Maine, Be HONEST with Gays

[Greyclouds]

But no laws are seeking to ban gays from wedding each other. No individual choice, not action is getting abolished.

The limitation is on government (in recognizing and granting benefits to certain choices.)

The government is dictating no behavior whatsoever.

Gays can do what they want.

The complaint is that gays aren't GETTING what they want. And I hope you agree that it's not the government's responsibility to give something to someone just because they want it.

While I agree with your last sentence, I would find it to be unfair if the state subsidized heterosexual couples and not couples of any persuasion.

There should be no subsidy for one's choice to marry at all, IMHO.

[Trip]

While I agree with your last sentence, I would find it to be unfair if the state subsidized heterosexual couples and not couples of any persuasion.

There should be no subsidy for one's choice to marry at all, IMHO.

Aren't you the geneticist?

If we see a decrease in the importance of marriage along with an increase in crime, drug use, single parentage, failure to complete schooling, don't you think that the minimal support government gives to married persons, generally in the form of deductions (money not taken from them) more than covers the costs of making further maladjusted drug-using, violent failures?

[toreyj01]

Thus far that is your claim and thus far every reference YOU have provided has undermined that claim.

In fact if the study actually indicated that being brought up in a single parent household was immaterial to the child's performance (on the test) then THAT ONE CLAIM would be trumpeted across the internet in every reference, because it is by far the most extraordinary claim.

But it is present ------------ nowhere.

And the reason they found these children did well in "the test" was not because they were wealthy or because they were educated -- in fact children educated by reading them books and indulging them didnt do any better --- but because the parents made the right choices in providing a stable environment --- and this includes in all the things they reference, having another partner!

Naa, it's more of a "road thing" as indicated by the authors themselves and by the "road" i mean environmental.

The entire writing supports the importance of a stable environment, which is what marriage itself supports.

I'm sorry, you don't have any sort of science background, do you? Weighting any factor is a judgment call, whether you're discussing "Global climate" or a correlation with performance on tests. And often times there is a conflict over determining irrelevant correlations and cause and effect. And really, an "economic theorist" doesnt have a lot of business judging sociologic environments and how well the children are balanced as a product of these. In fact I would suspect that any economist engaging in such a study would have a pre-existing bias.

"Gravitas" is fine, if you're buying into an image (like obama) but science is founded on "veritas", Truth.

But again, regardless of the study's validity, it nowhere indicates anything about single mothers as compared to two-parent households, and if it did, then that would certainly be highlighted all over the internet as it would be a startling claim, but ... it's not.I actually have quite a strong scientific background, am doing research this afternoon between posts, as a matter of fact.

And you cannot say no one noticed this chap's work when his economics bold sold MILLIONS, it was an incredible success.

What I liked most about him is that he ignored conventional wisdom and simply looked at the facts of the matter, he truly eliminated extraneous assumptions and created a pure research model.

The fact that his results run contrary to conventional knowledge says more about the pre-existing mindset than his results.

I think I understand your disconnect. You do realize that the lines......Here are some more factors that are strongly correlated with higher test scores:

The parents are highly educated.
The parents speak English in the home.
The parents are involved in the PTA at school.

Here are some other factors that aren't:

The child's family is intact (no divorces, the parents were married when they conceived).
The child is regularly spanked.
The child frequently watches television.
Means that there is no correlation between higher test scores and whether the child's family is intact? Means that it doesnt matter whether the parents were married when they conceived? Means it doesn't matter if the parents were divorced?

I mean, are you reading the same thing I am?

[Guvnah]

While I agree with your last sentence, I would find it to be unfair if the state subsidized heterosexual couples and not couples of any persuasion.


Which is why we need an absolute definition of what marriage really is.

Else you would get a subsidy for marrying your mother. You're free to do it, of course (and we know there are some marriages like that out there.) But we don't want society encouraging it with benefits.

The difference in who gets (or not) benefits is not a matter of the people involved, but the choice. People are equal. Behaviors are not. (Thus, I did not get a cash-for-clunkers subsidy when I chose to buy a used car. It was my choice to do so.)



There should be no subsidy for one's choice to marry at all, IMHO.



That's one way to go with it.

We as a society have a tendency to give benefits to people, choices, situations, behaviors that tend to encourage a positive return to society. (Or discourage a negative cost to society, such as free health clinics for homeless people do.)

At one point society saw a benefit in marriage.

I keep asking if we still think that benefit is still there. (And if so, what is that benefit?)

[Trip]

I think I understand your disconnect. You do realize that the lines......Means that there is no correlation between higher test scores and whether the child's family is intact? Means that it doesnt matter whether the parents were married when they conceived? Means it doesn't matter if the parents were divorced?

I mean, are you reading the same thing I am?

Yes, there is no correlation with the CHILD'S FAMILY being intact. That means the child's parents, the biological parents. This is not saying that the child is being brought up in a single parent houshold and, in fact, nowhere does it bother to discuss a single parent household ANYWHERE!

:IF: the study were considering single parent households and making the assertion that the presence of only one parent did not matter to the child's performance (on the test) then they most assuredly would point this out, as it would be the most startling claim of the whole "study". But nowhere, not in any coverage, not in your abridged book link, or in CBS's study, does the book indicate single family households were irrelevant, or that they were even studied!

[toreyj01]

And you did not "cite the study". You reference a book that itself nowhere covers any actual study, from what I've seen. .

http://nces.ed.gov/ECLS/

Posted again for you.

[Trip]

While I agree with your last sentence, I would find it to be unfair if the state subsidized heterosexual couples and not couples of any persuasion.




What EXACTLY is "fairness"?

It certainly isnt faire to treat two of the same things un-equally.

But Is it "fair" to treat two un-like things equally?

Marriage is not just "two people choosing to be together". There's a reason that marriage has been recognized over centuries and NO societies have ever equated homosexual unions the same as marriage in more than 6,000 years of society.

Why after more than 6,000 years would it suddenly be "fair" now to treat them the same and to argue doing so by totally distorting what marriage is?

Arguing that heterosexual unions and gay unions are the same is a falsehood that falsely equivalences the two by undermining marriage. Forcing the two to be the same and giving gays "marriage" is a direct and deliberate attack on society itself.

[Greyclouds]

Aren't you the geneticist?

Not quite sure what Genetics has to do with economics/sociology, but yup. I only dabble in the latter; I specialize in the former.


If we see a decrease in the importance of marriage along with an increase in crime, drug use, single parentage, failure to complete schooling, don't you think that the minimal support government gives to married persons, generally in the form of deductions (money not taken from them) more than covers the costs of making further maladjusted drug-using, violent failures?

See the statistics would have to support the fact that marriage subsidies contribute to MORE marriages, at EARLIER time points in the life of citizens and that those subsidies improve the life outlook of children within them.

If anyone is aware of any such studies that provide good controls and data acquisition methods, then I am all ears.

[Maelstrom]

I sincerely beg your pardon, but deeply feel that one or two of your points must be emphasized:


Marriage is not just "two people choosing to be together". There's a reason that marriage has been recognized over centuries and NO societies have ever equated homosexual unions the same as marriage in more than 6,000 years of society.


Why after more than 6,000 years would it suddenly be "fair" now to treat them the same and to argue doing so by totally distorting what marriage is?

Arguing that heterosexual unions and gay unions are the same is a falsehood that falsely equivalences the two by undermining marriage. Forcing the two to be the same and giving gays "marriage" is a direct and deliberate attack on society itself.

[Guvnah]

I sincerely beg your pardon, but deeply feel that one or two of your points must be emphasized:

Agree. Worth repeating.

[WorldWatcher]

The government is only involved in dealing with marriage after it occurs, ya know, those bennies that gays are fighting for.


Incorrect, which is why if you want your marriage to come with a government stamp of approval you have to get the State issued marriage license before you get married.


If that is not true, please cite a state law that mandated persons get married first, then apply for a license.



>>>>

[Trip]

Not quite sure what Genetics has to do with economics/sociology, but yup. I only dabble in the latter; I specialize in the former.



See the statistics would have to support the fact that marriage subsidies contribute to MORE marriages, at EARLIER time points in the life of citizens and that those subsidies improve the life outlook of children within them.

If anyone is aware of any such studies that provide good controls and data acquisition methods, then I am all ears.


THAT is not a scientific argument and either you're no scientist or you're so biased by your personal beliefs that you cannot consider the situation objectively.

Why ever would the subsidies have to improve the life of the children within them? Would that improvement of your "study" involve recognition that a family bought a home a year or two before they might otherwise? That the child was wearing better clothes than they might otherwise?

The relevant study is not on the child or the child's "perfomance' within the marriage, but rather on marriage overall and you missed that cogent fact, showing your overwhelming bias.

And the "subsidies" are not for the perfomance of any given marriage but to encourage marriage within a society. And generally the monies given marriage are allowing them to keep more of their earnings than milking them as you liberals choose to do, inherently acting as if it is the government's money, even YOUR money, given back.

[WorldWatcher]

29, actually. And ALL 29 that put it up to popular vote have rejected the gay marriage initiatives.

29? OK, I stand corrected.

Of course there are many that feel the Obama factor had a big impact on turnout and demographics in terms of Prop 8. Without the first black candidate on the ticket, the outcome for Prop 8 would not have been certain (admittedly 20/20 hindsight here). However only a 2% shift in results based on deomographics would have defeated Prop 8.


The few that recognize gay marriage all did it by judicial or legislative force, not by popular vote.


And we'll find out tomorrow if Maine will make 30.



>>>>

[Trip]

Incorrect, which is why if you want your marriage to come with a government stamp of approval you have to get the State issued marriage license before you get married.


If that is not true, please cite a state law that mandated persons get married first, then apply for a license.



>>>>

The government recognizes marriages, it doesnt dictate them. You can get married without government approval "stamp".

They say every opinion is equally valid, but there's an overabundance of ignorant, uninformed opinions.

And seriously, I want you to stop referencing me. I no longer have an interest in your comments or your address after the way you've spoken to me, now repeatedly. Is that clear?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

What EXACTLY is "fairness"?

It certainly isnt faire to treat two of the same things un-equally.

But Is it "fair" to treat two un-like things equally?

Marriage is not just "two people choosing to be together". There's a reason that marriage has been recognized over centuries and NO societies have ever equated homosexual unions the same as marriage in more than 6,000 years of society.

Why after more than 6,000 years would it suddenly be "fair" now to treat them the same and to argue doing so by totally distorting what marriage is?

Arguing that heterosexual unions and gay unions are the same is a falsehood that falsely equivalences the two by undermining marriage. Forcing the two to be the same and giving gays "marriage" is a direct and deliberate attack on society itself.
<chuckle>

"Forcing the two to be the same and giving gays "marriage" is a direct and deliberate attack on society itself"

<snicker>

I know I feel attacked when gays get married.

Also (and please be very clear, I'm not accusing anyone of racism here)...this is THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that was made by people opposed to interracial marriage. It was opposed on societal grounds as well as religious grounds.

Last I looked...society was not worse off because blacks and whites are allowed to get married.

[Trip]

<chuckle>

"Forcing the two to be the same and giving gays "marriage" is a direct and deliberate attack on society itself"

<snicker>

I know I feel attacked when gays get married.

Also (and please be very clear, I'm not accusing anyone of racism here)...this is THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that was made by people opposed to interracial marriage. It was opposed on societal grounds as well as religious grounds.

Last I looked...society was not worse off because blacks and whites are allowed to get married.

I'm sorry. we were treading on yoru liberal territory of FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS.

I know that you feel yourself to be one of many resident experts, but do excuse me if I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the subject of the lesser worth of your marriage while you denigrate something I hold sacred.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

29, actually. And ALL 29 that put it up to popular vote have rejected the gay marriage initiatives.

The few that recognize gay marriage all did it by judicial or legislative force, not by popular vote.
Just so I understand...

When the people elect an idiot like Barack Obama, or in local cases Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc...this is a bad thing. People (not yourself specifically) have argued that Senators should no longer be elected by the people of their state because the people in the state can't be trusted, and it should be in the hands of the state legislature.

Why then are the people held in such high esteem in this matter? I find it highly ironic that the people who can be so easily "suckered" into voting for the "liberal filth" in this country are the same people who are said to have simply "voted their conscience" when matters like gay marriage are voted down in referendums. Is it not possible that these people have also been "suckered"?

[Czhorat]

I sincerely beg your pardon, but deeply feel that one or two of your points must be emphasized:

I agree, my tempestuous friend. It IS worth emphasizing that Trip's opposition to gay marriage is based on blindly following tradition and some vague notion of an "attack" on societal norms.

Neither of these is close to a logical argument, and it does you credit that you noticed this.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

I'm sorry. we were treading on yoru liberal territory of FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS.

I know that you feel yourself to be one of many resident experts, but do excuse me if I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the subject of the lesser worth of your marriage while you denigrate something I hold sacred.
Tell me how, exactly, your marriage would be made worse because the gay couple down the street was recognized by the state as a married couple.

I'll be waiting with baited breath.

And kudos on attacking my marriage...way to stay classy there.

[Czhorat]

I'm sorry. we were treading on yoru liberal territory of FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS.

I know that you feel yourself to be one of many resident experts, but do excuse me if I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion on the subject of the lesser worth of your marriage while you denigrate something I hold sacred.

You seem to be the one making an argument based on feelings; marriage is something YOU hold sacred.

[Trip]

Just so I understand...

When the people elect an idiot like Barack Obama, or in local cases Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc...this is a bad thing. People (not yourself specifically) have argued that Senators should no longer be elected by the people of their state because the people in the state can't be trusted, and it should be in the hands of the state legislature.

Why then are the people held in such high esteem in this matter? I find it highly ironic that the people who can be so easily "suckered" into voting for the "liberal filth" in this country are the same people who are said to have simply "voted their conscience" when matters like gay marriage are voted down in referendums. Is it not possible that these people have also been "suckered"?


Yes because we know that 6,000 years of human history across numerous civilizations MUST be wrong when in conflict with the nouveau Democratic-Socialists FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS on the issue.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Yes because we know that 6,000 years of human history across numerous civilizations MUST be wrong when in conflict with the nouveau Democratic-Socialists FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS on the issue.
So, again...the people can't be trusted to elect a competent president of this nation, but they can be trusted to create laws?

Y'all blow my mind with the hypocrisy.

[WorldWatcher]

The government recognizes marriages, it doesnt dictate them. You can get married without government approval "stamp".


Didn't say it dictated them, I said you have to get a license before it will recognize them.


They say every opinion is equally valid, but there's an overabundance of ignorant, uninformed opinions.


I never said every option is equally valid, only those options for like situations such as: law abiding, tax paying, consenting adult, infertile different-sex couples and law abiding, tax paying, consenting adult, infertile same-sex couples.


And seriously, I want you to stop referencing me. I no longer have an interest in your comments or your address after the way you've spoken to me, now repeatedly.


If you have no interest in my remarks, when you see the handle "WorldWatcher" just choose not to read them.


Is that clear?


No I don't think so, this is a public debate forum, if you wish not to see my responses to your statements feel free to place me on ignore.

I have not been insulting to you in this thread at all, and in previous threads you were always the one who started with the condescending ad hominem remarks as you often do when someone disagrees with you and to which I then replied.


I actually like debating with you when you can hold your tendency for self assumed superiority in check, you are actually a most informative poster. We may not agree, but that doesn't mean you aren't informative.



>>>>

[Dr. Funkenstein]

You seem to be the one making an argument based on feelings; marriage is something YOU hold sacred.
To be fair...I did use the word "feel" in my post.

This makes me a liberal. I always forget to hide that.

:doh:

[Dr. Funkenstein]

If you have no interest in my remarks, when you see the handle "WorldWatcher" just choose not to read them.

>>>>

There's always the ignore list...

[Czhorat]

Yes because we know that 6,000 years of human history across numerous civilizations MUST be wrong when in conflict with the nouveau Democratic-Socialists FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS on the issue.

For how many centuries was slavery acceptable?

For how many centuries was corporal punishment of children acceptable?

For how many centuries did "marriage" involve ...
...multiple female partners?
...subjugation of the female by the male?
...members of the same race?

"That's the way it always was" is a non-argument.

[WorldWatcher]

There's always the ignore list...


See closing section of that post. :mrgreen:



>>>>

[Dr. Funkenstein]

For how many centuries was slavery acceptable?

For how many centuries was corporal punishment of children acceptable?

For how many centuries did "marriage" involve ...
...multiple female partners?
...subjugation of the female by the male?
...members of the same race?

"That's the way it always was" is a non-argument.
More and more I'm starting to believe I'm debating with James Dobson

[Dr. Funkenstein]

See closing section of that post. :mrgreen:



>>>>
:wall: :doh: :redface:

[Trip]

So, again...the people can't be trusted to elect a competent president of this nation, but they can be trusted to create laws?

Y'all blow my mind with the hypocrisy.

Yeah, they had so much to go on with that "Hope" and "Change"

Ya think the "Racist!" helped though?

[Guvnah]

Just so I understand...

When the people elect an idiot like Barack Obama, or in local cases Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, etc...this is a bad thing. People (not yourself specifically) have argued that Senators should no longer be elected by the people of their state because the people in the state can't be trusted, and it should be in the hands of the state legislature.



Not sure what you are trying to "understand" here.

Certainly nothing I said.

I was just commenting on the will of the people, and how it has played out so far. Whether I consider it a good result or not is not what I was commenting on at all.

So the only one saying those pols are idiots is you.

If you insist so, I won't disagree.

[Guvnah]

For how many centuries did "marriage" involve ...
...multiple female partners?
...subjugation of the female by the male?
...members of the same race?
...

Gays can do all those things now.

What's your problem?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Not sure what you are trying to "understand" here.

Certainly nothing I said.

I was just commenting on the will of the people, and how it has played out so far. Whether I consider it a good result or not is not what I was commenting on at all.

So the only one saying those pols are idiots is you.

If you insist so, I won't disagree.
I was referencing general ideology throughout the boards...your post just happened to be the one pointing out the "will of the people", that's all.

And in the cases of those particular policitians (and most of the 535 like them currently inhabiting Washington, DC), yes...they are idiots.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Yeah, they had so much to go on with that "Hope" and "Change"

Ya think the "Racist!" helped though?
So the people who can be so blindly 'suckered" by "Hope and Change" can't be blindly suckered by "tradition" and "family values"?

My co-workers can't understand why I'm laughing so damn hard.

[Czhorat]

Gays can do all those things now.

What's your problem?


My point is that Trip's argument that "it was always that way" is a non-argument.

I find it more entertaining watching the argument that marriage is about procreation except when straight people don't want children. My favorite argument is that it's not about the actual people getting married, but about the good of the collective.

[timjy]

You think we should be as honest as they were. Get a lame duck lefty gov and ram it through the government after the state has voted on this once before.Now that is their type of democracy.

[Trip]

So the people who can be so blindly 'suckered" by "Hope and Change" can't be blindly suckered by "tradition" and "family values"?

My co-workers can't understand why I'm laughing so damn hard.


Tradition and family values are never a sucker's bet. If you havent found that out by now then no wonder you're looking for happiness in your neighbor's pockets.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Tradition and family values are never a sucker's bet. If you havent found that out by now then no wonder you're looking for happiness in your neighbor's pockets.

I rarely have to resort to this statement, but what the **** are you talking about?

[WorldWatcher]

<<deleted>>


I see Trip deleted his post to which I responded.

So in the interest of camaraderie and honest exchange, I'll delete my comments as well.


>>>>

[Trip]

I rarely have to resort to this statement, but what the **** are you talking about?

That you don't get it is obvious, but that also renders any explanation similarly unfruitful.

But as befits this thread, "it's how you're wired".

[Maelstrom]

I agree, my tempestuous friend. It IS worth emphasizing that Trip's opposition to gay marriage is based on blindly following tradition and some vague notion of an "attack" on societal norms.

Neither of these is close to a logical argument, and it does you credit that you noticed this.

You are blindly following an agenda. There was nothing blind in Trip's statements.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

That you don't get it is obvious, but that also renders any explanation similarly unfruitful.

But as befits this thread, "it's how you're wired".
Translation

I've got nothing, so I'm going to call you a liberal

Am I close?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

You are blindly following an agenda. There was nothing blind in Trip's statements.

Oh, there's plenty of blind in Trip's statements.

Blind hatred for one...

[Jedi B]

How can Homosexuality be avoided in comparison to Cigarrette addiction and what scientific evidence do you have that supports this theory?

is there a gay gene?

[Maelstrom]

For how many centuries was slavery acceptable?

The important question is WHY

For how many centuries was corporal punishment of children acceptable?

The important question is WHY don't you know that it still is!


For how many centuries did "marriage" involve ...
...multiple female partners?
...subjugation of the female by the male?
...members of the same race?

The important question is WHY


"That's the way it always was" is a non-argument.

The important question is WHY it should be changed. It was never "that's the way it always was". The reason WHY it has always been so was considered and answered. You have no argument in favor of your viewpoint beyond the trite, and frankly, irresponsible idiot statement of "Why not"...and *that* was already answered.

[Maelstrom]

I rarely have to resort to this statement, but what the **** are you talking about?

You're arguing in favor of "gay marriage" for the financial benefits from the public largess.

I thought that was rather obvious.

[Trip]

Going personal again, that would make two for my list.

I would never threaten another honored quest as I know that would be against the terms of service.

In concern for your health, I really recommend you cool your jets, it looks like you are ready to blow a gasket.



>>>

no, you made the personal comment with your first intro here, implying that I was discriminatory and then you expanded on it directly addressed to me.

You would indeed offend an honored guest and the first time you went over the top was lying to two military persons I was having a discusson with you and interjected, ignored the conversation, went immediately to ad hominem address and explained the reason I felt McCain wasn't NBS was because I denigrate the military and have no regard for them. That was an outright fabrication on your part, and you knew it, and one of the lowest things I've ever witnessed on this forum, now having witnessed a similar act twice accusing me to be "discriminatory" and not valuing our freedoms.

No, i wouldn't test you. I couldn't bear to see you having to fabricate something from thin air on that too.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

You're arguing in favor of "gay marriage" for the financial benefits from the public largess.

I thought that was rather obvious.

I've actually been arguing against government involvement in marriage from the beginning, so there's that...

[Maelstrom]

Oh, there's plenty of blind in Trip's statements.

Blind hatred for one...

Oh my, I had forgot that merely challenging your liberal viewpoint is automatically "blind hatred".

It is THIS aspect of your "wiring" that makes you a liberal...not that other thing you were concerned about.

[Trip]

Oh, there's plenty of blind in Trip's statements.

Blind hatred for one...

Alright, Ill play.

Put yer cards on the table

What blind hatred?

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, there's plenty of blind in Trip's statements.

Blind hatred for one...


Dr. F...


Don't let them draw you into personal ad hominem exchanges, stick to the issues.



>>>>

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Oh my, I had forgot that merely challenging your liberal viewpoint is automatically "blind hatred".

It is THIS aspect of your "wiring" that makes you a liberal...not that other thing you were concerned about.

So my ideas about government getting the hell out of my life and my wallet have no bearing on whether or not I'm a liberal?

It boils down to this...I don't think the government should be involved in social engineering. But since they've decided to be through their licensing of marriage, they shouldn't discriminate against legal relationships being licensed.

Period.

[Maelstrom]

I've actually been arguing against government involvement in marriage from the beginning, so there's that...

Certain childish tantrums, and psychotic breakdowns do involve the whiny motivation where if those people can't have it, then it must be destroyed so nobody can have it."

It isn't, however, anything more substantial than that, although it is amusing sometimes to see the pretense.

[Imperialparadox]

I've actually been arguing against government involvement in marriage from the beginning, so there's that...

...yeah but...well...other than that...

:mrgreen:

[Maelstrom]

So my ideas about government getting the hell out of my life and my wallet have no bearing on whether or not I'm a liberal?

It boils down to this...I don't think the government should be involved in social engineering. But since they've decided to be through their licensing of marriage, they shouldn't discriminate against legal relationships being licensed.

Period.

You brought up a personal attack.

Your ideas about your political agenda are wholly without merit. Therefore, as a liberal, you delve into emotional arguments, non-arguments, personal attacks, ad hominem attacks, and a number of other logical fallacies.

There is no discrimination against any two people of the opposite sex getting married.

[Guvnah]

Translation



Am I close?

You did it to me, and now you're doing it to Trip.

Stick to what was actually said. You're better than that.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Alright, Ill play.

Put yer cards on the table

What blind hatred?
That you don't get it is obvious, but that also renders any explanation similarly unfruitful.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

You did it to me, and now you're doing it to Trip.

Stick to what was actually said. You're better than that.
In your case, I wasn't actually responding TO you, but to something you'd said as part of a greater point. I thought I'd explained that...I wasn't trying to say that you're in that crowd, but your post gave me something to work with on a greater scale, that's all.

In Trip's case...he's specifically calling me out without knowing WHAT my opinion really is (as detailed above).

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=63334181&postcount=552

[Guvnah]

I've actually been arguing against government involvement in marriage from the beginning, so there's that...

All along I've been under the impression that you wanted marriage benefits extended to gay marriages.

Either you are against government involvement (so therefore you should oppose an expansion of government benefits), or you want more government benefits, and therefore an expansion of government involvement in marriage.

Can't have it both ways.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

...yeah but...well...other than that...

:mrgreen:
I know, right?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

All along I've been under the impression that you wanted marriage benefits extended to gay marriages.

Either you are against government involvement (so therefore you should oppose an expansion of government benefits), or you want more government benefits, and therefore an expansion of government involvement in marriage.

Can't have it both ways.
In a perfect world, the government wouldn't be involved.

In the real world, they already are, and therefore should be fair about its application.

[Trip]

That you don't get it is obvious, but that also renders any explanation similarly unfruitful.

Plagiarism is the sincerest part of flattery.

[Maelstrom]

In a perfect world, the government wouldn't be involved.

In the real world, they already are, and therefore should be fair about its application.

They are fair, you aren't.

[reflechissez]

=Trip;63325071]You missed the part wehre gays dont contribute anything to society overall, as heterpsexual unions do.

what evidence do you have? the ability to procreate is not the answer.

You missed the part that it was over centuries that herosexual unions were recognized out of a desire (and need) to stabilize these.

heterosexual unions have, throughout most of human history, been an unequal alliance between a man and a relatively powerless woman. women could not own property, could not enter into contracts, could not get credit, could not earn much money, were not well-educated, could not have children out of wedlock without severe social consequences. you conveniently step over all of these facts to purport that marriage was somehow born of society's desire for stabilization. women had no choice but to be married to a man. perhaps if women had had the same equality before the law as men did, they would have married each other a long time ago.

That is hardly amounting to "because i said so" and your assertion it does is objectionable and, quite frankly, childish on your part.

Quite obviously you need further help with reading than I gave in my previous post, but I'm not available. Perhaps try your parents - either one?

[WorldWatcher]

no, you made the personal comment with your first intro here, implying that I was discriminatory and then you expanded on it directly addressed to me.


Actually first comment in this thread was a reply to Thinkingman...

"I would suggest an intermission at this point.


The post above providing a segue to our musical interlude of the day -->> Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY)"



You would indeed offend an honored guest and the first time you went over the top was lying to two military persons I was having a discusson with you and interjected, ignored the conversation, went immediately to ad hominem address and explained the reason I felt McCain wasn't NBS was because I denigrate the military and have no regard for them. That was an outright fabrication on your part, and you knew it, and one of the lowest things I've ever witnessed on this forum,


I didn't fabricate anything, you were arguing that the children of patriots servicing overseas, citizens willing to die for their country, cannot be Natural Born Citizens.

I disagreed.

I think that the children of two US Citizens willing to service their country and to give their lives should be treated the same as someone born on soil.

You disagreed.



now having witnessed a similar act twice accusing me to be "discriminatory" and not valuing our freedoms.


Hey, we can go through this thread and make a list of who (between you and I) have used more ad hominem statements towards other posters.


Wanna try?



No, i wouldn't test you. I couldn't bear to see you having to fabricate something from thin air on that too.


Fabricate? If you mean the suggestion about the lists I posted and then deleted (because you deleted your post) there would be no fabrication involved. This board has a "quote" function you know.



>>>>

[Dr. Funkenstein]

They are fair, you aren't.

How am I not fair?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/popcorn.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[Trip]

In a perfect world, the government wouldn't be involved.

In the real world, they already are, and therefore should be fair about its application.

Involved? You mean acknowledging and registering an institution that has existed for thousands of years? And recognized because of the benefits that marriage gives to society? And that government what, lets the married couple keep some additional portion of their money?

Symbiosis.

Your "Fair" is only diminishing marriage to be on par with "two of whatever", which is neither fair nor accurate (euphemism). Fairness is nothing but an opportunity to abuse the system and falsely claim injury. "Fairness is never objective and is always subject to the declaration of the power in charge. The law has been subverted to fairness and we're told by our shady Oval Occupant that we need to "spread the wealth around".

Fairness is when two equivalent things are treated equally, not when to unequal things are made equal.

[Trip]

Hey, we can go through this thread and make a list of who (between you and I) have used more ad hominem statements towards other posters.


Wanna try?






Fabricate? If you mean the suggestion about the lists I posted and then deleted (because you deleted your post) there would be no fabrication involved. This board has a "quote" function you know.



>>>>

Are you trying to say that you never interjected yourself on here into a discussion I was having with two military persons about John McCain and that you did not then tell them that the reason for my position was that I don't respect the military and do denigrate them?

Are you trying to say that you did not enter into this thread today and indicate that I was being discriminatory and disregarding the freedoms of this country?

[Guvnah]

In a perfect world, the government wouldn't be involved.

In the real world, they already are, and therefore should be fair about its application.

Then this claim by you is absolutely not true:


I've actually been arguing against government involvement in marriage from the beginning, so there's that...


Now you are coming clean and admitting you've only been arguing against it if this were "a perfect world". Yet you state plainly that it's NOT a perfect world.

Funk man speak with forked tongue.

[reflechissez]

While I agree with your last sentence, I would find it to be unfair if the state subsidized heterosexual couples and not couples of any persuasion.

There should be no subsidy for one's choice to marry at all, IMHO.

i agree. nor should there be tax deductions for children. if you can't afford them, don't have them.

[WorldWatcher]

Fairness is when two equivalent things are treated equally, not when to unequal things are made equal.



I totally agree Trip.


Two equivalent things, should be treated the same.


All law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adult, infertile, couples should be treated the same.



>>>>

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Involved? You mean acknowledging and registering an institution that has existed for thousands of years? And recognized because of the benefits that marriage gives to society? And that government what, lets the married couple keep some additional portion of their money?

Symbiosis.

Your "Fair" is only diminishing marriage to be on par with "two of whatever", which is neither fair nor accurate (euphemism). Fairness is nothing but an opportunity to abuse the system and falsely claim injury. The law has been subverted to fairness and we're told by our shady Oval Occupant that we need to "spread the wealth around".

Fairness is when two equivalent things are treated equally, not when to unequal things are made equal.
You are, as always, welcome to your opinion, and I am as welcome to disagree with it as I please.

I will continue to do so, only now I'll just do so without bothering to read anything you have to say.

Buena suerte...

[reflechissez]

Aren't you the geneticist?

If we see a decrease in the importance of marriage along with an increase in crime, drug use, single parentage, failure to complete schooling, don't you think that the minimal support government gives to married persons, generally in the form of deductions (money not taken from them) more than covers the costs of making further maladjusted drug-using, violent failures?

are you now arguing that tax deductions (money that is taken from the rest of us) have something to do with preventing all those social ills you listed? got any back up for that assertion?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

How am I speaking with "forked tongue"?

I know that I'm not getting the government out of the marriage business. That's called "realism". Hell...I want them to cut taxes down to what they actually need to run the government to do what the Constitution mandates, but I know THAT'S not happening in my lifetime either.

I also know that the government is supposed to apply its laws equally to law-abiding citizens. Until homosexuality is specifically ruled illegal, the government should not be denying them the same benefits that you or I are already entitled to.

Put it this way..."separate but equal" is a massive piece of ********, and that's what is being argued for by those who are against gay marriage.

[Greyclouds]

THAT is not a scientific argument and either you're no scientist or you're so biased by your personal beliefs that you cannot consider the situation objectively.

Please. I was running short on time and could not list all the controls that I would have suggested.

Also, if you can make such an firm definitive statement based off of little information on me, as well as the fact that you didn't take all my prior posts in my history of posting here into account, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you as well.


Why ever would the subsidies have to improve the life of the children within them? Would that improvement of your "study" involve recognition that a family bought a home a year or two before they might otherwise? That the child was wearing better clothes than they might otherwise?

OK, we're talking about a specific aspect of marriage that deserves subsidies, yes? Or were we talking about marriage as a whole? I was under the impression that many of the subsidies are given to account for the burden of raising children and that these subsidies are expected to give benefits based on the cost they incur to the government. Your post led me to believe as such as you gave examples of children growing up to be criminals as necessitating subsidies to counteract such behavior.

Hence my call for data on statistics where such subsidies actually result in less criminal behavior in the married demographic.


The relevant study is not on the child or the child's "perfomance' within the marriage, but rather on marriage overall and you missed that cogent fact, showing your overwhelming bias.

And the "subsidies" are not for the perfomance of any given marriage but to encourage marriage within a society. And generally the monies given marriage are allowing them to keep more of their earnings than milking them as you liberals choose to do, inherently acting as if it is the government's money, even YOUR money, given back.

Well then we could do a study where we invite individuals, allow them a brief "courtship" period and ask them if they want to live together with an offer of a subsidy or no offer of a subsidy.

If it is statistically more likely that the couple agrees to live together WITH the subsidy, then we get data that we can compare. We would have to offer different ranges of subsidies, as well as different age, ethnic and "attractive" variables in the experimental data.

But, of course, working with human subjects really sucks, and you must discard alot of data. We'll have to sample from a large number of subjects and refine the testing based on current protocols in the field. I do not study those protocols, but if you desire to do such testing, I'll be happy to help you write a grant proposal to perform the study.

[reflechissez]

What EXACTLY is "fairness"?

It certainly isnt faire to treat two of the same things un-equally.

But Is it "fair" to treat two un-like things equally?

Marriage is not just "two people choosing to be together". There's a reason that marriage has been recognized over centuries and NO societies have ever equated homosexual unions the same as marriage in more than 6,000 years of society.

Why after more than 6,000 years would it suddenly be "fair" now to treat them the same and to argue doing so by totally distorting what marriage is?

Arguing that heterosexual unions and gay unions are the same is a falsehood that falsely equivalences the two by undermining marriage. Forcing the two to be the same and giving gays "marriage" is a direct and deliberate attack on society itself.

just because something has been a certain way, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. that's not a justification.

in your opinion, heterosexual and gay unions are not equal. others disagree. your opinion is not a fact. whether it is a direct and deliberate attack on society itself is also your opinion. in none of your posts have you offered any evidence as to how the legal recognition of gay marriage has/will/would hurt society. it is merely your opinion that it will.

[Guvnah]

How am I speaking with "forked tongue"?


My post was brief and uncomplicated. I see no reason to repeat myself.



Put it this way..."separate but equal" is a massive piece of ********, and that's what is being argued for by those who are against gay marriage.

PEOPLE are being treated equally.

Choices and behaviors are not.

There is no constitutional clause that says we must treat behaviors and choices equally. Nor even any founding principle to that effect.

[Trip]

I totally agree Trip.


Two equivalent things, should be treated the same.


All law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adult, infertile, couples should be treated the same.



>>>>

See, to paraphrase RReagan, "There ya go again".

You're imposing a limitation on the heterosexual couples to falsely equivalence them to be the same as homosexual couples.

It's a dishonesty.

And you "conveniently" forgot to quote the preceding part, but I'm sure it was just an accidental oversight on your part:

Your "Fair" is only diminishing marriage to be on par with "two of whatever", which is neither fair nor accurate (euphemism).

[Trip]

You are, as always, welcome to your opinion, and I am as welcome to disagree with it as I please.

I will continue to do so, only now I'll just do so without bothering to read anything you have to say.

Buena suerte...

May you continue to live in the bliss of your uninterrupted fantasy.

[WorldWatcher]

Are you trying to say that you never interjected yourself on here into a discussion I was having with two military persons about John McCain and that you did not then tell them that the reason for my position was that I don't respect the military and do denigrate them?


You assume that I would think a disagreement with you was important to remember why?


I know we disagreed on McCain's status, I know you don't think the children of people willing to give their lives overseas should not be treated as NBC's.


Yes I think it is insulting to the sacrifices our military members make.


Are you trying to say that you did not enter into this thread today and indicate that I was being discriminatory


Yes I think that discrimination occurs when law abiding, tax paying, consenting, adult, infertile couples are treated differently based on gender.



and disregarding the freedoms of this country?


Your position is that Same-sex Couples not be treated the same as Different-sex couples in terms of Civil Marriage is it not?



>>>>

[Dr. Funkenstein]

My post was brief and uncomplicated. I see no reason to repeat myself.




PEOPLE are being treated equally.

Choices and behaviors are not.

There is no constitutional clause that says we must treat behaviors and choices equally. Nor even any founding principle to that effect.
Okay...see there's the crux of it.

Isn't "marriage" a "choice"? Isn't pro-creation a "behavior"?

Yet some are okay with rewarding only those 'choices' and 'behaviors' they agree with, rather than applying it equally to all who obey the law alongside them.

[WorldWatcher]

See, to paraphrase RReagan, "There ya go again".

You're imposing a limitation on the heterosexual couples to falsely equivalence them to be the same as homosexual couples.

It's a dishonesty.



No actually it is comparing similar situations.


One set of infertile couples can enter into Civil Marriage (in most places) and one set cannot enter into Civil Marriage (in most places). One set is recognized by the federal government, one set is not.


The difference is the gender of the couples.


>>>>

[Greyclouds]

Which is why we need an absolute definition of what marriage really is.

Else you would get a subsidy for marrying your mother. You're free to do it, of course (and we know there are some marriages like that out there.) But we don't want society encouraging it with benefits.

The difference in who gets (or not) benefits is not a matter of the people involved, but the choice. People are equal. Behaviors are not. (Thus, I did not get a cash-for-clunkers subsidy when I chose to buy a used car. It was my choice to do so.)

I agree on your call for definitions. Some people might not like them though!

I'd suggest that there be no financial subsidy for marriage to ANYONE at ANYTIME.


As a SECONDARY contingency (if people really want their hand-outs; I'd prefer NOT to step on this contingency as I feel that subsidies for social behavior should be done away with) we should make distinctions between relationships WITH children and relationships WITHOUT children. I feel that children are the largest financial drain on a familial relationship due to current cost structures in America. Biological, in vitro fertilization and adopted children would allow for application to subsidies under this contingency. All other relationships are NOT considered for subsidy nor financial penalty.

Again, I'd PREFER the removal of all government subsidies, but as a contingency (there is no other way but to have subsidies) I'd argue that only relationships with children necessitate a subsidy. Non-biological adoption as well.



That's one way to go with it.

We as a society have a tendency to give benefits to people, choices, situations, behaviors that tend to encourage a positive return to society. (Or discourage a negative cost to society, such as free health clinics for homeless people do.)

I believe that the single life can contribute greatly to society, though I withhold my full opinion in lieu of actual statistics on the matter. Personal anecdotal evidence, on my part, would not be enough to make a statement on this matter. Nor would I be inclined to comment on the benefits of marriage as well without data to back up my opinion.


At one point society saw a benefit in marriage.

I keep asking if we still think that benefit is still there. (And if so, what is that benefit?)

It's a good question, but one that has been complicated by the sheer size of our population and our changing culture.

[WorldWatcher]

>


OK, everyone.


Time for me to head home and run and errand.


Be back later.


>>>>

[Trip]

Please. I was running short on time and could not list all the controls that I would have suggested.

Also, if you can make such an firm definitive statement based off of little information on me, as well as the fact that you didn't take all my prior posts in my history of posting here into account, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you as well.

I am unable to make a definitive statement about what a scientifically "objective evaluation" entails, or does not entail, without having read all your prior posts in your history?

Its amazing that geneticists get anything done at that rate.



OK, we're talking about a specific aspect of marriage that deserves subsidies, yes? Or were we talking about marriage as a whole? I was under the impression that many of the subsidies are given to account for the burden of raising children and that these subsidies are expected to give benefits based on the cost they incur to the government. Your post led me to believe as such as you gave examples of children growing up to be criminals as necessitating subsidies to counteract such behavior.

Why is there a specific "aspect" of marriage that deserves subsidies? You're starting with a conclusion, which is based on your own bias. You believe that each marriage is only recognized by having children, yet this is nowhere a requirement.

You seem to have a trouble understanding sets and subsets.

All people are born of heterosexual unions.
All marriages are two heterosexuals.
All marriages do not have to have children.

All marriages have been recognized by numerous societies across temporal, geographic and cultural divides whether they have children or not.

Why would they have to have children?



Hence my call for data on statistics where such subsidies actually result in less criminal behavior in the married demographic.

But the children are not the defintion of the marriage, and the benefit is to society by the marriage, hence its recognition.

If you want to argue whether being in a stable familial relationship is supported by less incidence of getting in trouble and involvement in crime, then you're barking up the wrong thread. That's nowhere a part of why marriage is different from homosexual unions.




Well then we could do a study where we invite individuals, allow them a brief "courtship" period and ask them if they want to live together with an offer of a subsidy or no offer of a subsidy.

Does this involve a petri dish?

[timjy]

I still will never see why they use slavery as something even close to what gays supposed have gone through. What really is going to hurt their case is head hunting the guidance counselor.Just shows hows they really feel about peoples rights.

[Trip]

I'd suggest that there be no financial subsidy for marriage to ANYONE at ANYTIME.



so you believe in diminishing marriage to the point of being equavalent to homosexual unions?

Is this bias based on personal experience. Did something happen on (re)entry? Perhaps your parents marriage didnt go smoothly? I know my own had its ups and downs and my father indicated his desire to get divorced but that went on basically a decade before he passed.

What's the problem with promoting marriage in society when it is acknowledged to be the stable building block of that society and its very backbone? You don't think we have enough crime, drug abuse, single parent kids and a whole array of maladjustments?

So far you've tried to rationalize why you think marriage 'aint it" but why is that when some 6,000 years of human history say "It's IT"?

[Guvnah]

Okay...see there's the crux of it.

Isn't "marriage" a "choice"? Isn't pro-creation a "behavior"?

Yet some are okay with rewarding only those 'choices' and 'behaviors' they agree with, rather than applying it equally to all who obey the law alongside them.

They most certainly are.

We already reward procreation with child deductions and credits, etc., (whether or not the parents are in a recognized marriage) so that's not at issue here.

Marriage is a choice, and so is WHO you marry.

"The law" in most states specifies that the CHOICE of one-man-one-woman gets the governmental benefits. Ditto federal. (Massachusetts gay couples cannot do a "married filing jointly" 1040.)

Others are free to try out other arrangements, but do not fulfill the parameters as defined by their local laws.

I wanted a cash-for-clunkers rebate when I bought a used car, but I chose to purchase something outside the definition of the program so I was not able to benefit from it. I want a farm subsidy for my back yard vegetable garden, but I do not fit the criteria that qualifies me for a farm subsidy. I wanted to avoid having to pay for a dog license for my dog because we don't have to buy them for cats, but because I chose a dog for a pet instead of a cat, I was bound by the rules for owning a dog.

BEHAVIORS are not equal. CHOICES are not equal.

[Guvnah]

No actually it is comparing similar situations.


One set of infertile couples can enter into Civil Marriage (in most places) and one set cannot enter into Civil Marriage (in most places). One set is recognized by the federal government, one set is not.


The difference is the gender of the couples.


>>>>

A gay couple, by definition, is infertile.

The heterosexual couple is not. (By definition.) They may discover they are after some amount of time trying to conceive.

I know you are not suggesting that we institute something as invasive as pre-marital fertility testing. So you know you are just raising a smoke screen.

[Trip]

No actually it is comparing similar situations.


One set of infertile couples can enter into Civil Marriage (in most places) and one set cannot enter into Civil Marriage (in most places). One set is recognized by the federal government, one set is not.


The difference is the gender of the couples.


>>>>

Your "similar conditions "are a fabrication, and inserting into those conditions a contrived comparison. Infertile hetersexual couples are by far the exception and not the rule.

However infertile Homosexual couples are the unwaivering rule .... unless they go outside to an opposite-sex partner, but then they're not a committed relationship, are they?

The rule of society is that all of us, every single one, is the product of a heterosexual union. Even in the hypothetical case of "in vitro" birth, it too is the result of male and female genetics.

You say "the difference is the gender of the couples" but even this isnt true.

Heterosexual couples have both genders. Yet you are fond of claiming "gender discrimination" not allowing homosexuals to marry. Given that marriage involves BOTH GENDERS (there are only two genders) then neither gender could possibly be being discriminated against.

[Trip]

I wanted a cash-for-clunkers rebate when I bought a used car, but I chose to purchase something outside the definition of the program so I was not able to benefit from it. I want a farm subsidy for my back yard vegetable garden, but I do not fit the criteria that qualifies me for a farm subsidy. I wanted to avoid having to pay for a dog license for my dog because we don't have to buy them for cats, but because I chose a dog for a pet instead of a cat, I was bound by the rules for owning a dog.

BEHAVIORS are not equal. CHOICES are not equal.

Those are really good; Kudos on thinking of them all.

[Greyclouds]

so you believe in diminishing marriage to the point of being equavalent to homosexual unions?

Is this bias based on personal experience. Did something happen on (re)entry? Perhaps your parents marriage didnt go smoothly? I know my own had its ups and downs and my father indicated his desire to get divorced but that went on basically a decade before he passed.

What's the problem with promoting marriage in society when it is acknowledged to be the stable building block of that society and its very backbone? You don't think we have enough crime, drug abuse, single parent kids and a whole array of maladjustments?

So far you've tried to rationalize why you think marriage 'aint it" but why is that when some 6,000 years of human history say "It's IT"?

Um no, I just don't see the need to subsidize marriage by entitling a segment of the population that CHOOSES to get married over the segment of the population that does not.


As for your other post, it lacked substance and was incredibly facetious with no real substance and quite alot of backtracking.

The only standout point that you raised were the aspects of marriage that deserve subsidies. What are they to you?

I suggested, based on your prior post, that statistics on the rearing of children from subsidized marriages should be determined by a peer-reviewed study. You jumped all over me and stated that I was biased. Then, in that other post, I suggested that we take a look at the tendency of people to associate in relationships if subsidies are offered and if they are not. Then you asked me if we could do that in a petri dish, which was an absolutely absurd question and reflected poorly on the rest of your post.

I expected alot better discourse from you.

[Czhorat]

so you believe in diminishing marriage to the point of being equavalent to homosexual unions?

Is this bias based on personal experience. Did something happen on (re)entry? Perhaps your parents marriage didnt go smoothly? I know my own had its ups and downs and my father indicated his desire to get divorced but that went on basically a decade before he passed.
I'm leaving your gratuitous personal attack against the Mael's harbinger; read what you said and tell me again with a straight face that YOU are the one suffering ad hominen attacks and that the liberals on this thread are the ones being emotional.

The real reason I wanted to quote this us to ask for clarification: how would allowing same sex marriage "diminish" heterosexual marriage? If it's just about fertility, then post-menopausal women who either marry or remain married without children are "diminishing" marriage just as much.

You don't think we have enough crime, drug abuse, single parent kids and a whole array of maladjustments?
Is it your contention that allowing same-sex marriage would increase any of the above? Married same-sex couples would be able to adopt and actually DECREASE the number of parent-less children.


So far you've tried to rationalize why you think marriage 'aint it" but why is that when some 6,000 years of human history say "It's IT"?

See my post below about slavery, subjugation of women, racism, religious persecution, etc. That it's been done for a long time is not a reason, no matter how many times you try to make it one.

[Guvnah]

Again, I'd PREFER the removal of all government subsidies, but as a contingency (there is no other way but to have subsidies) I'd argue that only relationships with children necessitate a subsidy. Non-biological adoption as well.


We already do that. Whether the parents are gay or not. Married or not. Single or not.

We give tax deductions, credits and the like. We have low-income programs specifically for families with kids.



I believe that the single life can contribute greatly to society, though I withhold my full opinion in lieu of actual statistics on the matter. Personal anecdotal evidence, on my part, would not be enough to make a statement on this matter. Nor would I be inclined to comment on the benefits of marriage as well without data to back up my opinion.


I have no beef with that. None whatsoever.

The point about marriage and kids is that (at least historically, and I contend still today) it's held that households headed by intact married one-male-one-female couples are the best environment for giving our next generations the best chance to grow up to be productive, upright and successful adults. And, in the era of societal benefits from government, society has held that this arrangement is one to be encouraged for that reason.


It's a good question, but one that has been complicated by the sheer size of our population and our changing culture.

So we stick with the status quo.

When the gay movement can demonstrate why society should change the status quo and expend more resources on a larger definition, let's do that. So far the best they can offer is, "Well they get it too! So we want it as well."

[Guvnah]

You say "the difference is the gender of the couples" but even this isnt true.

Heterosexual couples have both genders. Yet you are fond of claiming "gender discrimination" not allowing homosexuals to marry. However Marriage involves BOTH GENDERS (there are only two genders) so neither gender could possibly be being discriminated against.

Well, I think he was shooting for "orientation", not gender specifically.

However, even that does not hold.

We KNOW there are couples out there in heterosexual unions where one or the other is actually homosexual. Yes, they married into a lie, but they did it nonetheless. And they were not denied their marriage license, nor the state recognition, nor the benefits thereof, because one or the other was actually gay.

It was decided and awarded purely on the merits of the choice/behavior of the couple. They fit a certain paradigm, and they were licensed. End of questions.

[reflechissez]

so you believe in diminishing marriage to the point of being equavalent to homosexual unions?

Is this bias based on personal experience. Did something happen on (re)entry? Perhaps your parents marriage didnt go smoothly? I know my own had its ups and downs and my father indicated his desire to get divorced but that went on basically a decade before he passed.

What's the problem with promoting marriage in society when it is acknowledged to be the stable building block of that society and its very backbone? You don't think we have enough crime, drug abuse, single parent kids and a whole array of maladjustments?

So far you've tried to rationalize why you think marriage 'aint it" but why is that when some 6,000 years of human history say "It's IT"?

how do you come up with this based on his statement about not subsidizing marriage of any type? there are so many leaps of logic in your post that i don't know where to start.

[Czhorat]

We KNOW there are couples out there in heterosexual unions where one or the other is actually homosexual. Yes, they married into a lie, but they did it nonetheless. And they were not denied their marriage license, nor the state recognition, nor the benefits thereof, because one or the other was actually gay.

Do you think this is actually BETTER for society, for the people involved, and for their family's than allowing them the freedom to have a loving relationship which isn't a lie be recognized by the state and by society?

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Well, I think he was shooting for "orientation", not gender specifically.

However, even that does not hold.

We KNOW there are couples out there in heterosexual unions where one or the other is actually homosexual. Yes, they married into a lie, but they did it nonetheless. And they were not denied their marriage license, nor the state recognition, nor the benefits thereof, because one or the other was actually gay.

It was decided and awarded purely on the merits of the choice/behavior of the couple. They fit a certain paradigm, and they were licensed. End of questions.

Promoting lies, except for those involving mythical creatures such as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus to children younger than 8, should not be encouraged by the state.

[Trip]

Um no, I just don't see the need to subsidize marriage by entitling a segment of the population that CHOOSES to get married over the segment of the population that does not.


As for your other post, it lacked substance and was incredibly facetious with no real substance and quite alot of backtracking.

The only standout point that you raised were the aspects of marriage that deserve subsidies. What are they to you?

I suggested, based on your prior post, that statistics on the rearing of children from subsidized marriages should be determined by a peer-reviewed study. You jumped all over me and stated that I was biased. Then, in that other post, I suggested that we take a look at the tendency of people to associate in relationships if subsidies are offered and if they are not. Then you asked me if we could do that in a petri dish, which was an absolutely absurd question and reflected poorly on the rest of your post.

I expected alot better discourse from you.

So the fact that marriage is the only thing promoting well adjusted individuals in society and you think that society is going in a good direction that we no longer need it?

Subsidize, there's that word again. People are allowed to keep more of their money and suddenly it's a "subsidy"? I sort of find the terms which you grasp for to be somewhat astonishing, and very revealing as to your own bias in the world.


You suggested that the statistics of rearing children should be based on a peer review study, but this study has as its underlying philsophy, by your own statement, "specific aspect of marriage that deserves subsidies", indicating this to be children. This shows a bias to the test, especially when compared with my statements about why marriage is valued by society.

1> The whole point in marriage being recognized is its benefit to society. I take it you recognize heterosexual couples are the only couples that produce offspring.

2> If the offspring are benefited by being in a committed relationship, and we have studies to prove this, then why are you looking to see if "subsidies" benefit children in a marriage ,when nowhere are these subsidies anywhere a point of contention or relevant to the consideration of why Marriage is is beneficial to society?

It seems as if your bugaboo is with the subsidies and not with the award (or not) of gay couples with "marriage". The subsidies came about from government, congress recognizing the need to further encourage and stabilize familes. They got to keep more of their own money.

Obviously the benefit of marriage was recognized in advance of any "subsidies". The subsides came to encourage more people to enter into marriage. Undoubtedly the subsidies are an encouragement or gays would not be clamoring that they deserve them too.

The total detachment of your "study" from the actual factors of contention is what led me to ask if this study "involved a petri dish." Why? because you've so totally lost sight of the relevant factors and the "horizon" that your gaze must be looking down (at the petri dish) to an entirely enclosed and impractical study. (C'mon, children in a petri dish? And you didnt get my frustration with your "study" from that?)

And if you didn't get the idea that I expected a lot better analytics from you with the "petri dish" comment, then when did you? (Or is that only coming now?)

The problem isn't just really your "study" but your entire framing of the concerns. If you cannot frame a test correctly to relevant factors, then what good is the test? Only from asking the right questions (analytics) can you begin to construct a proper hypothesis and test.

[Trip]

We KNOW there are couples out there in heterosexual unions where one or the other is actually homosexual. Yes, they married into a lie, but they did it nonetheless. And they were not denied their marriage license, nor the state recognition, nor the benefits thereof, because one or the other was actually gay.


I happen to known and be somewhat friends with one such person.

He spent years in a marriage and produced no children. Now he's living in a relationship with a another male in Philadelphia. Both he and his partner believe that marriage should not be changed and that it is defined and meant to stay the way it is. They both believe that marriage is not open to redefinition despite what some may want.

Many gays believe this.

What is unique about this guy and his partner is they're both Catholics. What is even more unique is this guy's partner is a Catholic priest, with his parish across the river and they own a condo together in Philly.

This guy knows I've no ... "blind hatred" in me. He also knows I think he's nuts because his entire life is about putting himself in the most compromised position, always actively seeking out the most turmoil possible - a drama queen.

[Guvnah]

Originally Posted by Guvnah
We KNOW there are couples out there in heterosexual unions where one or the other is actually homosexual. Yes, they married into a lie, but they did it nonetheless. And they were not denied their marriage license, nor the state recognition, nor the benefits thereof, because one or the other was actually gay.


Do you think this is actually BETTER for society, for the people involved, and for their family's ...


I most certainly do NOT think a marriage built on a lie is better for society, nor for the individuals involved, their children or their families.

But I wasn't commenting on that.

My point was that the current governmental treatment of marriage is NOT based on the participants' orientation. Nothing more. It's not about their orientation.




than allowing them the freedom to have a loving relationship which isn't a lie be recognized by the state and by society?

They have the freedom to have that loving relationship already.

The only question is whether or not society deems that their relationship merits the benefits it gives to other marriages.

If you need benefits from the government to have a loving relationship, then your relationship is also BUILT ON A LIE.

Love away. Nobody stops you. You have the right. You have the freedom.

And society has the freedom to decide what it wants to encourage. You can choose what society prefers, or you can choose something else, but you most certainly have the choice.

[Guvnah]

Promoting lies, except for those involving mythical creatures such as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus to children younger than 8, should not be encouraged by the state.

Society is in no way promoting a lie.

That lie is a choice of the individual. You have to take responsibility for your own lies.

[Guvnah]

What is even more unique is this guy's partner is a Catholic priest, with his parish across the river and they own a condo together in Philly.

...

Well there's another guy living a lie...

[WorldWatcher]

Well, I think he was shooting for "orientation", not gender specifically.

However, even that does not hold.

We KNOW there are couples out there in heterosexual unions where one or the other is actually homosexual. Yes, they married into a lie, but they did it nonetheless. And they were not denied their marriage license, nor the state recognition, nor the benefits thereof, because one or the other was actually gay.

It was decided and awarded purely on the merits of the choice/behavior of the couple. They fit a certain paradigm, and they were licensed. End of questions.

No actually I was shooting for gender.

John is a Heterosexual male.
Joan is a Heterosexual female.
James is a Homosexual male.
Jane is a Homosexual female.

John and Joan walk into a County Clerks office and ask for a Civil Marriage License. They state they are both heterosexual and wish to marry. A license is issued.

John and Jane walk into a County Clerks office and ask for a Civil Marriage License. They state that one of them is a heterosexual and one is a homosexual and wish to marry. A license is issued.

John and James walk into a County Clerks office and ask for a Civil Marriage License. They state that they are homosexual and wish to marry. A license is denied.

James and Jane walk into a County Clerks office and ask for a Civil Marriage License. They state that they are both homosexual and wish to marry. A license is issued.




Is the Civil Marriage License issued or denied based on sexual orientation of the couple? No

Is the Civil Marriage License issued or denied based on ability of the couple to procreate? No

Is the Civil Marriage License issued or denied solely based (assuming they meet all other legal qualifications for Civil Marriage) on the gender of the couple? Yes


>>>>

[Trip]

Is the Civil Marriage License issued or denied based on sexual orientation of the couple? No

Is the Civil Marriage License issued or denied based on ability of the couple to procreate? No

Is the Civil Marriage License issued or denied solely based (assuming they meet all other legal qualifications for Civil Marriage) on the gender of the couple? Yes


>>>>

The answer to the 3 questions is "no".

A couple does not have "gender". Only individuals have gender. Two persons in a couple can share a common gender but that's not why couple #3 was denied marriage. Marriage has the only two genders already involved in it, so it cannot possibly deny participation based on "gender".

In fact, couple 3 was denied a license based on "choice".

You need better hypotheticals, preferably ones that don't only slip on by high school kids and younger.

[WorldWatcher]

The answer to the 3 questions is "no".


On what condition of the couple was the denied the license then?


A couple does not have "gender". Only individuals have gender.


Correct, the individuals comprising the couple each have a gender.

Two persons in a couple can share a common gender but that's not why couple #3 was denied marriage.


Sure it is.

Man/Woman = Accepted
Man/Man = Denied
Woman/Woman = Denied


The license (in some part so the country) is denied based on the gender make-up of the couple.


>>>>

[Trip]

On what condition of the couple was the denied the license then?





Correct, the individuals comprising the couple each have a gender.




Sure it is.

Man/Woman = Accepted
Man/Man = Denied
Woman/Woman = Denied


The license (in some part so the country) is denied based on the gender make-up of the couple.


>>>>

No, a license was denied based on the fact that the couple is gender discriminatory.

The couple are the only ones discriminating based on gender. Marriage involves both genders and obviously cannot be discriminatory.


Thank you for helping me see the light.

Gays are sexists!
Gays are sexists!
Gays are BIGOTS!

The truth will OUT! you cannot hide behind that same gender that way! We've found you OUT! WorldWatcher has found you out!

[WorldWatcher]

No, a license was denied based on the fact that the couple is gender discriminatory.

The couple are the only ones discriminating based on gender. Marriage involves both genders and obviously cannot be discriminatory.



You are trying to blame the couple now for the State denying them a license because of their gender? Sorry, I don't agree.



>>>>

[Guvnah]

Is the Civil Marriage License issued or denied solely based (assuming they meet all other legal qualifications for Civil Marriage) on the gender of the couple? Yes



It's based on the choice of gender mix.

It's based on a behavior, not on the people involved.

The people are treated equally.

The choices are treated differently.

There is no constitutional principle that applies to equal treatment of choices.

[WorldWatcher]

It's based on the choice of gender mix.

It's based on a behavior, not on the people involved.

The people are treated equally.

The choices are treated differently.

There is no constitutional principle that applies to equal treatment of choices.


Actually religion is a choice, Constitutionally speaking the government cannot discriminate against you based on that choice.

Quartering solders in peacetime is a choice, Constitutionally speaking the government cannot discriminate against you for choosing not to quarter solders if asked.

Testifying on your own behalf in a criminal case is also a choice, a Constitutionally protected choice.


>>>>

[Trip]

You are trying to blame the couple now for the State denying them a license because of their gender? Sorry, I don't agree.



>>>>

Your right. the state should give licenses for whatever they ask for, even they they chose something they could not get licensed for.


"I'd like a dog license"
".uhh.. isn't that a cat?"
"yeah but I'd like a dog license"
"Sorry, i cannot give you a dog license".

"The City of DOGS is prejudiced against CATS! LALALALALA!"

:))

So DO tell:

If the State is denying them a license based on their gender, and married couples have BOTH GENDERS, why are
these married couples not discriminated against by the State?

I promise, there are only two genders.

Homosexual relationships have only *ONE* gender in them by definition. They are the ones who have "discriminated based on gender".

[Mobulis]

Your right. the state should give licenses for whatever they ask for, even they they chose something they could not get licensed for.


"I'd like a dog license"
".uhh.. isn't that a cat?"
"yeah but I'd like a dog license"
"Sorry, i cannot give you a dog license".

"The City of DOGS is prejudiced against CATS! LALALALALA!"

:))

So DO tell:

If the State is denying them a license based on their gender, and married couples have BOTH GENDERS, why are
these married couples not discriminated against by the State?

I promise, there are only two genders.

Homosexual relationships have only *ONE* gender in them by definition. They are the ones who have "discriminated based on gender".

I gotta admit your ability to twist would make a top dizzy.

[Trip]

I gotta admit your ability to twist would make a top dizzy.

Twist? You mean there are more than two genders?

Or the fact that 29 states, the ones that have voted , have all voted that Gay unions are not the same as Marriage?

Or the fact that to "discriminate" against something, you have to actually exclude that thing?



I've an idea, it's just a "wild off-the-cuff thought", mind you, ...

.... but maybe you might actually TRY to address the subject of the post rather than make personal comments?

Hmmmmm?

Mmmm Mmmm MMMM

[reflechissez]

Twist? You mean there are more than two genders?

Or the fact that 29 states, the ones that have voted , have all voted that Gay unions are not the same as Marriage?

Or the fact that to "discriminate" against something, you have to actually exclude that thing?



I've an idea, it's just a "wild off-the-cuff thought", mind you, ...

.... but maybe you might actually TRY to address the subject of the post rather than make personal comments?

Hmmmmm?

Mmmm Mmmm MMMM

aren't all comments on here personal, ie., made by a person?

why don't you just say you don't think gays should be allowed to marry? the reason why doesn't really matter. your posts would be shorter and would free up more time for the birther thread. just sayin'

[Trip]

aren't all comments on here personal, ie., made by a person?

why don't you just say you don't think gays should be allowed to marry? the reason why doesn't really matter. your posts would be shorter and would free up more time for the birther thread. just sayin'

"Personal" comments are those addressing the person rather than the subject, otherwise known as "ad hominem" (to the person).

I don't say "gays shouldnt be allowed to marry" because it is not a subjective opinion but rather based on what marriage *IS* and why it has been recognized here and elsewhere.

Given that "gay unions" are not what marriage *IS*, then the two should not be equated.

If I only said that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" then that would make your job alot easier to claim that my argument was just "because I said so", which people have tried despite my lengthy posts involving rationale, which you recognize.

Your reference to the "birther thread" is also what's known as an "ad hominem" address, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

So basically, you've "got nothing"?

[Mobulis]

"Personal" comments are those addressing the person rather than the subject, otherwise known as "ad hominem" (to the person).

I don't say "gays shouldnt be allowed to marry" because it is not a subjective opinion but rather based on what marriage *IS* and why it has been recognized here and elsewhere.

Given that "gay unions" are not what marriage *IS*, then the two should not be equated.

If I only said that "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" then that would make your job alot easier to claim that my argument was just "because I said so", which people have tried despite my lengthy posts involving rationale, which you recognize.

Your reference to the "birther thread" is also what's known as an "ad hominem" address, and has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion.

So basically, you've "got nothing"?


Marriage is a societal construct and as such means whatever society wants it to mean.

[Trip]

Marriage is a societal construct and as such means whatever society wants it to mean.

Marriage is a social construct that predates this society and is not the result of "mass opinion", and certainly not any current persons. Marriage came into being over time and has a meaning and significance as a result of its values to society. Those values have not changed, gay unions don't meet them, and as a result there's no change to what "marriage" is.

[Mobulis]

Marriage is a social construct that predates this society and is not the result of "mass opinion", and certainly not any current persons. Marriage came into being over time and has a meaning and significance as a result of its values to society. Those values have not changed, gay unions don't meet them, and as a result there's no change to what "marriage" is.



What will you do once gay marriage has become accepted in all 50 states.

[Trip]

What will you do once gay marriage has become accepted in all 50 states.

So far it has been rejected in 29 of 29 state votes. Some 2/3 of Americans reject gay unions being the same as Marriage.

What will I do? Look to see if science has somehow found a new way to procreate and advance society, and if found lacking, then bury this country with a dead rat in the back yard.

[FOX Watcher]

Marriage is a social construct that predates this society and is not the result of "mass opinion", and certainly not any current persons. Marriage came into being over time and has a meaning and significance as a result of its values to society. Those values have not changed, gay unions don't meet them, and as a result there's no change to what "marriage" is.

I'll repeat Mobulis' words.

The definition of marriage is whatever society determines it to be. Your lone opinion and views do not matter in the big scheme of things. If they coincide with what the people determine, then fine. However, if society changes their stance on the issue, and it doesn't coincide with your beliefs of what marriage should be, well then clearly you are out of luck.

You, yourself Trip, don't get to play judge here, which is a concept I don't think you quite grasp. You are too busy trying to shut down other's views on the topic, as if you are THE definitive ruling on the issue. You aren't.

"But that is the way we have always done it" is no longer an acceptable rationale for continuing traditions. If society changes its stance on an issue, and it doesn't fit your beliefs, then that really is too bad.

[Trip]

I'll repeat Mobulis' words.

The definition of marriage is whatever society determines it to be. Your lone opinion and views do not matter in the big scheme of things. If they coincide with what the people determine, then fine. However, if society changes their stance on the issue, and it doesn't coincide with your beliefs of what marriage should be, well then clearly you are out of luck.

You, yourself Trip, don't get to play judge here, which is a concept I don't think you quite grasp. You are too busy trying to shut down other's views on the topic, as if you are THE definitive ruling on the issue. You aren't.

"But that is the way we have always done it" is no longer an acceptable rationale for continuing traditions. If society changes its stance on an issue, and it doesn't fit your beliefs, then that really is too bad.

I don't get to play Judge here (and i'm not) and neither do you, nor any cumulative group.

Marriage is what it is. It has meaning. Society is no more entitled to re-define marriage by legislative, judicial or popular leverage than Congress is entitled to re-define words to change the Constitution and bypass the only accepted means to alter it in Article V.

I don't shut down other's views, I just offer my own views with a compellng rationale. If you feel that rationale "shuts you down", that's not my blame but rather your lacking argument.

We're all entitled to opinions. We're all entitled to have desires. We're not all entitled to be rewarded for those opinions, desires and choices. That's not "The Law of Trip", that's just LIFE. You should consider getting used to it.

(BTW, have you recognized the difference between "gall" and "gull" (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63207571&highlight=gull#post63207571) yet? ) This might help you on the journey to recognizing why marriage is distinct.

[Mobulis]

I don't get to play Judge here (and i'm not) and neither do you, nor any cumulative group.

Marriage is what it is. It has meaning. Society is no more entitled to re-define marriage by legislative, judicial or popular leverage than Congress is entitled to re-define words to change the Constitution and bypass the only accepted means to alter it in Article V.

I don't shut down other's views, I just offer my own views with a compellng rationale. If you feel that rationale "shuts you down", that's not my blame but rather your lacking argument.

We're all entitled to opinions. We're all entitled to have desires. We're not all entitled to be rewarded for those opinions, desires and choices. That's not "The Law of Trip", that's just LIFE. You should consider getting used to it.

(BTW, have you recognized the difference between "gall" and "gull" (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63207571&highlight=gull#post63207571) yet? ) This might help you on the journey to recognizing why marriage is distinct.

So what will prevent society from re-defineing marriage because its happened in several countrys and several states.

[FOX Watcher]

I don't get to play Judge here (and i'm not) and neither do you, nor any cumulative group.

Marriage is what it is. It has meaning. Society is no more entitled to re-define marriage by legislative, judicial or popular leverage than Congress is entitled to re-define words to change the Constitution and bypass the only accepted means to alter it in Article V.

I don't shut down other's views, I just offer my own views with a compellng rationale. If you feel that rationale "shuts you down", that's not my blame but rather your lacking argument.

We're all entitled to opinions. We're all entitled to have desires. We're not all entitled to be rewarded for those opinions, desires and choices. That's not "The Law of Trip", that's just LIFE. You should consider getting used to it.

(BTW, have you recognized the difference between "gall" and "gull" (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63207571&highlight=gull#post63207571) yet? ) This might help you on the journey to recognizing why marriage is distinct.

Your rationale may be compelling in your own mind, but to me and obviously quite a few others, it certainly is not.

All you essentially have to say is that "marriage has always been this way, so that is why it needs to stay in tact".

And I couldn't help but notice you suggest in your prior post to me that perhaps "God is the prejudicial one against people's orientations". And I couldn't disagree more. Man is the one that wrote the Bible, not God. And conveniently enough, it is also Man once again who is discriminating against people because of their Orientations, which is out of the control of the individual. It is not fair that people from Group A who did not choose their Orientation, gets a set of rights, where as people from Group B, who also did not choose their Orientation,are viewed as unequal and do not have the same rights as Group A.

You have yet to provide any satisfactory explanation for how this is not discrimination. You are discriminating against someone based upon their Orientation, something that an individual does not have a choice over.

BTW, humor us, Trip. Why are you so obsessed over the topic of Gay Marriage? Give us some insight into this, because you are quite clearly obsessed on the topic of Homosexuality.

[Trip]

Your rationale may be compelling in your own mind, but to me and obviously quite a few others, it certainly is not.

All you essentially have to say is that "marriage has always been this way, so that is why it needs to stay in tact".

And I couldn't help but notice you suggest in your prior post to me that perhaps "God is the prejudicial one against people's orientations". And I couldn't disagree more. Man is the one that wrote the Bible, not God. And conveniently enough, it is also Man once again who is discriminating against people because of their Orientations, which is out of the control of the individual. It is not fair that people from Group A who did not choose their Orientation, gets a set of rights, where as people from Group B, who also did not choose their Orientation,are viewed as unequal and do not have the same rights as Group A.

You have yet to provide any satisfactory explanation for how this is not discrimination. You are discriminating against someone based upon their Orientation, something that an individual does not have a choice over.

BTW, humor us, Trip. Why are you so obsessed over the topic of Gay Marriage? Give us some insight into this, because you are quite clearly obsessed on the topic of Homosexuality.

Gay marriage doesn't exist. A discussion of marriage does not inherently involve homosexuality, so it doesn't indicate any "obsession on the topic of homosexuality". I'm friends with gays, and not all gays believe that re-defining marriage is appropriate, actually believing it is wrong.

What I am responding to is in defense of marriage, and since I plan on marrying in the next year, I do take it personally. Making marriage into something lesser than it is does effect me personally as well as the society in which I live.

No, I indicated that you need to blame "God" or "evolution" because these are the forces that made human reproduction involve male-female unions. It is this universal and unveried means reproduction which defines marriage and leads to stability of the marriage union being important to society.

I DID NOT indicate anywhere that "GOD is prejudicial to people's orientations". What I said referenced "discrimination" and was specifically,
"If anyone is discriminating against homosexuals then it is God, or Evolution, because it is founded in reproduction." (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63310051#post63310051) Your paraphrase of what I said is a misrepresentation of my actual statement.

I did not indicate any "right and wrong", certainly not "prejudice" against gays by God, but rather just FACT, so do not project your own prejudice against religion upon me. It doesn't take a highly specialized scientist to discriminate that there is a difference between man and woman and this difference represents the real function of reproduction.

Your indication about "choosing orientation" is inaccurate. Man, unlike the lesser beasts, is a being of higher reason (theoretically) and subject to choice in his actions, whereas beasts act from instinct. We, mankind, choose our sexuality. We choose what we will be aroused by and focus on that and the arousal grows. We choose what associations we involve ourselves in. And we choose whether or not to marry. Being rational and thereby responsible beings, we recognize that these choices have consequences, and also result in the sacrifice of some options in favor of our choices.

Thus far there is no evidence whatsoever that one's "orientation" has any tie whatsoever to any "hard wired" genetics, thereby becoming innate.

[Mobulis]

Gay marriage doesn't exist. A discussion of marriage does not inherently involve homosexuality, so it doesn't indicate any "obsession on the topic of homosexuality". I'm friends with gays, and not all gays believe that re-defining marriage is appropriate, actually believing it is wrong.

What I am responding to is in defense of marriage, and since I plan on marrying in the next year, I do take it personally. Making marriage into something lesser than it is does effect me personally as well as the society in which I live.

No, I indicated that you need to blame "God" or "evolution" because these are the forces that made human reproduction involve male-female unions. It is this universal and unveried means reproduction which defines marriage and leads to stability of the marriage union being important to society.

I DID NOT indicate anywhere that "GOD is prejudicial to people's orientations". What I said referenced "discrimination" and was specifically,
"If anyone is discriminating against homosexuals then it is God, or Evolution, because it is founded in reproduction." (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63310051#post63310051) Your paraphrase of what I said is a misrepresentation of my actual statement.

I did not indicate any "right and wrong", certainly not "prejudice" against gays by God, but rather just FACT, so do not project your own prejudice against religion upon me. It doesn't take a highly specialized scientist to discriminate that there is a difference between man and woman and this difference represents the real function of reproduction.

Your indication about "choosing orientation" is inaccurate. Man, unlike the lesser beasts, is a being of higher reason (theoretically) and subject to choice in his actions, whereas beasts act from instinct. We, mankind, choose our sexuality. We choose what we will be aroused by and focus on that and the arousal grows. We choose what associations we involve ourselves in. And we choose whether or not to marry. Being rational and thereby responsible beings, we recognize that these choices have consequences, and also result in the sacrifice of some options in favor of our choices.

Thus far there is no evidence whatsoever that one's "orientation" has any tie whatsoever to any "hard wired" genetics, thereby becoming innate.

This statement represents your complete and utter denial of observed reality, marriage has been redefined to include homosexuals in these country's "Belgium,Canada,Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,South Africa,Spain" and in these US states "CT, IA, ME*, MA, NH*, VT".

[Trip]

This statement represents your complete and utter denial of observed reality, marriage has been redefined to include homosexuals in these country's "Belgium,Canada,Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,South Africa,Spain" and in these US states "CT, IA, ME*, MA, NH*, VT".

Those rogue states are the ones that imagine they can ignore established "reality" and claim they have a right to re-define something they did not create and pre-exists these states and nations by untold centuries.

Homosexual unions are not made equal to heterosexual marriage by state decree any more than they can produce offspring by that decree. Talk about "denial of reality".

[Mobulis]

Those rogue states are the ones that imagine they can ignore established "reality" and claim they have a right to re-define something they did not create and pre-exists these states and nations by untold centuries.

Homosexual unions are not made equal to heterosexual marriage by state decree any more than they can produce offspring by that decree. Talk about "denial of reality".

This post proves my statement beyond a shadow of doubt.

[FOX Watcher]

Gay marriage doesn't exist. A discussion of marriage does not inherently involve homosexuality, so it doesn't indicate any "obsession on the topic of homosexuality". I'm friends with gays, and not all gays believe that re-defining marriage is appropriate, actually believing it is wrong.

What I am responding to is in defense of marriage, and since I plan on marrying in the next year, I do take it personally. Making marriage into something lesser than it is does effect me personally as well as the society in which I live.

No, I indicated that you need to blame "God" or "evolution" because these are the forces that made human reproduction involve male-female unions. It is this universal and unveried means reproduction which defines marriage and leads to stability of the marriage union being important to society.

I DID NOT indicate anywhere that "GOD is prejudicial to people's orientations". What I said referenced "discrimination" and was specifically,
"If anyone is discriminating against homosexuals then it is God, or Evolution, because it is founded in reproduction." (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=63310051#post63310051) Your paraphrase of what I said is a misrepresentation of my actual statement.

I did not indicate any "right and wrong", certainly not "prejudice" against gays by God, but rather just FACT, so do not project your own prejudice against religion upon me. It doesn't take a highly specialized scientist to discriminate that there is a difference between man and woman and this difference represents the real function of reproduction.

Your indication about "choosing orientation" is inaccurate. Man, unlike the lesser beasts, is a being of higher reason (theoretically) and subject to choice in his actions, whereas beasts act from instinct. We, mankind, choose our sexuality. We choose what we will be aroused by and focus on that and the arousal grows. We choose what associations we involve ourselves in. And we choose whether or not to marry. Being rational and thereby responsible beings, we recognize that these choices have consequences, and also result in the sacrifice of some options in favor of our choices.

Thus far there is no evidence whatsoever that one's "orientation" has any tie whatsoever to any "hard wired" genetics, thereby becoming innate.

No sir. Your indication and belief that people "choose their orientation" is what is inaccurate and a complete denial of the reality of the situation. You stated that Man has higher reasoning power than Beast and can choose his "actions". I agree with that. However, the problem is that you equivocate "Actions" to "Orientation". In essence, you are attempting to equivocate a Noun to a Verb. I'd advise going back to Elementary school to learn the differences between the two if you are a little confused on that.

Sure people choose their actions. Orientation, however is simply not chosen. You can not "choose" who you are attracted to, no matter how intelligent a being you are. You can choose to act on your feelings on who you are attracted to, but one does not choose Orientation. Find me a scientist that says that people definitively "Choose" their Orientation and provide a link on here, if you would.

If we are to use logic to determine your ridiculous assertion that "everyone chooses their Orientation", then in essence what you are saying is that everyone is actually born bisexual, and in essence are attracted to both sexes .... yet you are saying that they choose to simply be with one of those sexes.

So, how long do you have memories of being bisexual, Trip? And at what age did you play "Eenie Meenie Miney Moe" to determine that you were going to pick women over men? Can you also describe this "choosing" process and how exactly you determined that you were more attracted to women then men? How did you struggle with your feelings during this process?

And also, you don't seem to want to answer what your obsession is with Homosexuality. So for the third or fourth time, would you care to shed some light on why this topic is an absolute obsession of yours, because every single time you turn around, you are posting in a thread on Gay Rights or Homosexuality .... five, six, seven, or eight, or in some cases (like yesterday) more than ten times a day.

[Trip]

No sir. Your indication and belief that people "choose their orientation" is what is inaccurate and a complete denial of the reality of the situation.

If we are to use logic to determine your ridiculous assertion that "everyone chooses their Orientation", then in essence what you are saying is that everyone is actually born bisexual, and in essence are attracted to both sexes .... yet you are saying that they choose to simply be with one of those sexes.

So, how long do you have memories of being bisexual, Trip? And at what age did you play "Eenie Meenie Miney Moe" to determine that you were going to pick women over men? Can you also describe this "choosing" process and how exactly you determined that you were more attracted to women then men? How did you struggle with your feelings during this process?

And also, you don't seem to want to answer what your obsession is with Homosexuality. So for the third or fourth time, would you care to shed some light on why this topic is an absolute obsession of yours, because every single time you turn around, you are posting in a thread on Gay Rights or Homosexuality .... five, six, seven, or eight, or in some cases (like yesterday) more than ten times a day.

I have no obsession with homosexuality. And I've already answered the query before; your not liking my answer does not constitute my not having answered it. I would not have any problem with homosexuals if they did not interfere with my own rights and interests, with those being 1) Marriage and 2) marching in the St Patrick's Day Parade.

And given your contention that "orientation" is entirely involuntary, then it is YOU who would have to provide evidence of this being true, and not just some vapid liberal banter and fabricated speculation. If orientation were "hard wired" then where is it in evidence? I am willing to submit that survival of the species results in "hard wired" heterosexual orientation. But where is this "hard wired" gay gene? Is it just the complete absence of any impulse of 'species survival" in gays? Wouldn't this then become a "coin toss" for orientation? For there to be some evidence of gay orientation being hard wired, you would have to find evidence of a "gay gene".

Thus far no such gay gene is anywhere in evidence. But I do know that persons have chosen to be "gay" and then change to "hetero", or vice versa, and some have chosen to be "bisexual". This doesn't seem to be any sort of "hard wired" orientation and does seem to be more of a "coin toss" and choice.

So, where's your evidence?

And what is the point of this argument? Even :IF: some hard wiring were found for being gay, this would still not change the relative importance of heterosexual unions to society because of how society is advanced and promoted by heterosexual reproduction.

If you're born short, there is no requirement for "equality" in the NBA that they configure the game so that you have an equal chance to shoot baskets as well as someone tall. There's no requirement that if you're small in the NFL that you can only be hit so hard by defensive players when you run the ball. Perhaps we should give short and small persons the perks (pay) of being in the NBA and NFL when they are prohibited in participation through no fault of their own?

Life just doesn't work that way. Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, entering into Marriage is undeniably a choice.

Your Liberal "Equality" is entirely a fallacy and your "fairness" is just an excuse to exert an entirely subjective perspective having no real definition onto others - it promotes TYRANNY. And a TYRANNOUS Social Engineering is just what gay proponents intend to accompish by forcing their agenda on all of America by slipping it through the back door of the States.

[Mobulis]

I have no obsession with homosexuality. And I've already answered the query before; your not liking my answer does not constitute my not having answered it. I would not have any problem with homosexuals if they did not interfere with my own rights and interests, with those being 1) Marriage and 2) marching in the St Patrick's Day Parade.

And given your contention that "orientation" is entirely involuntary, then it is YOU who would have to provide evidence of this being true, and not just some vapid liberal banter and fabricated speculation. If orientation were "hard wired" then where is it in evidence? I am willing to submit that survival of the species results in "hard wired" heterosexual orientation. But where is this "hard wired" gay gene? Is it just the complete absence of any impulse of 'species survival" in gays? Wouldn't this then become a "coin toss" for orientation? For there to be some evidence of gay orientation being hard wired, you would have to find evidence of a "gay gene".

Thus far no such gay gene is anywhere in evidence. But I do know that persons have chosen to be "gay" and then change to "hetero", or vice versa, and some have chosen to be "bisexual". This doesn't seem to be any sort of "hard wired" orientation and does seem to be more of a "coin toss" and choice.

So, where's your evidence?

And what is the point of this argument? Even :IF: some hard wiring were found for being gay, this would still not change the relative importance of heterosexual unions to society because of how society is advanced and promoted by heterosexual reproduction.

If you're born short, there is no requirement for "equality" in the NBA that they configure the game so that you have an equal chance to shoot baskets as well as someone tall. There's no requirement that if you're small in the NFL that you can only be hit so hard by defensive players when you run the ball. Perhaps we should give short and small persons the perks (pay) of being in the NBA and NFL when they are prohibited in participation through no fault of their own?

Life just doesn't work that way. Ultimately, no matter how you slice it, entering into Marriage is undeniably a choice. Your Liberal "Equality" is entirely a fallacy and your "fairness" is just an excuse to exert an entirely subjective perspective having no real definition onto others - it promotes TYRANNY. And a TYRANNOUS Social Engineering is just what gay proponents intend to accompish by forcing their agenda on all of America by slipping it through the back door of the States.

A choice that up until recently has been unavailable to homosexuals but thankfully is slowly being fixed.

[opsyscw]

Last year at a Gay Pride Parade, Tripp, there were some Hetrosexuals marching in it. Do you have a problem with that? None of the gay people did.

[Trip]

Last year at a Gay Pride Parade, Tripp, there were some Hetrosexuals marching in it. Do you have a problem with that? None of the gay people did.

No problem at all with that.

And the very minute the St Pat's Parade is about sexuality, I will be the first expecting to see the gay's with their own float right up front. However it's not about sexuality and I do not expect to see the "gay lifestyle" specifically represented in the parade.

[timjy]

Going to vote today up here in the gay north.try to do my part to stop Maine from turning into a minority run debacle.(voting YES today).

[Trip]

First off, your claims that you "know persons that have ...." are not representative of people you really know on a personal level, now does it? That is something that you simply heard from a few Christian sites, undoubtedly, who also have an agenda to promote.

No, actually when I said I "know" him, I know him personally. I worked with him. I've driven him to his home in the city. Ive met him and his partner downtown with coworkers for drinks. I've eaten dinner with him, his priest-partner with my fiancée. I've met the priest on numerous occasions and find him to be a very affable guy. And, as much as I think that what they're doing is harmful to both of their Catholic faiths, I myself would not ever do anything to harm either of them, nor disrupt their positions, nor would I even reference them by name even here because of the possibility of it having repercussions for them.

You speculate entirely too much.

[Guvnah]

Actually religion is a choice, Constitutionally speaking the government cannot discriminate against you based on that choice.

Quartering solders in peacetime is a choice, Constitutionally speaking the government cannot discriminate against you for choosing not to quarter solders if asked.

Testifying on your own behalf in a criminal case is also a choice, a Constitutionally protected choice.


>>>>

All those things are protected CONSTITUTIONALLY as specific items.

Constitutionally we also say that all people are to be treated equally.

We do NOT say there is a general equal treatment of choice. (Great. Pull out some other SPECIFIC examples if you insist. It just goes to show that we do not generally treat choices equally. We need to call out those SPECIFIC ones we treat certain ways. Marriage choices are not among those specifically called out.)

I stand by my point. We treat PEOPLE equally. We do NOT treat choices equally.

[Guvnah]

BTW, humor us, Trip. Why are you so obsessed over the topic of Gay Marriage? Give us some insight into this, because you are quite clearly obsessed on the topic of Homosexuality.

Uh ... For the same reason you are here?

Dumb question.

[Guvnah]

A choice that up until recently has been unavailable to homosexuals but thankfully is slowly being fixed.

It's a choice that is available in every state, and will still be available, even in Maine if it loses at the polls today.

The CHOICE exists. The right to do it exists. Gay couples have done it in every state.

The only factor absent about gay marriage is whether or not government recognizes it and grants it benefits.

That doesn't change the fact that gay marriage most certainly is available throughout the country.

[Mobulis]

It's a choice that is available in every state, and will still be available, even in Maine if it loses at the polls today.

The CHOICE exists. The right to do it exists. Gay couples have done it in every state.

The only factor absent about gay marriage is whether or not government recognizes it and grants it benefits.That doesn't change the fact that gay marriage most certainly is available throughout the country.

And thats whats being fixed.

[Guvnah]

And thats whats being fixed.

You said that a choice was not available to gays.

Here, let me remind you of what you said:



A choice that up until recently has been unavailable to homosexuals but thankfully is slowly being fixed.


A limitation on what government spends is not an issue that impacts what gays can choose to do.

Gays' choices would be the same whether or not government recognizes and grants benefits to their marriages.

[kasotamatt]

"This is not "denying gays" anything, because they are entitled to the same benefit of marriage as anyone else if they unite with a person of the opposite sex."

Yes! Yes! It's all so simple ... I marry a girl and I get the marriage benefits! Great! Girls like flowers right? And Streisand? This could work ...

[Tim]

I fully understand why religions care who 'marries' and for what reasons they marry

BUT

why the government cares is beyond me!

As best I can determine, the government only cares about three things when people apply for a marriage license.

1. Whether or not either or both parties are already married to someone else. (I understand this from a legal standpoint to protect the unknowing 3rd party/spouse)

2. Whether or not the parties are closely related. (I understand this IF AND ONLY IF the parties have the ability to reproduce. If they cannot reproduce... why care one way or the other?)

3. That the parties are not the same sex. (I cannot fathom why the government gives a rat's ass about this one.)

The government doesn't care if the 2 parties love each, plan to live together, plan to have sexual relations with each other or with other people, or a myriad of other scenarios that may or may not factor into the "relationship".

Two people (of opposite sexes, not already married, and not closely related) are free to marry each other and receive all the legal benefits afforded by the state sanctioned union even if they are never going to have anything to do with each other ever again.

But two people of the same sex get married? Suddenly the state cares... I don't get it.

[Guvnah]

I fully understand why religions care who 'marries' and for what reasons they marry

BUT

why the government cares is beyond me!

As best I can determine, the government only cares about three things when people apply for a marriage license.

1. Whether or not either or both parties are already married to someone else. (I understand this from a legal standpoint to protect the unknowing 3rd party/spouse)

2. Whether or not the parties are closely related. (I understand this IF AND ONLY IF the parties have the ability to reproduce. If they cannot reproduce... why care one way or the other?)

3. That the parties are not the same sex. (I cannot fathom why the government gives a rat's ass about this one.)

The government doesn't care if the 2 parties love each, plan to live together, plan to have sexual relations with each other or with other people, or a myriad of other scenarios that may or may not factor into the "relationship".

Two people (of opposite sexes, not already married, and not closely related) are free to marry each other and receive all the legal benefits afforded by the state sanctioned union even if they are never going to have anything to do with each other ever again.

But two people of the same sex get married? Suddenly the state cares... I don't get it.

See the 640 previous posts.

No sense rehashing it all for you if you can read.

[Maelstrom]

Do you think this is actually BETTER for society, for the people involved, and for their family's than allowing them the freedom to have a loving relationship which isn't a lie be recognized by the state and by society?

At this point in time NO COMBINATION has been shown to be BETTER for society than marriage between a man and a woman.

When you do find something better, ring back.

[ChicoLibertarian]

I fully understand why religions care who 'marries' and for what reasons they marry

BUT

why the government cares is beyond me!


Exactly. We need to keep any and all religion out of government. Therefore, let's let the fundies keep the word "marriage" and require all people who desire to benefit from their union to seek a government-sanctioned "civil-union". The fundies will be happy as they can hold onto marriage, and everybody else will be happy with the benefits that the civil union grants them.

Fundies, do you have a problem with that? I figured you would...

[WorldWatcher]

Exactly. We need to keep any and all religion out of government. Therefore, let's let the fundies keep the word "marriage" and require all people who desire to benefit from their union to seek a government-sanctioned "civil-union". The fundies will be happy as they can hold onto marriage, and everybody else will be happy with the benefits that the civil union grants them.

Fundies, do you have a problem with that? I figured you would...



That's what happened in Washington State (although I'll decline to use the word "fundy"), a law was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. A group called the Washington Values Alliance who gathered the signatures required for a referendum vote with the aim at denying full recognition to same-sex couples that enter into Domestic Partnerships under existing State law.


The vote on Referendum 71 is today.



>>>>

[bloods vs crips]

Marriage as it has been in the country since Jamestown is a sacred institution.

Making it all things to all people makes it less sacred, if at all. It means less, if anything at all.

Why get married (and remember - this was important in our culture) if it doesn't mean anything anymore.

it is hardly sacred. Christians try and make this argument because it was converted to a religious institution a few hundred years ago.

[ThrowCop]

it is hardly sacred. Christians try and make this argument because it was converted to a religious institution a few hundred years ago.It is certainly sacred to me.

And that is why I do not want the government involved.

[WorldWatcher]

>

I'm a realist, but the initial results on Question #1 don't look good.


@20:59
Yes Vote = 14,988 (54.48%)
No Vote = 12,524 (45.52%)


~9% behind.



>>>>

[Trip]

Exactly. We need to keep any and all religion out of government. Therefore, let's let the fundies keep the word "marriage" and require all people who desire to benefit from their union to seek a government-sanctioned "civil-union". The fundies will be happy as they can hold onto marriage, and everybody else will be happy with the benefits that the civil union grants them.

Fundies, do you have a problem with that? I figured you would...

Sure! Why the **** not!

I mean you guys advocate indiscriminate changes based on your whim and unspecified fee-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-lings, re-defining words centuries old, slipping agendas in that no state population would pass (yet) through the back doors of legislatures or judiciaries!

SURE, why the hell NOT! Just continue that irresponsible, erratic behavior in complete disregard for society and ANY RATIONALE whatsoever, and just indiscriminately remove the benefits from the reason they were gifted in the first place: the SINGULAR social institution and it's unique benefit to and promotion of society!

These "gay proponents" really don't have -A- CLUE, as there's nothing behind their emotionally-based sense of "social justice" which is devoid of any sort of rationality at all.

"Cause and EffecT"? NOT a concern!
Raison d'etre? " BAA! Hey, I can come up with my own reason for making it another way!"
What matters is the quickest gratification for everyone's impulses.

[ThrowCop]

Sure! Why the **** not!

I mean you guys advocate indiscriminate changes based on your whim and unspecified fee-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-lings, re-defining words centuries old, slipping agendas in that no state population would pass (yet) through the back doors of legislatures or judiciaries!

SURE, why the hell NOT! Just continue that irresponsible, erratic behavior in complete disregard for society and ANY RATIONALE whatsoever, and just indiscriminately remove the benefits from the reason they were gifted in the first place: the SINGULAR social institution and it's unique benefit to and promotion of society!

These "gay proponents" really don't have -A- CLUE, as there's nothing behind their emotionally-based sense of "social justice" that is devoid of any sort of rationality at all.It seems your feelings on the matter have actually gotten the best of you.

Marriage to me is between me, my wife & my God.

I do not want a secular, morally void government to have any part of it.

[Mobulis]

At this point in time NO COMBINATION has been shown to be BETTER for society than marriage between a man and a woman.

When you do find something better, ring back.


Except that heterosexual marriage isn't being eliminated, when homosexual marriage is legal heterosexuals will still be able to get married.

[Trip]

It seems your feelings on the matter have actually gotten the best of you.

Marriage to me is between me, my wife & my God.

I do not want a secular, morally void government to have any part of it.

Great. Me neither. But I think you're viewing it through a distorting kaleidoscope.

Government? It just recognizes marriage and documents it. It also allows some benefits in stuff they normally would take and other areas.

However the other part of government, the more LOCAL government, its trying to force an agenda on everyone through state Judiciaries and Legislatures. However 29 states have rejected this pathway (thats more than half, even for Obama), with Maine perhaps becoming number 30.

[Trip]

Except that heterosexual marriage isn't being eliminated, when homosexual marriage is legal heterosexuals will still be able to get married.

When homosexual marriage is allowed, you will have only aided and abetted yet another idiot, dishonest bureaucrat in their belief the can dictate to Americans their lives.

No bureaucrat created marriage; no bureaucrat has the right to change the definition.

[Trip]

It is certainly sacred to me.

And that is why I do not want the government involved.

Just a wee bit O'Hypcrisy in this claim.

Its Government (state judiciary and legislatures) getting involved that is then trying to force this upon us using further government, the full faith and credit clause" to impose us to live under the standards of "an elite few".

WHat you really mean is you don't want "that government there" resisting what "that other government over there" is doing, because you approve of the change.

Hypocrisy.

[ThrowCop]

Great. Me neither. But I think you're viewing it through a distorting kaleidoscope.

Government? It just recognizes marriage and documents it. It also allows some benefits in stuff they normally would take and other areas.

However the other part of government, the more LOCAL government, its trying to force an agenda on everyone through state Judiciaries and Legislatures. However 29 states have rejected this pathway (thats more than half, even for Obama), with Maine perhaps becoming number 30.I simply do not want government involved in what I deem a sacred religious ceremony.

[ThrowCop]

Just a wee bit O'Hypcrisy in this claim.

Its Government (state judiciary and legislatures) getting involved that is then trying to force this upon us using further government, the full faith and credit clause" to impose us to live under the standards of "an elite few".

WHat you really mean is you don't want "that government there" resisting what "that other government over there" is doing, because you approve of the change.

Hypocrisy.And your usual pile of scat grows ever deeper...

I want my God & my church to approve of my marriage.

I do not want the government involved in any way.

You want the government to be so deeply involved because it suits your morals.

[Trip]

I simply do not want government involved in what I deem a sacred religious ceremony.

Great! Give back whatever deduction or whatever and then you can have your wish.

Thus far, beyond recognizing marriages, and giving them bennies, and DOMA recognizing the definition of marriage so that it is not usurped, I don't see government as inherently involved in marriage.

Of course there is "the law" and that deals with how people interact and obligations in forming and disolving marriage. I'm pretty sure you don't mean you do not want government involved in that. It's what keeps all your property from being tied up in court, etc.

[reflechissez]

Great. Me neither. But I think you're viewing it through a distorting kaleidoscope.

Government? It just recognizes marriage and documents it. It also allows some benefits in stuff they normally would take and other areas.

However the other part of government, the more LOCAL government, its trying to force an agenda on everyone through state Judiciaries and Legislatures. However 29 states have rejected this pathway (thats more than half, even for Obama), with Maine perhaps becoming number 30.

does this mean it should NOT be decided at the state level, but rather at the federal level?

[ThrowCop]

Great! Give back whatever deduction or whatever and then you can have your wish.

Thus far, beyond recognizing marriages, and giving them bennies, and DOMA recognizing the definition of marriage so that it is not usurped, I don't see government as inherently involved in marriage.

Of course there is "the law" and that deals with how people interact and obligations in forming and disolving marriage. I'm pretty sure you don't mean you do not want government involved in that. It's what keeps all your property from being tied up in court, etc.That is what contracts are for.

[Trip]

And your usual pile of scat grows ever deeper...

I want my God & my church to approve of my marriage.

I do not want the government involved in any way.

You want the government to be so deeply involved because it suits your morals.

That pile of scat was in sincere hope and prayer that you mind find a fertile thought growing therefrom.

SO far, all I've seen from you is kneejerk nonsense without even the tissue of rationale. I'd hoped some might grow..

Your "i do not want government involved in any way" is , as I've pointed out, more than just A TAD bit unrealistic and somewhat hypocritical since, given your position, you are implicitly allowing SOME government involved in SOME ways, but choose to ignore it.


My "Morals' which you know ****ing nothing about, have nothing to do with the government being involved because *I* myself marry for life, as does my mate. WE do not force choices of false equality on others through backgdoor means of judiciaries and legislatures to spread this to the entirety of the country.

Your "government involved" is a large ration of ******** and you've done a thoroughly poor job in even detailing what you mean by that. If you're trying to imply "government is dictating what marriage is" (being a man and woman), then you're way off base and assert9ing something in no way the truth.

[Trip]

That is what contracts are for.

Yeah, right.

If only real life were actually as simple as your sentence fragment.

[Maelstrom]

Except that heterosexual marriage isn't being eliminated, when homosexual marriage is legal heterosexuals will still be able to get married.

Why should they care?

If marriage is for homosexuals, then marriage becomes the punchline of a bad joke. That's a problem.

[Maelstrom]

I simply do not want government involved in what I deem a sacred religious ceremony.

Sure, that's understandable...but to approach a solution that uses desecration to achieve your desired result?

That takes a special sort of debauchery.

[Trip]

Sure, that's understandable...but to approach a solution that uses desecration to achieve your desired result?

That takes a special sort of debauchery.

:))

I gotta admire the brevity in your deft delivery.

[IndyBec]

I fully understand why religions care who 'marries' and for what reasons they marry

BUT

why the government cares is beyond me!

As best I can determine, the government only cares about three things when people apply for a marriage license.

1. Whether or not either or both parties are already married to someone else. (I understand this from a legal standpoint to protect the unknowing 3rd party/spouse)

2. Whether or not the parties are closely related. (I understand this IF AND ONLY IF the parties have the ability to reproduce. If they cannot reproduce... why care one way or the other?)

3. That the parties are not the same sex. (I cannot fathom why the government gives a rat's ass about this one.)

The government doesn't care if the 2 parties love each, plan to live together, plan to have sexual relations with each other or with other people, or a myriad of other scenarios that may or may not factor into the "relationship".

Two people (of opposite sexes, not already married, and not closely related) are free to marry each other and receive all the legal benefits afforded by the state sanctioned union even if they are never going to have anything to do with each other ever again.

But two people of the same sex get married? Suddenly the state cares... I don't get it.

Maybe you should think about why at all societies publicly sanction a married couple as a legal entity. There are reasons. Reasonable reasons at that! ;)

[Mobulis]

Why should they care?

If marriage is for homosexuals, then marriage becomes the punchline of a bad joke. That's a problem.


Maybe yours is but my parents and my sister think of their marriage as just fine, before and after gays started getting married.

[Tim]

Maybe you should think about why at all societies publicly sanction a married couple as a legal entity. There are reasons. Reasonable reasons at that! ;)

Enlighten me. What are these reasons and please show measurable examples of how these reasons are working for the good of our society.

I am willing to learn.

[mdk190]

Enlighten me. What are these reasons and please show measurable examples of how these reasons are working for the good of our society.

I am willing to learn.
Irony alert!
This coming from that side that cannot even show a compelling state interest to deny gay marriage other then they are icky.

[IndyBec]

Enlighten me. What are these reasons and please show measurable examples of how these reasons are working for the good of our society.

I am willing to learn.

I see you the thread here (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1703761&page=2) and that provides some reasons to start.

[Tim]

I see you the thread here (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1703761&page=2) and that provides some reasons to start.
I'd much prefer to see your reasons rather than go to another thread and weed out what may or may not be your take on the topic.

Perhaps you could start with just 2 or 3 of the top reasons you see and we can discuss them. I am open to reason and more than willing to change my opinions based on it.

In the past 10 years I have changed on a number of topics as I have become more educated on the specifics of the Constitution and read more supporting, correllary documents written by the framers of the Constitution.

Teach me.

[Guvnah]

Enlighten me. What are these reasons and please show measurable examples of how these reasons are working for the good of our society.

I am willing to learn.

They're probably not working very well now.

Which is a good reason NOT to do even MORE of it.

[Tim]

They're probably not working very well now.

Which is a good reason NOT to do even MORE of it.

Could be... it seems that if government sanctioning of "marriage" is so good for society then there would be measurable signs to which to point as evidence of such.

Any marriage, contract, union, promise, etc is only as good as the people who enter into it. I don't think anyone would argue that getting "married" in a church or getting "married" by a Justice of the Peace makes either one a solid union in and of itself.

I know of several gay couples who have been together for over 20 years and have great relationships. I also have heterosexual couple friends who are unmarried but completely devoted and committed to each other and have been together for many years. --- Contrast that with the thousands upon thousands of "marriages" (in church or secularly done) that end in divorce within a few short years.

"Marriage" means little in my opinion - it is all about commitment.

[Trip]

Could be... it seems that if government sanctioning of "marriage" is so good for society then there would be measurable signs to which to point as evidence of such.

Any marriage, contract, union, promise, etc is only as good as the people who enter into it. I don't think anyone would argue that getting "married" in a church or getting "married" by a Justice of the Peace makes either one a solid union in and of itself.

I know of several gay couples who have been together for over 20 years and have great relationships. I also have heterosexual couple friends who are unmarried but completely devoted and committed to each other and have been together for many years. --- Contrast that with the thousands upon thousands of "marriages" (in church or secularly done) that end in divorce within a few short years.

"Marriage" means little in my opinion - it is all about commitment.

Great. But gays don't need the government to be "committed".
And the goverment does not "sanction" marriage in any way. The goverment recognizes marriages and the need to do so is supported by all the effects of marriage seen even in common law - property, inheritance, geneology, citizenship and, of course, offspring.

ALL of the above SHOWS that "marriage" is far more than just commitment, as does your very existence, which itself is the product of a heterosexual union.

Your mere presence undermines your entirely false argument.

[Mobulis]

Great. But gays don't need the government to be "committed".
And the goverment does not "sanction" marriage in any way. The goverment recognizes marriages and the need to do so is supported by all the effects of marriage seen even in common law - property, inheritance, geneology, citizenship and, of course, offspring.

ALL of the above SHOWS that "marriage" is far more than just commitment, as does your very existence, which itself is the product of a heterosexual union.

Your mere presence undermines your entirely false argument.


kids can be had without marriage these days.

[Trip]

kids can be had without marriage these days.

But kids cannot be "had" from gay unions.

And kids have always been able to be "had" without any marriage or commitment from the parents. This fact is WHY the commitment of Marriage is supported by and crucial to society itself.

Your argument undermines itself, as does your mere existence.

[Mobulis]

But kids cannot be "had" from gay unions.

And kids have always been able to be "had" without any marriage or commitment from the parents. This fact is WHY the commitment of Marriage is supported by and crucial to society itself.

Your argument undermines itself, as does your mere existence.

Marriage may have started that way but thats not how its looked at now. And my existence has everything to do with biology and nothing to do with marriage.

[Trip]

Marriage may have started that way but thats not how its looked at now. And my existence has everything to do with biology and nothing to do with marriage.

How it's looked at now is the problem of a decaying society. The attitude to which you cling is evidence itself of the dacay of society from a devaluation of of religion, and I've said that before.

No, your existence is evidence as to why society values a committed heterosexual union - marriage - and is harmed by the byproducts of those that are not.

[Mike Griffith]

It would help if gays would start being honest with themselves and with everyone else. Stop trying to convince people that you were "born that way." You know that's a lie, and so do most other people. Stop trying to act like homosexuality is just a harmless alternative lifestyle, when there is a mountain of evidence that it's physically and emotionally unhealthy--the rate of STDs among gays is drastically worse than the rate among heterosexuals. Stop pretending that all you want is "your rights," when we all know you want much more than that--as we've seen in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania, for example. And stop acting like such intolerant, brown-shirt bigots when votes don't go your way.

[Mobulis]

How it's looked at now is the problem of a decaying society. The attitude to which you cling is evidence itself of the dacay of society from a devaluation of of religion, and I've said that before.

No, your existence is evidence as to why society values a committed heterosexual union - marriage - and is harmed by the byproducts of those that are not.

Religion needs to be devalued.

[animalnut]

Bump

[AvgGuyIA]

bumping legitimate threads.

[bitterclingerincalif]

Religion needs to be devalued.

What a selfish thing to say. I'll bet you tell people to be open minded too. Start with yourself then. Just because you had some distasteful religious experience, that doesn't mean it is the same for everyone.

[Mobulis]

What a selfish thing to say. I'll bet you tell people to be open minded too. Start with yourself then. Just because you had some distasteful religious experience, that doesn't mean it is the same for everyone.

Read sig.

[bitterclingerincalif]

Read sig.

My assessment stands, you are selfish.

[ThinkingMan]

kids can be had without marriage these days.

Right. And it is destroying this country.

[Mobulis]

My assessment stands, you are selfish.


How exactly am I selfish?

[Clintville]

Right. And it is destroying this country.
It is?

[Guvnah]

It is?

It is.

You've been around enough to have seen pointers to a legion of studies that show fatherless kids statistically participate far more heavily in the behaviors that doom their success. (Hint: Google "fatherless children" or something similar to find such statistics and studies.)

Overall we are approaching a rate of 40% of all children being born to unwed mothers, (and in the black commnity it is nearing 75%.)

And you might want to counter argue that "unwed mothers" could mean cohabiting couples. (And it can.) But the divorce rate among choabiting couples who eventually marry is nearly double the rate among those who do not. "Those who live together before marriage have higher separation and divorce rates. The
National Survey of Families and Households, based on interviews with 13,000 people, concludes,"Unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages: 57 percent to 30 percent." (Hint: Google has this statistic in a bunch of places.)

It's just bad karma all around.