Al Bundy wrote:If rights are denied it is wrong, but no right is being denied here. Everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. You disagree with the current definition of marriage, so you try to make up an excuse that rights are being denied. No right is being denied.

The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. All men have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that right is clearly denied to gay men and women in the state of Ohio.

eersandbeers wrote: No, gays should not have government sanctioned marriage. But neither should straight couples.

The government should not be in the marriage business at all.

Correct. If reliosious institutions want to deny them the right to marriage, that is fine with me, but the government should not be in the marriage business at all and at the very least should not deny anyone the right to anything another citizen is allowed to have.

ts1227 wrote: So long as government is in the marriage business, they are in no place to deny it.

Churches can choose to not marry them or recognize it, but for government to deny them the right is garbage.

+1

Heretic wrote: It doesn't matter to me, so I don't have a problem with it. I do find it funny that a couple of stupid kids with no concept of marital responsibility can get hitched just because one knocked the other up and they're going to do "the right thing", but a couple of mature adults can't due to sexual preference.

Which is something only lawyers can like, considering what the divorce rate is nowadays.

Bingo! Many heterosexual marriages happen due to "immoral" happenings, should they be denied the right to marriage to because it is immoral what they have done prior to getting married?

eersandbeers wrote:

Heretic wrote: It I do find it funny that a couple of stupid kids with no concept of marital responsibility can get hitched just because one knocked the other up and they're going to do "the right thing", but a couple of mature adults can't due to sexual preference.

What are you talking about? Gays will ruin the sanctity of the drive-thru marriage.

+infinity for hilarity.

fish82 wrote: Yes, provided there's open bar.

See above comment.

I Wear Pants wrote:

GoChiefs wrote:

pmoney25 wrote: Why should they not get benefits? Call it something else if you want and leave the Religious side out of it, why no benefits?

If my religious beliefs tell me it is immoral..then why would I leave the religious side out of it??? If I thought it was immoral..then that's why I say they should have none of the benefits. My religious beliefs are allowed to help me choose what I believe is right or wrong.

Because religious beliefs should have no business in the policies of our governments.

Gay people in a lasting relationship should be entitled the same benefits as a straight couple in a similar relationship.

Exactly. Look what happens to governments that allow religion to have a serious role in the governing policies. See the middle east. Christianity has no more credibility to govern than Islam. Religion and government should never mix.

enigmaax wrote:
For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15)

Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. (Mark 11:25)

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-2)

believer wrote:

enigmaax wrote:For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:14-15)

Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. (Mark 11:25)

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matthew 7:1-2)

Not up to me to judge. You are right about that.

Still while it's perfectly fine to quote Scripture to back-up your arguments, the inherent danger in doing so is there are other Scriptures that also make it perfectly clear what our moral position ought to be:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:22

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Romans 1 26-27

Just sayin'..........

Proving further that the Bible contradicts itself quite often. You can find anything in there to support your own opinion (not you personally, people in general) as made clear by enigmaxx and you both pulling specific quotes that support your opinions, yet contradict each other.

ernest_t_bass wrote: Enigmaax,

What if that same gay couple who just married, wanted to smoke in a restaurant? Gay marriage harms my children (from the way I raised them) emotionally/socially as does smoking harms them physically. Is emotional damage no different than physical damage?

You are picking and choosing your "rights" here.

Exactly how does gay marriage harm your children? Your analogy is terrible between smoking and gay marriage.

If gay marriage harms your kids socially and emotionally then so will swearing, binge drinkers, mean people, etc. etc. I'm sure you've taught your children that all these are harmful as well, but they will experience it one day. Basically you are teaching your children to be sissies. What will happen when they go off into the real world without you to coddle them and shield them from life's horrors, like gay marriage? :rolleyes:

Here is a link to an interesting article "Right wingers for gay marriage"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-10/gay-marriages-right-wing-brigade/?cid=hp:mainpromo8

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:If rights are denied it is wrong, but no right is being denied here. Everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. You disagree with the current definition of marriage, so you try to make up an excuse that rights are being denied. No right is being denied.

The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. All men have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that right is clearly denied to gay men and women in the state of Ohio.

What would you say about a single man in pursuit of his happiness, who does not want to be tied down in a marriage, yet still wishes to pursue his own personal happiness via sexual gratification. He does not want to hassle with pursueing some type of relationship, but would rather just pay a one time (not strings attatched) fee to recieve some happiness. What do you think?

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:

The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. All men have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that right is clearly denied to gay men and women in the state of Ohio.

Even as someone, who above, stated that they believe homosexuals should be allowed to have civil unions/marriages, you are 100% false.

You would ONLY be right in this statement if a law existed completely making homosexuality illegal.

Also, you are forgetting one BIG part, its the guarantee that you can PURSUE happiness, it doesn't GUARANTEE happiness, two vastly different things.

zhon44622 wrote: Here is a link to an interesting article "Right wingers for gay marriage"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-10/gay-marriages-right-wing-brigade/?cid=hp:mainpromo8

Thanks for posting that because I was going to post the piece written by the first person in that article, Ted Olson, called "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" Its linked in the article you posted and can be found here:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

Please if you're going to comment on this piece please read the entire piece (all three pages) and not just watch the video. He makes a great argument as to why gays should be allowed to marry!

GeneralsIcer89 wrote: The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. All men have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that right is clearly denied to gay men and women in the state of Ohio.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

One Word: NO!

Gays and lesbians may be able to legally be in relationships (which undoubtedly is a happy thing), but if I were gay, I wouldn't be happy knowing that I'd be unable to visit my partner in the hospital without a potentially big mess (all it takes is one asshole of a doctor), be unable to make medical decisions on behalf of my partner if they were unable, be unable to take sick leave to care for my partner, etc. Perhaps pursuing peace for oneself in that type of scenario would be the better way to put it, but I have to think pursuing peace like that can be taken synonymously as a pursuit of happiness. That right is therefore denied to gays and lesbians in Ohio. Can any of you even fathom not being able to visit your wife if she were in the hospital after a serious car accident?

majorspark wrote:

GeneralsIcer89 wrote:

Al Bundy wrote:If rights are denied it is wrong, but no right is being denied here. Everyone has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. You disagree with the current definition of marriage, so you try to make up an excuse that rights are being denied. No right is being denied.

The Declaration of Independence says otherwise. All men have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and that right is clearly denied to gay men and women in the state of Ohio.

What would you say about a single man in pursuit of his happiness, who does not want to be tied down in a marriage, yet still wishes to pursue his own personal happiness via sexual gratification. He does not want to hassle with pursueing some type of relationship, but would rather just pay a one time (not strings attatched) fee to recieve some happiness. What do you think?

I'm completely fine with that.

LOUISVILLE, KY—At first glance, high school senior Lucas Faber, 18, seems like any ordinary gay teen. He's a member of his school's swing choir, enjoys shopping at the mall, and has sex with other males his age. But lately, a growing worry has begun to plague this young gay man. A gnawing feeling that, deep down, he may be a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.

"I don't know what's happening to me," Faber admitted to reporters Monday. "It's like I get these weird urges sometimes, and suddenly I'm tempted to go behind my friends' backs and attend a megachurch service, or censor books in the school library in some way. Even just the thought of organizing a CD-burning turns me on."

Added Faber, "I feel so confused."

The openly gay teen, who came out to his parents at age 14 and has had a steady boyfriend for the past seven months, said he first began to suspect he might be different last year, when he started feeling an odd stirring within himself every time he passed a church. The more conservative the church, Faber claimed, the stronger his desire was to enter it.

"It's like I don't even know who I am anymore," the frightened teenager said. "Keeping this secret obsession with radical right-wing dogma hidden away from my parents, teachers, and schoolmates is tearing me apart."

Faber's sock drawer is home to a number of illicit magazines he has secretly accepted from street preachers.

According to Faber, his first experience with evangelical Christianity was not all that different from other gays his age.

"Sure, I looked at the Book of Leviticus once or twice—everybody has," Faber said. "We all experiment a little bit with that stuff when we're growing up. But I was just a kid. I didn't think it meant anything."

Faber's instinct was to deny these early emotions. But recently, the Louisville teen admitted, the feelings have grown stronger, making him wonder more and more what life as a born-again right-wing fundamentalist would be like.

"The other week, I was this close to picketing in front of an abortion clinic," the mortified teenager said, his eyes welling up with tears. "I know it's wrong, but I wanted so badly to do it anyway. I even made one of those signs with photos of dead fetuses and hid it in my closet. I felt so ashamed, yet, at the same time, it was all strangely titillating."

Faber's parents, although concerned, said they're convinced their otherwise typical gay son is merely going through a conservative Christian phase.

"I caught him watching The 700 Club once when he thought he was alone in the house, and last week, I found some paperbacks from the Left Behind series hidden in his sock drawer," his mother, Eileen Faber, said. "I'm sure he'll grow out of it, but even if he doesn't, I will love and accept my son no matter what."

Faber's father was far less tolerant in his comments.

"No son of mine is going to try to get intelligent design into school textbooks," Geoffrey Faber said. "And I absolutely refuse to pay his tuition if he decides to go to one of those colleges like Oral Roberts University where they're just going to fill his head with a lot of crazy conservative ideas."

He added, "I just want my normal gay son back."

Al Bundy wrote: you meant. There are many people in the world with different definitions of marriage. You think it should be two consenting adults. I think it should be one man and one woman. Others think it should be between many people. The fair thing to do was to put it on the ballot to see how the majority of people want to define it. That was done a few years ago. Maybe someday it will be on the ballot again.

It's so weird that this has gotten so entrenched in the vernacular. "Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman/between two consenting adults" as a sentence does not make logical sense.

"Marriage" IS a particular kind of contract wherein the consideration exchanged between the offeror and the offeree is to promise, to love, to hold and to keep, in sickness and in health, til death do us part.

What defines marriage are the particular promises that the state deems legally enforceable and that the state will recognize something as intangible as love as good consideration to support these promises.

to say "marriage is between a man and a woman" is to say what persons may exchange the promises to have and to hold, to love...etc. and have these promises be legally enforced.

To restrict this freedom to contract only to one man and one woman is discrimination. Now, we disallow people to contract all the time...(Kids can't contract...you can't contract to suck dick for coke, etc.)

But, as more and more social studies come out, the arguments against disallowing one man and one other man to have the freedom to enter into this particular kind of contract are coming up short of the standard of things like disallowing minors to contract, etc.

Bottom line is...we have to stop saying...I define marriage as between X...that's not a definition of marriage...marriage doesn't have subjective definitions in our society...it's a contract that involves the enforcement of vows related to love, etc.

The debate is about who is allowed by society to be privy to such contracts.

As far as I'm concerned marriage contracts shouldn't even be legally enforceable because I'm not sure "Love" is a valuable consideration.

Marriage shouldn't be a legal contract at all. By reducing it to a personal promise between people it eliminates any discriminatory restriction.

BoatShoes wrote: To restrict this freedom to contract only to one man and one woman is discrimination. Now, we disallow people to contract all the time...(Kids can't contract...you can't contract to suck dick for coke, etc.)

But, as more and more social studies come out, the arguments against disallowing one man and one other man to have the freedom to enter into this particular kind of contract are coming up short of the standard of things like disallowing minors to contract, etc.

You just explained, virtuously without flaw, why I have always considered the denial of same-sex legal unions to be discriminatory based on gender/sex. Kudos for saying it in a way I could never work out.

Marriage is, as far as any US legislative system is concerned, a legal contract. The fact that I, an American male of consenting age, can not enter said contract with a man, even though a woman can, is discriminatory. Essentially, the fact that I cannot enter into such a contract with a man has everything to do with my gender, and would be different if I was a woman.

Preferences aside, it is still discriminatory.

End it's validity as a contract and the discrimination ends too.

No way! and I am not religious.
I can't believe they let these things adopt children. These people are mentally ill. It is not natural.
Why don't we let the mentally retarded raise the next generation.
Hell why don't we give them minority status also.

Darkon wrote: No way! and I am not religious.
I can't believe they let these things adopt children. These people are mentally ill. It is not natural.
Why don't we let the mentally retarded raise the next generation.
Hell why don't we give them minority status also.

Could you move away a little, I'd hate for any of the stupid to rub off.

queencitybuckeye wrote:
Could you move away a little, I'd hate for any of the stupid to rub off.

So I take it you think this is natural?
And you want to call me stupid.

Darkon wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote:
Could you move away a little, I'd hate for any of the stupid to rub off.

So I take it you think this is natural?

I don't see that this matters.

And you want to call me stupid.

Saying stupid things will cause this to happen.

Darkon wrote: So I take it you think this is natural?
And you want to call me stupid.

Natural has nothing to do with it. Why should we illegalize something purely on the basis that it is unnatural? I don't think that is constitutional.

And to quote the Tom Hanks movie, "Stupid is as stupid does." In saying what you said, you did something stupid.

And I AM religious.

Darkon wrote: So I take it you think this is natural?
And you want to call me stupid.

I assume you're suggesting that sex between two people of the same sex is "unnatural" because there doesn't appear to be anything natural or biologically grounded in the concept of a marriage contract or perhaps even a contract in general.

But, if you are suggesting sex between two members of the same sex is "unnatural" I think you'll find that it's very hard to define what uses of bodily parts are "natural"

For instance...is clapping my hands in applause and unnatural use of my hands? What about making fart noises with my arm pit? Is it unnatural to use my arms to throw a football for purely entertainment reasons? Is it unnatural to give myself an enema to induce defecation?

If we're going to make laws against practices that are unnatural...it would seem to me we would have a hard time being consistent across the board.

BoatShoes wrote:

Darkon wrote: So I take it you think this is natural?
And you want to call me stupid.

I assume you're suggesting that sex between two people of the same sex is "unnatural" because there doesn't appear to be anything natural or biologically grounded in the concept of a marriage contract or perhaps even a contract in general.

But, if you are suggesting sex between two members of the same sex is "unnatural" I think you'll find that it's very hard to define what uses of bodily parts are "natural"

For instance...is clapping my hands in applause and unnatural use of my hands? What about making fart noises with my arm pit? Is it unnatural to use my arms to throw a football for purely entertainment reasons? Is it unnatural to give myself an enema to induce defecation?

If we're going to make laws against practices that are unnatural...it would seem to me we would have a hard time being consistent across the board.

logic has no place in an argument with the ignorant.

This is starting to go the wrong direction.