Gays blaming blacks for gay marriage ban in California

[Cecilie1200]

Here's some evidence, and it's been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Out of curiosity, Gregor Mendel, do you have any frigging clue what a Drosophila melanogaster is?

 

[Father Time]

You can agree with the homosexual agenda and not misrepresent the positions of your opponents and try to emotionally blackmail people. You can also live your life by your secular beliefs and not try to force them onto everyone else.

I'll keep my religion out of public life as soon as you agree to do the same with YOUR beliefs.

And how is allowing gay marraige aforcing my beliefs on you?

Although on the flip side

No matter how you slice you're trying to force the definition onto everyone else, and the only rationale I've seen you give is that it's the Christian thing to do. There are religions that want to marry gays so why can't they?

 

[Cecilie1200]

14th amendment

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.

It's the equal protection clause that's at issue here.

And the bill of rights was created in the first place exactly so that the minority's rights were not at the whims of the majority. If they thought the majority got to dictate everything they wouldn't have made the bill of rights.

Oh, for the love of God, THIS ignorant argument again.

No one is applying the law unequally here, Bubba. EVERYONE is equally allowed to legally marry someone of the opposite sex, and EVERYONE is equally prohibited from legally marrying someone of the same sex. I can't go marry another woman any more than any other woman in my state can.

Babbling at me about the "minority's rights" is a waste of time insofar as no one, minority or otherwise, has EVER had the right to legally marry someone of the same sex before all this nonsense came up.

And the reason the Founding Fathers gave us the Bill of Rights is because the majority DOES get to dictate everything else, and they wanted to establish a handful of things that were off-limits. It was not for twits like you to expand that into some wackjob notion that the will of the people should simply be ignored completely.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And how is allowing gay marraige aforcing my beliefs on you?

Although on the flip side

No matter how you slice you're trying to force the definition onto everyone else, and the only rationale I've seen you give is that it's the Christian thing to do. There are religions that want to marry gays so why can't they?

How is NOT allowing it forcing MINE on YOU? Is someone stopping you from living with your same-sex lover? Writing out a will to leave him/her/it everything you own when you die?

The only thing withholding legal sanction of a homosexual relationship denies you - or whomever is having it - is the recognition and sanction of others. You don't have a right to that. I am not forcing my beliefs on you by not approving of your lifestyle, but you ARE forcing it on me if you get a judge to rule that I HAVE to approve it against my will.

No matter how you slice it, YOU are trying to force YOUR definition onto everyone else, because everyone else has made it crystal clear that they don't agree with you. How in the HELL do you justify saying that I am the one forcing MY definition when I am not the one swimming upstream of the overwhelming vote?

And no, you have NOT seen me give any "Christian rationale". YOU think that's the only reason to oppose it, and so you simply attribute that to everyone who disagrees with you, because it's so much damned easier to just say, "Well, you're a religious nut" than to have to actually listen to what people say, think about it, and then formulate a response.

Should you ever be interested in hearing any opinions besides your own and the one that YOU have decided everyone else has, MINE actually happens to be that THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN AND DON'T WANT IT.

 

[Father Time]

Yeah that makes perfect sense.

Why do you THINK we make things illegal, witless? Because we consider them bad and immoral. Duh. Did you really think society made bestiality illegal because of concern over animal cruelty?
[/QUOTE]

No but that's the only reason it remains illegal, and unchallenged. We make things illegal to protect the public and maintain order, not to enforce morality.

Oh, yeah, THAT makes sense. As long as I don't do it, I'm totally unaffected by whether or not anyone ELSE does it, because of course people who live in a society are all isolated little islands unto themselves. I can't decide which one you are a bigger ignoramus about: laws or morals. What I DO know is that I'm damned glad you don't live in MY neighborhood.

Yeah because gay couples getting married will harm you and your kids personally right. RUN! Lock the doors, save yourselves, two gay gays you've never met are getting married.

What do you think the job of the government IS, exactly, other than to be society's active arm in deciding on and enforcing its boundaries?

National Defense, acting as a police force stuff like that. I don't think it's sole purpose is to enforce the personal moral code of everyone through sheer force.

So you don't think we should have laws against anything that you personally? You're perfectly okay with having a crack house on one side of yours and a whorehouse on the other, and maybe a kiddy porn ring behind you, so long as they keep the noise down and don't bother YOU and YOUR kids?


And don't give me, "But that stuff all hurts SOMEONE". You asked about other people's private lives affecting ME. Me personally. So by that standard, any law against something that does not PERSONALLY affect you shouldn't exist, because after all, there's no such thing as defining deviancy down, creating a depraved society, and hurting EVERYONE who must live in it.

First off it's me or others not involved, if two adults consent to something whatever it is it should be legal as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in the process.

Child porn is a bad argument though. Child porn hurts the child involved, they can't consent to it, they get sexually molested and they can be as young as five.

As for crackhouses and whorehouses, well they would lower the value of my property considerably and we do have residential zones and commercial zones here in suburbia. So there's that to consider.

But if you want my answer as to whether or not I think crack or prostitution should be legal, the answer is not sure and yes respectively (but if you want a definite, I do think weed should be legal).

You need to pull your head out and figure out what purpose laws serve and why people pass them, and stop trying to pretend that morality is separate from real life. That's just another way of saying, "I have no morals at all."

We all have different morality. Since morality is mostly subjective/opinion it would be wrong to force it onto everyone else without a really good reason. I have morals, I think people should be nice to people for starters, but I'm not going to throw someone in jail just because he's generally a mean person.

 

[Father Time]

How is NOT allowing it forcing MINE on YOU? Is someone stopping you from living with your same-sex lover? Writing out a will to leave him/her/it everything you own when you die?

The only thing withholding legal sanction of a homosexual relationship denies you - or whomever is having it - is the recognition and sanction of others. You don't have a right to that. I am not forcing my beliefs on you by not approving of your lifestyle, but you ARE forcing it on me if you get a judge to rule that I HAVE to approve it against my will.

No matter how you slice it, YOU are trying to force YOUR definition onto everyone else, because everyone else has made it crystal clear that they don't agree with you. How in the HELL do you justify saying that I am the one forcing MY definition when I am not the one swimming upstream of the overwhelming vote?

And no, you have NOT seen me give any "Christian rationale". YOU think that's the only reason to oppose it, and so you simply attribute that to everyone who disagrees with you, because it's so much damned easier to just say, "Well, you're a religious nut" than to have to actually listen to what people say, think about it, and then formulate a response.

Should you ever be interested in hearing any opinions besides your own and the one that YOU have decided everyone else has, MINE actually happens to be that THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN AND DON'T WANT IT.

I'm talking rights of couples, a hetero couple gets to get married and not a homo, I think that's wrong and you don't. What's your rationale of that? That what they're doing is bad? You don't have to approve of it and neither does anyone else. No church will be forced to marry same sex couples, freedom of religion allows that. If a law or a lawsuit got proposed that ran counter to it, it would be overturned rather quickly.

And I've been mixing you with someone else. My apologies, but if your argument is that the people have decided it's wrong therefore it's wrong then that's not a very good argument either.

 

[Father Time]

Well it's getting late over here, and I have work tomorrow. Sorry but I must leave.

 

[Macintosh]

As per my previous post macintosh. I told you the history of the downfall of nations, the embrace of homosexuality of over 2million members of the Hitler youth, etc, etc, etc.
All you did to "refute" my statements was to tell me to "link up or shut up". Why don't you go and google it. I already did. You just don't want to.
I win again.

I refuted your asinine assertion by relying on referenced history - a foreign concept to you, I realize.

Considering I have now asked you several times to back up that which you assert and you have several times failed to do so, responding with "I win," "Your dumb," and "I know history," it's obvious you're just a pitiful little troll. You are, officially, put on ignore.

Not a single, solitary link backing up anything you say. I don't play those games, buddy.

You lose.

Goodbye.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No but that's the only reason it remains illegal, and unchallenged. We make things illegal to protect the public and maintain order, not to enforce morality.

No, dumbass, bestiality does not remain illegal solely because people are worried about being cruel to animals. It's still illegal because people still think it's revolting.

And how do we decide what to protect the public from and what order, exactly, to maintain, hmmm? Gee, that would be a moral decision, wouldn't it? Well, that is, for everyone but you. God only knows how YOU decide what to vote for.

Yeah because gay couples getting married will harm you and your kids personally right. RUN! Lock the doors, save yourselves, two gay gays you've never met are getting married.

Once again, you flatter yourself enormously that ANYONE cares who you live with, screw, whatever, and then confuse your enormous, puffed-up ego with reality. These laws are not about anyone's relationship, tweeko, because - NEWFLASH! - no one gives a damn about you. Go crazy, mount a bicycle handlebar to the headboard and ride, ride, ride! Who care?

They are solely about what the rest of us are and are not going to legally recognize. That's it. Does it personally harm me and my family for society to offer sanction and recognition to homosexual couples equal to that it gives heterosexual couples? What business is it of YOURS? My family, my vote, my business to decide what does and doesn't affect us.

Interesting how protective of privacy and personal choice you are until it comes to people who disagree with you.

National Defense, acting as a police force stuff like that. I don't think it's sole purpose is to enforce the personal moral code of everyone through sheer force.

Oh, yeah, because national defense and the police force don't have ANYTHING to do with enforcing the collective moral code of society through force.

We look at Hitler imprisoning and killing people by the millions based on their ethnicity, and we go to war. Why? Because we decided it was WRONG, aka immoral. We see Japan attack us, and we go to war and retaliate. Why? Because we decided that was wrong. We see Iraq invade Kuwait, and we send our military to push them back. Why? Because we considered it wrong to invade neighboring countries.

Noticing a pattern there, Brain Trust?

The United States has laws against stoning your wife to death for adultery. Why? Because we consider it immoral. Not every country in the world considers it immoral. Some countries consider it the height of morality to stone an adulterous wife, and in those countries, it's legal.

So you can't tell me that our laws are just about "maintaining order", because other countries also maintain order. They just maintain a DIFFERENT order, with different laws, because . . . drum roll please! They have a different standard of morality informing their choice of laws.

First off it's me or others not involved, if two adults consent to something whatever it is it should be legal as long as it doesn't affect anyone else in the process.

Well, again, who the hell else is involved if your neighbors on one side sell crack and the neighbors on the other side run a whorehouse? But I'm betting you'd be freaking out royally if they did, for no other reason than that YOU don't want to live in that sort of environment. (That is, unless you actually live in a slum with crack and whore houses. I'm assuming at this point that you live in a normal, middle-class sort of neighborhood.)

Child porn is a bad argument though. Child porn hurts the child involved, they can't consent to it, they get sexually molested and they can be as young as five.

No, it isn't a bad argument, because you didn't say anything about "hurts the child involved" or "can't consent". Your specific criterion was "how does it hurt me and my family personally?" And by YOUR standards, it doesn't hurt us at all. They aren't my kids. As you keep saying about the homosexuals, I don't even know them. So if I adopt YOUR standard of legal necessity, why should I care what total strangers are doing or having done to them? As long as me and mine are taken care of, that's all that should matter to me, isn't it? Well, ISN'T IT?!

As for crackhouses and whorehouses, well they would lower the value of my property considerably and we do have residential zones and commercial zones here in suburbia. So there's that to consider.

What? You mean that what other people do actually DOES affect the people around them? You're not a complete, self-sufficient, isolated little island unto yourself on your own property?

But if you want my answer as to whether or not I think crack or prostitution should be legal, the answer is not sure and yes respectively (but if you want a definite, I do think weed should be legal).

No, I don't, because I don't give a rat's ass what you think about the legality of those things. My point is that whether you thought they should be legal or not, YOU wouldn't want them around YOU and YOUR family. Knowing you, you'd probably find it just hunky-dory . . . so long as it was polluting someone ELSE'S neighborhood and ruining someone ELSE'S life. I, on the other hand, actually take my eyes off my own belly button long enough to notice the rest of the world and care what it's like.

We all have different morality. Since morality is mostly subjective/opinion it would be wrong to force it onto everyone else without a really good reason. I have morals, I think people should be nice to people for starters, but I'm not going to throw someone in jail just because he's generally a mean person.

Mostly, we don't all have different moralities. We differ on some points, and in some cases, we differ only by degree. For example, I think heinous murderers should be shot like rabid dogs, while you probably prefer that they be given a life sentence. Both of us, though, agree - I would hope - that they should be punished severely. But that's the reason that we have public debates and then vote on the laws: to hopefully find the place where the majority of us overlap. And no,it isn't wrong to "force" everyone else to live by what the majority decides, because that is ALWAYS the case with EVERY law. You can't ever please 100% of the people. I'd rather have 9 people out of 10 happy and 1 disgruntled than 1 person getting his way and everyone else pissed off. THAT is the definition of tyranny.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm talking rights of couples, a hetero couple gets to get married and not a homo, I think that's wrong and you don't.

There's no such thing as "rights of couples". Individual people have rights. A homosexual person has the same right to get married that I do, and I am just as prohibited from getting married the way he wants as he is. Whether or not he WANTS that right is irrelevant to whether or not it is offered and applied equally. I have lots of legally-protected rights I don't particularly want, but I don't consider that unequal protection just because some people want them and I don't.

What's your rationale of that? That what they're doing is bad?

And once again, instead of reading what I said, paying attention to it, thinking about it, and formulating a response to it, you just try to stuff your personal view of what I MUST think and believe into my mouth so that you can answer THAT. Why don't you just log off and go argue with your reflection in the mirror? It would probably be a lot easier for you to supply both sides of the debate if you didn't have me getting in the way with all my pesky "making up my own opinions".

You don't have to approve of it and neither does anyone else.

Wrong, Sparky. This entire battle is PRECISELY about me and everyone else HAVING to approve of it. That's the entire point of getting a law passed forcing society via the government to recognize and sanction them. They are demanding that the government approve their relationships, and in the United States more than any other nation on Earth, the PEOPLE are the government.

No church will be forced to marry same sex couples, freedom of religion allows that. If a law or a lawsuit got proposed that ran counter to it, it would be overturned rather quickly.

Oh, yeah. It's NEVER happened anywhere else that has legalized same-sex "marriage" that churches have been forced to hold their ceremonies, or that people have been sued or arrested for opposing it. Oh, wait. It has. It's even happened in THIS country already, and it will only get worse.

I'm not sure who you're trying to lie to concerning the apocryphal respect for freedom of religion in this country, me or you. But I know that I, for one, am not buying it.

And I've been mixing you with someone else. My apologies, but if your argument is that the people have decided it's wrong therefore it's wrong then that's not a very good argument either.

Apology accepted, but I should warn you that I consider producing Wikipedia as a source as tantamount to surrendering the argument. I do not view a user-written online "encyclopedia" to qualify as a reliable source.

As it happens, though, we are not talking about "lots of people believe it, so it is the truth". We are talking about "a lot of people voted for it, so it is the law". Like it or don't, but that's how this country works. The will of the people might turn out to be wrong, but it still carries the day until such time as you change their minds.

 

[Father Time]

Well it looks like I had more time than I thought.

No, dumbass, bestiality does not remain illegal solely because people are worried about being cruel to animals. It's still illegal because people still think it's revolting.

It's illegal because it's pretty much rape. If they can get sodomy laws overturned do you honestly think they wouldn't try for bestiality if there weren't some other factor going against it?

And how do we decide what to protect the public from and what order, exactly, to maintain, hmmm? Gee, that would be a moral decision, wouldn't it? Well, that is, for everyone but you. God only knows how YOU decide what to vote for.

Protect us from things that are threats to our safety. Dictators, Fascists, Criminals, the insane, actual threats.

They are solely about what the rest of us are and are not going to legally recognize. That's it. Does it personally harm me and my family for society to offer sanction and recognition to homosexual couples equal to that it gives heterosexual couples? What business is it of YOURS? My family, my vote, my business to decide what does and doesn't affect us.

If you can't give me a solid reason why it affects you then why pray tell should we make it law then? Just because you and other people who won't be affected want it that way? At the cost of freedom to marry who one wishes to?

Interesting how protective of privacy and personal choice you are until it comes to people who disagree with you.

Oh knock off the straw men. Please. I never said you can't vote the way you want and you know that.

Oh, yeah, because national defense and the police force don't have ANYTHING to do with enforcing the collective moral code of society through force.

They deal with protecting us from as I said criminals and the like but if people pass laws that enforce personal morality then yeah that would be their job.

We look at Hitler imprisoning and killing people by the millions based on their ethnicity, and we go to war. Why? Because we decided it was WRONG, aka immoral. We see Japan attack us, and we go to war and retaliate. Why? Because we decided that was wrong. We see Iraq invade Kuwait, and we send our military to push them back. Why? Because we considered it wrong to invade neighboring countries.

The first two were us going to war with security risks (and partly retaliation) and we didn't invade Kuwait alone (nor are we in iraq alone).

The United States has laws against stoning your wife to death for adultery. Why? Because we consider it immoral. Not every country in the world considers it immoral. Some countries consider it the height of morality to stone an adulterous wife, and in those countries, it's legal.

So you can't tell me that our laws are just about "maintaining order", because other countries also maintain order. They just maintain a DIFFERENT order, with different laws, because . . . drum roll please! They have a different standard of morality informing their choice of laws.

Just because other antions enforce personal morality doesn't mean we should. It's not logical.

Well, again, who the hell else is involved if your neighbors on one side sell crack and the neighbors on the other side run a whorehouse? But I'm betting you'd be freaking out royally if they did, for no other reason than that YOU don't want to live in that sort of environment. (That is, unless you actually live in a slum with crack and whore houses. I'm assuming at this point that you live in a normal, middle-class sort of neighborhood.)

You're right if my neighbors want to sell crack and have whorsehouses it shouldn't be any business of mine (and I mean that sincerely).

No, it isn't a bad argument, because you didn't say anything about "hurts the child involved" or "can't consent". Your specific criterion was "how does it hurt me and my family personally?" And by YOUR standards, it doesn't hurt us at all. They aren't my kids. As you keep saying about the homosexuals, I don't even know them. So if I adopt YOUR standard of legal necessity, why should I care what total strangers are doing or having done to them? As long as me and mine are taken care of, that's all that should matter to me, isn't it? Well, ISN'T IT?!

Ok so I forgot a few criteria, sorry. If two homosexuals marry it won't affect you so why in all holy heck do you care? I have a better argument against a next door crackhouse than you have against a gay marraige.

What? You mean that what other people do actually DOES affect the people around them? You're not a complete, self-sufficient, isolated little island unto yourself on your own property?

No what my neighbors do in the privacy of their own home doesn't affect me in any way. Hell I've never even met my next door neighbors (they're very private).

No, I don't, because I don't give a rat's ass what you think about the legality of those things. My point is that whether you thought they should be legal or not, YOU wouldn't want them around YOU and YOUR family.

I wouldn't want them but I wouldn't use the force of government to stop them. Do you see the difference?

Knowing you, you'd probably find it just hunky-dory . . . so long as it was polluting someone ELSE'S neighborhood and ruining someone ELSE'S life. I, on the other hand, actually take my eyes off my own belly button long enough to notice the rest of the world and care what it's like.

If it was polluting a neighborhood the neighborhood can get a class action lawsuit and sue. I also don't see how it ruins my life or anyone not involved if some guy messes himself up with crack.

 

[Father Time]

There's no such thing as "rights of couples". Individual people have rights. A homosexual person has the same right to get married that I do, and I am just as prohibited from getting married the way he wants as he is. Whether or not he WANTS that right is irrelevant to whether or not it is offered and applied equally. I have lots of legally-protected rights I don't particularly want, but I don't consider that unequal protection just because some people want them and I don't.

Couples have rights, hospital visitation for one.

And once again, instead of reading what I said, paying attention to it, thinking about it, and formulating a response to it, you just try to stuff your personal view of what I MUST think and believe into my mouth so that you can answer THAT. Why don't you just log off and go argue with your reflection in the mirror? It would probably be a lot easier for you to supply both sides of the debate if you didn't have me getting in the way with all my pesky "making up my own opinions".

And yet you still didn't answer my damn question or tell me what it was that I missed. If you made the point I must've missed it. Why don't you stop insulting me and help me out?

Wrong, Sparky. This entire battle is PRECISELY about me and everyone else HAVING to approve of it. That's the entire point of getting a law passed forcing society via the government to recognize and sanction them. They are demanding that the government approve their relationships, and in the United States more than any other nation on Earth, the PEOPLE are the government.

They approve hetero and not homo, why should they be discriminated against? You don't have to approve of it, you're not the freaking government, you're not the one handing out marraige licenses. The government has to allow something therefore you have to approve of it as well? That logic can be used to ban anything then.

Oh, yeah. It's NEVER happened anywhere else that has legalized same-sex "marriage" that churches have been forced to hold their ceremonies, or that people have been sued or arrested for opposing it. Oh, wait. It has. It's even happened in THIS country already, and it will only get worse.

A. Cite Sources.
B. Those cases should get a damn lawyer and counter sue.
C. It couldn't have happened in California under state law.
D. You can always make a law saying churches can marry whoever they want.

 

[Father Time]

On an unrelated note, what time zone is it over there and do you ever sleep?

 

[Father Time]

I shall leave you with this.

You're stoning of unfaithful wives is an example of what happens when *cue cliche scary music* enforcing morality goes wrong! We wouldn't accept that morality over here and we would probably both agree that we wouldn't want to make it law. But what would happen if those people who would want it law become the majority? Would you be willing to give them that law because all of a sudden they're the majority? What happens when they start demanding other stupid laws that are part of their morality and not yours? Would you still be willing to put it up to the vote and accept the outcome regardless?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well it looks like I had more time than I thought.

Oh, goodie.

It's illegal because it's pretty much rape. If they can get sodomy laws overturned do you honestly think they wouldn't try for bestiality if there weren't some other factor though?

They ARE trying to get it overturned. And the reason they aren't having any luck so far isn't because people are saying, "Oh, that would be okay if I could just be sure that poor doggie WANTS to participate." The reason is because people are saying, "You want to do WHAT with a WHAT? Dude, that is GROSS! Get some therapy."

Protect us from things that are threats to our safety. Dictators, Fascists, Criminals, the insane, actual threats.

Sorry, but our legal code is SOOO much more complex than that. Come to that, so is our foreign policy.

If you can't give me a solid reason why it affects you then why pray tell should we alter laws just for you?

Um, dude, I'M not the one asking to have laws altered. YOU are. I'M asking to have things left the way they've always been.

And I believe the crux of my argument so far has been that it's NOT "just" for me. It's for the overwhelming majority of voters who agreed with me. So pray tell me why WE should alter the laws for YOU and those who agree with you, when there are so many fewer of you?

Oh knock off the straw men. Please. I never said you can't vote the way you want and you know that.

You ARE trying to tell me how I should vote and what I should think and what does and doesn't affect my family, and you're demanding to know how and why I have decided the way I have. I'm telling you that it's no more your business what I decide is good for my family than you think it is my business to decide how other people live THEIR lives.

The difference, of course, is that I'm not telling anyone who to have relationships with or what's good for them in the privacy of their homes. I don't care. All I'm saying is that I'M not going to agree with them if and when they bring it out in public and discuss it, and it's obvious that the majority of voters feel the same way.

They deal with protecting us from as I said criminals and the like but if people pass laws that enforce personal morality then yeah that would be their job.

Once again, our legal code is MUCH more complex than that. For one thing, it is the morality of society that decides who is and isn't a criminal from whom we need to be protected. You seem to be operating under the delusion that the definition of "criminal" is somehow rock-solid and objective the world over, and it isn't. In many cases, it's not even the same from state to state.

People DO pass laws based on their own personal morality all the time. The age of consent in my state, for example, is 18. But there are other states in which it is 17, or even 16. Clearly, the people of the state of Arizona have decided that it is their collective moral judgement that an adult who has sex with someone who is 17 is a criminal from whom they need to be protected. Equally clearly, the people of some of the other states have decided that it is THEIR collective moral judgement that that very same adult is NOT a criminal from whom they need to be protected.

And most clearly, these are laws that are based on morality. They are also, coincidentally, being "forced" upon a minority who disagrees with them and feels that a 17-year-old is perfectly capable of giving informed consent.

The first two were us going to war with security risks (and partly retaliation) and we didn't invade Kuwait alone (nor are we in iraq alone).

What's "alone" got to do with anything? It's less of a moral decision if other countries agree with it?

Just because other antions enforce personal morality doesn't mean we should. It's not logical.

Of course it's logical, and of course it's what we do. As I've pointed out on these boards many times already, even our traffic laws are based on the simple, childhood morality taught in kindergarten: share. Take turns. Be courteous. Don't go too fast because someone might get hurt. And by the way, THOSE are "forced" on a minority who don't agree with them, too.

You're right if my neighbors want to sell crack and have whorsehouses it shouldn't be any business of mine (and I mean that sincerely).

And neither one of us believes for a micro-second that you would have no problem with those activities in your neighborhood, let alone right next door. Otherwise, you'd be living in the slum where those activities DO occur, because hey, the housing prices are a lot cheaper.

Believe it or not, it is perfectly okay for you to express the desire to have the environment you live in be one of clean, moral, upstanding, productive people.

Ok so I forgot a few criteria, sorry. If two homosexuals marry it won't affect you so why in all holy heck do you care? I have a better argument against a next door crackhouse than you have against a gay marraige.

Can't imagine why you would think that, since I did specify "as long as they keep the noise down and don't bother you".

The answer, as I keep saying, is that it DOES affect me. You will notice, I hope, that I don't give rat's ass that same-sex "marriage" is legal in the Netherlands, for example. That is because I don't live in the Netherlands, and I am in no way a part of their society. Their laws and their societal mores genuinely do NOT affect me, except insofar as they encourage numbskulls in this country to try to emulate them. What I care about are the laws and mores in THIS country, because THIS is the society I live in, and it DOES affect me.

No what my neighbors do in the privacy of their own home doesn't affect me in any way. Hell I've never even met my next door neighbors (they're very private).

I know the neighbors on one side, but not the other, because the damned house gets sold every two years or so. And while most of what they do over there really doesn't have any affect on me, I'm not so callous or naive as to say that NOTHING they do does. If he starts beating on his wife or kids and I find out, I'm going to open up a can of whoop-ass on him, and then call the cops.

But as it happens, I don't care if the people next door to me are homosexual. In fact, that house was at one time occupied by a couple of homosexual men. They were quiet, respectful, and kept their yard clean, and I never paid them any attention at all. As I keep saying, this isn't about what people do in their homes regarding homosexuality, because really, honestly, no one cares about that.

I wouldn't want them but I wouldn't use the force of government to stop them. Do you see the difference?

That's bullshit. You most certainly WOULD call the cops if someone opened a crack house or a whorehouse in your neighborhood. The only difference here is that I'm honest enough to admit it, and you're not.

If it was polluting a neighborhood the neighborhood can get a class action lawsuit and sue. I also don't see how it ruins my life or anyone not involved if some guy messes himself up with crack.

Well, as it happens, because he becomes an unproductive drain on society, and even if they DIDN'T attract a dangerous criminal element - which they, in fact, do - they're a terrible example to your kids, if you have any.

And no, your neighbors wouldn't sue for a crack house or a whorehouse. They'd call the cops and have everyone arrested, as they damned well should.

The point here is that it's fallacious to say, "It doesn't affect you." It does. It's actually intended to, because we're NOT talking about what someone does in the privacy of his own home vis a vis homosexuality. No one is passing, or trying to pass, laws against being a homosexual or having a homosexual relationship. The laws in question are strictly about PUBLIC sanction and affirmation of homosexual relationships, and when it becomes PUBLIC, it DOES affect me.

 

[Father Time]

They ARE trying to get it overturned. And the reason they aren't having any luck so far isn't because people are saying, "Oh, that would be okay if I could just be sure that poor doggie WANTS to participate." The reason is because people are saying, "You want to do WHAT with a WHAT? Dude, that is GROSS! Get some therapy."

Who is trying to get it overturned? I've never met them nor heard of them.

Sorry, but our legal code is SOOO much more complex than that. Come to that, so is our foreign policy.

Once again please knock off the straw men. Your question was what I thought government should be protected from. That's my answer, please don't pretend it's something else.

Um, dude, I'M not the one asking to have laws altered. YOU are. I'M asking to have things left the way they've always been.

Late night, not enough sleep. Fine why should we keep these laws just for you then?

And I believe the crux of my argument so far has been that it's NOT "just" for me. It's for the overwhelming majority of voters who agreed with me. So pray tell me why WE should alter the laws for YOU and those who agree with you, when there are so many fewer of you?

Because saying straight couples can marry and gay couples can't is discrimination and wrong minded. People should have the right to marry whoever they want. You disagrre with me and haven't given me a good reason why it should be your way (and please don't bother bringing up the majority).

You ARE trying to tell me how I should vote and what I should think

It's called debating if you don't like the process you can go to the rest of the internet.

and what does and doesn't affect my family, and you're demanding to know how and why I have decided the way I have. I'm telling you that it's no more your business what I decide is good for my family than you think it is my business to decide how other people live THEIR lives.

If your counter argument is none of my business why bother keep coming back if you won't continue debating.

The difference, of course, is that I'm not telling anyone who to have relationships with or what's good for them in the privacy of their homes. I don't care. All I'm saying is that I'M not going to agree with them if and when they bring it out in public and discuss it, and it's obvious that the majority of voters feel the same way.

Marraige between two people involves the government but beyond that how is it a public thing. You won't even have to know about it?

People DO pass laws based on their own personal morality all the time.

Yes I know but they shouldn't. Yes all laws involve morality but it should only go to a point. You can argue objectively the drawbacks of allowing murder or sex with minors but if you can't argue objectively the benefits of a law and you only have morality to back it up then you're forcing morality on to everyone else. Please stop framing me as an anarchist just because I think demanding everyone follow every insignificant bit of the subjective morality of the majority is bad.

What's "alone" got to do with anything? It's less of a moral decision if other countries agree with it?

Ok fine bad argument, I don't know the whole history of the war but wasn't he becoming a threat to international allies? Never mind forget that war.

Of course it's logical, and of course it's what we do. As I've pointed out on these boards many times already, even our traffic laws are based on the simple, childhood morality taught in kindergarten: share. Take turns. Be courteous. Don't go too fast because someone might get hurt. And by the way, THOSE are "forced" on a minority who don't agree with them, too.

Yeah but you get the added objective benefit of safety for citizens who follow rules. Heck even that wikipedia article I gave you showed why traffic laws don't really count for what you're arguing.

And neither one of us believes for a micro-second that you would have no problem with those activities in your neighborhood, let alone right next door. Otherwise, you'd be living in the slum where those activities DO occur, because hey, the housing prices are a lot cheaper.

I DON'T CARE IF THEY DECIDE TO LIVE IN A CRACKHOUSE. I don't care if they start running a whorehouse. Hell I wouldn't even rat them out. I firmly believe prostitution should be legalized and I don't think having a bunch of crackhouses around will all of a sudden turn our neighborhood into a slum.

Believe it or not, it is perfectly okay for you to express the desire to have the environment you live in be one of clean, moral, upstanding, productive people.

That is bullshit. You do not have the right to demand that everyone here live by whatever morals you have just because you want the place to be 'clean and moral'. This is supposed to be a free country so if I do something that you don't like but doesn't actually affect you otherwise then that's too bad.

Can't imagine why you would think that, since I did specify "as long as they keep the noise down and don't bother you".

Well they usually attract addicts and desperate men.

The answer, as I keep saying, is that it DOES affect me. You will notice, I hope, that I don't give rat's ass that same-sex "marriage" is legal in the Netherlands, for example. That is because I don't live in the Netherlands, and I am in no way a part of their society. Their laws and their societal mores genuinely do NOT affect me, except insofar as they encourage numbskulls in this country to try to emulate them. What I care about are the laws and mores in THIS country, because THIS is the society I live in, and it DOES affect me.

How does gay marraige affect you? I've asked you that question umpteenth times and yet you still refuse to answer me.

I know the neighbors on one side, but not the other, because the damned house gets sold every two years or so. And while most of what they do over there really doesn't have any affect on me, I'm not so callous or naive as to say that NOTHING they do does.

Neither am I, you mentioned two specific scenarios that's it.

That's bullshit. You most certainly WOULD call the cops if someone opened a crack house or a whorehouse in your neighborhood. The only difference here is that I'm honest enough to admit it, and you're not.

How the hell could you possibly know that without ever meeting me in person? I'd really LOVE to know about your psychic powers that can detect whether someone is lying through text.

Well, as it happens, because he becomes an unproductive drain on society, and even if they DIDN'T attract a dangerous criminal element - which they, in fact, do - they're a terrible example to your kids, if you have any.

I wouldn't expect everyone to be a good example to kids nor would I demand through force that they be. There's no reason why the world around you needs to be kid friendly (nor would you ever actually accomplish that). Also you can act as a good example to your kids, I'm sure that you'd be a bigger influence than one 'bad' house.

The laws in question are strictly about PUBLIC sanction and affirmation of homosexual relationships, and when it becomes PUBLIC, it DOES affect me.

How does it affect you? Why do you care that other people are getting married? Please answer me this damn question. Is it because the government is now catering to two types of marraiges instead of one? What?

It's past midnight we've been talking in damn circles all day I'm going to leave now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Couples have rights, hospital visitation for one.

Dude, you have the right to visit anyone in the hospital that you want to. Have you not been to a hospital lately? They aren't like pricey French restaurants, with a maitre'd and a reservation list. You can walk right in and visit a complete stranger if you want to.

If you're concerned about being in intensive care and unconscious, make a living will. Hell, I have one, and I AM married.

And yet you still didn't answer my damn question or tell me what it was that I missed. If you made the point I must've missed it. Why don't you stop insulting me and help me out?

I DID answer your question. Your question was, if I recall correctly, "Why? Because you think it's wrong?" And the answer to that was, "That's the argument YOU have attributed to me, not any argument I'VE ever given." And I see no reason to stop insulting you if you see no reason to stop putting words in my mouth.

They approve hetero and not homo, why should they be discriminated against?

Why shouldn't they be? We discriminate based upon behavior all the damned time. Hell, that's the purpose of most of our laws: to say, "We approve of this behavior, and we'll slap your ass in jail for THAT one." In this case, all we're saying is, "We're not recognizing that as a marriage, but feel free to call it whatever you want amongst yourselves."

You don't have to approve of it, you're not the freaking government, you're not the one handing out marraige licenses.

The hell I'm NOT the government. This is America, pal. "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people . . ." Am I ringing any bells here? Representative democracy? Bueller?

The government has to allow something therefore you have to approve of it as well? That logic can be used to ban anything then.

And it is used to ban all sorts of things. In fact, it's the fundamental basis for EVERYTHING we actually ban in this country. If the government is going to take an action, then yes, the majority of the people have to approve of it. Otherwise, you get a dictatorship and eventually, you get a revolution. See the founding of the United States if you don't believe me.

A. Cite Sources.
B. Those cases should get a damn lawyer and counter sue.
C. It couldn't have happened in California under state law.
D. You can always make a law saying churches can marry whoever they want.

Let me take this in reverse order.

We already have a law saying churches can marry or not marry whomever they want, plus a whole host of other things. It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution. And it's rapidly becoming not worth the sheepskin it's written on, thanks to activists who can't get what they want at the ballot box or the legislature because of that pesky "will of the people", and so turn to the legal system and like-minded judges to force their beliefs on everyone else. Sound familiar?

Technically, it can't happen ANYWHERE in this country under FEDERAL law, but it did. It ALSO can't happen in the states where it DID happen under STATE law, but that didn't count for squat. And finally, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be able to happen in the other countries where it did, because they allegedly are westernized, liberal-minded countries with religious freedom. They decided they didn't need any of that nonsense when it interfered with their progressivism, and if you really think the United States is somehow immune from selling its own freedoms down the river the same way, then you're deluded.

My dear, those cases happened IN COURT to begin with. They already HAD lawyers. No one ever said anyone was passing laws oppressing religious freedom by the open, legal, democratic process. Didn't stop the oppression, though, did it?

You really, REALLY need to follow the news. I've cited these cases so many times, as have others, that I can already envision half the board rolling their eyes and saying, "Not AGAIN."

However, one more time:

Perhaps you heard recently the news story concerning eHarmony.com. This Internet dating site was founded by a man with a divinity degree specifically for the purpose of promoting long-term relationships based on Christian principles. As I'm sure we all know, there is no shortage of Internet dating and hook-up sites, catering to any and all tastes and goals. In a country that supposedly worships at the shrine of First Amendment freedom of speech, the California-based company SHOULD, in theory, be able to specify the sort of service it wishes to provide, no? Apparently not, since they were sued and forced to include homosexual relationships as well.

A federal court in Massachusetts denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their children's classroom. Why? Because homosexual "marriage" is legal there, and therefore, it supersedes their parental rights.

I'm sure you probably also heard the news story about the Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts that chose to close its doors rather than be forced to place children with homosexual couples in opposition to its religous basis.

In New Jersey, a Christian ministry refused to perform a same-sex ceremony and was investigated by the state's Attorney General's office.

In California, a doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian because his policy is not to perform the procedure on ANY unmarried woman.

In New Mexico, a wedding photographer couple was sued for declining the job of taking photos at a same-sex ceremony.

In Georgia, a counselor was fired for referring a woman in a same-sex relationship to another counselor, despite the fact that the woman herself said the counselor she was referred to gave "exemplary service".

All of these are easily looked up and verified, if you choose. And that's right here in the United States, where we supposedly enshrine, both legally and morally, the ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of personal belief . . . unless it pisses off a vocal minority group and is politically incorrect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

On an unrelated note, what time zone is it over there and do you ever sleep?

I'm in Arizona, which I believe is currently sharing time with California (We don't switch to Daylight Savings Time, and I get confused sometimes about what everyone else is doing). My husband works until midnight or so, and I'm 8 months pregnant with a nocturnal baby, so I tend to take three- or four-hour naps during the day rather than sleeping all night. Also, it's Sunday - well, it was when I started posting - so I didn't really have anything I needed to do.

 

[Father Time]

Ma has screwy laws that as you said were unconstitutional. CA does not have the same laws.

Everything else is 'was sued' 'was investigated' Did they win did they lose? If it was a frivolous lawsuit that resulted in a loss than you can't really count it. Stuff like that happens all the time and the ones who were sued can get back legal fees from the people who sued to even out the cost of lawyers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I shall leave you with this.

You're stoning of unfaithful wives is an example of what happens when *cue cliche scary music* enforcing morality goes wrong!

According to YOUR moral standard, but who the hell are YOU to impose YOUR views of what's right and wrong on anyone else? What makes YOUR moral standard any better or worse than theirs?

Seriously, though, the fact that things can go wrong and be taken to a bad or scary degree just indicates that humans are fallible, screwed-up creatures, not that we should somehow attempt to make and enforce laws without any regard to a moral standard. I can't even imagine how we would manage that. What standard WOULD we use to make laws if not right and wrong as we understand them?

We wouldn't accept that morality over here and we would probably both agree that we wouldn't want to make it law.

On the other hand, THEY wouldn't accept OUR morality or want to make it THEIR law, either. That's the point. We have each made our laws based on what our individual societies consider to be moral.

But what would happen if those people who would want it law become the majority?

If a majority of people in this country decided that that was moral, it would become the law here. And the thing you should understand is that in a purely legal sense, that is completely right and proper. I am an American, and I have to believe that the highest morality is to allow the people themselves to decide what kind of society they want to live in. If I don't believe that, then everything this country is, everything it was founded on, doesn't exist. I can't suddenly decide that it's better to have a handful of much wiser, morally superior (read: people who agree with me) people take away that freedom simply because the people have disagreed with me nad are therefore too stupid to be allowed to govern themselves. How hypocritical!

Would you be willing to give them that law because all of a sudden they're the majority? What happens when they start demanding other stupid laws that are part of their morality and not yours?

The people of my state vote in laws I don't agree with all the time. Every two years, the ballot has a slew of initiatives on it. Do you imagine that I am on the winning side of every one of those issues? Hardly. And yes, I "give them" those laws because they're the majority. They won. We both had the job of convincing our fellow voters to agree with us, and they did a more effective job of it. That makes it my job NOW to go out and win people to my side and put it to another vote. It does NOT make it my job to decide to trash the whole system and set myself up as benevolent Big Sister who will hand down decisions to the ignorant peons.

Would you still be willing to put it up to the vote and accept the outcome regardless?

Do it all the time, honey. In fact, it seems to me that it's YOUR side that's unwilling to put things up to the vote and trust the people, since it's the same-sex "marriage" people who want it decided in the courts by unaccountable lawyers in robes.