# Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions



## Gahars (Jun 26, 2013)

The Supreme Court has been considering several cases surrounding the controversial topic of gay marriage. Today, after much deliberation, the court has released its rulings on the cases.



> The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.


  Huffington Post

The Supreme Court has also ruled on Proposition 8, the measure in California banning gay marriage in the state. While the court sidestepped ruling on the issue of gay marriage nationwide, it seems to have referred to a lower court's finding, meaning that gay marriage would be legal once more in California. Of course, the decision is still being scoured and analyzed, so there may be something we're missing at the moment.








Homosexuals must feel pretty gay right now.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 26, 2013)

DAMN GOOD NEWS!
It's about time some true progress started happening to this country! Now let's hope we keep going with this progress and don't step back from it.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jun 26, 2013)

semi-related google easter egg.


----------



## BORTZ (Jun 26, 2013)

Unrelated kinda, but still good news, apparently, the DOW closed at +100 points and the NASDAQ was up 46 something yesterday... interesting.


----------



## Flame (Jun 26, 2013)

welcome to the 21st century America.


----------



## dickfour (Jun 26, 2013)

You can put a sign on a cow that says horse but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cow. So called gay marriage isn't the same and it isn't equal. The purpose of marriage for the past 20,000 years has been the perpetuation of the race. Period. On the bright side states still have the right to define marriage and 38 have defined that between a man and a woman


----------



## EzekielRage (Jun 26, 2013)

Somebody REALLY has to get some history facts right... Pretty much EVERYTHING you said there is just wrong... Except the cow part...


----------



## emigre (Jun 26, 2013)

dickfour said:


> You can put a sign on a cow that says horse but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cow. So called gay marriage isn't the same and it isn't equal. The purpose of marriage for the past 20,000 years has been the perpetuation of the race. Period. On the bright side states still have the right to define marriage and 38 have defined that between a man and a woman


 

We get it you're a homophobic shit.


----------



## weiff (Jun 26, 2013)

I will probably get some flak for my opinion, but I am sick of groups wanting special treatment for being _different_ then complaining when we do not treat them the _same_ as every other group. This is not specifically about sex, gender, capability, race, etc.

You, whoever you are, whatever you choose to be, *BE THAT.* If that excludes you from certain rights, then that is what happens. If you want those rights, you change so that you get them... not whine and complain until everyone else says you can have it both ways.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 27, 2013)

Aren't these debates ever so exciting and wholesome?


----------



## emigre (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I will probably get some flak for my opinion, but I am sick of groups wanting special treatment for being _different_ then complaining when we do not treat them the _same_ as every other group. This is not specifically about sex, gender, capability, race, etc.
> 
> You, whoever you are, whatever you choose to be, *BE THAT.* If that excludes you from certain rights, then that is what happens. If you want those rights, you change so that you get them... not whine and complain until everyone else says you can have it both ways.


 

I don't think people choose who they fall in love with.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Jun 27, 2013)

Meanwhile we have politician saying,


> Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted. That is something that God will define. The Supreme Court, though they may think so, have not risen to the level of God.


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/michele-bachmann-doma_n_3504640.html

As an American, I'm ashamed on what our politician is saying.


----------



## jonesman99 (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I will probably get some flak for my opinion, but I am sick of groups wanting special treatment for being _different_ then complaining when we do not treat them the _same_ as every other group. This is not specifically about sex, gender, capability, race, etc.
> 
> You, whoever you are, whatever you choose to be, *BE THAT.* If that excludes you from certain rights, then that is what happens. If you want those rights, you change so that you get them... not whine and complain until everyone else says you can have it both ways.


Then how about this, you go down to Africa and give this same speech to the hundreds or thousands of people who are forced to live life a lie because there are no laws at least giving them the right to be human beings, as they would be brutally executed publicly in broad daylight, or even denied medication as they still see HIV and AIDS as a homosexual disease or virus.

This is a good thing in terms of civil rights and human rights, at least for Americans in California. Not coming at you, just wanted to point that out.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I will probably get some flak for my opinion, but I am sick of groups wanting special treatment for being _different_ then complaining when we do not treat them the _same_ as every other group. This is not specifically about sex, gender, capability, race, etc.
> 
> You, whoever you are, whatever you choose to be, *BE THAT.* If that excludes you from certain rights, then that is what happens. If you want those rights, you change so that you get them... not whine and complain until everyone else says you can have it both ways.


But this is not about getting special rights, it's about getting the same rights as everyone and being treated as equals.


----------



## weiff (Jun 27, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> But this is not about getting special rights, it's about getting the same rights as everyone and being treated as equals.


 
How is it not?

They have chosen to have a relationship that is _different_ from the written law... and now they want the _same_ rights as that law.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 27, 2013)

The Lord knows I am not without sin but:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

So yea you guys be happy about it.

May you all be forgiven.

Jesus brought with him a new covenent, so truthfully should probably just pray for them. Don't go killing ppl because of me.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> How is it not?
> 
> They have chosen to have a relationship that is _different_ from the written law... and now they want the _same_ rights as that law.


Special treatment isn't overturning an unfair law. If it is, then man, the black Americans back in the 60's should have stopped fighting for those civil rights. Why did they deserve that special treatment? I mean, the _law_ was that they didn't have those rights. What made them think they were so special?

Yeah, that's pretty much what you sound like right now.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> How is it not?They have chosen to have a relationship that is different from the written law... and now they want the *same rights* as that law.



O rly? That's how it is not.


Did someone say interracial marriage? Anyone? Yeah, laws do change.



Ericthegreat said:


> The Lord knows I am not without sin but:"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)So yea you guys be happy about it.May you all be forgiven.



While the bible may hold some guidance, it has been changed, translated, and reinterpreted some many times, over so many years.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 27, 2013)

dickfour said:


> You can put a sign on a cow that says horse but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cow. So called gay marriage isn't the same and it isn't equal. The purpose of marriage for the past 20,000 years has been the perpetuation of the race. Period. On the bright side states still have the right to define marriage and 38 have defined that between a man and a woman


 
Not for much longer they won't....I give it a decade before Mormons are marrying the same sex in Utah.


----------



## redact (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I will probably get some flak for my opinion, but I am sick of groups wanting special treatment for being _different_ then complaining when we do not treat them the _same_ as every other group. This is not specifically about sex, gender, capability, race, etc.
> 
> You, whoever you are, whatever you choose to be, *BE THAT.* If that excludes you from certain rights, then that is what happens. If you want those rights, you change so that you get them... not whine and complain until everyone else says you can have it both ways.


  Change who you are to be allowed the same basic rights and treatments as everyone else?


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 27, 2013)

dickfour said:


> You can put a sign on a cow that says horse but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cow. So called gay marriage isn't the same and it isn't equal. The purpose of marriage for the past 20,000 years has been the perpetuation of the race. Period. On the bright side states still have the right to define marriage and 38 have defined that between a man and a woman


 

Doesn't change the fact that these couples are still upstanding citizens and due to the fact that they can't procreate, they adopt foster children, saving them from a worse childhood and giving them a better future.  And you know what? I'm sure that allowing homosexual marriage will save more money in the long run than cost due to that simple fact.  Screw morals, economics is the way to look at it, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a jackpot we need to exploit.

But hey, that's just my opinion.  Nothing is gonna stop them from trying to procreate anyway.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> How is it not?
> 
> They have chosen to have a relationship that is _different_ from the written law... and now they want the _same_ rights as that law.


 
You do realize you are opening Pandora's Box when saying that....


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 27, 2013)

smile72 said:


> You do realize you are opening Pandora's Box when saying that....


 
Pretty sure it was already opened when this thread was created. These discussions never end well.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> The Lord knows I am not without sin but:
> 
> "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
> 
> ...


The Bible also forbids eating and touching pork and shellfish, mixing fabric,  tattoos, and working on Sunday. All within the same section. If you are going to follow one part of the Bible, you need to follow the rest as well, not just the parts easiest to you. 
Not mention the Bible's word is not law and should never be used as law. As well not everyone follows it, meaning it does not effect them and it shouldn't.  Please don't use your book as a reason to not give people their civil rights.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 27, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Don't post something blatantly offensive and ignorant, and you won't have to hide.


 
I agree!


----------



## pubert09 (Jun 27, 2013)

Fair is fair. I would hate to be denied something because my lifestyle was different.

Can't wait to hear Fred Phelps' thoughts...


----------



## omgpwn666 (Jun 27, 2013)

Deleted


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 27, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> The Bible also forbids eating and touching pork and shellfish, mixing fabric, tattoos, and working on Sunday. All within the same section. If you are going to follow one part of the Bible, you need to follow the rest as well, not just the parts easiest to you.
> Not mention the Bible's word is not law and should never be used as law. As well not everyone follows it, meaning it does not effect them and it shouldn't. Please don't use your book as a reason to not give people their civil rights.


All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven. And if I am not mistaken we are "One nation under God"

All of you should read the Bible, it is not what you probably think it is, it is quite exciting.

And the Bible not being used as law is only your own opinion is it not?


----------



## chyyran (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven. And if I am not mistaken we are "One nation under God"
> 
> All of you should read the Bible, it is not what you probably think it is, it is quite exciting.


 
And I'm agnostic. Who's word should I follow?

Besides, that "one nation under god" thing discriminates against people who don't believe in the Judeochristian god. I for one welcome the day where the US actually has full separation of church and state.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 27, 2013)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> procreate anyway.


If you mean this, I'm not sure if I can be 100% behind that.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven. And if I am not mistaken we are "One nation under God"
> 
> All of you should read the Bible, it is not what you probably think it is, it is quite exciting.
> 
> And the Bible not being used as law is only your own opinion is it not?


Realizing that the US promotes a separation of church and state should hopefully help to clear up the idea of the Bible, or any holy text, being seen as law within the confines of this country. Ironically, the ones that push our constitution and the values of this country the most defy them consistently by trying to bring religion into a system that claims to remove itself from it.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven. And if I am not mistaken we are "One nation under God" *It's part of the Old Testament, a part Jesus said not follow. "One Nation under God" was actually added in the 1950's as an anti-Communism part because they believed Communists were Atheist. But it was never actually part of anything (money or the pledge) before the 1950's.*
> 
> All of you should read the Bible, it is not what you probably think it is, it is quite exciting. *I have read the Bible, several times, that's why I am an Atheist.*
> 
> And the Bible not being used as law is only your own opinion is it not? *It's not just my opinion, it's part of the US Constitution actually and part of the founding of the US. The Government can not favor one religion over another, it's unconstitutional.*


----------



## EzekielRage (Jun 27, 2013)

I support the following notion:


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 27, 2013)

1. Yes but the Jews do still follow it(I suppose, supposed too). As I said I am Catholic.
2. Yes the "godless communist" (Yet China is ok lol) (Also money says and our motto is "In God We trust" added for the same reason. Yet it could have been something else, could it not?.)
3. Thomas Jefferson blah blah blah wall of separation blah blah blah. Feel as you like about it.


----------



## evandixon (Jun 27, 2013)

Separation of Church and state?
Interesting that's an issue marriage is a religious term describing a union between a man and woman.  A term that shouldn't be redefined.

But coming up with perhaps a Civil Union is fine.  Same legal benefits as marriage, without associating it with something unnatural (as the Bible refers to it).


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> 1. Yes but the Jews do still follow it(I suppose, supposed too). As I said I am Catholic. *Then you shouldn't be pushing it, plain and simple.*
> 2. Yes the "godless communist" (Yet China is ok lol) (Also money says and our motto is "In God We trust" added for the same reason. Yet it could have been something else, could it not?.) *Nope, it was purely added to insult Communist, that was the only reason it was added and it's only there because no one feels like removing it.*
> 3. Thomas Jefferson blah blah blah wall of separation blah blah blah. Feel as you like about it. *T**his really isn't a debate, it's part of the Constitution. We all have the Freedom of religion, which also means freedom from religion if we feel it so. Religion should have no power over the US government and if it does, then that member is unfit to do their job.*





UniqueGeek said:


> Separation of Church and state?
> Interesting that's an issue marriage is a religious term describing a union between a man and woman. A term that shouldn't be redefined. *Marriage isn't just a Christian thing and even predates the Church. It was part of several cultures long before the Church, who actually did take part in Same-sex marriages. Churches don't have to take part in this, no one is forcing them to do so. By the way, the fact that you can't sell your daughter for 3 goats shows that marriage has already been "redefined."*


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 27, 2013)

Plain and simple. those government dickheads shouldn't decide for other people what's acceptable and unacceptable. They can't choose for us what's right and wrong.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 27, 2013)

UniqueGeek said:


> Separation of Church and state?
> Interesting that's an issue marriage is a religious term describing a union between a man and woman. A term that shouldn't be redefined.
> 
> But coming up with perhaps a Civil Union is fine. Same legal benefits as marriage, without associating it with something unnatural (as the Bible refers to it).


As soon as government decided to interact with marriage, it stopped being a purely religious practice. We are not in a theocracy. Government involvement has turned marriage into more of a legal contract than anything else. It's why you can be married by the state in an entirely non-religious ceremony.

Oh, and if you read up on Wikipedia under "marriage", when broken down, marriage in itself, from a common, anthropological perspective, completely non-religious. The involvement of religion is nothing but personal preference. Ultimately, it's just the main word for a legally recognized union.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 27, 2013)

1. Yes but I can due to freedom of speech and my own opinion.

2. orly?:
"In 2006, on the 50th anniversary of its adoption, the Senate reaffirmed "In God we trust" as the official national motto of the United States of America.[18] In 2011 the House of Representatives passed an additional resolution reaffirming "In God we trust" as the official motto of the United States, in a 396-9 vote.[19][20] According to a 2003 joint poll by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup, 90% of Americans support the inscription "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins.[21]"

3. Yet it always comes up regarding things like Marriage, abortion, death sentencing ect?


----------



## weiff (Jun 27, 2013)

Alright, let see if I can explain my position a little clearer...

I am not against marriage of same sex couples, could honestly care less~
For whoever said marriage = happiness is far deluded.
What I am saying is, if they want to be married they do not get the same benefits as a standard married couple. I have several homosexual friends who only want to be married for the tax break and hospital visitation rights, otherwise they could care less about some magical God sanctified "union". If you want what is fair you fight for what you want, not to be lumped in with everyone else.

If homosexual marriage where a legit argument, they would be vying for a concession not an acceptance. They need a law that covers them and IS SEPARATE from the pre-existing law, but no one seems to look at it that way. They all cry "unfair" and expect everyone to bend to knee and egress.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 27, 2013)

Having political/religious discussions on the internet = creating hatred, animosity and grudges for over 20 years!


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> 2. orly?:
> "In 2006, on the 50th anniversary of its adoption, the Senate reaffirmed "In God we trust" as the official national motto of the United States of America.[18] In 2011 the House of Representatives passed an additional resolution reaffirming "In God we trust" as the official motto of the United States, in a 396-9 vote.[19][20] According to a 2003 joint poll by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup, 90% of Americans support the inscription "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins.[21]"


That doesn't change that "God" in itself is very ambigious. If they choose to specify the Judeo-Christian God, that means that although we grant freedom of religion, we are pushing a specific religion onto the people. If we start basing our laws and practices around this statement, we will turn into a theocracy. Theoretically, following the much older definition of a country that grants separation of church and state, "In God we trust" should be entirely irrelevant when looked at as anything but a morale booster. Our government can not be based on religion and still claim separation of church and state. Although a key political skill is hypocrisy, you can't use tactics when defining a whole country.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> 1. Yes but I can due to freedom of speech and my own opinion. *Indeed we have freedom of speech as well*
> 
> 2. orly?:
> "In 2006, on the 50th anniversary of its adoption, the Senate reaffirmed "In God we trust" as the official national motto of the United States of America.[18] In 2011 the House of Representatives passed an additional resolution reaffirming "In God we trust" as the official motto of the United States, in a 396-9 vote.[19][20] According to a 2003 joint poll by USA Today, CNN, and Gallup, 90% of Americans support the inscription "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins.[21]" *It doesn't change the constitution.*
> ...


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 27, 2013)

Yes it doesn't change the constitution, I'm just trying to prove that the Bible does affect laws of the United States. Even if it isn't supposed too.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> Alright, let see if I can explain my position a little clearer...
> I am not against marriage of same sex couples, could honestly care less~For whoever said marriage = happiness is far deluded.What I am saying is, if they want to be married they do not get the same benefits as a standard married couple. I have several homosexual friends who only want to be married for the tax break and hospital visitation rights, otherwise they could care less about some magical God sanctified "union". If you want what is fair you fight for want, not to be lumped in with everyone else.
> If homosexual marriage where a legit argument, they would be vying for a concession not an acceptance. They need a law that covers them and IS SEPARATE than the pre-existing law, but no one seems to look at it that way. They all cry "unfair" and expect everyone to bend to knee and egress.



Actually, you are just making it worst, considering that it just doesn't make sense. 

So what? Heterosexual couples can do the same thing.

Separate, but equal is not equal, period.


----------



## macmanhigh (Jun 27, 2013)




----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Yes it doesn't change the constitution, I'm just trying to prove that the Bible does affect laws of the United States. Even if it isn't supposed too.


 
Yes some laws seem to be based on the Bible (some try to pretend they don't and some flat out admit they do.) But a lot of those laws that are based on the Bible are often State law and not actually federal law. And sadly yes the Bible does effect America, should it? No obliviously. But today's ruling does show that some Bible based federal laws are finally being looked at and shot down, which only shows that the Bible is losing some grounds in law making.


----------



## weiff (Jun 27, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> Actually, you are just making it worst, considering that it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> So what? Heterosexual couples can do the same thing.
> 
> Separate, but equal is not equal, period.


 
The key being that they cannot be the same and equal, because one group is clearly not the same as the other... one is different. So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> The key being that they cannot be the same and equal, because one group is clearly not the same as the other... one is different. So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.


Except making separate laws for just for the sake of making separate laws, holds no equivalency, whatsoever.

You haven't presented any good reason for making separate laws.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> The key being that they cannot be the same and equal, because one group is clearly not the same as the other... one is different. So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.


 
So just apply the same argument from 60 years ago and call it a day? You realize that we are actually the same as everyone right, we just love someone of the same sex. If that's a good enough reason to treat us like something different, then you need to take a good long look at yourself and realize just how stupid you really sound.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> So separate and equal is the only level of equivalency here.


 

>Advocating for "Separate but equal"
>2013

Stay classy.


----------



## weiff (Jun 27, 2013)

I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 27, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> The Bible also forbids eating and touching pork and shellfish, mixing fabric, tattoos, and working on Sunday. All within the same section. If you are going to follow one part of the Bible, you need to follow the rest as well, not just the parts easiest to you.
> Not mention the Bible's word is not law and should never be used as law. As well not everyone follows it, meaning it does not effect them and it shouldn't. Please don't use your book as a reason to not give people their civil rights.


 
I fucking love you for retorting with that, Catboy. 



Ericthegreat said:


> All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven. And if I am not mistaken we are "One nation under God"
> 
> All of you should read the Bible, it is not what you probably think it is, it is quite exciting.
> 
> And the Bible not being used as law is only your own opinion is it not?


I don't believe in your god. I don't believe in your lord. I don't believe in any supernatural, fictional or otherwise, religious being. Who's word should I follow? I'm going to follow the moralistic high ground and go with the word of my own, and apply that solely to myself, and not others, because the word I live my life by does not, nor should it, dictate the lives of others in an unjust or unfair manner unless they should choose to follow it by their own free will, at which point they are free to join me in the beliefs I have set forth for myself.
What about the other people that might not believe in your god? Are they allowed freedom of religion, expression, and human rights, or are you oppressively forcing your "superior" god upon other people who may not be willing to accept him into your lifestyle?
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/

This is very relevant. Everyone should give this a quick read.





weiff said:


> I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.


 
Who is being protected, I might ask?


----------



## smile72 (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.


 
Again separate but equal....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------



## Gahars (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.


 
"I'm not saying 'Separate but equal' exactly, but I sure am thinking it loudly."

Or, just, you know, we could adapt the current legislation and regulations to fit the modern day as we've always done.

Did we have to create entirely new systems of voting when the 19th Amendment was passed and women were finally allowed to vote nationwide? Or redefine how marriage was performed for interracial unions? Both of these changes defied historical precedence, but they didn't require new systems to be constructed - the existing systems just became more inclusive. Why should this be any different?

Your understanding of law is weak, at best.


----------



## weiff (Jun 27, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Who is being protected, I might ask?


 
Both groups would be protected by laws that are tailored to their specific wants and needs. Anyone choosing to violate those laws should be penalized appropriately.

I am sorry, but separate but equal leads you to bigger issues... how long before children revolt for adult rights? They are human, they deserve to be equal? What is to prevent this from spiraling further into chaos? I am alive, live in a state, pay taxes, I should be able to veto bills that go into congress... I want to equal to my politician "representative." Equality created separation, you cannot define a term using itself as a merit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

If everything is same there is no point to laws at all.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> Both groups would be protected by laws that are tailored to their specific wants and needs. Anyone choosing to violate those laws should be penalized appropriately.
> 
> I am sorry, but separate but equal leads you to bigger issues... how long before children revolt for adult rights? They are human, they deserve to be equal? What is to prevent this from spiraling further into chaos? I am alive, live in a state, pay taxes, I should be able to veto bills that go into congress... I want to equal to my politician "representative." Equality created separation, you cannot define a term using itself as a merit.
> 
> ...


 
Ah so there should be a different form of marriage for non whites. And a different form of marriage for interracial couples makes total sense. Go read my previous post. Click on the fourteenth amendment. READ IT ALL! Then come back and discuss.

Edit: It is impossible for you to do that we live in a republic where we elect representatives to represent the opinions of our districts or states in Congress...it's a pain in the ass for 535 people, think of how much worse it would be with 300 million plus.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I am not for segregation, I am not for separate but equal. I am for tackling the legitimate issue with government, they think fixing a problem is to just let everyone in on the PRE-existing laws, instead of doing things the way they used to be done and create laws that apply properly to people they are meant to represent and protect.



There's not much to change, such as ownership.

There are edits and revisions, no need for completely separate set of laws.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 27, 2013)

So I am going to break your post into bullets.



weiff said:


> Both groups would be protected by laws that are tailored to their specific wants and needs.
> Anyone choosing to violate those laws should be penalized appropriately.
> I am sorry, but separate but equal leads you to bigger issues... how long before children revolt for adult rights?
> 
> ...


 

-Protected from what? Heterosexuals being gay and homosexuals being straight? Seeing each other in public? Straights want to get married. Gays want to get married.
-As they are

-Yes, children are human, and do deserve to be equal. Let's think of child labor laws - they ARE protected against unfair labor and being taken advantage of, both of which could cause physical and mental harm to them because they do not lack the strength nor mental maturity to handle the tasks set upon adults. Otherwise, they have the same human rights as you, me, and your grandma.

-As are gays
-As are gays
-As do gays
-As should gays
-As do gays


Where's the problem exactly?


----------



## weiff (Jun 27, 2013)

I am not too big to admit my view has faults. You have pushed me to the line where you have valid points.  I agree with KingVamp, there is not need for a full law differentiation. An edit to the current law could be made to encompass the new form of union... however I can tell you right now, that it will only generate more complaints down the line.

To Sicklyboy, as stated earlier... I have no issue with homosexuals wanting rights or being considered equal. I just want them to be protected from the hate mongering that will continue to exist once they get lumped into a badly formed, multiply edited, poorly worded law. There needs to be a concession made properly to protect them efficiently. I do not believe this is the way to accomplish it.


----------



## totalnoob617 (Jun 27, 2013)

BortzANATOR said:


> Unrelated kinda, but still good news, apparently, the DOW closed at +100 points and the NASDAQ was up 46 something yesterday... interesting.


 
thats not good news, fuck those parasites on wall st.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> I can tell you right now, that it will only generate more complaints down the line.


 
And if you go to the right places, people still complain that black Americans are actually treated as human beings. That's no reason to retreat from what's right.



weiff said:


> To Sicklyboy, as stated earlier... I have no issue with homosexuals wanting rights or being considered equal. I just want them to be protected from the hate mongering that will continue to exist once they get lumped into a badly formed, multiply edited, poorly worded law. There needs to be a concession made properly to protect them efficiently. I do not believe this is the way to accomplish it.


 

Protected from what, exactly? Being able to marry? You still haven't answered this question.

Just expanding the definition of marriage (making a marriage a legal union between two consenting adults regardless of gender) won't make it unworkable. Why are under the impression that it would become badly formed or poorly worded? And how would this put anyone, of any sexual orientation, in danger?

Are you thinking of hate crimes? Because, a) hate crime legislation is something else entirely, and b) gays and lesbians (and beyond) are already protected under that legislation. What will this ruling change about that?


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jun 27, 2013)

I'm all for civil unions. I just wish it were worded like that, civil union, instead of marriage. There is nothing religious about a civil union. There is, however, something religious about being married in Holy Matrimony. It seems that there is to be separation of religion from state, but in this case the state allows for it's laws to intercede into religion. 

People have long debated whether or not marriage was created by religion. If you believe religious texts, the first union ever between humans was man and was designed by God. Other than that we know Sumerians had brutal marriage laws dating back 5,000 years. Rome has somewhat more lenient marriage laws. The Judeo/Christian religious ceremony is the current oldest surviving system of laws regarding marriage practiced. How far that dates back depends on your beliefs. One thing all marriage laws have in common up until this point is that they were all designed for man and woman. 

It makes me no difference if two people want to be legally recognized in a civil union. But let's be real here, more people are doing this to pursue benefits, rather than equality. I hate when people compare this to events such as the civil rights movement. Back then people were getting beat by police, attacked by dogs, sprayed with water hoses, lynched, hung, burned alive, falsely convicted of crimes, not allowed to frequent white establishments, forced to sit in the back of buses, not allowed to vote, denied employment and equal pay opportunities, as well as various other human rights. Which of those basic human rights are currently not afforded to gay people? And yes, they have the same right to marry the opposite sex as every else does. 

In the end, I think if somebody wants to be with somebody of the same sex, then it is their God given choice. It's not my place to judge nor condemn them, even if I disagree with it. My God tells me to love everybody equally...and I do. I also think that while a religiously separated legally established civil union should be the choice of the government and the people that it should be kept separated from being a religious ceremony of Holy Matrimony as entered in by a man and woman. It is a mockery to practice the ceremony of a religion that explicitly states it is immoral. 

I also don't think people should be forced to accept this as moral. I know that while I will teach my children to treat everybody with equal respect, I will not be teaching them that homosexuality is moral. As long as that is not forced on me then I'm fine.

I remember there was a local expo event that went on annually for years where people would rent a lot. Some of those lots were for fun and games, educational purposes, promote businesses, raise awareness, and some were religious. What happened is that some atheists protested that since the lots were city property and rented by the city that the laws of separation of church and state prevented the city from renting to religious organizations. The atheists won the battle. It was weird seeing as something like only 1.5% of the population was offended by it. But, the laws the law so it wasn't allowed. The following year those same atheists rented that same lot and promoted atheism. They also posted an advertisement on a city owned billboard that promoted atheism even though they had also previously and successfully campaigned to keep religious organizations from renting those as well. I feel that they are within their rights to that is very hypocritical. The same way I feel that forcing people to accept something they don't agree with, such as gay marriage, is hypocritical. 

I don't hate or treat gay people any differently than I do any person of heterosexual preference. Yet, because I don't agree with it, myself among many others, are labeled as bigots, homophobes, hate mongers, and various other derogatory terms, even though I have expressed no malice towards anybody with opposing beliefs. Where's the equality in me being labeled for having different beliefs?


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 27, 2013)

Bobbybangin said:


> I'm all for civil unions. I just wish it were worded like that, civil union, instead of marriage. There is nothing religious about a civil union. *There is, however, something religious about being married in Holy Matrimony.*[...]


 

Stop it right there, I'm not even reading further.

Marriage IS NOT Holy Matrimony.

Holy Matrimony is a type of marriage. Marriage is a much broader term.



			
				Merriam Webster Online Dictionary said:
			
		

> Definition of MARRIAGE
> 
> 1 -a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
> (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
> ...


 
What do you have to say to that?

Edit - Two men or two women getting married in a non-religious environment (since most churches and other religious institutions won't marry two members of the same sex) is as holy as a man and a woman being legally married in a non-religious environment. Do you have a problem with a man and a woman being married in such a fashion?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 27, 2013)

While we are at it,let's throw some Polyamory/Polygamy into the mix.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jun 27, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> While we are at it,let's throw some Polyamory/Polygamy into the mix.


 

Sure, why the hell not? Not that it would make a difference bringing up other topics at this rate....


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 27, 2013)

I adore how this entire thread is just bickering on morals and states nothing about the objective impact this would have on society.  Hey guys, good job arguing about semantics!

It's 4 am for me, so I'm going to go to bed, I hope to wake up to some more overly stated opinions about this, or to a locked thread, either should make for good breakfast amusement.  Please don't let me down or stop you.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 27, 2013)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> I adore how this entire thread is just bickering on morals and states nothing about the objective impact this would have on society. Hey guys, good job arguing about semantics!
> 
> It's 4 am for me, so I'm going to go to bed, I hope to wake up to some more overly stated opinions about this, or to a locked thread, either should make for good breakfast amusement. Please don't let me down or stop you.


What objective impact on society? It isn't as if gay individuals haven't been a part of our society forever now. Hell, they're more openly gay now than ever before _because_ society has come to accept that homosexuality is just gonna exist on a large scale, regardless of their views on it, so they may as well get used to it. It's like I'm sure people were expecting a large scale societal impact that would have lasting repercussions for decades to come from black civil rights finally coming to be, or when women's suffrage was finally passed, and yet, in the end, there was resistance at first, but people came to accept it. Now, here we are, 2013, and the idea of women not voting or people of a different race having less rights than another is considered sexism and racism (respectively) by all except a very select few. I'd imagine that by 2063, gay marriage will be so ridiculously standard, future generations won't understand why the hell there was so much bickering over something so basic.

As for marriage, the only part of society this will "impact" is those that let it impact them. Otherwise, this is ultimately a decision that will be of little consequence to anybody that isn't gay except for those that see it as their life goal to steal the rights of others in one way or another. Ultimately, the only reason gay marriage was held back like this for so long was because of religious conservatives preaching that it was sinful and against the Judeo-Christian God. Thinking anything else would actually be ignorant of the obvious evidence placed out before us year after year, debate after debate.

Now, if I missed your point, feel free to make it when you wake up, but really, I don't know what point you were trying to make. I haven't seen any argument in here that won't come up in actual debates about this issue in the coming weeks from conservative thinkers. We've already established what marriage is, so that, realistically, this decision should have no actual impact on society at large, but rather just gay couples. If you're expecting us to talk about how society will crumble at the foundations from this decision, well, you're clearly lacking an actual understanding of the base of this issue as a whole, the significance of this specific decision, and how this country has dealt with civil rights issues of every sort time after time.


----------



## pyromaniac123 (Jun 27, 2013)

Everyday you guys carry on with this thread, I kill a puppy with a hammer.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 27, 2013)

pyromaniac123 said:


> Everyday you guys carry on with this thread, I kill a puppy with a hammer.


This thread is actually going decently though. It hasn't devolved into basically a shouting match, most people have been fairly civil in their criticisms of others, and it hasn't gained page after page of essentially insults. I'd say it's one of the better debate threads we've had on here to date.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 27, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Ultimately, the only reason gay marriage was held back like this for so long was because of religious conservatives preaching that it was sinful and against the Judeo-Christian God. Thinking anything else would actually be ignorant of the obvious evidence placed out before us year after year, debate after debate.


I would like to point out that they are nonreligious (not just fundamental christians) people who are against it too.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 27, 2013)

weiff said:


> How is it not?
> 
> They have chosen to have a relationship that is _different_ from the written law... and now they want the _same_ rights as that law.


 
It's not a chosen lifestyle, it's something completely out of our control. But even if it were chosen, why should it matter to you or anyone other than ourselves? That would be like trying to make it against the law to buy a Tuna salad for launch because it's not your choice in lunch.
And it's not different from written law, as I said before, The Bible is not law, thus should hold no power in law.
Homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals. We eat, breathe, shower, play video games, drink water, sleep, use cellphones, watch tv, go to the movies, walk, drive cars, pay taxes, have jobs, go to school, raise pets, ect ect, just like every other person on this plant. The only difference between us is who we come home to in the end of the day. And if you feel that's a good enough reason to separate us, then refer to my previous statement.


The Catboy said:


> So just apply the same argument from 60 years ago and call it a day? You realize that we are actually the same as everyone right, we just love someone of the same sex. If that's a good enough reason to treat us like something different, then you need to take a good long look at yourself and realize just how stupid you really sound.


----------



## Flame (Jun 27, 2013)

its a genetic thing to be gay(which is FACT, dont give me B.S.). But the holy books say not to be gay. so why did god make people with gay genetics? answer that religious people.


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jun 27, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Stop it right there, I'm not even reading further.
> 
> What do you have to say to that?


 
I had more to say about it but, as stated, you didn't read it. You also just gave us a dictionary's more modern term for marriage...I guess if you had read more you would see that it would have covered that as well. Awesome.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 28, 2013)

Flame said:


> its a genetic thing to be gay(which is FACT, dont give me B.S.). But the holy books say not to be gay. so why did god make people with gay genetics? answer that religious people.


God likes to test people. He makes men who wanna be with little girls, yet we all agree that even tho they desire this that it is wrong, in the same way he makes men who want it in the ass to test them. The bible never mentions "kill all men who look at other men and get hard" it says to kill men who sleep with other men. And when the bible says "sleep with" it almost certainly is referring to sex.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 28, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> [snip]



Did you genuinely just compare homosexuality to paedophilia?


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 28, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Did you genuinely just compare homosexuality to paedophilia?


It works with any sexual taboo that people dont like.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 28, 2013)

Yeah the trouble is neither homosexuality nor paedophilia is a taboo.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 28, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Yeah the trouble is neither homosexuality nor paedophilia is a taboo.


Could you educate me on this? I suppose switch the word taboo with the words "looked down upon" if that makes you happy.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 28, 2013)

Homosexuality is quite acceptable in the nicer parts of the world and thus does not really count as taboo. Those that look down upon it are usually considered cretins in the same way that those that look down upon learning things and figuring out how things work are.

paedophilia is damaging on quite a few levels and not just "something most do not bring up in polite conversation".

Also


the_randomizer said:


> Plain and simple. those government dickheads shouldn't decide for other people what's acceptable and unacceptable. They can't choose for us what's right and wrong.



I thought we covered this before -- the government of anywhere has two jobs, it breaks down many more times and overlaps in many places but still two jobs
1) Public works/doing things that private enterprise might not consider profitable but would improve that quality of life for those governed.
2) Make new laws, interpret laws, tweak existing laws as the need arises and enforce said laws. Otherwise known as decide upon, encode and enforce baseline morality.

Now the better systems of doing this will consult with the people being governed where it is applicable but the fact remains it is their job.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 28, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Homosexuality is quite acceptable in the nicer parts of the world and thus does not really count as taboo. Those that look down upon it are usually considered cretins in the same way that those that look down upon learning things and figuring out how things work are.
> 
> paedophilia is damaging on quite a few levels and not just "something most do not bring up in polite conversation".
> 
> ...


There are also parts of the world where homosexuals are killed/imprisoned. And in general I must say that sodomy is looked down upon. Also do not forget that my post was a responce to another, and the wording I choose I personally feel gets the word across best.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 28, 2013)

And those parts of the world have a rather large wealth distribution gap/poverty level, a questionable human rights record at best, sub par medicine, economic systems and infrastructure and are generally not places where a lot of people would ideally choose to live if such things are deciding factors in wanting to live somewhere.

"sodomy is looked down upon"... "some will, some won't, I might" is definitely in effect but looked down upon might be a stretch.

Getting the point across. By all means consider wording carefully up to and including word choice for greatest impact, however part of that is typically how it looks to others reading (it need not be out of context but within the context of the greater discussion).


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 28, 2013)

So, no response,Ericthegreat?





> Ericthegreat said:
> 
> 
> > The Lord knows I am not without sin but:"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)So yea you guys be happy about it.May you all be forgiven.
> ...


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 28, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> So, no response,Ericthegreat?


What do you want me to respond to? It is true the Bible has been translated and revised many times for a more literal translation that we can understand in this day and age. But I think most would agree it isn't like the translation is that far off. Even tho Latin is a dead language there are those that still study it. Now I am going to bed, it isn't that I have "no responce". And I still say that sodomy is looked down upon lol. Just ask some random people how they feel about it and see what responce you get. Many people seem to forget that homosexuality and sodomy are linked.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 28, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> It works with any sexual taboo that people dont like.


 
Except homosexuality refers to intercourse/relationships between two consenting adults. That's a world of difference from that and, say, raping children. The two are inherently unequivocal, no matter how much people have attempted to make the connection over the years.



Ericthegreat said:


> The bible never mentions "kill all men who look at other men and get hard" it says to kill men who sleep with other men. And when the bible says "sleep with" it almost certainly is referring to sex.


 
Look, the Bible is a powerful, important document in the history of man, but it also bans clothing with mixed fibers, planting different seeds in the same field, tattoos, round haircuts, shaving, shellfish, and women speaking in church. Even the most devout likely violate these rules constantly, if not on a daily basis. If we're going to ignore so many of these old tenets, holding onto the passage about homosexuals is a rather arbitrary line in the sand.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 28, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Look, the Bible is a powerful, important document in the history of man, but it also bans clothing with mixed fibers, planting different seeds in the same field, tattoos, round haircuts, shaving, shellfish, and women speaking in church. Even the most devout likely violate these rules constantly, if not on a daily basis. If we're going to ignore so many of these old tenets, holding onto the passage about homosexuals is a rather arbitrary line in the sand.


 

_"But Gahars, I may not agree with most of this now-defunct religious text, but this one passage fits my agenda oh-so-well.  Can't I just preach that and still claim to be a devout follower?"_


----------



## emigre (Jun 28, 2013)

Personally I'm cool with two dudes get married.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 28, 2013)

emigre said:


> Personally I'm cool with two dudes get married.


 

Hell, I've said it before and I've said it again.

I don't care what sex you are, race, color, where you're from, religion, or orientation you are.  It's all cool in my book, and good on you for having a different lifestyle than I choose to. Variety is the spice of life. Do what you gotta do, different strokes for different folks, etc etc.

I have a problem with assholes though.  If you're gonna be an asshole you can kindly fuck off.


----------



## emigre (Jun 28, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I have a problem with assholes though. If you're gonna be an asshole you can kindly fuck off.


 

And ironically assholes usually have a problem with men who like to fuck other men's assholes.


----------



## bowlofspiders (Jun 28, 2013)

Edit


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 28, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Except homosexuality refers to intercourse/relationships between two consenting adults. That's a world of difference from that and, say, raping children. The two are inherently unequivocal, no matter how much people have attempted to make the connection over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, the Bible is a powerful, important document in the history of man, but it also bans clothing with mixed fibers, planting different seeds in the same field, tattoos, round haircuts, shaving, shellfish, and women speaking in church. Even the most devout likely violate these rules constantly, if not on a daily basis. If we're going to ignore so many of these old tenets, holding onto the passage about homosexuals is a rather arbitrary line in the sand.


 1. As I said you can insert something else there, just add anything perverse that you agree shouldn't be done.  Need I say again, it was a answear to a question, and one that I will standby.

2. We done discussed this in the first pages of the thread, read them to find my views on the subject.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 29, 2013)

What I still don't understand is why (a defunct passage from) your religion should, or how it is even morally acceptable for it to stand in the way of others accomplishing in their lives what they want when they practice your religion in no way, shape, or form.


----------



## SickPuppy (Jun 29, 2013)

I should have went to school to be a divorce lawyer.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Here is a list of countries that persecute gays, some are quite "nice".

http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/

Seems in Russia you cannot even talk about gays in front of minors.

Also Oklahoma , Kansas, and Texas still have laws against sodomy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

Tho as someone will prob bring up they are not/not really enforced. Yet they are still law. And laws of which the majority of people have voted to keep, not overturn.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Here is a list of countries that persecute gays, some are quite "nice".
> 
> http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/
> 
> ...


 
Oh god....the fact you mention Russia....is a joke in and of itself. The only ones I can see of being nice are Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates....let's not even mention Saudi Arabia....Malaysia and Singapore rarely to never enforce their laws on homosexuality...though they should get rid of them. And I know little about UAE. And seriously....if I am to believe the bible....the original Book of Mormon(yes, a different religious text) lists being Black as a sin... All religions are equally hateful and wrong.The bible is no different, and in context to the United States doesn't matter...and the reason why those states still have those is due to it being extremely difficult to repeal laws and very little purpose to waste time and resources to since it's already struck down, plus ignorant governors and legislators, I mean Kansas, has a bombing every year near an abortion clinic. Totally Christian.


----------



## Bobbybangin (Jun 29, 2013)

Bobbybangin said:


> Weird


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

smile72 said:


> Oh god....the fact you mention Russia....is a joke in and of itself. The only ones I can see of being nice are Malaysia, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates....let's not even mention Saudi Arabia....Malaysia and Singapore rarely to never enforce their laws on homosexuality...though they should get rid of them. And I know little about UAE. And seriously....if I am to believe the bible....the original Book of Mormon(yes, a different religious text) lists being Black as a sin... All religions are equally hateful and wrong.The bible is no different, and in context to the United States doesn't matter...and the reason why those states still have those is due to it being extremely difficult to repeal laws and very little purpose to waste time and resources to since it's already struck down, plus ignorant governors and legislators, I mean Kansas, has a bombing every year near an abortion clinic. Totally Christian.


Hateful and wrong, or are many people just too ignorant to be just? And blaming the people and the states could be thought of as just as hateful could it not? I don't know anything about the book of mormon. I am Catholic.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Hateful and wrong, or are many people just too ignorant to be just? And blaming the people and the states could be thought of as just as hateful could it not? I don't know anything about the book of mormon. I am Catholic.


 
So was I, nope..it's not, that's a backwards argument.As I do not hate these state nor do i look down on them. I'm not fond of their governor, I use ignorant as meaning bigoted. I've heard Rick Perry, he falls under this category.People can be foolish and or ignorant, hint hint Interacial Marriage, Jim Crow, Slavery, Anti-Sodomy laws. All of the above are hateful. A person is entitled to their own view it does not necessarily mean that view isn't bigoted or ignorant.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

smile72 said:


> So was I, nope..it's not, that's a backwards argument.As I do not hate these state nor do i look down on them. I'm not fond of their governor, I use ignorant as meaning bigoted. I've heard Rick Perry, he falls under this category.People can be foolish and or ignorant, hint hint Interacial Marriage, Jim Crow, Slavery, Anti-Sodomy laws. All of the above are hateful. A person is entitled to their own view it does not necessarily mean that view isn't bigoted or ignorant.


Your views can be looked at the same.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

Eh....I give up, you just don't understand the problem. It seems a waste of my time, and I should correct your post a while ago the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek, the masses in the Roman Catholic Church were performed in Latin at a time when it was already a dead language and or pretty close to it. Almost every single person didn't understand a word of it (meaning no offense just out to inform).


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 29, 2013)

Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue. I can solve this with a quote from Jefferson:


			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.


Damn, that's an old idea, separation of church and state. You know what this means? Your book doesn't mean shit in court, and neither does your religion and its definition of marriage.


> In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.


That's a .gov link (oh snap!)

The issue people have nowadays is that marriage has become such a loosely defined word, and now has the vernacular meaning of "union between two people", and that is what they are asking for. They could care less what people think marriage means, they just want the benefits of civil marriage.

There, I smashed anything religion has to do with it. Back your argument with scientific evidence next time.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

smile72 said:


> Eh....I give up, you just don't understand the problem. It seems a waste of my time, and I should correct your post a while ago the original Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek, the masses in the Roman Catholic Church were performed in Latin at a time when it was already a dead language and or pretty close to it. Almost every single person didn't understand a word of it (meaning no offense just out to inform).


The NAB is translated from the Vulgate, which is in latin. Read about it if you like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

And it is not that I do not understand the problem, it is that you do not understand the problem in the first place


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue. I can solve this with a quote from Jefferson:
> 
> Damn, that's an old idea, separation of church and state. You know what this means? Your book doesn't mean shit in court, and neither does your religion and its definition of marriage.
> 
> ...


Thomas Jefferson solved it for you huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States

In 1778, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy,[1] however, what was intended by Jefferson as a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time was rejected by the Virginia Legislature, which continued to prescribe death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy in that state.[2]

So yea, he didnt wanna kill them, he just wanted their dick chopped off. Maybe your right, maybe they prefered it that way and you think he was doing them a favor?


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> The NAB is translated from the Vulgate, which is in latin. Read about it if you like:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
> 
> And it is not that I do not understand the problem, it is that you do not understand the problem in the first place


 
No, I do understand....you are promoting discrimination...which is a problem. Your argument is similar to the KKK's against interracial marriage. And I do know about the Vulgate being written in Latin.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> 2. We done discussed this in the first pages of the thread, read them to find my views on the subject.


 

The best I came up with was this:



Ericthegreat said:


> All of these rules are for the Jews. I am Catholic so I believe in forgiveness. But the word of the Lord is still the word of the Lord. As I said may you all be forgiven.


 
Which is as much as a non-answer as you can get. So the rules are not for you yet they are still the word of God... so what are you saying here, exactly? The rules don't apply except for when they do? Do you have any problems with the fact that you likely violate the rules of God on a constant basis?



Ericthegreat said:


> Here is a list of countries that persecute gays, some are quite "nice".
> 
> http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/
> 
> Seems in Russia you cannot even talk about gays in front of minors.


 
>Russia
>"Nice"

u wot m8

Most of those on the list are third world countries, oppressive theocracies, or somewhere in the middle. Not to mention that the "niceness" of a country doesn't validate its hateful, discriminatory laws and policies - the United States managed to grow as an economic powerhouse while Jim Crow was in effect, but that doesn't somehow make racial segregation alright in any way, shape, or form. It's an irrelevant point.



Ericthegreat said:


> Also Oklahoma , Kansas, and Texas still have laws against sodomy:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
> 
> Tho as someone will prob bring up they are not/not really enforced. Yet they are still law. And laws of which the majority of people have voted to keep, not overturn.


 

The validity of these laws is extremely suspect, at best, considering the Supreme Court ruled anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional in the 2003 case. I can't imagine these laws would survive the scrutiny of a court review. (Plus, you're referring to a series of laws that have been repealed in every other state but these three - the momentum of history is hardly on their side)

And the fact that they're voted in means just about nothing. The public has consented to lots of hateful, discriminatory, and downright unconstitutional practices in the past - as history has shown us, putting the rights of an oppressed group in the hands of the majority doesn't always work out.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Thomas Jefferson solved it for you huh?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...


 
What you referenced and what I referenced are different.  My reference has been held up in the supreme court before, meaning it holds legal precedence, the ball is back in your court.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Gahars said:


> too long to quote


Not a Non Answer, I am not one of the Jews who are the chosen people of God, all I can do is pray for those who commit sexual sin. Read the BIble and you would understand this.

The rest of what you say is based upon your own opinions.



AbyssalMonkey said:


> What you referenced and what I referenced are different. My reference has been held up in the supreme court before, meaning it holds legal precedence, the ball is back in your court.


 
And in the same way gay marriage has been shot down in past cases. As I said before the Bible does affect our laws no matter how much you try and prove that they do not. Look at things such as marriage, abortion, and death sentencing and they would be different if what you say was the ultimate "Seperation" of Church and state. But what you say is true, it is in the constitution, But only held their a bit more then the unenforced laws I spoke of.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> But I think most would agree it isn't like the translation is that far off.



Or maybe it is, specially when some text has been lost and rip out.




smile72 said:


> I mean Kansas, has a bombing every year near an abortion clinic. Totally Christian.



I can't be sure if you are saying all Christians do this or you saying it not really Christian like at all.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> I can't be sure if you are saying all Christians do this or you saying it not really Christian like at all.


 
Not Christian at all...


----------



## Gahars (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Not a Non Answer, I am not one of the Jews who are the chosen people of God, all I can do is pray for those who commie sexual sin.


 
That doesn't answer the question about the rest of the sins.

Do you pray for people who wear clothes with mixed fiber? And who eat shellfish? And who shave and get rounded haircuts? And who get tattoos? Because if you're going to pray for the gays, well, we better not leave the rest out.



Ericthegreat said:


> Read the BIble and you would understand this.


 
A) Yet another non answer.
B) I have. You're the one who can't provide a satisfactory justification for your arguments - perhaps it's your understanding that needs work here.



Ericthegreat said:


> The rest of what you say is based upon your own opinions.


 

Are you playing non answer bingo or what?



Ericthegreat said:


> As I said before the Bible does affect our laws no matter how much you try and prove that they do not. Look at things such as marriage, abortion, and death sentencing and they would be different if what you say was the ultimate "Seperation" of Church and state. That I agree most people agree to. But what you say is true, it is in the constitution, But only held their a bit more then the unenforced laws I spoke of.


 

Having some influence /= Having any sort of actual legal standing whatsoever.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> Or maybe it is, specially when some text has been lost and rip out.


 
I take it you have never read the Bible.... Its not like chunks are missing here and there lol.... Read it and I bet you will understand more....


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> And in the same way gay marriage has been shot down in past cases. As I said before the Bible does affect our laws no matter how much you try and prove that they do not. Look at things such as marriage, abortion, and death sentencing and they would be different if what you say was the ultimate "Seperation" of Church and state. But what you say is true, it is in the constitution, But only held their a bit more then the unenforced laws I spoke of.


 

I'm not arguing that the Bible hasn't affected our laws in the past, I'm arguing the fact that you cannot force your morals upon everyone else because of legal precedence (and constitutional!).  Also, I refer back to my previous post about what the real issue is here:



AbyssalMonkey said:


> The issue people have nowadays is that marriage has become such a loosely defined word, and now has the vernacular meaning of "union between two people", and that is what they are asking for. They could care less what people think marriage means, they just want the benefits of civil marriage.


 

And because of the constitution, your religion (and therefore its morals) cannot say what they can and cannot do, and therefore should not influence what kind privileges they get, especially when it does not interfere with your religious worshiping.  

So please, refer me to some higher law in the land that says you get to do otherwise.  Remember we have already disenfranchised your god (oops, it should be God).


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> I'm not arguing that the Bible hasn't affected our laws in the past, I'm arguing the fact that you cannot force your morals upon everyone else because of legal precedence (and constitutional!). Also, I refer back to my previous post about what the real issue is here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
And you cannot force me to be okay with your morals lol....


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> And you cannot force me to be okay with your morals lol....


That is not the point he was making. On a legal level, you can not force the morals of the Bible onto the people. As such, striking down homosexuality due to religious reasons should technically be illegal in itself. The Supreme Court has upheld the idea that this is a country that promotes separation of church and state, and have referenced it in the past a number of times when making rulings. By saying that the country should have made a different decision in regards to DOMA because the decision made doesn't line up with your religious moral compass, you've only shown that you are ignorant of how the US functions and instead have an idealized view of a theocratic US government that would, for whatever reason, suddenly turn itself on its head in order to adhere to a God that many within the country don't even believe in.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> And you cannot force me to be okay with your morals lol....


 
You're right, but this isn't morals, and we are not forcing it upon you.  If you want to have a "traditional Christian Holy Matrimony" you are free to that, but I do not see how allowing homosexuals to have equal rights is forcing anything upon you.  It will have zero impact on how you worship and therefore you can not use religion to back your argument.  Now if this law said that churches could not decline homosexual marriages in their chapel, then you would have an argument, but even then, it would not be what we are arguing about right now, it would be over the fact that you are interfering with religious worship by allowing homosexual marriage in the chapel, not the act of the marriage itself.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> I take it you have never read the Bible.... Its not like chunks are missing here and there lol.... Read it and I bet you will understand more....


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels (If you're interested, Elaine Pagels wrote a pretty fascinating book on the subject. This interview with her is pretty nice, too.)


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Gahars said:


> That doesn't answer the question about the rest of the sins.
> 
> Do you pray for people who wear clothes with mixed fiber? And who eat shellfish? And who shave and get rounded haircuts? And who get tattoos? Because if you're going to pray for the gays, well, we better not leave the rest out.


 
If you've read the Bible then you understand that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to pray for those who commit sexual sin.

Here maybe this will help you understand what I am trying to say a bit more:

http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals



AbyssalMonkey said:


> You're right, but this isn't morals, and we are not forcing it upon you. If you want to have a "traditional Christian Holy Matrimony" you are free to that, but I do not see how allowing homosexuals to have equal rights is forcing anything upon you. It will have zero impact on how you worship and therefore you can not use religion to back your argument. Now if this law said that churches could not decline homosexual marriages in their chapel, then you would have an argument, but even then, it would not be what we are arguing about right now, it would be over the fact that you are interfering with religious worship by allowing homosexual marriage in the chapel, not the act of the marriage itself.





Nathan Drake said:


> That is not the point he was making. On a legal level, you can not force the morals of the Bible onto the people. As such, striking down homosexuality due to religious reasons should technically be illegal in itself. The Supreme Court has upheld the idea that this is a country that promotes separation of church and state, and have referenced it in the past a number of times when making rulings. By saying that the country should have made a different decision in regards to DOMA because the decision made doesn't line up with your religious moral compass, you've only shown that you are ignorant of how the US functions and instead have an idealized view of a theocratic US government that would, for whatever reason, suddenly turn itself on its head in order to adhere to a God that many within the country don't even believe in.


Law be what it is, I am allowed to disapprove of whatever I disapprove of. If that includes me fighting for rights to be withheld from others, then so be it. And you cannot disagree that it has worked in the past.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

delete double post


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat - You keep ignoring my question.  Let's put forth the fact that I more or less deny, to myself, the existence of any god, yet I would not denounce the idea of one existing should sufficient, solid proof be provided.  In other words, Agnostic.  I consider myself part of no religion.

We do not live in a theocratic government.

So answer me this - *If I am not a part of your religion, if I do not practice nor follow it in any way, and we do not live in a country where your religion is the elected one that the country chooses to follow as a whole, why would and why should I be forced to abide by YOUR rules?*


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Law be what it is, I am allowed to disapprove of whatever I disapprove of. If that includes me fighting for rights to be withheld from others, then so be it.


 The moment you start trying to change the law to fit your religious beliefs, you no longer have the right within this country to legally fight for those rights to be upheld in any kind of court. Sure, you can disapprove of the decision, but you can not legally try to take the rights of another. The fact that you would consider taking the rights of another to fit your beliefs is already appalling. How religion can preach acceptance and then discriminate has always astounded me. How does "we accept you as long as you fall within these guidelines" sound any better than the KKK, or the Westboro Baptist Church?


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Ericthegreat - You keep ignoring my question. Let's put forth the fact that I more or less deny, to myself, the existence of any god, yet I would not denounce the idea of one existing should sufficient, solid proof be provided. In other words, Agnostic. I consider myself part of no religion.
> 
> We do not live in a theocratic government.
> 
> So answer me this - *If I am not a part of your religion, if I do not practice nor follow it in any way, and we do not live in a country where your religion is the elected one that the country chooses to follow as a whole, why would and why should I be forced to abide by YOUR rules?*


Because it is my personal opinion that I should be against you and your opinions/feelings and wants if you are in offense to the Lord my God. In the end I do nothing to literally harm you. I am allowed to exercise opinions as I want.



Nathan Drake said:


> The moment you start trying to change the law to fit your religious beliefs, you no longer have the right within this country to legally fight for those rights to be upheld in any kind of court. Sure, you can disapprove of the decision, but you can not legally try to take the rights of another. The fact that you would consider taking the rights of another to fit your beliefs is already appalling. How religion can preach acceptance and then discriminate has always astounded me. How does "we accept you as long as you fall within these guidelines" sound any better than the KKK, or the Westboro Baptist Church?


 
Because I can and it has worked in the past. And I am not burning black people.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Because it is my personal opinion that I should be against you and your opinions/feelings and wants if you are in offense to the Lord my God. In the end I do nothing to literally harm you. I am allowed to exercise opinions as I want.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I can and it has worked in the past. And I am not burning black people.


 
Ah...you sound so bigoted and hateful in that statement...the KKK still exists today and they haven't burnt black people in a while, and gay rights is moving forward in America and around the world...there is nothing you or anyone can do to stop it. In two decades the south, the west, Alaska and even Utah will all allow same sex marriage


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

smile72 said:


> Ah...you sound so bigoted and hateful in that statement...the KKK still exists today and they haven't burnt black people in a while, and gay rights is moving forward in America and around the world...there is nothing you or anyone can do to stop it. In two decades the south, the west, Alaska and even Utah will all allow same sex marriage


Those are your opinions, I feel your views are disgusting and wrong. You may be right be I will still not approve of homosexuality be it legal or not. In some places in the united states I think Sex with a animal is not enforceable, yet I think they are disgusting, do you? The animal did not give consent, be it legal or not.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> If you've read the Bible then you understand that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus said to pray for those who commit sexual sin.
> 
> Here maybe this will help you understand what I am trying to say a bit more:
> 
> http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals


 
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." The Old Testament and its tenets, at least to some degree, remain fair game. Many Christians continue to quote the teachings of Leviticus in discussions on this subject, so it's more than relevant here.

And if we're going only by the New Testament here, what about the sections concerning women (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 especially) or slave owning or wearing jewelry? Do you advocate following these sections to the absolute letter? Or are we once more arbitrarily picking and choosing?



Ericthegreat said:


> Law be what it is, I am allowed to disapprove of whatever I disapprove of. If that includes me fighting for rights to be withheld from others, then so be it.


 


Ericthegreat said:


> Because I can and it has worked in the past. And I am not burning black people.


 
When you start talking about how you'll campaign against people's human rights and have to justify your actions by saying, "Hey, guys, at least I'm not murdering people!", I think you're due for some serious self-reflection.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

Gahars said:


> When you start talking about how you'll campaign against people's human rights and have to justify your actions by saying, "Hey, guys, at least I'm not murdering people!", I think you're due for some serious self-reflection.


 
I agree, there is nothing that he will say that has not already come out of the mouths of segregationists, slave owners (meaning pre 1865), the WBC (though they are really just fame-whores), and others hate groups.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Those are your opinions, I feel your views are disgusting and wrong. You may be right be I will still not approve of homosexuality be it legal or not. In some places in the united states I think Sex with a animal is not enforceable, yet I think they are disgusting, do you? The animal did not give consent, be it legal or not.


I have to ask, without your interpretation and your supposedly 100% reliance on the bible, do you feel homosexuality is wrong?


----------



## Foxchild (Jun 29, 2013)

As a Christian myself, a year ago I would have been in favor of DOMA, but I have since changed my position because I feel that the position many Christians have taken on this is not biblical.  The Church needs to apologize for the way they've treated gays.  Several centuries ago, the "church" engaged in a series of wars called "crusades" in an attempt to "liberate" Jerusalem and employed a "convert or die" mechanic.  Today, most Christians disavow those actions, many (especially non-Catholics) assert that those involved couldn't have been "real" Christians.  However, I am sure that, at the time, those soldiers were considered among the most devout of believers, battling against the evil of this world, stemming the tide against the darkness, etc. They were blind to the fact that it went against what they claimed to believe.

Flash forward to today.  The crusade is no longer a physical battle, but a political one.  Those Christians honestly believe that they are fighting a holy war against the moral decay of society.  Yet, they can't see that their political position of legislating morality contradicts basic Bible doctrine.  The core of evangelical Christianity could be summarized: Jesus' death provides forgiveness for sin, Jesus' resurrection provides power over sin, thus genuine belief (faith) in this results in surrender/submission to Jesus, which allows God (through grace) to impart that forgiveness & power into the believer, resulting in a change in character for the better (born again).  In other words, trying to enforce or encourage a change in behavior/lifestyle in someone (or oneself) who does not hold faith in Jesus is not only pointless, but the exact opposite of the Christian's precious gospel.  Even if they were successful, i.e. by merit of their wise argument the Christians convinced all gays to break up with their partners and be either straight or celebate for the rest of their lives, it accomplishes nothing; or worse, if Christians succeed in forcing people to live their way, it would only create animosity toward Christianity and, by proxy, Jesus - even though He had nothing to do with it.

Basically, the admittedly narrow-minded (but that doesn't make it incorrect) view of the Christian is that there are two groups of people - those whose lives are surrendered to Jesus' authority (and therefore the body of Christians has a responsibility to judge each other and hold themselves accountable), and those who are not (whom the Christians are to interact with, love, and forgive).  So, if you make no claim to be a Christian, then the Church holds no authority over you - you might as well do whatever you want (long as you're not hurtin' anyone), and the Church should mind it's own business.  If you are a Christian then you need to be following what the Bible says (yes all of it - taking into account the whole of Scripture).


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> I have to ask, without your interpretation and your supposedly 100% reliance on the bible, do you feel homosexuality is wrong?


Yes, I feel it is disgusting and that fecal matter causes disease. Also personally I feel there would still be AIDS but less of it. The bottom hole is a exit not a entrance


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Yes, I feel it is disgusting and that fecal matter causes disease. Also personally I feel there would still be AIDS but less of it. The bottom hole is a exit not a entrance



There are two problems with that

1) Not all homosexuals (both lesbians and gays) do that.2) Some heterosexuals do that too.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Because I can and it has worked in the past. And I am not burning black people.


Do you try to miss the point? Or is it just a natural skill you've come to foster and become reliant on? And last I checked, the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church don't burn people. If the KKK ever did, they damn well haven't in the past few decades, since, you know, black Americans gained their civil rights. They just discriminate against those that don't match their specific belief system, whether those people can help it or not. Funnily enough, at least sections of most western religions do exactly the same thing, and yet claim to be such great people fighting for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

And no, actually, you can't. At all. The way the US works doesn't allow for you to push your religion into the laws of the country. Your failure to understand that is at best amusing.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> There are two problems with that
> 
> 1) Not all homosexuals (both lesbians and gays) do that.2) Some heterosexuals do that too.


That is true. Tho I still find a man being with a man wrong.



Nathan Drake said:


> Do you try to miss the point? Or is it just a natural skill you've come to foster and become reliant on? And last I checked, the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church don't burn people. If the KKK ever did, they damn well haven't in the past few decades, since, you know, black Americans gained their civil rights. They just discriminate against those that don't match their specific belief system, whether those people can help it or not. Funnily enough, at least sections of most western religions do exactly the same thing, and yet claim to be such great people fighting for the betterment of humanity as a whole.
> 
> And no, actually, you can't. At all. The way the US works doesn't allow for you to push your religion into the laws of the country. Your failure to understand that is at best amusing.


And yet again you think the the Bible does not affect any laws lol?


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> And yet again you think the the Bible does not affect any laws lol?


As long as there are religious people in government, yes, religion will work its way in indirectly. It can never work as a direct force within the US government though, which is the point you are missing time and time again, seemingly refusing to accept it at this point. Freedom of religion means many things, but it does not mean religion can ever have direct power within the government. Yes, many conservative view points may be fueled by religion (see: abortion and gay rights), but if you try to bring up religion in any legitimate political debate, you absolutely will not be able to compete because you will be fighting against a well established trait that this country seems quite proud of.

Religion can never be the excuse to take the rights of another person in this country. If it is, and there is proof of it, any law that stems from that will be overturned without fail.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

[


Nathan Drake said:


> As long as there are religious people in government, yes, religion will work its way in indirectly. It can never work as a direct force within the US government though, which is the point you are missing time and time again, seemingly refusing to accept it at this point. Freedom of religion means many things, but it does not mean religion can ever have direct power within the government. Yes, many conservative view points may be fueled by religion (see: abortion and gay rights), but if you try to bring up religion in any legitimate political debate, you absolutely will not be able to compete because you will be fighting against a well established trait that this country seems quite proud of.
> 
> Religion can never be the excuse to take the rights of another person in this country. If it is, and there is proof of it, any law that stems from that will be overturned without fail.


And I guess then you know it is not always "without fail" that is a fact lol....


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> [
> 
> And I guess then you know it is not always "without fail" that is a fact lol....


Please cite exact examples of the laws, and the proof that they stemmed from a religious standpoint and not just a general social stigma generated due to different reasons (see: homosexuality and the AIDS scare).

Oh, and remember, no guess work. Provide definitive evidence that religion was the exact reason for these laws existing still today.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> The Lord knows I am not without sin but:
> 
> "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
> 
> ...


 
funny thing about Leviticus, and i'm directly paraphrasing a good friend from tumblr

"The thing that pisses me off most about people calling on Leviticus (at least Christians.) is that they are old laws that were supposedly put into place to punish us for our sins thus far. When Jesus died to cleanse us of our sins, it wasn’t just about our future sins and the ability to ask for absolution…. but to be free of our previous sins. So, a Christian quoting the old laws is like saying… Sorry Jesus, your sacrifice just wasn’t good enough because it doesn’t allow me to justify my hate and want to torment someone else because I personally disagree with it. (which is the God Damnedest sin.)
This brings my rant to one of the golden rules that we as Christians claim to live by. “Thou shalt not use MY name in vain.”
That doesn’t mean “Jesus Christ! Oops, don’t use his name in vain, LoL!” It means don’t use God to justify your hate mongering. It means don’t claim God hates this or that or allows you to hurt others because you say he does.
The hugely common misinterpretation of this pisses me off to no end because it’s an incredibly insulting, OBVIOUS misinterpretation of it to please one’s self."

^THIS

this perfectly explains why the number one go-to bible quote to hate on gays is such bullshit


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Please cite exact examples of the laws, and the proof that they stemmed from a religious standpoint and not just a general social stigma generated due to different reasons (see: homosexuality and the AIDS scare).
> 
> Oh, and remember, no guess work. Provide definitive evidence that religion was the exact reason for these laws existing still today.


Nope normally it is said "not to be in majority view of the people". But you must agree that the Bible plays a part in that.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Nope normaly it is said "not to be in majority view of the people" But you must agree that the Bible plays a part in that.


Maybe back in the 50's you could argue that the Bible still played a large role in the functioning of this country on a certain level. Sixty years later, that isn't so true. With the continued rise of modern liberalism, religion is finding itself taking more and more of a backseat in the definitive decisions that are continuing to shape this country (see: what this thread is covering).

Edit: And what in the seven hells were you even actually replying to from my post? It seems like you just ignored it and said whatever was on your mind.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> [...]And I am not burning black people.


 
"I don't burn black people so hating on gays is a-okay!"




Foxchild said:


> [post expressing self's distaste for how current Christians act and how the church is perceived]


 
*like like like like like* I really like that post and the amount of thought you put into it.  I can agree with more or less everything you said, even if not on a religious level, at least form a moral one.  It makes sense.




Ericthegreat said:


> Yes, I feel it is disgusting and that fecal matter causes disease. Also personally I feel there would still be AIDS but less of it. The bottom hole is a exit not a entrance


 



You just need to... EAT DA POO POO!


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Maybe back in the 50's you could argue that the Bible still played a large role in the functioning of this country on a certain level. Sixty years later, that isn't so true. With the continued rise of modern liberalism, religion is finding itself taking more and more of a backseat in the definitive decisions that are continuing to shape this country (see: what this thread is covering).


You must agree the Bible plays a role still "The majority of Americans (73–76%) identify themselves as Christians":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

If you dont I say that is your personal opinion.... This conversation will never conclude unless either of us get all of congress to express their views personally lol....


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> You must agree the Bible plays a role still "The majority of Americans (73–76%) identify themselves as Christians":
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
> 
> If you dont I say that is your personal opinion.... This conversation will never conclude unless either of us get all of congress to express their views personally lol....


"The majority of Americans" may identify as Christian, but that doesn't say whether or not they are devout Christians. It doesn't say whether or not they sternly follow the Bible, or if they simply use it as a general guide in their lives. Hell, it doesn't say if they have even read the Bible. It doesn't say whether or not they identify as conservative or liberal. That statistic means absolutely nothing, and also has the potential be to be very incorrect seeing as that number certainly just comes from a sample of people that, depending on where you are in the US, could change drastically in their viewpoints.

To note, trying to use vague statistics is a losing battle. There are too many holes that can be poked through to ever take them seriously.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> That is true. Tho I still find a man being with a man wrong.


So, despite that not all of them do that, it's wrong? Why? So, you got no problems with a woman being with a woman, then?


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> "The majority of Americans" may identify as Christian, but that doesn't say whether or not they are devout Christians. It doesn't say whether or not they sternly follow the Bible, or if they simply use it as a general guide in their lives. Hell, it doesn't say if they have even read the Bible. It doesn't say whether or not they identify as conservative or liberal. That statistic means absolutely nothing, and also has the potential be to be very incorrect seeing as that number certainly just comes from a sample of people that, depending on where you are in the US, could change drastically in their viewpoints.
> 
> To note, trying to use vague statistics is a losing battle. There are too many holes that can be poked through to ever take them seriously.


 
I Will tell you a personal story, when I was young the sheriff would eat at my house quite often. If we ever got a ticket we would call him up and it wouldn't be a problem. Now he should not have done that just because we knew each other now should he? You can quote the law as you like, but what is in peoples hearts and minds does affect their decisions big or small, that I can promise you.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> I Will tell you a personal story, when I was young the sheriff would eat at my house quite often. If we ever got a ticket we would call him up and it wouldn't be a problem. Now he should not have done that just because we knew each other now should he? You can quote the law as you like, but what is in peoples hearts and minds does affect their decisions big or small, that I can promise you.


A personal relationship likely in a small town does not reflect the functioning of big government.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> A personal relationship likely in a small town does not reflect the functioning of big government.


 
Corruption of the law is everywhere in many forms. Denying that is the fantasy.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Corruption of the law is everywhere in many forms.


 

Corruption being widespread doesn't make it right.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Corruption being widespread doesn't make it right.


It isn't right, yet it happens does it not?


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Corruption of the law is everywhere in many forms. Denying that is the fantasy.


And you just referred to religion as corruption of the law. Congrats, you finally admitted the problem with trying to use religion in practicing the law in a country that promotes separation of church and state.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> And you just referred to religion as corruption of the law. Congrats, you finally admitted the problem with trying to use religion in practicing the law in a country that promotes separation of church and state.


Doesn't matter still my point is that you cannot say that the Bible does not affect the law.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Doesn't matter still my point is that you cannot say that the Bible does not affect the law.


Did I ever say it didn't? No, I said it indirectly influences the law, but can never be a direct, known cause for laws going into effect or being denied.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Did I ever say it didn't? No, I said it indirectly influences the law, but can never be a direct, known cause for laws going into effect or being denied.


Then why have we been talking this whole time you couldve said that 3 hours ago.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Then why have we been talking this whole time you couldve said that 3 hours ago.


Because you have the greatest ability to side step every point anybody makes, either through completely ignoring that they made it, or by going off on a barely related tangent. It does tend to draw things out.

Regardless, that's off topic. Best not to continue on with that.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Then why have we been talking this whole time you couldve said that 3 hours ago.


 

Uh... I'm pretty sure it's been said at least ten times by different members over the past two days.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> Because you have the greatest ability to side step every point anybody makes, either through completely ignoring that they made it, or by going off on a barely related tangent. It does tend to draw things out.
> 
> Regardless, that's off topic. Best not to continue on with that.





Sicklyboy said:


> Uh... I'm pretty sure it's been said at least ten times by different members over the past two days.


Yes it doesn't change the constitution, I'm just trying to prove that the Bible does affect laws of the United States. Even if it isn't supposed too. <---- me 3rd page


----------



## The Milkman (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> And yet again you think the the Bible does not affect any laws lol?


 
Your confusing common practices and laws of the ancient world with laws expressed in the bible. Most of these laws that are apparently from the bible, are laws that are the basis of what we consider order. Just because the ten commandments say not to kill and steal, doesn't mean it wasn't already followed and enforced in a majority of civilizations.

As for this post. Good for you gays! The first step in fixing a problem is admitting it, and this sure as hell is forcing someone to admit that something was wrong with the view on gay marriage.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> Your confusing common practices and laws of the ancient world with laws expressed in the bible. Most of these laws that are apparently from the bible, are laws that are the basis of what we consider order. Just because the ten commandments say not to kill and steal, doesn't mean it wasn't already followed and enforced in a majority of civilizations.
> 
> As for this post. Good for you gays! The first step in fixing a problem is admitting it, and this sure as hell is forcing someone to admit that something was wrong with the view on gay marriage.


Um, not what we were talking about.... We were talking about how the Bible affects modern day laws.


----------



## The Milkman (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Um, not what we were talking about.... We were talking about how the Bible affects modern day laws.


 

Ahh my mistake then. I just heard a similar arguement like this before and someone was saying something about how the country was founded on christian beliefs and are laws are based on it and shit.

Its too fucking late for me to care.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> I bet your one of those people who sniff the toilet paper before you flush, you sure dont seems to mind anal related stuff?


1) What's wrong with you? You are really stuck on people doing _that_,aren't you?

and 

2)





Ericthegreat said:


> That is true. Tho I still find a man being with a man wrong.


So, despite that not all of them do that, it's wrong? Why? So, you got no problems with a woman being with a woman, then?


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> We all have different opinions and none were changed.


 
if that's the case then the only reason you came to this thread was to say "EVERYONE IS SO INTOLERANT OF MY INTOLERANCE FOR GAY PEOPLE, now i'm going to debate some more even though i know i won't change anyone's mind, ever"

it's starting to sound a little trollish if you ask me


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 29, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> if that's the case then the only reason you came to this thread was to say "EVERYONE IS SO INTOLERANT OF MY INTOLERANCE FOR GAY PEOPLE, now i'm going to debate some more even though i know i won't change anyone's mind, ever"
> 
> it's starting to sound a little trollish if you ask me


Who is the real troll here.... I'm no longer responding to this thread until someone wants to talk properly. Also it is getting late. And you never know, perhaps I did change someones mind.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jun 29, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> [...]it's starting to sound a little trollish if you ask me


 

His god is best god and everyone must conform or accept his lifestyle as theirs, or else they're turbogay and sniff used toilet paper and shit like that.

Or something.



Spoiler











 




Ericthegreat said:


> Who is the real troll here.... I'm no longer responding to this thread until someone wants to talk properly. Also it is getting late. And you never know, perhaps I did change someones mind.


 
But we've gone full circle again.  Why is it so important to you that others conform to your set of beliefs?  Are you that insecure about them yourself that you can't help but need others like you around so you don't feel left out, or are you so close minded (don't answer that one) and bigoted that your way is the only right way?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 29, 2013)

Quick question on "Christians"

Popular history has the term as a politically expedient grouping (one that possibly even arose/rose up in the last 100 years) and as such something of a non term -- there are quite a few denominations that do not hold the interpretations of the others in any great esteem (the transubstantiation thing in Catholicism being routinely laughed at/dismissed as foolishness by others). Indeed such a thing is a source of conflict and quite a large component of US history.


----------



## BORTZ (Jun 29, 2013)

I really wish that that my fellow "Christians" would stop being such close minded bigots. 

We were called to be whiteness. Have a whitened the gays being send to hell? Have I personally seen that? NO. 

Someone who is gay is a human, just like me. Humans are sinners just like me (whether being or acting on gay impulses is a sin, who cares). I HIGHLY doubt the the Jesus that I worship would be making such a big deal about this. What would he have done? He would have greeted them with open arms, shared a meal, and told them God loves them just the way they are. 

I dont understand the hate. I dont understand hiding behind the scriptures because you might be a bit homophobic. And its making me feel ashamed to call myself a Christian anymore. 

On a personal level, all the displays and demonstrations are kinda annoying, but other than that, i dont really care about it. 

Im just going to start using Mr. Rodgers as a role model.


----------



## Foxchild (Jun 29, 2013)

> Quick question on "Christians"


 
Not sure exactly what the question is here but I'll try:  Generic definition of a Christian is "someone who follows Christ".  Unfortunately, as you note, many "Christian" groups cannot agree on how exactly to do that.  Now, the Bible warns multiple times about false teachers and false Christians, even Jesus said, "Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven", so just because you say you're a Christian doesn't mean you are.  I've already expressed my distaste for the current political arm of Christianity.  Some involved may well be genuine Christians, just misguided - as I posted before they truly believe this is a battle God wants them to fight.  But, the Church has been political for centuries - look at the Roman Catholic church through the Middle Ages.  This is something it was never meant to be.  The Pharisees tried to trip Jesus up by getting Him to take a political stance, but He always wisely avoided doing so - that wasn't why He was here, and it is not why Christians are still here today (at least it shouldn't be).



> Someone who is gay is a human, just like me. Humans are sinners just like me (whether being or acting on gay impulses is a sin, who cares). I HIGHLY doubt the the Jesus that I worship would be making such a big deal about this. What would he have done? He would have greeted them with open arms, shared a meal, and told them God loves them just the way they are.


 
This.  The only people Jesus judged/condemned during His time on earth were not "sinners" (or gays), but the religious leaders who thought they were righteous.  He hung out with the sinners.

The question, for the Christian, is "how should I deal with/react to sin?" For many things, Christians and the rest of the world are on the same page - murder, rape, etc. are wrong and should be punished.  "Sins" that don't hurt anyone, (like homosexuality, fornication, pornography, piracy , etc.) society says you should tolerate these things - live and let live.  Christians realize that you shouldn't just shrug your shoulders and ignore sin, it needs to be dealt with.   So the answer they came up with is "love the sinner, hate the sin", so now, instead of offering tolerance, the Christians offer hate, and wonder why everyone thinks they're bigots.

An analogy:  Sin is said to be like a cancer.  If you were diagnosed with cancer and your Dr said, "Well, it is really no big deal, we'll just let it go," and tolerated/ignored it, that might be more comfortable in the short term, but it doesn't deal with the thing that will kill you.  So you go to the Christian Dr.  and he berates you for having cancer in the first place, tries to convince you that cancer isn't natural, hands you a knife and says, "I'm not helping you until you cut that evil cancer out of your body."  Which would you choose?  We need a third choice.  How did Jesus deal with sin?  When they brought a paralyzed man to Jesus to be healed, Jesus said to him, "My son, I hate your sin."  Wait... no He didn't!  He said "Your sins are forgiven"  To the woman who committed adultery, did Jesus say, "Well, I've never sinned" and wing a stone at her?  No, He said "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more"  Jesus didn't offer tolerance or hatred for sin, He offered forgiveness - He healed the cancer.  Then He died to pay for that forgiveness.  If the church really wants to "bring people to Jesus" they need to ditch the hate and start offering forgiveness.

According to the Bible, being gay doesn't send you to Hell.  Neither does murder, lying, hypocrisy, or general selfishness.  Jesus very clearly explained what does condemn you - y'all know John 3:16?  (if not look it up)... right after that Jesus says that He "did not come into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him would be saved."  He goes on to identify those who are condemned - is it the gay community?  No - "he that believes not is condemned already... because they love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil."  It is those who don't believe - period - who are condemned. This is echoed in 2nd Thessalonians chpt. 1 where Paul describes a wrathful Jesus at His Second Coming "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them who" who what? are gay? no..."who do not know God, who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ."  Again, judgment/condemnation based on belief not sin.  EVERYONE has sinned, it just depends on whether you'd rather stay as you are, or be cured.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Jun 29, 2013)

If you cannot comment in this thread without insulting someone or their beliefs, please refrain from posting. Otherwise, we'll just have to close this sucker.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 29, 2013)

Foxchild said:


> Not sure exactly what the question is here but I'll try:  Generic definition of a Christian is "someone who follows Christ".  Unfortunately, as you note, many "Christian" groups cannot agree on how exactly to do that.  Now, the Bible warns multiple times about false teachers and false Christians, even Jesus said, "Not everyone who calls me Lord will enter the kingdom of Heaven", so just because you say you're a Christian doesn't mean you are.  I've already expressed my distaste for the current political arm of Christianity.  Some involved may well be genuine Christians, just misguided - as I posted before they truly believe this is a battle God wants them to fight.  But, the Church has been political for centuries - look at the Roman Catholic church through the Middle Ages.  This is something it was never meant to be.  The Pharisees tried to trip Jesus up by getting Him to take a political stance, but He always wisely avoided doing so - that wasn't why He was here, and it is not why Christians are still here today (at least it shouldn't be).
> [snip]



Interesting. The obvious glib response is probably to point at Islam (the bible is afforded holy book status within it) but that gets us nowhere. The question was more a jab at the 70% as Christian (leaving aside huge misgivings about the statistic itself) and that then making a "unified front" from which to argue from.

The cancer analogy is interesting, I would warn though that there are serious variations between countries in what approaches are taken -- prostate cancer in the UK is quite often left as the treatment is worse than the disease where I have seen a lot of US doctors stick people under the knife  to say nothing of the benign tumours.

"Piracy".... I can not say I have ever found a religion save perhaps Scientology that has anything to say about intellectual property.

"pornography". Another interesting one if only because of things like Pope Paul IV (statues in the 1500's and beyond).

Not sure where I am heading right now so back to my film.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 29, 2013)

GeekyGuy said:


> If you cannot comment in this thread without insulting someone or their beliefs, please refrain from posting. Otherwise, we'll just have to close this sucker.





AbyssalMonkey said:


> I hope to wake up to some more overly stated opinions about this, or to a locked thread


Interesting...


----------



## LoganK93 (Jun 29, 2013)

Why does this debate still exist? Honestly. I will admit to not having read the thread in its entirety, but u have already seen countless refernces to being gay as a choice, a statement that has always pissed me off. I am gay, and as far as i know i never made a conscious choice to suddenly boycott women. I tried having a girlfriend, forced myself to try and have sex with her and couldnt. There was no attraction at all. There never was. There never will be. I will also agree with a post i saw moments ago that said all of the displays are annoying. They are, especially the way they are done. If you dont want to be treated like some gross sex crazed puke, dont march down the street in a nut cup making out with every guy you see. It gives us all a bad image. I will also add that the religuous debate should he moot for many reasons, the most annoying of which are the deliberate ignoring of other "sins" that are in practically the same breath as the "man lies with man" thing such as death for adultery, never wearing two fibers in one garment, or the consumption of shellfiah. But those last ones are ignored. When i ask why they dont matter its "because times have changed". The only reason gay marriage and rights in general are an issues is because, much like every social issue in the past, people dont understand, are stuck in the "old ways" and a certain hate has been established for the minority group in question. Quite honestly the close minded views of the people in this "free" country make me sick. Canada or the uk are looking better every day.


----------



## smile72 (Jun 29, 2013)

Ericthegreat said:


> Those are your opinions, I feel your views are disgusting and wrong. You may be right be I will still not approve of homosexuality be it legal or not. In some places in the united states I think Sex with a animal is not enforceable, yet I think they are disgusting, do you? The animal did not give consent, be it legal or not.


 

My god....wow, well bestiality is *illegal* in the state I live Illinois, and the few states it is legal is because what I have mentioned before, it depends on the state's legislature and governor. I think straight sex is disgusting and wrong, and gay sex is awesome and fun the fact that you tried to compare same sex relation to animal human rape should give you an inkling you are clearly losing the argument, and really just showing that you hate gays, I could name a couple hundred people similar to you, on what they thought of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Other Europeans (how they were all wrong and disgusting or abominations)...but I won't and if you believe polls, gay marriage is going forward. And Catholics are becoming Agnostics and Atheists (little by little).


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 30, 2013)

smile72 said:


> My god....wow, well bestiality is *illegal* in the state I live Illinois, and the few states it is legal is because what I have mentioned before, it depends on the state's legislature and governor. I think straight sex is disgusting and wrong, and gay sex is awesome and fun the fact that you tried to compare same sex relation to animal human rape should give you an inkling you are clearly losing the argument, and really just showing that you hate gays, I could name a couple hundred people similar to you, on what they thought of Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, Other Europeans (how they were all wrong and disgusting or abominations)...but I won't and if you believe polls, gay marriage is going forward. And Catholics are becoming Agnostics and Atheists (little by little).



Has nothing to do with "losing the argument" as you seem to feel lol. He asked for my opinion and I gave it.


----------



## LoganK93 (Jun 30, 2013)

Comparing being gay to bestiality is different. It's not like gay people are in it strictly for the sex. We become emotionally attached the same way any straight couple would without any conscious effort on our part. It's not like we woke up one morning and said "HEY! I'd like to be ridiculed and looked down upon in society for the rest of my life because that just sounds like the bees fucking knees!". No. It is an uncontrollable thing, the same as someone who is born colorblind, or with green eyes instead of brown. Just because YOU didn't turn out to be gay doesn't mean it's not "normal". Idk. Fuck this. I can't honestly believe there are STILL this many close minded individuals that we can't see yet how NONE OF THIS MATTERS. Who gives a shit who we marry or live with or fuck? Kim karfuckingdashian can drop millions a like, 3 month marriage, but people who just want to build a family and a life being happy just like all the "normal" straight couples can't because someone's religion, WHICH IS CHOSEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL THEMSELVE'S, say's it's a big no-no. That is not fair. That is not how our country of "freedom" is supposed to work. I challenge you to find some valid reason why gay's marrying is going to send this planet into the gaping maw's of hell, go for it. And don't start throwing religious stuff at me either. I used to go to church, I have read the bible and unlike a lot of people, it seems I understand it for what it is: A several thousand year old story passed down the same way Gilgamesh and other previously orally told campfire fables have been, losing much in translation and gaining much to keep the reader/listener satisfied, while also instilling a fear which turns everyone into sheep. Times have changed, keep your religion, but don't force everyone to live the way you do. If our country suddenly became Muslim run, I bet there'd be a lot of pissed-off Christians who would object to the law of having to keep their wives covered in public at all times because Allah said in his book that make up and ankles are the devil.


----------



## Lestworth (Jun 30, 2013)

Its kinda funny how people are trying to change someones views, even though thats basically impossible on threads such as this. People believe what they want to believe, its as cut and dry as that.

I have met both sides of "Gays" in my life so far. Ones that are completely in your face, basically rubbing it in, and making you feel uncomfortable as possible simply because they can. Then their are others that act completely normal, in love, and not prancing around like a fairy or attempting to shove it in your face. I think its those that do, that taint what everyone thinks of them.

I'm not religious myself, but marriage to me has a purpose for life, and the development of humans on planet earth. Our bodies were created with 2 core different sets, Men and Women. We developed through sex, and as such populated this planet. For me marriage will always be between a man and a women simply because that is the natural order of life. You cant even question that in-order for life on this planet to maintain, sexual actions must be performed with opposite sexes. I view gay marriage as simply a natural way to manage the population rate on this planet. It is essentially a natural way to nuder humans.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> I have met both sides of "Gays" in my life so far. Ones that are completely in your face, basically rubbing it in, and making you feel uncomfortable as possible simply because they can. Then their are others that *act completely normal*, in love, and not prancing around like a fairy or attempting to shove it in your face. I think its those that do, that taint what everyone thinks of them.


"Normal" to you appears to be arbitrarily defined as what does or doesn't make you feel uncomfortable. Last time I checked, there wasn't anything immoral about flamboyance, nor do I see how this is relevant.



Lestworth said:


> I'm not religious myself, but marriage to me has a purpose for life, and the development of humans on planet earth.


Marriage isn't for the purpose of procreation. One cannot make this argument and be consistent without also advocating that the elderly and otherwise infertile be barred from marriage as well. If this is your argument, then the moment you say "Yeah, old people should be able to get married" is when you also say "Yeah, gay people should be able to get married." If old people are getting married without any intent of having kids, for example, then the purpose of marriage obviously isn't procreation, is it?



Lestworth said:


> Our bodies were created with 2 core different sets, Men and Women.


Not only is sexuality not black and white, but neither is gender or even sex.



Lestworth said:


> We developed through sex, and as such populated this planet. For me marriage will always be between a man and a women simply because that is the natural order of life. You cant even question that in-order for life on this planet to maintain, sexual actions must be performed with opposite sexes.


The primary purpose of sex is not procreation. Sex evolved to be a method of social bonding as humans evolved to be the social animals they are. 99% of sex does not end in procreation. Humans are specifically evolved for sex to be for social bonding. In many animals, sex is purely for procreation, and an animal might only be able to have sex during its fertility window. Humans have evolved to be able to have sex almost all the time, regardless of fertility, age, *pregnancy*, etc. It's like you're saying the primary purpose of mouths is to eat, so we shouldn't condone talking.


----------



## Lestworth (Jun 30, 2013)

your simply attempting to rip apart an opinion, an opinion that is not only my belief. You will fail *every time*, regardless of how hard you attempt. I could sit here and rip apart your post towards me as well, but it would just simply be one giant circle jerk. Nope, instead you can believe what you want without a stupid mindless post that will fight your *OPINIONS*.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> your simply attempting to rip apart an opinion, an opinion that is not only my belief. You will fail *every time*, regardless of how hard you attempt. I could sit here and rip apart your post towards me as well, but it would just simply be one giant circle jerk. Nope, instead you can believe what you want without a stupid mindless post that will fight your *OPINIONS*.


 
Not all opinions are created equal.
Sometimes there's serious misinformation to correct.


----------



## Lestworth (Jun 30, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Not all opinions are created equal.
> Sometimes there's serious misinformation to correct.


 
case and point


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 30, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> You are simply attempting to rip apart an opinion, an opinion that is also my belief. You will fail *every time*, regardless of how hard you attempt. I could sit here and rip apart your post towards me as well, but it would just simply be one giant circle jerk. Nope, instead you can believe what you want without a stupid mindless post that will fight your *OPINIONS*.



By and large if you post an opinion on a public forum and put it forth as a righteous one you can expect to be called on it.

Likewise if you can not or will not defend it then people are generally free to dismiss it and you until such a time as you do.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 30, 2013)

If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 30, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.


If you can, please give me a definition of marriage that exclusively labels it as only existing as holy matrimony.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 30, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.



First we are going to have to figure out what the definition of marriage being discussed is both in general and in a legal context.

The legal one seems to afford certain tax breaks/options*, automatic inclusion on certain types of insurance, rights like in case of death what goes where, visitations for hospital and prison, what you can do with regards to immigration and so forth. In various contexts this differs from certain civil unions, most of the time you can work around it both if you want to avoid marriage (I can write a will or something) but not always and it is extra work that others do not have to do. There is also the dissolution of marriage to consider -- upon dissolving the marriage the property and children associated with it need to be figured out though this level of commitment also allows for certain legal concepts to arise (loans to those married, the immigration thing again I guess and such like). Variously several of those things get more or less tricky if you are just people living together.
The other is it is a ceremony that binds people (most often than not just two people) together and creates the groundwork for the legal stuff just mentioned, this ceremony is not necessarily religious and the proper religious ones will seek to bind people in a legal sense too. Depending upon where you go this may be limited to a man and a woman (transgender types vary again though it is actually not so bad in a lot of cases assuming the gender of those in the relationship are not the same), given people of the same gender are quite free to sleep together, own property together, start families together and everything else like that then having a difference in the abilities of marriage/civil unions between those for couples of the same gender and those for couples of differing gender would seem to be out of line with the general concepts espoused by US or otherwise equality driven law systems and thus need to be changed (my preferred option of drop the whole concept probably could not happen as it would really trouble the "for certain legal concepts to arise" thing).

*in the UK my accountant would tell me not to get married in most cases nowadays but there are things like capital gains allowances being able to be shared between a married couple. I can not even get my head around things beyond the basics of the US tax system but similar things exist there.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 30, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> First we are going to have to figure out what the definition of marriage being discussed is both in general and in a legal context.


 
Marriage = one man, one woman, (as in the majority of the United States, which is what we're discussing).



FAST6191 said:


> The legal one seems to afford certain tax breaks/options....


 

It could be argued that many non married couples living together in either sexual or non sexual relationships deserve the same advantages as married couples. Why shouldn't a single man receive the same tax advantages as married couples?



> rights like in case of death what goes where, visitations for hospital and prison, what you can do with regards to immigration and so forth. In various contexts this differs from certain civil unions, most of the time you can work around it both if you want to avoid marriage (I can write a will or something) but not always and it is extra work that others do not have to do.


 
If a hotel banned female patrons from entering it wouldn't be the governments job to legally redefine women as men. Likewise, hospitals (not government) should change their policy.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 30, 2013)

I enjoy that you ignored my post simply because I know there is no way to give an answer that isn't a lie through purposeful omission of information. If you can't answer my last post, your argument already has absolutely no foundation. If you had actually bothered to read the rest of the thread, or at least have skimmed it, you would find that unless you define it incorrectly, marriage is not inherently a religious experience binding one man to one woman. It's simply a legal contract that binds two people in union.

Before anybody responds to Haloman further, I insist that he find me a legitimate definition of marriage that exclusively states it as only being binding as marriage through holy matrimony. As that is the root of the "one man, one woman" side of the debate, and DOMA as a whole, if that definition can not be located, it's nothing more than "I believe this because my opinion" versus anything that would be seen as legally relevant in the US.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 30, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Marriage = one man, one woman, (as in the majority of the United States, which is what we're discussing).
> 
> It could be argued that many non married couples living together in either sexual or non sexual relationships deserve the same advantages as married couples. Why shouldn't a single man receive the same tax advantages as married couples?
> 
> If a hotel banned female patrons from entering it wouldn't be the governments job to legally redefine women as men. Likewise, hospitals (not government) should change their policy.



The question is then is it a historical quirk and one that needs to be changed to conform with the modern world?

No doubt and in some cases rights are being granted to those in such situations (children being a good example) or can otherwise be obtained (I can write a will for instance and there is such a thing as a cohabitation agreement). Tax breaks are otherwise known as incentives but as governments rarely give things away we have to consider what they want to have incentives for. Historically (even back in ancient Rome) this was children, in the modern world this varies a bit and probably comes down more to financial stability (insurance, credit, general safety nets) which governments quite like for the buck ultimately stops with them and having a few layers in between helps stop them getting stung so much, possible aspects of housing (room-mates, lodgers and such not doing quite so well) a and the less cynical part of me would note that those in relations of any stripe do apparently do each other well and you generally want your subjects to have a better quality of life.

Your analogy fails as that would be discrimination in the case of the hotel and covered by other things. Though I might like hospitals to change policies it does come down from various laws (medical info being kind of private after all and a spouse being able to circumvent that to an extent) so it would then seem to be back in the government's court.


----------



## 1stClassZackFair (Jun 30, 2013)

Can someone please explain to me what people would gain from marriage? I'm not against same-sex marriage at all,In fact I'm all for it and screw what any religion says,I'm just wondering why it' so important. As said earlier,marriage doesn't equal or add to happiness. Look at Gene Simmons,he was happily unmarried with his gf for at least 30 years or so and only married her because she would pester him about it. It is said that 50% of marriages in the US result in a divorce,Idk if I'm making sense or not since I haven't slept in a while but I guess what I'm trying to say is marriage isnt needed. Why not just enjoy your life with your significant other regardless of marital status?  Again,sorry if I don't make sense.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 30, 2013)

1stClassZackFair said:


> Can someone please explain to me what people would gain from marriage? I'm not against same-sex marriage at all,In fact I'm all for it and screw what any religion says,I'm just wondering why it' so important. As said earlier,marriage doesn't equal or add to happiness. Look at Gene Simmons,he was happily unmarried with his gf for at least 30 years or so and only married her because she would pester him about it. It is said that 50% of marriages in the US result in a divorce,Idk if I'm making sense or not since I haven't slept in a while but I guess what I'm trying to say is marriage isnt needed. Why not just enjoy your life with your significant other regardless of marital status?  Again,sorry if I don't make sense.



Psychologically we could debate and discuss all week, legally it is pretty clear (rights upon death, visitation rights in places where privacy or other issues exist, various tax breaks or restrictions and so on) with many of those rights being automatically granted as a result of marriage (a relatively simple affair vs doing all the paperwork manually, if you can do such paperwork manually at all). An issue here is then there are various civil unions but they are not always equal to marriage and that is a disparity that realistically needs changing if you are going to not have discriminatory laws.

The percentage results thing is an interesting discussion as you then also have to consider how marriage is viewed in various places, indeed I have noted in the US it seems almost a "thing you do" type thing in a lot of cases where a lot of the rest of the world would leave it as a normal relationship. To that end in a lot of cases as far as the US is concerned you might almost want to change that to "percentage of failed relationships".


----------



## Gahars (Jun 30, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> case and point


 

"Case in point". The phrase is "case in point".

If you're going to try to dodge around someone's argument, at least use the right idioms.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Marriage = one man, one woman, (as in the majority of the United States, which is what we're discussing).


If you're arguing that because something has been arbitrarily defined a certain way in the past, or because something is the majority, it should not be changed, then you probably would have also argued against interracial marriage, monogamous (as opposed to polygamous) marriage, etc. Speaking of the latter point, I haven't been paying attention to this thread in its entirety, so I don't know if you're religious, but the Bible most definitely does not define marriage as one man and one woman.




Haloman800 said:


> It could be argued that many non married couples living together in either sexual or non sexual relationships deserve the same advantages as married couples. Why shouldn't a single man receive the same tax advantages as married couples?


With some things, you're probably right that certain benefits are arbitrary. With others, however, the benefit cannot exist without two people, by definition (e.g. survivor benefits, etc). If you want to advocate the abolition of marriage rights and benefits, be my guest. This debate is primarily concerned with equality under the law.



Haloman800 said:


> If a hotel banned female patrons from entering it wouldn't be the governments job to legally redefine women as men.


You're probably not aware that your analogy makes the pro-gray argument. Allowing gays to get married is analogous to allowing female patrons into the hypothetical hospital. Redefining women as men for the purpose of being a hospital patron is analogous to redefining one of the gays as the opposite sex for the purpose of marriage.



1stClassZackFair said:


> Can someone please explain to me what people would gain from marriage? I'm not against same-sex marriage at all,In fact I'm all for it and screw what any religion says,I'm just wondering why it' so important.


It's primarily an equality issue. To ban gay marriage is to create second-class citizens. To ban recognition of gay marriage at the federal level but allow gays to get married in some states at the state level is to create "skim milk" marriages that are unnecessarily unequal and continue to say, "You are a second-class citizen" or "Your love isn't as good as their love."



1stClassZackFair said:


> As said earlier,marriage doesn't equal or add to happiness. Look at Gene Simmons,he was happily unmarried with his gf for at least 30 years or so and only married her because she would pester him about it. It is said that 50% of marriages in the US result in a divorce,Idk if I'm making sense or not since I haven't slept in a while but I guess what I'm trying to say is marriage isnt needed. Why not just enjoy your life with your significant other regardless of marital status? Again,sorry if I don't make sense.


You're making sense. You're correct that marriage does not inherently lead to happiness. Plenty of people are in loveless marriages. It's arguably the detrimental effect of banning one group of people from marriage that needs to be addressed. Likewise, if it's not a loveless union, marriage does have positive psychological effects.


----------



## 1stClassZackFair (Jun 30, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Psychologically we could debate and discuss all week, legally it is pretty clear (rights upon death, visitation rights in places where privacy or other issues exist, various tax breaks or restrictions and so on) with many of those rights being automatically granted as a result of marriage (a relatively simple affair vs doing all the paperwork manually, if you can do such paperwork manually at all). An issue here is then there are various civil unions but they are not always equal to marriage and that is a disparity that realistically needs changing if you are going to not have discriminatory laws.
> 
> The percentage results thing is an interesting discussion as you then also have to consider how marriage is viewed in various places, indeed I have noted in the US it seems almost a "thing you do" type thing in a lot of cases where a lot of the rest of the world would leave it as a normal relationship. To that end in a lot of cases as far as the US is concerned you might almost want to change that to "percentage of failed relationships".





Lacius said:


> It's primarily an equality issue. To ban gay marriage is to create second-class citizens. To ban recognition of gay marriage at the federal level but allow gays to get married in some states at the state level is to create "skim milk" marriages that are unnecessarily unequal and continue to say, "You are a second-class citizen" or "Your love isn't as good as their love."
> 
> 
> You're also making sense. You're correct that marriage does not inherently lead to happiness. Plenty of people are in loveless marriages. It's arguably the detrimental effect of banning one group of people from marriage that needs to be addressed. Likewise, if it's not a loveless union, marriage does have positive psychological effects.



Thanks for explaining guys. It's true that psychologically we could argue forever however the main thing I wanted to know about was the legal benefits as I've never paid attention to a converstaion when the topic of marriage would come up lol.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2013)

1stClassZackFair said:


> Thanks for explaining guys. It's true that psychologically we could argue forever however the main thing I wanted to know about was the legal benefits as I've never paid attention to a conversation when the topic of marriage would come up lol.


 
A lot of the legal rights and benefits have presumably already been covered throughout this thread (joint taxes, hospital visitation and decision rights, etc), so I'm not going to go into great detail. However, I'd like to mention the real-world consequence of the DOMA ruling (that allowed the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages) in which an intern printed the ruling as fast as he could and ran it to an immigration court so he could stop someone's husband from being deported just because the United States government didn't acknowledge the same-sex marriage before the ruling.

One can also look at Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case, who had to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes after her wife died; she would have had to have paid $0 if she and her wife had been a heterosexual couple.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 30, 2013)

Lacius said:


> A lot of the legal rights and benefits have presumably already been covered throughout this thread (joint taxes, hospital visitation and decision rights, etc), so I'm not going to go into great detail. However, I'd like to mention the real-world consequence of the DOMA ruling (that allowed the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages) in which an intern printed the ruling as fast as he could and ran it to an immigration court so he could stop someone's husband from being deported just because the United States government didn't acknowledge the same-sex marriage before the ruling.
> 
> 
> One can also look at Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in the DOMA case, who had to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes after her wife died; she would have had to have paid $0 if she and her wife had been a heterosexual couple.


I know this is a different subject/thread, but do you think DOMA ruling has any effect on polygamy standing?


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2013)

KingVamp said:


> I know this is a different subject/thread, but do you think DOMA ruling has any effect on polygamy standing?


 
DOMA's newfound unconstitutionality has no lawful effect on polygamy; there are other laws that specifically outlaw polygamy and bigamy in the United States, both at the state and federal level. As for setting precedent for future cases dealing with polygamy, I really doubt it (although it's possible).


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 30, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> If you can, please give me a simple, logical argument as to why the definition of marriage should be changed.


 
Because it's not really being change, marriage is just a legal contract between two parties and the government often using another party such as the Church to witness that contract being made. In a simple break down of the legal definition.
But if you want a simple argument, the fact that you can't sell your daughter for 3 goats, kidnap someone to marry (legally that is.), and buy a wife off of someone pretty much shows that the definition of marriage has been changed.
Marriage predates Christianity and was even part of cultures like the Greeks, Romans, and Native Americans, all of which actually had same-sex marriage and that was a normal every day things. Christianity did not invent marriage nor does it have the right to define something that doesn't belong to them, they are just another middle man for the state to the contract.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jun 30, 2013)

i think at this point i just have to step back and wonder at those that oppose same-sex marriage and ask... *why do you people care?*

why are some of you so obsessed with intruding on something that's not even any of your business in the first place?
This is probably the biggest non-issue that has ever been blown out of proportions and yet we continue on this pointless debate by talking about trivial crap like "should we really change the legal definition of marriage?" or "should we even treat gay people like human begins?" I guaran-fucking-tee that if we fully legalize it the next day nothing in your life is going to change for the worst. *NOTHING*. Children aren't gonna be force to be taught gayness in schools, there isn't gonna be total anarchy on marriage and it's certainly not going to bring about the fucking end times. What do you people honestly have to lose? ...other then bruising your holier-than-thou egos?

jesus christ we are gonna look so fucking stupid generations from now because we tried so hard to make ourselves believe this was a real issue


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jun 30, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> i think at this point i just have to step back and wonder at those that oppose same-sex marriage and ask... *why do you people care?*


 
The only real issue people can have is that it will cost them more insurance money.  But my counter argument to that is that these couples will adopt and later on it will do more good than harm, causing insurance to go back down.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jun 30, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> Because it's not really being change,


 

If it's not being "change", then why are we having this discussion? Why does this thread exist? We are discussing United States law, which marriage (in the vast majority of states) = One Man, One Woman.



FAST6191 said:


> An issue here is then there are various civil unions but they are not always equal to marriage and that is a disparity that realistically needs changing if you are going to not have discriminatory laws


 
If you're unhappy with civil union benefits, then you should be rallying for them to be increased. This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed.



Lacius said:


> If you're arguing that because something has been arbitrarily defined a certain way in the past, or because something is the majority, it should not be changed, then you probably would have also argued against interracial marriage, monogamous (as opposed to polygamous) marriage, etc. Speaking of the latter point, I haven't been paying attention to this thread in its entirety, so I don't know if you're religious, but the Bible most definitely does not define marriage as one man and one woman.


Interracial marriage dates back as far as the Bible. That's not an issue. Stay on topic.



Lacius said:


> You're probably not aware that your analogy makes the pro-gray argument. Allowing gays to get married is analogous to allowing female patrons into the hypothetical hospital. Redefining women as men for the purpose of being a hospital patron is analogous to redefining one of the gays as the opposite sex for the purpose of marriage.


 
You seem a little confused. If a hospital has a stupid rule, it's not the government's job to change a definition to circumvent it. It's a problem with the hospital's bill. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the hospital.



Lacius said:


> It's primarily an *equality* issue. To ban gay marriage is to create second-class citizens. To ban recognition of gay marriage at the federal level but allow gays to get married in some states at the state level is to create "skim milk" marriages that are unnecessarily unequal and continue to say, "You are a second-class citizen" or "Your love isn't as good as their love."


 
Man/Man ≠ Man/Woman. Race equality does not mean I can claim to be aboriginal to reap the benefits of assistance programs.



Lacius said:


> You're making sense. You're correct that marriage does not inherently lead to happiness. Plenty of people are in loveless marriages. It's arguably the detrimental effect of banning one group of people from marriage that needs to be addressed. Likewise, if it's not a loveless union, marriage does have positive psychological effects.


 
If you imply that it is a bad thing that marriage has strayed from its traditional roots, then why would you rally to further deviate it? Marriage has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?



UltraHurricane said:


> I guaran-fucking-tee that if we fully legalize it the next day nothing in your life is going to change for the worst. *NOTHING*.




This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed. We are not obliged to change definitions based on the assertions that the majority won't be affected.


----------



## Lacius (Jun 30, 2013)

AbyssalMonkey said:


> The only real issue people can have is that it will cost them more insurance money. But my counter argument to that is that these couples will adopt and later on it will do more good than harm, causing insurance to go back down.


 
1. Anyone who says insurance or taxes is why he or she is against gay marriage is lying.

2. An individual's health insurance costs will not go up because more people might get health insurance after the gay marriage rulings.

3. It's true that the recent marriage cases could cause tax revenue to go down marginally due to gay couples no longer having to pay as much (albeit there are other factors that might balance that out or even raise revenue). Regardless, anyone who would be against gay marriage for this reason should then be against most other types of marriage in a selfish attempt to lower his or her tax obligations as much as possible. Should we ban interracial marriages again in an effort to increase revenue and reduce the deficit?



Haloman800 said:


> If you're unhappy with civil union benefits, then you should be rallying for them to be increased. This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed.


"Separate but equal" is never equal.
Equality issues aside, certain rights and benefits require it to be marriage. For example, there are employee unions that specifically require marriage for partner benefits.
Logistic issues like the one above aside, not a single compelling reason has been provided to put gay unions on one side with limited rights/benefits and heterosexual relationships on the other.



Haloman800 said:


> Interracial marriage dates back as far as the Bible. That's not an issue. Stay on topic.


Before the 1967 Supreme Court ruling that legalized interracial marriage throughout the United States, the state of interracial marriage was very similar to the state of gay marriage today, being legal in some states and illegal in others (particularly the South). The Bible was also used back then in offense against interracial marriage. It's quite on topic to bring it up.



Haloman800 said:


> You seem a little confused. If a hospital has a stupid rule, it's not the government's job to change a definition to circumvent it. It's a problem with the hospital's bill. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the hospital.


Well, first of all, the topic of gay marriage deals directly with law and policy, which is the government's purview. Second, it is the government's job to step in when people's rights are being violated. The Civil Rights Act, for example, dealt in part with the treatment of people by race, even with regard to private institutions. Title II, for example, "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce."



Haloman800 said:


> Man/Man ≠ Man/Woman.


You're right. Man/Man is not the same as Man/Woman. That doesn't mean one is less than the other or that they shouldn't be treated equally under the law.



Haloman800 said:


> If you imply that it is a bad thing that marriage has strayed from its traditional roots, then why would you rally to further deviate it? Marriage has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?


I didn't say it was a bad thing that marriage has become more inclusive and equal over the years. I explicitly stated that it's a bad thing that gay couples suffer the detrimental psychological effects of being told they're second-class citizens in states that do not allow same-sex marriage.



Haloman800 said:


> This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed. We are not obliged to change definitions based on the assertions that the majority won't be affected.


Actually, we only make things illegal or deny people specific rights when ample reason has been provided to do so, not the other way around. You could take away knowledge of all the positive things about gay marriage (e.g. equality, stability for couples and families (financial and otherwise), the positive psychological effects, etc), and you've still given no reason to make gay marriage illegal. Clinging to the sound bite "marriage is one man and one woman," ignoring that's not even the case in the Bible or would even matter if it were, does nothing to make any argument against gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in my state of Missouri until the 1967 Supreme Court decision. Should interracial couples in Missouri have just been all, "Well, marriage is defined as one man of the same race and one woman of the same race here. I guess that's that"?


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 30, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> If you're unhappy with civil union benefits, then you should be rallying for them to be increased. This does not prove that the definition of marriage should be changed.



You have an interesting mindset with regards to this topic, speculating much further would probably not serve to do much other than entertain a few people.

So anyway marriage -- not a sacred/immutable word by any means. To the best of my knowledge there are no such words in English either and as soon as such things happen you tend to have a dead language on your hands or at the very least a dead word.

Civil unions and marriages 
Broadly aimed at allowing people to enter into a contract which affords a host of rights, responsibilities, benefits and whatever else. Society sees no reason to (no longer) deny any of those to those engaged in relationships between those of the same sex.

Basic logic says if words are exact synonyms you can probably afford to drop one or the other or substitute one for the other unless you are engaged in wordplay. Basic logic also says if you going to have two complex programmable systems do the same thing and you do not need redundancy you might as well work from the same design spec.


----------



## LoganK93 (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm sorry, but for those of you arguing that marriage shouldn't change, let me just point out that EVERYTHING CHANGES WITH TIME. If nothing changed, we would not have modern medicine, modern technology, or even fashion as we see it today. People would be being put to death for being un-able to birth a son, there would just be so many things. There is really only one reason that everyone is against gay marriage, and without a doubt that is the Bible. There has thus far been no argument that has shown me it will drive our country into the ground. It affects straight people in no way, unless they suddenly decide that because us dirty "faggots" being able to be married somehow makes their marriage worth less, which is their own problem anyway. The procreation point is moot because I know several heterosexual married couples who either use condoms, have had vasectomies or tubes tied, are just infertile, or have gone through menopause. I say if procreation is the only reason for marriage then the binding contract should be void upon the discovery of infertility, or of the woman going through menopause as then the marriage is contributing nothing to our planet which is obviously dwindling in population since the argument seems to be that we desperately need more babies. I wish you could all take a step back and see it from the other direction. If you knew you loved someone, knew that you wanted to spend your life with them, and knew that other people could be with the person they love, and have it be legally recognized and you couldn't have the same thing, with an adult, consenting human being, you'd fight for it. Hell, I don't think at this point in our world it should be an argument. We always teach our kids not to discriminate, "People may be different colors and have different accents and even speak different languages Johnny, but if THEY ARE GAY YOU SHOULD TREAT THEM LIKE NOTHING BECAUSE THAT IS GROSS AND GOD SAID IT WAS EVIL 3000 YEARS AGO IN A BOOK HE DIDN'T WRITE."


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2013)

LoganK93 said:


> There is really only one reason that everyone is against gay marriage, and without a doubt that is the Bible.


Just about everyone who is against gay marriage uses their religion as the reason why, but a lot of those people are using their religion as a cover for their prejudice. In reality, many of them just don't like things that are different and/or think homosexuality is icky. I'm honestly not sure which reason is more ridiculous.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Do you think gay marriage is a human right?


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Do you think gay marriage is a human right?


 

I think freedom from oppression is a human right.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

LoganK93 said:


> *It affects straight people in no way*


 
This has already been refuted. This does not prove that the definition should be changed. We are not obliged to change definitions based on the assertion that the majority won't be affected.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> I think freedom from oppression is a human right.


 
Great. Do you think gay marriage is a human right?


----------



## Lestworth (Jul 1, 2013)

Gahars said:


> "Case in point". The phrase is "case in point".
> 
> If you're going to try to dodge around someone's argument, at least use the right idioms.


 

It was kind of the point, of all the people on these thread, you of all people should of picked up on that one.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Great. Do you think gay marriage is a human right?


 

Do you think being forcibly denied it is oppression?


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Do you think being forcibly denied it is oppression?


 
Forcibly denying a pedophile the right to molest a children? Nope. Want to answer my question now?


----------



## Lestworth (Jul 1, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> By and large if you post an opinion on a public forum and put it forth as a righteous one you can expect to be called on it.
> 
> Likewise if you can not or will not defend it then people are generally free to dismiss it and you until such a time as you do.


 

This is a very stupid reason. In general if you attempt to argue your opinions to a brick wall, you will only be yelling at yourself. Like wise for the opposite party. If you can not accept someones opinion, then maybe it is you who needs to open up their eyes. I saw no benefit arguing with someone such as that person, it was clear what that guy was attempting to provoke, and im ashamed to see people even back it up. Its just as bad for you to even claim my post had any righteous attitude. It seems you are attempting to provoke emotion into a subject that revolves souly around personal opinion. That road is a very slippery path that i have been down an obscene amount of times, i decided to not do it again, i saw no point.

This thread is nothing but a hot mess of people attacking each others opinions on the subject. A hot mess i refuse to be apart of.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Do you think gay marriage is a human right?


 
yes, why isn't it? whats so goddamn scary about allowing it to be so? please elaborate


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> yes, why isn't it? whats so goddamn scary about allowing it to be so? please elaborate


 
Polygamy is not a human right. Neither is gay marriage.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Forcibly denying a pedophile the right to molest a children? Nope. Want to answer my question now?


 

Sure.

Yes, I think it's a human right.

Why?  Gays are being unnecessarily oppressed, because gay marriage has no adverse effect on anybody who is not involved in that marriage, save for someone not being able to pull their heads out of their asses because of how high up there they're shoved.

Forcibly denying a pedophile the right to "molest a children"?  How do you plan to forcibly stop a pedophile from molesting a child?  Most of the "stopping" happens after the crime has been committed.  If you get the pretty little idea in your head that you just hate the way your neighbors cut their lawn and weed their garden, perhaps it's not very thorough, or perhaps it's even nicer than yours and you just can't get over that fact, there is nothing in the world, as long as you have kept the thought to yourself, that is going to forcibly stop you from loading a few rounds into a shotgun, kicking down their door in the middle of the night, and loading them with a few shells worth of buckshot.  I can't say I know any personally, but I would highly imagine that most pedophiles do not run around in broad daylight, telling family, friend, and neighbor alike "Hey, guess what!  See that little toddler over there?  I'm gonna kidnap her and do unspeakable things to that." The police would be there faster than you can think, and I would imagine a large amount of vigilante-ism would come into play as well. The only thing forcibly stopping you, or anyone, from committing a crime between conception and execution is yourself, and yourself only.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Do you think gay marriage is a human right?


That all depends on how you define "human right." Do you consider heterosexual marriage a human right? If so, then so is gay marriage. If not, then neither is gay marriage. If you're going to say one is and one isn't, then I'd like to hear your definition of "human right." I think freedom from second-class citizenship status can arguably be considered a human right.

I'd also like clarification on if we're making a distinction between lawful marriage and pursuit of happiness with regard to romantic relationships, or if you're conflating the two. If you're conflating the two, then yes, gay marriage is a human right.



Haloman800 said:


> This has already been refuted. This does not prove that the definition should be changed. We are not obliged to change definitions based on the assertion that the majority won't be affected.


I've already explained how you have how we decide what's legal/illegal backwards.



Haloman800 said:


> Forcibly denying a pedophile the right to molest a children? Nope. Want to answer my question now?


I'm not sure how pedophilia is relevant; it had nothing to do with your question or the provided answer. Regardless, molestation is not a human right; freedom from molestation is.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Polygamy is not a human right. Neither is gay marriage.


 
it's... nice that you show concern about polygamy, but what does that have to do with gay marriage again?


----------



## Law (Jul 1, 2013)

dickfour said:


> You can put a sign on a cow that says horse but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cow. So called gay marriage isn't the same and it isn't equal. The purpose of marriage for the past 20,000 years has been the perpetuation of the race. Period. On the bright side states still have the right to define marriage and 38 have defined that between a man and a woman


 
Isn't marriage a religious (and mostly christian ruled) thing? 20,000 years seems like a stretch. 1800 years tops.

You can bang and have kids and continue the human race without being married. Marriage doesn't really have anything to do with banging or having kids, I knew lots of kids whose parents weren't married but had formed common-law or civil partnerships. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I don't think Cavemen were busy exchanging vows, pretty sure the neanderthals were taking homo sapien females by brute force and just banging them until they birthed offspring.

People marry for money, people marry for power, and people marry for love. It isn't often people marry just so they can bang and have kids.

But hey, I'm probably wrong. After all, the bible has existed since the dawn of time, written by God. I bet even the fish, insects, amphibians, and dinosaurs were getting married before banging and laying eggs.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Sure.
> 
> Yes, I think it's a human right.
> 
> ...


 
So you advocate polygamous marriage?


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> it's... nice that you show concern about polygamy, but what does that have to do with gay marriage again?


 
Who are you to say what 3 consenting adults can or can't do? Or 5, or 12?


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Who are you to say what 3 consenting adults can or can't do? Or 5, or 12?


 
again it's very noble that you show such deep concerns about polygamy, but could be a good sport and stay on topic? i appreciate that, thanks


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> So you advocate polygamous marriage?


 

Where the fuck does polygamous marriage come into play with what I said?

If you want my actual opinion on that, though, no, I do not advocate it. However, like homosexual relations, that is not my lifestyle, and is not how I do/have chosen to/feel comfortable/have been raised to lead my life in the society I reside in, and as such, I won't actively do anything to hinder the progress of those trying to achieve it, nor talk down to those who follow that lifestyle.

Shit just ain't my cup of tea, plain and simple.

(One girlfriend is more than enough at one time for me, and I'm not the kind of guy to be rollin with other dudes like that, which is what my opinion is based off of.) In other words, I am decidedly indifferent.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> again it's very noble that you show such deep concerns about polygamy, but could be a good sport and stay on topic? i appreciate that, thanks





Sicklyboy said:


> Where the fuck does polygamous marriage come into play with what I said?
> 
> If you want my actual opinion on that, though, no, I do not advocate it. However, like homosexual relations, that is not my lifestyle, and is not how I do/have chosen to/feel comfortable/have been raised to lead my life in the society I reside in, and as such, I won't actively do anything to hinder the progress of those trying to achieve it, nor talk down to those who follow that lifestyle.
> 
> ...





No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?


----------



## Lestworth (Jul 1, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> again it's very noble that you show such deep concerns about polygamy, but could be a good sport and stay on topic? i appreciate that, thanks


 
Just like the other 80% of the examples used in this topic  .... o wait


----------



## Law (Jul 1, 2013)

If you're going to do polygamy, what's the point of getting married? I mean let's assume you have a harem of 12 women and you spend all day banging them, when are you going to have time for all of the wedding ceremonies?

And if you married them all on different days you would have a dozen anniversary dates to remember and it would just be a hassle.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Law said:


> If you're going to do polygamy, what's the point of getting married? I mean let's assume you have a harem of 12 women and you spend all day banging them, when are you going to have time for all of the wedding ceremonies?
> 
> And if you married them all on different days you would have a dozen anniversary dates to remember and it would just be a hassle.


 

 What's the point of gay marriage? I mean let's assume you have a boyfriend and you spend all day banging him, who has time to get married? You'd have to remember your anniversary and everything, it would just be a hassle.


----------



## Law (Jul 1, 2013)

What's the point of straight marriage? Let's assume you have a girlfriend and you spend all day banging her, who has time to get married? It would just be a hassle.

Let's just dismantle the oppressive Christian-Catholic ideas of marriage completely, the world is one big orgy just waiting to happen.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?


 

I made a small revision to my post, check that out real quick.

Didn't I explicitly say in my post, though, that I am not opposing it?



Sicklyboy said:


> [...]that is not my lifestyle, and is not how I do/have chosen to/feel comfortable/have been raised to lead my life in the society I reside in, and as such, I won't actively do anything to hinder the progress of those trying to achieve it, nor talk down to those who follow that lifestyle.
> 
> Shit just ain't my cup of tea, plain and simple.
> 
> (One girlfriend is more than enough at one time for me, and I'm not the kind of guy to be rollin with other dudes like that, which is what my opinion is based off of.) In other words, I am decidedly indifferent.


 

Meaning - that isn't how I roll, but I really don't care.  As long as everything works out in the end and one group of people isn't getting fucked over by society or the government more than the other is, I couldn't care less.

I have many, many friends who are gay, both on this forum and outside of it. I am very happy with my girlfriend and would love to marry her, likely in a non-religious institution (though we are both eligible "followers" of the Catholic faith to receive the sacrament of Holy Matrimony).  I want for my friends to be able to share in the same union with their chosen partner as I do with mine, heterosexual or homosexual indifferent.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2013)

Law said:


> Isn't marriage a religious (and mostly christian ruled) thing? 20,000 years seems like a stretch. 1800 years tops.


It's hard to say when the "institution of marriage" began, since it has taken so many forms over the years; contrary to popular belief, marriage has not always been "one man and one woman," and it has not always been a religious institution. Regardless, marriage appears to predate recorded history, and recorded history and writing happened sometime around 3200 BCE. None of this is really relevant to the gay marriage debate, but I thought I'd share.



Haloman800 said:


> No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?


 
Logistical issues and what is often rampant misogyny aside, I see no reason for polygamy to be illegal either. I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we're talking about though. Neither gay nor straight monogamous marriages are polygamous, by definition.


----------



## Law (Jul 1, 2013)

Well marriage as we know it in the Christian dominated sense of the word is far more recent. Far, far, more recent than 20,000 years.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?


 
because it's something that has been phased out of our society much like stoning people to death for petty crimes, granted it took quite a while but eventually women realized that maybe they don't want to spend the rest of their lives being wife number #3702942 because more often then not they were likely pressured/forced into these sort of things from deeply-religious communities under relatively misogynistic motivations masking as tradition and it seems highly unlikely that girls would be all that happy in a marriage like that in today's world

unlike same-sex couples, where it's usually just two consenting adults who are romantically involved as any straight couple, they just happen to be the same gender

so yeah, i have no idea where you were going with this


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> because it's something that has been phased out of our society much like stoning people to death for petty crimes, granted it took quite a while but eventually women realized that maybe they don't want to spend the rest of their lives being wife number #3702942 because more often then not they were likely pressured/forced into these sort of things from deeply-religious communities under relatively misogynistic motivations masking as tradition and it seems highly unlikely that girls would be all that happy in a marriage like that in today's world
> 
> unlike same-sex couples, where it's usually just two consenting adults who are romantically involved as any straight couple, they just happen to be the same gender
> 
> so yeah, i have no idea where you were going with this


 
They're 12 consenting adults, who are you to say what they can and can't do?


----------



## Lestworth (Jul 1, 2013)

I'm sure in the next 200 years the argument will be, instead of gays, the right to marry your animals.

The fight for righteousness will never end regardless of any bill or law that will or will not pass. Opinions will continue to be mixed into this. Its just how people respond, and attempt to understand.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> They're 12 consenting adults, who are you to say what they can and can't do?


 
well if you want to try and legalize that shit go right ahead, but then again polygamy has a really _*REALLY*_ bad stigma and history surrounding it (including child wives and the serious strain on welfare once all those wives have babies) when compared to gay marriage, so good luck trying to defend that to modern day feminist groups


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 1, 2013)

Aah, yes the government, always thinking they know what's best when the people are just mindless drones to them. Gee, and I thought people could decide for themselves. What people choose to do in their own lives is their business, not the government's. It's bad enough they try to tell us what we can/can't eat, how much gas our cars are supposed to use, how much CO2 we can produce, etc. etc. I do what I want to do, and as far as I'm concerned, the government can screw off. They've no right to tell us what we can or can't do in our personal lives. There are schmucks on both sides of the political spectrum, in fact, it's easily a clown college in disguise.

I didn't want to join in the discussion without thinking beforehand on what I wanted to say. All I can say is the government isn't for the people, the do the things they do for themselves. They tell us what's right or wrong, moral or immoral, acceptable or unacceptable. Frankly, they should stay the hell outta our personal lives.

There, I said my piece. If people want to come down on me for my rant on why I despise the government, so be it.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> well if you want to try and legalize that shit go right ahead, but then again polygamy has a really _*REALLY*_ bad stigma and history surrounding it (including child wives and the serious strain on welfare once all those wives have babies) when compared to gay marriage, so good luck trying to defend that to modern day feminist groups


 
No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?


----------



## UltraHurricane (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?


 
AND THE AWARD FOR MOST REBUTTALS IGNORED GOES TO...

no seriously, your starting to sound like a broken record at this point


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

UltraHurricane said:


> AND THE AWARD FOR MOST REBUTTALS IGNORED GOES TO...
> 
> no seriously, your starting to sound like a broken record at this point


 
Dodging the question.


----------



## Law (Jul 1, 2013)

are you trying to play the "oppressed straight christian white male" card?

That doesn't work.


----------



## Kouen Hasuki (Jul 1, 2013)

Doesn't everyone love these "debates"

On topic, being not that way inclined I am not as bothered as some, however I am generally glad things are moving forward the mentality of "It's Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" should have died quite some time ago. In my personal opinion.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Law said:


> are you trying to play the "oppressed straight christian white male" card?
> 
> That doesn't work.


 
I just tried to check my privilege. I really did. I tried and tried, and it just didn't work. I must be doing something wrong, because I'm an American heterosexual white male.

I checked my memories of a childhood being raised by a single mother, and of my rare time spent with a crack addicted father.

I checked all of the holes in the floor of the trailer I grew up in, and I checked all of the cabinets filled with droppings from field mice that always got in, no matter how hard we tried to keep them out.

I checked the back room where my 21 year old step sister sexually assaulted me at the age of 14. I checked the front porch where I was told to suck it up when I confessed to my family.

I checked every time I asked for help with something, and I was told to man up and figure it out for myself. I checked every time my family ran to help an aunt or a niece or a sister at the drop of a hat.

I checked the times I applied for crappy fast food jobs and was denied because of the language barrier between myself and the Hispanic staff.

I checked everywhere. The only thing that came close to a privilege was the fact that I expect myself to do well, despite everything I have to work against. My only privilege is a self image that demands that I work hard, and dig myself out of a family history of lower class serfdom.

Am I missing anything? Was there somewhere I forgot to look?


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> -snip-


Holy hell. Is any of you able to stay on topic, or does every fiber of your being demand that you go on whatever tangents you can in order to stray away from the actual "issue" that you seem to have no ability to actually defend your point of view on?

For any who care about the history of marriage, it's irrelevant. Whether that word in itself was a religious manifestation, or whether the idea of "marriage" came up at another point in time, it's all semantics. What matters is how marriage is viewed today, and how it's viewed today is not as an explicitly religious practice. It is a legal, binding contract that acts as a union for two people. Ambiguous two people. No defined genders. Seeing as being an atheist, I could get married by the state in an entirely non-religious ceremony, I'm having issues seeing why gay people should suddenly have to see marriage as a taboo for themselves because of intolerance and bigotry from people claiming it's for religion. And even then, separation of church and state. You can wave your Bible around until your damned arm falls off, and it won't change that it can not directly and knowingly affect the laws of this nation.

Oh, by the way, something caught my eye. Pedophilia? Really? That's your go to for a comparison to gay marriage getting legalized? Do you have any idea how fucked up that is? How much that exposes what kind of a hateful, bigoted, and ignorant individual you are? Equating two people of the same gender getting married to kids getting molested fucking sickens me.

And anybody acting like gay marriage is some kind of drug, like it's the marijuana of marriage, the gateway to all kinds of previously taboo marriage practices, you have the most ridiculous argument of all simply because there is no way to back that. That, and it's just stupid. Believe it or not, legalizing gay marriage won't lead to people marrying their dogs. It won't lead to men and women having 60 different spouses. The desperate "we have nothing else so let's go with this" gateway argument is a no man's land of opinion that can not be backed.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> It is a legal, binding contract that acts as a union for two people.


Why would you exclude polygamists? That's very hateful, bigoted, and ignorant of you to oppress consenting adults in what they choose to do.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Why would you exclude polygamists? That's very hateful, bigoted, and ignorant of you to oppress consenting adults in what they choose to do.


Irrelevant. Polygamy isn't gay marriage. Stay on topic or go away.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Nathan Drake said:


> What matters is how marriage is viewed today


 
Many people view marriage as a contract between consenting adults. Why would you so hatefully draw the line at gay marriage and take away the rights of others wishing to marry the ones they love?


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Many people view marriage as a contract between consenting adults. Why would you so hatefully draw the line at gay marriage and take away the rights of others wishing to marry the ones they love?


Irrelevant _and_ flame bait. Honestly, I'm just going to report the next one. You've clearly had your run in this thread and are more than done.


----------



## Lestworth (Jul 1, 2013)

i hate to argue, but examples are not irrelevant. If you are going to report someone for using an example, then you should report atleast another 100 posts doing the exact same thing from both parties. you cant sit here and judge someone using an example, simply because they are not on the same fence as you.

thats called oppression.=O something this thread is actually about as well.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jul 1, 2013)

Lestworth said:


> i hate to argue, but examples are not irrelevant. If you are going to report someone for using an example, then you should report atleast another 100 posts doing the exact same thing from both parties. you cant sit here and judge someone using an example, simply because they are not on the same fence as you.
> 
> thats called oppression.=O something this thread is actually about as well.


There is a difference between using examples and spiraling entirely off topic. He isn't just using polygamy as an example, he's trying to use it as an excuse to derail the gay marriage argument through misdirection, which would effectively derail the thread completely. If you're going to use an example, fantastic! But use it in a way that strengthens your argument, like, you know, actually referencing the subject at hand, and not in an inflammatory manner. It helps to make it an appropriate example too. If you have to ask yourself, for example, if comparing child molestation to gay marriage is a good idea, then I can assure you, it really, really isn't.

This is a forum. This forum is also not gay marriage. Although I do applaud the near relevant comparison.


----------



## Lestworth (Jul 1, 2013)

this thread is one giant flame war waiting to happen with opinions as it is. For it to "derail", that isnt very hard to do.

This subject is an insanely touchy area, despite how open minded people appear to be, we are just an imaginary blip on the internet. You cant make a thread like this, and expect well educated opinions attempting to reason with other well educated opinions. IT JUST DOES NOT MIX. No matter what, w/e the majority is on the thread, the other opinion will be drowned out, ultimatly make that group look like a sorry bunch of *censored*.  As well as arguments that attempt to rip apart the persons opinion, and win because of the volume.

Basically this thread is

1. Gay rights!
2. No Gay Rights!

The majority holds all the cards with threads like this, and the millions before it. Its pretty obvious what thread this is atm reading the 13 pages. *This thread isnt about facts, its about the majority opinion on the subject.*


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Goodnight, everyone. It was a nice discussion while it lasted.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 1, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Aah, yes the government, always thinking they know what's best when the people are just mindless drones to them. Gee, and I thought people could decide for themselves. What people choose to do in their own lives is their business, not the government's. It's bad enough they try to tell us what we can/can't eat, how much gas our cars are supposed to use, how much CO2 we can produce, etc. etc. I do what I want to do, and as far as I'm concerned, the government can screw off. They've no right to tell us what we can or can't do in our personal lives. There are schmucks on both sides of the political spectrum, in fact, it's easily a clown college in disguise.
> 
> I didn't want to join in the discussion without thinking beforehand on what I wanted to say. All I can say is the government isn't for the people, the do the things they do for themselves. They tell us what's right or wrong, moral or immoral, acceptable or unacceptable. Frankly, they should stay the hell outta our personal lives.
> 
> There, I said my piece. If people want to come down on me for my rant on why I despise the government, so be it.


Again?

"It's bad enough they try to tell us what we can/can't eat"
They try to stop fast acting poisons from coming into the food chain and otherwise maintain a level of quality in the food. I do not see them saying yay or nay explicitly (salted sugar butter is something anybody is perfectly legally free to eat by the trough assuming they are not otherwise bound by an additional contract where that would be unwise), they do try to discourage people from making themselves or their spawn into fat bastards but they are still quite capable of doing it should they want to. About the closest you will get is in a lot of schools they might try to up the quality level a bit in terms of making a balanced meal which I will certainly be front and centre for when it comes to the protest against it.

"how much gas our cars are supposed to use"
Oil products are often a net import and one that is quite costly on a whole bunch of fronts. Trying to disincentivise use of fuel guzzlers when equally functional options are available that use far less makes complete sense. Likewise I do not know of anywhere in the world that expressly forbids existing vehicles of a certain distance to fuel volume ratio, it might happen as a result of emissions testing though most of those are volumetric and more concerned with unpleasant by-products. In many ways that is no different to other general roadworthyness tests.

"how much CO2 we can produce"
With the possible exception of an industry or two in Scandinavia every single carbon credits/limit has been optional I believe. There might have been tax breaks/accounting reasons and soft encouragements for various actions but it is all still optional. Car emissions testing..... have you seen smog?

"[the government] tell us what's right or wrong, moral or immoral, acceptable or unacceptable."
Again that is their job and it is how society works. They feel for the pulse of present morality in domestic, international, in line with established principles and give it out as a baseline -- you are quite free to adopt harsher morals for yourself. Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they appear almost capable of predicting the future and most times you get to revise it every couple of years as the world moves on.

"What people choose to do in their own lives is their business, not the government's."
To take it back onto topic it is. However as marriage is a government directed function/service/contract with potential benefits for those that utilise it the argument came up of why should this entirely acceptable group have a lesser version of it (typically not the done thing in a place that espouses equality as a governing principle) for no reason at all.




Lestworth said:


> This is a very stupid reason. In general if you attempt to argue your opinions to a brick wall, you will only be yelling at yourself. Like wise for the opposite party. If you can not accept someones opinion, then maybe it is you who needs to open up their eyes. I saw no benefit arguing with someone such as that person, it was clear what that guy was attempting to provoke, and im ashamed to see people even back it up. Its just as bad for you to even claim my post had any righteous attitude. It seems you are attempting to provoke emotion into a subject that revolves souly around personal opinion. That road is a very slippery path that i have been down an obscene amount of times, i decided to not do it again, i saw no point.
> 
> This thread is nothing but a hot mess of people attacking each others opinions on the subject. A hot mess i refuse to be apart of.



Your opinion is your opinion and pending evidence of your having to type it out under duress I will happily accept it as your opinion. However there are various standards against which your opinion can be compared/judged/rated.
Such options include but are not limited to

"rule of the jungle" -- if you can take it then you can have it, not a great way of doing things if society is functioning but an option none the less.

"rule of law" -- various options including international, domestic, comparison to other systems, religious law. Which system will be used or is suitable will have to be established first but it works.

"rule of governing ethical principles" -- possibly quite similar to rule of law but at times less specific and perhaps more broadly applicable. Usually what directs formations of the rule of law as well so quite useful.

Establishing which is to be used/will frame the debate is reasonably important for at times each of those is mutually incompatible. That is OK as one might have higher merit than the other.

I agree that arguing against a brick wall is seldom that useful if your intention is to change the brick wall, however this is a multi person discussion and to go a slight aside arguing against the entrenched is a difficult thing and one seldom worth the effort of doing, arguing in such a manner that someone that has yet to generate an opinion or someone that has a weak/unconsidered opinion is very often worth the effort. As mentioned we are in a multi person discussion and thus typing things out becomes worth the effort. 

Righteous... I fear we may have had a miscommunication or are operating on slightly different definitions of the word. Perhaps if I rephrased as "put forth and opinion on a public forum and held it up as one of merit".

"into a subject that revolves solely around personal opinion"
But it does not -- I wish to live in a society that values equality and if there is an issue where equality has not been achieved in the principles/code that governs that society it is not a subject that revolved solely around personal opinion.

"This thread is nothing but a hot mess of people attacking each others opinions on the subject."
You say attacking, I say debate and as people are providing detailed reasoning.... Debate is encouraged as this is a forum. I will go so far as to say I see no merit in general opposition to the issue at hand (pick out specifics of the implementation and we can certainly talk further) and would also go so far as to say general opposition is akin to being out of line with modern general/baseline ethics, however I have free time enough to pick apart reasoning that might be given for it.

"A hot mess i refuse to be apart of."
Read literally/grammatically speaking I found that amusing.


----------



## Gahars (Jul 1, 2013)

Is it just me, or is the anti-gay marriage side just getting really desperate now? Come on, guys, you're just getting silly here.



Haloman800 said:


> I just tried to check my privilege


 
We tumblr now.


----------



## Haloman800 (Jul 1, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Is it just me, or is the anti-gay marriage side just getting really desperate now? Come on, guys, you're just getting silly here.


 

Is it just me, or is the anti-poly marriage side just getting really desperate now? Come on, guys, you're just getting silly here.


p.s. "Real Human Bean" made me lol.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> [The little engine who couldn't]


 

That's nice and all... but I don't see what a crack-addict dad and mouse droppings have to do with legalizing gay marriage...


----------



## Lacius (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Is it just me, or is the anti-poly marriage side just getting really desperate now? Come on, guys, you're just getting silly here.


 
If accepting heterosexual marriage does not require us to accept polygamous marriage, then neither does accepting same-sex marriage. If accepting same-sex marriage requires us to accept polygamous marriage for the sake of consistency, then so does accepting heterosexual marriage. You're talking about two different issues with different logistical concerns. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are as related as heterosexual marriage and polygamy. I don't think you understand that failing to come up with a reason to criminalize polygamy (for the sake of being consistent with wanting to legalize gay marriage) does nothing to provide any reason to criminalize gay marriage.

If, instead, your goal is to bring up the "slippery slope" argument, then be aware that's a fallacy by definition.


----------



## AbyssalMonkey (Jul 1, 2013)

Haloman800 said:


> Is it just me, or is the anti-poly marriage side just getting really desperate now? Come on, guys, you're just getting silly here.


I thought I quit this thread, but this comment is just plain retarded.  If you want to talk about polygamy, go here.  This thread is  about the decision the court made.  Either talk about that decision or leave.  I've already made my claim as to why religion can't be used as a counter to their decision.  But I fail to see how arguing about polygamy has anything to do with the homosexual marriage, even less with the Supreme Court's decision.

This thread needs a lock, as it has gone far too off rails from the original topic.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (Jul 4, 2013)

mercluke said:


> Change who you are to be allowed the same basic rights and treatments as everyone else?


 
I'm male; I have the right to marry a woman.

The right everyone has is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's how it's supposed to work.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 4, 2013)

ProtoKun7 said:


> I'm male; I have the right to marry a woman.
> The right everyone has is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's how it's supposed to work.




Couldn't something similar be said about a lot of laws that have been change due time? 

ex. Interracial marriage


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 4, 2013)

ProtoKun7 said:


> I'm male; I have the right to marry a woman.
> 
> The right everyone has is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That's how it's supposed to work.


 
I am going to politely disagree.
As I said before, marriage is a contract between individuals and the state, often using a third party such as a Church to witness the contract being made. Which is a simple break down of the definition. It also pre-dates all modern religions and was part of several which all had same-sex marriages. Interestingly enough even old Christians practiced same-sex marriages.
This argument over same-sex marriage is actually a more modern thing because before it became an argument, same-sex marriage was a common everyday thing and even the Church said nothing about it. If anything the Heterosexual only is actually an example of "redefining" marriage, because it wasn't always like that and wasn't how it's suppose to work.


----------



## Lacius (Jul 4, 2013)

ProtoKun7 said:


> That's how it's supposed to work.


 
The questions we have to ask ourselves are "that's how it's supposed to work according to whom?" and "why is that how it's supposed to work?"

When we ask those questions, it becomes clear that denying marriage rights to others doesn't make much sense. Saying gay males can only legally marry females makes about as much sense as saying straight males can only legally marry males.



			
				Someone from the 1950s said:
			
		

> I'm a white male; I have the right to marry a white woman.
> 
> The right everyone has is the right to marry someone of the same race. That's how it's supposed to work.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jun 26, 2015)

2 year bump I know but it went nationwide
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341

The an overview of the background through to the current day
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21943292


----------



## chavosaur (Jun 26, 2015)

I couldn't be happier~


----------



## endoverend (Jun 26, 2015)

The funny part is, some states are still claiming to have the right to deny gay marriage (looking at you texas) which, of course, is totally false.


----------



## Vipera (Jun 26, 2015)

Gays be gayin'


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 26, 2015)

About 10 minutes on Facebook just shows nothing but sharing of today's ruling, scrolling all the way down to the minute the decision was known to the public. Hooray, I say, hooray for the US finally hitting the point where we are so close to putting something behind us that should never have been an issue to begin with. Now that gay marriage is totally legal (when it shouldn't have been bound by law to begin with), I wonder what will become the center stage issue as time goes on and gay marriage is just kind of existing like anything else.


----------



## Blaze163 (Jun 26, 2015)

dickfour said:


> You can put a sign on a cow that says horse but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a cow. So called gay marriage isn't the same and it isn't equal. The purpose of marriage for the past 20,000 years has been the perpetuation of the race. Period. On the bright side states still have the right to define marriage and 38 have defined that between a man and a woman



The implication being that you can only have kids if you're married? As in only PHYSICALLY have kids when you have a magical ring and a permission slip from the Pope? Are you aware of how the human reproductive system works? It's not conditionally activated when you do things right, it works whether your God wants it to or not. Please tell me you're a troll. I'm not sure how anyone could be this genuinely stupid and still retain enough brain capacity to operate a keyboard without swallowing bits of it like a dog eating Scrabble tiles.


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 26, 2015)

I am so proud to finally see this happen! It's about time we are a country moved forward!


----------



## RevPokemon (Jun 27, 2015)

I can say as a person of faith and future minister that I couldn't be happier with the ruling that allows marriage equality but I am worried that it will
1. Have states/counties/cities being a holes denying same sex couples the right to marry.
2. If will cause an increase in hate crimes against lgbt people
3.it will hurt funding towards hrc and other wonderful groups that support lbgt rights

Ultimately I'm proud to tell my future kids that I remember the wonderful day when we got marriage equality although we still got a long way to go


----------



## nonamejohn (Jun 28, 2015)

I have a question, why can't we all just agree to disagree ? I'm a traditional man who believes in a man-woman relationship, but I don't practice religion and don't try to argue against other peoples beliefs on the internet. Whats the point of wasting our time on this bullshit ?


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 28, 2015)

Nathan Drake said:


> About 10 minutes on Facebook just shows nothing but sharing of today's ruling, scrolling all the way down to the minute the decision was known to the public. Hooray, I say, hooray for the US finally hitting the point where we are so close to putting something behind us that should never have been an issue to begin with. Now that gay marriage is totally legal (when it shouldn't have been bound by law to begin with), I wonder what will become the center stage issue as time goes on and gay marriage is just kind of existing like anything else.


Polygamy/polyamory perhaps?


----------



## Nathan Drake (Jun 28, 2015)

KingVamp said:


> Polygamy/polyamory perhaps?


Doubtful. In general, that just doesn't seem to be a popular idea. People are big on monogamy and acknowledge swinging if they have to, but going beyond that to multiple marriages to one person just seems too outlandish for many to consider. I wasn't limiting the scope to issues of marriage though. More like what will become the big political focus in general in regards to social issues. As it stands, gay marriage has been the main point of activism in the US with general LGBTQ rights and feminism in general not being so far behind. Feminism tries to be a one size fits all social issue, so I could see it trying to further absorb the LGBTQ movement, but for the most part, society seems to divorce the two as separate sets of issues.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2015)

This is a sad day for the gay community, and before someone accuses me of being a homphobe, let me clarify - there is nothing more offensive to me than inviting the government into a union of loving people. Civil marriage, as a whole, is an insane institution that shouldn't exist - it's none of anyone's business who you live with and why.


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 28, 2015)

Nathan Drake said:


> Doubtful. In general, that just doesn't seem to be a popular idea. People are big on monogamy and acknowledge swinging if they have to, but going beyond that to multiple marriages to one person just seems too outlandish for many to consider. I wasn't limiting the scope to issues of marriage though. More like what will become the big political focus in general in regards to social issues. As it stands, gay marriage has been the main point of activism in the US with general LGBTQ rights and feminism in general not being so far behind. Feminism tries to be a one size fits all social issue, so I could see it trying to further absorb the LGBTQ movement, but for the most part, society seems to divorce the two as separate sets of issues.


True, but neither was gay/bi monogamy (being in the closet and all) and it doesn't have to be a lot to one person. That said, marriage as it is right now, at least with a even amount of people, is probably good enough. I thought you were just talking about marriages. The problem with feminism, well..., it pretty much lost its original meaning and goal. 



Foxi4 said:


> This is a sad day for the gay community, and before someone accuses me of being a homphobe, let me clarify - there is nothing more offensive to me than inviting the government into a union of loving people. Civil marriage, as a whole, is an insane institution that shouldn't exist - it's none of anyone's business who you live with and why.


But that's what they wanted. To be recognized and accepted by everyone, including the government.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 28, 2015)

KingVamp said:


> But that's what they wanted. To be recognized and accepted by everyone, including the government.


No, most wanted the privileges that come with marriage whereas there should be none. There are plenty of churches of various denominations that accept gay marriage already - if all they wanted was a holy union, they can go to any of those. No, gay couples want the tax benefits, inheritance laws and other privileges associated with marriage without classifying for them, marriage being a union of two people with the express intent on having children. That's why marriage privileges were instituted in the first place - to stimulate the growth of the population. The institution has outlived its purpose though and should no longer exist as a legal body - there's no reason for it to be in place, it's purely symbolical. A gay couple, for obvious reasons, does not contribute to population growth, I don't need to explain why, so I don't think it should classify under the current definition and intent of the institution. Before someone pops up with the bright idea about adoptions, a single person can also adopt and that's not "growth", just a change of guardians. The whole debacle is complex and I feel the world would be better off without legalized unions like this - no special treatment either, gay or straight, single or in a relationship. I don't think I need an outsider to validate my relationship with another person - the only people qualified to do that are the people involved. All of this nonsense is springing from some romanticized idea of what a marriage is whereas in reality it's just getting signed up in a book for no reason. Once again, I can't stress enough that I'm not against gay marriage specifically, I'm against marriage as a legal institution, especially as a tax crutch. Are you in a happy relationship? Good for you - that's all the validation you need.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jun 30, 2015)

"marriage being a union of two people with the express intent on having children"

Nope. Unless you are inferring that post-menopausal women, those with fertility issues, those with serious risk of hereditary disease, or those who simply do not want to have children should be barred from marriage. Oh, and ironically the original intention of marriage contracts was to, you guessed it, establish inheritance and property rights.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2015)

Blood Fetish said:


> "marriage being a union of two people with the express intent on having children"
> 
> Nope. Unless you are inferring that post-menopausal women, those with fertility issues, those with serious risk of hereditary disease, or those who simply do not want to have children should be barred from marriage. Oh, and ironically the original intention of marriage contracts was to, you guessed it, establish inheritance and property rights.


You seem to have skim-read the post - state-governed marriage shouldn't exist, at all - not for straight couples, childbearing or otherwise, and not for gay couples. There shouldn't be any special tarrifs or special treatment for anyone regardless of circumstances. As for inheritance, write a f*cking will - problem solved. Regarding the origin and purpose of marriage, I disagree (at least in my case what I'm saying is demonstrably true since that's the legal definition where I live), but it's not terribly important to the overall point.


----------



## Blood Fetish (Jun 30, 2015)

How do you draft up a contract that forces hospitals to give visitation rights? There are hundreds of rights like that which cannot be enforced through private contract. Not to mention, why put the burden of requiring every couple to hire a contract lawyer? Just create a package of rights that people can apply for. We can call it marriage.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 30, 2015)

Blood Fetish said:


> How do you draft up a contract that forces hospitals to give visitation rights? There are hundreds of rights like that which cannot be enforced through private contract. Not to mention, why put the burden of requiring every couple to hire a contract lawyer? Just create a package of rights that people can apply for. We can call it marriage.


Or you can hire a notary - boosts the economy. What about people who are merely friends and want visitation rights? Are they supposed to marry you too? What if you want a friend to inherit your wealth? You need a will either way. And why exactly do marriages get tax cuts? They're not special in comparison to couples who are not married, so what's the deal there? Ridiculous. Taxes, visitation rights, inheritance and all that other nonsense has nothing to do with marriage - it customarily comes as part of the package, but I don't see why. Besides, the "package" as it stands today is already a legal contract of sorts - calling it something else doesn't change that. There's just no sensible reason for the state to control marriages - it's not the middle ages.


----------

