Gay Marriage

How cute...you've made "marriage" a trade-marked word.

Well, apparently you're mistaken here. I mean, certainly the CSC disagrees with you. They saw no need to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. They basically saw it as a simple case of trying to discriminate against one group of people based solely on their sexual orientation. We can only hope that when the SCOTUS gets a shot at some of these laws and/or even DOMA, we'll see just how wrong you actually are.
And I have yet to see this definition you keep speaking of...the legal definition as defined by the Courts...the definition that set the precedent denying homosexual marriage. You did supply a Court decision from the 1800s that included a definition of marriage, but I'm not sure so that that was a legally binding definition...seeing as how that case was about polygamy and voters rights. Where did you come up with this? How marriage has been "considered" is not the issue. Denying one group their Constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation is the issue. Again, the 9th and 14th Amendments do apply. At least the Courts seem to think so...sorry if you disagree. It was changed already...specifically to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. Why do you keep saying that in order to allows homosexuals to marry, that we would need to change the definition...when everyone else seems to understand that leaving it as it was, was perfectly fine...unless you were/are homophobic...in which case you felt it needed to be changed in order to prevent two people of the same sex from getting married? Seriously...if it didn't need changing, then why DOMA...then why all these State laws denying marriage to homosexual?Hell , my State was such a bunch of homophobic assholes, that they even went to so far as to ban civil unions. And then...despite telling us (ie. lying to us) that these new laws were NOT intended to be used to deny same sex partners medical benefits...what's the first thing the fucking asshole Republican Legislature did the very next day after "The People" voted for this legislation? Yep...fought (successfully, I might add) to deny medical benefits/coverage to same sex partners who, prior to this legislation, could be covered by their partners insurance. What a bunch of fucking pricks.Edited by FliesOnly, : fix a typo

Age of consent...age of consent...age of consent. How many fucking times do we have to keep telling you people this stuff? Marriage is a contract...and you have to be able to legally inter into that contract. This crap about marrying trees, or marrying children, or screwing squirrels is meaningless to the debate. And this related to homosexual marriage how? I mean, come on NJ, heterosexuals cheat on the spouses all the time...should we ban heterosexual marriage? WTF? So now we have to address issue that MIGHT FUCKING happen to some homosexuals couples before we can allow two members of the same sex to get married. Am I reading this wrong? Homosexuality is not illegal NJ. Denying them marriage is only now "against the law" because homophobic bigots passed laws saying as much. I am at a complete loss. I have no idea WTF you're trying to say here. Homosexuals want nothing more than to be afforded the same rights and protections that heterosexual have. Getting married has a lot of perks in addition to spending the rest of your life with the person you love. Why should these "things" be denied to homosexuals simply because of your religious bigotry? The 9th and 14t amendments to our Constitution gives them the right to marry. Societal desires do not trump the Constitution...that's why we have the fucking thing. Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority mean anything to you NJ? Dammit...listen this time. It wasn't and issue until homophobic republicans (primarily) made sure to define marriage solely to prevent homosexuals from marrying. We only now need to "re-re-define" marriage because you assholes re-defined it once already to deny homosexuals the right to marry in the first place. And don't insult my intelligence by giving me the some ole stinkin heap of bullshit that Catholic Scientist keeps spouting..."but they can get married"...because it's a terribly insulting thing to say. Exactly. Until you homophobic bigots got your panties all in a bunch about two guys getting married...it wasn't an issue. So we agree. Gays could get married until homophobic bigots decided to re-define (you call it "clarification") marriage to deny them this right.And, importantly, the Courts are pretty much ALL agreeing with my side. And for "clarification", let's make sure we understand that by "my side" I referring to those of us the feel that denying homosexuals the right to marry (the person of their choice) is discriminatory and violates our Constitution. Blah, blah, fucking blah. Yeah, I know...I've heard it a thousand times before. Yet no one can support this claim with any legality. So it's moot...it means nothing...the Constitution says nothing specifically about denying homosexuals the right to marry. Therefore the 9th and 14 Amendments apply. And (again) the Courts are saying this too.Luckily, our founding father decided to write a Constitution to, amongst other things, prevent "societal shifts" from becoming discriminatory...to prevent one group (the majority) from forcing their views upon another group (the minority).

You know this is a meaningless but nonetheless completely insulting response. I've pointed out to you in the prior thread this very fact. Yet you keep saying it. Why? Why do you keep spouting this meaningless argument Catholic Scientist? You know, because I explained it to you, that with marriage comes some pretty fucking nice benefits. Telling a homosexual to basically just shut up and marry someone of the opposite sex denies them these rights. So quit acting like a third grader on the play ground and grow up.As a matter of fact, I seem to recall in the previous thread that you called me an "ass" because you claimed to not know what I was talking about when I was speaking about the "rights" of gay marriage. You made it sound as if you had no idea I was talking about all the benefits that are afforded married couples. So I explained them...I explained what I was talking about and asked that you therefore stop using this completely insulting and childless argument about how gays can get married. And here you are fucking doing it again. So basically, you were lying in that other post? Nice, Catholic Scientist....nice. So...like I said...until homophobic bigots got all bent out of shape (and almost exclusively on religious grounds...I see no other reason to deny gay marriage...other than it insults or goes against your religious beliefs.) about two guys getting married, there was no need to fuck with the definition of marriage. It's nice that we agree on something at least.Hey, you never addressed the issue I raised in the previous thread about marriage also being defined as "holy". Are you still sticking with your early definition of marriage that included the words "holy matrimony" in addition to the words "between one man and one women"? I mean, hey, if that's the definition you want to use (and let's be clear that I have serious doubts about its "standing" as being a legally applicable definition of marriage) then you do have to address the concept of "holy matrimony" as well. How are you going to rectify the problems this creates for the thousands and thousands and thousands of American citizens that had (or will have) a completely secular marriage?

Of course, we both know that not everyone is being treated equally. Yet you still insist on playing this childish game.You, CS, you personally can, if you're willing and so is your "partner", you can marry the person you love...the person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life. You can then, as a married couple receive the benefits of that marriage. Things like inheritance, things like tax breaks, things like medical coverage for your spouse, things like hospital visitation rights, things like the making of major medical decisions, things like keeping your home after the death of your spouse. Yet homosexuals are denied these very things. That's right, CS...homosexuals are obviously being denied these marital benefits.But again, you already know all of this because I mentioned it to you in the previous thread. And you acted all: "Whu? I didn't know that that's what you were talking about...ass". Remember that exchange, CS? So why are you repeating the same ole bullshit again...and again...and again. It was a total crappole argument then, and it's a complete fabrication now. Please stop.Do you understand what we're talking about here. The homosexual couple that you don't want to see married, cannot have the person they truly want to be making these sorts of decisions actually make these decisions. You're basically telling them that someone else, someone they don't love...someone that they really don't want making these decisions, have to make these decisions because you won't let them choose the person they want.And this ignores all the additional stuff the Rrhain keeps mentioning (that you so flippantly just blow off). I don't understand what you're asking here. The military does want to know if a soldier is gay or not. They're just prevented from asking. However, if they somehow or another find out or suspect that you're gay...then you're kicked out.Let me ask you a question or two (or three, or four). Why should the military care if a soldier is gay or not? What effect would it have on their ability to serve? Do you honestly believe that there are no homosexuals in the military? Do you honestly believe that for some reason or another, gays are incapable of performing their given duties at a level that meets the military standard? If so, what duty (or duties) would that (those) be...and why can a homosexual not preform this task in a manner that meets military standards? Re-read the first couple of paragraphs.

It's not about the love, per say. But again, you know this already and are, by your own choice, continuing to play stupid. Seriously, this too was covered in the previous thread.You, CS, you personally, you can choose to marry someone (regardless of love) with whom you are happy (I assume, but certainly not a requirement) to spend the remainder of your life. This person, the one that you personally have chosen (and assuming that this person agreed with the choice and themselves chose to act in a reciprocal manner) is then afforded certain rights that those that are not married do not get. You chose this person because amongst other things, you perhaps wanted them to make the types of decisions I mentioned in the previous post. Important decisions. Live choices that may very well have huge impacts.Yet, you're telling a homosexual that they are not free to choose as you are free to choose. They do not get to pick the person that they really want to make these decisions. Why? Why do you want to deny homosexuals the right to choose whomever they want (as long as the other individual wants and/or can legally enter into such a contract) to make these import life decisions? I will admit that I completely and utterly fail to follow this line of argument. How can you seriously use these two sentences together? Marriage was purposefully defined by homophobic bigots when it became obvious that homosexuals were NOT legally allowed to be denied marriage. Once homophobic bigots found out that marriage was NOT defined legally as being between one man and one women, homophobic bigots passed laws and re-wrote definitions to be worded as such. So don't sit there and tell me that they are being not denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation.I mean, hey, if they're not being denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation, then remove the new definitions that define marriage as being between one man and one women and let's see what happens. So we agree then, that we should just go back to the way things were before a bunch of homophobic bigots decided to define marriage as being between one man and one women. But it's a moot fucking point because you know that homosexuals ARE being denied certain rights that married couples get. That's the problem, CS, not some bullshit about how you didn't know what I was talking about. You KNOW that your argument about how they are not being denied the right to marry is bogus. Even if you are stating that "they can marry someone of the opposite sex", or that "you can't marry someone of the same sex either". You KNOW that many of us here will point out the flaws in that argument. It's a total bullshit argument...so please stop using it. Other than repeating this Ad nauseam, you have yet to explain WHY the 9th and 14th Amendments do not apply to homosexuals. Rrhain (and to a lesser extent myself and some others) have explained to you why we (as well as SCOTUS, CSC and other Courts) feel that they do apply. Please explain why you feel they do not. So you're shootin for the whole "Separate but equal" thing. Hmmmm, not too original and already addressed as being Unconstitutional. So better yet, why not just call it marriage since, after all, that's what it fucking is? Yeah...cuz them crazy homos just try to fuck every guy they see. And yet you claim not to be a homophobic bigot.

But you are playing stupid, because you fucking know what I'm talking about because I have explained it multiple fucking times. So you're either playing stupid or you are in reality quite stupid.And what's truly sad about your argument is that it basically comes down to you not giving a shit that a homosexual couple, that may have been together for decades, cannot make these decisions (taxes, medical , housing, adoption, visitation, etc) because you don't want them to have this right...simply and totally because of their sexual orientation. Correction...marriage has only recently been defined as being between one man and one women. And we both know that this was done only after homophobic bigots discovered that there were no legal ways to prevent homosexuals from marrying. We've been over this. I am sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for you (with hope, in your next response) to me to explain how it is that I am trampling all over the Constitution. I can't fucking wait to read this. Please, please, oh please explain to me how the 9th and 14th Amendments do not apply to homosexuals. Please, oh please tell me exactly what parts of the Constitution I am trampling all over. Total Bullshit. The Constitution in no way prevents homosexual marriage...as we are repeatedly seeing in virtually every case brought to the higher Courts. Well, I guess we as a Nation are forever grateful that you are not now, nor will you ever be (I hope), a Supreme Court Justice.But honestly though, is this now your latest tactic? Your claims of me being a bigot are untrue. Your claims if not knowing what I mean by the "rights" of gay marriage are bogus. So now you're gonna resort to stating that I'm "tearing up" our Constitution...and that you're not gonna sit here and watch it. Ha....good one. Way to follow the Republican Party play-book of: if all else fails (i.e., if you can't come up with a justifiable reason), then "attack their patriotism". Nice. I don't hate you...I've never even met you...I just think your a bigoted homophobe. I wait with baited breath for you to explain to me how I am behaving as a bigot. Seriously, you really need to learn what the term means. Just repeating it over and over doesnt really mean anything. I have explained numerous times what it takes to be a bigot. Simply disagreeing with another position does not, ipso facto make one a bigot. We've been over this repeatedly...try to keep up, will ya.It takes intolerance to be a bigot. Your position does harm to another as a result of your being intolerant of their opinion. You want to deny them something. You do them harm...actual harm. My position, while in complete disagreement with yours, does nothing to you. If my position is reality, then all people are treated equally under the law. Do you see the difference? I mean I've explained it about as many times as I possibly can by now. Yet you just don't seem to grasp the major difference(s) between simply having differing opinions as compared to acting like a bigot. It's the intolerance. It's the harm you do to another by forcing your views upon them. But why did people feel the need to make "your" implicit definition more of an explicit definition in the first place? Could it be because they wanted to deny homosexuals the right to marry? Yep...that'd be the reason. So explain to me again why these recent definitions are not based on sexual orientation, I just love reading your fairy tails. Is this your 1874 SCOTUS decision that actually addressed polygamy and voter registration, and not what defines "marriage"? The definition that also includes the words "Holy Matrimony" that you somehow or another conveniently don't feel should also apply to all marriages? Well, it's only problematic if you deny certain groups the right to marry. And since that's exactly what you're doing, then I guess one could argue that discrimination is taking place. And we stop this discrimination how? Well, we stop denying homosexuals the right the marry the person of their choice. See...that was soooo easy. I'll simply refer you to almost any post by Rrhain. He's admittedly done a much better job of it than I have. And really, CS, it's not too difficult to simply look back at some of his previous posts. Or better yet, read the CSC decision...they, being CSC Justices and all, do a pretty damned fine job of it. And the SCOTUS completely disagrees with you. It's been addressed and answered all ready. Separate but equal is Unconstitutional. You said it, not me?Why do you think that homosexual intercourse is any more problematic in a barracks than heterosexual intercourse? If it's something that suppose to be disallowed, then it's applicable to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. How many heterosexuals caught having sex in a barracks have been discharged, do you suppose? Honestly, I have no idea, but I doubt that it's an automatic discharge. Now, you may argue that the probability of homosexual intercourse is greater, but again, I have no idea if that's actually the case in reality. However, if sex in the barracks is a no-no, then so be it...I have no problem with a discharge for those caught in the act (so to speak), no matter their sexual orientation.Also, if I misunderstood what you meant (I totally took it as a slam on gays being unable to control their dicks around other men), then I admit my error and apologise. I can honestly NOT think of any other reason. Can you? Come on CS...Gays have been in the military for as long as there has been a military. Who fucking cars if they're gay. Well, as it turns out many militaries don't fucking care...so why should ours.Honestly, have you heard some of the reasons? I have...I have spoken with some military people and those that do not want gays, by-and-large feel that way because they are homophobic. They find it repulsive...it's against their religion...they don't want to be hit on...they fear that a homo will turn chicken and run...blah, blah, blah. Certainly not all of them...and probably not even close to a majority of them. But what other legitimate reason can you give me to exclude gays from military service? And why should homosexuality alone, be justification for a discharge? If they've done nothing wrong, other than being born gay...if they've never had sex in a barracks (for example), then why should an individual with an otherwise spotless record...perhaps even a vital member of the armed forces, be discharged simply because of their sexual orientation. Hell, CS, is that not a classic example of Bigotry?

I guess I find it stunning to the point of disbelief that anyone in this day and age could seriously consider even for a millisecond that homosexuality is a choice.And don't we basically know the loci for skin pigmentation? So, if anything, I guess we're closer to a cure for being born black than we are for being born gay. Should we fix that one for you Hoot Mon? I mean, who in their right mind would want to be born black when they could be born white instead?

OK...now you're even starting to scare me

Really? Have you read some of the posts by Hoot Mon? Besides...it's your stupid fucking idea to "cure" homosexuals. I just figured you'd want to help out all minorities with your brilliant plan idea...that's all.So then, Hoot Mon...what makes you think that a homosexual would want to be "cured" any more than a black person would want to be "cured"?Edited by FliesOnly, : to add the question at the end.

I read that...and I'm still confused as to why you feel homosexuals need to change. I can only assume by your indirect use of bluescat's rather witty response as something serious, that you would have once felt the same about African Americans in this Country. Did they not suffer the same sorts of things not too long ago (and some might argue still do)?So again I ask, why should a homosexual want to change anymore than a black person should want to change? But what needs to be cured? There's nothing actually wrong with them. They're not ill. They're not diseased. They have no problem that needs a cure.Would not a more simple answer be to just stop denying them their rights and instead grant them the same protections under the law the heterosexuals receive? I know that it seems a rather drastic step to...you know...follow the Constitution and all. But that certainly seems like a more appropriate response to the situation than to genetically alter someone just because you feel icky when they kiss another guy.

You have got to be kidding? You want to deny a group of people their Constitutional rights simply because some of them "might" exploit a given situation. Nice. Yeah...cuz only heterosexuals should be allowed to exploit "The Man", man. What a crock. You should go see someone about your paranoia.

So what this really comes down to is that you and Catholic Scientist are paranoid that homosexuals are gonna drain Social Security and/or exploit the benefits granted to heterosexuals? All this crap about not being homophobic or bigoted is in reality a big stinkin pile of horse shit, because as it turns out...you now admit that you are a homophobic bigot.Thanks and all...for the admission...but why did you wait so fucking long to tell us your real reason for hating homosexuals?

Honestly...I'm not following your logic here. Yes, Blacks were once enslaved...so what?

If we ignore the fact the both Chuck and Larry in all likelihood could still collect Social Security, regardless if they are married to each other or not, there's another little twist of stupidity to Hoot Mon's argument.That being:
Amongst other arguments against gay marriage that Hoot Mon has put forth, is the one that homosexuals can get married...but it has to be to a member of the opposite sex. So rather than letting Chuck and Larry marry each other, Hoot Mon would prefer that each of them marry a women instead. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't Chuck and Larry then be members of two separate marriages (rather than one, if they were allowed to marry each other)? And isn't two a larger number than one? And since Chuck and Larry are both gay, it's then likely that their marriages will fail. And then their former female spouses would each perhaps remarry, creating two new marriages. So his paranoid fear about gay couples draining Social Security if they're allowed to marry, in a twist of irony, actually results in a lesser drain, due to fewer of those pesky "social security draining" marriages.