CE Volume 3

[Thorngrub]

Seems to be a gay marriage is on the right path towards preventing birth defects . . .

[Thorngrub]

...The State Of Affairs Worldwide seems to be one big "Birth Defect", if you ask me.





"overpopulation", anyone -?

[Galactus]

Have a shot of promise and a shot of teqiulla ans see what happens on the other side. Brothers and sisters often times already have leagal claims to each other so that mostly wouldn't be an issue...of course there is always exception. It's weird, but ok then siblings can get married. Why not? and since I know it's going there...marriage is an agreement. Most animals do not possess the thought processes needed for agreements but I guess if you can get enough scientists to say that it's not just conditioned response you could marry one of them signing gorillas.

[strat-0]

- As Strat-o said, they already have the same rights that straight people do.

- As I said they're trying to take them away. That's what we're talking about! Pay attention!

Perhaps you should try a little critical thinking, Pissin. You don't seem to be able to distinguish between tolerance, rights, and privileges. Chris' post on rights was pretty thought-provoking.

In the first place, since gays have never had a right to marry one another in this country, it is not "taking away" their rights. They have every right to marry that anyone else has, as defined by the laws of the state. The state, or the society at large, has the responsibility of defining and recognizing what a marriage is. Usually with verbiage such as "the union between one man and one woman," with other regulations that have already been mentioned.

Often, much is made about how the Constitution functions to protect minority positions from majority positions. I believe this is right and good. But a fundamental function of society is to define its institutions (marriage being one). They are the society.

At any rate, we've already covered this issue in great depth on this board, with quite a few interesting viewpoints presented. My own personal view is that we should leave marriage as it is. You seem to feel strongly about this issue, so I'd suggest you use the search engine at the top of the page (maybe try "gay marriage") and it will return results from this board. You can narrow it several ways. If you'd like to read some articulate arguments that would support your position, try reading Mary's posts on the subject. Then you might not feel so prone to resort to ridicule in your arguments.

There are actually other solutions to this question besides making gay "marriage" legal. Oh, and you can check my posts if you like, too - I'm about done with this issue for now.

[Mary]

DED said:

Did you know in NC it's only leagal to have sex in the missionary possition with the lights on? That sorts leaves gays out the cool don't it? Most states make sodomy illeagal and many also include oral sex. Same rights? Um, no.

Um I'm defintely not getting into the gay marriage debate yet again but just as a point of simple empirical reality, this is now completely false. The Supreme Court ruled definitively last summer in Lawrence v. Texas that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, and voided all such state laws in existence. It is now legal to engage in sodomy anywhere in the nation, provided both partners are consenting adults acting in private.

Cheers,
M

[stratman19]

Chrisfan said:

It absolutely matters, because the Constitution of the state of Michigan says it matters. When you have an outlined legal process for how the Constitution can be amended, and that legal process is followed, it must be carried out. To not do so would lead to anarchy. Pissin, you as someone who spouts off about Bush being a facist, a dictator, blah blah blah blah blah should be able to see that if anyone should. Elected or government officials of any level should not and cannot be allowed to do their jobs as they wish to ... they have got to follow the law. Stratman, I understand and sympathize with your frustration 100%

Thanks for that post Chris. It certainly wasn't my intent to dredge this topic up for dicussion again, as I know we have already debated it ad nauseum. My post earlier today was simply borne of frustration, and I was just pissed off enough to write about it. After I tie up a few loose ends, this will be my final post on this subject unless something new comes to light.

Pissin: You once again missed my point. IT SHOULDN'T BE VOTED ON IN THE FIRST PLACE. The very idea is unconstitutional. "you're gay so you can't get married" Get the fuck out of here. I don't care if you're an official, or chrisfan, or stratmans mom, none of you freaks have the right to take away other peoples rights.

Pissin, you can disparage me, my mother, other like-minded people, or anyone that disagrees with you all you want. Call us "freaks" to your heart's content. And for the record, no one's rights were being taken away...see Strat-0's post. I'm not going to engage you with more mud-slinging and name calling. But understand this: just because I disagree with you, just because I may have a different value system than you, and just because I have a different point of view than you, doesn't make my point of view/opinion any less valid than yours. Got it?

Strat-0, thanks once again for well reasoned, thought out, articulate comments. No surprise there.

Now let's move on to the next topic shall we?

[Galactus]

Thanks Mary. Those laws weren't enforced anyway but they were still on the books...just sort of a fun "did you know".

It seems that room is little shy in humor dept. I'm giving you guys midgets and signing gorillas and you're giving me cold stares...what else is new? Bottom line is that I don't believe anything would be stripped of it's meaning or any other overly dramatic "gays are evil" type mantra if was changed to "two people enter an agreement".

Anyway, I'm ready to move on as well...who wants to talk about soft money ads?

That's another joke. Settle down.

[stratman19]

DED, I'll give ya props on the lack of humor dept., I try to throw something in there when I can, but discussing partisan politics, especially in an election year, can be painfully humorless.

[someone]

But understand this: just because I disagree with you, just because I may have a different value system than you, and just because I have a different point of view than you, doesn't make my point of view/opinion any less valid than yours. Got it?

Actually, I think this argument is used far too often to justify shallow, bigoted lines of reasoning.

I mean, even gay issue aside, I come out and say "Hey, this country was better off before the Emancipation Proclamation, all blacks are monkeys, and should be treated as such, and you know what else? Fuck women voting. That was a crap decision. They shouldn't even be allowed to speak without being spoken to first, let alone allowed to vote. But the worst? Jews. Jews are the worst. If only Hitler had his way..."

If I came out and said this, how is my opinion still valid? Not EVERY opinion is valid. Everyone has an opinion. Murderers have the opinion that some people shouldn't live.

Meh. I'm not even a huge advocate of gay marriage. I just don't think the states should have a right to impose their religious beliefs on ANYONE. And that's really what the issue of gay marriage largely is, isn't it? A religious one, mainly? Because, why the hell else would anyone care if two people got married to each other other than because God told them not to?

stratman, you mentioned earlier that you just don't want things you don't agree with thrown in your face, and you know what? Neither do I. I don't want bigots thrown in my face, so I wish they'd just shut the hell up. But I don't have any control over that. It's too bad that bigots have the right to vote on things they don't want to see. Cause if I had my way, I'd vote for blatant bigotry desguised as freedom of speech denied for people the likes of you.

[rockysigman]

While I'm not as disdainful to you, Stratman as DED is, I still feel like there's a glaring question coming what you has to say that must be answered before your argument makes any sense to me.

Where is the line between a gay couple simply living their lives and them throwing it in your face?

I can't imagine a scenerio short of them having sex on your lawn that could be more than living their lives.

Would you object to a gay couple having sex on your lawn? Of course you would, but I imagine you wouldn't take kindly to a straight couple doing it either. And I doubt you've ever had anything like this ever happen.

Do you object to a gay couple going out in public together or is this a case of a lifestyle you don't like being forced on you? If you do object to it, then you going out with your wife would obviously be an instance of you pushing your heterosexual lifestyle in their faces.

Even organized groups fighting for marriage rights isn't, IMO, anything other than people who happen to be gay living their day to day life. Isn't everyone in this country hoping for changes in society that would benefit them in some way? How is a gay rights group pushing gay marriage an example of forcing their lifestyle in others faces but hunting groups pushing for laxer gun laws isn't? Lobbying government officials for favorable legislation is about as basic as democracy comes in a nation as large as this one.

Perhaps there's something else I haven't thought of that is more offensive to you that gay lobby groups do that crosses a boundary I haven't considered, and if so, please educate me. But based on what you've said, I just don't understand where the line is where simply trying to get by in this country by lobbying government for your cause and living your day-to-day life becomes pushing an agenda in people's faces.

Although it sickens me to hear it from people, an outright bigoted view of homosexuality at least makes some sort of sense to me. I live in a very liberal city at the moment, and there is a pretty substantial gay community here, but even in a very accepting place such as Ann Arbor, I don't think I've ever seen any gay people do anything in public beyond things that are generally accepted for straight people to do. Every once in a while there's a public kiss, but htis is no more forcing a lifestyle onto people around them then it is when a straight couple does it. That's just something that some couples do in their everyday lives sometimes.

If what offends is something that doesn't offend you when straight couples do the same thing, then it is bigotry.

[pissin2]

the last two posts were just excellent.

[pissin2]

And for the record, no one's rights were being taken away..

actually they were. that's what we were talking about, remember? the whole No Gay Marriage Petition thing. I'm pretty sure you brought it up actually. If straights are allowed to do it, and now they don't want the gays to do it, that's where it becomes a right. If it passed, the straights would have the right to get married, and the gays wouldn't have this right. How are you not understanding this? It's like as of right now, I have the right to sit here and eat a cream cheese bagel if I want. But if a bunch of people send a petition in saying everyone named Pissin isn't allowed to eat a cream cheese bagel anymore, then you are taking away my right to eat a cream cheese bagel.

[chrisfan]

someone said:

I just don't think the states should have a right to impose their religious beliefs on ANYONE. And that's really what the issue of gay marriage largely is, isn't it? A religious one, mainly? Because, why the hell else would anyone care if two people got married to each other other than because God told them not to?

I don't believe that marriage can be limited to just a religious issue. Sure, there are religious aspects of marraige. However, marriage exsists in soceities of multiple religions, and societies without a strong presence of religion. Futher, in this country, marriages are recognized when performed by non-religious officials such as judges, making them not solely dependent on religion. And finally, some of the most eloquent arguments that have been put forth on this board against gay marraige have come from people who are self-professed non-religious people.

[chrisfan]

Pissin2 said:

And for the record, no one's rights were being taken away..

actually they were. that's what we were talking about, remember? the whole No Gay Marriage Petition thing. I'm pretty sure you brought it up actually. If straights are allowed to do it, and now they don't want the gays to do it, that's where it becomes a right. If it passed, the straights would have the right to get married, and the gays wouldn't have this right. How are you not understanding this? It's like as of right now, I have the right to sit here and eat a cream cheese bagel if I want. But if a bunch of people send a petition in saying everyone named Pissin isn't allowed to eat a cream cheese bagel anymore, then you are taking away my right to eat a cream cheese bagel.

The fallacy in the analogy of course is that as of now, you can eat a cream cheese bagel.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Chrisfan said:

The fallacy in the analogy of course is that as of now, you can eat a cream cheese bagel.

How do you know that? He might have allergies. Maybe he just hates soft cheese.

I love gays. Well, within reason, obviously. Let me make that clear. Let them marry! What harm can it do?
I say ban gays with facial hair though, in case anyone sees my goatee and confuses me for a chutney ferret.