A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[logical4u]

Now this is something we agree on. We probably disagree on the causes, but we agree it is unsustainable. Gov't spending must be cut. At the same time, the system of taxation inthis country must be changed.



Universities do more harm than good? The level of technology and engineering that comes from university educated people has profoundly changed our world. But, because you think liberals threaten morality, they cause more harm than good?

Look at the treatment options and survival rates for thousands of diseases and types of cancers. Tens of thousands of people are alive and healthy because of these advances at universities and by university trained medical people. But they do more harm than good?

Nonsense.

God, Family and country are the foundation of our society. Without this foundation our society will collapse no matter how many engineers and doctors that we have. Hundred of millions have perished during the 20th century due to centralized governments that destroyed the foundations of their society in China, Germany, Cambodia/vietNam, Russia, etc. The first things that the government destroyed was religion, family and the educated class.

First of all, we have more educated people in this country than at any time in history.

Second, our gov't (liberal or conservative) is not trying to destroy God or the family. Just because there are attempts to include gays in marriage does not mean destruction.

Are you saying homosexual activists don't "intend" to destroy the traditional family, or are you saying they "won't" destroy the traditional family. One is a "belief", and the other is a statement with no evidence. Which is it?

 

[logical4u]

That is great. But when people decide they don't want God, don't blame the universities. Blame the greed, promotion of hatred, and control issues of the churches. That is what has turned people away.

Promoting families is great. A gay couple raising children is a family, whether you like it or not. Include that in your values and I'm more likely to believe you.

The values of country are kinda another issue. I love this country and what it has done over the 250 odd years it has been around. But I also despise some of the things it has done and has stood for. That is where we differ. You want to go back to unquestioning loyalty, whereas I prefer to see reality. I am proud of the good and ashamed of the bad.

A very small percentage of gay men are interesting in raising children. Bi-sexual women often raise children from previous marriages. The contribution of gay couples to raising families is negligible. Also, children benefit more from opposite-sex parents. man and women complement each other and keep each other in check. Gay unions are missing balance.

The universities are systematically destroying their student's faith in God. 80% of university students lose their faith in God before they graduate. It is very arrogant to teach kids that there is NO higher power. This defies reason and commonsense. It also leaves kids vulnerable to the belief that the government is their highest authority.

Do you have a source for your belief that only a small percentage of gay men are interested i raising children? Or are you simply basing this on what you know of the stereotyped gay man?

Many women who are gay hide it. That does not mean they are bisexual. Simply that they are under great social pressures.


Universities do not set out to destroy faith in God. If learning causes these young adults to question things, then so be it. Unquestioned faith is worthless.

Universities have the task of educating people. That these people find themselves confronted with idea that they were never exposed to may cause some issues with their faith. That the facts they learn may cause some issues in their faith is not the fault of the universities.

I think you are mistakenly looking at the fact that so many young people lose their faith while in college and assuming the university is at fault.

Weren't you just telling me how open and honest gays were? ".... Many women who are gay hide it. ....." You do like to talk from both sides...

 

[logical4u]

Earlier you claimed yours was not a religous argument.

Spiritual principles are universal. They include, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance and gratitude to God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, beauty, coolness, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking, phony self esteem and the hatred toward God.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not have a damn thing to do with your la de la da "spiritual principles".
Americans enjoy them because OF THE LAW and the blood spilled in protection of them.
Nothing spiritual whatsoever.

Where did the founders of the Constitution say those "rights" originated?

 

[logical4u]

Oh that is absolute bullshit.

But, if that is the way you want to look at it, then you must like domestic abuse, poverty, death from cancer, cureable diseases running rampant, segments of society being kept down, and the plethora of other problems that have been addressed by these changes.

No, I never said society was all peachy keen and without problems. You lied again. I simply pointed out that I do not see society in decline, and especially not due to gay marriage (which is what we are actually discussing in between your lies and strawman arguments).

You want it to be black & white. You want all the changes to be either good or bad. I am realistic enough to see there are problems with all change, but that change is inevitable. I don't scream about the decline in society unless there is actually a decline in society.

You claimed there were exponential increases in crime. There were several posts (with links) that showed relatively small increases, and plenty of decreases.

You claimed there were exponential increases in teen pregnancy, abortion, STD, ect ect. And link showed different. (From no less an authority than the CDC)

And you're lying.

The CDC shows EXPONDENTIAL increases in teen pregnancy, abortion, STDS and murder since the advent of the "sexual revolution".

You dishonest pieces of shit keep pretending the slight decrease in the last 10 years negates the fact that for 40 years prior to that, the rates of abortion, child murder, child abuse, divorce, teen pregnancy, and STDs climbed steadily. The last 10 years decrease doesn't represent overall decreases at all.

So sex causes folk to murder.

There is a long, long history of just that....

 

[logical4u]

No authority, just a majority.

another lie you tell yourself news flash: 56% of the american people think that same sex marriage should be legal nation wide and the number is growing every day.

IF that were true, then why is it voted down when the population has a chance to "vote on it"?

 

[logical4u]

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not have a damn thing to do with your la de la da "spiritual principles".
Americans enjoy them because OF THE LAW and the blood spilled in protection of them.
Nothing spiritual whatsoever.

The following is an excerpt from the "Declaration of Independence" Which our constitution was based on:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Your ignorance proves my point about the brainwashing that occurs in today's education system.

And the Declaration of Independence has what place in our legal system?

Also, would you care to share ANY evidence that the writers of that line intended for it to mean the Christian God?

I think that is a one D ten T problem.

 

[Cenotaph]

No authority, just a majority.

another lie you tell yourself news flash: 56% of the american people think that same sex marriage should be legal nation wide and the number is growing every day.

IF that were true, then why is it voted down when the population has a chance to "vote on it"?

It's not IF it's true, it IS true. According to multiple public opinions polls, the majority of Americans support gay marriage (I stated this earlier, but you ignored it... as well as my other comments). This number is also rising.

I guess the opposition just has stronger feelings about it (as bigotry often does).

 

[logical4u]

And the Declaration of Independence has what place in our legal system?

Also, would you care to share ANY evidence that the writers of that line intended for it to mean the Christian God?

No, not a Christian God. But the belief in a "higher power" is almost universal in the history of humanity.

And the DoI has what place in our legal system?

It is the idea that our legal system used as a foundation, a gov't set up to let the people govern themselves (states rights), and keep the federal gov't as the border protection, and unifier.

 

[Vidi]

Spiritual principles are universal. They include, the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance and gratitude to God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, beauty, coolness, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking, phony self esteem and the hatred toward God.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not have a damn thing to do with your la de la da "spiritual principles".
Americans enjoy them because OF THE LAW and the blood spilled in protection of them.
Nothing spiritual whatsoever.

Where did the founders of the Constitution say those "rights" originated?

In the declaration of independence they say those rights come from our creator, BUT, in the Treaty of Tripoli they clearly state:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

We are a nation of laws, not religion. Our faith may define our culture but it does not define our laws. Thats an important distinction.

So the question is: where in our laws does it say we can discriminate against any group of people based on our religious beliefs?

 

[Cenotaph]

No, not a Christian God. But the belief in a "higher power" is almost universal in the history of humanity.

And the DoI has what place in our legal system?

It is the idea that our legal system used as a foundation, a gov't set up to let the people govern themselves (states rights), and keep the federal gov't as the border protection, and unifier.

Unless those states deny certain rights to their citizens, which in that case the federal government CAN interfere.

If you consider marriage a right, then the states who prevent homosexuals from marrying each other are denying them their rights.

 

[Vidi]

No, not a Christian God. But the belief in a "higher power" is almost universal in the history of humanity.

And the DoI has what place in our legal system?

It is the idea that our legal system used as a foundation, a gov't set up to let the people govern themselves (states rights), and keep the federal gov't as the border protection, and unifier.

Actually no. While I wish that were the case, the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing. The DoI was a mission statement ( or as I like to call it, the first American Unions list of demands to its corporate master ) the Constitution is the contract and therefore all laws much abide within the boundries set forth in the Constitution.

 

[logical4u]

I guess the radical fundamentlists decided to start earlier.

from: How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren | Katherine Stewart | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

It is an interesting article about christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to school children.

"This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly "Bible study" course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club."

Egads, please list the last time a Christian church (not renegade Charles Manson type that proclaims themselves "god") did genocide. Please list anytime a Christian church did genocide. Were they screaming: this is for my Lord when they were doing the crime?

 

[Vidi]

And the DoI has what place in our legal system?

It is the idea that our legal system used as a foundation, a gov't set up to let the people govern themselves (states rights), and keep the federal gov't as the border protection, and unifier.

Unless those states deny certain rights to their citizens, which in that case the federal government CAN interfere.

If you consider marriage a right, then the states who prevent homosexuals from marrying each other are denying them their rights.

It goes further than that. There are legal privledges that are given only to married couples. Those legal privledges are being withheld from same sex couples. This is expressly forbidden under the 14th amendment, which mandates equal protection under the law.

 

[logical4u]

As of this post we have 127 pages of conservatives exhibiting the ignorance and hate and not one logical, factual, objective shred of evidence supporting denying same-sex couples equal protection of the law.

Please list the laws denying homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals have.

 

[Vidi]

I guess the radical fundamentlists decided to start earlier.

from: How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren | Katherine Stewart | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

It is an interesting article about christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to school children.

"This fall, more than 100,000 American public school children, ranging in age from four to 12, are scheduled to receive instruction in the lessons of Saul and the Amalekites in the comfort of their own public school classrooms. The instruction, which features in the second week of a weekly "Bible study" course, will come from the Good News Club, an after-school program sponsored by a group called the Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). The aim of the CEF is to convert young children to a fundamentalist form of the Christian faith and recruit their peers to the club."

Egads, please list the last time a Christian church (not renegade Charles Manson type that proclaims themselves "god") did genocide. Please list anytime a Christian church did genocide. Were they screaming: this is for my Lord when they were doing the crime?

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/queen-mary.html

One of the reasons the Founders wanted a complete seperation of church and state was the fallout of Henry the Eighth and the religious war between his children that followed.

Oh and lets not forget the Inquistion shall we? ( no one expects it after all )

oh and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

 

[Cenotaph]

It is the idea that our legal system used as a foundation, a gov't set up to let the people govern themselves (states rights), and keep the federal gov't as the border protection, and unifier.

Unless those states deny certain rights to their citizens, which in that case the federal government CAN interfere.

If you consider marriage a right, then the states who prevent homosexuals from marrying each other are denying them their rights.

It goes further than that. There are legal privledges that are given only to married couples. Those legal privledges are being withheld from same sex couples. This is expressly forbidden under the 14th amendment, which mandates equal protection under the law.

Just playing the devil's advocate here, but some might say that that is not the context for which the 14th Amendment was made for. The original intent behind it was for those of African Americans who were being oppressed at the time.

I have been confronted with this argument on several occasions and would like to know your thoughts behind it.... Is context important when interpreting a legal document such as the US Constitution?

 

[logical4u]

What do you mean by "force their beliefs on people?" We're not forcing anyone to participate in homosexual acts or gay marriage. We just want to be able to marry those of the opposite sex.

If you want to talk about forcing beliefs on people in this instance, then let's talk about the church.

Changing the definition for a small percentage of the population so that percentage can use/abuse a system that was not set up for them is "forcing" their belief.

Okay, let's talk about the church. What church forces you to act? What church forces you not to "sin"? Aren't there churces that ignore the Bible and welcome active homosexuals to join without informing them that they are going against Biblical teachings? Just how is the "church" forcing you to believe? And please, be specific.

 

[logical4u]

I haven't seen any evidence that gays in committed relationships have problems with infidelity.

And no, I did not move the goalposts. I simply showed that you are not holding straights to the same standards.

Swingers may not be anything like a majority, but their numbers approach what gay marriages would probably approach.

I am not surprised that you see no problems with homosexual relationships and infidelity. You seem willing to bend over backward to embrace the corruption homosexual activity represents.

I do hold straights to the same standards. Do you see me petitioning to give "live-ins" marriage benefits? Do you see me saying there is nothing wrong with infidelity in marriage? Do you see me claiming there is nothing wrong with "swingers"?

The heterosexuals in those groups do not flaunt their behavior in company where respect is important. They are as deceitful as those that engage in homosexual behavior. Unlike the homosexual activists, they are not demanding that society is changed to "welcome" their perverse behavior. That is the difference. Now would you like to get back on topic? Active homosexuals are living a lie. They are pretending one or both are interchangeable with the opposite sex for a sincere life time mate. They cannot be, their DNA identifies them.

Of course the swingers are not demanding anything. They already have the benefits.

Gays have serious, sincere lifemates. They have all the parts of the relationships that straights do, except for the benefits.

Do they have any possiblity of conceiving a child as partners?

 

[Vidi]

Unless those states deny certain rights to their citizens, which in that case the federal government CAN interfere.

If you consider marriage a right, then the states who prevent homosexuals from marrying each other are denying them their rights.

It goes further than that. There are legal privledges that are given only to married couples. Those legal privledges are being withheld from same sex couples. This is expressly forbidden under the 14th amendment, which mandates equal protection under the law.

Just playing the devil's advocate here, but some might say that that is not the context for which the 14th Amendment was made for. The original intent behind it was for those of African Americans who were being oppressed at the time.

I have been confronted with this argument on several occasions and would like to know your thoughts behind it.... Is context important when interpreting a legal document such as the US Constitution?

The original context was indeed to give blacks the same rights as whites.

BUT...notice that no where in the 14th is race even mentioned. this was to insure that ALL persons who are citizens of the United States would recieve equal protection under the law. They didnt just answer the "black" issue with the 14th, they answered ALL discriminatory issues.

The 14th amendment actually makes the 19th unnecessary, as women who were legal citizens should have already had the right to vote under the protection of the 14th amendment.

 

[logical4u]

Did you notice I didn't seem to care what social groups accept what other groups? We are not discussing popularity.

You are right. We are discussing a tiny fraction of the population forcing their wants and desires to be supported by the rest of the population. And they do not care how many people disagree with them. They do not care what the rest of the population believes. It is only "their" beliefs that are to be followed, by "force" if necessary. That does not sound like "rights" to me.

What is truly sad is the number of people fighting tooth and nail to prevent this, when it will have absolutely no effect on them.

It boils down to being able to marry the one you love. Now, between consenting adults there is no reason gays should not be allowed the same benefits for a committed relationship that straights are given.

Gov't originally gave benefits to married couples to encourage the population to increase. How can a "committed relationship" between gays increase the population?