A little light humor?

[Dr Brain]

That's like saying outlawing gambling discriminates against people with a gambling addiction.

 

It prevents all people from gambling, not just those who are most likely to.

 

Lets just keep our facts straight. Not allowing single sex marriage is not discrimination. We can still talk about if it's a good thing or not, but it's not discrimination.

[Vile Requiem]

I'd view discrimination at it's core as anything which violates the basic civil rights of all Americans as outlined in the DoI. Perhaps you've heard of them:

 

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

 

I seem to forget, there was this dude Jefferson who said they were unalienable rights from God or some such.

 

Now, it seems to me that when someone gets married that they are quite happy when they do so, and they had to pursue the bride/groom for quite some time.

 

Thus, it's an matter of denying a certain group the right to be happy because you personally find gay/lesbian sex disgusting. Which is wrong.

And from a legal aspect, if you allow married couples to have federal tax breaks and such, not allowing gay/lesbian couples to wed is discrimination, for you are denying them certain rights under the law.

 

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice

 

These couples have done nothing to lose the merit to be married and you know it, considering as 50% of this country's marriages end in divorce anyways.

 

[off topic but useful: The reason you say marriage is SUPPOSED to result in kids is a christian belief. This is also why the pope will not endorse contraception. It's also why Bush advocates abstinance as the only sex ed.]

[MonteZuma]

Dav, how is denying men from marrying men discrimination against gays? We don't let straigts marry same sex, either. Sexual preference doesn't enter into it at all.

Of course it is discrimination. Whether it is wrong or not depends on your moral philosophy.

 

About the Adam and Eve thing: Obviously their children married.

Is it possible to believe this story of creation and also to believe in the story of evolution? Does anybody really think that evolution is an elaborate hoax concocted by God? I think the bible should not be interpreted word for word. After all, it was written (or at least translated from the word of God) by men who thought the Earth was flat.

 

No one thinks of Bush as a messiah.

Footage that I have seen of presidential candidates at big rallies makes me wonder if these people are treated as messiahs - sometimes. And GW has said several times that he thinks God wanted him to be president. That sounds like a messiah complex to me.

 

The concept of marriage has only one purpose in human society, It's for the conception and raising of children. Allowing gays to participate makes no sense.

Those Russian and philippino women that marry lonely western men aren't doing it to have children. They do it to have a better life in a wealthy country. Many daughters get married just so that they can have sex without having their traditionalist parents thinking they are dirty ASSS. Others get married because they are embarrased to call their partner a "girlfriend/boyfriend" when they are in their 30s or 40s or whatever. Other people get married because of financial reasons. AND other people get married to prove their commitment to their parter.

 

Anyone who thinks that marriage serves only one purpose has obviously never had a serious adult relationship.

[MonteZuma]

That's like saying outlawing gambling discriminates against people with a gambling addiction.  It prevents all people from gambling, not just those who are most likely to.

Huh?

 

Lets just keep our facts straight. Not allowing single sex marriage is not discrimination. We can still talk about if it's a good thing or not, but it's not discrimination.

Thanks for letting us know what we can and can't talk about.

 

Society discriminates against homosexuals all the time.

 

Same sex marriage doesn't have to be a good thing or a bad thing.

 

It can just be a thing.

[Aileron]

Well, lets put homosexuals aside for a moment. We have people out in Utah who want to marry ten wives, but polyphany is illegal. When is Utah going to respect a man's right to mentally abuse and marry 15 seperate teenage girls?

 

Why should we accept homosexuality and not polyphany?

[Vile Requiem]

Does everyone in PA like box turtles Ail?

 

Nobody's talking about polyagomy being valid in the US (mainly because most of the wives are underage and being abused like you said), it's as pointless as someone wanting to marry box turtles, yet in both cases someone from PA brought it up . Yet polyagomy is valid in other cultures and religions, !@#$%^&*, BinLaden's dad has 45+ kids by multiple wives as an example.

 

(A little light humor but a valid point nontheless)

[Dr Brain]

Of course it is discrimination.  Whether it is wrong or not depends on your moral philosophy.

 

Wrong. It's not descrimination. That's like saying it's descrimination against color when you don't let ANYONE do something. Totally insane to call it descrimination.

 

Let me be clear here, we are not discussing the act of gay sex. We're talking about the ability of two men (or two women) to marry each other. Sex and the morality of sex doesn't need to be factored in. The morality of gay sex depends on your religion, the wrongness of gay marriage need not.

 

Is it possible to believe this story of creation and also to believe in the story of evolution?  Does anybody really think that evolution is an elaborate hoax concocted by God?  I think the bible should not be interpreted word for word.  After all, it was written (or at least translated from the word of God) by men who thought the Earth was flat.

 

Of course it's possible to believe in creation and also evolution. Evolution does not explain creation. The universe cannot create itself, you know. Metaphysics 101.

 

Footage that I have seen of presidential candidates at big rallies makes me wonder if these people are treated as messiahs - sometimes. And GW has said several times that he thinks God wanted him to be president.  That sounds like a messiah complex to me.

 

That God wanted him to be president can be proved logically. Let me prove it by contradiction. If God had not wanted him to be president, he would not be. Q. E. D.

 

Those Russian and philippino women that marry lonely western men aren't doing it to have children.  They do it to have a better life in a wealthy country.  Many daughters get married just so that they can have sex without having their traditionalist parents thinking they are dirty ASSS.  Others get married because they are embarrased to call their partner a "girlfriend/boyfriend" when they are in their 30s or 40s or whatever.  Other people get married because of financial reasons.  AND other people get married to prove their commitment to their parter.

 

I'm not talking about what marriage has been contorted to do in some cases, I'm talking about it's purpose. It was created to rear children. No other structure has been as effective in producing stable children. That is why we have it around.

 

Huh?

 

Huh?

 

Thanks for letting us know what we can and can't talk about.

 

Society discriminates against homosexuals all the time.

 

Same sex marriage doesn't have to be a good thing or a bad thing.

 

It can just be a thing.

 

Nothing exists without changing its surroundings. If it exists, it will change things. It is my opinion that it will change things for the worse.

 

There was some country (norway, sweeden or finland, I think) that allowed gay marriage a while back, since then, the out of wedlock birth rate went up some mind blowing amount. That's evidence that gay marriage hurts.

[MonteZuma]

Well, lets put homosexuals aside for a moment.  We have people out in Utah who want to marry ten wives, but polyphany is illegal.  When is Utah going to respect a man's right to mentally abuse and marry 15 seperate teenage girls?

 

Why should we accept homosexuality and not polyphany?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nobody has the the right to mentally abuse anybody (except the CIA and the US military ).

 

Why do you and Dr Brain think it is right to compare a same sex couple that want to marry with polygamists or addicts?

 

Arguments for and against polygamy and gambling belong in another thread. They have absolutely no link with the debate for and against same sex marriage. Homosexuality is not considered a disease. homosexual relationships between 2 consenting adults aren't illegal and they aren't considered a violation of human rights.

[MonteZuma]

It's not descrimination. That's like saying it's descrimination against color when you don't let ANYONE do something. Totally insane to call it descrimination.

Dr. I understand your logic, but it is flawed. Here is a similar analogy to explain why:

 

Banning same sex marriage is like banning ANYONE from praying to Allah in a mosque. By your logic, that would not be discrimination, because the law applies to everyone. But as every thinking person knows, this kind of law obviously discriminates against muslims.

 

But....as you allude to in your next paragraph, this is not a debate about colour or religion or polygamy or gambling or turtles or sexual intercourse. It is about same sex marriage. You keep reaching for these apple/orange comparisons. Come up with one good reason why same sex marriage is problematic and lets address that.

 

Of course it's possible to believe in creation and also evolution. Evolution does not explain creation. The universe cannot create itself, you know. Metaphysics 101.

The bible's story of creation contradicts the theory of evolution. Both cannot be true.

 

That God wanted him to be president can be proved logically. Let me prove it by contradiction. If God had not wanted him to be president, he would not be. Q. E. D.

God doesn't always get what he wants. If he did, we'd be living in paradise and chatting with God and Adam and Eve right now. Christians believe that God created us free and gave us the right to choose the way of good or the way of evil. Who you elect as your president is up to you. Not God.

 

If you want to support the bible you should read and understand it. For a starting point, Google up some discussion on the topic of divine will, man's will and the tree of life.

 

It is my opinion that it will change things for the worse.

How?

 

There was some country (norway, sweeden or finland, I think) that allowed gay marriage a while back, since then, the out of wedlock birth rate went up some mind blowing amount. That's evidence that gay marriage hurts.

Erm. Unless there has been some biological breakthrough in Scandanavia, I can't see how the two issues are related? In any case, children born out of wedlock (but with a loving father and mother) aren't any worse off than children born to a married couple. If you think that they are - please demonstrate how.

[Dr Brain]

Banning same sex marriage is like banning ANYONE from praying to Allah in a mosque.  By your logic, that would not be discrimination, because the law applies to everyone.  But as every thinking person knows, this kind of law obviously discriminates against muslims.

 

We're not denying them something they already have. We're not letting them do something new.

 

But....as you allude to in your next paragraph, this is not a debate about colour or religion or polygamy or gambling or turtles or sexual intercourse.  It is about same sex marriage.  You keep reaching for these apple/orange comparisons.  Come up with one good reason why same sex marriage is problematic and lets address that.

 

If there were any perfect examples, there would be no debate, would there?

 

The bible's story of creation contradicts the theory of evolution.  Both cannot be true.

 

I happen to be a firm believer in both. But we are not talking about creation. If you want to know my opinions on that, just ask me in game sometime.

 

God doesn't always get what he wants.  If he did, we'd be living in paradise and chatting with God and Adam and Eve right now.  Christians believe that God created us free and gave us the right to choose the way of good or the way of evil.  Who you elect as your president is up to you.  Not God.

 

If you want to support the bible you should read and understand it.  For a starting point, Google up some discussion on the topic of divine will, man's will and the tree of life.

 

Again, we're not talking free will. You, not being a Christian, do not fully understand free will and God's influence. Some Christians do not, so it's not discrimination

 

It goes something like this though (this is an oversimplified version): you choose who you vote for, but God chooses who everyone else votes for.

 

How?

 

The wedlock thing, for one. There are plenty of other statistics if you enjoy those.

 

Erm.  Unless there has been some biological breakthrough in Scandanavia, I can't see how the two issues are related?  In any case, children born out of wedlock (but with a loving father and mother) aren't any worse off than children born to a married couple.  If you think that they are - please demonstrate how.

 

Gay marriage effects straight marriage. That's why it's a bad idea. It weakens an already difficult thing.

 

Statistically speaking, children not born into marriage do not do as well.

[MonteZuma]

We're not denying them something they already have. We're not letting them do something new.

I'm still waiting for one good reason why?

 

Again, we're not talking free will.

Actually, we are.

 

You, not being a Christian, do not fully understand free will and God's influence. Some Christians do not, so it's not discrimination   It goes something like this though (this is an oversimplified version): you choose who you vote for, but God chooses who everyone else votes for.

That is double talk.

 

There are plenty of other statistics if you enjoy those.

I do. If you present some stats we can debate them. But you seem to be relying on beliefs rather than facts. And how are births out of wedlock related to same sex marriage? I don't see the connection.

 

Gay marriage effects straight marriage. That's why it's a bad idea. It weakens an already difficult thing.

How does it affect or weaken it?

 

Statistically speaking, children not born into marriage do not do as well.

This is a side issue, but the only way these statistics will be meaningful is if the stats differentiate between children that grew up with both unmarried biological parents, and those that grew up without both unmarried parents. I personally believe that marital status is unimportant in respect to child rearing. The important thing is a stable and loving family.

[Aileron]

I don't get why homosexuality compaires with race but not with polygamy.

 

I mean, both gay marriage and polygamy involve marriage by definition, racial rights do not.

 

Gay marriage and polygamy are actions that are practiced, race is just genetics.

 

Gays and polygamists are both considered to be dissidents, and while many races were victoms of a cornucopia of cruelties, no one ever really considered them dissidents.

 

 

The ONLY comparison between gays and races, is something that is forced by liberals, who assume that gays are the next civil rights movement. The arguement requires the homosexual movement to be successfull in the future.

 

Your justification of gay marriage involves compairing it to civil rights movements, but instead of proving that homosexuals are in fact a civil rights movement, you assume it and assert it, using the !@#$%^&*umtion that it will one day be justified to justify it.

 

 

In the black civil rights movement, whites never gave blacks any rights. The blacks fought tooth and nail and in the end took the rights they deserved. They fought society until society gave in.

 

Gays on the other hand don't take nearly the same approach. While you might see an occasional homosexual protest, the gay movement is mostly composed of misguided straight people who pity gays. Not only that, but instead of creating their own movement, they follow in the wake of the true civil rights movements, and only make moves that were done before in other movements so as to make it easier.

 

Blacks and women deserve rights because they are storng enough to take them. Gays are not.

[themissinglink]

ok ok ok this topic in a box..(gay marriages is immoral and agianst god and it will always be wrong)u can't change someones opinions and there will always be some 1 that will take a stand 4 what he believes in

<----

but u guys say what u want .

 

<--- has spoken

[Dr Brain]

I don't believe that the Bible talks about gay marriage. I think it only talks about Gay sex. I could be wrong, though.

[SamHughes]

Footage that I have seen of presidential candidates at big rallies makes me wonder if these people are treated as messiahs - sometimes. And GW has said several times that he thinks God wanted him to be president.  That sounds like a messiah complex to me.

 

That God wanted him to be president can be proved logically. Let me prove it by contradiction. If God had not wanted him to be president, he would not be. Q. E. D.

 

This is a fallacy on multiple counts. You are !@#$%^&*uming that God either wants Bush to win or he wants Bush not to win. God could be indifferent.

 

Also, if God were to want something, that does not mean he would therefore cause his desire to be satisfied.

 

 

There was some country (norway, sweeden or finland, I think) that allowed gay marriage a while back, since then, the out of wedlock birth rate went up some mind blowing amount. That's evidence that gay marriage hurts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A sample size of 1 is meaningless.

[Zeke]

Zeke: That just shows how little you know. No one thinks of Bush as a messiah. Previous presidents quoted the bible far more than presidents do today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't care about quoting, but he's going one step further in enforcing what is said in the bible, using government ways, which according to my understanding is against our Cons!@#$%^&*ution. I come to think that laws are meant to protect our safety and ensure protection, how does banning a union between two private people go to futher that? Outside of saving money on taxes which married couples get, there is none... it's not the governments job to "protect out morality," that's up to each any every individual family and person. Banning what individuals can do on a daily level aside from violent acts and theft shouldn't be allowed, especially if they don't impact anyone else but those involved, in this case, the families of the two partners.

 

"Our fathers were the models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?" - Tyler Durden

 

- Z

 

P.S. I meant messiah as a preacher sort... but you know.

[Aileron]

Zeke, that's a very good arguement why gay sex shouldn't be illegal.

 

 

 

As for gay marriage, regular marriage has been around for ages. It is a tradition that lasted millions of years. The family is the foundation of every society. If we wish to redefine marriage, we had better have a !@#$%^&* good reason.

 

I mean compared to the black civil rights movement, marriage has been around longer than both slavery and racial oppression. And to get rid of those evils required a BIG movement with really big arguements, not to mention quite a few wars around the world.

 

But marriage as it stands has been around even longer and is much more fundimental to our society. If we screw up marriage, our society can potentially collapse overnight. Also, heterosexual marriage is not evil in and of itself like racial oppressers were. A heterosexual marriage really doesn't cause pain and suffering for other individuals. (Not to the extent like the KKK can cause suffering in a black community.)

 

Gay marriage also has not been attempted before. Some long-dead societies had gay sex, but never gay marriage.

 

 

Gay marriage is a bigger change than civil rights. Considering the age and importance of marriage as it stands, such a movement would require a degree equal to the shift from fuedalism to democracy, possibly bigger. Considering racial rights and shifts in government both required wars to change, and that heterosexual marriage has been around longer, isn't inherently evil, and is more fundimental than both those issues, it is logical to assume that enacting gay marriage would require a really big movement and/or a war.

 

Overall, gay marriage won't fly until people are willing to shoot each other over this issue, and no one is willing to shoot each other over this issue, it is simply not worth it. It certainly is way too big to ride the coattails of another movement as its attempting today.

[cgsfss]

Pffft Everthing in the bible was written by man same for the laws out side the bible.

There only used by the government to keep us in line. And the funny thing about it a lot fall for it. If you believe in something that’s cool but don’t try and make others believe it.

Some laws we need some we don’t.

 

Who gives anyone the right to say who can get married? I think its up to the two that want to get married.

[MonteZuma]

I don't get why homosexuality compaires with race but not with polygamy.

Why try to compare it with anything?

 

Your justification of gay marriage involves compairing it to civil rights movements, but instead of proving that homosexuals are in fact a civil rights movement, you assume it and assert it, using the !@#$%^&*umtion that it will one day be justified to justify it.

This is about the right to legal, social and economic equality.

 

the gay movement is mostly composed of misguided straight people who pity gays.

Maybe these people are friends, family and co-workers of gays? In any case, I think the leaders of most gay rights activities and movements are gay. Maybe you think they are straight because they don't always flaunt their homosexuality?

 

Blacks and women deserve rights because they are storng enough to take them.  Gays are not.

Get real. All people (should) have rights (call them unalienable, civil, human - whatever) - whether they are strong or weak. There are weak women and weak blacks and weak gays. There are also weak white middle class christians. Except for their sexuality, homosexuals are pretty much like every other group in the community.

 

To assume that they have a different set of rights to women or blacks or anyone else is discrimination. Plain and simple.

[Dr Brain]

Gays cannot procreate. Marriage is about procreation. End of discussion.

 

Marriage is not about tax breaks or health benefits.

 

It's the height of hypocrocy that liberals (yes, liberals, admit who you are) want to take away cars and put a $5 per gallon tax on gas so that no one can drive, but they say that the government doesn't belong in the bedroom.

[MonteZuma]

If we wish to redefine marriage, we had better have a !@#$%^&* good reason.

It is being redefined all the time. Vows have been changed. Women often don't wear a veil or white, weddings are often held away froma church and the celebrant is often not a religious figure. Often the brides children are at the wedding...etc...etc. In any case. I don't think gays want to redefine marriage.

 

I mean compared to the black civil rights movement, marriage has been around longer than both slavery and racial oppression.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

 

If we screw up marriage, our society can potentially collapse overnight.

Oh, c'mon. You can't be serious? In any case, gays don't want to screw up marriage.

 

Also, heterosexual marriage is not evil in and of itself like racial oppressers were.  A heterosexual marriage really doesn't cause pain and suffering for other individuals.  (Not to the extent like the KKK can cause suffering in a black community.)

Nobody is trying to ban heterosexual marriage. It is not under attack.

 

Gay marriage also has not been attempted before.  Some long-dead societies had gay sex, but never gay marriage.

It has been in place in one form or another in Europe for about 20 years. There is evidence of same-sex christian unions in medieval times. In any case. This is the 21st Century. Times have changed and so has the meaning of marriage.

 

Overall, gay marriage won't fly until people are willing to shoot each other over this issue, and no one is willing to shoot each other over this issue, it is simply not worth it.

Nobody shot each other over this in Europe - and European society isn't collapsing in on itself either.

[Dr Brain]

and European society isn't collapsing in on itself either.

 

Shows what you know

[MonteZuma]

Shows what you know

Translation: "Eeek! I can't defeat that argument. I'll just blow it off and hope nobody notices. I won't try to refute it, because I can't."

 

Your posts would add much more to the discussion if you stated an opinion and backed it up with some logic and some examples.

[Dr Brain]

In my opinion, Europe is dying. That help? The European economy has been slowing down. France and Germany are starting to fall off the world stage.

 

Lets do a cost benefit analysis:

 

What do Gays gain? Tax breaks.

 

What does civilization lose? Another barrier between children and a total lack of morality.

 

I've got an idea! Let's just lower taxes. Problem solved.

[MonteZuma]

In my opinion, Europe is dying. That help? The European economy has been slowing down. France and Germany are starting to fall off the world stage.

Whatever gave you the impression that Europe is dying? Ecomomic growth (annual % increase in GDP over the period 1998 to 2002) was equal to, or higher than the USA, in Ireland, Luxembourg, Hungary, Greece, Iceland, Finland, Spain, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden. Portugal, France, The Netherlands, UK, Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Norway had GDP growth less than 1% less than the USA. Only 2 or 3 countries had GDP that was more than 1% less than the USA. What evidence do you have to support your opinion that these countries are 'dying'?

 

In any case, how you link that to same-sex marriage is beyond me. The average income of homosexuals is

 

Lets do a cost benefit analysis:

 

What do Gays gain? Tax breaks.

 

What does civilization lose? Another barrier between children and a total lack of morality.

This isn't just about tax breaks. If you think it is, then you haven't been following the discussion.

 

According to one website....Same-sex couples want the right to make medical, legal, or financial decisions on behalf of their partner should the need arise. They want to be able to visit their partner in intensive care units and other hospital departments. They want the right to make funeral arrangements, and to assume ownership of property (even jointly owned property) when their partner dies. Of course this is in addition to wanting to be able to marry to formalise a union between two people that love each other.

 

This is all evry basic stuff. Basically they want the same rights that you or I enjoy, but don't even need to think about. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you feel threatened?

 

 

And how will same sex marriage cause the loss of "another barrier between children and a total lack of morality"?

 

I keep hearing these wild claims that same-sex marriage will cause economic and social devestation, but there is no evidence that it will do any such thing. Next, you'll be standing on a street corner waving a placard proclaiming that 'The End is nigh". Trust me on this one. The sky won't fall in.