[quote]Makavali wrote:
But saying I vote against this because I find it “immoral” is fucking retarded.[/quote]
Not so retarded. People vote against things for a number of reasons. Thinking that something is immoral is probably one of the better reasons.
You may vote for something because you feel it is immoral NOT to do so.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That said, I agree that environment plays a factor in determining sexuality.[/quote]
And I’ve said on numerous occasions that genetics too plays a role. What I object to are the many homosexual groups that insist that they were “born that way” with no real proof. By insisting that it is totally genetic I think they feel that their cause and perhaps their very lives are more legitimate.
It’s a complicated matter isn’t it?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Why do you assume everything has to be a personal issue, it affects all married people by making a mockery of marriage.[/quote]
Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for several years and it hasn’t affected me or my marriage at all.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
That all people no matter race, creed, sex, and/or sexual orientation should not be denied any public facilities/housing/benefits/public office.[/quote]
I may be reading your statement incorrectly, but you seem to be arguing that the state should treat gays equally, including allowing them to have the same benefits of marriage, but that the church should not be required to recognize gay unions.
I’m completely fine with that. I would be happy to call it a civil union, and leave religion out of it altogether.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Not that being from Texas is a bad thing, unless you are in Oklahoma.[/quote]
Funny thing is, I’m from Texas and my partner is from Oklahoma. Even better, I grew up in Utah and have spent my life in two of the most conservative states of the country. Life has a sense of humor 
[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
That all people no matter race, creed, sex, and/or sexual orientation should not be denied any public facilities/housing/benefits/public office.
I may be reading your statement incorrectly, but you seem to be arguing that the state should treat gays equally, including allowing them to have the same benefits of marriage, but that the church should not be required to recognize gay unions.
I’m completely fine with that. I would be happy to call it a civil union, and leave religion out of it altogether.[/quote]
Exactly…“what’s in a name?”
As long as the same legal rights are extended, you could call it a “binding under the all powerful flying spaghetti monster” for all I care. People get caught up in the semantics of it, the wording, not the actual benefits. Marriage does have religious ties, so why it’s also the “legal” name is just another example of failure to separate church and state.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
And how is it “Constitutional” to say this group of consenting adults can marry but this group can’t? Sounds quite the opposite of constitutional.
No it doesn’t. Your version of “constitutional” is a personal version you made up, not anything based in reality. That doesn’t cut it - the Constitution has actual words and historical principles.
“Unconstitutional” does not and has never meant “seems unfair to me”.
[/quote]
I was aware of that too, but thanks for reminder.
You will notice that I put the word constitutional in quotes. I’m tracking what the definition of the word is. My point was, Kansas state laws say one group can marry and another can’t. That is unfair.
Yet again, you’re spending time typing common knowledge on the message board. I understand all this. States have all sorts of laws, but that doesn’t mean that said laws make sense or are just. The bottom line is the state of Kansas, for example, is discriminating against one group by denying them the right to marriage and the benefits that go along with it.
Yeah, that is what you originally questioned me on (you highlighted it) when I said previously, what gives the state of Kansas the right to deny gay marriage? Then you explained that they could by the state law that existed. My question wasn’t can they, it was what right does the state have to do this?
[quote]
Short answer? It undermines traditional marriage by privileging another relationship as “equal” when, for the purposes of the public policy marriage was created to superintend, is not equal.
Been said, over and over. Do a search.[/quote]
This the same rhetoric I have read previously and it’s nonsense. It also leads me to the question I have asked Brother Chris. How does gay marriage negatively effect you and your life?
And this “public policy” excuse makes no sense. Gay couples can vote, work, get shit taxed out of them, put kids through school and be consumers just as easily as hetero couples. How are gay marriages not equal?
I’m just curious, but could individuals draw up and sign contracts to get at least some of the benefits of marriage, like hospital visitation, or would that be illegal under the present law?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I have already explained this in other threads. From now on my official statement of the question of gay marriage:
I, Brother Chris, hold true in my belief (heaven forbid I say as the truth) Constitutionally there is no warrant for gays to be allowed to be married, the issue of gay marriage and benefits should be decided by individual states. I however disagree with gay marriage because by forlife’s definition I believe in a fairy tale, and Mak’s definition the space genie that is an old white man with a white beard. Which I do not claim nor agree with that there is any fairy tale or space genies that look like an old white man with a white beard that I believe in.
That all people no matter race, creed, sex, and/or sexual orientation should not be denied any public facilities/housing/benefits/public office. However, anybody with private facilities/housing/benefits/businesses can discriminate against whomever requests or is in position to be placed in these places, if whoever so chooses.
That marriage is formality brought from the old testament (into America), taken from all societies that held strong because of it. So, as of now, hopefully everyone can understand that, in my belief, in the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is fine. By the Kingdom of God, who I choose over the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is incorrect. And as I stand here today, I will interject always until proven otherwise, biblically, that gay marriage should not be allowed in any of the states I reside until the majority of the people of capable mind and of voting age choose that it shall be allowed.
Summary:
No constitutional basis.
State Issue.
By society gay marriage should be allowed, I do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings because they can’t do something.
I do not condone homosexual behavior, and I think gay marriage would encourage people to do that behavior.
Biblically homosexual behavior is a sin.
Fair enough?[/quote]
All of that and it still didn’t explain how gay marriage would effect you. All you gave me where reasons why it should not occur.
My personal favorite is [quote]and I think gay marriage would encourage people to do that behavior.[/quote]
If that were the case, how come straight marriages haven’t encouraged gays around the world to adopt heterosexual relationships and behaviors?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’m just curious, but could individuals draw up and sign contracts to get at least some of the benefits of marriage, like hospital visitation, or would that be illegal under the present law?[/quote]
My partner and I have legal contracts granting one another medical power of attorney, so in theory yes. However, a coworker of mine had done the same thing and the hospital still denied him the right to visit his partner of 25 years in the hospital, until his partner’s father showed up to grant permission. I don’t know whether he had the legal papers on hand or not, but how many married couples are forced to show a marriage license in order to see their spouse, especially in time urgent cases where death is imminent? It’s an unequal standard.
Also, the majority of benefits accrued to marriage (joint tax filing, social security, immigration, parental custody, etc.) require federal laws that cannot be covered through a personal contract.
[quote]TKDCadet04 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
That all people no matter race, creed, sex, and/or sexual orientation should not be denied any public facilities/housing/benefits/public office.
I may be reading your statement incorrectly, but you seem to be arguing that the state should treat gays equally, including allowing them to have the same benefits of marriage, but that the church should not be required to recognize gay unions.
I’m completely fine with that. I would be happy to call it a civil union, and leave religion out of it altogether.
Exactly…“what’s in a name?”
As long as the same legal rights are extended, you could call it a “binding under the all powerful flying spaghetti monster” for all I care. People get caught up in the semantics of it, the wording, not the actual benefits. Marriage does have religious ties, so why it’s also the “legal” name is just another example of failure to separate church and state.
[/quote]
The creation of this nation had both God and law connected, and removing that is what I think most people are not comfortable with.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The creation of this nation had both God and law connected, and removing that is what I think most people are not comfortable with. [/quote]
Which “god” would that be? I’m pretty sure the “god” that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. believed in is very, very, different from the “god” that you believe in.
Which is why the separation of church and state is a good idea. Most believers would love church and state to be the same, as long as it is their church…god forbid that the state be joined with someone else’s church instead.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[…]
Alright mother I was giving him shit, there was no melt down. Him coming from a “conservative” state, I thought I would have fun. I didn’t know people’s feelings would be hurt. If anyone’s feelings were hurt, I am sorry that was not my intent and I retract any statement that was not productive to the debate. If you look I asked if he came from Texas, any self respecting resident of Oklahoma would rather be called a queer (unless they are homophobic), than a Texan.
Not that being from Texas is a bad thing, unless you are in Oklahoma.
Edit: The statement towards forlife was because he was comparing Catholics who have already received our licks and still do to being a homosexual, and the fact every time I say something he picks the most obscure thing to pull out and put a what if in front of. I have and my family has dealt with discriminate because we are Catholics (from business deals to jobs to being able to buy property). [/quote]
Three things: Firstly, because Forlife writes something that annoys you, you suggest you’d kill him - fucking hell. Secondly, and connected to that - you state that homosexual people aren’t discriminated against - which would be laughable weren’t it so evidently incorrect. Thirdly, when annoyed because someone said something about your state, you resort to a tirade using derogatory terms such as ‘queer’ and ‘fudge packer’. I see a bit of a pattern in that, and a sad one it is. Yeah, you may have been discriminated against as well - it happens, and it’s wrong. Just dishing it back against others isn’t the way you’re going to make a positive change.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
[…]
Alright mother I was giving him shit, there was no melt down. Him coming from a “conservative” state, I thought I would have fun. I didn’t know people’s feelings would be hurt. If anyone’s feelings were hurt, I am sorry that was not my intent and I retract any statement that was not productive to the debate. If you look I asked if he came from Texas, any self respecting resident of Oklahoma would rather be called a queer (unless they are homophobic), than a Texan.
Not that being from Texas is a bad thing, unless you are in Oklahoma.
Edit: The statement towards forlife was because he was comparing Catholics who have already received our licks and still do to being a homosexual, and the fact every time I say something he picks the most obscure thing to pull out and put a what if in front of. I have and my family has dealt with discriminate because we are Catholics (from business deals to jobs to being able to buy property).
Three things: Firstly, because Forlife writes something that annoys you, you suggest you’d kill him - fucking hell. Secondly, and connected to that - you state that homosexual people aren’t discriminated against - which would be laughable weren’t it so evidently incorrect. Thirdly, when annoyed because someone said something about your state, you resort to a tirade using derogatory terms such as ‘queer’ and ‘fudge packer’. I see a bit of a pattern in that, and a sad one it is. Yeah, you may have been discriminated against as well - it happens, and it’s wrong. Just dishing it back against others isn’t the way you’re going to make a positive change.
Makkun[/quote]
You are correct, but let’s separate what I said to Dustin and forlife, two different situations.
Dustin, I went over board on giving him shit by what I called him, because he said what he said. I would have used other derogatory statements if I knew him to give him shit. This is the first encounter I have had with Dustin.
Forlife, caught me in a bad position and I do apologise.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I think it’s full of win. It shoots himself in the foot and lets me know what I’m dealing with.
It was not supposed to be an ending statement. As I said above I was giving shit to the guy because he was from Oklahoma, as you can see I opened with it.
And even if I was not just giving the guy shit, you have none the less (you and forlife both) continue to mock my faith and beliefs.
Of course that justifies saying “I should kill you”. What was I thinking?
Of course, Muslim terrorists never say that.
You have no right to legislate your beliefs on others who do not share said belief. The Church and State are separated. If you want to deny gay marriage in your Church, please do. If you want to make a secular argument like TB23, then feel free to do so.
But saying I vote against this because I find it “immoral” is fucking retarded.[/quote]
I vote for it, because the evidence I hold in my hand from peer reviewed journals of science say that gay marriage would destroy the institute of marriage and the American family, but I have recanted my statement to that if homosexuals would wish to marry, and their state allows it, they can do as they please.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have already explained this in other threads. From now on my official statement of the question of gay marriage:
I, Brother Chris, hold true in my belief (heaven forbid I say as the truth) Constitutionally there is no warrant for gays to be allowed to be married, the issue of gay marriage and benefits should be decided by individual states. I however disagree with gay marriage because by forlife’s definition I believe in a fairy tale, and Mak’s definition the space genie that is an old white man with a white beard. Which I do not claim nor agree with that there is any fairy tale or space genies that look like an old white man with a white beard that I believe in.
That all people no matter race, creed, sex, and/or sexual orientation should not be denied any public facilities/housing/benefits/public office. However, anybody with private facilities/housing/benefits/businesses can discriminate against whomever requests or is in position to be placed in these places, if whoever so chooses.
That marriage is formality brought from the old testament (into America), taken from all societies that held strong because of it. So, as of now, hopefully everyone can understand that, in my belief, in the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is fine. By the Kingdom of God, who I choose over the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is incorrect. And as I stand here today, I will interject always until proven otherwise, biblically, that gay marriage should not be allowed in any of the states I reside until the majority of the people of capable mind and of voting age choose that it shall be allowed.
Summary:
No constitutional basis.
State Issue.
By society gay marriage should be allowed, I do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings because they can’t do something.
I do not condone homosexual behavior, and I think gay marriage would encourage people to do that behavior.
Biblically homosexual behavior is a sin.
Fair enough?
All of that and it still didn’t explain how gay marriage would effect you. All you gave me where reasons why it should not occur.
My personal favorite is and I think gay marriage would encourage people to do that behavior.
If that were the case, how come straight marriages haven’t encouraged gays around the world to adopt heterosexual relationships and behaviors? [/quote]
Well, let’s see if I can come up with a metaphor. Okay, it is like a diet, you can eat healthy with all the meats, veggies, etc. You would think this would encourage people to eat healthy, but if all of a sudden you put a chocolate cake on the table next to all this. If people are not tempted to eat chocolate cake, then they won’t. If they are tempted to cheat, then they will indulge in the chocolate cake.
[quote]forlife wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
The creation of this nation had both God and law connected, and removing that is what I think most people are not comfortable with.
Which “god” would that be? I’m pretty sure the “god” that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. believed in is very, very, different from the “god” that you believe in.
Which is why the separation of church and state is a good idea. Most believers would love church and state to be the same, as long as it is their church…god forbid that the state be joined with someone else’s church instead.[/quote]
I agree with forlife here, a lot of people in church are mislead by what the forefathers thought on the issue of God. I do not find any evidence that they used God or his Laws to make the constitution. I however believe that because of their faith in God, they wrote the constitution as they did. They did not want a state church. This is the reason I am recanting my statements, I have looked through some of my old notes, and remember some of the things that seemed so minute back in the day.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I was aware of that too, but thanks for reminder. [/quote]
I am beginning to think not.
Well, which is it then? Is it “unconstitutional”? Or is it “unfair”? They are not synonymous - so which are you asking about?
Kansas states laws saying one group can marry and another can’t is absolutely “constitutional” and is also “fair” - but they are separate inquiries altogether.
Correct, they are - so, again: what are you asking? The state can discriminate on this basis if it wants to. If you think the law is “unjust”, that is different - that is a political opinion among other political opinions in the free marketplace of ideas in a democracy.
Want to remedy the “injustice”? Move to Kansas, put on your good suit, and run for state office, and try and get a bill passed granting marriage rights to whomever you want.
You are painfully confused - the existence of a “right” is what allows the state to pass the law. If there is such a “right”, the state can, if there is no “right”, the state cannot. It is the same question.
As to the “right”, asked and answered. The people retain their natural right to self-governance, and by and through the state that acts as their agent, the people have decided to privilege one relationship over another.
[quote]This the same rhetoric I have read previously and it’s nonsense. It also leads me to the question I have asked Brother Chris. How does gay marriage negatively effect you and your life?
And this “public policy” excuse makes no sense. Gay couples can vote, work, get shit taxed out of them, put kids through school and be consumers just as easily as hetero couples. How are gay marriages not equal?[/quote]
Gay marriage leads to the demise of the institution of marriage in its entirety. The entire premise - your entire premise - is that marriage must be afforded to any consenting relationship and the state has no “right” to grant it to one, but not another. If we actually believed and followed that principle, then there isn’t a single consenting adult relationship that wouldn’t qualify for marriage status - after all, they are all “equal”. As such, marriage would be dissolved, as it would have no boundaries, and no definition.
The brainless principle of “equality” on the sole basis that “all consenting adult relationships ar equal” makes marriage available to all, and thus none. Libertarians who want no role for marriage in the state support gay marriage for precisely these reasons - it would lead to government getting out of the marriage business entirely.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I have already explained this in other threads. From now on my official statement of the question of gay marriage:
I, Brother Chris, hold true in my belief (heaven forbid I say as the truth) Constitutionally there is no warrant for gays to be allowed to be married, the issue of gay marriage and benefits should be decided by individual states. I however disagree with gay marriage because by forlife’s definition I believe in a fairy tale, and Mak’s definition the space genie that is an old white man with a white beard. Which I do not claim nor agree with that there is any fairy tale or space genies that look like an old white man with a white beard that I believe in.
That all people no matter race, creed, sex, and/or sexual orientation should not be denied any public facilities/housing/benefits/public office. However, anybody with private facilities/housing/benefits/businesses can discriminate against whomever requests or is in position to be placed in these places, if whoever so chooses.
That marriage is formality brought from the old testament (into America), taken from all societies that held strong because of it. So, as of now, hopefully everyone can understand that, in my belief, in the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is fine. By the Kingdom of God, who I choose over the Kingdom of the World, gay marriage is incorrect. And as I stand here today, I will interject always until proven otherwise, biblically, that gay marriage should not be allowed in any of the states I reside until the majority of the people of capable mind and of voting age choose that it shall be allowed.
Summary:
No constitutional basis.
State Issue.
By society gay marriage should be allowed, I do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings because they can’t do something.
I do not condone homosexual behavior, and I think gay marriage would encourage people to do that behavior.
Biblically homosexual behavior is a sin.
Fair enough?
All of that and it still didn’t explain how gay marriage would effect you. All you gave me where reasons why it should not occur.
My personal favorite is and I think gay marriage would encourage people to do that behavior.
If that were the case, how come straight marriages haven’t encouraged gays around the world to adopt heterosexual relationships and behaviors?
Well, let’s see if I can come up with a metaphor. Okay, it is like a diet, you can eat healthy with all the meats, veggies, etc. You would think this would encourage people to eat healthy, but if all of a sudden you put a chocolate cake on the table next to all this. If people are not tempted to eat chocolate cake, then they won’t. If they are tempted to cheat, then they will indulge in the chocolate cake. [/quote]
Certainly, you can come up with something better than that?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
I was aware of that too, but thanks for reminder.
I am beginning to think not.
You will notice that I put the word constitutional in quotes. I’m tracking what the definition of the word is. My point was, Kansas state laws say one group can marry and another can’t. That is unfair.
Well, which is it then? Is it “unconstitutional”? Or is it “unfair”? They are not synonymous - so which are you asking about?
[/quote]
Both. How is it constitutional to say one group of consenting adults can marry and the other can’t. Just because the “the law says so” doesn’t legitimize it. I can bring up numerous laws of the past that were discriminatory, unfair, unjust, or whatever.
Which is why I asked the original question and I highlighted it in my previous post. Kansas does not have the right to discriminate against one group, but not the other. You think they do because of some laws that were written in the 19th Century. How did anyone alive today consent to that?
Classic statist nonsense. Might makes right. It is written so you must obey.
Um yeah, back in the 19th Century. The state government acts as its own agent. As with any government, it could care less about the people.
This is the “slippery slope” line that is always used and makes no sense. Gay marriage will not lead to the end of civilization, or people marrying animals or paint brushes or anything else. It effects your marriage not one iota. It also won’t prevent half of all marriages from ending in divorce.
And to think Fighting Irish once said you could “out logic” people.
[quote]
The brainless principle of “equality” on the sole basis that “all consenting adult relationships ar equal” makes marriage available to all, and thus none. Libertarians who want no role for marriage in the state support gay marriage for precisely these reasons - it would lead to government getting out of the marriage business entirely.[/quote]
Oh heavens no, the state would not be involved in marriage anymore? That’s one less facet of life that the government could keep its greasy paws off of. I know you would hate this.
And why is “brainless” to think healthy, competent, consenting adults should be allowed to marry?