ok, here is my opinion,
after speaking with people of both sides of the issue, this is what i see:
supporters want same gender couples equal government benefits that are given to opposite sex couples when they file a marriage certificate.
opposers belive it will undermind the american family and that "gay people will raise gay children" and that marriage is an institute that has been for the most part, seen as a union between a man and a woman.
first of all, i belive that as of now, neither of the extremes will win. so lets unite and have a compromise.
as of now, the states of CT and VT have issued "Civil Unions" to couples. these civil unions provide benefits to couples that are given by the state. however, federal benefits are not given.
so here is what i think....why dont we take marriage out of the government....because when you really think of it, when people think of a marriage, they dont think of a person waiting in line, taking a number at a town office and signing a paper....they think of the ceremony. so lets call 'marriage' (in the governments eyes) a civil union...and leave marriage to the religious organizations.
do you get what im saying, all the government 'goodies' and benefits that couples (regardless of gender) deserve.
that way the conservatives do not feel that their churches have to reconized same sex marriages and they can have marriage all to themselves, and the pro-GNM (Gender Nutral Marriage) couples can recieve the same rights...period
cause when you think about, its just a word, and some people think it is something more, so lets give it to them, while forming common ground.
lets agree to disagree and find a middle to this argument.
the issue of gay marriage is a hot button issue in this society for the same reason all hot button issues are "hot": they deal with people's notions of morality and religion.
The great fallacy of legislative intrusion into the issues of morality is that we can somehowcome to a compromise on the tenets and meanings of our spiritual beliefs. Such a compromise is not possible, especially in a nation of 300 million people of wildly divergent religious and spiritual teachings.
The solution requires removing the moral questions from the political arena. Consider: marriage is sanctioned by the STATE and is generally within the aspect of contract law. A marriage may be performed in a relious ceremony but it is not required to be considered legal by the state (i.e. society). As all citizens are by law vested with full rights of citizens, disallowing gay marriage negates the rights of gay people as citizens. To me this is clearly unconstitutional. If one removes the moral (religious) argument from the debate on gay marriage, it iseems perfectly clear that the government does not have the authority to prevent gay people from being wed. If the religious notion of marriage is so sancrosanct, call gay marriage civil unions and be done with it. Relious groups do have the right to deny access to their houses of worship for such civil unions, but the legislative authority of the local, state, and federal governments do not have a legal right to deny gay marriage over "community standards" or police power authority.
Gay marriage is a divisive issue, that I feel government should stay out of. I could care less if gays want to marry - the argument that it somehow degrades my marriage I don't follow.
Your points are valid, and that's exactly why insurance companies are opposed to gay marriage - they don't want them to have spousal benefits.
It's an issue that diverts attention from real issues - health care, Iraq, the deficit, Social Security, the Katrina response - all of which require thought - the gay marriage "issue" allows pols to appeal to the "drool" voters who can nod and stamp their feet in agreement.
Gay marriage, gun control, abortion, prayer in school - to a lesser degree immigration. These are the issues the power-holders want the electorate to focus on in order to keep us divided andd them in control. I think frankly that the '08 founders erred a bit when they elevated these issues to "important" status. They are neither critical nor important (excepting the securing of our borders from terrorists) and for the most part should not be dealt with by government at all at any level. How about a little dose of libertarian liberalism here...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
If you want to go with the moral relativists on Left, like John "homosexuality isn't a sin" Edwards, fine...go for it.
I'll go with Joshua and Joshua 24:15.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
have to do with gay unions?
Morals, by their very definition are relative. Different Churches interpret the same passage differently. Take the story of Onan, some (very strict) churches say that this story preaches against birth control and/or masterbation. Others say it tells the story of someone who did not fulfill the wishes of God because of greed. I think the latter is the correct interpretation.
Am I a moral relativist?
In our system, Government also provides services such as courts of redress that should not be held privately. This is where the "marriage" contract takes place. This contract define the boundaries of the two parties, financially and otherwise. It doesn't necessarily define the parties as one man and one woman. It could be two men, it could be two women. It could be a man and three women for all I care (as long as all parties are adults and consent to the contract). The main thing is that it should be a legal contract, witnessed by a third party,
Churches can still have "spiritual" weddings. Just make them separate from the legal ones.
Rob
Romans 1-26 -27, as well as Genenis 19, are unequivocably clear that God considers homosexuality to be a sin.
My quote from Joshua was simply to say I choose to follow God.
If other churchs want to press their own private interpretation of Scripture, fine. The Bible also says that 5 out of 7 churchs aren't doing His will anyhow.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Marriage is between God and two humans. A contract involves government. The two are only one because of social function. So it is a contract, having noting to do with God. Because two can be married in the eyes of God without the contract. So God has nothing to do with this contract of man. - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Just as abortion and homosexuality are things that can only be negotiated between a person and God. This is not a matter of mans laws or moralities of society. And when it enters politics radicalism takes over. - Earn Snyder
Modern Progressive Independent
IM: earnsnyder@yahoo.com
For more policies visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Zachct06453, I have been thinking the same thing for quite a long time. I personally do not support gay marriage. However, I this is a private issue that should stay completely out of the political sector. Government should not interfere with religious issues.
Should the state recognize religious marriges on a legal level at all?
--Think also of the comfort and rights of others
I have long favored getting "marriage" out of the legal/political sphere altogether. "Marriage" ought to be a religious rite, not a legal/political right. We should treat marriage like baptism or communion, or bar mitzvah -- any other religious rite of passage, or significant ritual.
But we may have an interest in creating a legal/political means for two (or more?) people to bind themselves to one another, contractually, and to provide protections (and perhaps benefits) for that contractual relationship.
Some kind of secular "relationship contract" (or "civil union," or whatever we call it) would legally (constitutionally) be available to anyone and everyone. And this wouldn't threaten the integrity of "marriage" at all, any more than getting your drivers license (a civil rite of passage) threatens baptism or bar mitzvah (religious rites of passage).
Something DV and I may partially agree on. The only reason for the bru-ha-ha over marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise, is the state sanctioned advantages of married couples. Eliminate the advantages, and you eliminate the arguement. If we are truly equally protected under the law, these advantages are illegal anyway.
i agree nobody does give a puck if your gay so why the posts??
of course the religious right gives a puck if your gay. their main concerns are, in order of importance:
1. abortion
2. gay marriage / unions
3. terrorism
and will likely vote accordingly.
scandalsandskeletons,
I've found your posts to be non-responsive.
Allow me to quote myself.
QUOTE:
"It is an UNNATURAL sexual act for a man to insert his penis into the anus of another man."
It's that simple.
I'll ask again....Is it "Okay" to do the Doggie too?
I'm serious. I'm NOT being sarcastic.
I'd like to know where the morality line is with the militant gays.
....and I'll ask again....
Do we really NEED the government of the United States of America to concern itself with such non-sense, non-issues?
So, please answer Yes or No....Is it "Okay" to do your Doggie too?
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
so you think it is unatural. you have that right. but what can you do about it? kill all homosexuals who have anal sex? i mean c'mon dude get real.
i perfsonally dont care because i dont think about it myself. i dont watch or think about men having sex so it is not an issue for me.
so why is it an issue for you?
scandalsandskeletons,
This will be the third time I've asked the same question.
I want your answer.
So, please answer, Yes or No....Is it "Okay" to do the Doggie too?
I need to know where your morality line is, if any.
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
stuckonstupid if you literally mean to have sex with a dog or an animal you are a sick puppy. you obviously think on a different plane than i. i had never in my life considered this disgusting thing. you sir have obviously given this much thought, just as you obviously spend time thinking about men having sex. this has gotten way too weird for me. i have no further comment.
scandalsandskeletons,
Thank you for your reply.
That is exactly the type of reply one would expect from a clear thinking gay person. However, there are Sick-Twisted-Freaks who engage in bestiality, aren't there?
Regardless of YOU personally being repulsed by such a thing they enjoy it and some would even like to MARRY their doggie. Who are YOU to say that's wrong? Who are YOU to deny mankind and womankind their BEST friend?
And just WHO and by what authority has bestiality been admonished? After all if dyslexic DOG doesn't exist then mankind alone is the SUPREME rule maker....wouldn't you agree?
Personally, I'd like to know WHO said ONE man and ONE woman ONLY can enter into marriage.
What's WRONG with ME being married to a Blonde, Brunette and a Redhead ALL at the same time???
We'll call it PolyFidelity.
What's WRONG with that? Then all of my children would have three (3) Moms!!! And I would have variety....the spice of life!
Best regards,
StuckOnStupid, AKA,
a sick puppy.
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
stuck on stupid i think you misconstrued my posts. i am not gay nor do i spend my time thinking about men having gay sex as you do. nor do i think about sex with animals as you do. my point is, it would seem someone who spends their time thinking about these things likely is a person who has considered these alternative (for lack of a better term) lifestyles for themselves or is a person living a ted haggard lifestyle. ie, while preaching against such lifestyles is actually practicing them.
Don't get religion mixed up with the basic human right to enter into contracts. It doesn't matter whether you call it a marriage or call it a civil union, the bottom line is that it is a contract between two people. It's not a contract between me, the government, and those third parties that want to make a deal; it simply is a declared deal between those two third party individuals, period!
Morality and religion merely confuse the issue and we should not be in the business of having our government in the business of trying to legislate religion or morality. Keep it simple. In fact, our constitution expressly forbids the government from legislating along those lines.
Contracts are about the ownership of property and the fullfilment of promises between individuals. Government's legal role is simply to recognize and enforce agreements if the parties ask for a third party arbitor to resolve disputes over the contract.
Who am I to tell other people what kind of deal they can make? There just seems to be too many important issues that need our input for us to get caught up with these non-issues. See? Already I have wasted too much time.
Phil W your points are well taken.
There is NOTHING that prevents gays from having their own PRIVITE co-habitation contract agreement; there is nothing that prevents gays from owning property together. NOTHING. If fact, gay couples have the EXACT same rights as unmarried straight couples who live together.
....and let me clue in the Militant Gays....YOU have MORE individual RIGHTS by NOT being married than YOU do being married....
The things gays want as their perceived RIGHTS is to be insured as a spouse on group medical insurance or the ability to file their income taxes as married filing jointly or the abilty to collect social security benefits from their dearly departed spouse or the ability to adopt children. But most of all the militant gays DEMAND society recognize their lifestyle as nothing more than two people who are deeply in love and if they could just get married.....life would be grand!
There is ABSOLUTELY no benefit to society by allowing boys to marry boys or girls to marry girls REGARDLESS of how much they are in love with each other.
None.
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
by the way gary is that you who sells videos of men wrestling?
just curious.
You say, There is ABSOLUTELY no benefit to society by allowing boys to marry boys or girls to marry girls.
There is no benefit as long as you exclude the basic freedom for Americans to enter into contracts of their choosing. As long as someone else's contract doesn't hurt you, what do you care?
scandalsandskeletons,
Are you wanting to engage in debating the issue of Gay Marriage or do you want to simply engage in bllsht just like the *PoliTicians and/or News Media?
There is ZERO benefit to society by recognizing the UNNATURAL union of same sex couples.
NONE.
By the way, I have no idea what high school and college wrestling has to do with the issue of Gay Marriage on this thread but click the linky below to watch some great action.
Wrestling-Videos.net
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
*PoliTic
Poli: means many and Tics are self serving blood suckers.
PoliTicians = Many self serving blood suckers.
gary bllsht is posting about miltant gay sex and bestiality. that is not discussing gay unions that is....well i dont know what it is, but i guess i hit a nerve in my prior post.
scandalsandskeletons,
The purpose of those posts WAS to hit a nerve and to make a point.
There is NO benefit to society by recognizing Gay Marriage.
NONE.
Now, I believe I have adequately spelled out what I believe Militant Gays want from the government.
Such as, ".... gays want as their perceived RIGHTS to be insured as a spouse on group medical insurance or the ability to file their income taxes as married filing jointly or the ability to collect social security benefits from their dearly departed spouse or the ability to adopt children. But most of all the militant gays DEMAND society recognize their lifestyle as nothing more than two people who are deeply in love and if they could just get married.....life would be grand!"
Now, let me amend and broaden my comments toward Militant Gays. The actual segment of American Society that is the most divisive are the Militant Atheists regardless of sexual orientation.
It's NOT "regular" Gay Persons who are DEMANDING marriage. It is the Gay Militant Atheists who are DEMANDING marriage primarily to poke a thumb in the eye of Christians.
I don't want to get too off topic but Militant Atheists have permeated EVERY segment of our Government and are HELL bent to have EVERYONE see the WORLD as they do.
All one has to do is remove God from the equation. Then all of their DEMANDS on American Society make perfect human to human and "legal" sense.
The Militant Atheists believe THEY are THE SUPREME RULE MAKERS.
What's God got to do with it?
Well, regarding Gay Marriage,....as Tina Turner would say:
What's Love Got To Do With It?
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
What no Pictures?
stumpylarue,
Click THIS LINKY for a picture of StuckOnStupid.
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
Now that's what I'm talking about. I particularly like the ear rings.
Good luck. No offense but my retina's are burned. I need welding glasses to look at them.
Well, it appears the issue of Gay Marriage has been solved on this thread.
Just say, NO.
Perhaps now PoliTicians can move beyond UNNATAURAL social engineering and maybe hire some real Engineers to figure out how to build bridges that won't fall down.
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest there is way more benefit to society by having structurally sound bridges than there is by having silly boys marry boys and silly girls marry girls.
Wouldn't you agree?
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
Most of all I am ticked off by the insistence to use basic English word "Marriage" in a sense it was never used in the history of English language from Roman-Celtic to Anglo-Saxon times.
Which word next will we redefine? Bill Clinton had already tried to redefine word "is". Should we re-define words "Congress", "shall", "make", "no", "law", "respecting", "establishment", "religion", "or", "prohibiting", "free", "exercise", "abridging", "freedom", "speech", "press", "right", "people", "to assemble", "to petition", "government", "grievances"?
Then we will be free to treat the following familiar test any witch way we want:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
George Orwell, "1984"
Want package of rights similar to what married couples have from the government? This would be a healthy intelligent discussion. Arguing parties will have to examine why benefits are given to married couples and what government expects to receive back. Then it could be examined if average gay couple can pay government back for the same benefits not worth than average married couple does.
Phil_W can you name just one benefit to society by recognizing an UNNATURAL marriage between a man-man or a woman-woman?
In America we've become so open minded that our brains have fallen out!
These threads always become circular so I'll just go back and quote myself:
"Gay couples have the EXACT same rights as straight couples who are not married."
"There is ZERO benefit to society by recognizing the UNNATURAL union of same sex couples."
"The Militant Atheists believe THEY are THE SUPREME RULE MAKERS."
"Perhaps now PoliTicians can move beyond UNNATURAL social engineering and maybe hire some real Engineers to figure out how to build bridges that won't fall down."
"I'll go out on a limb here and suggest there is way more benefit to society by having structurally sound bridges than there is by having silly boys marry boys and silly girls marry girls."
"Wouldn't you agree?""
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
Shamelessly bumping this thread to the top of the message board because I'm waiting for an intelligent answer to my question.
Q. Can anyone name just one benefit to society by recognizing an UNNATURAL marriage between a man-man or a woman-woman?
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
SOS, since you shamelessly bumped your question to the top of the board, I will respond. I'm not quite sure what you are willing to accept as an intelligent answer but, I will try to do my best.
First of all, your question starts out with the premise that any marriage between two individuals of the same sex is unnatural. The way you have phrased the question is leading. For me to intelligently answer the basic question, I will first have to address your useage of unnatural so as to get to an answer that fits into the context of this forum. I am not quite sure what you mean here so I will have to speculate here and then get back to the main question.
I don't see Nature objecting to two individuals of the same gender sharing and enjoying each other in any of the conventional meaningful ways that individuals of the opposite gender do. So unnatural does not apply here as two people of the same gender can bond on some intimate level.
Second, nature also does not prevent two individuals of the same gender from engaging in physical interaction. While Nature has made a slight qualitative difference in how two individuals (man-woman vs. man-man or woman-woman) can physically interact based on anatomy (in a very minor way), the fact remains that nature generally does not object to physical interaction between any two individuals of the human species. Therefore, if nature has no objection, my opinion about whether any of the three possible combinations of physical human interaction is unnatural really doesn't matter. I say my opinion doesn't matter because I would then be complicating Nature needlessly.
Since nature does not object to either of these two activities, I still have to speculate as to why the question says that an intimate agreement between two individuals of the same gender is unnatural. Since the reason for inserting unnatural in your question has not proven itself to be based on a nature/natural common sense level, it must be on a metaphysical level. For me to agree with the most basic premise of your question, I need to be able to ascertain whether your metaphysical reason for using unnatural is based upon some sufficiently agreeable authority. It must be proved to me if I am the one to accept the form of question as both valid and sound.
It is at this point that we run into some problems. We are not at a point where agreement on a metaphysical level is simply a yes or no answer. While your appeal to a justifiable authority (Theological) may depend on one source here, my own perspective is influenced by a number of interrelated sources (Theological, Logical, Secular, Political, etc.). And, where we may both appeal to one source that has the same name, that source is likely to vary between us in our understanding. The best we can come up with here will be mere opinions and laws should not be based on mere opinion.
Rather than waste our time and try to come up with a mutually agreeable metaphysical understanding of the proper role that unnatural plays in the question, it must be omitted. It has to be omitted because we may never be able to find agreement on a metaphysical level (All we have are opinions based on unprovable beliefs). The question now reads: Can anyone name just one benefit to society by recognizing a marriage between a man-man or a woman-woman?
One more item before I answer your question. The only other issue with your question that is a cause for concern is the use of the word "marriage." Different dictionary definitions cause us to bring a whole slew of cultural, historical, and nuanced references that again cloud the direct purpose of the basic question. And, of course if the question is to have any application or meaning, we must be talking about a society that has laws which, in turn, impact that society. Therefore, in place of marriage, I will insert legal union in its stead. The question now becomes:
My answer is yes. I can name one benefit to society that recognizes all three types of legal unions.- It is beneficial to a society to have a rule of law that is the same for everyone. Consistency
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Sorry Phil, marriage is between a man and a woman period. I guess it shows how you were raised to believe such crap.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Phil W,
That is a very intellectual yet convoluted answer.
You repeatedly inject this concept about "Nature" not objecting.
You also have limited the combinations to three, WHY?
Staying true to your premise that "Nature" doesn't object why limit the participants?
After all, as you state, and I quote:
The best we can come up with here will be mere opinions and laws should not be based on mere opinion.
Your answer above is pandemic as to what is wrong with the far left militant atheists redefinition crowd.
By the way, love and affection or religion and God or even "Nature" has NOTHING to do with it.
Let's not be naive'....it's about money. Money in the form of Social Security Benefits, Alimony, Child Support, Spousal Benefits to Quailfied Pension Plans, Group Medical Insurance, Tax Benefits and so on and so forth.
The only group in American society who is going to benefit from same sex marriage are the divorce lawyers.
Tell me something, would you at least agree it VIOLATES biological law?
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
In plain old English, what is the basis for your statements like,
Don't hold back here. Tell me what is really on your mind.
Of course benefits are at issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yes, can you think of more ways to combine two things than three combinations? If you are talking about multiples of each kind, well, we aren't really addressing that, are we? I think there is already a law that adresses multiple marriages.
Do me a favor. Don't stereotype and label me and I won't do that to you. That has nothing to do with the issue itself. It is just hype aimed at stirring emotion. A dispassionate look at the issue based on its merits and not people's prejudices and bias should determine the law. Not opinions, remember?
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Phil W wrote quote:
In plain old English, what is the basis for your statements like,
VIOLATES biological law. What is biological law?
UNNATURAL marriage - You need to explain it in terms I can understand.
Okay, Phil let's define some words.
nat·u·ral means:
conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
un·nat·u·ral means:
1. contrary to the laws or course of nature;
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person;
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected.
violate means:
1. fail to agree with; be in violation of; as of rules or patterns;
2. act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises; "offend all laws of humanity"; "violate the basic laws or human civilization"
biology means:
the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.
Now for some contradictory fun....
Phil wrote a couple of messages above:
"The best we can come up with here will be mere opinions and laws should not be based on mere opinion."
Then when asked why limit the combinations to three meaning man-woman, man-man or woman-woman???
Phil wants to claim man made rule of law as his defense, quote:
I think there is already a law that adresses multiple marriages.
Phil have you noticed how you MUST redefine what is natural and unnatural to make your convoluted intelligent points?
When you are on the wrong side nature you claim "nature" doesn't object, then when I wish to dispense with "nature" you fall back to man-made rules of law as your objection.
Have you noticed I have not had to redefine one single word to write this message?
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
First, when I cited our current law about marriages involving multiple persons, it wasn't in defense of my position as you claim; I was merely stating a fact. This fact merely ruled out the need to discuss that item any further.
Thank you for your definition of natural (e.g. conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature) because that supports my original appeal to observations from "nature" for guidance in understanding this issue. While you like to say my answer is convoluted, I at least make direct references to observations in nature as to what natural means. You simply make statements using definitions, but do not support your application of the definitions. Your understanding of the appropriate application of the definitions is different from mine. Thus, we must prove our understanding of the definition is being applied appropriately. You must offer some sort of evidence that your application of the definition is the correct one. I at least offered factual observations from nature as evidence or proof that my application of the definition is correct. My conclusion is based on the fact that nature does not object to any of the meaningful characteristics of same gender relationships that are found in cross gender relationships. My conclusion is therefore, why should our legal system object?
Now, for biological law. If reproduction is a defining characteristic, I will grant you that same gender marriages do not follow biological law. Okay, let's apply our agreement here to the way in which our government determines the legal implication for people in our policies. Here are a few rules based on this application of biological law to our legal policies:
The following are not marriages and will not be recognized as such:- Same gender marriages
- Cross gender marriages where either party is physically unable to create a viable potential life.
- Cross gender marriages where a new life has not been created must pay back all government compensation which has been received either directly or indirectly as a result of that marriage being recognized.
- Any individual that has either voluntarily or unvoluntarily been rendered incapable of reproducing is not eligible to marry.
Need I go on? I don't believe that Biological Law is something that should be used to determine the marriage worthiness of people in this society. Wouldn't you agree?
Based on what we have discussed, I still see no good reason to ban same gender marriages and am still waiting for compelling arguments to the contrary.
By the way, I had to come back and edit this thought into our discussion. If we reject Biological Law as the basis for determining our legal rules for marriage, isn't Biological Law part of Nature? If it is, and I think it is, we must rule out the use of nature in determing our legal rules for determing marriage because it prevents cross gender marriage for couples unable to reproduce. SOS, I think it is becoming more clear where your arguments against same gender marriage are coming from - and it has nothing to do with natural or unnatural except as prescribed by your interpretation of a supernatural being's laws. You want to assume the judgement authority for a metaphysical reason and want to force it into our political system. Rather than being content with how you manage your relationship with your higher authority, you force me to respond with a call to keep your religion out of my politics.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Well Phil it appears that we agree;
#1) that same sex marriage is about MONEY; your words: "Of course benefits are at issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
#2) same sex marriage VIOLATES biological law; your words: "Now, for biological law. If reproduction is a defining characteristic, I will grant you that same gender marriages do not follow biological law."
Thank you.
Now let's address the area where there will NEVER be agreement:
Phil wrote quote:
"Based on what we have discussed, I still see no good reason to ban same gender marriages and am still waiting for compelling arguments to the contrary."
The compelling argument Phil is God.
If there isn't any such entity and something way, way, way, back in the day just blew up and became life on Earth, then I agree with you...... marry any damn thing you want.
Now let me ask you something....if on the razor thin chance, the spiritual entity commonly refered to as God is real....then are any of your very intellectual arguments above valid?
Please answer my question Yes or No.
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
Sorry, just a yes or no answer won't work here. Don't assume I am an atheist.
The God I believe in, and is always present in my life, wants me to continue to work to keep my relationship with him a top priority. He does not reveal to me any directive to judge others. I am told not to judge, lest I be judged. I do my best to follow his guidance. God could care less about Politics.
Based on that guidance, the Constitution is the guide I follow when it comes to governing and political discussions.
One last thing, this is not a crucial Centrist issue. Can't let this wedge issue continue to divert my focus from other stuff on the Shoutbox any longer. Have a good day!
P.S. See I told you. Why didn't you just admit all this was about your understanding of God from the beginning? I am not about to change my understanding---there is just too much proof!
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
gary did god whisper on your ear that only men and women should marry? do you have his direct number?
or were you referring to the bible?
let me be clear where i stand before you reply (i know you will because when it comes to anything gay related you obviously can't help yourself) i am not a biblical scholar so i don't pretend to be able to interpret its passages. my god has not said for me to make sure only men and women get married. frankly i don't give a hoot. i think gays should have the right to be as miserable as i was when i was married. unless it impinges on my lifestyle why should i care? there are enough more serious problems in america and the world to worry about. i don't judge, i leave that to god. and frankly you don't speak for god you speak for yourself. in my opinion marriage is just a word. a commitment between a man and women or any other combination of humans is an emotional thing. marriage to me is just a word they use for the legal papers that a couple receives.
i honestly don't mean this in a negative way...but i wonder about people who are so focused on gay issues who aren't gay. look at larry craig so anti-gay in speeches and voting yet cruising public bathrooms for sex with men. i just wonder what drives a person like that when we have so many bigger problems in the world.
Phil W I have to hand it to you.....YOU are the best consistently inconsistent intellectual poster I believe I have ever encountered. Actually, you're not really inconsistent as long as you can consistently redefine the world around you.
I'm glad to see that you and YOUR god are on the same page.
Let's see if I've got this right. Your god, "could care less about Politics" but gives you "guidance" to follow the Constitution "when it comes to governing and political discussions."
Really?
So just EXACTLY where in the Constitution has your god shown you that....two women getting married and each having children by in vitro fertilization by two different male sperm donors would have a positive impact on the children born and on society?
Also, what did your god do for guidance on "governing and political discussions" BEFORE the Constitution? Was your god StuckOnStupid from the Big Bang until the signing of this man made document to govern all of humanity?
I will say it again and quote myself.....
"There is ZERO benefit to society by recognizing the UNNATURAL union of same sex couples."
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
StuckOnSilly, I think you have hit the nail on the head! When you bring in an outside supernatural belief, you inject inconsistency into the discussion. I tried to keep it separate but, you wouldn't let me. You led me to believe that this issue was something we could logically discuss and come to some sort of understanding. When that didn't work you just had to bring God into the discussion, didn't you? Now its like your specific interpretation of God's will for us is the one and only correct interpretation. Once you did that, inconsistency became part of our discussion because, like I stated previously, I would be relying on my understanding and interpretation of various metaphysical beliefs for my position. You, on the other hand, are using a single and different interpretation of our shared belief system. You want to point out my inconsistencies but won't admit nor accept that your position has inconsistencies. You just poof them away and make it part of your belief system - inconsistency notwithstanding. It must make you feel safe to have an answer in a world where imperfect beings do not know the answer. You get the benefit to divine your answers when it suits you.
Okay, I get it now. Maybe you just want to argue for the sake of argument. You just want to see if I can draw from the same eternal pool of knowledge that is at your fingertips. I am human, you have sucked me in. None of this, however, changes the fact that this is not a crucial Centrist issue.
It must be nice to live in germ free world view that never changes. It must be great to know that no matter what evolves around you, it doesn't change the same basic structure of your environment. Does your comfy spot still think we ought to have slaves and that women should not vote? How does that mesh with your beliefs about equality? Don't you believe God created us as equals? And if he made us equal but different, is that difference a valid reason for devising rules that make that difference a limiting factor in equality under the law? Did God reveal that to you or is it just a misapplication of common sense that one can simply figure out by observing the world around us? Did God initially put all these restrictions on our beliefs, or did we create them by ourselves? I think you must agree that since God is perfect, we must have done that all by ourselves.
So, what are you going to do about this manmade self-imposed restriction that continues to limit the equality that God gave us? When are you going to stop using an immovable pre-established mindset (of man's own making I might add) that you already know is fallible? When do you intend to use the other gifts that God gave you to go beyond man's fallible and selective application of God's great gift of equality? In this imperfect manmade world where children are abused and often discarded wouldn't it be great to know that we have not imposed limits on how they can be loved and cared for? Shouldn't we teach children to make judgements about others based on the content of their character and not base it on other silly notions of inequality? Shouldn't we teach children that making judgements is different from judging?
My answer continues to be that yes, there are benefits to our society implementing a system that recognizes our mutual God given equalities. I don't think anyone needs to remain StuckOnSilly to understand that concept.
Phil
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
When these guys can't intimidate you or win a debate without ganging up they always resort to calling names just as little children would.
Well I submit that nature has not objection to men buggering boys, and boys fornicating girls, and women fornicating with boys, nature also seems to give sheep, donkeys, dogs, cats and monkeys the ability to have sex in any combination with humans. Let the marriages begin. Ludicrous argument folks and don't tell me it doesn't happen. News last month was a Mexican got caught in the back of his pickup trying to get his dog pregnant. Nature has nothing to do with it morality and God's law does. How else are we to remain civilized. Should we have herems also. No need to answer I can almost hear the nonresponsive childish answer now. Why do they want to be so unlike everybody then get married and then want to be like everybody. Nature?
Phil W,
It's a simple question.
Let me ask again....
So just EXACTLY where in the Constitution has your god shown you that....two women getting married and each having children by in vitro fertilization by two different male sperm donors would have a positive impact on the children born and on society?
...and as a follow up...
Are the children born of the above UNNATURAL arrangement outlined above even related to each other?
I will say it again and quote myself.....
"There is ZERO benefit to society by recognizing the UNNATURAL union of same sex couples."
Gary Spicuzza
Copyright 1956
No Rights Reserved
I see, only some children are worthy in your system. Good for you! Great system! Your mind is obviously clouded by an UNNATURAL world view.
You won't accept anything as an answer, nor will you intelligently answer any questions posed to you. Remember, discussions are two way streets. The best thing to do is to isolate within your rigid world view, curl up in the fetal position and just clutch to your vision. Keep your eyes closed and think about the fact that the broken system we are trying to fix uses your idea about unions. Does that tell you something?
Did I forget to mention that this is not a crucial Centrist issue?
Phil
P.S. You can select the Reply button immediately below this response if you are responding to me.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
I see, only some children are worthy in your system. Good for you! Great system! Your mind is obviously clouded by an UNNATURAL world view.
You won't accept anything as an answer, nor will you intelligently answer any questions posed to you. Remember, discussions are two way streets. The best thing to do is to isolate within your rigid world view, curl up in the fetal position and just clutch to your vision. Keep your eyes closed and think about the fact that the broken system we are trying to fix uses your idea about unions. Does that tell you something?
Did I forget to mention that this is not a crucial Centrist issue?
Phil
P.S. You can select the Reply button immediately below this response if you are responding to me.
Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.