Print Page | Close Window

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Discription: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=92721
Printed Date: September 23 2014 at 20:20
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
Posted By: rushfan4
Subject: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 15:24

Highly controversial points of view and positions here.  Hotly contested and heavily debated.  Would a wrong decision by the courts be enough to cause civil war, or just more controversy and debates?  I suppose that there are probably a ton more choices that I could have offered up but will leave those up to the other category.  I kind of have a general idea of how this will go, but I am curious to see it in action within our community here. 



-------------



Replies:
Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 15:27
It's completely unconstitutional to outlaw it. I'm appalled that it's still an issue; it's so simple.

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 15:30
Love is loveHeart

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Larree
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 15:35
No doubt!  Love is love, Not Fade Away!

Gay couples should have the right to get married in all 50 states.  And everywhere else in the world, too.


-------------
http://larree.ws" rel="nofollow - The Larree (dot) Website


Posted By: ProgMetaller2112
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 15:42
Like everyone else has said already "love is love" HeartBeer

-------------
“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Ignorance and Prejudice and Fear walk Hand in Hand"- Neil Peart



Posted By: akamaisondufromage
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 16:03
They should allow gay marriage in all States except Alaska so anyone who felt it was wrong would have somewhere to go where they wouldn't have to feel offended

-------------
Help me I'm falling!


Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 16:09
Government should have nothing to do with marriage

-------------
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/progarchives/" rel="nofollow - ProgArchives' Home on Steam


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 16:18
Forgive my naivete, but how does your response fit into the poll answers? 

-------------


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 16:21
Government should either grant equality to all or stay the hell out of it.

-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 16:35
The name of this thread is a bit misleading: for a few seconds, I thought that it meant that some members of the U.S. Supreme Court consider marrying each other.
My bad.

Anyway, in France, we're waiting the decision of our National Assembly on this subject.
I can't wait for gay marriage to be voted, so there won't be any more manifestation on the Sundays, just when I want to go buy some comics at my comics store but get blocked on my way by right-wing or left-wing protesters.
Get a life, protesters!


-------------


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 16:40
It is kind of a farce to have it go to the Supreme Court given you have 9 people whose job it is to interpret the law based on the U.S. Constitution, and yet there are 4 judges who will almost always vote the liberal agenda and 4 judges who will almost always vote the conservative agenda so it comes to the one judge in the middle who I guess will vote on his own agenda. 

-------------


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 16:54
A lot of agendas right there...

But as previously mentioned, government has no business sticking it's nose into who marries who. It is pure and simple one's own personal freedom....................... like many other things now that I think of it.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 17:08
Originally posted by Larree

No doubt!  Love is love, Not Fade Away!

Gay couples should have the right to get married in all 50 states.  And everywhere else in the world, too.
+1. What's with this idea of letting each state decide? Are we really frightened to lose some of our workforce to other countries if they don't like the (nearly) uniform arrangement this country might have in the future?

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 17:15
I agree that the government has no business sticking it's nose into what goes on in the bedroom of two (or more) consenting adults but the government does have a responsibility/(obligation?) to either protect people from being discriminated against or allowing majority rule to prevent people from behaving in ways that the "majority" finds to be morally reprehensible.   Filing a tax return, a married man and woman have the right to file married filing jointly or married filing separately.  Same-sex couples have to file as single.  A married man and woman can jointly adopt a child.  With same-sex couples only one or the other can adopt a child, not both.  A married man and woman can have health insurance for the other.  A same-sex couple only can if the employer or insurance company allows for it.  (Granted I believe more and more do allow it).  I know that there are other legal issues that are out there that currently exist as well.  
 
There are multiple points of view, but essentially you have the liberal side that says love is love let anyone marry who wants to marry.  Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin.   And then there are all points in between. 


-------------


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 18:53
I will be shocked if a bunch of evangelical republican nuts get something right for once, but just about every civilized nation in the world is legalizing gay marriage now - as they well should

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 18:55
Originally posted by rushfan4

Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin. 




"The hypothesis  of God, for  instance,  gives  an
incomparably  absolute  opportunity   to  understand  everything  and   know
absolutely nothing. Give man an extremely simplified system of the world and
explain every phenomenon  away on the basis of that system. An approach like
that doesn't  require any  knowledge.  Just a  few  memorized formulas  pins
so-called intuition and so-called common sense."

-Strugatsky (as translated)


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 18:58
That quote makes me feel yes that is what I think as well we should collaborate on the consumption of cookies 

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Dayvenkirq
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 19:00
^ ... and milk? ... Why?

-------------
"People tell you life is short. ... No, it's not. Life is long. Especially if you make the wrong decisions." - Chris Rock


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 19:02
because like minded people should eat cookies together, of course

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:09
Originally posted by manofmystery

Government should have nothing to do with marriage


Scott gave me a position in the poll, and I'm the first to vote for it. 

My religious views give me a clear position on gay marriage, but just because something is against my beliefs, that doesn't mean that I should be in favor of laws prohibiting it.


-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:18
Originally posted by rushfan4

I agree that the government has no business sticking it's nose into what goes on in the bedroom of two (or more) consenting adults but the government does have a responsibility/(obligation?) to either protect people from being discriminated against or allowing majority rule to prevent people from behaving in ways that the "majority" finds to be morally reprehensible.   Filing a tax return, a married man and woman have the right to file married filing jointly or married filing separately.  Same-sex couples have to file as single.  A married man and woman can jointly adopt a child.  With same-sex couples only one or the other can adopt a child, not both.  A married man and woman can have health insurance for the other.  A same-sex couple only can if the employer or insurance company allows for it.  (Granted I believe more and more do allow it).  I know that there are other legal issues that are out there that currently exist as well.  
 
There are multiple points of view, but essentially you have the liberal side that says love is love let anyone marry who wants to marry.  Then there is the conservative side that says that God says that marriage is between a man and a woman and homosexuality is a morally reprehensible sin.   And then there are all points in between. 


I know what the media considers conservative, and I know what many Republicans consider conservative, but a
true "conservative" would say that government has no place telling anybody what a marriage is, nor may a government confer benefits (especially financial benefits) on married persons.  Doing so is discrimination.  If you give people tax credits for having kids, isn't that discrimination?


-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:19
Doesn't this have the potential to be more about why the government should step in to allow the freedom for all consenting adults to marry?   Is it not a matter of civil rights?   I mean we may still have ministers or Justices out there who'd refuse to marry two people because of personal reasons, and we don't want the law to be on their side, now do we.   It has to be clear that the Law of the Land shall be that all consenting adults are allowed to marry without hindrance or prejudice. 


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:25
Originally posted by Atavachron

Doesn't this have the potential to be more about why the government should step in to allow the freedom for all consenting adults to marry?   Is it not a matter of civil rights?   I mean we may still have ministers or Justices out there who'd refuse to marry two people because of personal reasons, and we don't want the law to be on their side, now do we.   It has to be clear that the Law of the Land shall be that all consenting adults are allowed to marry without hindrance or prejudice. 


I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.

That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target.  Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.

Does the ninth Amendment of our Constitution mean nothing anymore?


-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:32
Originally posted by Epignosis

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.
That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target.  Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.
But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened.   If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I choose the right side of history and I hope the Supremes do to.



Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:34
Originally posted by Triceratopsoil

I will be shocked if a bunch of evangelical republican nuts get something right for once, but just about every civilized nation in the world is legalizing gay marriage now - as they well should


Here is what I'm talking about.  The discussion on whether something should be legalized does two things:

1. It gives ill-informed people a chance to look "right" and fire off rhetorical ammunition (look at the assumptions in this comment "evangelical republican nuts")

2. And worse, it ignores the real issue: Why does government tell us what marriage is?  They don't tell us what friendship is.  Well, NY is working on it.

++++

On a side note, telling me that "every civilized nation in the world" is doing it- that is a bandwagon fallacy.  You should have learned better in middle school.


-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:40
Originally posted by Atavachron

Originally posted by Epignosis

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.
That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target.  Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.
But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened.   If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I choose the right side of history and I hope the Supremes do to.



"Choose the right side of history."  Another loaded phrase I don't appreciate.  It assumes too much.

Listen.  I believe in people making their own associations and contracts as they see fit.  The federal government backing black college kids...what do you mean by that?  Are you saying the National Guard needs to be at every gay wedding?  I am really confused here.

I am in favor of people making their own unions and contracts, whatever those may be.  My position makes the gay marriage issue moot.






-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:42
"I accept "civil unions" but oppose gay marriage."




-------------

http://www.last.fm/user/Drew079" rel="nofollow - http://www.last.fm/user/Drew079


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 21:52
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Atavachron

Originally posted by Epignosis

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.
That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target.  Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.
But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened.   If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I choose the right side of history and I hope the Supremes do to.


Listen.  I believe in people making their own associations and contracts as they see fit.  The federal government backing black college kids...what do you mean by that?  Are you saying the National Guard needs to be at every gay wedding?  I am really confused here.

I am in favor of people making their own unions and contracts, whatever those may be.  My position makes the gay marriage issue moot.
And I appreciate that--  I'm saying that if it isn't moot for some misguided folk who might want to take things in their own hands or prevent a couple from marrying, someone has to step in and say "Sorry; it doesn't matter what you think, the law says these two people can marry.  If you deny that right or take action to prevent it, you are breaking the laws of the United States and may be prosecuted.   Have a nice day".  



Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 22:04
Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by manofmystery

Government should have nothing to do with marriage


Scott gave me a position in the poll, and I'm the first to vote for it. 

My religious views give me a clear position on gay marriage, but just because something is against my beliefs, that doesn't mean that I should be in favor of laws prohibiting it.
Thank you Rob.  I'll be honest in saying that I am hoping to see more votes here.  I am also somewhat surprised that as of yet noone has voted for either of the state options.  That seems to be one of the top argument that I hear being made against the federal government making this decision; essentially saying that the federal government shouldn't interfere with state rights here.

-------------


Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: March 26 2013 at 22:15
Marriage seems pretty lame anyway. Two people who love each other shouldn't need a piece of paper for it, so to speak. But I'm probably in the minority there. 

As for this issue, I don't really care, but hey if a gay couple want to get married, why should anything stop 'em?   


-------------

http://superdensecrushloadfactor.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Superdensecrushloadfactor


Posted By: Triceratopsoil
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 00:00
It's almost adorable the level some people go to in order to defend their irrational beliefs.

-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/TullDerGraff" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 04:38
Think this issue is contentious?...You ain't seen nuthin' yet...just wait for..... gay divorce Confused

-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 06:22
Originally posted by Atavachron

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by Atavachron

Originally posted by Epignosis

I think the larger question is why state governments are allowed to tell us whom we can enter into marriages with.
That is why the whole gay marriage issue overshoots the target.  Marriage should NOT be defined at all by government.
But should be protected for all by government when those rights are threatened.   If "those rights" are to include gay marriage, we could have a situation not unlike the race issues of the 1960s, and the people fighting for those rights may need the full backing of their federal government the same way those black college kids did.

I choose the right side of history and I hope the Supremes do to.


Listen.  I believe in people making their own associations and contracts as they see fit.  The federal government backing black college kids...what do you mean by that?  Are you saying the National Guard needs to be at every gay wedding?  I am really confused here.

I am in favor of people making their own unions and contracts, whatever those may be.  My position makes the gay marriage issue moot.
And I appreciate that--  I'm saying that if it isn't moot for some misguided folk who might want to take things in their own hands or prevent a couple from marrying, someone has to step in and say "Sorry; it doesn't matter what you think, the law says these two people can marry.  If you deny that right or take action to prevent it, you are breaking the laws of the United States and may be prosecuted.   Have a nice day".  



I see what you are saying now- thanks for clarifying.  Thumbs Up


-------------
http://epignosis.bandcamp.com" rel="nofollow - Listen to the new Epignosis album for free- it's good for your health


Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 07:04
Option #5: it is the only one that fits 1:1 with my beliefs. It is a matter of definition, regardless of any law, both inside and outside the US. But I don't consider myself the right guy to tell others how they should give shape to their relationships.

-------------


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 07:20
Originally posted by someone_else

Option #5: it is the only one that fits 1:1 with my beliefs. It is a matter of definition, regardless of any law, both inside and outside the US. But I don't consider myself the right guy to tell others how they should give shape to their relationships.


A very candid response. Let's cut to the chase here: this is not about the perceived morality of same sex marriage. No sane individual could raise any cogent argument to preclude same sex marriage on the grounds of doctrinal beliefs capable of withstanding scrutiny by contemporary jurisprudence. This is about money i.e. how do you feel about your tax dollars going towards concessions to be enjoyed by same sex couples? As far as playing the tax victim card goes, it's single people of both genders who are discriminated against as far as taxation is concerned. Why should a couple of differing/same sexes who can avail themselves of joint earnings/benefits, be entitled to pay less tax than a single person? Does this constiture the real discrimination at work here?


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 07:51
There should have been an option "I can't believe the world is still so backwards as to be having this debate in 2013."  I do feel sorry for those who should have been born in the 16th century but were instead born in the 20th, but they're just going to have to adapt.  

-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 07:59
"Forcing bans on the choices we make, which includes who we want to marry, is a part of the government's sphere. If we fight and get rights back, that means we've simply fought for what we have already been born with."


-------------
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/progarchives/" rel="nofollow - ProgArchives' Home on Steam


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 08:02
Originally posted by ExittheLemming

Originally posted by someone_else

Option #5: it is the only one that fits 1:1 with my beliefs. It is a matter of definition, regardless of any law, both inside and outside the US. But I don't consider myself the right guy to tell others how they should give shape to their relationships.


A very candid response. Let's cut to the chase here: this is not about the perceived morality of same sex marriage. No sane individual could raise any cogent argument to preclude same sex marriage on the grounds of doctrinal beliefs capable of withstanding scrutiny by contemporary jurisprudence. This is about money i.e. how do you feel about your tax dollars going towards concessions to be enjoyed by same sex couples? As far as playing the tax victim card goes, it's single people of both genders who are discriminated against as far as taxation is concerned. Why should a couple of differing/same sexes who can avail themselves of joint earnings/benefits, be entitled to pay less tax than a single person? Does this constiture the real discrimination at work here?
Interestingly enough, there is in fact a marriage tax penalty here in the U.S.  Or at least there can be depending on certain situations.  Being married actually can cause two taxpayers to pay more taxes than if they had remained single.  If one works and the other doesn't then there is a benefit, but both of them are working, there is a good chance it will cause them to pay more taxes then if they were single.  This discrepancy was actually fixed as part of the Bush tax cuts and is still mostly fixed, although the changes that were made in January did allow for some marriage tax penalties to creep back in.

-------------


Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 08:46
To be honest, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the issue itself, but I do care about the surrounding circumstances.

Everyone should have the right to be happy, and if a lot of people can only become that way with a partner of the same gender, then so be it. A society should not have a right to withhold that from their members.

For the state(s) it's just a matter of possibly lost revenue in taxes. This is probably the most morally decrepit factor.

From what I've seen of the 'outraged righteous protestors', they mainly seem to consist of the same folks and their children who already opposed such things women's rights, racial equality, free love, and the abolition of child labor. Pretty pathetic bunch.

And the church can get forked. Also up their arses. But then again they'd probably enjoy that.

On top of that, I enjoy a good giggle.



-------------
I like the music of any era, regardless of when it was made.


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 09:01
The state issue just really comes down to is how deeply divided/diverse this country is.  There are areas of the country that are deeply liberal and there are areas that are deeply conservative.  So the gist is, let the liberal states have their gay marriages but allow the conservative states to not allow them.  In a sense, this is a compromise that would make both sides of the argument "happy".  Although, if you are a liberal living in a conservative state (I am looking at you Slarti Wink) or a conservative living in a liberal state than it would continue to be an issue. 
 
And to agree with npjnpj, I honestly can't give a rat's ass either.  It is another one of those hot topic political issues that really doesn't have any affect on my well-being one way or another.  Unless a Bill Gates or Donald Trump comes calling with offers of marriage there is no chance in hell of me marrying a man, and even then I don't think that there is enough money in the world to make me do that.  That being the case, it is still one of those hot topic political issues that has a way of being quite exasperating.  As has already been said.  This is the 21st century, it is time to move on from 16th Century thinking.


-------------


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 09:17
Originally posted by rushfan4

The state issue just really comes down to is how deeply divided/diverse this country is.  There are areas of the country that are deeply liberal and there are areas that are deeply conservative.  So the gist is, let the liberal states have their gay marriages but allow the conservative states to not allow them.  In a sense, this is a compromise that would make both sides of the argument "happy".  Although, if you are a liberal living in a conservative state (I am looking at you Slarti Wink) or a conservative living in a liberal state than it would continue to be an issue. 
 
 
 
Or if you happen to be gay in a conservative state.  Wink
 
Didn't they try that same sort of compromise in the 19th century regarding slavery?  Didn't really help the slaves in the south did it?  It's not about making liberals or conservatives happy, but about allowing people to be free to live their lives as they see fit. 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 09:43
Originally posted by The Doctor

Originally posted by rushfan4

The state issue just really comes down to is how deeply divided/diverse this country is.  There are areas of the country that are deeply liberal and there are areas that are deeply conservative.  So the gist is, let the liberal states have their gay marriages but allow the conservative states to not allow them.  In a sense, this is a compromise that would make both sides of the argument "happy".  Although, if you are a liberal living in a conservative state (I am looking at you Slarti Wink) or a conservative living in a liberal state than it would continue to be an issue. 
 
 
 
Or if you happen to be gay in a conservative state.  Wink
 
Didn't they try that same sort of compromise in the 19th century regarding slavery?  Didn't really help the slaves in the south did it?  It's not about making liberals or conservatives happy, but about allowing people to be free to live their lives as they see fit. 
I agree.  But doing so will make a lot of people unhappy.  I did get an earlier chuckle about changing the law in 49 states and leaving Alaska as a safe haven for those people who absolutely cannot accept gay marriage. 

-------------


Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 10:24
I used to be a supporter of gay marriage, now I don't know if I support it or not, because I believe marriage should be a contract that two consenting adults sign. I also don't believe anyone should receive benefits for being married and discriminate against people who have not engaged in a country-sanctioned marriage.

-------------

Zizou 1988-2006


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 10:25
Originally posted by King of Loss

I used to be a supporter of gay marriage, now I don't know if I support it or not, because I believe marriage should be a contract that two consenting adults sign. I also don't believe anyone should receive benefits for being married and discriminate against people who have not engaged in a country-sanctioned marriage.
 
Confused Gay people can't consent?  Or they aren't adults? 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 10:30
Originally posted by The Doctor

Originally posted by King of Loss

I used to be a supporter of gay marriage, now I don't know if I support it or not, because I believe marriage should be a contract that two consenting adults sign. I also don't believe anyone should receive benefits for being married and discriminate against people who have not engaged in a country-sanctioned marriage.
 
Confused Gay people can't consent?  Or they aren't adults? 


I just don't believe the federal government should be using the federal government as a battering ram for opening promoting gay marriage, which I don't have a problem, but I do have a problem with the federal government forcing one or the other way on two consenting adults. I think all unions, be it heterosexual or homosexual, should be civil and should not be considered government-sanctioned marriage.


-------------

Zizou 1988-2006


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 10:41
^The government is not forcing anyone to choose gay marriage.  Hey, if the government told me I had to marry a man or else, I'd certainly have a problem with that.  It isn't about forcing people to make choices, it is about allowing people the freedom to make their own choices. 
 
Maybe the government shouldn't play a role in marriage, but that's another argument altogether.  As it stands, the government does currently play a role in defining marriage and providing benefits/penalties to marriage, and therefore should butt out of people's choices as to whom they wish to marry.


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 10:42
Government aside, I think it should be up to the individual priest to decide whether he/she wants to marry any couple. Sure if it's done at city hall, it's an altogether different story.
Like I said earlier marriage should be about love, not about gender or sexual preferences. 
The hardest part of that equation is getting all the squares out there to realize and accept that the love between two men/women you name the constellation, is just as real as the one experienced by straight folks.


-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 10:46
Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Government aside, I think it should be up to the individual priest to decide whether he/she wants to marry any couple. Sure if it's done at city hall, it's an altogether different story.
Like I said earlier marriage should be about love, not about gender or sexual preferences. 
The hardest part of that equation is getting all the squares out there to realize and accept that the love between two men/women you name the constellation, is just as real as the one experienced by straight folks.
 
I think the hardest part is getting everyone to realize that what other people do with their lives is none of their damn business.  It isn't about accepting anything, it's about live and let live. 
 
I do agree though that the government should not be able to force religious institutions to perform marriages to which they are opposed. 


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 11:01
I fully agree with everything you said, I've just come across so many people who refuse to acknowledge such a simple truth as the one I mentioned. It's of course much more than that as you point out, but I tend to focus on the little things that I meet every time I attend parties and get-togethers where there's hundreds of gay people around. It then gets very personal, and saying a thing like "it's none of your business" to one of these hot heads who only came to ridicule and throw stones, is simply beyond feasible. Doesn't work.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 11:08
Originally posted by The Doctor

Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Government aside, I think it should be up to the individual priest to decide whether he/she wants to marry any couple. Sure if it's done at city hall, it's an altogether different story.
Like I said earlier marriage should be about love, not about gender or sexual preferences. 
The hardest part of that equation is getting all the squares out there to realize and accept that the love between two men/women you name the constellation, is just as real as the one experienced by straight folks.
 
I think the hardest part is getting everyone to realize that what other people do with their lives is none of their damn business.  It isn't about accepting anything, it's about live and let live. 
 
I do agree though that the government should not be able to force religious institutions to perform marriages to which they are opposed. 
I agree with this as well.  If the church as a "business" decides to turn away potential "customers" that is their choice to do so. 
 
The only analogy that seems to come to mind is the one regarding the Augusta golf club and their refusal to allow women into the club as members.  (I believe that this glass ceiling was finally breeched on this if my memory serves me right).  The argument being that women are being discriminated against when it comes to the opportunity of participating in the types of backroom business dealings that go on in a club like that.  I am glad that the government did not step in and force the club to allow women, but I am also disappointed by the number of businesses that businesses leaders that continued to support the club despite its discriminatory practices.   


-------------


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:44
“You could have said in the Loving case, what–you can’t get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong."

Ted Olson, pro-marriage equality attorney, compared today's case before the Supreme Court to the case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fon.msnbc.com%2FYH380o&h=BAQHsub4FAQF34iueC0XT4slpgVtZktkfrPdOSkEDEg7zqg&s=1" rel="nofollow - http://on.msnbc.com/YH380o
https://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/http://on.msnbc.com/yh380o%26h%3dbaqhsub4faqf34iuec0xt4slpgvtzktkfrpdoskedeg7zqg%26s%3d1/-?pip=false&premium=false&client_uid=135319186&client_ver=3.5.0.229&client_type=IEPlugin&suite=true&aff_id=679&locale=en_us&ui=1&os_ver=6.1.1.0" rel="nofollow">


Do you think it's a fair comparison?
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=635713903110602&set=a.290068127675183.91261.280920811923248&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf" rel="nofollow">“You could have said in the Loving case, what–you can’t get married, but you can have an interracial union. Everyone would know that that was wrong."     Ted Olson, pro-marriage equality attorney, compared todays case before the Supreme Court to the case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. http://on.msnbc.com/YH380o    Do you think its a fair comparison?


-------------


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:44
Silly queers...thinking they have rights!




Of course, option #1 for me.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off to my BDSM, 17 husband, 22 wife afternoon orgy in the graveyard dressed as past US presidents using replica constitutions as birth control...

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:48
Originally posted by Man With Hat

Silly queers...thinking they have rights!




Of course, option #1 for me.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off to my BDSM, 17 husband, 22 wife afternoon orgy in the graveyard dressed as past US presidents using replica constitutions as birth control...

It's important to live a balanced twisted life. Tongue


-------------


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:50
Easy for you to say, I'm husband number 12Angry

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: The Doctor
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:50
Originally posted by Man With Hat

Silly queers...thinking they have rights!




Of course, option #1 for me.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off to my BDSM, 17 husband, 22 wife afternoon orgy in the graveyard dressed as past US presidents using replica constitutions as birth control...
 
And you didn't invite me?  Angry


-------------
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:53
Originally posted by CPicard

The name of this thread is a bit misleading: for a few seconds, I thought that it meant that some members of the U.S. Supreme Court consider marrying each other.
My bad.
!
Thumbs Up

-------------


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:54
Originally posted by The Doctor


Originally posted by Man With Hat

Silly queers...thinking they have rights!




Of course, option #1 for me.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off to my BDSM, 17 husband, 22 wife afternoon orgy in the graveyard dressed as past US presidents using replica constitutions as birth control...

 
And you didn't invite me?  Angry



We are planning on touring the US to look for more members. We'll be sure to stop in texas...they will love us down there.

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:55
Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Easy for you to say, I'm husband number 12Angry


Don't forget the lube this time man...

-------------
Dig me...But don't...Bury me
I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive
Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect.


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 14:58
Originally posted by Man With Hat

Originally posted by Guldbamsen

Easy for you to say, I'm husband number 12Angry


Don't forget the lube this time man...

I'll give you sand paper big fella, if you forget Valentines one more time...


-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 15:14
photo

-------------


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 15:29
Originally posted by Man With Hat

Silly queers...thinking they have rights!




Of course, option #1 for me.


Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off to my BDSM, 17 husband, 22 wife afternoon orgy in the graveyard dressed as past US presidents using replica constitutions as birth control...
This is why I added the Other option.  For those who believe marriage should only between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and ......

-------------


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 17:10

Originally posted by Epignosis

Originally posted by manofmystery

Government should have nothing to do with marriage


Scott gave me a position in the poll, and I'm the first to vote for it. 

My religious views give me a clear position on gay marriage, but just because something is against my beliefs, that doesn't mean that I should be in favor of laws prohibiting it.

I HIGHLY recommend watching a documentary called For The Bible Tells Me So for anyone who believes that Christianity requires an anti-gay marriage stance.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/for_the_bible_tells_me_so/" rel="nofollow - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/for_the_bible_tells_me_so/

If this documentary does not convince you, I think it will at least demonstrate how there is room for debate on the issue, based solely on the Bible.



Posted By: Ambient Hurricanes
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 18:31
Epig, MoM, and King of Loss have already articulated my political position on this issue.  Marriage is a function of individuals/communities and in no way should be regulated by either federal or state governments.  The very fact that the state attempts to define what "marriage" is shows that they have overstepped the proper bounds of their responsibilities.  I personally oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but it's none of my business or the government's business to prevent two men or two women from getting married.  Their action doesn't affect me in any way.

The Supreme Court case is an entirely different issue, however.  I can understand how they might declare DOMA unconstitutional (goes way beyond the boundaries of the constitution) but it would be patently ridiculous if they made up a "constitutional right" for gay marriage that quite obviously does not exist.

voted other, btw


-------------
In blood, he's writing the lyrics of a brand new tune.


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 27 2013 at 18:34
 Thumbs Up

-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: engineer
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 08:27
> Marriage is a function of individuals/communities
> and in no way should be regulated by either federal or state governments
exactely.
 
I personally do not bother to whom my neighbour is related to - he may marry his hamster if he likes to :D
 


Posted By: irrelevant
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 09:07
^ Imagination, Commence! 

-------------

http://superdensecrushloadfactor.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Superdensecrushloadfactor


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 10:37
Originally posted by engineer

I personally do not bother to whom my neighbour is related to - he may marry his hamster if he likes to :D

I disagree. Unless we're talking about a talking hamster, i should think not.


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Larree
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 13:50
Originally posted by smartpatrol

Originally posted by engineer

I personally do not bother to whom my neighbour is related to - he may marry his hamster if he likes to :D

I disagree. Unless we're talking about a talking hamster, i should think not.

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and no one can talk to a horse, of course!"

[TUBE]y_PZPpWTRTU[/TUBE]




-------------
http://larree.ws" rel="nofollow - The Larree (dot) Website


Posted By: lucas
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 15:23
In France our government is in favor of marriage for ALL : you imagine a human can marry a pig !

-------------
"Magma was the very first gothic rock band" (Didier Lockwood)


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 15:28
A talking pig?


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 17:32
Marriage equality for all humans or none.

-------------


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 17:39
Originally posted by Ambient Hurricanes

Epig, MoM, and King of Loss have already articulated my political position on this issue.  Marriage is a function of individuals/communities and in no way should be regulated by either federal or state governments.  The very fact that the state attempts to define what "marriage" is shows that they have overstepped the proper bounds of their responsibilities.  I personally oppose gay marriage on moral grounds, but it's none of my business or the government's business to prevent two men or two women from getting married.  Their action doesn't affect me in any way.

The Supreme Court case is an entirely different issue, however.  I can understand how they might declare DOMA unconstitutional (goes way beyond the boundaries of the constitution) but it would be patently ridiculous if they made up a "constitutional right" for gay marriage that quite obviously does not exist.

voted other, btw


It's interesting that you don't tell us what those moral objections are. Perhaps it's just none of our business but I suspect you must be a christian to take this view. (and similarly to your political stance, a scripture of your choice articulates your position?)


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:08
I'm not a Christian, but I prefer traditional things - one man, one woman. That's it.

Call me homophobe, but for me there is something unnatural in gay marriages. I don't mind if people of the same sex love each other, but can't understand why they need to be a groom and a bride (and who is who in their case).
And if they adopt kids I don't think gay family is a natural surrounding for children.


-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:11
Originally posted by NotAProghead

I'm not a Christian, but I prefer traditional things - one man, one woman. That's it.

Call me homophobe, but for me there is something unnatural in gay marriages. I don't mind if people of the same sex love each other, but can't understand why they need to be a groom and a bride (and who is who in their case).
And if they adopt kids I don't think gay family is a natural surrounding for children.

In what way is it unnatural?


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:14
There's a theory going around that Homosexuality is caused by Epigenetics. If it's true, then it is natural (technically a natural mistake, but natural nonetheless)


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:18
Originally posted by Earendil

 
In what way is it unnatural?
In what way it is natural?


-------------
Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour)


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:24
Originally posted by NotAProghead

I'm not a Christian, but I prefer traditional things - one man, one woman. That's it.

Call me homophobe, but for me there is something unnatural in gay marriages. I don't mind if people of the same sex love each other, but can't understand why they need to be a groom and a bride (and who is who in their case).
And if they adopt kids I don't think gay family is a natural surrounding for children.


OK, Perhaps a male father and female mother who love, care and nurture their offspring is 'best case scenario' but given the choice, would  you still feel more comfortable with an abusive and neglectful straight couple rearing children or a loving, caring and nurturing gay couple?


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:35
Originally posted by NotAProghead

Originally posted by Earendil

 
In what way is it unnatural?
In what way it is natural?

Originally posted by smartpatrol

There's a theory going around that Homosexuality is caused by Epigenetics. If it's true, then it is natural (technically a natural mistake, but natural nonetheless)


also
Homosexuality is something which has been practiced by species after species sense the beginning of time. I think that counts as natural


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:38
Originally posted by NotAProghead

Originally posted by Earendil

 
In what way is it unnatural?
In what way it is natural?

It has been around for millennia, and two siblings can grow up together in a "traditional" home, with one turning out homosexual and the other heterosexual.


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:50
Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade. 
 
Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry.  And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important.  Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool.


-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:53
Originally posted by lucas

In France our government is in favor of marriage for ALL : you imagine a human can marry a pig !


French people being pigs, there's nothing wrong to that.


-------------


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:54
Hell must be about to freeze over, as this is the first time in history I actually agree with something that this blowhard has to say.  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/28/rush-limbaugh-concedes-conservatives-lost-marriage-debate/?hpt=hp_bn3" rel="nofollow - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/28/rush-limbaugh-concedes-conservatives-lost-marriage-debate/?hpt=hp_bn3

-------------


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:55
Originally posted by rushfan4

Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade.

I think we've pretty much surpassed natural selection as a race. It's advanced us to being able to create all these different technologies and advancements that allow many to live who would not otherwise. And with all these extra people alive, we don't necessarily need so many breeders.


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:59
Originally posted by smartpatrol

Originally posted by rushfan4

Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade.

I think we've pretty much surpassed natural selection as a race. It's advanced us to being able to create all these different technologies and advancements that allow many to live who would not otherwise. And with all these extra people alive, we don't necessarily need so many breeders.
Obviously, but that still doesn't make homosexuality natural.  Having 5 percent of the population not producing offspring isn't going to end the survival of the human race, and in fact may actually help in the sense of slowing down overpopulation. 

-------------


Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 18:59
Originally posted by smartpatrol

Originally posted by rushfan4

Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade.

I think we've pretty much surpassed natural selection as a race. It's advanced us to being able to create all these different technologies and advancements that allow many to live who would not otherwise. And with all these extra people alive, we don't necessarily need so many breeders.

I don't think natural selection has passed. It's just slow.


-------------

Zizou 1988-2006


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:05
Originally posted by rushfan4

Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade. 
 
Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry.  And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important.  Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool.


Since when did the overriding aim of marriage become exclusively procreation? There are millions of (straight and fertile) couples out there who have precisely zero intention of ever producing kids but take their marriage vows pretty seriously. You try telling them they're unnatural. Our species will continue long into the future, with or without marriage.


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:10
Originally posted by ExittheLemming

Originally posted by rushfan4

Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade. 
 
Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry.  And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important.  Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool.


Since when did the overriding aim of marriage become exclusively procreation? There are millions of (straight and fertile) couples out there who have precisely zero intention of ever producing kids but take their marriage vows pretty seriously. You try telling them they're unnatural. Our species will continue long into the future, with or without marriage.
They are unnatural, but they have also made a choice that they are free to make.  I have chosen not to marry and have no kids, so that makes me unnatural, although that is only about half my fault as it takes two to tango and I just never found that suitable tango partner.

-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:23
Why talking about natural behaviour among humans since couples, marriage, family, etc... are cultural concepts?


-------------


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:26
Originally posted by rushfan4

Hell must be about to freeze over, as this is the first time in history I actually agree with something that this blowhard has to say.  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/28/rush-limbaugh-concedes-conservatives-lost-marriage-debate/?hpt=hp_bn3" rel="nofollow - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/28/rush-limbaugh-concedes-conservatives-lost-marriage-debate/?hpt=hp_bn3

What I like is what O'Reilly said--  once again Bill O. surprises with his common sense and willingness to see all sides.
     Clap




Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:30
Rushfan, in the sense that you're using the term "unnatural", I think you have a solid case.  However, according to your arguments, homosexuality is only "unnatural" if the point of human existence is pro-creation.  Of course, lots of people hold essentially that view, but I don't think it's necessarily true.  I don't think we have to remain like lower animals forever.  I think there comes a point when we can decide our own purpose.  Maybe we're already there.  We don't spend all of our time looking for food and watching out for predators.  We are capable of much higher achievements, incredibly more complex things.  We can almost instantly communicate with each other from across the world.  We can travel into outer space.  We have mapped the human genome.  We can observe subatomic particles and describe the shape of our galaxy.  Surely this separates in evolution's eyes from the animals. Is it also unnatural for a human to not grow his own food?  Is it unnatural for him to let his guard down around strangers, who could potentially be predators?  It's necessary for some people to pro-create (heterosexual couples), some people to grow food (farmers), and some people to protect us from enemies (government) for survival.  But everyone doesn't have to do these things for the race to survive.


Posted By: smartpatrol
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:33
I think procreation is just a natural instinct we get from natural selection. Everything has it. If we didn't, everything would die out


-------------
http://bit.ly/1kqTR8y" rel="nofollow">
The greatest record label of all time!


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:35
Originally posted by CPicard

Why talking about natural behaviour among humans since couples, marriage, family, etc... are cultural concepts?
Before there was "Adam" and "Eve" the first two humans were "Tom" and "Bill".  Well, "Tom" and "Bill" had sex every single night in every single way possible that two men could have sex.  Eventually, "Tom" and "Bill" grew old and died.  Nobody knows about "Tom" and "Bill" because nobody survived to tell their story.  "Adam" and "Eve" on the other hand, had children who begat children who begat children, etc.... so there were people around to tell their story and that is why we know about them.  (Before all of the atheists attack that comment, I am agnostic and don't necessarily believe that an "Adam" and "Eve" actually existed and that "Eve" was created from "Adam's" rib).   That is what I mean by Natural Selection and being "natural".  Again, obviously in today's day and age with billions of people, the idea of humans going extinct as a result of everyone becoming homosexual and stopping to have kids isn't realistic.  Blowing ourselves up to smithereens is a whole 'nother story.

-------------


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:44
Originally posted by Earendil

Rushfan, in the sense that you're using the term "unnatural", I think you have a solid case.  However, according to your arguments, homosexuality is only "unnatural" if the point of human existence is pro-creation.  Of course, lots of people hold essentially that view, but I don't think it's necessarily true.  I don't think we have to remain like lower animals forever.  I think there comes a point when we can decide our own purpose.  Maybe we're already there.  We don't spend all of our time looking for food and watching out for predators.  We are capable of much higher achievements, incredibly more complex things.  We can almost instantly communicate with each other from across the world.  We can travel into outer space.  We have mapped the human genome.  We can observe subatomic particles and describe the shape of our galaxy.  Surely this separates in evolution's eyes from the animals. Is it also unnatural for a human to not grow his own food?  Is it unnatural for him to let his guard down around strangers, who could potentially be predators?
My simple response to your answer is yes.  Every thing that you say is completely true.  The fact that I, or anyone else, finds homosexuality to be strange or unnatural is irrelevant.  The concept of Natural Selection is archaic and outdated.  Hell, with the invention of in vitro pregnancy 100% of the population could turn homosexual and we could still survive as a species.  And if it isn't entirely clear from my previous posts, I fully support consenting adults to consent to any relationship with whomever they choose to consent to have one with as long as the other consenting adult chooses to consent to have a relationship with them.  Smile  The whole point to that particular post was to try and explain why it was "unnatural". 

-------------


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:44
Originally posted by rushfan4

Originally posted by CPicard

Why talking about natural behaviour among humans since couples, marriage, family, etc... are cultural concepts?
Before there was "Adam" and "Eve" the first two humans were "Tom" and "Bill".  Well, "Tom" and "Bill" had sex every single night in every single way possible that two men could have sex.  Eventually, "Tom" and "Bill" grew old and died.  Nobody knows about "Tom" and "Bill" because nobody survived to tell their story.  "Adam" and "Eve" on the other hand, had children who begat children who begat children, etc.... so there were people around to tell their story and that is why we know about them.  (Before all of the atheists attack that comment, I am agnostic and don't necessarily believe that an "Adam" and "Eve" actually existed and that "Eve" was created from "Adam's" rib).   That is what I mean by Natural Selection and being "natural".  Again, obviously in today's day and age with billions of people, the idea of humans going extinct as a result of everyone becoming homosexual and stopping to have kids isn't realistic.  Blowing ourselves up to smithereens is a whole 'nother story.


You missed the point.
The conversation is about the homosexual marriage - and you must have noticed that I only wrote "couples, marriage, family"... and NOT reproduction/breeding.
In a conversation about marriage (which is a union ruled by written or customs), we should avoid to talk about biology and natural mecanisms, which is far beyond the scope of the actual point of the debate or, at least, shouldn't be.

And your example is ethno-centric: the first humans were "N'trk" and "N'klt".


-------------


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:45
Originally posted by rushfan4

Originally posted by ExittheLemming

Originally posted by rushfan4

Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade. 
 
Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry.  And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important.  Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool.


Since when did the overriding aim of marriage become exclusively procreation? There are millions of (straight and fertile) couples out there who have precisely zero intention of ever producing kids but take their marriage vows pretty seriously. You try telling them they're unnatural. Our species will continue long into the future, with or without marriage.
They are unnatural, but they have also made a choice that they are free to make.  I have chosen not to marry and have no kids, so that makes me unnatural, although that is only about half my fault as it takes two to tango and I just never found that suitable tango partner.


You'll never find a tango partner on a Prog site mateyWink


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:46
Originally posted by ExittheLemming

Originally posted by rushfan4

Originally posted by ExittheLemming

Originally posted by rushfan4

Science or a divine being created most species to require 1 male and 1 female to procreate in order to produce offspring and continue on the species.  2 males or 2 females cannot produce offspring on their own.  This is what makes it unnatural.  Which would also lead to Darwin's Natural Selection and survival of the fittest.  A homosexual species isn't going to survive.  That being said, homosexuality exists.  Whether a person is homosexual because of nature or nurture or both is beyond my pay grade. 
 
Despite this, I am all in favor of a little thing that my favorite band sings about called Freewill, and peoples' right to "choose" who they marry or don't marry.  And if a child needs a home and there is an adult or two adults of the same sex that would like to take care of said child than that is what is important.  Everyone knows there are plenty of same sex parents that quite frankly should have those rights taken away from them and there are plenty of straight persons who really should be removed from the gene pool.


Since when did the overriding aim of marriage become exclusively procreation? There are millions of (straight and fertile) couples out there who have precisely zero intention of ever producing kids but take their marriage vows pretty seriously. You try telling them they're unnatural. Our species will continue long into the future, with or without marriage.
They are unnatural, but they have also made a choice that they are free to make.  I have chosen not to marry and have no kids, so that makes me unnatural, although that is only about half my fault as it takes two to tango and I just never found that suitable tango partner.


You'll never find a tango partner on a Prog site mateyWink
Ain't that the truth.  But hey, it worked for our old friends Micky and Raff.

-------------


Posted By: Earendil
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:53
Originally posted by rushfan4

Originally posted by Earendil

Rushfan, in the sense that you're using the term "unnatural", I think you have a solid case.  However, according to your arguments, homosexuality is only "unnatural" if the point of human existence is pro-creation.  Of course, lots of people hold essentially that view, but I don't think it's necessarily true.  I don't think we have to remain like lower animals forever.  I think there comes a point when we can decide our own purpose.  Maybe we're already there.  We don't spend all of our time looking for food and watching out for predators.  We are capable of much higher achievements, incredibly more complex things.  We can almost instantly communicate with each other from across the world.  We can travel into outer space.  We have mapped the human genome.  We can observe subatomic particles and describe the shape of our galaxy.  Surely this separates in evolution's eyes from the animals. Is it also unnatural for a human to not grow his own food?  Is it unnatural for him to let his guard down around strangers, who could potentially be predators?
My simple response to your answer is yes.  Every thing that you say is completely true.  The fact that I, or anyone else, finds homosexuality to be strange or unnatural is irrelevant.  The concept of Natural Selection is archaic and outdated.  Hell, with the invention of in vitro pregnancy 100% of the population could turn homosexual and we could still survive as a species.  And if it isn't entirely clear from my previous posts, I fully support consenting adults to consent to any relationship with whomever they choose to consent to have one with as long as the other consenting adult chooses to consent to have a relationship with them.  Smile  The whole point to that particular post was to try and explain why it was "unnatural". 

Then I guess we're debating even though we agree with each other.  Gotta love forum debates LOL


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 19:55
Originally posted by rushfan4

Originally posted by ExittheLemming

You'll never find a tango partner on a Prog site mateyWink
Ain't that the truth.  But hey, it worked for our old friends Micky and Raff.

Ah, PA's power couple--  shouldn't they have a Hollywood acronym by now, like Mickiella or Raffamike ?





Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 20:52
Originally posted by Atavachron

Originally posted by rushfan4

Originally posted by ExittheLemming

You'll never find a tango partner on a Prog site mateyWink
Ain't that the truth.  But hey, it worked for our old friends Micky and Raff.

Ah, PA's power couple--  shouldn't they have a Hollywood acronym by now, like Mickiella or Raffamike ?





Neither absent friends or absent lovers of mine - if they breed, will they create a troll who is both sexist and feminist?
All joking aside, I still have an unresolved issue with Rushfan4's use of natural and unnatural to denote a couple's capacity to procreate (as if reproductive ability confirmed proof that so-called natural laws can only be discovered, not created ya dig y'all?)

BTW yer not half the man rushfan3 wasWink


-------------
http://s312.photobucket.com/user/exitthelemming/media/SignaturePic2.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: March 28 2013 at 21:05
Raises the question whether wild animals can be unnatural. Homosexualiy exists almost everywhere in the animal world, and just because we have the power of reflection doesn't take away from the fact that we, not so long ago, were swinging from the trees as well.
Natural or it's socalled opposite, at least on a basic human level, will always be dictated by the individual and culture. What may seem natural to Bill, possibly feels absurd to Abdi.

-------------
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.69 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2010 Web Wiz - http://www.webwiz.co.uk