but marriage is what it is. if you go about judicially re-defining marriage to be anything but one man and one woman then you don't have marriage any more, you have a civil union by another name.
but marriage is what it is. if you go about judicially re-defining marriage to be anything but one man and one woman then you don't have marriage any more, you have a civil union by another name.
You are a bigot by definition. I'm not calling you names. You man, however, be offended by truth. What does that change and how is that my problem? And of course, I'm not trying to push anything on you. I'm trying to illuminate the bigoted nature of your position so others don't fall for it. And we've already been over the fact that we live under a tyranny of the Constitution. Why do you think Bush wants to amend it to to legalize gay bigotry. He wants the freedom to practice and apply his bigotry. Because he is deluded as to what is evil, he will go out and commit the real thing. Our government is designed to protect us from the opinions of a bigoted majority. What about that don't you understand.
Try to understand that you see marriage as sacred within the limited terms that you use. Others want to be able to use sacred just like you. When legal definitions exclude people unequally and without rational reasons, the definitions become illegal under the law. If there is justice as we hope in this world that we strive for, and if we are similarly making the same kind of progress that got us to where we are, all our conservative values, than changing the definition is also a sacred duty.
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
hmmmm, that looks pretty clear to me.
Sounds like a damn good reason to educate people on how to properly use condoms.
Or perhaps you're the only one who would intuit that someone answering a poll you devised automatically assumed that "yes" to homosexual marriage meant marrying off prepubescent children
Wow, I think that's the first reasonable thing I've seen you say! Bravo on the personal progress!
again, something on your mind?
Well I suggest you take some time for deep reflection .. think about what Christ said, how He lived, and what He would have wanted you to be doing with your time on the internet. Then try and decide who it is that is really working through you when you post hateful drivel here.
im not sure if this has been covered before, but to me traditionally, the main purpose of marriage is to allow a man and a woman to have sex according to social norms. in almost all cultures, it is a socially unacceptable for a man/woman (esp. women) to have sex before they are married.
so i think that any marriage should be allowed to take place where it is legal to have sex with your marriage counterpart. should a father/daughter be allowed to marry? no, because incest is illegal. should a man/dog be allowed to marry? i'm pretty sure bestiality is illegal (or is it?). should gay men marry? i think there are still laws against sodomy in some states, i think they would have to overturn those laws first to totally legitimize their marriages (i personally dont think sodomy should be illegal
it would be like having oral sex being against the law) however, i dont think there is any type of law for lesbian sex, so they shouldnt have any problem as far as i can see.
so i think that any marriage should be allowed to take place where it is legal to have sex with your marriage counterpart. should a father/daughter be allowed to marry? no, because incest is illegal. should a man/dog be allowed to marry? i'm pretty sure bestiality is illegal (or is it?). should gay men marry? i think there are still laws against sodomy in some states, i think they would have to overturn those laws first to totally legitimize their marriages (i personally dont think sodomy should be illegal
it would be like having oral sex being against the law) however, i dont think there is any type of law for lesbian sex, so they shouldnt have any problem as far as i can see.here's one to cause some upset:
statement: It is UN-ethical to prohibit homosexual marriage.
hehe.. here goes as to why:
LMK above has stated a laundry list of downfalls to the 'homosexual lifestyle'. Among them are increased risks of cancer, suicide, increased risk of STD infection, etc.. He also states that the reasons for these things aren't clear, but the "facts are". We are supposed to draw the conclusion from these facts (susepct tho they may be) that homosexuality is ethically bankrupt and causes illness, and general bad things for humanity.
Agreed LMK ?
I suggest that the cause of these facts you are pointing out is the continued sitgmatization, fear, and misunderstanding of homosexual people. By seeing homosexual people as somehow flawed, ill, bad etc. we as a society cause a lot of the symptoms you have highlighted. How is this possible?
Homosexuality is a taboo. As such, homosexual relationships are not legitimate in the eyes of the society. The institution of marriage exists in many ways to promote committed relationships amongst people, and to legitimize their relationships in the eyes of the larger societal whole. So.. gay people cannot have legitimate relationships in the eyes of society. What does this do?
This causes them to have to make large mental and emotional leaps to in any way validate their relationships other than in their minds. When everyone around you is expecting you to fail, often you also expect yourself to fail. When everyone is telling gay people that they sleep around, have std's, and can't have relationships, guess what? They do, they get them, and they don't. Gay people aren't any different than anyone else, and that includes not being any more or less likely to make bad choices.
Let's look at your downfall list for a second. Higher rates of colorectal cancer, cervical cancer etc.. are because of infection with one of 3 strains of HPV (human pappiloma virus) which is more commonly known as genital warts. As the easiest STD to spread and contract, the rate of HPV infection in the general population is extremely high. This virus can cause displaysia, which is the pre-stage of cancer, and sometimes turn into cancer. Many, many many women have vaginal HPV infection, and so do many many gay men (penile or anal, or both). So, the cancer thing is really about an STD.
Let's talk about the reduced immune system , bleeding rectum etc issue. Many gay men do not have anal sex. It may astound you to think about it, but some gay people actually don't like it. The kicker issue here, is that penile penetration of the rectum in no way harms it most of the time. When you pass large fecal pieces, you often stretch as wide as most penises would be anyhow. Most any time there would be problems with anal sex would be from forced sex, which could cause something like an anal fissure (small tear or cut in lining of anus) which would bleed. This is about as deadly as a paper cut on your hand, and has a similar effect on your immune system.
So, let's boil down to the STD discussion. Gay people have more STD's, because... ? If you can't have legitimate relationships, and no one is recognizing your commitment to your partner, it becomes infinitely more difficult to maintain said relationship. Safe sex isn't the issue at all, because condoms don't protect you from much at all until you put them on, and in most sexual situations, there is a lot of skin to skin contact, and fluid transfer way before condoms are involved. The issue is the number of sex partners gay people may have vs other groups of people. This number on average may be higher than it is for a straight male, but it's rather hard to get any statistics that aren't flawed by reporting issues (men want to look virile, women want to look virginal, gay men don't know what they want, etc.). Let's just say it probably is.
Soo... why is it unethical to disallow gay marriage / civil union? By not recognizing and supporting healthy, committed homosexual relationships, we as a society are in many many many ways causing the symptoms that LMK points out as "facts about gay people." Sure everyone makes their own choices. When you're 16,17,18 and you are forming your framework of life, if you're gay you look out there and see lots of guys and girls sleeping around and trying to find happiness amongst a rather nasty sea of hatred. It takes a big person to be a pillar of mongamy amongst that, and when there are no laws, rules, role models etc.. to look to, how likely do you think it is that gay people will be able to make any other choice than what we expect them to?
Personal responsibility is all fine and good, but everyone requires some support at one point or another. Gay people, men and women both, don't have the luxury of societal affirmation to help them make good choices. They only have what help fair minded people have started to give them. The same can be said for lots of other minority populations.
statement: It is UN-ethical to prohibit homosexual marriage.
hehe.. here goes as to why:
LMK above has stated a laundry list of downfalls to the 'homosexual lifestyle'. Among them are increased risks of cancer, suicide, increased risk of STD infection, etc.. He also states that the reasons for these things aren't clear, but the "facts are". We are supposed to draw the conclusion from these facts (susepct tho they may be) that homosexuality is ethically bankrupt and causes illness, and general bad things for humanity.
Agreed LMK ?
I suggest that the cause of these facts you are pointing out is the continued sitgmatization, fear, and misunderstanding of homosexual people. By seeing homosexual people as somehow flawed, ill, bad etc. we as a society cause a lot of the symptoms you have highlighted. How is this possible?
Homosexuality is a taboo. As such, homosexual relationships are not legitimate in the eyes of the society. The institution of marriage exists in many ways to promote committed relationships amongst people, and to legitimize their relationships in the eyes of the larger societal whole. So.. gay people cannot have legitimate relationships in the eyes of society. What does this do?
This causes them to have to make large mental and emotional leaps to in any way validate their relationships other than in their minds. When everyone around you is expecting you to fail, often you also expect yourself to fail. When everyone is telling gay people that they sleep around, have std's, and can't have relationships, guess what? They do, they get them, and they don't. Gay people aren't any different than anyone else, and that includes not being any more or less likely to make bad choices.
Let's look at your downfall list for a second. Higher rates of colorectal cancer, cervical cancer etc.. are because of infection with one of 3 strains of HPV (human pappiloma virus) which is more commonly known as genital warts. As the easiest STD to spread and contract, the rate of HPV infection in the general population is extremely high. This virus can cause displaysia, which is the pre-stage of cancer, and sometimes turn into cancer. Many, many many women have vaginal HPV infection, and so do many many gay men (penile or anal, or both). So, the cancer thing is really about an STD.
Let's talk about the reduced immune system , bleeding rectum etc issue. Many gay men do not have anal sex. It may astound you to think about it, but some gay people actually don't like it. The kicker issue here, is that penile penetration of the rectum in no way harms it most of the time. When you pass large fecal pieces, you often stretch as wide as most penises would be anyhow. Most any time there would be problems with anal sex would be from forced sex, which could cause something like an anal fissure (small tear or cut in lining of anus) which would bleed. This is about as deadly as a paper cut on your hand, and has a similar effect on your immune system.
So, let's boil down to the STD discussion. Gay people have more STD's, because... ? If you can't have legitimate relationships, and no one is recognizing your commitment to your partner, it becomes infinitely more difficult to maintain said relationship. Safe sex isn't the issue at all, because condoms don't protect you from much at all until you put them on, and in most sexual situations, there is a lot of skin to skin contact, and fluid transfer way before condoms are involved. The issue is the number of sex partners gay people may have vs other groups of people. This number on average may be higher than it is for a straight male, but it's rather hard to get any statistics that aren't flawed by reporting issues (men want to look virile, women want to look virginal, gay men don't know what they want, etc.). Let's just say it probably is.
Soo... why is it unethical to disallow gay marriage / civil union? By not recognizing and supporting healthy, committed homosexual relationships, we as a society are in many many many ways causing the symptoms that LMK points out as "facts about gay people." Sure everyone makes their own choices. When you're 16,17,18 and you are forming your framework of life, if you're gay you look out there and see lots of guys and girls sleeping around and trying to find happiness amongst a rather nasty sea of hatred. It takes a big person to be a pillar of mongamy amongst that, and when there are no laws, rules, role models etc.. to look to, how likely do you think it is that gay people will be able to make any other choice than what we expect them to?
Personal responsibility is all fine and good, but everyone requires some support at one point or another. Gay people, men and women both, don't have the luxury of societal affirmation to help them make good choices. They only have what help fair minded people have started to give them. The same can be said for lots of other minority populations.
That's all well and good, AEnigmaWI, but in order to put any credence in what you are saying may require that one first be reasonably intelligent and have a functioning empathy. Most people are way too cool to know what it's like to be discriminated against and the psychological damage it can do. To continence such things would threaten to remind them of their past. Few people want to discover that the pain they inflict through bigotry is the same pain that was inflicted on them.
Nice post.
marriage is what it is, you can't change the definition of marriage and still say it's marriage.
but I support removal of the right to call anything 'marriage' from the state, the state should only allow various community property contracts.
I support a constitutional amendment that makes marriage definition a a matter for the various state's law-making facilities.
but we still shouldn't put a government stamp-of-approval on an un-ethical action.
, which is sad.
this is a strong argument for an ethical benefit to homosexual unions and an attempt to make a social change to encourage monogamy and chastity t'll union;
but I support removal of the right to call anything 'marriage' from the state, the state should only allow various community property contracts.
I support a constitutional amendment that makes marriage definition a a matter for the various state's law-making facilities.
I also had a list of cancers they are more likely to get that have nothing to do with having a child.
government stamps-of-approval on such things are social destructive. Such is our ethical basis of not wanting to allow said stamp.
It's part of the emotional-wellbeing question; case-studies can be used to say that any generalization is wrong; but that doesn't mean that it's the norm or even possible in most situations.
such is my call for monogamous married sex. and gay sex would transfer aids 4 times faster than heterosexual sex.
are you saying that all those people didn't actually read the poll? well, maybe you didn't, but i doubt that so many wouldn't have.
show me 1 hatefully bit of drivel.
that was actually my inference from my post, I'm hoping that 'Christians' stop their bigoted views against homosexuals and treat them the same as everyone else that's fallen to a particular sin.
but we still shouldn't put a government stamp-of-approval on an un-ethical action.
I've made this argument previously; it may be a better idea to help those that are suffering in sin to live a better life their in, but for that to be the case it'd have to be that monogamy was inferred from the marriage, and as per the leaders of GLAD "monogamy is an out-dated institution that causes the most stigma and harm to any relationship"; If the side was just "allow those that you belive to be sexually immoral to behave more-morally" i would have to do some soul-searching on the issue, but it's not
, which is sad.it's actually length, such as the depth of the final Colin is soft and only ~ 3 inches, so it tends to tear on the inside, not anus. and, of course, covered in feces.
#1.) sexual activity tendency's, but i doubt that marriage is going to change such a thing; 2.) inherently gay sex transfers blood-born deceases faster
are you making the case that if their was homosexual marriage we'd have fewer choosing to have homosexual sex, at lest t'll later in life?
this is a strong argument for an ethical benefit to homosexual unions and an attempt to make a social change to encourage monogamy and chastity t'll union;
reply:
I am not sure about the out of context quote from GLAAD, but I do know that one single gay advovacy group hardly speaks for the entire community. Besides, the reason for such sentiment is that the institutions that support heterosexual society do not function for gay people. One way to try and get around this is to create new institutions. I'm not sure it's the best way, but some people want to try.. (group relationships, etc)
The anus feeds to the rectum, which has a slight bend about 3-4" inside, then comes the colon. Last I checked, penises were fairly soft things, and if one is careful, anal sex really is not a harmful sexual practice. There isn't much chance of a penis making its way all the way to your colon. The issue with diesease transference and anal sex is that the walls of the anal mucosa and rectum are only one cell thick, as opposed to more exterior tissue which is much thicker. This thin barrier makes it easier for various viri and bacci to take hold. Assuming a degree of sterilization, anal sex is not inherently unhealthy. Oh, and about the feces covering.. your feces sits in your colon, usually far above your rectum, unless you are constipated.
Gay sex doesn't transfer disease faster.. it's just easier with anal sex. I reiterate that many gay people do not have anal sex at all.
I am making the case that if marriage amongst those of the same sex was an option, it would be a strong move toward societal support of positive, monogamous, committed gay relationships and a move away from the gay ghetto culture that has produced the level of sexual promiscuity that exists presently and has existed in the past. The attitude that gay people are by nature promiscious and without ability to commit to one another is what needs to change if we expect gay people to act otherwise.
btw LMK, I appreciate actually being able to have a discussion w/ you that doesn't involve personal insults ala people in other threads.
I am not sure about the out of context quote from GLAAD, but I do know that one single gay advovacy group hardly speaks for the entire community. Besides, the reason for such sentiment is that the institutions that support heterosexual society do not function for gay people. One way to try and get around this is to create new institutions. I'm not sure it's the best way, but some people want to try.. (group relationships, etc)
The anus feeds to the rectum, which has a slight bend about 3-4" inside, then comes the colon. Last I checked, penises were fairly soft things, and if one is careful, anal sex really is not a harmful sexual practice. There isn't much chance of a penis making its way all the way to your colon. The issue with diesease transference and anal sex is that the walls of the anal mucosa and rectum are only one cell thick, as opposed to more exterior tissue which is much thicker. This thin barrier makes it easier for various viri and bacci to take hold. Assuming a degree of sterilization, anal sex is not inherently unhealthy. Oh, and about the feces covering.. your feces sits in your colon, usually far above your rectum, unless you are constipated.
Gay sex doesn't transfer disease faster.. it's just easier with anal sex. I reiterate that many gay people do not have anal sex at all.
I am making the case that if marriage amongst those of the same sex was an option, it would be a strong move toward societal support of positive, monogamous, committed gay relationships and a move away from the gay ghetto culture that has produced the level of sexual promiscuity that exists presently and has existed in the past. The attitude that gay people are by nature promiscious and without ability to commit to one another is what needs to change if we expect gay people to act otherwise.
btw LMK, I appreciate actually being able to have a discussion w/ you that doesn't involve personal insults ala people in other threads.
Biblical verses (THE WORD OF GOD, YAY!) advocating the sanctity and tradition of mawwiage.
Like this: "Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take multiple concubines in addition to his wife or wives." (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21).
Or maybe: "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be stoned to death." (Deut 22:13-21)
Isn't that cute? Isn't quoting Bible verse fun? Ask your local pastor about that one.
Or how about: "If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law." (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10).
Hey, it's right there, in the Bible. So it must be true.
Like this: "Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take multiple concubines in addition to his wife or wives." (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21).
Or maybe: "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be stoned to death." (Deut 22:13-21)
Isn't that cute? Isn't quoting Bible verse fun? Ask your local pastor about that one.
Or how about: "If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law." (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10).
Hey, it's right there, in the Bible. So it must be true.
have you even read the 14th amendment? if so, you'll readily recognize this portion:
there you have it, from the mouth of the Constitution of the United States of America.
and now, a definition of privelege:
1. A peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all;
as taken from Dictionary.com [scroll down about a quarter of the page]
You forgot this part:
That was the crux of the SCOTUS decision in Loving v. Virginia. See my post up above.
The bigots know they are on the wrong side of justice. That is why they want to write injustice into law. It's a horrible slipery slope. What's to keep them form reinstituting slavery next. Slavery is in the bible just like homosexual hate.
ah yes, but as it stands, homosexual marriage is illegal. so, that is due process of law, and those that are circumventing the law need to to be subject to that due process. so, all in all, we, as it stands are not depriving homosexuals of anything, because according to the definition of marriage, its between one man and one woman, thus, making it a privilege.
and moonbeam, according to you, anyone who dislikes anything for any reason is a bigot, at least thats what ive been able to garner from your posts
But making same-sex marriages illegal (due process) is contradictory to equal protection. That's the reasoning behind the mayor of S.F. performing the marriages. U.S. Constitution trumps Prop 22.
but youre omitting the " right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all" part of privilege. the definition of marriage says one man and one woman. period. since marriage cannot be enjoyed by 2 men or 2 women, it is a privilege only to those of the hetero persuesion. therefore, the 14th amendment says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
get it?
abridge = To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.
To cut short; curtail.
hmmm, it would seem to me, INCLUDING a more VARYING definition of marriage would not ABRIDGE but EXPAND the privilege.
hmmm, but that would require you to redefine marriage to suit your agenda. thats what we're trying to prevent. we dont want a redefinition of marriage, we like it how it is.
it still shows you to be the idiot. the quote you used does NOT help your position. it says privileges shall not be ABRIDGED, it does NOT say privileges will not be EXPANDED.
either way a moot point as it's already been determined that marriage is considered a RIGHT and not a privilege.
also taken from dictionary.com
on abridge: to lessen; to diminish
those of us who oppose homosexual marriage feel exactly this way: that homosexual marriage lessens, cheapens, and diminishes the meaning and the actual institution of marriage.
what we need to be doing is keeping the activist judges from legislating and social engineering, not helping it along. we also need to reign in unruly and unlawful attempts to promote this silly and sad movement.
good one.
too bad it's irrelevant.
the wording as YOU quoted it says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
abridge here isn't referring to peoples PERCEPTION of that privilege it's referring to reducing PRIVILEGES of the citizens.
you lie, you cheat, you misquote, you warp truth.
and you claim to do ALL this in the name of GOD??
no wonder so many people hate the idea of God around here.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter