DOMA/Prop 8 decisions

[RblDiver]

So, the Supreme Court just ruled DOMA unconstitutional, but declined to rule on the Prop 8 case due to questions of standing.

This really annoys me. The ruling I wanted was DOMA unconstitutional but Prop 8 constitutional, as a validation of the 10th Amendment. As it stands, what they're saying in the Prop 8 case is that we the people don't have the right to defend what we the people passed into law. That's just.....[Mad][Rant1][Bang]

[Kraven251]

Actually, they ruled in favor of the lower court's decision. So DOMA dies as it should, and Prop 8 died as the appeal of the lower court's decision was invalid. The process worked, and SCOTUS dodged the 10th issue.

...as I understood the decision

[Ronin13]

Leave it up to the states- that's what I always say... We don't need a big federal power hanging over every little facet of our lives. If Adam and Steve or Ashley and Eve wanna get married, whatever, but they shouldn't be limited by the feds, the states should decide on the legitimacy and recognition. Just like with guns, if a majority of the state (not here obviously) decides they don't like 'em, then they can draft laws (like Illinois!) or not draft laws (like Wyoming!). Of course there are exceptions, like CO, where the legislators don't give a shit what the people they represent want.

[RblDiver]

My reading is that by declining to rule in the Prop 8 case, the lower court's decision that it is unconstitutional stands. Thus, this means (to my mind) that they aren't acknowledging the right of the states by the 10th to decide an issue not addressed in the Constitution. Further, it establishes the scary precedent that, if the state doesn't want to defend a law, then there's no way for the people to defend it. The CA governor and legislature didn't agree with Prop 8 so didn't defend it, and so a group of citizens took up the call. The SC just said that, nope, you can't do that. This is disturbing as hell to me.

[Dave]

I am fine with DOMA being struck down, and really couldn't care who marries who as long as it's two consenting adults. I am miffed by the dodging of Prop 8, since I believe that if a majority of a state's voters pass a law then it should be up to the voters to overturn it later by the same process. As far as I have seen state laws banning gay marriage have been upheld, I just don't think the fed gov should be involved in any marriage.

[Ronin13]

I am fine with DOMA being struck down, and really couldn't care who marries who as long as it's two consenting adults. I am miffed by the dodging of Prop 8, since I believe that if a majority of a state's voters pass a law then it should be up to the voters to overturn it later by the same process. As far as I have seen state laws banning gay marriage have been upheld, I just don't think the fed gov should be involved in any marriage.
THIS! But more often than not the state gov doesn't trust it's voters to be smart enough to know what's best, so they step in and throw a wrench in that... [facepalm]

[Kraven251]

The first court in Cali overturned it ...so the Cali law banning gay marriage died, based on the SC saying the state's court decision stood.

[Ronin13]

So I wonder when the Democrats are gonna be pissed off at Clinton for signing DOMA in the first place... Or are they going to somehow blame this on the Republicans? Somehow... [Bang]

[3beansalad]

I am fine with DOMA being struck down, and really couldn't care who marries who as long as it's two consenting adults. I am miffed by the dodging of Prop 8, since I believe that if a majority of a state's voters pass a law then it should be up to the voters to overturn it later by the same process. As far as I have seen state laws banning gay marriage have been upheld, I just don't think the fed gov should be involved in any marriage.

How about keeping all levels of government out of marriage? This of course would require some changes in tax code, and may be a fine argument for a flat tax. My opinion is that marriage has always been a contract between two individuals and their God. So the why did the government get involved? To collect a 'tax' on something people wanted to do? If so, the course will hold and all states will continue to push for gay marriage so they can collect based on all citizens. I remember a time when the gay community said what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults is no ones business... Now it seems the prevailing attitude is that what happens in the bedroom must be accepted by everyone or we'll attempt to force our beliefs/lifestyle upon you. Maybe I'm too old and conservative.

[Ronin13]

How about keeping all levels of government out of marriage? This of course would require some changes in tax code, and may be a fine argument for a flat tax. My opinion is that marriage has always been a contract between two individuals and their God. So the why did the government get involved? To collect a 'tax' on something people wanted to do? If so, the course will hold and all states will continue to push for gay marriage so they can collect based on all citizens. I remember a time when the gay community said what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults is no ones business... Now it seems the prevailing attitude is that what happens in the bedroom must be accepted by everyone or we'll attempt to force our beliefs/lifestyle upon you. Maybe I'm too old and conservative.
Couldn't agree more. I honestly don't care who loves who, that's between them, and the government shouldn't be involved. As for your 2nd to last sentence, SPOT ON! That is what pisses me off about the gay community- honestly, I couldn't possibly care any less what floats their boat, but when they push for "acceptance" by everyone, thus negating the freedom of choice, religion, and thought, they have crossed a line.

[RblDiver]

Indeed, we should just go to a flat sales tax instead of income tax and get the gov't out of marriage. Of course, this should include the right of people to decline that which goes against their beliefs; if a baker doesn't want to make a "wedding" cake for a gay couple, let 'em, don't let them be sued!

My bigger concern for the future, though, is that standing issue I mentioned earlier. If the state won't defend it, who can?

[RblDiver]

but when they push for "acceptance" by everyone, thus negating the freedom of choice, religion, and thought, they have crossed a line.

Bingo. A priest and friend staying with me said he voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Minnesota, but that doesn't mean he supports gay marriage. I'm sure this last bit'd make people label him as hateful.

[asmo]

From the Prop 8 decision so everyone is on the same page:

From the Chief Justice’s opinion:




The public is currently engaged in an active political debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. That question has also given rise to litigation. In this case, petitioners, who oppose same-sex marriage, ask us to decide whether the Equal Protection Clause “prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.” Pet. for Cert. i. Respondents, same-sex couples who wish to marry, view the issue in somewhat different terms: For them, it is whether California—having previously recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry—may reverse that decision through a referendum.

Federal courts have authority under the Constitution to answer such questions only if necessary to do so in the course of deciding an actual “case” or “controversy.” As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of dispute, but only those “historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 95 (1968). This is an essential limit on our power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives.

For there to be such a case or controversy, it is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue. That party must also have “standing,” which requires, among other things, that it have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit.



Here is how his opinion concludes:




We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

[Dave]

How about keeping all levels of government out of marriage? This of course would require some changes in tax code, and may be a fine argument for a flat tax. My opinion is that marriage has always been a contract between two individuals and their God. So the why did the government get involved? To collect a 'tax' on something people wanted to do? If so, the course will hold and all states will continue to push for gay marriage so they can collect based on all citizens. I remember a time when the gay community said what happens in the bedroom of two consenting adults is no ones business... Now it seems the prevailing attitude is that what happens in the bedroom must be accepted by everyone or we'll attempt to force our beliefs/lifestyle upon you. Maybe I'm too old and conservative.

It would be ideal, except when divorce comes into play. Laws and courts have to be there to preside over what is usually the worst proceedings a judge will ever hear.

I'm with the whole keep it in the bedroom idea, as long as it's two consenting adults. But I also don't need to see it flaunted out in public. I'm not a huge fan of straight people groping each other in a park either, get a room, and that means everyone.

[RblDiver]

Thanks for that Asmo, I have a hard time following all the legalese.

They said to have the 9th dismiss the case. Do you know if this was the case which itself repealed Prop 8, or if this was one trying to defend it?

[ImNtUrBuddyGuy]

Thanks for that Asmo, I have a hard time following all the legalese.

They said to have the 9th dismiss the case. Do you know if this was the case which itself repealed Prop 8, or if this was one trying to defend it?

SCOUTS says that the plaintiffs do not have legal standing to defend prop 8, it is the states job to do this. So it is referring the decision to the lower courts, which is the California Supreme Court. Which essentially repeals prop 8 (based on the previous lower court decision).

[RblDiver]

SCOUTS says that the plaintiffs do not have legal standing to defend prop 8, it is the states job to do this. So it is referring the decision to the lower courts, which is the California Supreme Court. Which essentially repeals prop 8 (based on the previous lower court decision).

*Sigh* Thought as much. So much for the rights of We the People.

[asmo]

It would be ideal, except when divorce comes into play. Laws and courts have to be there to preside over what is usually the worst proceedings a judge will ever hear.

I call bullshit. Marriage, from a pure legal ideal, is nothing more than a contract between two people. There is nothing special about a marriage that requires anything special from the courts. There is ZERO reason why the gubment should be involved in marriage in any way.

[3beansalad]

Civil courts can and do handle divorces... no need for government regulation beyond that. Since the government IS involved in marriage, why not make it much harder to get out of a marriage?

Hell, the only benefit I can see of gay marriage is economic. No one throws a party like a gay guys!

[BushMasterBoy]

Yeah I can see a enlisted man and his family denied living in military housing because some higher ranking homosexual and his gay lover(spouse) have priority...so the .gov has no say in this? Pretty disgusting to me, but I guess conservative traditionalist are all wrong. So now we are forced to give security clearances to people like Bradley Manning...meanwhile Colorado is burning. The people have elected some real idiots this time around!

[Madeinhb]

Indeed, we should just go to a flat sales tax instead of income tax and get the gov't out of marriage. Of course, this should include the right of people to decline that which goes against their beliefs; if a baker doesn't want to make a "wedding" cake for a gay couple, let 'em, don't let them be sued!

My bigger concern for the future, though, is that standing issue I mentioned earlier. If the state won't defend it, who can?

They have the right to refuse service.

[lowbeyond]

Why does the State have to insert itself into marriage? All marrage is, as it pertains the the State, is a bundle of contracts. Why should you be restricted in contracting to who you want ?

You want to get Married, go to a church.

[RblDiver]

They have the right to refuse service.

There's a lawsuit going on where the couple is suing the baker for discrimination. That's what I'm against.


Edit (so I'm not just increasing my postcount even more lol): The first part of this article says what I'm most worried about, that the people's decisions don't mean jack if the state disagrees: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8-follow-up-whats-left-of-popular-referendums-now/

[Madeinhb]

There's a lawsuit going on where the couple is suing the baker for discrimination. That's what I'm against.


Edit (so I'm not just increasing my postcount even more lol): The first part of this article says what I'm most worried about, that the people's decisions don't mean jack if the state disagrees: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/26/supreme-court-prop-8-follow-up-whats-left-of-popular-referendums-now/

They might sue over it, but it's a he said she said debate. Baker could just say that he is busy and won't be able to make the cake. I don't see how a court can force/dictate a business who they can do business with.

[RblDiver]

They might sue over it, but it's a he said she said debate. Baker could just say that he is busy and won't be able to make the cake. I don't see how a court can force/dictate a business who they can do business with.

Well, for example the, what is it called, Federal Fair Housing Act or somesuch, you can't discriminate who you rent to, etc. I'm sure they'll argue it along these sorts of lines.

[davsel]

From:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/26/gay-marriage-religious-freedom-are-incompatible/

...
- A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.
- A same-sex couple from California sued a Hawaiian bed and breakfast privately owned by a Christian woman for not allowing them to rent a room.
- A bed and breakfast in Alton privately owned by a Christian couple was sued when they would not host a same-sex civil union ceremony.
- Owners of a small, privately owned inn in Vermont declined to host a same sex wedding reception due to their religious views and were sued.
- An employee of Allstate insurance wrote an essay online disagreeing with same-sex marriage and was reportedly fired from his job as a result.
- Catholic Charities was barred from assisting in adoptions in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and Illinois and excluded from future contracts because it declined to consider same sex couples. Sorry kids, but the agenda impresarios need to make an example.
There are even more examples. The fight has only just begun. Might as well stop trying to convince yourself it hasn't.

[sellersm]

Lord have mercy, we are toast... Man has no business trying to "redefine" what he didn't create. The current is gaining strength...

[ImNtUrBuddyGuy]

Yeah I can see a enlisted man and his family denied living in military housing because some higher ranking homosexual and his gay lover(spouse) have priority...so the .gov has no say in this? Pretty disgusting to me, but I guess conservative traditionalist are all wrong. So now we are forced to give security clearances to people like Bradley Manning...meanwhile Colorado is burning. The people have elected some real idiots this time around!

What does Bradley Manning have to do with this? Is it because he is gay? I don't think him being gay has anything to do with him being a traitor.

[davsel]

What does Bradley Manning have to do with this? Is it because he is gay? I don't think him being gay has anything to do with him being a traitor.

When I was interviewed for my first clearance in '87, there were more questions about homosexuality than anything else.
They are statistically less mentally stable, and more easily coerced/blackmailed than normal people.

[ImNtUrBuddyGuy]

When I was interviewed for my first clearance in '87, there were more questions about homosexuality than anything else.
They are statistically less mentally stable, and more easily coerced/blackmailed than normal people.

There are plenty of guys I know in the military who unfortunately have mental issues (PTSD, TBI) who still have their clearance. Straight people are just as easily blackmailed because for other reasons; I knew a few guys who lost their clearance because of extramarital affairs.

So are you saying combat vets shouldn't get a clearance either?

[davsel]

There are plenty of guys I know in the military who unfortunately have mental issues (PTSD, TBI) who still have their clearance. Straight people are just as easily blackmailed because for other reasons; I knew a few guys who lost their clearance because of extramarital affairs.

So are you saying combat vets shouldn't get a clearance either?

Really? That's what you got from my post?
Try reading it again and not trying to put words in my mouth.

[asmo]

When I was interviewed for my first clearance in '87, there were more questions about homosexuality than anything else.

Back then there was more of a stigma associated with homosexuality and so it was easier to be blackmailed because of it. I know many GLBT people with clearances - both CI and FS. Even back then they didn't care if you were gay/lesbian so as long as you were totally out of the closet and open about it -- if you are open about it you cant be blackmailed because of it. I seem to remember sitting in a meeting in NoVA w/ a man named "Kathy" -- way back in 1992.


They are statistically less mentally stable, and more easily coerced/blackmailed than normal people.

Utter and complete bullshit in every possible way. You are a truly ignorant fool if you believe that. I dare you to find a peer-reviewed journal article that can back up that claim.

[davsel]

Utter and complete bullshit in every possible way. You are a truly ignorant fool if you believe that. I dare you to find a peer-reviewed journal article that can back up that claim.

Dare Accepted:

From:http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

Population-based studies
Several large population-based public health studies are discussed in the November American Psychologist (Vol. 56, No. 11) (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/amp/index.aspx) by Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies. Specifically, the studies find:


[*=left]Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth.
[*=left]Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men.
[*=left]Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners.
[*=left]Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.

Gleaning this type of information on LGB people has never been possible in general surveys before, Cochran notes. However, because the surveys on which these studies are based examine HIV-risk factors, including psychiatric problems and sexual behavior, they include questions on sexual orientation and sexual partners, she says.
"It's a breakthrough because it has traditionally been difficult to gather large samples of gays, lesbians and bisexuals due to their small numbers in the population," Cochran explains.
The data contradict previous findings that there are no significant differences in the mental health of heterosexuals and LGB people, adds Cochran, who notes she is concerned that these findings may give ammunition to people who want to falsely promulgate the argument that gay people are by nature mentally ill.
For one thing, she says, "these are certainly not levels of morbidity consistent with models that say homosexuality is inherently pathological." For another, the data simply don't prove either pro- or anti-gay arguments on the subject, whether it's that the inherent biology of homosexuality causes mental illness or that social stigma provokes mental illness in LGB people, she says.
Cochran believes the studies demonstrate the need for better psychological treatment for LGB people--an observation consistent with the U.S. Surgeon General's recommendations in his report on sexuality and health, she observes.

[Ronin13]

Dare Accepted:

From:http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

Population-based studies
Several large population-based public health studies are discussed in the November American Psychologist (Vol. 56, No. 11) (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/amp/index.aspx) by Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies. Specifically, the studies find:


[*=left]Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth.
[*=left]Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men.
[*=left]Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners.
[*=left]Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.

Gleaning this type of information on LGB people has never been possible in general surveys before, Cochran notes. However, because the surveys on which these studies are based examine HIV-risk factors, including psychiatric problems and sexual behavior, they include questions on sexual orientation and sexual partners, she says.
"It's a breakthrough because it has traditionally been difficult to gather large samples of gays, lesbians and bisexuals due to their small numbers in the population," Cochran explains.
The data contradict previous findings that there are no significant differences in the mental health of heterosexuals and LGB people, adds Cochran, who notes she is concerned that these findings may give ammunition to people who want to falsely promulgate the argument that gay people are by nature mentally ill.
For one thing, she says, "these are certainly not levels of morbidity consistent with models that say homosexuality is inherently pathological." For another, the data simply don't prove either pro- or anti-gay arguments on the subject, whether it's that the inherent biology of homosexuality causes mental illness or that social stigma provokes mental illness in LGB people, she says.
Cochran believes the studies demonstrate the need for better psychological treatment for LGB people--an observation consistent with the U.S. Surgeon General's recommendations in his report on sexuality and health, she observes.





I can concur with the legitimacy of this- my dad's golf buddy is a psychologist who deals with a lot of LGBT folks, especially TS/TG/TV and he says they are much more likely to be depressed, suicidal, and have issues integrating into society post-op/post change. 20+ years experience counseling and he says that mental illness is a greater issue affecting LGBT than straight people... and it's kind of sad, mostly due to the unwillingness of society to accept them normally.

[Madeinhb]

Dare Accepted:

From:http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx



[*=left]Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth.
[*=left]Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men.
[*=left]Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners.
[*=left]Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.


[/FONT][/COLOR]


Really? So you can't think and just believe what you read. Depression? Could they be depressed about how they are treated, etc. Depression comes various things. Suicide? Could that be because people don't accept them? The same reason any kid 15-whatever age would kill them self. So straight people who commit suicide are of sound mind? Sorry nothing listed can attribute to gays. And by the way, here is a quote from the APA in Oct 2012.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

[Madeinhb]

I can concur with the legitimacy of this- my dad's golf buddy is a psychologist who deals with a lot of LGBT folks, especially TS/TG/TV and he says they are much more likely to be depressed, suicidal, and have issues integrating into society post-op/post change. 20+ years experience counseling and he says that mental illness is a greater issue affecting LGBT than straight people... and it's kind of sad, mostly due to the unwillingness of society to accept them normally.

Right - but what's the reasoning to it? The have a disorder or is this caused because people don't accept them and treat them as outcasts.

If a teenager is treated the same way, those teenagers can be depressed, etc. do they have a mental disorder?

[Rucker61]

Right - but what's the reasoning to it? The have a disorder or is this caused because people don't accept them and treat them as outcasts.

If a teenager is treated the same way, those teenagers can be depressed, etc. do they have a mental disorder?

They are still teenagers, so yes.

[Madeinhb]

They are still teenagers, so yes.

This is ignorant. Teenagers don't have a mental disorder then they hit 20 and its gone.

[asmo]

Dare Accepted:

From:http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx

Population-based studies
Several large population-based public health studies are discussed in the November American Psychologist (Vol. 56, No. 11) (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/amp/index.aspx) by Susan Cochran, PhD, an epidemiologist in the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Health, who authored or co-authored many of the studies. Specifically, the studies find:


[*=left]Higher rates of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder and substance use or dependence in lesbian and gay youth.
[*=left]Higher rates of recurrent major depression among gay men.
[*=left]Higher rates of anxiety, mood and substance use disorders, and suicidal thoughts among people ages 15 to 54 with same-sex partners.
[*=left]Higher use of mental health services in men and women reporting same-sex partners.

Gleaning this type of information on LGB people has never been possible in general surveys before, Cochran notes. However, because the surveys on which these studies are based examine HIV-risk factors, including psychiatric problems and sexual behavior, they include questions on sexual orientation and sexual partners, she says.
"It's a breakthrough because it has traditionally been difficult to gather large samples of gays, lesbians and bisexuals due to their small numbers in the population," Cochran explains.
The data contradict previous findings that there are no significant differences in the mental health of heterosexuals and LGB people, adds Cochran, who notes she is concerned that these findings may give ammunition to people who want to falsely promulgate the argument that gay people are by nature mentally ill.
For one thing, she says, "these are certainly not levels of morbidity consistent with models that say homosexuality is inherently pathological." For another, the data simply don't prove either pro- or anti-gay arguments on the subject, whether it's that the inherent biology of homosexuality causes mental illness or that social stigma provokes mental illness in LGB people, she says.
Cochran believes the studies demonstrate the need for better psychological treatment for LGB people--an observation consistent with the U.S. Surgeon General's recommendations in his report on sexuality and health, she observes.




You actually need to read many of her articles -- including the rest of the one you cited:



Susan Cochran [PhD] and psychologist Vickie M. Mays, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, explored whether ongoing discrimination fuels anxiety, depression and other stress-related mental health problems among LGB people. The authors found strong evidence of a relationship between the two


Like I intimated.. The more people accept it - and the more they are out - the less of a problem.

[Ronin13]

Right - but what's the reasoning to it? The have a disorder or is this caused because people don't accept them and treat them as outcasts.
Read the last sentence... he says it's an issue with acceptance, either by societal standards or being ostracized by their family. Either way, the correlations are undeniable. I forsee, in terms of the military- because been there, done that, served with gays, both male and female- this is something that won't end suddenly just because DADT is repealed, it will take years, especially with the machismo mentality of the military. It's perhaps 10x more of a hostile environment for gays than the rest of society...

[SA Friday]

When I was interviewed for my first clearance in '87, there were more questions about homosexuality than anything else.
They are statistically less mentally stable, and more easily coerced/blackmailed than normal people.
Well, having done at least a paperwork ton worth of backgrounds for top secret clearances for the Air Force in my time, I can tell you that is completely twisted...

Homosexuality was such an issue because the military made it one, pure plain and simple. Remove the stigma and repercussions of being gay and all these questions don't mean squat. The blackmail leverage was purely self inflicted for the sake of religious beliefs and big burley men afraid some gay man is going to look as his vienna sausage in the shower.

Blackmail for infidelity is the same problem, completely self inflicted. Infidelity is simply not prosecuted under normal circumstances, certainly not in cases where blackmail for classified information is occurring. I can get an immunity letter for this so fast it will break the sound barrier. Hmmm, do I go after the spy or do I go after the guy who had an affair? Man, that'a s tough one. Can't go after both, that pesky self-incriminating thing comes into play... Ya, ok lets go get the spy. [facepalm]

By the way, unless you can cough up some very credible psychological paper indicating homosexuals are mentally unstable more often than heterosexuals, you are simply full of shit. Seriously, this almost sounds like you took a 50's anti-black pamphlet and crossed out black and wrote homo in it's place.

[Madeinhb]

Read the last sentence... he says it's an issue with acceptance, either by societal standards or being ostracized by their family. Either way, the correlations are undeniable. I forsee, in terms of the military- because been there, done that, served with gays, both male and female- this is something that won't end suddenly just because DADT is repealed, it will take years, especially with the machismo mentality of the military. It's perhaps 10x more of a hostile environment for gays than the rest of society...

Yes he did say that, but he posted in bold about depression and suicide as a mental disorder. Depression and suicide doesn't come from being gay. That was my point

[davsel]

OK, I'll spell it out for the non-critical thinkers.

It does not matter the cause of the depression or substance abuse; whether it be from non-acceptance by society, guilt, or just plain hating their life. The fact remains that homosexuals, per-capita, suffer from these mental instabilities to a greater degree than normal people.

You may not agree with their "plight," but your opinion does not change this fact.

Yes, the reason security clearance questions contained a lot of questions about homosexuality in the late '80s is because at that time, "don't ask, don't tell" was not yet in effect. Active duty homosexuals were in the closet and blackmail provided a viable opportunity to turn them (not rocket surgery here). There were also many questions dealing with prostitution, and later the focus seems to have switched to foreign relationships. The only reason they stopped asking about homosexual activity is due to the current gay agenda that has taken over all levels of government making it unacceptable to ask.

Try looking up murder cases involving homosexuals (males especially). There tends to be a more violent aspect to them that is common knowledge among homicide detectives. They are not normal/natural, quite often do not think or behave in a normal/natural manner, and no matter how much that upsets your tender sensibilities, it does not change the facts. No matter how much you or I wish it was different, it simply is not, and never will be.

It does not matter how many judges "rule" that there is no difference between homosexual and normal marriages/families/child rearing/... it simply does not make it so. No matter how many poles are taken by gay activist organizations, it does not make it so.

The sooner you accept the facts, the quicker we may get this country back on the right track. However, I'm afraid it is sadly too late. History repeats itself. Welcome to Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Greece, Rome, America.

[asmo]

As I have said more times that I can count... Individual liberty means just that. You are either for adults making adult decisions and living with the consequences within their own lives or you are for someone else controlling aspects of your life that bear no consequence to them.

To quote someone who was very anti-gay, but VERY individual liberty: "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

You cannot be for individual liberty on one hand yet try to enforce your limited view and morals on others -- unless you are a hypocrite. There is no other way.

In other words - some dudes like to have sex with other dudes. Deal with it. What goes on in their bedrooms doesn't affect you in any way so why the fuck should you care -- unless you are jealous or want to be part of the party..

[davsel]

As I have said more times that I can count... Individual liberty means just that. You are either for adults making adult decisions and living with the consequences within their own lives or you are for someone else controlling aspects of your life that bear no consequence to them.

To quote someone who was very anti-gay, but VERY individual liberty: "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

You cannot be for individual liberty on one hand yet try to enforce your limited view and morals on others -- unless you are a hypocrite. There is no other way.

In other words - some dudes like to have sex with other dudes. Deal with it. What goes on in their bedrooms doesn't affect you in any way so why the fuck should you care -- unless you are jealous or want to be part of the party..

It appears you are suggesting that anyone who believes in liberty should not be prosecuting anyone for murder, rape, theft, bestiality, incest, etc.

Yes, society enforces morals. It's called CIVILIZATION.

Your morals do not align with mine. That is not a problem for me. I know where I derive mine, and have confidence in their validity. YMMV

[jhood001]

It appears you are suggesting that anyone who believes in liberty should not be prosecuting anyone for murder, rape, theft, bestiality, incest, etc.



Your shit for brains argument presented cases that all included force and not consent.

Do you know what 'liberty' means?


I didn't think so.

[jhood001]

Your morals do not align with mine. That is not a problem for me. I know where I derive mine, and have confidence in their validity. YMMV

And while I'm at it:

Do your morals, that I assume come from some divine instruction, include the right to control and rule over any man other than yourself? Yeah, mileage will vary for those of us that can extend the freedoms we believe in for ourselves to others... Not matter how much we disagree with them.

[asmo]

Do you know what 'liberty' means?

Jhood001 your next beer is on me.

For davesel, who believes that liberty is everyone believing what he thinks is correct (which is absolutely no different from utter oppression).

lib·er·ty

/ˈlibərtē/
Noun


The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

[asmo]

One thing, for anyone who is truly thinks they are pro-liberty but against recognized homosexuality (or anything else), you REALLY need to read Jefferson. Deeply and faithfully read what some dead guys in the 1700's wrote - it is the concentration and distillation of centuries of philosophical and religious writings.

[davsel]

Your shit for brains argument presented cases that all included force and not consent.

Do you know what 'liberty' means?


I didn't think so.

Forgive me, I thought you could expand on the theme through my use of "etc."
Let's try prostitution, bigamy, drug possession, AND ALL OTHER NON-FORCEFUL OR NON-CONSENSUAL STATUTES PRESENT THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

[davsel]

And while I'm at it:

Do your morals, that I assume come from some divine instruction, include the right to control and rule over any man other than yourself? Yeah, mileage will vary for those of us that can extend the freedoms we believe in for ourselves to others... Not matter how much we disagree with them.

Yes, they do, and no, they don't.

I have never attempted to restrict anyone, homosexual or otherwise, from being free to marry a consenting member of the opposite sex - a freedom I believe in for myself.

[davsel]

Jhood001 your next beer is on me.

For davesel, who believes that liberty is everyone believing what he thinks is correct (which is absolutely no different from utter oppression).

lib·er·ty

/ˈlibərtē/
Noun


The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.



Another one attempting to put words in my mouth.

mor·al

/ˈmôrəl/

Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

Noun
A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.

Synonyms
adjective. ethical - ethic - virtuous
noun. morality - morals - ethics - morale - lesson



Please direct me to the post where I stated anything along the line of wanting to impose my beliefs on anyone else. I have mine, you have yours, we disagree, I'm OK with that.

What you would prefer I do is either adopt your morals or keep my mouth shut. Not gonna happen - on either front.

[Madeinhb]

OK, I'll spell it out for the non-critical thinkers.

It does not matter the cause of the depression or substance abuse; whether it be from non-acceptance by society, guilt, or just plain hating their life. The fact remains that homosexuals, per-capita, suffer from these mental instabilities to a greater degree than normal people.

Depression is a feeling. Only when it becomes a clinical depression is it considered a mental disorder. Everyone feels depression in their lives at some point. So to say that gays have mental disorders because of depression can be misleading and inaccurate.

[Madeinhb]

The sooner you accept the facts, the quicker we may get this country back on the right track. However, I'm afraid it is sadly too late. History repeats itself. Welcome to Sodom, Gomorrah, Egypt, Greece, Rome, America.

Haha this has to be the most narcissistic statement. So only your opinion counts and once we all accept it, this country will be better?

[Ronin13]

To anyone who claims that the gay rights issue is akin to the civil rights fight of the 50's, 60's and 70's... If this offends you, tough...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/945628_623141377696374_1276557239_n.jpg

[Rabid]

To anyone who claims that the gay rights issue is akin to the civil rights fight of the 50's, 60's and 70's... If this offends you, tough...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/945628_623141377696374_1276557239_n.jpg

Well obviously MLK did not get shot for gay rights. To say they are not akin (of similar character) to each other is just plain wrong by definition. Gay rights, civil rights, womans rights and going all the way back to our original fight for our rights, the war of Independence, are akin. If that offends you, i am sorry.

[davsel]

Well obviously MLK did not get shot for gay rights. To say they are not akin (of similar character) to each other is just plain wrong by definition. Gay rights, civil rights, womans rights and going all the way back to our original fight for our rights, the war of Independence, are akin. If that offends you, i am sorry.


Maybe this will help you understand the difference:

From: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-gay-marriage-isnt-like-the-civil-rights-struggle/

...
This is not to say that gay Americans who wish to have the full benefits of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples don’t face adversity. That’s a major part of the current debate. But it is to say that any hardship they face can’t compare to what black Americans faced 50 or 150 years ago.

There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal. Still, with the possible exception of the mistreatment of Native Americans, there has been nothing quite like the systematic exploitation and institutional degradation experienced by earlier black Americans.

My purpose here is not to belittle the fight for gay marriage, only to note that those who keep attempting to draw a reasonable comparison to the struggle of African-Americans are in many ways belittling the black experience in the United States.

[Madeinhb]

I agree with that. Gays deal with their own issues. But they are no where equal to the same as blacks.

[Rooskibar03]

Civil rights is the lefts term for what we call The Bill of Rights. Its two sides of the same coin.

I personally don't believe I gay marriage but I also don't think government avoid have any hand marriage.

[generalmeow]

An argument I've heard often is that it doesn't affect me in any way, so I shouldn't worry about it. Why do I care?

I saw a great response from someone. "Dog fighting doesn't affect me in any way either, but it's not legal for moral reasons."

In truth, I don't care at all, except virtually all gays are liberal, and I am in favor of people standing in the way of liberals getting anything they want, up to and including oxygen.

[Rabid]

Maybe this will help you understand the difference:

From: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-gay-marriage-isnt-like-the-civil-rights-struggle/

...
This is not to say that gay Americans who wish to have the full benefits of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples don’t face adversity. That’s a major part of the current debate. But it is to say that any hardship they face can’t compare to what black Americans faced 50 or 150 years ago.

There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal. Still, with the possible exception of the mistreatment of Native Americans, there has been nothing quite like the systematic exploitation and institutional degradation experienced by earlier black Americans.

My purpose here is not to belittle the fight for gay marriage, only to note that those who keep attempting to draw a reasonable comparison to the struggle of African-Americans are in many ways belittling the black experience in the United States.


It is still a fight for rights, period.

[Ronin13]

Well obviously MLK did not get shot for gay rights. To say they are not akin (of similar character) to each other is just plain wrong by definition. Gay rights, civil rights, womans rights and going all the way back to our original fight for our rights, the war of Independence, are akin. If that offends you, i am sorry.
Not offended, because that's false. It's deceptive, dishonest, and unfair to equate gay rights to the civil rights movement. No one is denying gays voting rights. No one is saying gays can't drink from the same water fountains as straights, no one is lynching gays (save for very rare and extreme examples)... this isn't about equality and justice in life- they are fighting for ONE tiny facet of American life, and one that isn't even guaranteed anywhere. Not saying I don't support their plight, I just don't support their dishonest campaign where they try to deceive and bully opponents by equating those who don't agree with racists or even the KKK. In other words, as Davsel quoted...

Maybe this will help you understand the difference:

From: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-gay-marriage-isnt-like-the-civil-rights-struggle/

...
This is not to say that gay Americans who wish to have the full benefits of marriage afforded to heterosexual couples don’t face adversity. That’s a major part of the current debate. But it is to say that any hardship they face can’t compare to what black Americans faced 50 or 150 years ago.

There have been instances during the gay-rights movement that arguably could be compared to the black civil rights struggle, like the Stonewall riots of the 1960s or Matthew Shepard murder in 1998. Suicides and other problems related to public attitudes about homosexuality have also unquestionably been a horrible ordeal. Still, with the possible exception of the mistreatment of Native Americans, there has been nothing quite like the systematic exploitation and institutional degradation experienced by earlier black Americans.

My purpose here is not to belittle the fight for gay marriage, only to note that those who keep attempting to draw a reasonable comparison to the struggle of African-Americans are in many ways belittling the black experience in the United States.


THIS!

[Rabid]

An argument I've heard often is that it doesn't affect me in any way, so I shouldn't worry about it. Why do I care?

I saw a great response from someone. "Dog fighting doesn't affect me in any way either, but it's not legal for moral reasons."

In truth, I don't care at all, except virtually all gays are liberal, and I am in favor of people standing in the way of liberals getting anything they want, up to and including oxygen.
Republicans made them liberals by not excepting them. If anything having this issue off the table is going to help win Republicans seats in political races.

[generalmeow]

Republicans made them liberals but not excepting them. If anything having this issue off the table is going to help win Republicans seats in political races.

Has any argument ever ended without "It's the republican's fault"? Is it possible? For once? Please?

I'm proof that you can be conservative and not be a Republican. You don't even have to like the Republican party (I don't). So how does not liking Republicans make you a liberal now? Republicans drove me away, and it has never crossed my mind to consider becoming liberal.

[Rabid]

Not offended, because that's false. It's deceptive, dishonest, and unfair to equate gay rights to the civil rights movement. No one is denying gays voting rights. No one is saying gays can't drink from the same water fountains as straights, no one is lynching gays (save for very rare and extreme examples)... this isn't about equality and justice in life- they are fighting for ONE tiny facet of American life, and one that isn't even guaranteed anywhere. Not saying I don't support their plight, I just don't support their dishonest campaign where they try to deceive and bully opponents by equating those who don't agree with racists or even the KKK. In other words, as Davsel quoted...

THIS!
Are they fighting for a right, maybe the right that all men are equal? Yes they are. It is not a false statement because all i listed were akin in fighting for their rights. Just because it is for one right instead of a lot of rights makes it no less important.

The government decided to have marriage licenses. I am with you on this one and think there is no reason for it and if we do have them call it a civil union licenses, a marriage is for the church to decide. I get a rather uneasy feeling when i see two men kiss in public but i know it is not for me to say they are not equal. Not allowing them to a marriage license that a hedro-sexual couple can get is not equal. As i see it when the government decided to have a marriage license the word marriage gained a separate meaning, that meaning being "union" because there is a separation between church and state.

[Rabid]

Has any argument ever ended without "It's the republican's fault"? Is it possible? For once? Please?

I'm proof that you can be conservative and not be a Republican. You don't even have to like the Republican party (I don't). So how does not liking Republicans make you a liberal now? Republicans drove me away, and it has never crossed my mind to consider becoming liberal.
It is their fault that the gays are for the most part liberal but not their fault for the whole argument. All i am saying is we have a 2 party system and for the most part a vote on a 3rd party is generally seen as a waste. Also i am not blaming all Republican's but they are the party that generally is seen as against gay rights, if your gay and being able to marry is important to you i doubt you will vote for a republican.

[generalmeow]

It is their fault that the gays are for the most part liberal but not their fault for the whole argument. All i am saying is we have a 2 party system and for the most part a vote on a 3rd party is generally seen as a waste. Also i am not blaming all Republican's but they are the party that generally is seen as against gay rights, if your gay and being able to marry is important to you i doubt you will vote for a republican.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between Republican and Conservative. You're saying because Republicans piss them off, they are now liberal. That's ridiculous. If you're conservative, but don't like Republicans, you don't become a liberal. That's the last thing you'd do.

All else being equal, you'd expect gays to be Libertarian. But the thing that makes you gay also must make you liberal. Liberals act on emotion, and the gays I've known are pretty emotional compared to straight guys I know. So that makes sense. Women also tend to lean left.

[Ronin13]

Are they fighting for a right, maybe the right that all men are equal? Yes they are. It is not a false statement because all i listed were akin in fighting for their rights. Just because it is for one right instead of a lot of rights makes it no less important.
But you're taking my argument out of context. I'm not saying that it's not about rights and equality, I'm simply saying it's a bullying tactic to equate the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement. Basically it's like saying "You don't agree with me? You don't think the same way? You're a bigot and a racist!" It's wholly not fair and very underhanded tactics. It leaves nothing open for differences of opinions because one side has already cast the differing view as evil and mean spirited instead of just different. That's all it is. I don't care if someone is gay or not, I personally do not care who loves who- but when you bully and berate differing opinions simply for being different (acting upon those opinions is a completely different matter as not all who disagree with gay rights are actually doing anything to infringe upon them) that is where my opinion of that person is reduced to near nothing, and I take issue with it. It's dishonest and rude. Plus when their opinions are forced on others and others are made to "accept" something they don't agree with, I also take issue.

It is their fault that the gays are for the most part liberal but not their fault for the whole argument. All i am saying is we have a 2 party system and for the most part a vote on a 3rd party is generally seen as a waste. Also i am not blaming all Republican's but they are the party that generally is seen as against gay rights, if your gay and being able to marry is important to you i doubt you will vote for a republican.
You again fail to realize the republican party (traditionally) is viewed as the more "traditionally christian" party. Most Christian people view marriage as being a man and a woman and same sex couples should never be defined as 'married.' Most Christians wouldn't care if you called it something else, just don't call it "marriage."

[Rabid]

You don't seem to grasp the difference between Republican and Conservative. You're saying because Republicans piss them off, they are now liberal. That's ridiculous. If you're conservative, but don't like Republicans, you don't become a liberal. That's the last thing you'd do.

All else being equal, you'd expect gays to be Libertarian. But the thing that makes you gay also must make you liberal. Liberals act on emotion, and the gays I've known are pretty emotional compared to straight guys I know. So that makes sense. Women also tend to lean left.
I grasp the difference quite well and yes liberal or not in a 2 party system the Republicans pissed them off so they vote for a Democrat.

[Rabid]

But you're taking my argument out of context. I'm not saying that it's not about rights and equality, I'm simply saying it's a bullying tactic to equate the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement. Basically it's like saying "You don't agree with me? You don't think the same way? You're a bigot and a racist!" It's wholly not fair and very underhanded tactics. It leaves nothing open for differences of opinions because one side has already cast the differing view as evil and mean spirited instead of just different. That's all it is. I don't care if someone is gay or not, I personally do not care who loves who- but when you bully and berate differing opinions simply for being different (acting upon those opinions is a completely different matter as not all who disagree with gay rights are actually doing anything to infringe upon them) that is where my opinion of that person is reduced to near nothing, and I take issue with it. It's dishonest and rude. Plus when their opinions are forced on others and others are made to "accept" something they don't agree with, I also take issue.

You again fail to realize the republican party (traditionally) is viewed as the more "traditionally christian" party. Most Christian people view marriage as being a man and a woman and same sex couples should never be defined as 'married.' Most Christians wouldn't care if you called it something else, just don't call it "marriage."

I will agree with what you have said for the most part but with a one liner like this:

To anyone who claims that the gay rights issue is akin to the civil rights fight of the 50's, 60's and 70's... If this offends you, tough...
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/q71/945628_623141377696374_1276557239_n.jpg
It is hard to understand that was the point you were making in the first place.


I know it is viewed as the more "traditionally christian" party but we are not living in a separate but equal world anymore so i can see the frustration on both sides.

[asmo]

Republicans made them liberals by not excepting them. If anything having this issue off the table is going to help win Republicans seats in political races.

I have several non-breeder friends who all say that they would like to vote republican (for financial conservative reasoning) but their not going to vote against 'who they are'.. Think of them as single issue votes. Question is what happens when you remove the single issue.

[Jumpstart]

Republicans made them liberals by not excepting them. If anything having this issue off the table is going to help win Republicans seats in political races.
Log Cabin Republicans. But anyway, if homosexuals are allowed to marry then anti-polygamy laws should be next to go, it's only fair.....

[Ronin13]

It is hard to understand that was the point you were making in the first place.
Just asking for some honesty (I know, that's asking a lot this day in age), call it Gay rights, stop trying to dress it up as civil rights so they can brand the opposition as bigots or evil.


Log Cabin Republicans. But anyway, if homosexuals are allowed to marry then anti-polygamy laws should be next to go, it's only fair.....
Why do people draw that conclusion? Take a step back and realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds... "Well if gays can marry then what's next? Polygamists? Pedophiles? Beastiality?" Come the hell on, that's reaching...

[RblDiver]

Why do people draw that conclusion? Take a step back and realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds... "Well if gays can marry then what's next? Polygamists? Pedophiles? Beastiality?" Come the hell on, that's reaching...

Why is it reaching? If the argument for gay marriage is "let you marry who you love," then why is polygamy any different?

I think it was on the Michael Brown show (may have been Glenn Beck, can't remember), they presented the interesting idea: "It is perfectly legal for multiple people to live and have sex together, UNTIL they try to get the government to recognize it."

[davsel]

Why is it reaching? If the argument for gay marriage is "let you marry who you love," then why is polygamy any different?

I think it was on the Michael Brown show (may have been Glenn Beck, can't remember), they presented the interesting idea: "It is perfectly legal for multiple people to live and have sex together, UNTIL they try to get the government to recognize it."

Agree.

But first, they will get gay marriage legalized in all 50 states by using the DOMA decision (equal protection). Shouldn't take long.

[asmo]

Polygamy should be legal.. Anything between two (or more) consenting adults -- that does not clearly harm or injure any other party - should be legal.

[Jumpstart]

Why do people draw that conclusion? Take a step back and realize how absolutely ridiculous that sounds... "Well if gays can marry then what's next? Polygamists? Pedophiles? Beastiality?" Come the hell on, that's reaching... I guess it does sound ridiculous, kinda like two men getting "married" to each other.

[Ronin13]

Polygamy should be legal.. Anything between two (or more) consenting adults -- that does not clearly harm or injure any other party - should be legal.
I agree... Polygamy aside, I can't stand it when people go out on a limb and reach with the statements that "first comes gay marriage, then you just watch, next will be pedophiles and animal lovers."

I guess it does sound ridiculous, kinda like two men getting "married" to each other.
If you think two men loving each other is strange or ridiculous, or dare I say wrong, then you might want to come into the 21st century... you know we no longer hunt with clubs and rocks, right?

[Jumpstart]

If you think two men loving each other is strange or ridiculous, or dare I say wrong, then you might want to come into the 21st century... you know we no longer hunt with clubs and rocks, right? I feel homosexuality is evolutionary and innate and the repulsion to it is too, no matter what type of brainwashing occurs in current popular culture.

[Ronin13]

I feel homosexuality is evolutionary and innate and the repulsion to it is too, no matter what type of brainwashing occurs in current popular culture.
Now you're just confusing me... you stated that two men getting married to each other is ridiculous, now you're saying homosexuality is natural? And repulsion to it is as well? Can you clarify, because that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

[davsel]

And so it begins.

From: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/mich-ban-domestic-partner-benefits-blocked


In his 51-page opinion, Lawson cited this week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down a portion of a federal law that barred certain benefits to married same-sex couples.

[Jumpstart]

Now you're just confusing me... you stated that two men getting married to each other is ridiculous, now you're saying homosexuality is natural? And repulsion to it is as well? Can you clarify, because that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. I think marriage should be between a man and a women. There are societal reasons why marriage has been exclusive in most cultures throughout history, I believe in that exclusivity. I also believe that traditional marriage IS the gold standard and should not be devalued with nontraditional derivations. I do not support the aggressive gay agenda. I resist it, it is a sign of a dying culture IMHO. Regressive, not progressive at al ironically. Marriage is for building families, families for building nations.

[RblDiver]

Now you're just confusing me... you stated that two men getting married to each other is ridiculous, now you're saying homosexuality is natural? And repulsion to it is as well? Can you clarify, because that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

I think he's saying that homosexuality is a normal thing, but it's also normal for people to be turned off by it.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Gay folks deserve to be just as miserable as us straight folks. They're gonna have to deal with divorce like everyone else too.

[Jumpstart]

I think he's saying that homosexuality is a normal thing, but it's also normal for people to be turned off by it.
This. Thanks.

[Jumpstart]

Gay folks deserve to be just as miserable as us straight folks. They're gonna have to deal with divorce like everyone else too. So do polygamists also have this right?

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

So do polygamists also have this right?

Sure. None of my fucking business.

[Ronin13]

I think marriage should be between a man and a women. There are societal reasons why marriage has been exclusive in most cultures throughout history, I believe in that exclusivity. I also believe that traditional marriage IS the gold standard and should not be devalued with nontraditional derivations. I do not support the aggressive gay agenda. I resist it, it is a sign of a dying culture IMHO. Regressive, not progressive at al ironically. Marriage is for building families, families for building nations.
I used to think that way, but how does amending what a marriage is to some people decay or devalue a culture or society? I agree that they're going about it too aggressively, perhaps even disrespectfully (again back to my bullying comments with the gay rights/civil rights argument). But I do not vehemently oppose their desire for equality in terms of federal and state benefits- especially since civil unions do not grant the same rights and treatment as marriage. So traditionally marriage is defined as between a man and woman. Well traditionally defeated enemies in war were regarded as property. Traditions can change, and not always for the degradation of society or morals. You're also insinuating that a same-sex couple cannot build and raise a family. By that logic (I'm assuming you mean because they cannot naturally conceive a child) then sterile straight couples are also regressive. Just applying the same logic. And by the way, the popular opinion of the world (yes, I said world) is that homosexuality is not deviant nor regressive to society or the family unit. There are differing opinions out there, and just because you and a bunch of other people think homosexuality is wrong or whatever your thoughts may be, there is a number of people who have an opposite opinion to yours- ie: my uncle wouldn't agree with your thoughts of what a marriage "should be"- unfortunately he isn't alive today to defend his "gay agenda" position.

[Jumpstart]

Sure. None of my fucking business.
Well apparently it is, because here you are.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Well apparently it is, because here you are.

Does this bother you because of religious beliefs?

[Jumpstart]

I used to think that way, but how does amending what a marriage is to some people decay or devalue a culture or society? I agree that they're going about it too aggressively, perhaps even disrespectfully (again back to my bullying comments with the gay rights/civil rights argument). But I do not vehemently oppose their desire for equality in terms of federal and state benefits- especially since civil unions do not grant the same rights and treatment as marriage. So traditionally marriage is defined as between a man and woman. Well traditionally defeated enemies in war were regarded as property. Traditions can change, and not always for the degradation of society or morals. You're also insinuating that a same-sex couple cannot build and raise a family. By that logic (I'm assuming you mean because they cannot naturally conceive a child) then sterile straight couples are also regressive. Just applying the same logic. And by the way, the popular opinion of the world (yes, I said world) is that homosexuality is not deviant nor regressive to society or the family unit. There are differing opinions out there, and just because you and a bunch of other people think homosexuality is wrong or whatever your thoughts may be, there is a number of people who have an opposite opinion to yours- ie: my uncle wouldn't agree with your thoughts of what a marriage "should be"- unfortunately he isn't alive today to defend his "gay agenda" position. I just think that there are other opinions in dissent/ disagreement with homosexuals agenda that are unfairly smeared/threatened or "bullied" if you will. It's happening right now in federal government jobs.

[Jumpstart]

Does this bother you because of religious beliefs? Negative. On a social, cultural, traditional level.

[Madeinhb]

I think we need to change marriage in government. Call it civil unions for everyone. Straights can get married then apply for a civil union by government. Gays get same civil unions from the government.

[centrarchidae]

I think I'd like to meet someone who is so completely perfect that he has any business even having an opinion about other people's marriages.

In 30-some-off years, it ain't happened yet.

[Madeinhb]

I think I'd like to meet someone who is so completely perfect that he has any business even having an opinion about other people's marriages.

In 30-some-off years, it ain't happened yet.

Has nothing to do with being perfect an other people's lives.

[centrarchidae]

Has nothing to do with being perfect an other people's lives.

Then why are we having this discussion?

Because teh ghey is unnatural? So is walking upright, wiping my ass with paper instead of bare hands, or being able to pick up the phone and having someone bring my fat ass some pizza. Give me unnatural hygiene and convenience food any day.

Because "they" (whoever "they" are) will want to marry their horses or their restaurant-grade kitchen mixers next? Why is it that only the anti-ghey-marriage people ever bring that up? Has anybody (other than the occasional attention whore who gets written up in News of the Weird) ever actually tried that?

Because if we let teh ghey adopt each others kids, then the polygamists will want to as well? Even if, so what? The more people who adopt, the more who are on the hook for taking care of the kids, and the less that the government ends up either raising or paying for them.

Because teh ghey is icky? Damn straight. Gay dudes are gross and lesbians in real life are never like the lesbians on the internet. Even if, so what?

Because teh ghey want to get out of paying estate taxes for inheriting each other's stuff? Can you blame them?

Because gays are bad for kids? Even if that's true (I'm not convinced), so are abusive or negligent straight parents. Are you planning to also call for annulling the marriages of abusive straight parents?

Because "marriage" is a religious word that teh ghey are trying to steal? My marriage license says "marriage license" and was issued by the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder, not previously known to me to be a church.

Because letting gays marry will "destroy" the instittution of marriage? How would that work?

Or, if there's another reason, I must have missed it.

[davsel]

Because of this:

From: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.


I, for one, do not want our society to go backward. But, my faith leaves me little faith in society.

[Madeinhb]

Then why are we having this discussion?

Because teh ghey is unnatural? So is walking upright, wiping my ass with paper instead of bare hands, or being able to pick up the phone and having someone bring my fat ass some pizza. Give me unnatural hygiene and convenience food any day.

Because "they" (whoever "they" are) will want to marry their horses or their restaurant-grade kitchen mixers next? Why is it that only the anti-ghey-marriage people ever bring that up? Has anybody (other than the occasional attention whore who gets written up in News of the Weird) ever actually tried that?

Because if we let teh ghey adopt each others kids, then the polygamists will want to as well? Even if, so what? The more people who adopt, the more who are on the hook for taking care of the kids, and the less that the government ends up either raising or paying for them.

Because teh ghey is icky? Damn straight. Gay dudes are gross and lesbians in real life are never like the lesbians on the internet. Even if, so what?

Because teh ghey want to get out of paying estate taxes for inheriting each other's stuff? Can you blame them?

Because gays are bad for kids? Even if that's true (I'm not convinced), so are abusive or negligent straight parents. Are you planning to also call for annulling the marriages of abusive straight parents?

Because "marriage" is a religious word that teh ghey are trying to steal? My marriage license says "marriage license" and was issued by the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder, not previously known to me to be a church.

Because letting gays marry will "destroy" the instittution of marriage? How would that work?

Or, if there's another reason, I must have missed it.

First, I never said what my belief is. Second, proof read. Hard to read with all the misspellings. Third, it's a moral issue. Some people's morals are its bad and some don't have issues with it. Fourth, a marriage license in the hands of the government was created back in slavery days here. Our government didnt want races mixing, so they made the license. Have to apply. If you were an inter racial couple, you were denied. It's in history books. Fifth, adoption here is retarded. That's why so many people are going out of the country.

Many parts of the world still have child marriages where the bride is usually child. That is their culture. So if those people from that culture live here, should we allow them to marry child brides?

[Madeinhb]

Then why are we having this discussion?

Because teh ghey is unnatural? So is walking upright, wiping my ass with paper instead of bare hands, or being able to pick up the phone and having someone bring my fat ass some pizza. Give me unnatural hygiene and convenience food any day.

Because "they" (whoever "they" are) will want to marry their horses or their restaurant-grade kitchen mixers next? Why is it that only the anti-ghey-marriage people ever bring that up? Has anybody (other than the occasional attention whore who gets written up in News of the Weird) ever actually tried that?

Because if we let teh ghey adopt each others kids, then the polygamists will want to as well? Even if, so what? The more people who adopt, the more who are on the hook for taking care of the kids, and the less that the government ends up either raising or paying for them.

Because teh ghey is icky? Damn straight. Gay dudes are gross and lesbians in real life are never like the lesbians on the internet. Even if, so what?

Because teh ghey want to get out of paying estate taxes for inheriting each other's stuff? Can you blame them?

Because gays are bad for kids? Even if that's true (I'm not convinced), so are abusive or negligent straight parents. Are you planning to also call for annulling the marriages of abusive straight parents?

Because "marriage" is a religious word that teh ghey are trying to steal? My marriage license says "marriage license" and was issued by the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder, not previously known to me to be a church.

Because letting gays marry will "destroy" the instittution of marriage? How would that work?

Or, if there's another reason, I must have missed it.

This country is so worried about people offending someone. People being discriminated against because a business wouldn't sell to them. The list goes on. My opinion is that everyone should be allowed to live how they want. If Michael Vick wants to have dog fights, let him. After all, it's not affecting you. Someone wants to do drugs in their house and doesn't go out to endanger others, it's not affecting you. But the problem is that people want to tell others what's right and wrong based on morals. But then they get pissed when its done back to them.

[spyder]

There are so many hypocrites on this site, it isn't even funny.... You get all fussy when a lib says anything bad about your "rights", but then you have the nerve to get all offended by what others are doing, that does you no harm... You should feel ashamed. If you say it is your religious belief, your religious belief says that you should not be the one to judge... Or, do you pick and choose what rules to live by? Now, I'm not in favor of this, but I'm not against it either... This shit is exactly that. However, I don't want people saying that because my guns scare them, or are against their beliefs, that I shouldn't be able to have them. Most, if not all of us on this site share in that last statement, but I seem to see a lot of people that want to trample on others beliefs because of their "feelings". That's plain and simple bullshit. Pull you damn heads out of your asses, or stop bitching about all of the crap that the dems and libs are trying to pull. You guys sound like liberals, plain and simple, and are treating others, like they treat us (liberals to gun owners). Get over it.

[Madeinhb]

There are so many hypocrites on this site, it isn't even funny.... You get all fussy when a lib says anything bad about your "rights", but then you have the nerve to get all offended by what others are doing, that does you no harm... You should feel ashamed. If you say it is your religious belief, your religious belief says that you should not be the one to judge... Or, do you pick and choose what rules to live by? Now, I'm not in favor of this, but I'm not against it either... This shit is exactly that. However, I don't want people saying that because my guns scare them, or are against their beliefs, that I shouldn't be able to have them. Most, if not all of us on this site share in that last statement, but I seem to see a lot of people that want to trample on others beliefs because of their "feelings". That's plain and simple bullshit. Pull you damn heads out of your asses, or stop bitching about all of the crap that the dems and libs are trying to pull. You guys sound like liberals, plain and simple, and are treating others, like they treat us (liberals to gun owners). Get over it.

Ummm you missed the boat. I'm like you. Not for or against. I'm neutral on gay marriage. But there is a big difference. Liberals want to take away rights given to us. Marriage is not a right written in constitution, bill of rights, etc. hence the moral debate.

I still pose my question: if people say this doesn't affect you, then why does it matter? Dog fighting doesn't affect you, child marriages don't affect you, polygamy, etc. the list goes on. But people say those are morally wrong. Both libs and cons say that. So for gay marriage people can't say they believe its morally wrong?

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

There are so many hypocrites on this site, it isn't even funny.... You get all fussy when a lib says anything bad about your "rights", but then you have the nerve to get all offended by what others are doing, that does you no harm... You should feel ashamed. If you say it is your religious belief, your religious belief says that you should not be the one to judge... Or, do you pick and choose what rules to live by? Now, I'm not in favor of this, but I'm not against it either... This shit is exactly that. However, I don't want people saying that because my guns scare them, or are against their beliefs, that I shouldn't be able to have them. Most, if not all of us on this site share in that last statement, but I seem to see a lot of people that want to trample on others beliefs because of their "feelings". That's plain and simple bullshit. Pull you damn heads out of your asses, or stop bitching about all of the crap that the dems and libs are trying to pull. You guys sound like liberals, plain and simple, and are treating others, like they treat us (liberals to gun owners). Get over it.

This.

The only thing I can is - life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Remember hearing that once? Because it makes someone(including me) squeamish to see dudes kiss doesn't mean they don't deserve liberty.

Also for the Christians check out mathew 7:5.

Mic drop.

im out.

[Skip]

This.

The only thing I can is - life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Remember hearing that once? Because it makes someone(including me) squeamish to see dudes kiss doesn't mean they don't deserve liberty.

Also for the Christians check out mathew 7:5.

Mic drop.

im out.

I have to say, that taking liberties with the Bible to justify any kind of sexual deviancy is beyond offensive. I see this a lot lately--must be a Liberal talking point to use against Christians on the gay issue.

Galatians 1:9

As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.


There seems to be a lot of confusion lately between Liberty and hedonism. This is part of the Liberal poison that plagues our nation.

At any rate, we are no longer compatible as a nation, and perhaps not even as "Liberty loving Conservatives." The day may come when you have to pick a camp AND LIVE IN THAT CAMP. Choose wisely!

[Rabid]

Ummm you missed the boat. I'm like you. Not for or against. I'm neutral on gay marriage. But there is a big difference. Liberals want to take away rights given to us. Marriage is not a right written in constitution, bill of rights, etc. hence the moral debate.

I still pose my question: if people say this doesn't affect you, then why does it matter? Dog fighting doesn't affect you, child marriages don't affect you, polygamy, etc. the list goes on. But people say those are morally wrong. Both libs and cons say that. So for gay marriage people can't say they believe its morally wrong?
What boat did he miss? They are fighting for the right to be equal and yes that is a right. Once that issue is off the table they very well may vote with the conservatives, i know a few that are business owners and have the same economic views as i do. Do not make this a political battle. It is quite small mined to think of it that way.

Gay marriage, Two consenting adults whose actions hurt nobody. Dog fighting, two consenting adults that force an animal that can not think or help them self's, into danger. Child marriage, like dog fighting it is two consenting adults that force two children that can not fight for or help them self's into a bad situation. Polygamy, if you want to put your self through that hell go for it! I am almost positive they were anti Mormon laws in the first place. Dog fighting and child marriage are not moral issues. They hurt someone or something that can not think or help them self's.

It is amazing how hard wired it is in most of us to dislike or be disgusted by the action of gays. That is not a bad thing because we are hard wired to procreate. However i can not discriminate against them because of this. No one is getting hurt by their actions, only an un-easy feeling. How can we as a people whom live under the Constitution and the bill of rights treat anyone that is doing no harm to those around them any less equality?

[Rabid]

I have to say, that taking liberties with the Bible to justify any kind of sexual deviancy is beyond offensive. I see this a lot lately--must be a Liberal talking point to use against Christians on the gay issue.

Galatians 1:9

As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.


There seems to be a lot of confusion lately between Liberty and hedonism. This is part of the Liberal poison that plagues our nation.

At any rate, we are no longer compatible as a nation, and perhaps not even as "Liberty loving Conservatives." The day may come when you have to pick a camp AND LIVE IN THAT CAMP. Choose wisely!
I will live in the liberty camp, it worked very well getting us to this point.

[Skip]

I will live in the liberty camp, it worked very well getting us to this point.

Keep telling yourself that. The people you think love Liberty, to further the cause of sexual deviancy, will put you in a box and end your life.

[Rabid]

Keep telling yourself that. The people you think love Liberty, to further the cause of sexual deviancy, will put you in a box and end your life.
Thanks i needed a good laugh this morning. [LOL]

[Madeinhb]

What boat did he miss? They are fighting for the right to be equal and yes that is a right. Once that issue is off the table they very well may vote with the conservatives, i know a few that are business owners and have the same economic views as i do. Do not make this a political battle. It is quite small mined to think of it that way.

Gay marriage, Two consenting adults whose actions hurt nobody. Dog fighting, two consenting adults that force an animal that can not think or help them self's, into danger. Child marriage, like dog fighting it is two consenting adults that force two children that can not fight for or help them self's into a bad situation. Polygamy, if you want to put your self through that hell go for it! I am almost positive they were anti Mormon laws in the first place. Dog fighting and child marriage are not moral issues. They hurt someone or something that can not think or help them self's.

It is amazing how hard wired it is in most of us to dislike or be disgusted by the action of gays. That is not a bad thing because we are hard wired to procreate. However i can not discriminate against them because of this. No one is getting hurt by their actions, only an un-easy feeling. How can we as a people whom live under the Constitution and the bill of rights treat anyone that is doing no harm to those around them any less equality?

My point being is that marriage is not gaurenteed right in the constitution. So therefor it falls under the 10th amendment. Take California, the people against gay marriage. The most Liberal state in America voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage. But a few law makers didnt like that so they over turned it.

I'm not saying gays and whoever for that matter shouldn't have the same rights. People are fighting over the word marriage and what their definition is. For some is a commitment between 2 loving people. For others, it's religious. Hence why I have said in the eyes of the government everyone should be civil unions. Same rights. Leave the word marriage for religious institutions which it has been for centuries.

[Madeinhb]

[QUOTE=Rabid;1205407]What boat did he miss? They are fighting for the right to be equal and yes that is a right. Once that issue is off the table they very well may vote with the conservatives, i know a few that are business owners and have the same economic views as i do. Do not make this a political battle. It is quite small mined to think of it that way.[QUOTE]

And government has said that a civil union can be and would have all the same aspects as marriage. The fight is over a damn word. Not equality.

[Madeinhb]

What boat did he miss? They are fighting for the right to be equal and yes that is a right. Once that issue is off the table they very well may vote with the conservatives, i know a few that are business owners and have the same economic views as i do. Do not make this a political battle. It is quite small mined to think of it that way.

Gay marriage, Two consenting adults whose actions hurt nobody. Dog fighting, two consenting adults that force an animal that can not think or help them self's, into danger. Child marriage, like dog fighting it is two consenting adults that force two children that can not fight for or help them self's into a bad situation. Polygamy, if you want to put your self through that hell go for it! I am almost positive they were anti Mormon laws in the first place. Dog fighting and child marriage are not moral issues. They hurt someone or something that can not think or help them self's.

It is amazing how hard wired it is in most of us to dislike or be disgusted by the action of gays. That is not a bad thing because we are hard wired to procreate. However i can not discriminate against them because of this. No one is getting hurt by their actions, only an un-easy feeling. How can we as a people whom live under the Constitution and the bill of rights treat anyone that is doing no harm to those around them any less equality?

And I guess this is ok also. http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/04/middle-school-girls-forced-to-ask-classmates-for-lesbian-kiss-during-anti-bullying-presentation/

[Madeinhb]

The fight is for rights. Civil unions can have the same rights as marriage. But that's not what they are fighting. They are arguing over a damn word.

[Madeinhb]

What boat did he miss? They are fighting for the right to be equal and yes that is a right. Once that issue is off the table they very well may vote with the conservatives, i know a few that are business owners and have the same economic views as i do. Do not make this a political battle. It is quite small mined to think of it that way.

Gay marriage, Two consenting adults whose actions hurt nobody. Dog fighting, two consenting adults that force an animal that can not think or help them self's, into danger. Child marriage, like dog fighting it is two consenting adults that force two children that can not fight for or help them self's into a bad situation. Polygamy, if you want to put your self through that hell go for it! I am almost positive they were anti Mormon laws in the first place. Dog fighting and child marriage are not moral issues. They hurt someone or something that can not think or help them self's.

It is amazing how hard wired it is in most of us to dislike or be disgusted by the action of gays. That is not a bad thing because we are hard wired to procreate. However i can not discriminate against them because of this. No one is getting hurt by their actions, only an un-easy feeling. How can we as a people whom live under the Constitution and the bill of rights treat anyone that is doing no harm to those around them any less equality?

And you yourself just said that child marriage shouldn't happen because your forcing children to do it. But that's their culture and you are trying to put your morals and culture on them. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with child marriages either. But it's not my place to tell another culture how to live. You yourself say no but people can't say it about gay marriage. That's hypocritical also

[Jumpstart]

Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights as everyone else and that includes marriage. They want special privileges, just like if they are attacked and someone utters a homosexual slur, now it is not just a crime, now it is a "hate crime" with added penalties. Do heterosexuals get this same privilege?

[DavieD55]

The gov/state should not be involved in any marriage.

[Rabid]

And I guess this is ok also. http://standupforthetruth.com/2013/04/middle-school-girls-forced-to-ask-classmates-for-lesbian-kiss-during-anti-bullying-presentation/
Are they two consenting adults, no. I do not think that was a proper think for the school to ask of.

I am with you as i said already it is about that one word. Again, we either need to accept that it is a word with a different meaning when it comes from the government or we need to change the word on the license. Separate but equal does not apply anymore so we have to have one or the other and get over it or not have them at all in the governments eyes.


The gov/state should not be involved in any marriage.
^This!

[Rabid]

And you yourself just said that child marriage shouldn't happen because your forcing children to do it. But that's their culture and you are trying to put your morals and culture on them. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with child marriages either. But it's not my place to tell another culture how to live. You yourself say no but people can't say it about gay marriage. That's hypocritical also
No idea what culture you are talking about but i was talking about consent not my morals.

[spyder]

Ummm you missed the boat.
Not even close. It's plain and simply people being pissy and controlling because they don't like, or agree with what another person believes in. That is the plain and simple argument. I'm not going to hide behind the "constitution" or any other word to make an argument better. Trying to take someone's right to do anything away, is the same damn thing across any board. This is where hypocrisy starts......

What boat did he miss?
? Beats me....

[Madeinhb]

Are they two consenting adults, no. I do not think that was a proper think for the school to ask of.

I am with you as i said already it is about that one word. Again, we either need to accept that it is a word with a different meaning when it comes from the government or we need to change the word on the license. Separate but equal does not apply anymore so we have to have one or the other and get over it or not have them at all in the governments eyes.


^This!

Exactly, for government change it to civil unions. Let marriage stay as a religious thing. If you get married in a church, you still have to apply for a civil union license.

[spyder]

If you are an advocate of the second amendment, and believe that no one should be able to tell you what to do because they simply believe something different than you. You need to shut the fuck up in this thread, or your a hypocrite. Plain and simple. Hiding behind rules, books, or any other thing to promote your shit makes you a coward. Especially since most of what people hide behind, tell them to shut the hell up and let someone else decide anyway... hypocrites........

[Madeinhb]

If you are an advocate of the second amendment, and believe that no one should be able to tell you what to do because they simply believe something different than you. You need to shut the fuck up in this thread, or your a hypocrite. Plain and simple. Hiding behind rules, books, or any other thing to promote your shit makes you a coward. Especially since most of what people hide behind, tell them to shut the hell up and let someone else decide anyway... hypocrites........

Umm for arguments sake, the second amendment is a right given to us by the constitution and bill of rights. Marriage is not a right listed in either. Can't compare the two.

[spyder]

Umm for arguments sake, the second amendment is a right given to us by the constitution and bill of rights. Marriage is not a right listed in either. Can't compare the two.
I don't understand what you don't get about the basic principal, that it is just one person saying that what they want, is more important than what the other person wants? Like I said before, hiding behind something else to "prove" your point is better, is cowardness, and bullying. There is no difference. If you are the type of person to tell someone else that what you believe in is better than what they believe in (in this case), you are just like a liberal, and a hypocrite. Laws, rulings, books, and anything else someone can throw into an argument are invalid in any argument when someone is simply trying to say that bullying, is bullying, and being a hypocrite is bad.

[Irving]

It seems to me that a lot of us wish that people with differing view points, could be turned toward our own view points. An example would be, instead of arguing with, and alienating a liberal, take them shooting.

With gays wanting to marry, they are looking at something everyone else has, and they want in as well, but people are telling them no. Having people with more in common, makes further debate on other decisions easier in the future. So when that liberal asks to be educated about guns and to go shooting with you, do you tell them no, or tell them yes?

I guess, what is the point of ostracizing people for being different, but preventing them from being as similar to you as possible?

[spyder]

It seems to me that a lot of us wish that people with differing view points wish that those people could be turned toward our own view points. An example would be, instead of arguing with, and alienating a liberal take them shooting.

With gays wanting to marry, they are looking at something everyone else has, and they want in as well, but people are telling them no. Having people with more in common, makes further debate on other decisions easier in the future. So when that liberal asks to be educated about guns and to go shooting with you, do you tell them no, or tell them yes?

I guess, what is the point of ostracizing people for being different, but preventing them from being as similar to you as possible?

GOD DAMNIT STUVING!!!!! How many time have I told you to keep your good arguments out of shit! DAMNIT!!!!!

[Madeinhb]

I don't understand what you don't get about the basic principal, that it is just one person saying that what they want, is more important than what the other person wants? Like I said before, hiding behind something else to "prove" your point is better, is cowardness, and bullying. There is no difference. If you are the type of person to tell someone else that what you believe in is better than what they believe in (in this case), you are just like a liberal, and a hypocrite. Laws, rulings, books, and anything else someone can throw into an argument are invalid in any argument when someone is simply trying to say that bullying, is bullying, and being a hypocrite is bad.

You haven't read my posts much as I've stated I can care less. I don't want big government middling in my life. Like I've said, they argument isn't over rights it's over the word marriage. What don't you understand about that. I'm not saying whether its right or wrong. What I'm saying is many religious people say they can have a civil union which would grant gays the same rights as straights.

They are all arguing over a definition of the word Marriage that is all. No one is talking about not letting them have rights to healthcare, tax adjustments, etc.

[Madeinhb]

I don't understand what you don't get about the basic principal, that it is just one person saying that what they want, is more important than what the other person wants? Like I said before, hiding behind something else to "prove" your point is better, is cowardness, and bullying. There is no difference. If you are the type of person to tell someone else that what you believe in is better than what they believe in (in this case), you are just like a liberal, and a hypocrite. Laws, rulings, books, and anything else someone can throw into an argument are invalid in any argument when someone is simply trying to say that bullying, is bullying, and being a hypocrite is bad.

Cowardess and bullying? You're a moron. In order to have an opinion, you have to have something to justify that opinion. Because you don't agree with it, that's bullying? Wow. I guess a lot of defense attorneys are bully's by trying to make their rape, murderer clients look innocent.

[spyder]

You haven't read my posts much as I've stated I can care less. I don't want big government middling in my life. Like I've said, they argument isn't over rights it's over the word marriage. What don't you understand about that. I'm not saying whether its right or wrong. What I'm saying is many religious people say they can have a civil union which would grant gays the same rights as straights.

They are all arguing over a definition of the word Marriage that is all. No one is talking about not letting them have rights to healthcare, tax adjustments, etc.

So, one is trying to impose on the other still? Hmmm... yep, I just don't get it.......

[spyder]

It's ok to not agree with someone, but to force your beliefs upon the other person is bullying. Sorry if you couldn't understand that. ....but I'm the moron.....

[Jumpstart]

With gays wanting to marry, they are looking at something everyone else has, and they want in as well, but people are telling them no.

I guess, what is the point of ostracizing people for being different, but preventing them from being as similar to you as possible? Well homosexuals HAVE what everyone else has already, and if you don't want to ostracize people (based on your statement above) then polygamists, child marriages, marriages with animals etc. is ok with you right?

[Jumpstart]

It's ok to not agree with someone, but to force your beliefs upon the other person is bullying. Sorry if you couldn't understand that. ....but I'm the moron.....You are aware that homosexual agenda is being bullied on children in schools, students in universities, workers in federal jobs etc., as we speak?

[Madeinhb]

You are aware that homosexual agenda is being bullied on children in schools, students in universities, workers in federal jobs etc., as we speak?

But according to him it's ok if they are doing it.

[spyder]

You are aware that homosexual agenda is being bullied on children in schools, students in universities, workers in federal jobs etc., as we speak?

Yep, which is BS also. That would fall into the category of not forcing what you believe in on others, something I've been saying this entire time.

[Madeinhb]

It's ok to not agree with someone, but to force your beliefs upon the other person is bullying. Sorry if you couldn't understand that. ....but I'm the moron.....

So then 99% of everyone is a bully. Liberals push their beliefs, conservatives push theirs. Everyone does. That does not make them a bully. By this argument, because I might not agree with Obama's politics, I'm a racist.

[spyder]

But according to him it's ok if they are doing it.
If I've been saying that it is bad to force what you believe in on others this entire time, why would I be ok with forcing the "homosexual agenda" onto kids in school? Are you retarded?

[spyder]

So then 99% of everyone is a bully. Liberals push their beliefs, conservatives push theirs. Everyone does. That does not make them a bully. By this argument, because I might not agree with Obama's politics, I'm a racist.

..... I don't know how to argue with a retarded person.....

[Madeinhb]

..... I don't know how to argue with a retarded person.....

You're the retarded one. Did you vote for Obama? And all Dems in office? If you did, you're pushing your beliefs on anyone who isn't a dem.

[Madeinhb]

..... I don't know how to argue with a retarded person.....

Some people believe abortion is right and some believe its wrong. That's pushing beliefs. The list goes on and on.

[davsel]

Umm for arguments sake, the second amendment is a right given to us by the constitution and bill of rights. Marriage is not a right listed in either. Can't compare the two.

Umm, no it isn't. Do your own research on this subject.

[Madeinhb]

Umm, no it isn't. Do your own research on this subject.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/christophermerola/2013/04/30/marriage-and-the-constitution-n1582999/page/full

[davsel]

Umm, no it isn't. Do your own research on this subject.

http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/B/cB1a.htm

[davsel]

Do Traditional Marriage Supporters Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity?
by Jim DeMint, President of The Heritage Foundation

Some people can’t seem to understand why anyone would support marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued last week that the only reason Congress had for passing the Defense of Marriage Act was to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” others. Justice Kennedy says we’re denying dignity to people in same-sex relationships.

But it is his ruling that denies dignity to those who don’t think a same-sex relationship is a marriage. His ruling denies dignity to the millions of Americans and their elected officials who have voted to pass laws that tell the truth about marriage.

The rhetoric from the Supreme Court attacking the goodwill of the majority of Americans—who know marriage is the union of a man and a woman—is not helpful. The marriage debate will continue, and all Americans need to be civil and respectful.

Already, however, we have seen that those in favor of redefining marriage are willing to use the coercive force of law to marginalize and penalize those who hold the historic view of marriage—even if it means trampling First Amendment religious liberty protections along the way. This is already evident in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., where Christian adoption agencies have been forced to stop providing adoption and foster care services (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530881:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r).

Legal challenges have been brought against wedding-related service providers who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, after they declined to participate in ceremonies that would have violated their consciences. A photographer in New Mexico (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530882:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r), a florist in Washington (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530883:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r), and a baker in Colorado (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530884:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r)have already been victims of such intolerant coercion.

Our interest in marriage policy from the beginning has been to ensure that a man and woman commit to each other as husband and wife (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530885:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r) to be father and mother to any children they create. This gives children the best chance at a flourishing future (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530886:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r). When children have that, liberals are less likely to succeed in their efforts to grow the welfare state. It is impossible for the government to redefine marriage to make fathers optional and for society to insist at the same time that fathers are essential.

In its ruling last week (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530887:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r), the Supreme Court refused to wrestle with any of theserious scholarly arguments (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530888:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r) that support marriage policy as the union of a man and a woman, and instead declared that Congress acted solely out of ill will.

It is outrageous to suggest that 342 Members of the House, 85 Senators, and President Bill Clinton were all acting on the basis of anti-gay bias in 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. As Chief Justice John Roberts says in his dissent, “I would not tar the political branches with bigotry.”

Indeed, as Heritage has argued repeatedly, there are valid reasons to oppose the redefinition of marriage—which those House Members, Senators, and President Clinton took into account. Marriage matters for children, civil society, and limited government, because children deserve a mother and a father, and when this doesn’t happen, social costs run high (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530889:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r).

Citizens and their elected representatives have the constitutional authority to make policy that recognizes marriage as the union of a man and a woman. States will lead the way even as we work to restore clear marriage policy at the federal level. And in the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530890:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r).

The Heritage Foundation will be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage continues to grow and that marriage proponents can express their views in this debate. Go to TheMarriageFacts.com today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530891:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r). And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage—that union of one man and one woman—is important for children, civil society, and limited government.

[Madeinhb]

All I was saying is that marriage is not a right. Therefor in the governments eyes, it should be a civil union. Gay or straight it's all a civil union with same benefits. Then there wouldn't be a debate of the word Marriage and what it's definition is. And since marriage is not a right in the constitution or bill of rights, it falls under the 10th amendment. I find it funny how California is supposed to be one of the most liberal states but yet the people voted with a high majority against gay marriage.

[Ridge]

What the fuck

Jesus Christ. I had heard people say that the Heritage Foundation is a bunch of whack jobs, but now I can see it for myself.

[Jumpstart]

Jesus Christ. I had heard people say that the Heritage Foundation is a bunch of whack jobs, but now I can see it for myself. Thanks Davsel and Ridge for reminding me to donate to the Heritage Foundation.

[Ridge]

Thanks Davsel and Ridge for reminding me to donate to the Heritage Foundation.

Really? You are going to donate to a group that questions whether fellow people should be treated with dignity because they want to be treated the same as everyone else?

[Madeinhb]

Really? You are going to donate to a group that questions whether fellow people should be treated with dignity because they want to be treated the same as everyone else?

I think he was saying it as a joke.

[Kraven251]

The Heritage Foundation will be joining with millions of Americans to ensure that support for marriage continues to grow and that marriage proponents can express their views in this debate. Go to TheMarriageFacts.com today to download your free copy of our e-book on marriage (http://links.heritage.org/ct/13530891:16173658724:m:1:483635213:C8833696F0AB2B0 773E3A58ECF2D5734:r). And continue to speak out boldly about why marriage—that union of one man and one woman—is important for children, civil society, and limited government.



I would love to see how all of this influences a limited government...since by its very nature is adding more government. Civil society? an armed society is a civil society, but not really sure how marriage falls into that, since I know lots of people that are hetero and single that aren't all that civil, and I doubt marriage would help them out on that front. ...and for the children shit is getting really old.

[Jumpstart]

Really? You are going to donate to a group that questions whether fellow people should be treated with dignity because they want to be treated the same as everyone else? Uhh, yeah..... I am, but I actually find them more tolerant than your crew. See below. If you want to poo-poo the Fox news reference then go to LiveLeak and watch the "tolerant, open minded", homos attack Christian Preachers, here is an excerpt. If this is how homos treat other people, then I guess it is time to treat them the same.Two street preachers were brutally beaten — punched and kicked — by a crowd at a gay pride festival in Seattle and the entire melee was captured on video.
The preachers were holding signs reading “Repent or Else” and “Jesus Saves From Sin.” The video shows a group of people initially screaming and threatening the men during Pridefest at the Seattle Space Needlehttp://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/christian-preachers-brutally-beaten-at-gay-pride-festival.html
Dude I don't begrudge you being a homosexual, but when you and your crew want to dicatate policy then it's go time.

[centrarchidae]

Uhh, yeah..... I am, but I actually find them more tolerant than your crew...
Dude I don't begrudge you being a homosexual, but when you and your crew want to dicatate policy then it's go time.

Dude, I don't begrudge you owning guns, but when you and your crew want to detonate Ryder trucks outside of office buildings then it's go time.

See how stupid it sounds?

ETA: I think I missed the part where the gay-marriage-supporters in this thread called for anybody to be forced to marry anybody or sell wedding cakes to anybody or whatever. Could someone remind me where that happened?

[Jumpstart]

Dude, I don't begrudge you owning guns, but when you and your crew want to detonate Ryder trucks outside of office buildings then it's go time.

See how stupid it sounds?
I see how stupid your quote sounds yes. Comparing the 2nd Amendment to being gay. Weak. Then babbling about Ryder trucks and such. Hilarious.

[asmo]

Graphical depiction of this thread:
http://explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Rob/debate.png