Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

Right, so let the church handle it and not the government is what I'm saying. Yes they are because it is defiling the sanctity that God instituted. I'm not saying that it isn't a bunch of horse shit, I am simply saying that if everyone respects the role of the other, we might actually find a compromise. And I'm saying that the government never had a right (at least in the US) to start butting its nose in the affairs of the church to begin with. The State should have never got involved in marriage to begin with, as it is a clear intrusion of the Establishment Clause.However I do understand why they did, which is for reasons of civil and legal matters. I see great importance of it which is why I believe that civil unions would alleviate this problem.As I see it the way it is now, civil unions for homosexuals is nothing more than a "separate but equal" policy. Why not get rid of that stigma altogether, let religion have its traditional marriages and let secular society have theirs too? Right, so let the ceremony of whatever religion determine how to marry someone, not the State. Very true, which is why it should be left freely for the religion to decide for itself. Even during Roman rule, the Romans figured out (wisely) that it was more equitable to allow the Jews to have their traditions while still having a separate secular rule. They meddled very little in religious affairs and concerned themselves mostly with social and civil issues. Right, so it would be about respecting the wishes of the church and the wishes of its congregation. Whatever the church decides, I see it as a private enterprise that I have no right in saying what should go on, so long as it does not infringe upon others.If one Christian denomination wants to marry gay people, that's not my problem or concern. If another Christian denomination doesn't want to marry gay people, that's also not my problem or concern. Both should be allowed to worship freely in the manner fitting to their doctrines. That's for them to decide. It doesn't concern me and I honestly don't give a shit what they believe. I don't care if you call it pumpkin fucking pie, I'm just trying to get to the heart of the issue. You wouldn't be, you would still have what a secular marriage is today. The only difference is that religion gets to have their precious sanctity and the secularists get to avoid all the ridiculous pitfalls associated with it. If the religious want to die on that fucking hill, let them them die on it and rot on it to boot I say. If there was as much controversy over either of those things the way it is with gay marriage, then I might consider it, yes. So it all comes down to a word, instead of a principle? If homosexuals want to be married (as in legal recognition of their union) what difference does it make if we call it apple pie? Isn't the basic right what's at heart here?Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman, so if we want to be given over to semantics in defense of a single word, then technically why should we change the meaning of the word?A word is designed to fit the definition, not the other way around.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

I respectfully disagree. Pointing out an obscure exception does not prove the capabilities of any group on general.

For the millionth time, this is another way of saying "I'm too bigoted to allow gays to marry, so let those faggots have civil union and drink out of a different drinking fountain than I am..."There is a reason why gay people in general don't accept this bullshit proposal that you and other bigots (yes, I'm accusing you of bigotry) always seem to propose. Separate can never be equal. So, I take it you think black people should only equal 3/5 of a real person? Again, a bullshit way of saying "I'm too bigoted to want other people to have the same rights as I do..." And like it or not, marriage was always defined as between a man and a woman of the same race. It was defined that way even before this country was founded. I take it you're also against interracial marriage? Oh gee, I suppose my brother should be thrown in jail?Sorry for the incivility. I've been involved in this argument for years now and have heard every bullshit arguments put forth, including yours. If you can't see it's pure bullshit, there's no point in me explaining it to you.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

In fairness, Taz, Hyro isn't advocating "separate but equal."He's saying "fine - the state won't recognize any marriages, and everybody, gay or straight, will have civil unions instead."That's pretty different, and it works as far as legality and equal treatment are concerned.Unfortunately, it's also one of the worst potential solutions one can come up with, because it allows religion to exclusivity over marriage, because it changes existing marriages such that atheists and so on are no longer "married," it feeds the fears that gay marriage will destroy marriage entirely (because that;s basically what it does), and so on.Hyro pictures himself as a moderate, seeking compromise. He thinks that, if the word "marriage" is such a big deal to Christians, let them have it and let the state get out of religious affairs.But his entire argumetn rests on the foudnation that "marriage" is a religious term. It;'s not. Hasn't been for a very long time. No single religion has ever even had a monopoly on it.The best solution for church, state, gays, and straights is to simply allow gays to get married. The churches can say "it doesn't count for our God." That's fine. The state can say "we don't legally recognize your marriage unless you come and get a state marriage certificate, but otherwise your traditions are your own" like we have always done.Nobody has to infringe on anyone else, contrary to Hyro's absurd suggestion that state recognition of a marriage somehow infringes on a religion's traditions and beliefs.

That's not what I am saying. I say same rights for everybody, I just don't care what they call it. There's no seperation. The rights are completely equal. Not really, no. Again, same rights for all, the label those rights get is completely irrelevant to me.

---

I hunt for the truthI am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

Ok, let me briefly explain why your arguments are bullshit.Argument #1: marriage is religious, therefore we should only have civil union for everybody.This argument is bullshit because legally recognized religious marriage seized to exist once the constitution was written and ratified. The legal marriage is a secular institution and has nothing to do with religious ceremonies. Sure, it originated from a religious institution, but this country was also originated from a slavery institution. Do we really want to bring back slavery?Pure bullshit.Argument #2: Let's compromise.Again, pure bullshit. The Ugandan Parliament is about to pass a bill that will give the death penalty to homosexuals. Let's compromise. Let's put them in jail for 30 years instead.Compromise in regard to human rights is pure bullshit.Argument #3: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.Argument from tradition is almost always bullshit. It was always been the case that women were inferior and therefore incapable of voting or making political decisions. Do you want to go down that route? Pure bullshit.Argument #4: Let's call it something else to let the religious be happy and keep the tradition.This is a combination of arguments 1, 2, and 3. I'm a programmer by nature, and what I know is if you put garbage in you're going to get garbage out. In this case, you put 3 bullshit arguments into a blender, you're going to get a bullshit shake.You guys can try to make arguments on top of arguments all you want. No matter how much perfume you pour onto it, it's still a pile of shit.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Fuck the church, why should they have a say so?What is it about that institution that makes them above the laws of equal rights?I say, if the church holds marriage ceremonies, then they should honor anyone that wants to get married. If the don't, then fuck 'em, they don't have the right to marry anyone. That who instituted? Why not? What makes the church above the laws of equal rights? Because they claim an invisible man wrote a book that claims certain people shouldn't get married? That's superstitious bullshit, and they have no right to claim it in a modern society.If they perform marriage ceremonies, then they need to be equal to everyone. If not, then the government doesn't recognize their marriages. Because, the "traditional" church marriages want the same rights as the "secular" marriages. Rights that are governed by the state. Therefore, the state has a say so.However, if they want to have mock weddings that are not recognized by the state, then sure, exclude anyone you want. But if the state needs to recognize the marriages, then the church gives up its right to be an independent institution. Clearly you can see how it infringes upon others, right? Aren't homosexuals "others"? Right, but then they don't get to also be equally recognized by the state as being legally married.The state should step up and say, you are excluding a portion of our society who have the same rights as everyone else, so, as long as you do this, your marriage ceremonies are not going to be recognized by us, the state. There is only controversy toward gay marriages because a bunch of idiots are making it an issue. Why should we listen to these fuck heads?Why does anyone give a shit if gay people get married? What difference does that make in anyones life? None, at all, not even a little bit.So the people who are making it an issue should be ignored. And the institutions that exclude people based on sexual preference should not be given any credibility, or allowed to dictate any social policy.It would be like not allowing black people to take part in communion, or something like that. No one would stand for that, why allow them to get away with this? ...and we have decided to change that, because we are society that values progress.Its not between a man and a woman anymore. People are free to be openly gay now (which they weren't before, that is why marriage was between a man and a woman), so fuck the past and lets look toward the future where everyone is included in everything.Why have it any other way?- Oni

Marriage.It's real easy for a man & a woman to get married - they can do it in Las Vegas in 2 minutes. Getting divorced, on the other hand, is another thing altogether.Ladies & Gentlemen - let me introduce to you to the Entropic View of Marriage.Thermodynamics tells us that entropy has to increase overall (local exceptions of course!).Consider a classic example:A building - building the building takes a long and convoluted time of getting all manner of things to be in the right place, paper-wise & materials-wise.Destroying the building takes a few of those same permits and hoop jumping to get the permission to do so, but it takes only a few seconds to destroy the building.By the Law Of Entropy, being Divorced is a more Orderly state of affairs than being married. Getting Married is like destroying a building. Getting divorced is like building one.Notice how the only vocational category giving broad support to gay marriage comes from the Divorce Lawyers.*COMEDY ENDS HERE*I agree with Onifre - fuck the churches on this. I also agree with the sentiments voiced underneath the comments made by Taz. And I also agree with a lot of what Hyroglyphics has to say on this matter.then there is another thing altogether....OKAY - what about a farmer who wants to marry one of his sheep? With full legal status?We all go NO, right? okay......What about the genetic scientist in the future who has been breeding chimpanzees with humans and then later has a son who wants to marry one of these hybrids?Watch us all go OOGE with a brick on our head bone.*What about a man who takes a wife in a society that religiously requires that the female offspring to be circumcised...mutilated beyond being able to enjoy sex? What about those weird fringe religions right here in this United States I am in (you UK dudes may know of them).There are a whole shitload of issues, but the gay marriage issue - to me - is safely well inside the Venn Diagram circle of what I will have no problem with. My problem is that I dont even know where to draw those other circles! Well - yeah, the sheep - no way.And also, isnt "wife" a derogatory term? The sexism of the dominant males completely pervades the culture to the extent that even the language is nothing more than a method to maintain the status quo. Like I say, the lawyers are the only group.....* 106 brownie points to the one who can reference this (RAZD disqualified from playing)

---

- xongsmith

Yeah, and a sheep could sign a damn marriage license. More nonsense...

Only an idiot brings up marriage of sheep in a gay marriage debate.Marriage is a contract, and as such can only be entered into by consenting adults. The specifics of the contract require only two people (exclusivity of determination of assets and health issues going to the spouse, having multiple spouses makes that exclusivity impossible).Last I looked, sheep were not consenting adults. Neither can one marry one's dog, or a toaster, or a child for the same reason.If half-human, half-chimp genetic chimeras are granted legal status as consenting adults, then I don't see a problem with marrying one even if it makes me raise an eyebrow at the novelty of such a thing. Same with a future association with sapient aliens, artificial intelligences, and what have you. Marry a Klingon, or a Ninja Turtle for all I care so long as the people to be married are capable of giving informed consent.Homosexual couples are consenting adults. They are capable of informed consent. They are not sheep.I understand that you were trying to be funny and point out silly "complications," but there are people who actually believe that allowing gay marriage would "reduce" marriage to the point where one could marry whoever or whatever one wants, including sheep and toasters. That makes it no longer funny.

I guess I didn't take you as serious as the other guys did. I thought the whole post was hilarious. I agree, I have no problem with it. I can't see how its even relevant in my life.I think I'd have a problem with the sheep though. Thought YOU and RAZD might find the beginning of this video funny, and the rest of the video is funny too (and on topic!):- Oni

My point was not trying to say that all minors are adult-like as much as I was saying many adults lack his senseie.the following are things I have heard from adults over the years:1) fellow soldier: "of course blacks are lower than whites. They even look like monkeys."2) fellow soldier: "The worst thing this country ever did was give women the vote. They don't vote the issues."
Me: Oh, by the way why did you vote for Reagan?"
Fellow soldier: "He was the best actor I've ever seen."3) Fellow student: "Of course this is a Christian country, all the founding fathers were Fundimentalist Christians."
Me: "Thomas Jefferson was at best a Deist."
Fellow Student: "Why do you say Jefferson was a devil worshipper?"These are just of the many stupid comments that adults have said to me.Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

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, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Huntard writes:

quote:

---

Make every marriage a "civil union"

---

This will require rewriting literally tens of thousands of laws across federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions. All currently "married" couples will need to be relicensed as the contracts refer to "marriage," not "civil union." Too, this will mean that no federally recognized contract will be recognized outside of the United States because other countries recognize "marriage," not "civil union." If you were to try to provide your old "marriage" license, you would be engaging in fraud because you no longer have a "marriage" contract.That's the problem with the argument that this is just a matter of semantics. It isn't. There is a whole structure of legal activity predicated around the contract of "marriage" that simply cannot be adjusted by later writing, "Well, we really mean 'civil union,' instead." Legal precedent is that words have specific meanings. That's why the warnings say, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." You'd think that "mutilate" would cover the first two, but it doesn't. They are different things and thus different words are used.

quote:

---

Are people really that retarded to protest because it just has a different name?

---

It isn't a question of people. It's a question of the law. Your "civil union" isn't recognized here because it isn't a "marriage." That's the law. If it were a marriage, you'd call it a "marriage." Since you're calling it something else, that means it is something else and thus cannot be a "marriage."

quote:

---

By the way, this is kinda how it works in my country. Church marriages have no legal status whatsoever, in fact, you can't get married by a church unless you first get married by law. It's just called marriage all around.

---

That's pretty much how it works in the US, too: A church marriage means absolutely nothing. The only way to get a legal marriage is to go to the clerk and sign a marriage contract. Now, priests, captains of ships, and various other people are commonly given authority by the state to fill in the appropriate paperwork on that contract, but it's still a legal contract, not a religious one.That was a lovely ceremony, but the couple didn't actually get married standing in front of the altar. They got married when they signed a piece of paper back in the priest's office. The priest may decide not to sign it unless they went through the ceremony, but the ceremony has no legal standing.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

The problem is, what "rights" are actually afforded in the Constitution? "Liberty" is subjective to who states what the entailments of liberty should be defined as, and "all" could be inclusive to children too.

---

Child abuse. Of course, I'm not surprised that the moment you thought about having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately jumped to considering molesting a child. That's par for the course.At any rate, it would behoove you to do some research on what the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the rights of children.At any rate, back to the real topic rather than your pathetic attempt to derail it with a "gay people are equivalent to child molestors" sidetrack:As Loving v. Virginia put it: Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong in this decision?Hint: Remember the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution is not a laundry list.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

I don't believe that it is right that a Christian society be demanded that they have to forsake their roots and their time-honored beliefs to cater to the whims of a minority when it is expressly prohibited.

---

And thus, the Loving v. Virginia case was wrongly decided, right? It was not right for a Christian society to be told that their roots and time-honored beliefs of not mixing races needed to be discarded for the whims of the minority when it was expressly prohibited.What? You mean not one Christian anywhere was forced into an interracial marriage simply because the Constitution expressly demanded equal protection under the law? They didn't have to change their beliefs? Not one religious official was forced to marry anybody his religion forbade him from marrying?Oh, then surely you're saying the 19th Amendment was a complete offense to those Christians who were certain that women were not allowed to have any authority over men. How dare the people decide that women should be allowed to vote on the status of men!What's that you say? The Constitution trumps any religious opinion?Wow. One has to wonder why you think an argument that is a crock of shit when applied to race or sex suddenly gains legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.