11 States ban gay marriage

[Guest Cerebus]

But economics is a secular reason why gays should be allowed to marry.

 

I have yet to hear a secular reason why they oughtn't be allowed to marry.

Economics has nothing to do with the law just like religion has nothing to do with the law. So I miss your point.

[Guest SP-1]

I can and will argue from a theological basis. Simply because you don't like it and refuse to acknowledge God doesn't make Him any less so or His definitions and commands any less valid.

 

Mike, just let him ramble. He's clearly too far gone to hold much of a conversation with. He'll self destruct eventually.

[Guest MikeSC]

I love seeing whackjob conspiracy theorists call people bitches.

      -=Mike

"A paranoid is simply someone in possession of all the facts."

 

Deny all you want, it only shows how little you know about the human race.

Nah. A paranoid is simply a whackjob who lacks a clue about reality.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

All you're going to get is 'it's icky' and 'it's in the Bible'. Or some hyperbole about how it will REND the very fabric of heterosexual marriages ASUNDER. Ask them to explain how, and they can't say.

I never said it wasn't going to be hard. But it needs to be done that way.

 

The old guard will die off eventually. Get started on the younger generation. It will take time.

[CanadianChris 0]

I can and will argue from a theological basis. Simply because you don't like it and refuse to acknowledge God doesn't make Him any less so or His definitions and commands any less valid.

Be that as it may, that argument in and of itself can't be used to justify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There has to be some justification besides "the Bible tells us it should not be thus."

[brokentusk16 0]

Nah. A paranoid is simply a whackjob who lacks a clue about reality.

A paranoid considers all angles of reality, they expect what others don't take into consideration. Better that than someone who lives in denial.

[Slayer 0]

Marriage isn't about economics.

I'm sure Popick will type a long rebut to this

[brokentusk16 0]

Mike, just let him ramble. He's clearly too far gone to hold much of a conversation with. He'll self destruct eventually.

I'll self-destruct? Because I choose to understand reality while so many others deny the truth? Because I see the big picture? Yeah, I can see how that is a problem....

 

....wait, no it isn't.

[DerangedHermit 0]

I can and will argue from a theological basis.  Simply because you don't like it and refuse to acknowledge God doesn't make Him any less so or His definitions and commands any less valid.

Be that as it may, that argument in and of itself can't be used to justify a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. There has to be some justification besides "the Bible tells us it should not be thus."

Yeah, it's subjectivism. Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. I can believe that pi is exactly 3, but that doesn't mean it's true. It's also an appeal to majority. Just because 75% of people say they like something, doesn't exactly prove it's true. Nor does it prove it's false. It's just not an argument that should support a conclusion.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm going to give pro-gay marriage folks some advice that they SORELY need:

 

Until you get the public on your side, it isn't going to happen. And the least effective way of getting the public on your side is to insult them for not being on your side to begin with.

 

The moment you call people "homophobes", you lost them. Period. You can say "I don't care" if you wish --- you'll simply be pouring salt in your self-inflicted wound.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I know some of you won't listen to Mike just because he's Mike, and he's obviously right-wing. But trust me, is absolutely correct here.

 

One thing you also need to remember. The American public is very fickle. It is entirely possible to change their mind relatively quickly, provided you put forward the effort.

[Downhome 0]

The moment you call people "homophobes", you lost them. Period. You can say "I don't care" if you wish --- you'll simply be pouring salt in your self-inflicted wound.

-=Mike

I've just been reading through this thread, and that right there is one of the most true things mentioned in this thread so far.

[Guest croweater]

Edit: I'm such a moron, nevermind for now

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'll stop considering the people who vote against gay marriage homophobes when they give me one solid reason that their individual preferences are worth legislating a restrictive morality onto others. Hubristic-ass motherfuckers.

 

In the meantime, I'll avoid agitation and I won't call them homophobes. To their faces.

[DerangedHermit 0]

I know some of you won't listen to Mike just because he's Mike, and he's obviously right-wing. But trust me, is absolutely correct here.

 

One thing you also need to remember. The American public is very fickle. It is entirely possible to change their mind relatively quickly, provided you put forward the effort.

That's why the Democrats lost...they didn't put forward the effort. I mean, they could've chosen Wesley Clark (how do you criticize the capabilities of a general?), Dean, anybody but Kerry. I really don't think they should have Hillary in 2K8, either. She's too ripe for criticism, and the Repubs will most likely run a more moderate candidate.

[DerangedHermit 0]

I'll stop considering the people who vote against gay marriage homophobes when they give me one solid reason that their individual preferences are worth legislating a restrictive morality onto others.  Hubristic-ass motherfuckers.

 

In the meantime, I'll avoid agitation and I won't call them homophobes.  To their faces.

Thank you... I can replace it with African-Americans, and others would crucify me

I'll stop considering the people who vote against interracial marriage racists when they give me one solid reason that their individual preferences are worth legislating a restrictive morality onto others.  Hubristic-ass motherfuckers.

[Guest MikeSC]

I know some of you won't listen to Mike just because he's Mike, and he's obviously right-wing.  But trust me, is absolutely correct here.

 

One thing you also need to remember.  The American public is very fickle.  It is entirely possible to change their mind relatively quickly, provided you put forward the effort.

That's why the Democrats lost...they didn't put forward the effort. I mean, they could've chosen Wesley Clark (how do you criticize the capabilities of a general?), Dean, anybody but Kerry. I really don't think they should have Hillary in 2K8, either. She's too ripe for criticism, and the Repubs will most likely run a more moderate candidate.

Clark would have bombed, honestly. He was FIRED as a general for a good reason and he would absolutely not be able to answer it.

 

There is NO reason why OR didn't approve gay marriage. There really isn't.

 

So, why did it happen?

 

Gavin Newsom's actions were a huge problem. And hearing people completely dismiss legitimate moral or other concerns (such as mine about the courts making law) as "homophobia" only makes people oppose you, simply because you angered them.

 

The Republicans HATED welfare. Loathed it with a passion. I cannot name a SINGLE conservative who ever blamed the voters for electing the Dems who passed it. They ALWAYS blamed the Dems, alone.

 

NEVER blame the people who you have to convince.

-=Mike

[DerangedHermit 0]

I know some of you won't listen to Mike just because he's Mike, and he's obviously right-wing.  But trust me, is absolutely correct here.

 

One thing you also need to remember.  The American public is very fickle.  It is entirely possible to change their mind relatively quickly, provided you put forward the effort.

That's why the Democrats lost...they didn't put forward the effort. I mean, they could've chosen Wesley Clark (how do you criticize the capabilities of a general?), Dean, anybody but Kerry. I really don't think they should have Hillary in 2K8, either. She's too ripe for criticism, and the Repubs will most likely run a more moderate candidate.

 

The Republicans HATED welfare. Loathed it with a passion. I cannot name a SINGLE conservative who ever blamed the voters for electing the Dems who passed it. They ALWAYS blamed the Dems, alone.

Sure....but you'll blame the people on welfare.

[Guest MikeSC]

I know some of you won't listen to Mike just because he's Mike, and he's obviously right-wing.  But trust me, is absolutely correct here.

 

One thing you also need to remember.  The American public is very fickle.  It is entirely possible to change their mind relatively quickly, provided you put forward the effort.

That's why the Democrats lost...they didn't put forward the effort. I mean, they could've chosen Wesley Clark (how do you criticize the capabilities of a general?), Dean, anybody but Kerry. I really don't think they should have Hillary in 2K8, either. She's too ripe for criticism, and the Repubs will most likely run a more moderate candidate.

 

The Republicans HATED welfare. Loathed it with a passion. I cannot name a SINGLE conservative who ever blamed the voters for electing the Dems who passed it. They ALWAYS blamed the Dems, alone.

Sure....but you'll blame the people on welfare.

Yes, Reagan did. At the point he did that, the opinion was already against welfare. The work on welfare took almost 20 years before Reagan did "welfare queens". The public ALREADY opposed it, by a good margin in opinion polls, at that point.

 

They NEVER said the voters were wrong. And, let's be honest, the "welfare queens" did not vote.

-=Mike

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

I'm going to give pro-gay marriage folks some advice that they SORELY need:

 

Until you get the public on your side, it isn't going to happen. And the least effective way of getting the public on your side is to insult them for not being on your side to begin with.

 

The moment you call people "homophobes", you lost them. Period. You can say "I don't care" if you wish --- you'll simply be pouring salt in your self-inflicted wound.

-=Mike

I tend to agree with this.

 

The gay rights movement needs to go for more baby steps the way the civil rights movement did. Forget about marriage for now. Go all-out on national civil unions. Bush himself has said he supports some kind of legal recognition dealing with governmental business such as taxes and the like. So hold him to those words and work towards that as a first goal. The support will be there as long as you arn't saying marriage, and the only ones who are calling it that are the bigots and homophobes against it. Once you've got that, then start looking at changing things in the future. But don't throw a mail mary on 2nd and 8 when a couple of 4 yard plunges will get you a 1st down with plenty of time on the clock.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm going to give pro-gay marriage folks some advice that they SORELY need:

 

Until you get the public on your side, it isn't going to happen.

I think this can't be accomplished that way. Like interracial marriage, courts are going to have to drag the public, kicking and screaming and clawing, into something they're not comfortable with on constitutional principle.

 

I would hope that is not gay marriage. I would hope that it is civil unions for all parties involved, with hetero couples able to go to Church to have their relationship named a marriage by a Pastor. This guarantees the equal standing in the eyes of the government as granted by the Constitution. Once this occurs, we begin to slowly move onto completely privatizing the whole process, which is where I ultimately see it going but not very quickly, because smart ideas just don't happen very fast.

 

 

You mentioned Gavin Newsom. He had what was coming to him and that should have been the end of that. Kerry, IMO, did a poor job on this issue. He should have made it more clear that he agrees with Bush on everything BUT the amendment. The gay vote was already well-informed enough not to be offended, and he would have gotten more right-leaning swing voters while making Bush look extremist to left-leaning swing voters. It would have been win win.

 

Instead he kept droning about man and a woman and Mary Cheney and so on. It is disappointing to look back on, I'll tell you that.

[Guest CronoT]

I was wanting to start a thread about this, but since I can't now, I'll give the name I wanted to use, and then add my $0.02.

 

I was going to name the thread "Gays: The New "Blacks." The reason I wanted to use that name, was because blacks and African-Americans used to be denied civil liberties, including marriage, simply because they were black. Also, please note that I put 'Blacks' in quotation marks, meaning I was making an allusion.

 

Now, for the topic: Anyone one person saying they have the right to tell someone else how to live their life is wrong; disgusting and wrong. And, for all you ant-gay marriage legal scholars out there, "Because it offends me" is NOT a legally defensible position. Also, the First Amendment guarantees the seperation of church and state.

 

Now, a little food for thought for all you Bible-thumpers: What would you feel like if a group of people got together and passed a reforendum saying that Christian marriages should be illegal, because it offends them?

[Guest MikeSC]

Crono, you REALLY need to heed my advice.

-=Mike

[Tawren 0]

Now, for the topic: Anyone one person saying they have the right to tell someone else how to live their life is wrong; disgusting and wrong.

So why are you telling us not to be hardcore homophobes then? Let's say I hate all gay people and want them dead. You can't tell me not to. You can't interfere in my life, that would be disgusting and wrong.

[Guest CronoT]

I'm going to give pro-gay marriage folks some advice that they SORELY need:

 

Until you get the public on your side, it isn't going to happen.

I think this can't be accomplished that way. Like interracial marriage, courts are going to have to drag the public, kicking and screaming and clawing, into something they're not comfortable with on constitutional principle.

This is so true.

 

Also, Mike, I wanted to point something out to you: The last time a "major world power" made a major societal decision based solely or mostly on religious reasons, The Spanish Inquisition happened. There, the King of Spain was given permission, from the Pope, to torture, kill, or whatever he wanted to people, simply because they weren't Catholic. Defend that.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm going to give pro-gay marriage folks some advice that they SORELY need:

 

Until you get the public on your side, it isn't going to happen.

I think this can't be accomplished that way. Like interracial marriage, courts are going to have to drag the public, kicking and screaming and clawing, into something they're not comfortable with on constitutional principle.

This is so true.

 

Also, Mike, I wanted to point something out to you: The last time a "major world power" made a major societal decision based solely or mostly on religious reasons, The Spanish Inquisition happened. There, the King of Spain was given permission, from the Pope/b], to torture, kill, or whatever he wanted to people, simply because they weren't Catholic. Defend that.

Sure. The civil rights movement here in the 60's had NO moral underpinning.

 

None whatsoever.

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

I'm going to give pro-gay marriage folks some advice that they SORELY need:

 

Until you get the public on your side, it isn't going to happen.

I think this can't be accomplished that way. Like interracial marriage, courts are going to have to drag the public, kicking and screaming and clawing, into something they're not comfortable with on constitutional principle.

This is so true.

 

Also, Mike, I wanted to point something out to you: The last time a "major world power" made a major societal decision based solely or mostly on religious reasons, The Spanish Inquisition happened. There, the King of Spain was given permission, from the Pope/b], to torture, kill, or whatever he wanted to people, simply because they weren't Catholic. Defend that.

Sure. The civil rights movement here in the 60's had NO moral underpinning.

 

None whatsoever.

-=Mike

That depends on how you define "moral."

 

mor·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)

adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.

3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.

6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

 

Source: Dictionary.com

 

Personally, I think #6 is the most relevant to this conversation. Also, America is supposed to be about freedom, not conformity. (#3)

[Guest MikeSC]

Do you think the top leader of the civil rights movement being a pastor was an accident? The entire movement was based almost completely on religious and moral underpinnings.

-=Mike

[Guest CronoT]

Do you think the top leader of the civil rights movement being a pastor was an accident? The entire movement was based almost completely on religious and moral underpinnings.

-=Mike

Yes, to add to the quality of life. What you're advocating will subtract from the quality of life of people.

[Guest MikeSC]

Do you think the top leader of the civil rights movement being a pastor was an accident? The entire movement was based almost completely on religious and moral underpinnings.

            -=Mike

Yes, to add to the quality of life. What you're advocating will subtract from the quality of life of people.

No, I'm personally not advocating anything.

 

You're asking for the change without any consideration of anybody having a legitimate problem with it.

-=Mike