Ban on Gay Marriage a winner in 11 states.

[Butterknife]

Sounds good, as long as you're not a BYU fan. I do have to draw the line somewhere.

Shucks, I graduated from BYU.  Don't worry, though -- I'm not a "fan" in any sense of the word.  I was planning on going to the U, but missed the application deadline, so I went to the Y instead.  You can tell I really care about the school rivalry, huh?

Umm, something on subject -- uh, my previous point still stands.  Age discrimination.  It's all over our laws.  Nobody whines and complains about that, though (or at least, nobody listens to the kids do it).  So what makes age discrimination OK?  Why isn't everyone up in arms about that?

[Gratch]

It's my belief that morality and religion are not necessarily bound together.  There are people who go to church every Sunday but act terrible the rest of the week.  On the other hand, there are those that hardly ever or never attend a church who are very nice people.  I've met several atheists who are very pleasant people.  Their lack of religion hasn't caused them to lack a strong moral core of beliefs, however.

Here's the flip side of that coin.  I know hetero couples who are on their 5th marriage and treat marriage like it's a game.  I also know homosexual couples who have been in committed, monogomous loving relationships for years.  Why then should the 5 time divorced couples that jump from marriage to marriage get legal benefits such as tax breaks, while those in the committed relationships do not?

[Gratch]

Sounds good, as long as you're not a BYU fan. I do have to draw the line somewhere.

Shucks, I graduated from BYU.  Don't worry, though -- I'm not a "fan" in any sense of the word.  I was planning on going to the U, but missed the application deadline, so I went to the Y instead.  You can tell I really care about the school rivalry, huh?

Umm, something on subject -- uh, my previous point still stands.  Age discrimination.  It's all over our laws.  Nobody whines and complains about that, though (or at least, nobody listens to the kids do it).  So what makes age discrimination OK?  Why isn't everyone up in arms about that?

It's the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the discrimination that I take issue with.  Hell, I think it's stupid that an 18 year old can die for his/her country but can't have a beer.  But I also understand that most individuals are capable of mature decisions once they reach age 18.  Hence the law.

Problem is, there is no clear cut, definable reason why people vote for a gay marriage ban.   Religion is not acceptable because there should be a separation of church and state.  And the "immoral" arguement doesn't fly either, because then you start talking about trying to legally enforce opinions on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral.  That smacks of taking away a basic freedom to me.

Honestly, I think most people that voted did so with either their bibles or because they think homosexuality is "gross".   Neither of which is an acceptable reasoning in my book.  But that's all just IMO, of course...

[Evil_Lurking_Koala]

Here's the flip side of that coin.  I know hetero couples who are on their 5th marriage and treat marriage like it's a game.  I also know homosexual couples who have been in committed, monogomous loving relationships for years.  Why then should the 5 time divorced couples that jump from marriage to marriage get legal benefits such as tax breaks, while those in the committed relationships do not?

It's definately a bad thing to see people treat such a bond between each other so frivously (in fact, I find that sort of behavior abhorrent) but they do meet the requirement.  While it is a positive thing that the homosexual couples you know have chosen to lead monogamous relationships, they don't meet the marriage requirement (an intimate committed bond between members of the opposite sex).

[Gwar21]

They think this solely because of religion. Blame the parents for this stuff. I was watching some news special on Evangelical Christians and a 6 year old (i think) girl was talking about anyone who didn't accept Jesus as their savior would go to hell. She also said she was born again at 2 years old. Brain washing like that is sad. Just like the matrix, it takes a strong mind to break out instead of being a sheep.

Yes, because all people who believe in Christianity are obviously brainwashed sheep, stupid and incapable of rational thought, since no one capable of rational thought would ever be religious.

Please.   :roll:

[Gratch]

While it is a positive thing that the homosexual couples you know have chosen to lead monogamous relationships, they don't meet the marriage requirement (an intimate committed bond between members of the opposite sex).

I guess that's the crux of where we will agree to disagree.

I find it abhorrent that the main requirement for marriage boils down to the presence of a penis and vagina rather than the love and commitment that two human beings share.

[Evil_Lurking_Koala]

I guess that's the crux of where we will agree to disagree.

I find it abhorrent that the main requirement for marriage boils down to the presence of a penis and vagina rather than the love and commitment that two human beings share.

True.  I understand what you're saying, though, and do see merit in your argument.

[Laner]

I find it abhorrent that the main requirement for marriage boils down to the presence of a penis and vagina rather than the love and commitment that two human beings share.

Why limit it to human beings? That's pretty narrow-minded.

[-Lord Ebonstone-]

Edit - I'm deleting your quotes and post.  Stop with the personal attacks.  Make your point without resorting to personal attacks and it carries more weight.

-KS

[Rob_Merritt]

Today was a huge set back but it was just a set back. The book isn't closed on this issue by a long shot.

[Daehawk]

Well Im not for gay marriage but im totally against a constitutional amendment to ban it. I think 2 people who love each other and spend years together should have some rights. Its a sad day indeed when a loving couple has a loss of life with one of them and the one left has no say in thier loved one's burial or property rights. Thats just plain wrong.

Im so sick of the moral so called right in this country. Bunch biggoted prudes.

[Sepiche]

I find it abhorrent that the main requirement for marriage boils down to the presence of a penis and vagina rather than the love and commitment that two human beings share.

Why limit it to human beings? That's pretty narrow-minded.

Well, if you want to marry a sheep that's YOUR right, however I can't find any mention of that sheeps rights in the constitution.  Although the ASPCA might have a few thoughts on your trans-species union.

:roll:

s

[Butterknife]

Problem is, there is no clear cut, definable reason why people vote for a gay marriage ban. Religion is not acceptable because there should be a separation of church and state. And the "immoral" arguement doesn't fly either, because then you start talking about trying to legally enforce opinions on what is right and wrong, moral and immoral. That smacks of taking away a basic freedom to me.

OK, a couple of points.  First, people can vote however they want, for whatever reason they want.  If I don't like the way Bush parts his hair, I can vote based on that.  You don't have to agree that it's a "good enough" reason to vote the way I vote, but at the same time, I can do whatever the heck I want and you can't stop me!  (Go America!)  So whatever reason I have for voting that marriage should be defined as "between a man and a woman" is my business, so to speak.  Whether it's because I think it is immoral, or frivolous, or the gay guy at the 7-11 hit on me last night -- whatever the reason, people can vote how they want, and they don't have to have a reason that they need to justify to anyone else.  This is a cool thing in my mind.

Second point -- gay marriage is not a "right", and it's not a "freedom".  Marriage, for that matter, is not a right.  We deny it to people who are underage (you knew I was going to use Age Discrimination again, didn't you? )  we deny it to people more than once (polygamy, polygyny).  I'd be interested to hear your views on polygamy, by the way, as that is a particular thorn for Utah as well, based on history.

Third point -- defining a marriage as being "between a man and a woman" doesn't stop any future laws from being made that can define a relationship between two men, or two women, or a dog and his owner, for that matter.  We can always add laws that allow a relationship between homosexuals, when there is enough societal impetus to do so, at a later date -- we just have to call it something else.  I suggest we use the word "blixney", just because it sounds cool.

[morlac]

Just as a side-note:

People like E_L_K are why R&P discussions should be banned on this forum.  Inevitably, internet R&P discussion attracts the scum of the earth who want to post violently unpopular ideas that would have them beaten to a pulp in public.  Scared and huddling in their parents' basement, they type their racist, bigoted fears out onto the computer screen in a hope of getting some kind of sick gratification when they have to defend their fetid, broken ideas.

There's a Klan out there for people like you, Koala.  Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't already a part of it.

This coming from the guy calling for the Genocide of the Conservative Christians and the Religious Right.  too funny.

[Falator]

Just as a side-note:

People like E_L_K are why R&P discussions should be banned on this forum.  Inevitably, internet R&P discussion attracts the scum of the earth who want to post violently unpopular ideas that would have them beaten to a pulp in public.  Scared and huddling in their parents' basement, they type their racist, bigoted fears out onto the computer screen in a hope of getting some kind of sick gratification when they have to defend their fetid, broken ideas.

There's a Klan out there for people like you, Koala.  Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't already a part of it.

This coming from the guy calling for the Genocide of the Conservative Christians and the Religious Right.  too funny.

Bush is for pre-emptive strikes so why not "pull a Bush" and strike them now since they just may destroy everything America stands for  

[Gratch]

I find it abhorrent that the main requirement for marriage boils down to the presence of a penis and vagina rather than the love and commitment that two human beings share.

Why limit it to human beings? That's pretty narrow-minded.

As soon as you find an animal that can give legal consent form, I'll consider that arguement.

[morlac]

I find it abhorrent that the main requirement for marriage boils down to the presence of a penis and vagina rather than the love and commitment that two human beings share.

Why limit it to human beings? That's pretty narrow-minded.

As soon as you find an animal that can give legal consent form, I'll consider that arguement.

LOL ! I can see it know.   "Bessie just leave your paw mark right here."

[Jeff]

Thanks for the heads up from those that PM'ed me about this thread.

Lord Ebonstone, you are WAY over the line here, in more than one post in this thread. In fact, lately I'm seeing all sorts of extremely hostile comments coming from you. You were being really cool for awhile, but now it seems like you're up to the ways that got you canned from several forums.

If you want to keep posting here, you'll have to lose the vitriol, and now. Currently, we're in the warning stage, soon we'll start banning those who can't abide by the rules. I think most know that Ron won't hesitate.  Perhaps you feel, 'no biggie, it's just another internet forum', and that's cool, but we're still going to maintain standards of decency.

Kudos to those who didn't respond in kind to the attacks.

[warning]

I'm cross posting the same message I posted in the "Kerry Concedes" thread:

Guys (and presumably gals) let's tone the rhetoric down. Religion and Politics discussions here at Console Gold are currently on a provisional basis. Many of us lobbied for the ability to discuss R&P here and were glad when Knightshade Dragon & co. allowed this to happen.

I know everyone has strong feelings about a very polarizing election so temperatures are running high now. That said, we either talk about things passionately and respectfully here or not at all.  No more insults.

I don't want to lock the thread and I don't want to lose the ability to discuss R&P here. We've been given some rope to discuss things here. Let's not hang ourselves with it.

As it says on the main forum page under Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want, just don't be an ass about it.

[warning]

Dammit Jeff!  How do you do that?  Get out of my head!!!

[morlac]

giggle

[Jeff]

Dammit Jeff!  How do you do that?  Get out of my head!!!

Our simulposting lately has been right from the Twilight Zone. I promise to everyone this wasn't planned or coordinated!

[Gratch]

OK, a couple of points.  First, people can vote however they want, for whatever reason they want.  If I don't like the way Bush parts his hair, I can vote based on that.  You don't have to agree that it's a "good enough" reason to vote the way I vote, but at the same time, I can do whatever the heck I want and you can't stop me!  (Go America!)  So whatever reason I have for voting that marriage should be defined as "between a man and a woman" is my business, so to speak.  Whether it's because I think it is immoral, or frivolous, or the gay guy at the 7-11 hit on me last night -- whatever the reason, people can vote how they want, and they don't have to have a reason that they need to justify to anyone else.  This is a cool thing in my mind.

Touche.  I worded my statment poorly.  It was meant more as, "In my opinion, people shouldn't vote because of XYZ."  I didn't mean to say that people shouldn't have the right to vote because of their Bibles or morals.

Second point -- gay marriage is not a "right", and it's not a "freedom".  Marriage, for that matter, is not a right.  We deny it to people who are underage (you knew I was going to use Age Discrimination again, didn't you? )  we deny it to people more than once (polygamy, polygyny).  I'd be interested to hear your views on polygamy, by the way, as that is a particular thorn for Utah as well, based on history.

If marriage isn't a right or freedom, then (again, IMHO) there shouldn't be legal benefits attached to it.  If you attach legal benefits, then you need to be able to offer them to all couples that decide marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

Polygamy is a little tougher.  My feeling is that if everyone involved is a consenting adult, then more power to them, with a major caveat.  The legal benefits of marriage and family should only be applicable for one couple.  This is more due to the drain on tax dollars and society than any moral or religious issue I have with polygamy.   If you want to have 5 wives, be my guest, but don't depend on society to completely support that choice.  That's where I have a problem with Polygamy.  In most polygamyst cases, the wives were/are underage and the family depends on welfare and tax credits to survive.  To me, that is unacceptable.

Besides, I can barely handle one wife.  Why would anyone want more that one?  

Third point -- defining a marriage as being "between a man and a woman" doesn't stop any future laws from being made that can define a relationship between two men, or two women, or a dog and his owner, for that matter.  We can always add laws that allow a relationship between homosexuals, when there is enough societal impetus to do so, at a later date -- we just have to call it something else.  I suggest we use the word "blixney", just because it sounds cool.

True, and I hold out hope enough in humanity that somewhere down the road, these discriminatory laws we signed in yesterday will be removed.  Well, the human ones anyways.  

And I prefer the word "blahoogenstat".  Just 'cause...  

[Butterknife]

If marriage isn't a right or freedom, then (again, IMHO) there shouldn't be legal benefits attached to it. If you attach legal benefits, then you need to be able to offer them to all couples that decide marry, regardless of sexual orientation.

Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with this a lot.  It might seem backwards to take away the benefits attached to marriage, but it is surely more "fair" than redefining what marriage is.  This way, people, and the law, could consider themselves "married" without having to make a specific amendment about it one way or the other.  Too late for that sort of thing, now, though.  (Not to mention it would be pretty unpopular).

I worded my statment poorly. It was meant more as, "In my opinion, people shouldn't vote because of XYZ." I didn't mean to say that people shouldn't have the right to vote because of their Bibles or morals.

You think you worded your statements poorly?  I said I had "a couple of points", then I went and made 3 of them!  So I am a bigger moron than you  

Besides, I can barely handle one wife. Why would anyone want more that one?

Couldn't agree more

And I prefer the word "blahoogenstat". Just 'cause...

See, I knew there was something we wouldn't agree on.

True, and I hold out hope enough in humanity that somewhere down the road, these discriminatory laws we signed in yesterday will be removed. Well, the human ones anyways.

Yeah, and down with Age Discrimination, too!

[leo8877]

This reminds me...

Does anyone have a link or the email that takes quotes from the bible and shows how they don't quite work out in today's terms.

[Gryndyl]

This reminds me...

Does anyone have a link or the email that takes quotes from the bible and shows how they don't quite work out in today's terms.

You mean something like this?...



Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly
states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord -- Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness -- Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of
mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination -- Lev. 11:10-- it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble
of getting the whole town together to stone them? -- Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do
with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[\/\/olverine]

Good...

[Gratch]

Good...

Well, shit.  How can I argue with that logic?  

[scubabbl]

Third point -- defining a marriage as being "between a man and a woman" doesn't stop any future laws from being made that can define a relationship between two men, or two women, or a dog and his owner, for that matter.  We can always add laws that allow a relationship between homosexuals, when there is enough societal impetus to do so, at a later date -- we just have to call it something else.  I suggest we use the word "blixney", just because it sounds cool.

Herein lies the problem. Instead of an ammendment to ban gay marriage, why not make an ammendment to allow civil unions between two gay people?
Ban gay marriage, but allow civil unions in which the same rights and protections are provided to the two homosexuals as the rights and protections provided to the married people? Our constitution, but state, and national, should be there to protect the people and better their life, not to discriminate against people. We've started down a path where religion is used  to decide state matters. You know in your heart of hearts that these ammendments where presented to be voted on by concervative christians. No other group would so oppose it. By getting it on the ballot, all the religious people, and those who might think it's gross are allowed to vote on it. I'm to lazy to do research, but the states who did ban gay marriage, did they all vote republican also?

[scubabbl]

Besides, I can barely handle one wife.  Why would anyone want more that one?  

Thanks the god damn truth right there.

[Gratch]

I'm to lazy to do research, but the states who did ban gay marriage, did they all vote republican also?

With the exception of Michigan and Oregon, yes.  The states that passed it were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah.

[gameoverman]

My take on it has always been that the people involved in the marriage make it what it is.  The people IN the marriage define it.

All the government does is assign and recognize legal rights and responsibilities related to that union.  Therefore, nothing the government does can degrade or lessen or otherwise hurt what a person's marriage is.  Because of separation of church and state, no church/temple/mosque/whatever would be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone, straight or gay, by the government.  So, that being the case, there is no reason for gays to not be given those rights and responsibilities if they choose to marry each other.  It's just LEGAL, in other words, the government is not making a MORAL judgement at all, it's not saying it approves or disapproves of gays.

To me, the same kind of head in the sand mentality against allowing gays to marry (EACH OTHER, not straights hehe) is the one that is also against stuff like sex education in public schools.  It's some kind of bizarre fear that by acknowledging the existence of something, you are unleashing a tidal wave of uncontrolled forces.  If I tell my kid about condoms, OMG she's going to pull a train!  If we alllow gays to marry, OMG my marriage will be worthless!

Believe or not, it's the success of those gay marriage bans that dishearten me the most in this election, even more than Bush winning.  It shows how  prejudice is still alive and not just well but vibrant in this country, and not just in the usual suspects either.  I know darn well that every race and class is represented in this.

[DarkEL]

Dammit Jeff!  How do you do that?  Get out of my head!!!

Our simulposting lately has been right from the Twilight Zone. I promise to everyone this wasn't planned or coordinated!

Don't believe the lies.

I think Jeff and Warning are one and the same person.

After all how else could you explain the fact that they both just happen to be able to on the computer, and responding to the same forum post at the same time?

"Tyler's not here. Tyler went away. Tyler's gone. "

[Pi]

I'm to lazy to do research, but the states who did ban gay marriage, did they all vote republican also?

With the exception of Michigan and Oregon, yes.  The states that passed it were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah.

I do wish to point out that Oregon appears to have been the closest to defeating it - about 43 % voted against the measure.  Although Oregon generally votes democratic, we have had a lot of history with anti-homosexual ballot measures.  They have generally been voted down, until this year.

It is indeed a dark day.

[Big Jake]

I just want to point one thing out:

regardless of the vote on gay marriages, I, the single guy, will be screwed.

I WANT THE DAMN MARRIED TAX BREAK TOO!!!! :lol:

[McBa1n]

lmao Gryndal
Funniest stuff I've read in awhile
bahahah, classic...
'should I smite them?'
dang, thats good

[Bob]

Third point -- defining a marriage as being "between a man and a woman" doesn't stop any future laws from being made that can define a relationship between two men, or two women, or a dog and his owner, for that matter.

It does in Michigan.  Our ammendement ended with something like "or any similar purpose."   This is taken to mean that no contract "like marriage" will be valid between anything but one man and one woman.   No civil unions.  No domestic partner benefits.

It'll be years in court sorting this ammendment out.

[jonsauce]

I WANT THE DAMN MARRIED TAX BREAK TOO!!!!

Since when is it a tax break?  It's always been a penalty as far as I know.  Did they change something recently?

[jonsauce]

lmao Gryndal
Funniest stuff I've read in awhile
bahahah, classic...
'should I smite them?'
dang, thats good

I found the email funny, but you do realize that just because it is in the bible doesn't mean it is a part of Christian practices right?

[Sepiche]

lmao Gryndal
Funniest stuff I've read in awhile
bahahah, classic...
'should I smite them?'
dang, thats good

I found the email funny, but you do realize that just because it is in the bible doesn't mean it is a part of Christian practices right?

WHAT?!?  Are you saying that all religions pick and choose what elements of their holy books they want to practice and leave the other stuff out!?!

I'm shocked.

s

 :roll: