it.

I didn’t call you anything… I asked a simple question

I started nothing, you made the choice.

It's only name calling if it's not true, and besides that, I'm asking, not telling.

By troll, I mean this.

Oh, dear. This thread has already addressed the use of the most bloody, violent and sexist book in human history (the Bible) as basis for law. Read the thread.

This ridiculous argument has been addressed over and over in this thread. Read the thread. If you don't want to do that, I have two words for you: "CONSENTING ADULTS."

Try reading about what the law actually says about sodomy in the US (and throughout the world). We are discussing here gay marriage in the US, in which sodomy is legal in a huge majority of states.

It is quite unfortunate that the human being is basically an aggressive being isn’t it… sad but true… and “Oh Dear” it isn’t going to change. As I said… I could care less what gay people do… but you need a dose of reality my friend. I’m telling you that you have no choice but to address the Bible and the precedents under the law. On the ceiling above the Supreme Court is the Ten Commandments… who do you think put them there. If you’re a gay person then you are in the population minority… you don’t get to tell the majority what they should do or what they should think… you only get to ask.

Yep, you're full of shit.

Can you ask God when these dummy/troll accounts are going to stop?

Like others of ilk juju, you can’t except an argument.. can you. Its real safe to say someone is full of shit on a forum isn’t it, you can get away with it. Can’t argue the point can you… so right away you get mad and start acting like some fool who lacks emotional control. What divine presence of mind do you posses that makes you so sure you’re not the one who is “Full of shit” as you put it.

Interesting isn’t it… that your comments are exclusionary in nature but yet you preach inclusion.

You want us to accept your arguments, Jimmy? Back 'em up. Put some support into your statements.

Show us that the Bible is the reference for all law in the United States.

Show us how morality and human worth have no definitions without religion.

Show us how sodomy is considered an unnatural act by law in the US. (You simply cannot do this b/c of the recent Supreme Court ruling, but I'd sure like to see you try.)

Make a legitimate supported connection between sodomy and beastiality, and how the floodgates will open if gay marriage is allowed by law.

Show us that minorities don't get to rule over the majority. (You simply cannot do this b/c of the existence of apartheid-era South Africa, but I'd love to see you try this one too.)

Looks like you have some research to do...get on it!

The U.S. was founded by a religious people looking to practice religion without discrimination. The simple
fact that the Ten Commandments are written on the ceiling of the Supreme Court should tell you something. When you go to court you swear to God to tell the truth! The oaths of judicial office are made with the right hand on the Bible. The Ten Commandments are considered the first laws handed to civilized men by God. There is more then enough material floating around the net to support any kind research along these lines.

Without religion the actual word morality has no meaning with relation to cause and effect. Without religion the human being has worth expressed in dollars and sense… 68 cents in materials. The ideas of right and wrong need to have certain preconditions to have meaning. For instance there were many tribal cultures that sacrificed people for many supernatural ideas… those tribes considered their actions moral and right, do you, if you don’t, then you have to ask why. If you say a human being has value then you must define the substance or units with which this value is expressed… shall we use dollars and cents or the promise immortality and the immortal soul. Communism and Socialism preached atheism and killed over 100 million people, those people who did the killing went home and hugged their kids and slept well. They slept well because they believed that they were not going to pay any price for their actions. In their eyes the people who they killed had no supernatural value.

There are people in New York that have been charged with Sodomy recently. Be very careful what you put forth. Without Sodomy laws it would not be possible to charge a child molester with Sodomy… if that was the extent of the transgression. How would you like to come home and find you 9-year-old child has been sodomized and you couldn’t do anything about it except maybe charge the person with a minor assault.


I never made the connection between Sodomy and Bestiality, I only said that they are considered to be un natural acts under the law. It’s the phrase “un-natural act” that would generate the problems in the courtrooms and legal circles, lawyers would have a field day with it, and they have hundreds of years of legal precedent to call on.

I've already argued against the points you brought up earlier in the thread.

I'm not mad or out of control emotionally. That's the whole point. I'm accusing you of attempting to incite that in others purely for your own pleasure.

Now, I may be wrong (in which case I'd apologize), but I think I'm right.

I have no intention to incite anything. I see what I consider topographical arguments that are very complex, some without solution. I have lawyer friends who are waiting to buy a yacht based on the court cases that could arise from what’s being discussed here. My point is simply to put forth the idea that what may seem logical in today’s society is not without dangerous unknowns that lie under the surface of what might appear to be logical path to follow. People may get upset over the Sodomy word etc. Nevertheless, there will not be any legal discussion in the halls of justice without it. The devil is in the details… always… and they are not going away. The Bible belt in the southern part of the country will make news every night when it comes to gay marriage… no one is going to change their minds… or many others for that matter. It’s my contention that if one is going to discuss this topic then nothing should be off the board

Minorities don't get to rule over majorities? Where were you when apartheid was around? Or when slaves outnumbered free men in the South?

It is true that what is 'good' is subject to interpretation. For example, to a racist 'good' is limited by race, ethnicity, etc. irregardless of behavior. In many religions, heaven is reserved for those practicing that religion, and no others will be 'good' enough, no matter what their behavior.

We have commandments from our god which state, 'thou shalt not kill', but in the same texts impose the death penalty and fight wars with the blessings of G-d. Does this mean that some killing is actually 'good'?

We do have laws against incest, and this is seen as both a moral decision and a decision for the social order to prevent inbreeding. We agree that children should be of a suitable age to have sex and marry, but what that age should be changes with society and the average age expectancy.

However, most people agree that homosexuality (as well as prostitution) have been around for thousands of years. In my opinion, that makes it a natural occurence. Passing laws against something which occurs naturally does not make any sense to me. It would be like outlawing albinos. The best example I can relate to was the practice of forcing left-handed people to become right-handed.

Toddlers Today Resources - Left Hand

Some people are homosexuals. They desire to enter into monogamous social bonding in the same manner as heterosexuals. This implies that they will pay taxes, open joint checking accounts, purchase real estate and engage in other activities which benefit society at large. We keep on hearing studies that marriage is better for society and the individuals. If this is so, including more people into the ranks of marriage would be a 'good' thing.

As far as 'civil unions' are concerned. Maybe we can call all marriages performed by civil officials 'civil unions'. We can reserve the word 'marriage' for civil unions performed by clergy. This would satisfy the equal protection clause since no class of people would be discriminated against. Since 'clergy' is a large class and an accomodating minister could always be found, gay couples could be married. Since the state is reinforcing the rights of religious groups to perform marriages, and even reserving the term for them, they have no cause for objection. Since heterosexuals joined by judges or Justices of the Peace would also be subject to 'civil unions' if not married by clergy, they would have an incentive to be sure that the classification is not discriminatory in any legal treatment.

BTW, there was an interesting article recently about states rescinding the recognition of common law marriages. This shows that states still have a great deal of discretion when it comes to marriage.