State of the Union - Gay Marriage

[NcDeuce]

The State of the Union brings up a controversial topic in gay marriages. Should they be allowed?

[Seoulstriker]

marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

[EvanL]

They should be allowed something. But i dont think marriage in the same sense that a man and a woman have is right. Marriage is sacred. They have the same feelings for their partners that a man has for a wife at most times, so they should be allowed a partnership. But not marriage. Marriage is sacred.

[Ratamacue]

As Tane always said, though it SHOULD be a union between a man and a woman, gay couples deserve to have the same mutual benefits as a straight couple would.

[usa320]

I agree.

[Haiw]

Why wouldn't Adam and California Joe be allowed to marry?

[Jack Mehoff]

Trust me, if they allow Adam and Joe to get marry, then John, a hard core polygamist from Utah demands legalize polygamy so he can marry Jennifer and Rebecca.

[StarvingStudent47]

YES. By all means.

People say "marriage is sacred," but guess what--our government is SECULAR. Our government is concerned with legal rights and responsibilities. Not "sacred" versus "profane." If your church doesn't agree with gay marriage, THAT'S SWELL. Call them sinners. Pray for their salvation. Nobody is stopping you from doing that.

But if two men or two women love each other and make a commitment for life, they should have a right to the following:
*Visitation rights in hospitals
*Inheritance rights when their partner dies
*Coverage under health programs that cover "spouses"
et cetera. All the LEGAL rights that married hetero****** couples get.

These issues aren't sacred issues. They're legal issues. And two gay people committed to each other can be treated LEGALLY just like two straight people. So it's about time we started doing just that.

100 years ago people said that interracial marriage would "erode at the moral fiber of society." That it would "desicrate the meaning of marriage." Somehow, our country managed to move on. I think that 100 years from now, we will say the same thing about gay marriage.

[Jack Mehoff]

Same thing applies for group marriage, polygamy, beastality and incest. Yes?

[StarvingStudent47]

Same thing applies for group marriage, polygamy, beastality and incest. Yes?

None of these things are between two consenting adults. Gay marriage is.

I'm not terribly opposed to polygamy, as long as it involves ONLY consenting adults. The "more than two people involved" thing though causes a lot of problems from the legal angle though. We'd have to completely rewrite all inheritance and insurance laws. Gay marriage doesn't have that problem--it can completely just adopt the current legal structures.

Let me put it this way:

Take two men who have been living together for 30 years now in a loving relationship.
*If one person gets a job that allows "medical and dental benefits for you and your spouse," should he be DENIED from giving those spousal benefits to his partner of 30 years?
*If one is injured in a car accident, do you believe that the other should be DENIED the right to visit him in the hospital?
*If that man dies from his injuries, should the other be DENIED the right to inherit his property as a spouse?

It always amazed me that people could say "Yes, he should be denied those abilities."

[Jack Mehoff]

So, you think two consenting adult males should be allow to get marry and yet, you don't think it's appropriate for John Doe to marry his 22 year old sister?

[Beowulf]

Same thing applies for group marriage, polygamy, beastality and incest. Yes?



None of these things are between two consenting adults. Gay marriage is.

Group marriage, polygamy , and incest could all be between consenting adults.

Should they be legal? The US was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, with no moral base the rule of law is relegated to a simple matter of "cuz the government says so." What about a marriage between a man and his cat? His potted geranium?

It's late here are some thoughts:

-The benefits that married couples receive exist to foster and maintain the smallest building block of any society, namely the family.

-Defending marriage is a defense for the family.

-Marriage is not a right but a privilege.

-Every society must have a core set of values by which it abides
I believe in the democratic system, let the people vote on gay marriage. What is currently going on is not a vote by the people or their duly elected officials, but a ramrodding of secularism down the throats of the average american citizen, by the quasi-intellectual elite that are rewriting the constitution from their benches in our judcial system.

The ability to rule laws unconstitutional was not meant to have such far reaching power, and threatens the system of checks and balances, but that is another topic...

All Best,
-b

[FallenAngel]

People say "marriage is sacred," but guess what--our government is SECULAR. Our government is concerned with legal rights and responsibilities. Not "sacred" versus "profane."

Right...which is why "In God we trust" is plastered on money and courtrooms. That's why our laws are based on traditional Judeau-Christinian beliefs. Roughly 85% of the population of the US believes in God (be it Jewish, Christian or Islamic). Abortion could have very well been turned over had the Supreme Court made time in it's busy schedule to actually hear the relevant case.

That's not to say that there is a state religion. The seperation between church and state, when written, meant that the government could not own, take part in or oversee the various religions in this country (as was the case in England) and the Clergy could not directly part take in government (as was the case in MANY European countries). But the US government was founded by Christians and has always lead that way. If you don't like it- go to China where ANY religion is basically forbidden. ;)

[Tane Angle]

As Tane always said, though it SHOULD be a union between a man and a woman, gay couples deserve to have the same mutual benefits as a straight couple would.
Well, first off, I say the second part, I don’t know about that first part. Though the Catholic Church in general these days is leaving me with the thought "who they heck are you[the Church] to say what is right? 'Let the one among you without sin be the first to condemn,' right? Smooth, Church, smooth."

Moving on…I’m going to try and look at the institution of marriage from the point of view of science.

Like science in general, like our opposable thumbs and our enlarged brains, it would seem that marriage is a way of ensuring that the species survives. It is an assurance that a child will not be left to die in the cold, and there will be a steady food source for it, etc. Centuries ago, this was necessary, because a single mother usually couldn’t do it all. Getting married is saying “if this woman gets pregnant, I will not abandon her.”

There was a time when that was necessary, a time before sperm banks and artificial insemination. Today, however, two women or two men can sit down and say “we are going to raise a child, and we will ensure that it will not be left to die in the cold, and that there will be a steady food source. If we have this child, we will not abandon it.”

Do we have a problem with single-parents? It’s perhaps out of the societal norm, but it still works. If the child is cared for, loved, comforted, and goes on to keep the species alive, well where’s the problem in that? The species survives, right? I’ve been thinking about this a lot for a few months now, and that’s a theory: That maybe nearly everything adds up to a natural instinct in us all to keep the species alive.

Moving from science to the law: StarvingStudent47 hit the nail on the head; the US is supposed to be a secular nation. A member of couple, or a single parent, should have the right to give their occupational benefits such as health insurance to whomever he or she chooses.

Also, take this example: A homo****** woman with a child engages in a long term couple with another woman, but dies after some time. The child, still too young to care for itself, is left with no legal guardian (under the law, a child cannot have two fathers or two mothers), and thus is involuntarily separated from the surviving woman. The woman, who has effectively been the child’s mother for nearly all the child’s life, has no legal guardianship. Tell me, how does ripping a kid away from his or her parent help the kid? This isn’t hypothetical, by the way, it happens all the time.

What’s important about marriage? If there is a kid in the marriage, the kid is all that matters. What’s best for the child? If it’s best for the child to have two legal guardians, then so be it.

About the sacred part…if one believes that it’s sacred, good for them. That’s fine, and I don’t particularly care whether or not a homo****** couple is granted the title marriage or given some other term, but I do care if the couple has the same rights as hetero****** couples. Equal rights for all, right? I mean, if we’re limiting homo******s rights, who next? Blacks? The genetically inferior? How about Jews? Why not Catholics, while we’re at it? It’s all or nothing. If we strip one group of their rights, it’s not a stretch to strip all groups of their rights.

Before I go, about incest, the gene codes of the two people are too similar to correctly combine, and thus debilitating birth defects and genetic diseases occur very often. That’s the argument against incest. Some would say that the same argument applies to the genetically inferior, and it does to an extent, except that this second group can’t help it, an couple engaging in incest can.

Jack, as for bestiality…I suppose one would have to have the consent of the animal.

I’m a little tired, so there are probably some inconsistencies that I would normally like to iron out, but right now can’t really. I’ll come back later. Basically…keep the species alive.

As always, I sincerely hope no one was offended by any of my writings, and I apologize in advance if anyone was, as that was not my intent. Have a good one all, and just some thoughts…

[Nunavut's sewage]

I agree that peoples right to chose their lives should be respected.

But on the other hand I just can't see the natural purpose for homo******ity. You can't have children with the one you love that's half the fun gone right there.

I don't care what law is passed my definition of marriage stays the same. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve :slap:

[Beowulf]

Moving from science to the law: StarvingStudent47 hit the nail on the head; the US is supposed to be a secular nation.

Really? This is where we disagree. All other discussions of gay marriage stem from this point of contention. There has to be some sort of morality at the foundation of the legislative process.

I am willing to agree to disagree. However, It is disturbing to see gay marriage being made legal from the courthouse rather than from the legislative body.

All Best,
-b

[Tane Angle]

Well I don't mean to convince you, Beowulf, so I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. Rarely do people change their minds because of a discussion like this, but that might be part of the point. By the way, I do wonder exactly what the right balance between the three branches of government is, and I'm not always sure on a lot of issues if the right course of decision making has been made. Anyways, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[California Joe]

I'm with Tane on this issue. Probably because I'm from Vermont and apparently engaged to Adam. I don't like the term "marriage" which is why it's a civil union in legal terms. All these humans are asking for is a little bit of legal protection when it comes to their partnerships. It doesn't affect me one iota.

Legislatively speaking, because guys like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond think it's a wrong to be queer or black but still bang the occasional housemaid or Senate page makes you wonder about the less than pure motivations of our elected body....

[Falco]

Even though the US government is based on a church-state government it is still based on certain values. Those values come from our ancestors and our culture, and it just happens that the US (te same goes for Canada) was founded by Christians. Now I don't want to get into a deeply religious flame war but certain things are sacred in our society. Marriage is one of them. For a long time, homo****** people have been claming, with reason, that they are different from hetero****** couples. Now the former want to have the same rights as the latter. Gay couples cannot have it both ways. Either they are different or they are the same as straight couples. Since they are composed of two people of the same *** as opposed as two people of different *** they are different.

[California Joe]

Our ancestors were Puritans. People so uptight and annoying that even the British told them to leave.

Did you know that the Disney Corporation extends benefits to the partners of gay employees?

Probably just good business as hetero****** men do not want to be candlesticks in the Beauty and the Beast show 4 times a day.....

[StarvingStudent47]

So do the opponents of gay marriage really believe that gays in long-term relationships should be allowed the three rights I listed above (visitation, inheritance, and spousal insurance benefits)? I'd love a straight yes-or-no answer from the anti-gay-marriage folks.

[NcDeuce]

http://airsoftextreme.com/images/games/nd.jpg




Ay :cantbeli:

[Fox2]

Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind ... it is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.

- U.S. Supreme Court, The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. The United States, 1892


The US government is not a secular government. Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian ethics. The idea is that the government tolerates other religions, and does not force Judeo-Christian philosophy on any of its citizens. But the government itself and the values and ethics that govern it are of Judeo-Christian origin.

But, I too, can agree to disagree. :)

Echoing Beowulf, regardless of your religion, the fact that one part of the government is running rampant changing OUR laws without the consent of the people or either of the other two parts of government should raise red flags for every American.

Regardless of whether some Congressmen are quacks, I would rather have a large number of people, the majority of which are sane, decide the laws (all three parts of government), than one person in a black smock with an agenda (judge).

[Fox2]

So do the opponents of gay marriage really believe that gays in long-term relationships should be allowed the three rights I listed above (visitation, inheritance, and spousal insurance benefits)? I'd love a straight yes-or-no answer from the anti-gay-marriage folks.

I do not agree with homo****** marriage, but I would answer your question and say that yes, they should be able to have those benefits.

BUT, I do not think it should be called "marriage." I also do not agree with having a typical marriage ceremony, ie. ordained minister, et cetera.

If, from what you posted earlier, homo******s simply want the benefits, then okay, by all means, give it to them. But don't mess with the sanctity of marriage.

[Falco]

So do the opponents of gay marriage really believe that gays in long-term relationships should be allowed the three rights I listed above (visitation, inheritance, and spousal insurance benefits)? I'd love a straight yes-or-no answer from the anti-gay-marriage folks.

If they want some of legal benefits like inheritance rights or joint bank accounts, it doesn't bother me too much. But the institution of marriage is a religious institution and I don't know many religions that do allow gay mariages. If humans were "desogned to be gay" there would be two sexes, but there isn't there are men and there are women for a reason. If someone wants to get into an homo****** relationship he can, but he must forfeit certain privileges associated with a relationship in between a man and a woman such as mariage.

[Gauntlet]

The reason why there are marriage benifits is because a Hetro couple will have kids and kids are expensive.
Homo******s can't have kids so benifits are out of the question. Sure you can let them live with eachother and let them... you know.
But Gay people shouldn't be in the marriage catagory because they simply can't reproduce. I'm also against gays adopting a child because its not natural for a child to live with two dads. Just think what it'll do to him. He'll grow up seeing that Homo******ity is the norm and he should be gay too, just like his "parents". Also, I can't imagine how his life would be in Middle school, all those kids ganging up on him, its just plainly bad.
Thats my view on Gay marriages. No benifits, no kids.

[Falco]

The reason why there are marriage benifits is because a Hetro couple will have kids and kids are expensive.
Homo******s can't have kids so benifits are out of the question. Sure you can let them live with eachother and let them... you know.
But Gay people shouldn't be in the marriage catagory because they simply can't reproduce. I'm also against gays adopting a child because its not natural for a child to live with two dads. Just think what it'll do to him. He'll grow up seeing that Homo******ity is the norm and he should be gay too, just like his "parents". Also, I can't imagine how his life would be in Middle school, all those kids ganging up on him, its just plainly bad.
Thats my view on Gay marriages. No benifits, no kids.

Very true

[Jack Mehoff]

Well, i'm very tolerance but not a hypocrite. If they allow gay marriage then why not incest, group marriage and polygamy? Why not allow traditional Mormon practice polygamy? Separation of church and state, remember?

[Fox2]

Well, i'm very tolerance but not a hypocrite. If they allow gay marriage then why not incest, group marriage and polygamy?

I think the liberals are keeping those under wraps. They have to have another issue to whine about in 50 years, right? ;)

[Tane Angle]

First off, growing up with homo****** parents will not make one homo******. It's determined in a mother's womb, though most people don't realize it for some years. It's possibly genetic, but for the most part has to do with the estrogen/testoterone ratios in the mothers womb. Besides, I don't know many couples, of any ****** orientation, who are real ****** in front of their children. In my experience, most kids seem oblivious to the fact that their parents are ****** beings for many years.

Homo******s can have kids, just as a single mother can have kids. Artificial insemination is a pretty advanced procedure. Seeing as this is militaryphotos.net, say a mother is in the military and the father is staying home with the child, and the mother is deployed. Well, there goes the mother, so is this now much different from a homo****** marriage? Are we going to now ban children for soldiers?

By the way, I think a good point was brought up about there being a difference between marriage, the religious sacrament, and marriage the legal union. Religion wise, well that's up to the religion to recognize it or not. That's not really any of my concern, and it's none of my business what a religion believes involving the sacrament of marriage. Just as I wouldn't want an evangelist pushing his or her religion on me, I wouldn't push mine on someone else. But marriage the legal union is what I'm concerned about. Anyways, have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Jack Mehoff]

Homo******s can have kids, just as a single mother can have kids. Artificial insemination is a pretty advanced procedure. Seeing as this is militaryphotos.net, say a mother is in the military and the father is staying home with the child, and the mother is deployed. Well, there goes the mother, so is this now much different from a homo****** marriage? Are we going to now ban children for soldiers?

You see, homo****** still cannot have kids. Why? You still need a sperm and an egg to make it happen in the lab

[Jack Mehoff]

Well, i'm very tolerance but not a hypocrite. If they allow gay marriage then why not incest, group marriage and polygamy? Why not allow traditional Mormon practice polygamy? Separation of church and state, remember?

So, someone is going to answer my question? Should we legalize incest and polygamy?

[Falco]

Well, i'm very tolerance but not a hypocrite. If they allow gay marriage then why not incest, group marriage and polygamy? Why not allow traditional Mormon practice polygamy? Separation of church and state, remember?

So, someone is going to answer my question? Should we legalize incest and polygamy?

No, those are plain immoral

[Ratamacue]

Why Jack, you want to marry and screw your sister?

[non-zero possibility]

I think we can not decide for other people what is and what isnt, it is up to everyone to decide wether or not they get married, and who that is to.

[Jack Mehoff]

Why Jack, you want to marry and screw your sister?

I don't have any sister

[Tane Angle]

Jack, sperm banks, bud. Or surrogate mothers for male homo******s. Or adopted children. The point is, they can have them, but they might not combine their DNA to produce them.

As for incest, I already talked about that, and as for polygamy...from the legal standpoint, I think companies should be obligated to pay health insurance and such to one mate. It'd simply be unfair for John Doe to have six wives all covered by health insurance, but Jane over there have only one person covered. Should polygamy be illegal? Is that ban an infringement on one's freedom of religion? It's a legal issue, not a religious one, at least in this context. Should one have the right to legal polygamy? Probaby not, for the unfairness reasons aforementioned. Should it be allowed under a religion? That's up to the religion, but the two are very different institutions.

In many states, simply living together for many years constitutes an automatic civil union for hetero****** couples. But that's a legal thing, not a religious one.

Again, incest hinders the species', or at least the offsprings', survival. Civil unions don't. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Jack Mehoff]

Well, i'm very tolerance but not a hypocrite. If they allow gay marriage then why not incest, group marriage and polygamy? Why not allow traditional Mormon practice polygamy? Separation of church and state, remember?

So, someone is going to answer my question? Should we legalize incest and polygamy?

No, those are plain immoral

Define immoral and moral?

[Jack Mehoff]

Like i said, i'm very tolerance and i dislike hypocrisy. We should let homo****** couple pursuit their happiness and yet, we prosecuted polygamists in Utah and inbred somewhere in Alabama :lol:

Also, some cultures do practice polygamy but they are not allow to do that in America. Where is the seperation of church and state?

[Jack Mehoff]

Again, incest hinders the species', or at least the offsprings', survival. Civil unions don't. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Homo****** can't reproduce by themselves and majority of people with AIDS are homo******. So, i still dont see your point

[Falco]

Well, i'm very tolerance but not a hypocrite. If they allow gay marriage then why not incest, group marriage and polygamy? Why not allow traditional Mormon practice polygamy? Separation of church and state, remember?

So, someone is going to answer my question? Should we legalize incest and polygamy?

No, those are plain immoral

Define immoral and moral?

Well it's a concept of what is right or wrong. To be more specific, something that is moral would be something that is following the values of a society. On the other hand, something immoral would be something that is running against the values of the society. Morality is like a series guidelines to help us evaluate our actions. Hope this answers your question.

[Tane Angle]

By the way, Jack, good job on this thread. I hadn't given much thought to polygamy or to incest (or bestality, for that matter), so this has really got me thinking. To be honest, I haven't really been able to put my thoughts together with those other issues yet. An opposing viewpoint really has helped me rethink my views, and ponder these other issues as well.

I suppose a question here is "Where's the line?" I'm not sure if there is one, at least if the US Constitution is taken seriously, provided that it doesn't infringe on a child's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, that just opens up an eugenics and and genetic engineering conversation (which might be very interesting, but perhaps we should save that for a different thread).

You make a good point, is the polygamy bad an infringement on one's 1st Amendment Rights? I don't have the answer, but it sure is thought provoking. I'm not big on hypocrisy either, so thanks for getting me thinking. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Tane Angle]

Sorry bud, missed that last post there. My point is that it doesn't matter whether or not they can reproduce by themselves, they can parent. Same as a single mother, same as a single father. And the AIDS figure is true in the US, though not true worldwide.

Speaking of AIDS, what the heck, here's the question: An AIDs infected person can give their DNA to a surrogate mother or DNA bank, thus getting the ability to parent, while not reproducing and very likely passing on the virus to the obviously unconsenting child. But should a person with AIDS be allowed to have a child through reproduction(different from parenting)? Or is that perhaps unintentionally, but knowingly, killing the child? The chances that the child would not get HIV/AIDS is slim, though it does happen that the child will be born without it.

Man, so many questions, and I'm clueless on a lot. Well, this is mental exercise, right? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Jack Mehoff]

Another thing i should add is that artificial insemination is bloody hell expensive. Who can actually afford that? I hope they don't make the government pay for that too. So i was right because homo****** hinders human species

[Ratamacue]

Why Jack, you want to marry and screw your sister?

I don't have any sister

I was just kidding anyway. I don't really support polygamy or incest, but I see where you're coming from and I agree with those foundations. Defining moral/immoral theoretically is impossible as everything is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes rules have to be written. My honest opinion is that incest and polygamy are alright but nothing I'm particularly interested in.

[Tane Angle]

Jack, the option of AI should still be out there though. But no, the USG should not pay for that procedure. While I support nationalized health care, I don't know about it being covered under such a program.

[EvanL]

Hey if a couple of pufts wanna bugger eachother, thats fine i dont care. If these buggers wanna be together, thats fine i dont care. If they want to be together forever, thats fine i dont care. If they wanna get married in the same sense as a man and woman are married before the eyes of god, i care. Marriage has been a sacred practic between men and women for thousands of years. I dont see why we should change the meaning just so a bunch of guys can continue dropping anchor in pooh harbour.

[Skaman]

Hey if a couple of pufts wanna bugger eachother, thats fine i dont care. If these buggers wanna be together, thats fine i dont care. If they want to be together forever, thats fine i dont care. If they wanna get married in the same sense as a man and woman are married before the eyes of god, i care. Marriage has been a sacred practic between men and women for thousands of years. I dont see why we should change the meaning just so a bunch of guys can continue dropping anchor in pooh harbour.

Easy there, you can make your point without the ****** inuendo's.

[StarvingStudent47]

homo****** hinders human species
No more than a woman with tied tubes does :roll: Anyway, do you really think that the human species is hurt of a couple (gay or straight) decides not to have children? Have you noticed a lack of human beings on this planet? I sure haven't.

[Tane Angle]

I read that the world's population, after factoring for wars, diseases, and the occasional mass genocide, is expected to top 700 billion people within 150 years. I was floored by that. :(

[Skaman]

homo****** hinders human species
No more than a woman with tied tubes does :roll: Anyway, do you really think that the human species is hurt of a couple (gay or straight) decides not to have children? Have you noticed a lack of human beings on this planet? I sure haven't.


just what I was going to say...

[Haiw]

I read that the world's population, after factoring for wars, diseases, and the occasional mass genocide, is expected to top 700 billion people within 150 years. I was floored by that. :(
Crap assesment. No way the earth could ever produce enough food for that amount of people...

[EvanL]

I read that the world's population, after factoring for wars, diseases, and the occasional mass genocide, is expected to top 700 billion people within 150 years. I was floored by that. :(
Crap assesment. No way the earth could ever produce enough food for that amount of people...
Exactly. Hence the space program and its importance.

[Haiw]

Good luck trying to grow potatoes on Mars... or any other planet in our solar system.

[EvanL]

Good luck trying to grow potatoes on Mars... or any other planet in our solar system.
Have you ever seen a greenhouse?
Lets not hijack this topic though. p-)

[Haiw]

Good luck building your greenhouses on Mars...maybe after you've finished building you might realise that the **** that comes outta your ass is more fertile ground than Mars. :P

[usa320]

wait, so people should be gay, just to help control the population?

:roll:

Its called survival of the fittest folks, natural selection.

Anywho, Im not gonna comment further- just read the post hood made on page 1, that sums up my feelings exactly.

[Tane Angle]

Haiw, that was actually the point of the article, that the world population can't continue growing as it is, or it will collapse. Depressing stuff, huh?

[Nawlins]

I know I'm jumping in a bit late here, but I've been working alot. Two things:


Also, take this example: A homo****** woman with a child engages in a long term couple with another woman, but dies after some time. The child, still too young to care for itself, is left with no legal guardian (under the law, a child cannot have two fathers or two mothers), and thus is involuntarily separated from the surviving woman. The woman, who has effectively been the child’s mother for nearly all the child’s life, has no legal guardianship. Tell me, how does ripping a kid away from his or her parent help the kid? This isn’t hypothetical, by the way, it happens all the time.


I think the argument you were making falls apart a bit at this point. It's relatively simple to assign a guardian for your children in case of your death. If both my parents die, my aunt and uncle are automatically the guardians of my siblings. So I don't really see that point as being a way to argue for marital benefits for gays.



I read that the world's population, after factoring for wars, diseases, and the occasional mass genocide, is expected to top 700 billion people within 150 years. I was floored by that.

Haiw, that was actually the point of the article, that the world population can't continue growing as it is, or it will collapse. Depressing stuff, huh?

Sounds like propaganda to me. I don't see how that can happen with the reproduction rate of much of the western world still below replacement. Did you know that Germany pays its women to have children? Other European countries are getting concerned about their populations too (I've read articles about these things, I'm just too tired right now to look for them. I'll edit later). The population of the US is aging and the younger generations are having fewer children... so where are the extra 693 billion people coming from?

[Tane Angle]

Nawlins, I was thinking the same thing myself about both those matters. The guardianship one, I had thought that one can put in their will "this person is my children's legal guardian now," but maybe I'm wrong? Where's StarvingStudent47 with the legal talk when we need him? And about the 700 billion figure, I was trying to figure it out, and I couldn't see how it would rise that exponentially. I'm just restating what I read. It was in one of the science magazines around here though, I'll look for the article. But yeah, it does seem a bit of over-guess, doesn't it? Don't let work be too tough on you. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Jack Mehoff]

homo****** hinders human species
No more than a woman with tied tubes does :roll: Anyway, do you really think that the human species is hurt of a couple (gay or straight) decides not to have children? Have you noticed a lack of human beings on this planet? I sure haven't.

My words against his....um wait, that would be his words against him.


Jack, sperm banks, bud. Or surrogate mothers for male homo******s. Or adopted children. The point is, they can have them, but they might not combine their DNA to produce them.

As for incest, I already talked about that, and as for polygamy...from the legal standpoint, I think companies should be obligated to pay health insurance and such to one mate. It'd simply be unfair for John Doe to have six wives all covered by health insurance, but Jane over there have only one person covered. Should polygamy be illegal? Is that ban an infringement on one's freedom of religion? It's a legal issue, not a religious one, at least in this context. Should one have the right to legal polygamy? Probaby not, for the unfairness reasons aforementioned. Should it be allowed under a religion? That's up to the religion, but the two are very different institutions.

In many states, simply living together for many years constitutes an automatic civil union for hetero****** couples. But that's a legal thing, not a religious one.

Again, incest hinders the species', or at least the offsprings', survival. Civil unions don't. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[farmgirl]

A related op/ed piece.....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20040122/cm_usatoday/respectstatesroleindecidingmarriagelaw

Respect states' role in deciding marriage law

President Bush (news - web sites) used his State of the Union address Tuesday to enter the political minefield surrounding gay marriage. While proclaiming the need to preserve dignity for all, he warned that if "activist judges" continue broadening the definition of marriage beyond that between a man and woman, the only recourse left would be a constitutional amendment banning same-*** unions.

But Bush overlooked a far more promising avenue. The explosive issue could be better addressed by honoring the conservative principle of states' rights. After all, states competently have handled marriage law since before the Revolutionary War.

In fact, most states already are dealing with the issue of gay marriages in their own ways. This month, for example, New Jersey became the third state to grant same-*** couples many of the rights and benefits of marriage. By contrast, Ohio is joining 37 other states that have passed gay-marriage bans. Wednesday, its legislature passed a law that would refuse to recognize other states' same-*** marriages and deny benefits, such as health insurance, to the domestic partners of state employees.

While state-based solutions offer no guarantees to either side of the debate, 50 legislatures are more likely to reflect the range of regional differences that surround the issue than a single legal fiat imposed by the federal government. The nation's diverse views on legalizing gay marriage are borne out by a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this month that found 53% opposed to it, 24% in favor and 23% with no opinion.

Social conservatives have sought to add a gay-marriage ban to the U.S. Constitution for years. But their drive intensified last fall after a controversial ruling by Massachusetts' highest court. It directed the state legislature to end discrimination against same-*** couples that want to wed and receive the same legal rights that go with marriage.

Backers of a constitutional amendment ignore the fact that most states already prohibit same-*** unions. A constitutional amendment also would perpetuate the inequities faced by same-*** couples who are denied the same privileges and protections accorded hetero****** couples, including property and inheritance rights, survivor pension benefits and even the ability to make hospital visits to or funeral arrangements for a loved one.

The federal government does have a role to play in the issue, but it is not to sanctify particular forms of marriage. Nor is it to deny basic constitutional protections. Rather, the government has an obligation to enforce the nation's promise of equality before the law for all.

A half-century ago, the federal government belatedly moved against racial discrimination in the states because the Constitution had banned such practices nearly 100 years earlier. And in two cases since 1996, the Supreme Court struck down various forms of discrimination against gays.

Defenders of a constitutional ban against gay marriages say it is the only way to block the courts from eventually legalizing same-*** marriage against the wishes of the majority of the U.S. public.

Yet such a ban would override the rights of state legislatures and courts to handle the issue their own way. And it would create an inferior legal status for a class of Americans for the first time since the end of slavery.

Honoring state prerogatives on the issue would preserve a legal tradition older than the Republic - and dignity for all.

[Brandon]

Gay marriage? I would have to say no to that one. Whats next, exactly. Its simple to me. When two people decide to go against natural law of ***, they give up their rights to live a normal life including the right of marriage and the benefits of that marriage. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their homes, but keep it outta my face and be prepared to give up some rights.

[WARPIG]

[
I just want to say first that this has been the most constructive and thought provoking threads I have read on this forum. Compliments to all who comment here. Especially to Jack. When I expected an open invitation to bash gays and resort to crude humor.. Jack steps up and delivers some awsome points.
quote]broadening the definition of marriage beyond that between a man and woman[/quote]
As far as our CIC, he has some big brass ones for stepping into this subject during this poo flinging period of the election year.
I originally voted that homo******s should be able to legally marry. My original thinking was that legal marriage was a non issue and that Churches are the ones who should have the issue with who they want to support. I was way off! By the very definition of the word it is the union of a man and women. Marriage should be allowed only for that purpose.
I do however think that gay couples or any other closely related people should be held responsible to have legal unions. For instance a gay couple want to buy a house together, they should have some form of legal declaration that they are lifelong partners. The same for insurance purposes, if you have a significant life partner that you want to benefit from insurance or have shared financial responsibility.. then a legal union should be documented. If someone lives with their mom and plan to buy a home and want to include them in their life and health insurance.. that legal union should be required for them too.
Thanks to all for broadening my knowledge. Just goes to show how a narrow view of things can change your view of reality.

[unwanted]

Hmm.. interesting reading ... Its good to se that there are so many mature toughts on the subject ... I think that the only thing that is wrong with Gay men/women partnership is the word "Marriage" ... As the christians in here have proclaimed .. " A marriage is between Men and Women , not between men and men or women and women .. In sweden we call it "Partner ship" not Marriage and I think that is a more proper term for it .... So let the gay people have "Partner ship" instead and dont bring in christian values , because that is just wrong ...

[MolliG]

Legal Marriage/Partnership, I say yes to that, I personally can see no problems with it, but I don't see gay Religious/Spiritual marriages happening for a long time yet, well in the States (and everywhere else except Europe) at least.

:)

[WARPIG]

Hmm.. interesting reading ... Its good to se that there are so many mature toughts on the subject ... I think that the only thing that is wrong with Gay men/women partnership is the word "Marriage" ... As the christians in here have proclaimed .. " A marriage is between Men and Women , not between men and men or women and women .. In sweden we call it "Partner ship" not Marriage and I think that is a more proper term for it .... So let the gay people have "Partner ship" instead and dont bring in christian values , because that is just wrong ...

Actually when I used the definition of marriage, I used the dictionary definition. But as discussed in this thread, our Governments moral values are founded largely on Christian values. We can remain tolerant of other beliefs and lifestyles without losing those values.

[Gauntlet]

Hmm.. interesting reading ... Its good to se that there are so many mature toughts on the subject ... I think that the only thing that is wrong with Gay men/women partnership is the word "Marriage" ... As the christians in here have proclaimed .. " A marriage is between Men and Women , not between men and men or women and women .. In sweden we call it "Partner ship" not Marriage and I think that is a more proper term for it .... So let the gay people have "Partner ship" instead and dont bring in christian values , because that is just wrong ...

Actually when I used the definition of marriage, I used the dictionary definition. But as discussed in this thread, our Governments moral values are founded largely on Christian values. We can remain tolerant of other beliefs and lifestyles without losing those values.

The dictionary spoke! All obey the mighty dictionary! :D

[StarvingStudent47]

Legal Marriage/Partnership, I say yes to that, I personally can see no problems with it, but I don't see gay Religious/Spiritual marriages happening for a long time yet, well in the States (and everywhere else except Europe) at least.

:)

Well, the government's only job is to examine the "legal marriage/partnership." Remember that completely secular marriages (where you go to some sort of public official--I forget what they're called) are legally recognized and carry all the legal benefits of marriage.

As for religious/spiritual marriage, that's for each religious organization to determine for themselves. I believe that Unitarian Universalists and Reform Jews already perform gay marriages, whether they're legally recognized or not.

[StarvingStudent47]

Nawlins, I was thinking the same thing myself about both those matters. The guardianship one, I had thought that one can put in their will "this person is my children's legal guardian now," but maybe I'm wrong? Where's StarvingStudent47 with the legal talk when we need him? And about the 700 billion figure, I was trying to figure it out, and I couldn't see how it would rise that exponentially. I'm just restating what I read. It was in one of the science magazines around here though, I'll look for the article. But yeah, it does seem a bit of over-guess, doesn't it? Don't let work be too tough on you. Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

I honestly don't know who has legal custody of a minor after someone's death, and how someone can name a specific individual as the preferred guardian. Haven't taken family law yet. Sorry... :(

[WARPIG]

Next of kin is almost always the default parent legally. The state usually takes custody of the child until family members are able to accept legal custody of that child. Even if a "will" says that the parent wants his/her significant other to assume custody, the biological family of the child is given higher consideration. If the significant other adopts the child before the spouse dies, then he/she is often given equal or higher consideration for custody.

My point with the "dictionary" reference was that even without the religious inference to marriage... lawmakers can and should stick to the constraints of law and how our language defines them. If a legal union between two people is warranted... fine. Our legal system is based on the laws that we make and write. The language that those laws are written in are how we define what laws are broken. If a man is a burglerer or a robber isn't there a distinction? Isn't that why we have a words to describe taking human life like murder, man slaughter or suicide? Marriage should be given the same legal distinction in action as it does in language.

Hey.. was I the defence or the prosecution on that?

[blancitaloca]

According to the bible. homo******ity is an abomination in the eyes of God.

[Kriz]

According to the bible. homo******ity is an abomination in the eyes of God.

And where would that be written ? And besides the bible is 2000 years old, it's not reallt a basis anymore for todays laws.

Unless you find things like hanging people on crosses leaving them to die okay ;)

[Trigger]

Kriz wrote:

And besides the bible is 2000 years old, it's not reallt a basis anymore for todays laws.
The laws of physics are much older, yet they are still relevant.
As long as we have a constitution, and as long as we place one hand on the Bible and swear an oath in a court of law the Judeo-Christian principles that the U.S. was founded on will be relevant.

On topic:
I voted 'no' to gay marriage. All legalistic haggling aside, homo******ity is simply un-natural and thus wrong.
In my opinion it is not genetic or scientific. It is a choice made due to varying circumstances.
I'm no biologist but can someone show me any other species on this planet that practices homo******ity as a lifestyle?
We can argue legal or illegal until the end of time but the fact remains that it's just wrong.

[RealUltimatePower]

I think us guys should just stick with
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/foodeat1.jpg

and none of this
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/foodeat4.jpg

[Jack Mehoff]

They sell this kind of bread? :D

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/foodeat1.jpg

[NcDeuce]

According to the bible. homo******ity is an abomination in the eyes of God.

And where would that be written ? And besides the bible is 2000 years old, it's not reallt a basis anymore for todays laws.

During the Founding Era period of 1760-1805: The book most frequently cited was the Bible. The writers from the Foundering Era quoted from the Bible 34 percent of the time.

I did not make up these numbers, a legit source: http://www.probe.org/docs/declaration.html

Everything our nation does goes all the way back to the Constitution. To say the Bible has no effect on today's laws is just ignoring the truth.


A Christian view of government is based upon a balanced view of human nature. It recognizes both human dignity (we are created in God's image) and human depravity (we are sinful individuals). Because both grace and sin operate in government, we should neither be too optimistic nor too pessimistic. Instead, the framers constructed a government with a deep sense of biblical realism.