Gay Marriage

Don't you think your arguments should amount to a bit more than:this far along in the (2^nd) thread?I think you should be taken out and shot. You think you shouldn't be taken out and shot. Is it really the "value of opinion" you want to be arguing about and not the "taken out and shot" bit?Hint ” for the hundredth time: John and Mary can have their opinion all day long; it's their codifying it into a law that represses the self-determination of millions of Americans that's the problem. If you disagree with this bit of "f***ing redundant stuff" could you please say why?

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

It's a great big ugly tumor on my brain that makes me such a bigot. And my Corn Belt past is to blame, too. I'll even admit to some personal responsibility. I'll show you all the contrition you want to see. But none of that will change my opinion that "marriage" is a civil union between a man and a woman, and only that. It's very biological. It's very psychological. It's very natural. It's very productive. And it's pure hell. What more can I tell you. "Marriage," as I have evolved to understand the term, is a two-sex ordeal.”HM

Hoot, why do you keep answering people in a smart-ass, wise-guy manner?

Hid double post.Edited by lyx2no, : Damn submit button.Edited by lyx2no, : Damn some other thing that didn't behave as I'd expected.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

I know some differences, but I don't know the difference that you're referring too. I'm weary of simply redefining a word that's in so many laws like the flip of a light-switch. I'm not totally opposed to redefining the word, though.

And for the hundred and first time you are welcome to the opinion. I don't get it either. I can't get myself to understand why women would have any interest in men. This is one of the things that clues me that I'm thinking only about sexuality from my point of view. How unfair it would be to make laws based only on my point of view. Especially for you as I think you should be taken out and shot. Sorry Taz. I think I might have stepped on your toes with that one.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Don't be an asshole, you said prove that people were against inter-racial marriage and I proved it. Concede that the Supreme Court ruling was against the popular consensus at the time, which was the point!This is why we don't let the majority rule in this country!

Vague fears of undefined concerns are hardly reason to repress the self-determination of millions of your fellow Americans.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

quote:

---

BeagleBob, really great article! But I also noticed what Tulchin says about a proving historical "gay marriage":

​

quote:

---

Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrrés were using affrrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . . . I suspect that some of these relationships were sexual, while others may not have been. It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that. What followed did not produce any documents."

---

Yes, I should think it would be impossible to prove. Nevertheless, this article is very unfriendly to the argument, my argument, that 2-sex marriage is the only tradition.

​

BeagleBob writes:

​

Sacred, sanctified, socially-recognized homosexual unions did exist, [although it can't be proven,] it's just a matter of time and culture, which are very much subject to change.

Is my edit fair?

​

”HM

---

Well don't forget the Native American Two-Spirits. They definitely had marriages that could be considered homosexual or transsexual in nature.So supposing the affrements were non-sexual, how about we issue marriage licenses to two men without regard of whether they're having sex or not. If they wish to have sex, then that'd just be gravy and the marriage license is silent on the matter.

I have a difficult time believing that you did, in fact, read anything I have posted to you. But maybe you did. However...did you actually understand any of them? My guess is "no". Do me a favor...read this next sentence very slowly and see if maybe you can understand the meaning of the words.You are NOT a bigot for disagreeing with me.Let me repeat, but I'll word it in a slightly different manner just in case the meaning of the previous sentence was too difficult for you to understand:Disagreeing with someone does not make either one of them a bigot.And one more try, on the outside chance that even the meaning of that sentence was beyond your grasp:Bigotry is not about a simple disagreement.Got now Hoot Mon? I don't consider you a bigot because you disagree with me. You are a bigot because you want to deny homosexuals the same rights that you have. You are intolerant towards their lifestyle. I do not for one second believe you when you tell us that you have nothing against homosexuals. You have been nothing but insulting in virtually every post you have written. And I'm not talking about being insulting towards me. I could not care less if you insult me. You have used derogatory terms about homosexuals repeatedly, and act as if no one is insulted by them.But again...that's not why I call you a bigot. You are a homophobic bigot because you want to deny homosexuals their Constitutional rights as granted by the 9th and 14 Amendments.And for the love of God, please stop with the "But they have the same rights I do" argument. You said that you had read my previous responses (to this rather weak argument on your part)...so you KNOW what I'm taking about when I talk of gay marriage. It's the rights that come with marriage. As Rrhain put it: marriage is about designating your next-of-kin. And we all know the ramifications of that...so stop with the "but I can't marry a man either" crappola and see if for the first time in over 700 posts you can respond with why you believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to have the same rights as heterosexuals?Remember, please refrain from responding with your tired ol' "but they do have the same rights" and instead address the concept of next-of-kin and why homosexuals should not be allowed to do this with marriage, like you and I can. Completely untrue...but you would know this if you had read anything I have previously written about why I consider you a bigot. But maybe, with hope, you will read (and understand) the above stuff and finally understand why I consider you a bigot.

quote:

---

Prove it.

​

You are mistaken or ill-informed. The RIA prohibited the marriage of "non-whites" to whites. It is violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based on race.

---

Lighten up. It was rhetorical. Of course the anti-miscegenation laws weren't worded exactly that way but that was the effect until they were declared unconstitional in 1967.Of course the legislators that passed DOMA didn't admit it was for religious reasons, since they knew that would kill it Constitutionally. But pray tell, what was it based on then, if not religion? It is religious bias which makes folks want to ban same-sex marriage, is it not? If it isn't that, what is it? Or is it just a coincidence that the main proponents of DOMA are the Religious Right and their allies?

No, the effect was not that marriage was defined as being between the same race. Umm... didn't you read the quote:

quote:

---

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

---

I can be but not neccessarily. You really can't think of any other reason? Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. Is he a part of the Religious Right or just one of their allies?

Aside from bigotry and political expediency (see below re Bill Clinton), no I cannot think of any other reason. The fact that the lawmakers cited "what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years" doesn't prove they were not acting mostly at the behest of religious interests - which in fact they were. It only proves they knew how to cloak their religious motivations in high sounding language. They are after all politicians and are familiar with such techniques. Are you saying religious bigots such as James Dobson were not the main force behind the DOMA?Bill Clinton signed it for political expediency. He wasn't one of the proponents of it. His WH did not push for the law. It would not have been proposed at all without the RR and their political lackeys in Congress.Edited by deerbreh, : No reason given.

Hi Catholic Scientist & the rest,
Catholic, I hope you'll pardon me if I used your thread to join the discussion? I hope to contribute my dime's worth of thinking on the subject.

quote:

---

The issue worth discussing is not whether or not gayness makes you feel icky.
Its about whether or not gays should be allowed to have marriages from a legal perspective

---

IMHO, not everything legal is valid. For example, if all lawmakers and the president would pass a law prohibiting huricanes, that law would be legal but not valid. Simply because it violates natural law.The same thing with same sex marriage. That law although legal is invalid. It contradicts the law of nature. Phsiologically, the sex organs of male and female were made for each other. Too, these are designed for procreation.just my thought,
Pat

Show me how they were designed. And even if there normal function is procreation, how does it contradict a law of nature, when there are very few if any scientific theories that can be construed as 100% fact.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969