Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 19, 2007

State ban on gay marriage upheld

September 19, 2007

Advertisement

— Maryland's highest court Tuesday upheld a 34-year-old state law banning same-sex marriage, rejecting an attempt by 19 gay men and lesbians to win the right to marry.

In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gays and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.

The 4 to 3 decision cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the lawsuit relied solely on state law. But the judges appeared to invite gay rights advocates to pursue their goals through the political system: "Our opinion should by no means be read to imply that the General Assembly may not grant and recognize for homosexual persons civil unions or the right to marry a person of the same sex," Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote for the majority.

Comments

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

Is there any question you feel I didn't answer fully? I tried to get them all, but I felt I was getting too long as it was. Do you have anything else?

0

jhwk2008 7 years, 1 month ago

"This country was founded on Christianity."

Treaty between the United States and Tripoli, 1797.

"Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation."

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

Those ARE all good questions in relation to polygamy, aren't they. Since you brought it up, why don't you provide the answer for us.

I would say, though, that if there's a reason for polygamy to not be accepted, it's that it a) would be too corruptible of an official system, whereby people would band into groups for tax breaks and b) those practices would disadvantage everybody else through a lower governmental revenue stream. As those would not be potential ramifications of homosexual marriage, past what we have now, at any rate, then I call them separate issues.

Property rights, by the views of our founders, at least, have been inalienable since the Declaration of Independence, along with Life and Liberty. In case you didn't know, at some point along the line "property" was changed to "the pursuit of happiness." Hell, maybe that happened when the first eminent domain issues started coming up. That, or the income tax amendment. Anyway, whatever your thoughts on it's propriety, not even eminent domain allows the govt. to simply come in and take the land, they have to pay the owners fair market value for their property, according to the rules at least.

As for neighborhood associations, I believe that they should be abolished, and I don't believe that their existence justifies itself in any legal sense. I hope that at some point the issue rises high enough, in the right civil mindset, to get them disbanded as an obligatory contract.

As I said to 75X55, and again to you, what I described is what marriage is. "Marriage" is just a word, one that describes a concept (of a contract, as you called it). It can ALSO be used to describe a second concept, which is the religious one. Only one of those concepts, the first one, is universal. Every marriage, at least in America, has that first concept. Not every one has the second. As I've said many times, and been unanswered, you do NOT have to go to a church to get married, and you can't JUST go to church and get married, at least not and have it get recognized. You DO have to go to the Govt. to get married.

to be continued

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

continued So we're left then with two options, if we're discussing just changing the word that this is called. (And again, referring to prev. post to 75x55, why should we do that?) The first is to call the new contract a "civil union." Of course, the proper justification for this second wording should not be demarcated along homo vs hetero. It should be by Church wedding vs. non-Church wedding. Sanctified vs non-sanctified, in other words. So, every hetero couple not married in a church would then have a "civil union." I should also add that I would be fine with my marriage being called a civil union on paper. I would, of course, continue to call it a "marriage," and my wife "my wife," being that they are just words, after all. Provided, also of course, that the rights conveyed in a civil union and a marriage were identical.

The second option is to allow churches to perform a secondary function and grant a new title to your marriage. My personal nomination is "Super Sanctified (God)Sanctioned Marriage," or Triple S Marriage for short. Since it wouldn't be affecting me, the people involved could choose to make a different name, though if they use mine I'll put a trademark on it. This new addition would not be a civil contract and would thus convey no additional tangible rights. It would, however, give you the privilege of not sharing the same name with those gay people.

0

KS 7 years, 1 month ago

Alway thought Maryland was a pretty state. I should visit it more often.

0

storm 7 years, 1 month ago

If they called it gender-neutral marriage, it'd probably pass.

0

shockchalk 7 years, 1 month ago

It's too bad it didn't pass 6-1, instead of 4-3. That would be a more accurate reflection of the opinion of the voters in this country.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month ago

They made this lunatic decision based on reproduction?! Soooo by that lack of reasoning, married couples who don't have children should have their marriages immediately nullified by the court. Plain and simple.

Parkay, take your hate-filled rhetoric back to whatever church basement you crawled out of.

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

Most of the above comments are incredibly insulting to read, as a human being. I know many gay people, most of which are in committed relationships. We have a gay family member who is settled down with her partner and their children. I'm not sure how their lifestyle, were it to be sanctified by the courts of this country, is any more offensive than, say, Britney Spears' joke of a marriage, or marriages where one partner beats another, etc. Tychoman has it right; if marriage is there to promote the sanctity of birthing and raising children, how can infertile couples marry? The lesbian couple we know has children (not adopted); why can't they marry?

Try replacing hate and fear with acceptance and tolerance, and I guarantee you'll feel 100% better about the world and yourself.

0

EXks 7 years, 1 month ago

marykay, shockcrock.....your posts are perfect examples of REGRESSIVE evolution

0

shockchalk 7 years, 1 month ago

No, you're absolutely wrong (again) illogicbound. The voters of this country have overwhelmingly weighed in on this debate and they voted for keeping the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. That doesn't prevent Mary from living with Sue or Bob from living with Steve. But people in this country do have legitimate views on the issue of marriage. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make the 30% mob any more "right" than the 70% mob.

Those fake Christians will be shocked when they find out God really did mean what he said in the bible.

You don't hate the sinner but you certainly don't accept the sin. We are to love our fellow man but we don't condone anything that makes someone "feel" good. Whether its same sex marriage or moleting a 9 year old.......wrong is wrong.

0

shockchalk 7 years, 1 month ago

What's really creepy is the minority of people in this country who want to force their views, attitudes, behaviors, and values on to the rest of us......Who's really not tolerant EXks and illogicbound????

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

"shockchalk (Anonymous) says:

No, you're absolutely wrong (again) illogicbound. The voters of this country have overwhelmingly weighed in on this debate and they voted for keeping the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman."

I was hoping you could explain to me why it should be the voters of this country's business.

Follow that up by proving, please, that marriage is by its nature sanctified, because I can pretty much prove that it's not, or, rather, that it doesn't have to be.

0

agtprovocateuse 7 years, 1 month ago

"Whether its same sex marriage or moleting [sic] a 9 year old::.wrong is wrong." --Shockchalk

Are you suggesting that same-sex marriage between two consenting adults is analogous to a situation in which someone molests a nine-year-old child, who, by law, cannot consent?

0

shockchalk 7 years, 1 month ago

Jonas.....Exactly which side do you think is bringing this to the forefront and to the country for it to be voted on? It's not the people opposed to gay marriage, it's the people who are pushing their agenda of gay marriage on the rest of the country.

0

BigDog 7 years, 1 month ago

Try replacing hate and fear with acceptance and tolerance, and I guarantee you'll feel 100% better about the world and yourself.

By reading some of the comments here ...... it seems that acceptance and tolerance only applies if you agree with them. Can we not tolerate and accept that individuals aren't going to agree on every issue whether it be gay marriage, abortion, Iraq war or universal health care?

Its like the hypocrits who preach freedom of speech then go to events and interupt the speaker because they don't agree with them.

0

waydownsouth 7 years, 1 month ago

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1 verse 27.

God was pretty clear on that point. However those that don't believe in him will give all kinds of excuses for their behavior. This country was founded on Christianity. In the beginning christianity was a a major part of our government. Now we have the seperation of church and state and we wonder why our government is so corrupt. When judgement day comes alot of people are going to wish they took god more seriously.

0

EXks 7 years, 1 month ago

If ever there was a TIRED and WORN-OUT cliche, it is what you people call "the sanctity of marriage" Considering that...

  1. Over 50% of all hetero marriages (including yours) end in divorce.
  2. Joe Bob meets Peggy Sue at a gambling table in Reno, have a couple of drinks, and poof....before sunrise they're married.
  3. Peggy Sue falls in love with Joe Bob on death row, vists him in prison and poof! Married!
  4. Larry bathroom stall Craig plays footsie with his neighbor pal, then poof.... he's caught, cries and trots out his trophy wife, extolling the virtues of sanctity of marriage.
  5. Deposed TV evangelical holier than thou bible thumpers, hey we know all about their idea of the sanctity of marriage, right?

The list goes on and on, by now you're embarrassed enough, why continue?

Sanctity of Marriage???? Ha, someone buy me a drink!

0

shockchalk 7 years, 1 month ago

illogicbound...It is you, not I, that am coming across as unable to process logical arguments. This seems to be a pattern of yours from what I've seen. Avoid the facts and repeat the rhettoric in an attempt to cloud the issue. I said nothing about being forced to marry someone of the same sex so try, really try, to get your accusations correct before you make them. Now, I'll give you some more reasons to lie, bash, and whine about me. waydownsouth's post above is right on the money as far as I'm concerned. It may not fit into your moral relativism attitude but it's the truth whether you like it or not.

0

BigDog 7 years, 1 month ago

Personally I can't understand why people are fighting so hard to get married. It just gives lawyers more money and work when their marriage doesn't work out..... and who lose half of their property in the deal. Many men I know wish ...... heterosexuals did away with marriage.

0

EXks 7 years, 1 month ago

"This country was founded on Christianity. In the beginning christianity was a a major part of our government. Now we have the seperation of church and state and we wonder why our government is so corrupt." ......waydown

Separation of State and Church???? Damn that Constitution!!

0

Chris Golledge 7 years, 1 month ago

So, let's see...

"Those fake Christians will be shocked when they find out God really did mean what he said in the bible."

So, you are suggesting that the laws of the land be based upon the Christian Bible? Interesting. What about those who are not Christian? What about "Congress shall make no law regarding the practice of religion."? In this regard, what difference is there between you and and the fundamentalist Muslims who are proponents of strict Islamic law?

Yes, I am also creeped out.

Yes, I did not know that the sole purpose of marriage was the procreation of children or that it is necessarily in the state's best interest that more children be born.

0

toefungus 7 years, 1 month ago

This issue is so easy to take a side on, it will never go away. If in 50 years, there are a 1000 laws sanctioning gay marriage, there will be whispers, violence, broken families, and injuries of all sorts. It seems to be human nature to look at an issue and take a side. Like religion, this issue will be fought over for 10,000 years. Given the likely minority status of gays and lesbians from now on, the fights will never be fair, and acceptance will always be just on the surface.

0

waydownsouth 7 years, 1 month ago

This country was founded on Christianity." Nope. The founding fathers were deists who actually viewed religion with suspicion.

The founding fathers left england so they could have freedom of religion. England was catholic that is how the Protestant religion was started. Now as for the gay marriage god like i stated before is pretty blunt about this. But the rights for everything no matter how immoral will always be fought.

0

waydownsouth 7 years, 1 month ago

Protestant - Show Spelled noun 1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.

Here is a definition for you. Guess you don't know history or the dictionary.

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 1 month ago

Everything seems to be leading to the same end...of marriage, PERIOD.

Give heterosexuals equal rights, today!

0

deec 7 years, 1 month ago

Maybe them sanctified marriage folk would be better off worryin' about adultery. God don't like that neither, and a heck of a lot more sanctified marriages is busted up by adultery than by the gay guys or gals down the block wantin' to get married.

0

Oracle_of_Rhode 7 years, 1 month ago

Let's have equal protection under the law in the USA. It's a far-out concept, man.

0

deec 7 years, 1 month ago

That's a good point. Additionally, it is perfectly legal for 2 straight people to be married and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, with no religious intervention whatsoever. Civil marriage is a legal contract. Religion is irrelevant to the civil marriage contract.

0

waydownsouth 7 years, 1 month ago

As a secular nation, our government must not endorse any one faith

Please explain In God We Trust which is on our money. Look that up before you respond. Also look up the definitions of marriage and civil marriage. You write alot with no fact. Good night and happy reading.

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

"Exactly which side do you think is bringing this to the forefront and to the country for it to be voted on? It's not the people opposed to gay marriage, it's the people who are pushing their agenda of gay marriage on the rest of the country."

You are going to have to support this statement, because anyone with a non-distorted view of this situation, not to mention reality in any sense of the word, know that this is totally false. Only a damned fool would not realize by now that the majority (the super-majority) of voters in America are overwhelmingly against the idea of gay marriage. The gay community knows this as well as anyone else. There is absolutely no incentive, then, for them to bring this to a vote, as the only viable result is that they will be voted against.

What they are doing is (at least in their minds, though I happen to agree with them) simply engaging in what they believe to be their constitutional right, or at least requesting that they be allowed to do so. The people putting this to the vote are ones that then believe that the issue of whether they have this right should be put up to a popular vote.

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

75x55 "Just a hint - if you don't wish to hear about the sanctity of marriage, stop trying to obtain the illusion of marriage when the civil, secular functionality of 'civil union' is more fitting."

This is a bogus argument and you know it. If the point was sanctity, the argument here should also include couples who did not get married in a church. Marriage is just a word, it's the concept that's currently being argued. Why change the name if it's the same damn thing? For comfort? As a moral salvage operation? To appease an angry God?

Would you not agree with me if I said that history has largely shown that separate but equal is pretty much never equal?

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

dotslines: Look, the simple point is that, at it's very basic purpose, marriage is a very simple matter of property, be in intellectual or physical. It is a legal arrangement to give official enforcement of two people who make a decision to share property and decision rights as one unit. (Two is the standard number, this model probably would include some form of polygamy, but that's a separate argument)

Now, if we are a society of laws, built around the idea of inalienable rights, including property rights, the only people with the authority to dictate that decision should be the people involved in the arrangement. Neither the government, nor the citizenry, which includes you, me, and everyone else on this board, for starters, has any justification to demand a say in that arrangement. That is, of course, why we are so desperately making and passing new laws. But you cannot justify those laws on any basis in our government, and I don't think you can do it at all in any rational level. I certainly have yet to see it.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

I keep returning to this discussion, seeking some sort of inroad in order to "weigh in" on the issue, but I've concluded that, by the time you've reached the level of socio-religio-political/legal marriage within a context of (multiple) sexual orientation, you've arrived at an intractably convoluted quagmire, better left to those who give a damn.

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

It's so funny to see people who know nothing about constitutional law debate the constitution. ("since when are property rights "inalienable rights?" You must have missed the news over the past couple of years relating to eminent domain."") Wow, too funny. I don't even know where to begin with that.

I think that 95% of the reason debates like this even exist is because of under-education.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

parkay says: "Two or more men or two or more women cannot make a marriage, they can only make a mockery of marriage."

Defender says: "My God parkay, it is so obvious that you are gay. Hateful idiot."

(Dare I? ... no, I dare not... how dare I? ... you know you will... oh, alright....) OK. this may be the inroad...

First, however, let me note that I am new to these message boards, so I'm not familiar with message histories. In my limited experience, I am surprised at how often I find myself agreeing with the simple statements offered by parkay and how often the response by others amounts to accusatory name-calling. I am not hateful; I hope that it is evident that I am not an idiot."

Forget, for the moment, "legal" marriage or "statistical-reality" marriage. Fundamentally (IMHO), "marriage" is the macro metaphor for "conception"-the combining of two (seemingly) disparate entities to create something new, unique, and "whole." If one is to understand perspectives on marriage, extrapolated to legal, social, and even political spheres, then one has to appreciate this fundamental relationship.

With regard to variations in so-called sexual "orientation" further consider the following...

No one, who expresses himself as a homosexual, finds expression in life because of a homosexual act.

... and its corollary...

Everyone finds expression in life as the result of a heterosexual act.

... so more than merely a "biological" imperative, the above suggests an EXISTENTIAL imperative.

Remember that these are only ideas-and, in that respect, IDEALS-do with them what you will; fundamentally, I think that they are at the heart of the debate. (Hey, I don't even really want the role of "messenger.")

(So... now I going into deep cover, and that, BTW, would not be "the closet"....)

0

llama726 7 years, 1 month ago

"What's really creepy is the minority of people in this country who want to force their views, attitudes, behaviors, and values on to the rest of us::Who's really not tolerant EXks and illogicbound????"

You're intolerably ignorant.

Let me get this right: If gay people are allowed to marry, you are now forced to either observe them having sex, or become gay yourself?

How does it personally affect you?

It doesn't, that's how. By the way, if gay people are banned from being married, that's people putting their religious and moral views down someone else's throat. Allowing them to wed doesn't void your religious beliefs.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

scenebooster says: "... 'marriage' is the macro metaphor for 'conception'.... Were this true, then there would be no reason for infertile couples, or those past child-bearing years, or those with no interest in children to be married. Shall we start inquiring as to what people plan to do in the reproductive arena before we allow them to marry?"

It is a metaphor; it is not "complete."

As is the case with conception, marriage-in the purest sense of the word-represents "the combining of two (seemingly) disparate entities to create something new, unique, and 'whole.'"

The sperm and the egg "complement" one another in a way which makes possible our very existence. (Two sperm or two eggs do not complement each other in this respect, and so cannot pull off the feat.)

Similarly, a man and a woman complement one another in a way that two same-sex individuals cannot. (Don't blame me, I didn't make the sexuality rules.) And they complement one another at levels other than the reproductive level.

It is remarkable to me that I once existed as separate gametes-each little snippet of code carried about in the separate "pockets" of my parents, so to speak. It is even more remarkable that these two seemingly "non"-human components could give rise to... the composition of this message. ,:-)

I know that, like the blind little gametes which gave rise to each of us, we like to "conceive" of ourselves as being "individuals," but, who knows... perhaps at some higher, spiritual level, we are nothing more than "gametes." (Maybe it's "turtles all the way down," and "marriage" all the way up.)

(OK, time to take off the tin-foil hat.)

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

"I know that, like the blind little gametes which gave rise to each of us, we like to "conceive" of ourselves as being "individuals," but, who knows: perhaps at some higher, spiritual level, we are nothing more than "gametes." "

If this is all so precise and dictated by universal sexuality rules, care to explain why some mere gametes end up as gay and lesbian? Are gays and lesbians meant to be left out of the world (left with no one to "complement" or left to partnerships that are somehow less fulfilling than heterosexual ones?)

Talk about your incomplete metaphors and thoughts...

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

"I know that, like the blind little gametes which gave rise to each of us, we like to "conceive" of ourselves as being "individuals," but, who knows: perhaps at some higher, spiritual level, we are nothing more than "gametes." "

If this is all so precise and dictated by universal sexuality rules, care to explain why some mere gametes end up as gay and lesbian? Are gays and lesbians meant to be left out of the world (left with no one to "complement" or left to partnerships that are somehow less fulfilling than heterosexual ones?)

Talk about your incomplete metaphors and thoughts...

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

"To argue that it is 'just a word' is to refuse to accept that it holds much more meaning for most people than you are willing to recognize."

Not at all. I fully recognize that it does hold more significance to most people than just being a word. The word itself is not necessary to hold significance in the concept, that was the point.

"By the same practice, one might look at mere words like 'justice' and 'love' as "just words."

Exactly, which is why we should ban homosexuals from justice and love. They can get by with "egalitarian utility" and "strong sense of emotional attachment."

"As with Maryland's law, civil recognition of this religious rite in the distant past was to give legal, secular sanction of a socially beneficial institution, that promoted the stability of society as a whole."

Yes, that seems like a highly accurate explanation of intention.

"My 'argument', that you consider to be bogus, is actually an olive branch of accommodation - I frankly don't believe that 'civil unions' will result in anything but a further display that unnatural relationships cannot be as stable as the current sanctioned marriages (deplorable as they may currently be, vis-a-vis divorce rates, etc.)"

Perhaps, but you don't know that for sure. For sure, though, if you are denied "marriage" and forced to settle for a "civil union," there would be a lot of people who would tend to view it as less valuable or worthy of preservation. As you noted, we do tend to put too much emphasis on words and what we call things.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

bugmenot says: "If this is all so precise and dictated by universal sexuality rules, care to explain why some mere gametes end up as gay and lesbian? Are gays and lesbians meant to be left out of the world (left with no one to "complement" or left to partnerships that are somehow less fulfilling than heterosexual ones?)"

I do not subscribe to the notion that some individuals are "born" homosexual. (Frankly, I consider this to be a myth perpetrated by those with a socio-political agenda.) Any behavior as complex in expression as human sexuality cannot be "instilled" at birth.

Homosexuality is a choice. (Choose wisely, grasshopper.)

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

This whole ban on gay marriage thing comes from, I believe, people's fear. All you who oppose gay marriage are afraid that if those "sinful" gays were to be allowed to marry, you would somehow be less than them. You feel better by telling yourselves that your being heterosexual makes you better than them. It is strangely reminiscent of how people felt about blacks and women. It is simply ignorant to deny your fellow human beings the same rights you enjoy and don't have to fight for. Who cares about the reasons they want to get married?! The fact is, they do. Nobody questions why heterosexuals want to get married. It seems to be a natural progression of a loving relationship and it's being denied to people for bogus reasons. Get over yourselves.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

"Homosexuality is a choice. (Choose wisely, grasshopper.)"

Just to clarify...

Homosexuality-like heterosexuality-is a choice. (Choose wisely, grasshopper.)

0

ndmoderate 7 years, 1 month ago

Tangential, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Did you have a gay relationship, then a straight relationship, then picked the better of the two?

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

"I do not subscribe to the notion that some individuals are "born" homosexual. (Frankly, I consider this to be a myth perpetrated by those with a socio-political agenda.) Any behavior as complex in expression as human sexuality cannot be "instilled" at birth.

Homosexuality is a choice. (Choose wisely, grasshopper.)"

Yes, my gay best friend woke up one day and said to himself: "Gee, I feel like shaking things up today. I think I'll suddenly develop an attraction to members of my own sex. Sure, this will get me kicked out of my parents' house and be the reason I get beat up in the streets, but that's okay! It'll be a blast engaging in sexual acts that would normally repulse me just to get a rise out of people!" That is the lamest argument heterosexuals have come up with, considering that there is significant evidence to the contrary that has come to light within the past few years. Why would someone choose to be something that more often than not gets them ostracized from society? Would you be able to "become" gay and start being attracted to the same sex? I know I couldn't and neither could anyone else. You really need to come up with something better than that.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

krisell says: "This whole ban on gay marriage thing comes from, I believe, people's fear. All you who oppose gay marriage are afraid that if those "sinful" gays were to be allowed to marry, you would somehow be less than them.... Get over yourselves."

Let me assure you that, for my part, I am not "homophobic." (This seems to be another term closely embraced by those with a socio-political agenda.) Some of my closest acquaintances-even family members- have been homosexual. As their friend, I do not hesitate to share my honest views and opinions with them.

Let me further assure you that my perspectives are not tied to some conventional religious viewpoint. While I consider myself to be a deeply religious person, there are no "barbed" little churches in my landscape.

To some extent, it is the "getting over" of oneself which permits the open and frank discussion of such issues.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

ndmoderate says: "Tangential, when did you choose to be a heterosexual? Did you have a gay relationship, then a straight relationship, then picked the better of the two?"

(Like all choices,) it is an ongoing choice.

I've chosen what I consider to be the "more meaningful" of the two (... three... seven-and-a-half...).

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

Yes, but do you remember actually making that conscious decision? I can't for the life of me remember when I decided to be straight . . . it just seemed incredibly natural for me. I still can't recall a single instance when I've been tempted to start engaging in homosexual relationships, although by your logic it must be a decision I make regularly.

0

TheOriginalCA 7 years, 1 month ago

Why don't we give all you militant gays an entire state of your own. We move all of you deviant people to that state and move all normal people out. Then let the deviants behave as they darn well please and then we will see which civilization crumbles first.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

krisell says: "Why would someone choose to be something that more often than not gets them ostracized from society?"

WARNING! - flippant remark ahead - WARNING!

Oh, I don't know... "bad boy"/"bad girl" attitude? (It is a sexual "turn on," is it not?)

(... sorry, couldn't resist.)

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

Oh, I don't know: "bad boy"/"bad girl" attitude? (It is a sexual "turn on," is it not?)

(: sorry, couldn't resist.)

Please, please, please tell me you are joking!

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 1 month ago

Life is difficult enough without adding "homosexual" to the mix. It must be like they say and you're just born that way, 'cause anyone who cognitively 'became' homosexual has to have a wish for a rough life.

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

"Some of my closest acquaintances-even family members- have been homosexual. As their friend, I do not hesitate to share my honest views and opinions with them."

I bet they love it when you do this.

Homosexuality and homophobia are not created by people with a socio-political agenda. They're a natural fact. The way you treat people who are different is, however, a choice. You've chosen poorly.

Racism is fading (though not quickly enough), but I fear intolerance based on race is just being replaced by intolerance based on sexual orientation. It's quite sad.

0

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 1 month ago

Yep, would be great if we could all just get along. Homosexuals, and other special interest groups, however, continue to keep issues in the forefront, thereby exhausting people's patience. And, when you get those who are already prejudicial, it can mean nothing but bad blood between both sides.

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

OriginalCA: "Why don't we give all you militant gays an entire state of your own."

Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha! Right, the GAYS are the one's being militant about the issue.

"Homosexuals, and other special interest groups, however, continue to keep issues in the forefront, thereby exhausting people's patience."

True. If they shut up and accepted their societal inferiority, society would not be talking about it.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

krisell says: "Yes, but do you remember actually making that conscious decision?"

Hmm... clearly many of our "decisions" are not conscious-or, at least, only become "conscious" after the fact. And the "end" conclusions which I've offered above provide no real insight into the process which produced them, so, let me take a giant step backward...

I took a look at this some time ago, attempting to reconcile my own personal choice (conscious or otherwise) with that of acquaintances. I started with a simple notion related to "attraction." I am hetero- and not the least bit sexually attracted to members of my own sex, so if I were to find myself in a homo-oriented world, I certainly wouldn't want anyone dictating my orientation or behavior. It was a simple-minded solution to the problem (and I can be pretty simple-minded), so it worked for me-that is, until I looked a little more closely....

To begin with, superficially, men's and women's bodies just aren't that much different. Certainly, there can be more variation within a given gender-superficially-than between members of opposite gender. So, ultimately, it wasn't a matter of "Hey, I'm attracted to that one thang, but I'm not at all attracted to that other thang." The more I looked, the more I realized that it was not "attraction" which drove my "orientation" but rather the "meanings" which I associated with genders, gender roles, and gender relationships. (And, of course, simple-minded me, the existential imperative to which I earlier alluded would preclude the sort of homo-oriented world which had helped me to earlier "solve" my problem.)

To complicate matters, much of what people identify as being gender-specific (IMHO) amounts to playing "dress-up" in a conventional society. And we "dress up" not only with respect to attire, but also in terms of obvious (and not-always-so-obvious) behavior patterns and repertoires.

Sexuality is complex, shaped by superficial (and subtle) physical and behavioral cues, personal circumstance and experiences-both pleasant and unpleasant-the "lessons" we learn in our interactions with one another and the meanings we attach to... well... all of the above. It is SIMPLY too simplistic to say, "I was born this way," or "I'm 'attracted' to this or that thang."

We "choose"-perhaps "un"consciously or "sub"consciously, at first-but we choose, nontheless. Along the way, there is the additional possibility for "consciousness."

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 1 month ago

Is "desire" choice? Is "desire" innate? Is "desire" triggered by both genetics and external stimuli? ...something to think about.

I certainly don't remember ever (in five+ decades) seeing "desire" or sexual orientation as a choice.

With regard to the decision: I can't see how it is in the state's "interest" to be fruitful and multiply (or that being a gay parent precludes that possibility), or how living in a heterosexual home "protects children" (meaning that a same sex household does NOT?). It certainly doesn't protect children from being discriminated against when they "choose" or discover that they're attracted to the same sex!

I do understand how religious and corporate regurgitators can say that such "family values" are in the state's interests, but I don't want such selfish idiots running my world.

I know. I know. Like the late James Brown sang "This is a selfish regurgitator's world." (or something like that!~) which is what gave some politicians the idea of trickle down economics!~)

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

Tangential, one could "choose" to be gay and not act on that "choice" just as one could "choose to be gay and act on that inclination. My cousin has known since he was in junior high that he was attracted to boys, but being a devout Christian, has never had a homosexual relationship. He's in his mid-30s now, lives alone, and plans to keep it that way. According to your logic, he should be able to just decide to be straight, find a nice woman and settle down. Unfortunately, he's struggling a little bit with that "decision."

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

scenebooster says: "This might be the most inane post of the day. If it's "subconscious" or "unconscious", it ain't a choice, friend."

We make subconscious choices all the time. It is a choice in the sense that it is not "chosen for us." To the extent to which we can become conscious of (formerly) subconscious choices and motives, our motives can be altered (or compensated for), and our choices can change.

scenebooster says: That's like saying you choose to have your heart beat.

No, that would be "involuntary."

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

krisell says: "Tangential, one could 'choose' to be gay and not act on that 'choice' just as one could 'choose' to be gay and act on that inclination. My cousin has known since he was in junior high that he was attracted to boys, but being a devout Christian, has never had a homosexual relationship. He's in his mid-30s now, lives alone, and plans to keep it that way. According to your logic, he should be able to just decide to be straight, find a nice woman and settle down. Unfortunately, he's struggling a little bit with that 'decision.'"

The scenario you've described is a whole other "can of worms," which I'm not sure I'm prepared to open.

We can decide to take a relationship "chance" in life. (There are no guarantees.) We may find happiness; or it might end with despair. We might find a vital connection-perhaps "the" vital connection. We may find something we never anticipated. We may open the door to... awe. (... wait a minute, now I'm doing the script from "The Fountain"....)

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

tangential says: "We can decide to take a relationship "chance" in life. (There are no guarantees.) We may find happiness; or it might end with despair. We might find a vital connection-perhaps "the" vital connection."

Okay, except that that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. My cousin hasn't not entered into a homosexual relationship because he's afraid he'll get his heart broken, he's afraid he'll go to hell if he does . . . but even that is not the point to what I said. The point is, since he's living a chaste life, which he is not at all happy with, shouldn't he be able to "choose" to become heterosexual so he wouldn't have to be alone all the time?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

scenebooster says: "I'd like to see some proof of that:"

Sorry, there are no proofs... only "clues."

scenebooster says: "Tell me, do you decide what to dream?

Wet or dry?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

krisell says: "The point is, since he's living a chaste life, which he is not at all happy with, shouldn't he be able to "choose" to become heterosexual so he wouldn't have to be alone all the time?"

I really don't mean to be obtuse about this, but I really cannot say why people make the choices they do (or don't). I would think that you, perhaps, are in a better position than I to assess the situation-"better" not necessarily implying "sufficient."

Why, again, are we discussing your cousin? (<-rhetorical)

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

Sorry, there are no proofs: only "clues."

scenebooster says: "Which isn't enough to support your hypothesis. Sorry."

The point is that there NEVER are any "proofs"-for any position, for any related "hypotheses."

As for your nocturnal emissions, tell me, do you choose those?

I probably won't be seeking a socially approved marriage to a (literal) object of my dreams anytime soon.

0

Chris Golledge 7 years, 1 month ago

Sigh.

I'm glad to see this discussion taking the path of what is a choice, but it is pretty apparent that posters aren't likely to change each other's minds. So, let's assume that we are playing to the audience of non-posters.

Morality involves matters of choice. If you feel that you don't have enough worldly goods in your possession and you have the option of taking a job you feel is beneath you or stealing, what you do is a choice that involves morality. If you are faced with the choice of eating limburger or cheddar, there's no real morality involved. You'll choose based on what your own taste buds find more enjoyable and your taste buds are innate.

The majority of the credible, scientific evidence is in favor of sexual orientation being an innate characteristic. The evidence is available; look it up.

If a bona-fide church wants to perform a marriage, what right does the state have to disallow it? (Let's skip the discussion of animals and inanimate objects and assume that marriage is something that all parties have to agree to; further, that underage humans are not capable of making binding agreements.) They don't, but legally, I'm pretty sure that the federal government definition of marriage is not dependent on a religious basis; else, unions performed by government officials or ship captains could not be recognized. So, any argument against allowing homosexual marriages which is based on religious argument is moot. As far as the law is concerned, religion does not enter into it.

That would be at odds with a lot of people's beliefs that their marriage is a matter of spirituality. There's no problem with that disagreement in definitions, except, you shouldn't really attempt to impose your spiritual beliefs onto others. What Jill and Jane or Bill and Bob may do at home or feel between them has no impact on others. (At least it wouldn't if the others minded their own business.) So, there's no reason not to give them the same benefits of inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. that heterosexual couples enjoy.

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

I really don't mean to be obtuse about this, but I really cannot say why people make the choices they do (or don't). I would think that you, perhaps, are in a better position than I to assess the situation-"better" not necessarily implying "sufficient."

Okay, I'll answer the question. He never CHOSE to be gay, just as it would be impossible for him to choose to be straight, just as it would be impossible for YOU to choose to be gay. To say that people choose to be gay is to say that they choose to live a life being looked down upon by people like you, to be denied rights that you and me enjoy so freely. Do you honestly believe that most of them wouldn't absolutely love to be heterosexual, just to make it easier on themselves?

And BTW, having gay friends and family members does not mean you're not homophobic.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

cg22165 says: "The majority of the credible, scientific evidence is in favor of sexual orientation being an innate characteristic. The evidence is available; look it up."

Impressive... two dozen words pointing to a non-reference.

More than being swayed, I think that I've actually been moved... wait a minute... it may only be a bowel....

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31

"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

If you need more, they're ALL OVER the place.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

krisell says: "And BTW, having gay friends and family members does not mean you're not homophobic."

krisell, I "hung" with these guys. I valued their company. I had (nonsexual) experiences with them which I probably would not have had otherwise. I am a broader person for having known them.

This hardly qualifies as... waitaminit, let me get my handy dandy dictionary... "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people."

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

tangential, I'm sorry, but just hanging out with them, no matter how much you enjoyed their company, does not mean you do not have an "extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals." In my opinion, denying homosexuals equal rights is exactly that. What other reason could you possibly have for doing so?

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

More than being swayed, I think that I've actually been moved: wait a minute: it may only be a bowel:

Defender says:"If you going to be a troll, go away idiot."

My comment, above, pointed (albeit sarcastically) to the sparsity of the (non)referenced scientific argument, AND it was intended to be funny.

So, Defender, if you're going to be an Offender and resort to calling me names, then you might consider following your own advice.

0

krisell 7 years, 1 month ago

Last one.

Tangential, obviously we're not going to change each other's opinions. I merely wanted to fill you in on the other side of the argument. However, you continue to dodge honest, straight-forward questions from myself and others in this thread. I provided you with a link to the American Psychological Association affirming what I stated in my first post. You can check that out, and if it's not good enough for you, check Google. Evidence is plentiful against your statement that anyone has the ability to choose their sexual orientation. I have no hope that the link I provided, or any other website or psychological study will cause you to change your opinion; however, I do hope that it will plant something deep inside your subconscious that will tell you you're being horribly ignorant the next time you decide to spout such nonsense. Opinions like that (and that's all it is - an OPINION, not fact) are dated, to say the least.

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

The term "inalienable rights" does not originate from our Constitution, especially in regards to property rights.

Um, thanks, I know that. The person who talked about property rights and eminent domain brought the constitution into play.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

krisell says: "tangential, I'm sorry, but just hanging out with them, no matter how much you enjoyed their company, does not mean you do not have an "extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality or homosexuals." In my opinion, denying homosexuals equal rights is exactly that...."

krisell, you've just validated the point which I earlier made...

[copy, paste] "homophobic." (This seems to be another term closely embraced by those with a socio-political agenda.)

In fact, you seem to have fashioned your very definition around such an agenda.

BTW, I am not interested in denying anyone equal rights; nor am I a proponent of the granting of "exceptional" rights. If you review my posts, then you will find that I have not advocated for any denial or restriction of rights, whatsoever.

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

My comment, above, pointed (albeit sarcastically) to the sparsity of the (non)referenced scientific argument, AND it was intended to be funny.

There's tons of scientific evidence about homosexuality not being a choice. You choose to ignore it because it sounds like you've got your own view of what counts as "science." Just like you have your own interpretation of the Bible that you use to support your stance against homosexuality. Read Krisell's link to the APA, for example. Just don't ask Bill Richardson, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/10/richardson-flubs-answer-at-gay-forum/, who can't seem to make up his mind.

0

bugmenot 7 years, 1 month ago

You seem mostly interested in making people here angry by purporting to hold archaic views of society. I'm done taking the bait. I hope others show you more compassion than you show them.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

"My comment... was intended to be funny."

Defender says: "... there is nothing funny about it. It's called being a troll. And besides, you have proved that you're an idiot many times already. So, I wasn't calling you a name, I was speaking the truth."

I see where this exchange has gone-"truth in name-calling," apparently-I think that the operational phrase is: "has ceased to be fruitful."

0

acg 7 years, 1 month ago

Don't you just love it when hateful bible thumpers get to decide stuff for the rest of the world? The bigotry and oppression exhibited by this nation's "christians" gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling all over.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

bugmenot says: "Just like you have your own interpretation of the Bible that you use to support your stance against homosexuality."

Wow, when it rains, it pours...

I have made no statement WHATSOEVER about "the Bible" or my interpretation thereof.

Apparently, if you question a sexual orientation, then you open the door to being labeled ("homophobic"), called names ("troll, idiot") and otherwise maligned (see above). Ironically, aren't these the sorts of tactics for which the Phelps clan has been criticized?!

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years, 1 month ago

Some closing notes (for the non-believers)...

One of the first introductions of my then-future wife was to my "gay" friends (who lived just off the plaza in KS, and with whom I'd spent countless hours in Westport). We shared a dinner and then talked the rest of the evening away. "We" had plans to have kids; "they" recommended cats, instead (smiles all around).

[phone call, more later]

Within months of the birth of our second son, my wife lost her younger brother to AIDS. Some years later, I would learn that my former friends, too, had been succumbed to complications of AIDS.

It was the nature of my relationship with these two which, in part, allowed me to comfortably enter into this discussion. For that, if for no other reason now relevant, I am glad to have shared the time which we had had together.

On a different note, as I was just composing this message, the phone rang. My sister, some twenty years younger than myself, called to inform me of her pregnancy. Twenty years "after the fact," her arrival had been unplanned, and she had never planned to have children, herself. But, given this unexpected outcome, in spite of measures taken to prevent it, she was calling to tell me that she had decided to embrace this unplanned role.

When it rains, it pours.

0

craigers 7 years, 1 month ago

acg, I didn't see a lot of bible thumping on here. Maybe 1 poster that quoted scripture. Save your canned responses for another day.

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

Dotslines: If you recall, at no time was "inalienable property rights" brought up until you did. Your synopsis on Inalienable property rights was new information for me, and interesting at that so thanks, but the notion of "inalienable rights" is another matter entirely. Just as alienable means capable of being sold, submitted or surrendered in terms of property, and inalienable being, of course, the lack of capability, so does inalienable rights mean rights, not property, that is not capable of being sold, submitted or surrendered.

And for the record, I didn't bring up the constitution in that part of the discussion, though I guess it wasn't you who said that I did.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month ago

Good lord this board's infested with trolls.

Legalizing gay marriage would not force anyone's opinions on anyone else. If anything, it will equalize parts of society. Against gay marriage? Don't get one, but don't deprive me of the right to bear the same responsibilities that you do with your own spouse.

Troll: "But if we let Adam and Steve marry, we are opening the door for Adam and Eve and Greta and Lucy and..." Save that for a discussion about legalizing polygamy--which I don't see a huge demand for anyway.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month ago

You're one to talk about hypocrisy, making ridiculous claims about how gays are trying to impose their will on modern-day society and make them conform.

What does it say about morons like you who are guilty of doing the exact same thing? Don't pull the hypocrite card on me, I'll throw it right back in your face because you are far more guilty of it than I. The reason I say leave the polygamy debate for another time is because 1) I don't see myself ever wanting to be in a polygamous relationship, 2) There isn't a great demand for it, and I don't know what you're talking about with 19 couples in Maryland. Remember, I said great demand for it. And finally about the polygamy debate, it's exactly what it's called: A polygamy debate. The gay marriage debate doesn't have to, nor should it, involve polygamy, incest arguments, generalizations about pedophilia, and the like. Save that for a later discussion. You're right, I could care less if someone is advocating for polygamy. The only place where it is indeed practiced is Colorado City, and it's mainly inbreeding for families, so save your judgments about gay marriage and other sexual no-no's for that argument, and for once I'd like to see someone like you give me a GOOD secular reason as to why I can't marry the man I love and be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as you.

0

GretchenJP 7 years, 1 month ago

fanning myself Whoo, it's getting heated in here.

0

GretchenJP 7 years, 1 month ago

If you're a lucky enough person to find someone you love and with whom you want to spend the rest of your life it shouldn't matter if they are of the same sex. And this comes from a hetro-sexual female. To each their own. Live and let live and SHUT UP.

0

auturgy 7 years, 1 month ago

To each his own. Seriously.

And why can't we all just get along? This is obviously an issue that people will never resolve. But I do hope that those of you advocated AGAINST equal rights for gay couples have a child who is gay. You might just change your mind.

0

jonas 7 years, 1 month ago

dotslines: "Let me refresh your memory: "Now, if we are a society of laws, built around the idea of inalienable rights, including property rights:" (from your post at 11:43 last night)"

Blargh!!!! Inalienable rights, including property rights, means that rights to property are inalienable, not that property is inalienable.

Later for the rest. I can't think straight.

0

acg 7 years, 1 month ago

Hey craigers, you d-bag, my response isn't canned, thank you very much. Regardless of the posts on the board, and I didn't read them, because I didn't need to, because other people's opinions or input on this particular subject have no bearing on my feelings about this, or ever will. I wrote what I wrote because I'm not stupid or ignorant enough to think that this whole anti-gay marriage crusade was started by anyone but hateful, ignorant "christians" who've decided that gay marriage is against their little skygod's rules. Every single bigot that argues against letting homosexual people live their lives in peace has a religious root at the basis of their weak stance. Everyone knows it. We've come to terms, you should too.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month ago

DotsLines: (Look I'm actually addressing THIS post at YOU. The others weren't. Congratulations on ASSuming the wrong thing. My posts weren't addressed specifically at you.)

The debate is about gay marriage, not polygamy. When we have polyamorous groups of people suing states and legislatures for the right to marry, then we can argue about polygamy. Think for once instead of wasting so many words blowing smoke up your own backside.

Way to be congenial.

Inscient, 70% v. 30% is only based out of the 30% of people who actually voted on the issue, nowhere near a decent statistic to make a generalization about how "America" feels on the issue. Oh and good job on revealing yourself to have the same mindset as the Nazis 60 years ago, you're really helping humanity move forward.

0

agtprovocateuse 7 years, 1 month ago

I advocate for the legalization of same-sex marriage, and I have no problem with the legalization of polygamy per se. I don't believe that polygamy, in and of itself, is a problem. I do, however, have a problem with the context in which polygamy is traditionally practiced in this county, i.e., in settings where girls and young women are coerced into marrying men fifty years their senior because some "prophet" tells them it's the only way they'll avoid the eternal fires of hell. I could care less, however, if five consenting adults decide they'd all like to set up house and be legally bound to one another.

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 1 month ago

inscient says: 70% vs 30% Sounds like the will of the (idiocracy?~) Didn't yo' momma ever say, "If 70% of the people are jumping off of a bridge, does that mean you should jump off of the bridge, too?" Oh..... She DID say that and you DID jump off of the bridge. That explains your reasoning.

inscient says: Some day there will be a cure for the disordered behavior and the whole argument will be mute. -Let their be muting and may you be the one to show us the way! Oh... MOOT!

0

mom_of_three 7 years, 1 month ago

Someone earlier posted about moving the 'militant gays" to another state and moving the "normal people" out. I assume "normal" = straight. If that is your view of the world, I wouldn't want you as my neighbor.

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month ago

There you go, with that hypocrite card again. Aren't you getting tired of yelling at yourself in the mirror?

Many posters have written about gays imposing their own will, not just YOU. My post wasn't addressed specifically at you, even though yes, it did contain some of your points--only those points that have been pointed out by other posters countless times.

You don't want to legalize gay marriage without legalizing polygamy? Fine. I honestly DON'T care if polygamy is legalized or not. It cracks me up that you're trying to point out how I'm a bad person for wanting the rights and responsibilities that you get when you married your spouse but don't care if more than two people (of consenting age) want to get married elsewhere. If they want to get married, go for it. It no more trivializes the so-called "sanctity" of marriage than does the skyrocketing divorce rate.

I'll say it again (and I've never claimed to be congenial or pleasant, just pointing out your own hypocrisy and rude demeanor--not the same thing): Get over yourself.

0

gr 7 years, 1 month ago

"and if what you're arguing for is equal rights, then they need to be equal - as in for everyone, not just..."

Well said! I've tried to, but failed to get the point across.

Tycho: "It no more trivializes the so-called "sanctity" of marriage than does the skyrocketing divorce rate."

So, how does homo marriage improve on anything? How does it add anything?

0

Tychoman 7 years, 1 month ago

You (DotsLines) are one to talk about childish rants, being belligerent on a message board just to get a rise out of people when you apparently have no stance on the issue whatsoever. Get a life, man. Let it f'ing go. Did I not answer repeatedly your ludicrous claim about making everything equal for everyone else, including polygamists? Yes, I did. Now let it go and move on with what's laughingly called your life. I can't imagine what that would be like if you troll around message boards initiating arguments on which you have none, or refuse to put in your own opinion and just picking on others.

And no, you didn't point out a flaw in my logic. You have your own "logic," I have mine and we've both defended it. Now what? I'm no more childish than some troll who decides to spend multiple days on a message board and picking fights.

gr, "how does [gay] marriage improve on anything? How does it add anything?"

How doesn't it? Two men or women of consenting age who want to bear the same rights and responsibilities that you and your spouse bear? Gee, how could two men and women wanting to take part in a so-called foundation of society and spend the rest of their lives with each other...how could that possibly strengthen marriage?

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years ago

Troll of the year award goes to...Wait for it! ... ___

0

Tychoman 7 years ago

DotsLines: Yes, because judges are so very objective in their rulings...

What on Earth makes me closeminded? I told you yesterday that if you don't want to legalize gay marriage without legalizing polygamy, fine. Legalize it. You are so full of BS that you don't even read my posts anymore--and judging by your "childish" tirades against me of all people, you can't be much older than I am, if you indeed are older than I am. And since you get so worked up over some "child" like me, what does that say about you, who allows yourself to get so upset about it?

"You can't see the possibility of embracing other groups...you're close-minded...etc." Wow, just wow. It's amazing how much you excel at talking to yourself. How does not having an opinion on polygamy make me close-minded? It's just something I don't have an opinion about. If a group of people want to get married, fine. Go for it. (Look, I answered you AGAIN!).

If gay marriage were legalized tomorrow, why the hell wouldn't I be happy? You, DotsLines, need to grow up, chill out, and actually read my arguments before getting yourself worked up so much that you stop reading and only argue for arguing's sake.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years ago

Anonymous says: "You are so full of BS that you don't even read my posts anymore."

For whatever reason, this appears to be a persistent feature of this particular forum. At one point, I even considered posting random gibberish just to see what sort of response it would evoke.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years ago

Anonymous says: "I thought ALL of your posts were gibberish."

Please, don't confuse my "speaking in tongues" with gibberish.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 7 years ago

Captain_Obvious says: "Answer me this though, why do you think NAMBLA is ok?"

Without the National Association of Misspoken Bush Language Articulators, how could we expect to stay abreast of the ever-increasing catalog of Bush-isms?

0

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years ago

"the ever-increasing catalog of Bushisms" Captain Tangential Angus ...the true personifications of BUSHisms are multiplying like rabbits!~)

0

Tychoman 7 years ago

When did I ever say it wasn't about equal rights, Dot? I give up trying to argue with you. You are one of the rudest, most inconsiderate posters I've ever encountered on these forums. You do nothing but be belligerent, play Devil's advocate down to every little meaningless detail, and are insulting to the highest degree. I give up trying to deal with you. I've told you before, we're not going to change each other's minds (if what little matter is in your head actually amounts to a mind), so where do we go from here? Nowhere. It's meaningless to argue anymore because you flatly refuse to understand the cases I've made (I've NEVER played the victim), I never try and change the argument (why DOES polygamy and incest and pedophilia keep coming up in these arguments? Why are you so obsessed with polygamy? Bringing polygamy into the debate doesn't equate talking about equal rights, and you know it).

Have a good day, you patronizing closeminded fool.

0

Tychoman 7 years ago

Fine, I'll make one last attempt at getting through: The issue IS about gay marriage, and gay marriage only whether you like it or not. When there are polyamorous couples suing states and courts to have the right to enter into polygamous marriages, that's when the polygamy issue is tacked on to the equal rights issue with gay marriage. When the President of the United States brings polygamy in one of his State of the Union addresses, then we can discuss it. In my case, being right IS being happy--I deserve the right to marry, same as you.

"Equal rights (or civil rights or marriage rights or just plain old rights) is not a gay issue, just as it is not an African-American issue or a women's issue." Tell that to the NAACP, the women's liberation movement, other special interest groups.

Am I being clear? It's not that I ignore polygamy or other kinds of relationships, it's just that they're simply NOT the issue right now. You're looking at the big picture, it's just TOO big. I don't know why you keep bringing up other issues and coattail them onto this one. This really is just about one issue for now.

0

Tychoman 7 years ago

Did you even read the article, or other courts' rulings? The courts are the ones who are making this a single issue, it's mind-numbing how ignorant you yourself are being while you're shouting at the wind how dense I can be.

Sleep well tonight with your delusions of being right and knowing absolutely everything about this issue that the common people couldn't possibly comprehend.

Our argument thus far: You are! No, you are! No, you are! No, you are!

I've made my arguments, I've defended them, but you just--won't--let--it--go. So here I go, being the better man (not that doing that is hard when it comes to dealing with self-righteous idiots like you), and I bid you adieu. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if your next post contains something along the lines of "You leaving the argument means you're a coward and don't want to argue anymore, therefore I win."

0

jonas 7 years ago

"support NAMBLA, your making a case for them, you are so enlightened. Answer me this though, why do you think NAMBLA is ok?"

I was curious where you found the rationale for this statement, if you could provide it to me. I can't say I'm expecting a whole lot from someone who can say:

"Status quo should remain as long as the majority votes it. That's the American way. Don't like it? go to Canukistan and 'enjoy' that disordered liberty,"

but I'd still be interested in seeing you give it your best shot.

0

jonas 7 years ago

dotslines: In regards to last post, so long ago, I agree with the flavor of what you said, if not necessarily all of you particular examples. I do however, believe that basing too much on public opinion is damaging, despite its frequent inevitability. It seems, though, that a focus on quantifiable effects on society or the individuals within them is not asking too much before invoking on them restrictions and interference.

But if your point was to illustrate that something like that happens all the time, then consider it conceded.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.