A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[logical4u]

Also, if you look at recent public opinion polls, you'll find that a little over half of the population supports the right for gays to marry each other. So... it's not really a minority.

Again, why is it voted down, each time it is offered if it is sooooo popular?

 

[logical4u]

I think much of this has to do with where you look and the influence of the media and politicians.

I have seen great examples of love, selflessness, courage and sacrifice. Spend some time working with disastor relief or working in an area hit by a disastor and you will see it too. The problem is, the media doesn't report it. They'd rather spew garbage that keep us uncomfortable or afraid. And that is because reporting fearful things is self-serving.

I see that the value given to beauty, popularity, coolness, wealth,pride, power, thrill seeking and fame have always been with us. These are nothing new. But again, the media loves to portray what they want. It is self-serving.

I see more people communicating with more different people than ever before in the history of mankind. Anytime we have more communication there is the potential for conflict, but also the potential for great things.

I see that we have more people having access to a quality education than ever before in our history. We have more people with more access to better medical care than ever before in our history. We have more people following their dreams. We have more people free to change professions and careers. We have people who, just a few decades ago, saw only limited options now having virtually unlimited opportunities. We have music, literature and arts available to more people from more sources than ever in our history.

I see unrest being portrayed because the populations are no longer able to be controlled, as they were just a few decades ago. If that scares you I am sorry.

I see our society in a flux, as these new freedoms create new avenues for people that did not exist a short time ago. If that scares you I am sorry.




One of the basic points you need to consider is the influence of the media. You can rant about porno and glamor junk ruining us. But what ruins us is the acceptance of news slanted to an agenda. That is what destroys. That is what causes fear. And teh reaction to that fear is damaging.

Think about when you watch the news. If you are having a great day, life is good and you feel hopeful, do you rush to turn on CNN or Fox? No. But if there is a disastor you certainly do. You watch news when you are scared. News is no longer a service. News is big business. And how do they keep you watching? By keeping you afraid. Stop being afraid and you'll be much happier.

Gays marrying will not destroy anything. It is a minor issue at best, unless you are gay and in a situation where on of the benefits of being married would help.

Our society is doing fine. The economic downturn was not created by gays or diversity or any of the other things you fear. It was created by greed and by the people in charge being uninterested in what is best for people.

Do you have any, ANY proof that "homosexual marriage" will not destroy anything?

Do you have ANY examples where a society has excepted homosexual marriage as a "respectable" choice (not just a whimsical mockery)?

You have made a strong statement. Where is the evidence?

Where is the evidence to support your own claims?

Read my posts from the weekend.

 

[logical4u]

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).

According to polls? You call that "proof"? Who was polled? What part of the country?

 

[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.

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?

Was the treaty of Tripoli with the American people?

We are not "discriminating" against a group of people. Where in our laws does it give a group the authority to change definitions that have been in place for thousands of years?

 

[logical4u]

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.

Where are your rights written differently than my rights?

 

[logical4u]

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.

I thought I said "idea". Is an idea a legal document?

 

[logical4u]

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.

Same sex couples do not make a marriage as defined for thousands and thousands of years. Marriage is not a "right". There is no where in the Constitution that says you have the "right" to be married.

And yes, you do have equal protection under the law if you choose to marry according to the original definition. If you choose to fight the law, society, and the world, chances are that you will not win. You can do things your way, but you cannot force the rest of us to play along with you or support your choices.

 

[Vidi]

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?

The intent of the privileges is irrelevant ( also, extending those privledges to same sex couples wont change the outcome of the intent as those same sex couples wouldnt be reproducing anyway. )

The 14th amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Once the privileges are given to one group of citizens, they MUST Constitutionally be extended to all.

 

[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?

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...

Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was that genocide or a power struggle between relatives?

Oh, and about the inquisition, please....

125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed.
There were two major Inquisitions, the Medieval Inquisition and Spanish Inquisition. Although there are no exact numbers, scholars believe they have estimated Inquisition deaths reasonably accurately. There were not as many deaths as the popular press claims. Numbers have often been inflated to as high as 9 million by the popular press, with absolutely no scholarly research. This figure is completely erroneous. A broad range of scholars, many of whom were not Catholic, have carefully studied the Inquisitions. They looked at all the existing records and were able to extrapolate. In the Medieval Inquisition, Bernard Gui was one of the most notorious of the medieval inquisitors. (so much so that the sick modern pornography industry has turned him into a hero). He tried 930 people out of which 42 were executed (4.5%). Another famous Inquisitor was Jacques Fournier who tried 114 cases of which 5 were executed (4.3%). Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)

According to public news reports the book's editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people). Most of these deaths occurred in the first decade and a half of the Inquisition's 350 year history. In Portugal of the 13,000 tried in the 16th and early 17th century 5.7% were said to have been condemned to death. News articles did not report if Portugal's higher percentage included those sentenced to death in effigy (i.e. an image burnt instead of the actual person). For example, historian Gustav Henningsen reported that statistical tabulations of 50,000 recorded cases tried by nineteen Spanish tribunals between 1540-1700 found 775 people (1.7%) were actually executed while another 700 (1.4%) were sentenced to death in effigy ("El 'banco de datos' del Santo Oficio: Las relaciones de causas de la Inquisición española, 1550-1700", BRAH, 174, 1977). Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that "in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances" (The Holocaust in Historical Context, 1994).

During the high point of the Spanish Inquisition from 1478-1530 AD, scholars found that approximately 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. From that point forward, there are exact records available of all "guilty" sentences which amounted to 775 executions. In the full 200 years of the Spanish Inquisition, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, people outside of the major cities didn't even know about it. The Inquisition was not applied to Jews or Moslems, unless they were baptised as Christians.

If we add the figures, we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years, caused about 6,000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable. These numbers are however, a far cry from the those used in the popular press by people who are always looking to destroy the Church. This is about equal to the number of war related deaths that have occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2 years since the US responded to 9/11.

Another thing to note is that the Spanish Inquisition, in a wrong way, may have saved some lives. In many European countries in the 16th century, religious wars were the cause of tens of thousands of deaths. But in Spain, there was political and religious unity as a result of the Inquisition, and there was no such war.

Nevertheless, the Inquisition tortures and death were inexcusable. I echo the voice of John Paul II "Forgive us Lord, Never Again"
Sources: Inquisition
[ame=http://askville.amazon.com/people-killed-Inquisition/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3878676]How many people were actually killed during the Inquisition?[/ame]

 

[logical4u]

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?

The intent of the privileges is irrelevant ( also, extending those privledges to same sex couples wont change the outcome of the intent as those same sex couples wouldnt be reproducing anyway. )

The 14th amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Once the privileges are given to one group of citizens, they MUST Constitutionally be extended to all.

So two babies that want to be married should have the same benefits? Does this mean, I can claim welfare because money is being given to someone that doesn't have the same income that I do (under the 14th ammendment)? Can I claim Social security because I have enough quarters, but am being discrimminated against because I do not meet the qualifications of age? Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[Vidi]

fair enough.

how about these

How the the Papal State collaborated with fascism in the Balkans

itccs.org | Genocide of Natives committed by Church and State in Canada: Victims attest Genocide still in place

The Vatican Role in the Ustasha Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia | Serbianna Analysis

Anglican Complicity in the Genocide in Rwanda


or this one:

1 Samuel 15

15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass

or this one:

16 “Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.

Deuteronomy 20:16

Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. (Joshua 10:40)

 

[Cenotaph]

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.

You mean like how African Americans did in the 60s? First off, yes, it is for a small percentage of the population, but the majority of the population agrees with it (not that that should be important). It's not forcing YOU to marry those of the same sex, it is merely allowing that option to exist.

Uhm... if I have to explain how the church has and have been oppressing people in this country throughout its history then there is something wrong. BUT I feel that this instance would be the best example. Those of the Christian faith are pushing their own beliefs towards homosexuality onto the public. Simple as that.

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).

According to polls? You call that "proof"? Who was polled? What part of the country?

Uhm, yes, I believe that it's the most efficient way of understanding the population's opinion on various situations, issues, etc. Unless you have a more efficient way of going about this. Do you?

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.

Where are your rights written differently than my rights?

They're not written differently at all... If you consider marriage a right, then same sex marriage should be legal (seeing that the US Constitution does not define what marriage is).

So... you see, you wouldn't be able to marry those of the same gender either!

 

[Vidi]

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

The intent of the privileges is irrelevant ( also, extending those privledges to same sex couples wont change the outcome of the intent as those same sex couples wouldnt be reproducing anyway. )

The 14th amendment states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Once the privileges are given to one group of citizens, they MUST Constitutionally be extended to all.

So two babies that want to be married should have the same benefits? Does this mean, I can claim welfare because money is being given to someone that doesn't have the same income that I do (under the 14th ammendment)? Can I claim Social security because I have enough quarters, but am being discrimminated against because I do not meet the qualifications of age? Your argument is ridiculous.

now youve fallen into the realm of complete ridiculousness.

Homosexuals wishing to have the same rights as married couples are consenting adults, not babies, nor are they commiting fraud, as in your welfare example, nor are they asking for privileges to be given to them that are not already theirs by law.

By reaching into the realm of crazy crackpot what ifs you have just lost the debate.

 

[Cenotaph]

If you don't consider marriage a right, then the government shouldn't be granting special privileges to those who are married.

However, since they do, then they must also do so with those of same sex marriages (see Amendment 14 as Vidi previously stated).

 

[logical4u]

fair enough.

how about these

How the the Papal State collaborated with fascism in the Balkans

itccs.org | Genocide of Natives committed by Church and State in Canada: Victims attest Genocide still in place

The Vatican Role in the Ustasha Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia | Serbianna Analysis

Anglican Complicity in the Genocide in Rwanda


or this one:

1 Samuel 15

15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass

or this one:

16 “Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes.

Deuteronomy 20:16

Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. (Joshua 10:40)

Again, the ones with Christians are more about "gov't" power than actually murdering for the Lord.

The ones from the Bible were Hebrews (way before "Christians"). I know you guys don't like to read the Bible, but those peoples were truly evil, and were doing terrible things. They were warned, and then the Lord sent a bunch of "slaves" to end them (something that would have been a terrible insult to those powerful peoples). It was a punishment for the people living in that way. There was no Command to search out any strays that moved to other lands, and settled far away. There was no Command to kill any of those peoples that were found long after the initial "punishment".

Any more?

 

[Vidi]

fair enough.

how about these

How the the Papal State collaborated with fascism in the Balkans

itccs.org | Genocide of Natives committed by Church and State in Canada: Victims attest Genocide still in place

The Vatican Role in the Ustasha Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia | Serbianna Analysis

Anglican Complicity in the Genocide in Rwanda


or this one:

1 Samuel 15

15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass

or this one:

Thus Joshua struck all the land, the hill country and the Negev and the lowland and the slopes and all their kings. He left no survivor, but he utterly destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded. (Joshua 10:40)

Again, the ones with Christians are more about "gov't" power than actually murdering for the Lord.

The ones from the Bible were Hebrews (way before "Christians"). I know you guys don't like to read the Bible, but those peoples were truly evil, and were doing terrible things. They were warned, and then the Lord sent a bunch of "slaves" to end them (something that would have been a terrible insult to those powerful peoples). It was a punishment for the people living in that way. There was no Command to search out any strays that moved to other lands, and settled far away. There was no Command to kill any of those peoples that were found long after the initial "punishment".

Any more?

No. I see now that youll find justification for anything brought up. Youre mind is already closed on the subject. So its pointless to continue.


But heres one more on the same sex marriage front.

After the founding of the United States, state after state maintained this principle. State laws allowed religious authorities to perform marriage ceremonies and to recognize only marriages adhering to the requirements of their own faith, but not to determine which marriages would be considered valid by the public. For example, California’s first state Constitution stipulated, “No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect,” a provision now retained in the state’s Family Code.

Boston Review — Nancy F. Cott: No Objections (Same-sex marriage; gay marriage; Prop 8)

 

[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.

You mean like how African Americans did in the 60s? First off, yes, it is for a small percentage of the population, but the majority of the population agrees with it (not that that should be important). It's not forcing YOU to marry those of the same sex, it is merely allowing that option to exist.

Uhm... if I have to explain how the church has and have been oppressing people in this country throughout its history then there is something wrong. BUT I feel that this instance would be the best example. Those of the Christian faith are pushing their own beliefs towards homosexuality onto the public. Simple as that.



Uhm, yes, I believe that it's the most efficient way of understanding the population's opinion on various situations, issues, etc. Unless you have a more efficient way of going about this. Do you?

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.

Where are your rights written differently than my rights?

They're not written differently at all... If you consider marriage a right, then same sex marriage should be legal (seeing that the US Constitution does not define what marriage is).

So... you see, you wouldn't be able to marry those of the same gender either!

You do not meet the "qualifications" of marriage if you WANT to marry the same sex (like a person wanting to marry their car does not meet the qualifications of marriage).

The church pushing their opinion on the public? How is that forcing? How is that any different from you, pushing your opinion on the public? Sorry, that is really LAME.

You did not answer the questions about the polls. Were they taken in cities with large homosexual populations or were they taken, randomly from households all over the USA?

No where in the Constitution does it say that each citizen has a "right" to be married. There has always been a chunk of the population that did not/could not marry.

I guess the writers of the original laws knew that marriage had been defined for thousands of years, and under estimated how deceitful people would be in the future, re-defining words to "force" confusion, and manipulate society to "their beliefs".

 

[Vidi]

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.

You mean like how African Americans did in the 60s? First off, yes, it is for a small percentage of the population, but the majority of the population agrees with it (not that that should be important). It's not forcing YOU to marry those of the same sex, it is merely allowing that option to exist.

Uhm... if I have to explain how the church has and have been oppressing people in this country throughout its history then there is something wrong. BUT I feel that this instance would be the best example. Those of the Christian faith are pushing their own beliefs towards homosexuality onto the public. Simple as that.



Uhm, yes, I believe that it's the most efficient way of understanding the population's opinion on various situations, issues, etc. Unless you have a more efficient way of going about this. Do you?

Where are your rights written differently than my rights?

They're not written differently at all... If you consider marriage a right, then same sex marriage should be legal (seeing that the US Constitution does not define what marriage is).

So... you see, you wouldn't be able to marry those of the same gender either!

You do not meet the "qualifications" of marriage if you WANT to marry the same sex (like a person wanting to marry their car does not meet the qualifications of marriage).

The church pushing their opinion on the public? How is that forcing? How is that any different from you, pushing your opinion on the public? Sorry, that is really LAME.

You did not answer the questions about the polls. Were they taken in cities with large homosexual populations or were they taken, randomly from households all over the USA?

No where in the Constitution does it say that each citizen has a "right" to be married. There has always been a chunk of the population that did not/could not marry.

I guess the writers of the original laws knew that marriage had been defined for thousands of years, and under estimated how deceitful people would be in the future, re-defining words to "force" confusion, and manipulate society to "their beliefs".

EVERY argument youve made is a faklse argument.

The "natural argument" is defeated by the fact that
1) Thats the same argument "they" made against interracial marriage.
2) the thousands of species of animals that display homosexuality

The Church argument is defeated by the Constitution.

The definition of marriage ( and therefore the qualifications ) is defeated by the reality of history in that Rome and Greece both provided for same sex unions. Hell, theres even a gay couple who were made saints! The Passion of SS. Serge and Bacchus

Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life." More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp


The right to marry not being in the Constitution is defeated by the 14th amendment

what else you got?

 

[logical4u]

The intent of the privileges is irrelevant ( also, extending those privledges to same sex couples wont change the outcome of the intent as those same sex couples wouldnt be reproducing anyway. )

The 14th amendment states:



Once the privileges are given to one group of citizens, they MUST Constitutionally be extended to all.

So two babies that want to be married should have the same benefits? Does this mean, I can claim welfare because money is being given to someone that doesn't have the same income that I do (under the 14th ammendment)? Can I claim Social security because I have enough quarters, but am being discrimminated against because I do not meet the qualifications of age? Your argument is ridiculous.

now youve fallen into the realm of complete ridiculousness.

Homosexuals wishing to have the same rights as married couples are consenting adults, not babies, nor are they commiting fraud, as in your welfare example, nor are they asking for privileges to be given to them that are not already theirs by law.

By reaching into the realm of crazy crackpot what ifs you have just lost the debate.

Oh, wait a minute, equal treatment under the 14th ammendment.....
Oh, I get it, that doesn't fall under "your" agenda.
So you really do believe in special "rights" when it fits your agenda.
Marriage has been a contract between a man and a woman for eons. That was the qualifications to form a marriage, along with other things depending on the culture.

Now "you" are telling me that those qualifications are discrimminitory according to the 14th ammendment. I used your argument to point out how easily it would be to abuse other systems using your logic. Now you want to call me names? Are you a heterophobe?

And yes, they are committing fraud. They are claiming that two of the same sex are the same as two people of the opposite sex. They do not meet the qualification for the long standing meaning of marriage. They are willing to corrupt a society to push their agenda and force legitimization of their acts by usurping a respectable relationship to protect their destructive behavior. And that is FRAUD.

 

[Cenotaph]

You do not meet the "qualifications" of marriage if you WANT to marry the same sex (like a person wanting to marry their car does not meet the qualifications of marriage).

Really? So what are the qualifications?

By the way, a car is not a conscious, consenting being... while homosexuals are.

Shocking, right?

The church pushing their opinion on the public? How is that forcing? How is that any different from you, pushing your opinion on the public? Sorry, that is really LAME.

Not just I, but more than half the US population. If wanting the option to marry the same sex is forcing a belief on society, then wanting to deny that option is forcing as well (by your own definition, that is).

You did not answer the questions about the polls. Were they taken in cities with large homosexual populations or were they taken, randomly from households all over the USA?

See, this is how people like you operate in debates. You ask arbitrary, detailed questions in an attempt to win the argument. I sincerely doubt you would care if the polls were in your favor... As for myself, I have enough faith (scary for a nihilist to have, I know) in the multiple, separate organizations and companies who administered the polls (all of whose results were quite similar).

If you are paranoid or detailed-oriented enough to care about something as silly as this, then I suggest you look it up yourself.

No where in the Constitution does it say that each citizen has a "right" to be married. There has always been a chunk of the population that did not/could not marry.

It's not specifically defined... which is why I asked. Since you do not consider it a right, then those married couples who receive special benefits from the government should not have them at all.

I guess the writers of the original laws knew that marriage had been defined for thousands of years, and under estimated how deceitful people would be in the future, re-defining words to "force" confusion, and manipulate society to "their beliefs".

Too bad they didn't define it. So... whether or not this is true is irrelevant.