Frist endorses ban on gay marriages.

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by Jeanette X

Michael Jackson lost his pigmentation because he has a genetic skin disorder called vitiligo.

If you believe that, then you are extremely gullible. If he had this "genetic" disorder, than why doesn't ANYONE else in his family have it? But that is off the topic.

I was not saying that homosexuals and pedophiles were equally evil. I was saying that this was something about him that he could not change. Homosexuality is not a choice, no matter what those religious-extremists say. God does not hate gays, nor do I believe that being gay is immoral. Pedophiles are immoral, but that was only in reference to the mentioning of Jackson. I am sorry if I confused some people with my lack of explanation.

[Vibecrewangel]

I'm not sure what your fixation on the religion aspect of this is....Religion is the root of our American vision of marriage, as are many, many, many of our laws. That is undeniable.

My fixation is that you seem to be saying that marriage has a religious base. And that you shoudn't be able to change the definition. However, your definition does not include religion. So what it appears you are saying is that you can't change it past what YOU personally believe.

Society is changing to be sure, and we need to adapt our govt and civil structure. I just personally believe that divorcing the word 'marriage' from the REAL issue of getting gays the civil rights afforded those in a marriage is the way to go. This takes away the platform of those in the large religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond defined by God.

Again....does this mean that non-religions straight people should not be able to get married? I mean, wouldn't that that take away from the platform of those in the large religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond defined by God?

The word marriage means. UNION
I can have a marriage of peanut butter an jelly on my sandwich
Science uses the word all the time.
We have civil marriage ceremonies and religious marriage ceremonies. They don't take away from each other in any way. Marriage is the ultimate symbol of the union between two loving people who want to be together. The religious aspect should be a personal one not a qualifier for the union itself.
Maybe the religious people should change the name to bound-by-god instead. That way they can be sure not to take away from the platform of those in the large non-religious community who believe that they have a sacred bond with the one they love.[/quote]

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by Gatorman

I'm not sure what your fixation on the religion aspect of this is....Religion is the root of our American vision of marriage, as are many, many, many of our laws. That is undeniable.

I personally think that religion has no place deciding anything in our society. Religious folks need to SHUT UP about the issues they find to be "against God's will" and just not participate in the so-called "questionable" actions. We have the Separation of Church and State for a reason, and that is so those of us who are NOT religious don't have to hear all the time about how we are "going to hell".

[AChimp]

I don't see what the big deal is. If gay people want to get married, let them. If they want to adopt children, well, good for them. It just opens the door for a helluva lot of more kids to get a decent home. Or do anyone here wish to support the notion that a child would be worse off with loving gay parents than in an orphanage?

There is nothing "natural" about marraige. There is nothing that makes us monogamous other than our own societal views, and a lot of people end up with multiple sexual partners during their lives, so monogamy is a load of horseshit nowadays.

The fact that there is separation of the Church and the State makes the State's definition of marraige a legal one and therefore all the other laws apply to it. It can be changed as society changes, and typically those changes happen a lot faster than changes in religious beliefs. Want proof? Divorce. Why arent' the anti-gay marriage lobbyists arguing against divorce, since it's up to around a 50% rate for marraige failure now.

If you think that allowing gays to marry will cheapen the relationship that YOU have with YOUR wife/husband, then show some examples of how it will occur. Will knowing that the two gay guys next door might be bumfucking each other at the same time you're making love to your wife un-man you so? Are they forcing you to watch? Do they phone you in the middle and invite you over?

[Gatorman]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.

I'm telling you right now that if you want to win this debate nationally you have to drop the word 'marriage.' That is all.


And I gave you MY definition of marriage. I tried to leave all religion, historical, etc references out of it. It sounds to me as if you are denying the religious foundations of the American version of the institution of marriage. I'm not really up for history lessons today, but maybe later.

[Immortal Goat]

Marriage is nothing more than an institution created by religion to force even more control over their followers. I DO believe that marriage is a good way to live, but it is not THE way to live. And even though marriage was created by religion, that does NOT mean that the term marriage can not be used in a gay union. They stay together, they love each other, how is that NOT a marriage???

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

Marriage is nothing more than an institution created by religion to force even more control over their followers. I DO believe that marriage is a good way to live, but it is not THE way to live. And even though marriage was created by religion, that does NOT mean that the term marriage can not be used in a gay union. They stay together, they love each other, how is that NOT a marriage???

so the true agenda is revealed. This has nothing to do with bringing equal rights (by which I mean special priveledges) to the gay community so that they share the same privledges as married couples. This is about demanding total acceptance of behavior.

And I DO believe that marriage is a wonderful way to live, and a benefit to society. Just because some people behave badly is no reason to condemn the foundation of our societal structure.

As I said, I believe that there is a very strong case to open up the BENEFITS of marriage to gay couples. Only its not marriage, which is the union of a man and woman. This is where most of the country will get hung up and vote NO in the booths.

If you really want gay couples to get the benefits of marriage, than you must leave go of the word marriage. If you have a personal agenda where you want others to support the community/lifestyle, than you MUST try to keep that word 'Marriage' in there as it will symbolically legitamize being gay.

[AChimp]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.

You can get a civil union for straight people, already, by just signing a piece of paper in front of a magistrate/judge/whatever. No one says you have to go to a church.

But everyone still calls that a marriage, just like everyone calls apples and oranges (two very different things) fruit.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by AChimp

You can get a civil union for straight people, already, by just signing a piece of paper in front of a magistrate/judge/whatever. No one says you have to go to a church.

But everyone still calls that a marriage, just like everyone calls apples and oranges (two very different things) fruit.

Exactly! Why? Because it is the union of a man and a woman. Thank you.

[AChimp]

Uh huh... so why can't it be called marraige when two gay people sign the same paper?

Oh wait. You're freaked out because that would mean that gay people (bad) can suddenly have something that you consider special.

[Immortal Goat]

WHY THE FUCK IS BEING GAY CONSIDERED IMMORAL??!!

[Preechr]

I would just like to say that this is very funny.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by AChimp

Uh huh... so why can't it be called marraige when two gay people sign the same paper?

Oh wait. You're freaked out because that would mean that gay people (bad) can suddenly have something that you consider special.

*snicker

yes, I am freaked out. you hit right on the head. you see, every post reveals more of the true agenda with some people. Not all. But some. I stand by my posts.

Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.

Notice, that I have not taken a PERSONAL stance on this yet.

*snicker

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

WHY THE FUCK IS BEING GAY CONSIDERED IMMORAL??!!

I'm not saying it is. To you it is not. To other people it is. It is no more your right for you to tell them they are wrong than it is their right to tell you that you are wrong.

Why do you care what they think? Are you a Captain in the Thought Police now?

*shrugs

My office has been laughing their asses off all day at this exchange. Thanks!

[Immortal Goat]

I do not think that I am "Captain of the Thought Police, I am just wondering how some people can say that homosexuality is wrong, and I want to know where they get it into their heads that they have tht right to stick their already upturned noses into other people's business.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

I do not think that I am "Captain of the Thought Police, I am just wondering how some people can say that homosexuality is wrong, and I want to know where they get it into their heads that they have tht right to stick their already upturned noses into other people's business.

so, you want them to change their opinion and they want you to change yours, yet neither party is really doing anything to prevent any kinds of behavior in anyone.

That is why I don't really care about any of this all that much. Two different opinions, two different moral sets, and it is nearly impossible to reconcile the two.

In the end, when guys like me wade into the fray and point out the validity of either arguement, both sides accuse of all kinds of things.

Immorality, homophobia, lefty, etc


Vince doesn't think homosexual behavior is good. You think it is fine.

Everything else just breaks down in rhetoric. That is where I have my fun!!!!

[Bennett]

Originally Posted by Gatorman

Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.

*snicker

The last I heard, where Achimp is from (canada)... the prime minister is proposing a bill to legalize MARRIAGE for gay couples. You better let him know he should drop that word.

[Gatorman]

good for Canada. They are not the US and I do not know their law, history, or culture well enough to examine this issue with any kind of criticle perspective.

I did notice that in the news, by the way. I would have mentioned it had I noticed our chimp friend was from the great white north.

[AChimp]

[quote]Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.[quote]
Aren't we presumptious?

Canada is already getting ready to allow gay people to be MARRIED. No one gets any say in the matter because the Supreme Court already decided it's unconstitutional to prevent it.

Notice, that I have not taken a PERSONAL stance on this yet.

That's right, you haven't. You've only been arguing dictionary definitions and why they shouldn't be changed.

So, please, just state it clearly in one post, because all the air is thin this far north: Why shouldn't it be called "marriage" for two gay people?

[Gatorman]

[quote="AChimp"][quote]Now, do you really want this to happen? Then bring a vote to your state. My personal, nice-guy advice is that you drop the word marriage if you want to get it passed.

Aren't we presumptious?

Canada is already getting ready to allow gay people to be MARRIED. No one gets any say in the matter because the Supreme Court already decided it's unconstitutional to prevent it.

That's right, you haven't. You've only been arguing dictionary definitions and why they shouldn't be changed.

So, please, just state it clearly in one post, because all the air is thin this far north: Why shouldn't it be called "marriage" for two gay people?

A) I don't believe courts should decide what people should vote on

B) I believe that in most cases, large, society changing decisions should be voted on by the public

C) I already posted a wonderful op/ed by Barr at the beginning of the debate. At that time, I wasn't sure where I stood because frankly, I didn't care. I don't think it is my business to tell anyone what to if it doesn't hurt me, and doesn't f' with society too much. Heck, even the people I know who are passionate about this subject are split evenly,...and they are all gay! Upon further contemplation, I think I will side with the Op/Ed. After all, there hasn't been anything said here on either side all that impressive here. I only take a solid position out of respect to your request.

[Vibecrewangel]

so I say again, what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes.

I'm telling you right now that if you want to win this debate nationally you have to drop the word 'marriage.' That is all.


And I gave you MY definition of marriage. I tried to leave all religion, historical, etc references out of it. It sounds to me as if you are denying the religious foundations of the American version of the institution of marriage. I'm not really up for history lessons today, but maybe later.

Actually, and maybe I missed it, the reason I kept asking the question about straight non-religious people is precisly because I didn't see you say "what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes."

Civil unions are marriages.
Common law marriages are marriages.
Religious marriages are marriages.
Peanut butter and jelly on my sandwich is a marriage.

I think the religious nuts need to get over themselves and the belief that they have special rights. Especially rights over a word.

And to be sure, I was not denying the religious foundation. I was pointing out that you were using it on one hand but denying it on the other. I know it is there. I also know it has changed. It should continue to change and adapt as out society continues to grow and change.

[Vibecrewangel]

A) I don't believe courts should decide what people should vote on

B) I believe that in most cases, large, society changing decisions should be voted on by the public

On this we agree.

[Gatorman]

Originally Posted by Vibecrewangel

Actually, and maybe I missed it, the reason I kept asking the question about straight non-religious people is precisly because I didn't see you say "what is wrong with civil unions being used for gay or straight people, and religious/whatever marriages being used for traditional purposes."

Civil unions are marriages.
Common law marriages are marriages.
Religious marriages are marriages.
Peanut butter and jelly on my sandwich is a marrige.

I think the religious nuts need to get over themselves and the belief that they have special rights. Especially rights over a word.

And to be sure, I was not denying the religious foundation. I was pointing out that you were using it on one hand but denying it on the other. I know it is there. I also know it has changed. It should continue to change and adapt as out society continues to grow and change.

So then you assert that the breakdown of the marriage/traditional family is a problem, yet you believe there is no problem with breaking down the marriage/traditional marriage because times have changed? Shouldn't we look more at the problems first? Or more importantly, resolve these problems?

And are you saying that anyone who is religious is a nut? If some alien religon makes up a word that is important to them, and attaches a ceremony to it, isn't it their right to be annoyed when they land on Earth and humans want to change the ceremony? How about the very definition of the word?

Sure, maybe they'll put up with a little bit of change, but they will only be pushed too far.

That is what I predict here. You are going to push the Aliens too far, and they will shut the door. If you want to obtain your ultimate goal of universal acceptance of gays, than you need to continue moving forward gradually.

[Gatorman]

I gotta run y'all. Its been fun.

[Vibecrewangel]

So then you assert that the breakdown of the marriage/traditional family is a problem, yet you believe there is no problem with breaking down the marriage/traditional marriage because times have changed? Shouldn't we look more at the problems first? Or more importantly, resolve these problems?

Where did I assert that? When I mentioned that "marriage is not what it used to be?" It isn't. And that is just a prevelant in religious couples as it is in non-religious couples. The reasons behind it may be different in some cases. But just because a couple is married before God does not make them a better couple or a better family.

Since my nana raised me and my sisters and that isn't a traditional family, should we give up the word family? How about single parents?

And are you saying that anyone who is religious is a nut? If some alien religon makes up a word that is important to them, and attaches a ceremony to it, isn't it their right to be annoyed when they land on Earth and humans want to change the ceremony? How about the very definition of the word?

No, I said religious nuts. That is quite different.

So which religious ceremony should be considered a marriage? Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Wiccan, Voodoo, Muslim, Morman, Hindu, Christian, Satanist......I think you get the point.
And how has it been changed? And to what? A Catholic ceremony is still a Catholic ceremony. A Jewish one is still a Jewish one. They don't take anything away from each other. And neither does a civil ceremony.

And what definition of the word? The dictionary? The legal? Mine? Yours? The scientific? A religious one? Which religious one?