Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]ZEB wrote:
On what Moriarty wrote in reply to vroom:

I don’t think that argument makes any sense. There are all kinds of laws prohibiting all sorts of behavior. What makes this particular behavior any different than someone elese’s?
[/quote]

That’s correct, but are those laws based solely on sex? Are there laws that say women can smoke crack but men cannot? Wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?

If a woman was allow to marry her daughter but a man was not, wouldn’t that be discrimination based solely on sex?

If women were allowed to marry a group of men, but men weren’t allowed to marry a group of women, wouldn’t that be discrimination based solely on sex?

You aren’t describing situations where people are being denied benefits based solely on race or sex, you’re describing situations where people are being denied benefits based on numbers, or on familial relation, not sex or race.

42

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Here’s my take though. It’s a big deal because of who’s President, and the perceived agenda. The more liberal jurists are out to make a stand, and in effect are trying to rewrite the constitution. In and of itself, not always a negative. but when ‘most’ Americans are against it, most representitives are opposed to it, and still they pursue their own agenda. This I have a problem with.
[/quote]

Although this is a democracy, certain rights are enshrined in the constitution because regardless of the majority opinion those rights are afforded to us naturally. Some people believe that one of those rights is the right to not be discriminated against based solely on race or sex.

[quote]
What’s wrong with civil unions with the marriage benefits? Why is this not a workable solution? It’s an attempt to justify their abhorent lifestyle-IMO.[/quote]

Because, again, you are offering someone different benefits based SOLELY on their sex.

43

I’m not assuming anything, just trying to stop you from doing so with respec to my post. Thanks for your concern.

Anyhow, you are going down a very political discussion path, which I am not.

I am skeptical about whether or not there exists some vast judicial liberal conspiracy in parallel with the vast liberal media conspiracy.

Theorize away…

44

Moriarty

It’s based on sexual orientation not sex. There is a difference. At least so far defined by most courts and jurists and representative and people…

There exists many rules of marriage, which then are discriminatory if this is?

45

[quote]rich44 wrote:
Ofcourse I am a Christian so I can forgive people, so to all gay people realize your mistake and go back into hiding. Just my opinion[/quote]

Who the fuck gave you the authority to forgive anyone for their “mistakes.”

I guess that whole Jesus dying on the cross thing was just for show, since you are the one with the ability to forgive.

46

[quote]vroom wrote:
Don’t assume vroom

I’m not assuming anything, just trying to stop you from doing so with respec to my post. Thanks for your concern.

Anyhow, you are going down a very political discussion path, which I am not.

I am skeptical about whether or not there exists some vast judicial liberal conspiracy in parallel with the vast liberal media conspiracy.

Theorize away…[/quote]

vroom

It’s obvious you/we are not ready to post yet against one another.

You started out defensive, and your response is, at best, argumentative and pejorative in nature. This whole thread is political.

Let’s not get off topic.

47

I wonder…

If separation of church and state is something that is important, if this issue will eventually drive recognition of the concept of marriage out of government hands altogether.

Religion has the power to define marriage and determine how it will operate. Government has gone and endorsed this religious concept and provided benefits and services based upon it.

Analyzing and investigating the rulings of the supreme court and finding them at fault, may eventually lead down a path such as the above.

48

Yikes, talk about gay marriage… wtf are you talking about.

49

I see that y’all anti-gay folks out there don’t have anything to offer except for slippery slope arguments linking gay marriage with bestiality or incest.

Hint: Just because your bible mentions homosexuality, incest, and bestiality in the same book (Leviticus), that does not make them equivalent activities.

I am sorry I am right about this. You really don’t have any good arguments against gay marriage, you just don’t like gays. This is YOUR problem. The gay male nurses I work with and the somewhat stout lesbians who are raising their kids without marriage benefits have never done anything to hurt anybody. Some of them have served in the military (even though they weren’t supposed to) voluntarily because they love this country and the principles of freedom and equality which we are supposed to stand for.

I am sorry that you guys are so hung up about this. It’s not like if we finally legitimize gay marriage the entire world will explode or something. Oh well, the funny part about this to me is that I know that most of y’all have given next to nothing in the way of thought about this, you are merely reacting to something that you find personally unacceptable because of the religion you choose to follow.

Choice… hmmm, that makes me think about something:

We have freedom of religion, right? It’s a choice we make to follow a particular church denomination or creed. Even if you are born a Jew, you can convert to Christianity or Buddhism or whatever you want. You are free. Even though the Holy Bible says it is a mortal sin and it is wrong and punishable by hell to follow any other God, and that means that all Jews and Buddhists and Muslims are going straight to hell, our Goverment gives those unholy heathen churches the equal benefits that your church gets. No taxation.

Think about it.

50

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

We have freedom of religon, right? It’s a choice we make to follow a particular church denomination or creed. Even if you are born a Jew, you can convert to Christianity or Buddhism or whatever you want. You are free. Even though the Holy Bible says it is a mortal sin and it is wrong and punishable by hell to follow any other God, and that means that all Jews and Buddhists and Muslims are going straight to hell, our Goverment gives those unholy heathen churches the equal benefits that your church gets. No taxation.

Think about it.[/quote]

I agree with you. I haven’t seen one valid argument yet against gay marriage in society other than the “I find what they do repulsive” argument. If this is purely about religion, then I suppose many of you are just as against Jewish marriages…or God forbid, a Jewish man ever marries a Baptist woman. What happens then?

51

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
ZEB wrote:
On what Moriarty wrote in reply to vroom:

I don’t think that argument makes any sense. There are all kinds of laws prohibiting all sorts of behavior. What makes this particular behavior any different than someone elese’s?

That’s correct, but are those laws based solely on sex? Are there laws that say women can smoke crack but men cannot? Wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?

If someone wants to marry their sister why should they be “discriminated agasint?” If someone wants to marry their daughter, why should they be discrimiated against? If someone wants to marry a group of women, why should they be discriminated against?

If a woman was allow to marry her daughter but a man was not, wouldn’t that be discrimination based solely on sex?

If women were allowed to marry a group of men, but men weren’t allowed to marry a group of women, wouldn’t that be discrimination based solely on sex?

You aren’t describing situations where people are being denied benefits based solely on race or sex, you’re describing situations where people are being denied benefits based on numbers, or on familial relation, not sex or race.[/quote]

I listed a group of relationships that some want to exist but the law denies them! Everything (not just two men or two women marrying) outside of the standard one man one woman relationship is denied marriage status. Your friend can call it discrimination, I call it having a society with rules.

52

On what lothario1132 wrote:

I thought about it, however not sure you did before you typed it. The constitution guarantees us “freedom of religion.” Where in that document does it specifically guarantee that two homosexuals can marry?

Finally, I can see that you have friends that are gay and you care about them. I think that’s great. I too have friends that are gay and I wish them only good things. However, I place many traditional values over my personal feelings. Surely there must be some traditional values that you respect enough to leave the heck alone. No?

53

Loth -

Man you need to look harder at the arguments here. Are you defending Gojira’s bullshit post? Futuredaves? Morty’s?

Honestly, before you go off half-cocked telling the right how flimsy their argumments are - look at the over-emotional, and angry left-wing heterophobes.

Sad thing for ya’ll that gay marraige referendums have been soundly defeated in every state that has had an elelction on it. The good thing for the anti-hetero movement is there are more than enough judges out there that are willing to ignore the will of the people and craft law from their bench.

And on the born that way versus the chose that way debate - Show me the fucking “gay gene” and you win. It is truly that simple. Just show me the “gay gene” and I’ll never utter another pro-hetero word.

But until that time - “choice” trumps nature. Just like the will of the people SHOULD trump the courts.

54

[quote]rainjack wrote:
And on the born that way versus the chose that way debate - Show me the fucking “gay gene” and you win. It is truly that simple. Just show me the “gay gene” and I’ll never utter another pro-hetero word.
.[/quote]

Pro-hetero? Show me the “hetero-gene”. There isn’t one. That makes your argument pointless. I am not “pro-gay”. I don’t personally agree with the action. I am not “anti-gay” either in that I won’t go out of my way to screw with someone just because they are that way. However, it has not been proven whether it is biological or a “choice”. That means arguing as if it has been proven is just wrong. Comparing it to beastiality and incest also doesn’t make much sense.

55

The pro-hetero crowd never proposed gayness being genetic. The burden of proof is on the hetero-phobes to prove their genetic causation.

If it weren’t for heteros - there would be no procreation. I don’t know how much more proof you need than that. But that’s more than good enough for me.

56

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The pro-hetero crowd never proposed gayness being genetic. The burden of proof is on the hetero-phobes to prove their genetic causation.

If it weren’t for heteros - there would be no procreation. I don’t know how much more proof you need than that. But that’s more than good enough for me.[/quote]

That is great proof of the need for procreation…survival of the species. However, it is no proof at all as far as whether gayness is a mental affliction or a true biological abnormality. If it is the latter, then what right is it of anyone to prevent it outside of religious structure? This is the first time I have even heard the word “pro-hetero”. Any time I see a great looking woman walk by I am “pro-hetero”. I also see a need in our overly-estrogenic society to promote manhood as a positive 'less we be thrown into a future of pink shirt wearing, gold highlighted fluffiness filled with guys whose arms are smaller than most of the girls they might date. However, this seems to be a seperate issue where it revolves around whether it is right for gay people to hook up in marriage just like heterosexuals. I’m sorry, I don’t see the impending threat to society by allowing that to happen. There are many worse areas to throw concern for society than whether a fat woman in a flannel shirt wants to marry another woman.

57

I don’t think anyone is lining up the lynch-mob and passing out ropes in order to rid the world of homosexuality. If they are - I never got the memo.

If you think homosexuality is a genetic thing - that’s your right. But until I see proof of such, then it’s nothing more than an opinion.

Gay folks are not a racial group, or genetically handicapped, and should not be given special consideration because of their choice. They are free to be as gay as they want to be. just like you are free to nail every skirt that walks by, if you so choose.

Should you be given special treatment under the law just because you choose to screw every female in a 50-mile radius of your house? Neither should gay folks because of their choice.

Besides - as I have stated earlier - gay marraige referndums went down on flames in every state that had one in the last election. In spite of the will of the people, hetero-phobic activist judges have taken this issue into their own hands and decided it sans vote.

58

Using a brain imaging technique, Swedish researchers have shown that homosexual and heterosexual men respond differently to two odors that may be involved in sexual arousal, and that the gay men respond in the same way as women.

The new research may open the way to studying human pheromones, as well as the biological basis of sexual preference. Pheromones, chemicals emitted by one individual to evoke some behavior in another of the same species, are known to govern sexual activity in animals, but experts differ as to what role, if any, they play in making humans sexually attractive to one another.

The new research, which supports the existence of human pheromones, is reported in today’s issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Dr. Ivanka Savic and colleagues at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The two chemicals in the study were a testosterone derivative produced in men’s sweat and an estrogen-like compound in women’s urine, both of which have long been suspected of being pheromones.

Most odors cause specific smell-related regions of the human brain to light up when visualized by a form of brain imaging that tracks blood flow in the brain and therefore, by inference, sites where neurons are active. Several years ago, Dr. Savic and colleagues showed that the two chemicals activated the brain in a quite different way from ordinary scents.

The estrogen-like compound, though it activated the usual smell-related regions in women, lighted up the hypothalamus in men. This is a region in the central base of the brain that governs sexual behavior and, through its control of the pituitary gland lying just beneath it, the hormonal state of the body.

The male sweat chemical, on the other hand, did just the opposite; it activated mostly the hypothalamus in women and the smell-related regions in men. The two chemicals seemed to be leading a double life, playing the role of odor with one sex and of pheromone with another.

The Swedish researchers have now repeated the experiment but with the addition of gay men as a third group. The gay men responded to the two chemicals in the same way as did women, Dr. Savic reports, as if the hypothalamus’s response is determined not by biological sex but by the owner’s sexual orientation.

Of course this was done in Sweden, but I think it goes to show that gays are most likely genetically different.

59

[quote]rainjack wrote:
The pro-hetero crowd never proposed gayness being genetic. The burden of proof is on the hetero-phobes to prove their genetic causation.

If it weren’t for heteros - there would be no procreation. I don’t know how much more proof you need than that. But that’s more than good enough for me.[/quote]

…then there would cease to be any gay people if this is spot on accurate, right? It may be a heterosexual activity but I doubt it is only heterosexuals who procreate for whatever reason, or else these “abnormalities” wouldn’t be so affluent, probably at least one in your one family, christian or not. :wink:

I really wish the otherside would give at least one good, solid reason as to why not. By good reason I don’t mean an excuse I mean a cause and effect reason. Just offer one reason. I personally can’t really stand the opposite side the liberal almost pro-homosexual, pro-anything left, irrational, hippie crap, but the opposite isn’t much better.

It could be a factor of nature and nuture, but it’s pretty obvious there is a huge genetic effect, provable? Probably not, but just take a look, you don’t see huge physical differences beyond just behavioral? I sure as hell do.

60

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I see that y’all anti-gay folks out there don’t have anything to offer except for slippery slope arguments linking gay marriage with bestiality or incest.

Hint: Just because your bible mentions homosexuality, incest, and bestiality in the same book (Leviticus), that does not make them equivalent activities.

I am sorry I am right about this. You really don’t have any good arguments against gay marriage, you just don’t like gays. This is YOUR problem. The gay male nurses I work with and the somewhat stout lesbians who are raising their kids without marriage benefits have never done anything to hurt anybody. Some of them have served in the military (even though they weren’t supposed to) voluntarily because they love this country and the principles of freedom and equality which we are supposed to stand for.

I am sorry that you guys are so hung up about this. It’s not like if we finally legitimize gay marriage the entire world will explode or something. Oh well, the funny part about this to me is that I know that most of y’all have given next to nothing in the way of thought about this, you are merely reacting to something that you find personally unacceptable because of the religion you choose to follow.

Choice… hmmm, that makes me think about something:

We have freedom of religion, right? It’s a choice we make to follow a particular church denomination or creed. Even if you are born a Jew, you can convert to Christianity or Buddhism or whatever you want. You are free. Even though the Holy Bible says it is a mortal sin and it is wrong and punishable by hell to follow any other God, and that means that all Jews and Buddhists and Muslims are going straight to hell, our Goverment gives those unholy heathen churches the equal benefits that your church gets. No taxation.

Think about it.[/quote]

lothario

Interesting post. Just about everything you condone and accusr the 'right ’ of being guilty of, you just presented as the argument for your beliefs.

What exactly does the fact that your lesbian friends served in the military have to do with anything. You can say that about paying taxes.

You suggest our argument has no basis and you offer none in return, except for suggesting it is OUR problem. You assume none of us has given thought to the question because our stance differs from yours. You assume all of our gay marriage feelings are based soley on the religion we follow. That certainly has some basis in fact, but still quite a broad generalization indeed.

As for your last paragraph, I guess I don’t get it. I’m willing to listen to you explain it better for me and then possibly i can respond in kind.