Marriage Laws

[Noop]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Given this forum, I'm not sure you will get everyone to come "out," but I've already done so. For lack of a better term, I'm "bi."

I wasnt really asking for anyone to "out" themselves I was just wondering... and when you admitted you were bi what type of respone did you get?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

Gays scare me like clowns?

And what happens if a gay straw man falls down a slippery slope.

I haven't seen a wig joke for a while, so I thought I'd chime in.

[Fritz]

I dont think it was any big shock with JG, so I don't know if you will get the answer you are looking for....

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't think the slippery slope argument need be based on religion (and I don't think it has been used exclusively as a religious argument in this thread).

You are correct John, the slippery slope concept was not entirely based on religous belief, although it was rather well rebutted by another poster, hence I was looking for some reasonsing that hasn't been responded to as yet.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by RendeR

are you there yet? cause I've got other fairs to drive crazy today too, I want to drop you off soon.

Keep the change....

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Gays scare me like clowns?

And what happens if a gay straw man falls down a slippery slope.

I haven't seen a wig joke for a while, so I thought I'd chime in.

Haha, of course noone has an answer yet...


Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Noop

I wasnt really asking for anyone to "out" themselves I was just wondering... and when you admitted you were bi what type of respone did you get?

Since the old forum is gone, I guess you can't see for yourself. Basically, I'd been around since the early days of the old, old board, but most members didn't know me that well. I posted here and there, but I wasn't too active. Slowly, I got more involved in a few political discussions (including a few dumb ones where I responded to the skippy troll bot). One day, I posted a thread that was a collection of quotes from the previous month that I felt were gay-bashing or gay-baiting. In the course of that thread, I think I revealed my sexual orientation. The response was pretty hostile (I think I only got good replies by backchannel). However, my coming "out" was part of a thread where I was complaining about the rhetoric on the board so a lot of people were defensive. It was impossible to separate the response to me coming "out" and the rhetoric, so my situation was probably not that telling.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You are correct John, the slippery slope concept was not entirely based on religous belief, although it was rather well rebutted by another poster, hence I was looking for some reasonsing that hasn't been responded to as yet.

I'd like to think that "poster" was me, but oh well.

And I just wanted to point out that you were going a little far in saying no one had offered a non-religious argument. I think a lot of it is tied to religion, but not all of it is.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Haha, of course noone has an answer yet...


Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

I just did in reply to your last request, but I'm probably on your ignore list, but I figured I'd try again.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Someone please post a reason that has been stated in this thread that is against same sex marriage yet isn't based in religous beliefs.

But you won't find one, because you'll claim that any argument against your position must be religion-based, even if there's no mention of religion anywhere in it.

But just for fun, try these, from the first few posts:

Revrew: "Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all."

Cam: "But the most important thing for me is that this isn't an issue that should be decided by four justices in Massachusetts, or one mayor in San Francisco. Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage, and the people have spoken. If we're so willing to hand over our power to activist judges and renegade public officials to get what we want, don't complain when those you disagree with use the same tactics to grant something you're opposed to."

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Of course you know me SO well that you can say this...yeah. whatever. I've been more accepting of the other sides arguements than anything else. think before you post, most people find it helps.

I did want to say RendeR that I think you have been fairly accepting of the other sides of the argument. I hope my previous post didn't imply otherwise. With a few exceptions, I've enjoyed reading this thread actually despite the fact that I don't think it will change any minds. I typically think that threads like these only entrench beliefs when one is forced to defend himself and "enlightenment," for whatever that means, of other viewpoints rarely occurs.

As to specific examples, John Galt posted what I would have said. The reasoning that many have called the "slippery slope" argument, in my view, does not have to originate from anything biblical or religious but rather an overall sense of right and wrong. I would be more likely to accept the opposition to that "slippery slope" argument if someone was to say that multiple partner marriages, interfamilial marriages, and others mentioned should be legal as well.

Truth be told, I'm actually a Libertarian of sorts, and I don't typically advocate the government being involved in these things at all. I think someone (Drake maybe) said essentially what I would argue a page or so back when he basically pointed out that the government probably shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, but rather the contractual business. If the government is going to be involved, though, I do think that some sort of system needs to be in place to define what the society accepts as the ideal family structure. At this point, I think the "slippery slope" argument is real and should be considered.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I just did in reply to your last request, but I'm probably on your ignore list, but I figured I'd try again.

No you didn't.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't think the slippery slope argument need be based on religion (and I don't think it has been used exclusively as a religious argument in this thread).

is not a reason against same-sex marriages.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Chubby

No you didn't.



is not a reason against same-sex marriages.

Huh? People are arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then you would have to allow polygamy/incest/child molestation. I think these are bad arguments, but they need not be based on religion (unless you believe the ONLY reason incest, child molestation, and polygamy are bad is religion).

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Fritz

then put me on ignore, duh

Nah, if I'm going to come here, I might as well read what everyone has to say.

Although stevew advocating the death of Unitarians earlier pushed me close to the Ignore button.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'd like to think that "poster" was me, but oh well.

And I just wanted to point out that you were going a little far in saying no one had offered a non-religious argument. I think a lot of it is tied to religion, but not all of it is.

I actually thought it was you but since this thing has become a beast of a thread I didn't take the time to slog through to see who had said it =)

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Since the old forum is gone, I guess you can't see for yourself. Basically, I'd been around since the early days of the old, old board, but most members didn't know me that well. I posted here and there, but I wasn't too active. Slowly, I got more involved in a few political discussions (including a few dumb ones where I responded to the skippy troll bot). One day, I posted a thread that was a collection of quotes from the previous month that I felt were gay-bashing or gay-baiting. In the course of that thread, I think I revealed my sexual orientation. The response was pretty hostile (I think I only got good replies by backchannel). However, my coming "out" was part of a thread where I was complaining about the rhetoric on the board so a lot of people were defensive. It was impossible to separate the response to me coming "out" and the rhetoric, so my situation was probably not that telling.

Not that I'm trying to argue with you , but didn't you actually come "out" in that Jeremy Shockey thread a while back. I think your thread about being upset by the gay-bashing came after that, but I could be wrong. The only reason I remember is because I think that I started the Shockey thread and you and I got into an argument when you came out. I, for one, was a little surprised. Maybe I'm not as intuitive as Fritz. If I remember correctly, the thread died quickly thereafter and few responded to your comments at that time.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by John Galt

(unless you believe...child molestation....are bad is religion).

well not in the catholic church

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I did want to say RendeR that I think you have been fairly accepting of the other sides of the argument. I hope my previous post didn't imply otherwise. With a few exceptions, I've enjoyed reading this thread actually despite the fact that I don't think it will change any minds. I typically think that threads like these only entrench beliefs when one is forced to defend himself and "enlightenment," for whatever that means, of other viewpoints rarely occurs.

As to specific examples, John Galt posted what I would have said. The reasoning that many have called the "slippery slope" argument, in my view, does not have to originate from anything biblical or religious but rather an overall sense of right and wrong. I would be more likely to accept the opposition to that "slippery slope" argument if someone was to say that multiple partner marriages, interfamilial marriages, and others mentioned should be legal as well.

Truth be told, I'm actually a Libertarian of sorts, and I don't typically advocate the government being involved in these things at all. I think someone (Drake maybe) said essentially what I would argue a page or so back when he basically pointed out that the government probably shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place, but rather the contractual business. If the government is going to be involved, though, I do think that some sort of system needs to be in place to define what the society accepts as the ideal family structure. At this point, I think the "slippery slope" argument is real and should be considered.

That wasn't aimed at you cuckoo, sorry if you thought so, I was responding to stevrew's assinine attacks on me personally.

[wig]

DAMN!

I go for a quick run and miss the best part of this topic.

I love Fritz to death.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Nah, if I'm going to come here, I might as well read what everyone has to say.

Although stevew advocating the death of Unitarians earlier pushed me close to the Ignore button.

I am sure he just wanted them to be winged.

[Noop]

I like lesbo's I love the Jenna and Lacy pornos when they do each other! John my parents told me to never judge someone cause of what they do at home. I have read your respones while they are a little hard for me to understand I can see where you coming from. Fritz I believe you have alot of valid points as well... but my personally opinion is this does not belong in this country. Its bad enough we have the courts making stupid ass precendents(sp?) and shit. I believe I read the main reason behind this is so they can get a tax relief or something like that. If I am wrong folks by all means Educate me. (not on my spelling or grammar )



noop

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Although stevew advocating the death of Unitarians earlier pushed me close to the Ignore button.

You and me both, good greif.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Not that I'm trying to argue with you , but didn't you actually come "out" in that Jeremy Shockey thread a while back. I think your thread about being upset by the gay-bashing came after that, but I could be wrong. The only reason I remember is because I think that I started the Shockey thread and you and I got into an argument when you came out. I, for one, was a little surprised. Maybe I'm not as intuitive as Fritz. If I remember correctly, the thread died quickly thereafter and few responded to your comments at that time.

No, I came "out" a long time ago, but it may have seemed new to you. I think most of the vets who actually look at political threads can verify my memory, but I'm almost 100% sure I have the timing right.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

That wasn't aimed at you cuckoo, sorry if you thought so, I was responding to stevrew's assinine attacks on me personally.

Oh I know, I just wanted to make it clear that I did think you were acknowledging the other sides for the most part. I get grouped in with some others far too often that I may agree with on certain aspects of things, but not all, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't implying anything like that in my earlier post.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

But you won't find one, because you'll claim that any argument against your position must be religion-based, even if there's no mention of religion anywhere in it.

But just for fun, try these, from the first few posts:

Revrew: "Our legal system is based on precedence. Once the precedence is set that marriage has no historical definition, it ceases to have any meaningful definition at all."

Cam: "But the most important thing for me is that this isn't an issue that should be decided by four justices in Massachusetts, or one mayor in San Francisco. Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage, and the people have spoken. If we're so willing to hand over our power to activist judges and renegade public officials to get what we want, don't complain when those you disagree with use the same tactics to grant something you're opposed to."

Hey, thanks for putting words in my mouth. A fine way to have an argument

Precedence's aren't over turned? It was precendence that we have slarvery yet somehow, we don't anymore. It certainly does have a definition, and how does the argument of "marriage has no definition" = no same sex marriage?

"Around the country people have cast their votes to define marriage" They have? I must have missed that vote, I'm sure I would have seen a commercial on tv about such a vote. And how does saying that activist judges and renegade public officals have power = no same sex marriage?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by John Galt

No, I came "out" a long time ago, but it may have seemed new to you. I think most of the vets who actually look at political threads can verify my memory, but I'm almost 100% sure I have the timing right.

Okay, you'd know better than I would. I've been around since the old Sideline days, but I tried to avoid a lot of political threads over the years so that's probably why it was new to me at the time.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by John Galt

No, I came "out" a long time ago, but it may have seemed new to you. I think most of the vets who actually look at political threads can verify my memory, but I'm almost 100% sure I have the timing right.

I'm pretty sure your memory is correct.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Huh? People are arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then you would have to allow polygamy/incest/child molestation. I think these are bad arguments, but they need not be based on religion (unless you believe the ONLY reason incest, child molestation, and polygamy are bad is religion).

Well ok why didn't you just say that I disagree with that argument but at least it isn't religion based.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Okay, you'd know better than I would. I've been around since the old Sideline days, but I tried to avoid a lot of political threads over the years so that's probably why it was new to me at the time.

It was really just a day or two where my thread was at the top of the forum as people freaked about my comments - if you missed those days, it didn't reappear again. And now, I've tired of trying to fight all the "fag"/"homo"/"gay" comments on the board, so I try to just argue the larger political issues.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Noop

I like lesbo's I love the Jenna and Lacy pornos when they do each other! John my parents told me to never judge someone cause of what they do at home. I have read your respones while they are a little hard for me to understand I can see where you coming from. Fritz I believe you have alot of valid points as well... but my personally opinion is this does not belong in this country. Its bad enough we have the courts making stupid ass precendents(sp?) and shit. I believe I read the main reason behind this is so they can get a tax relief or something like that. If I am wrong folks by all means Educate me. (not on my spelling or grammar )



noop

its not about tax relief, though filing joint returns is something they may choose to do. Some important points are these:

Family visitation rights: If a same sex couple has an adopted chiled and they are sick or in intensive care, most/many of the same sex parents are being denied visitation rights that hetero couples are allowed.

Death benefits: Its very difficult for same sex couples to assign benefits to their partners because of the inheritance laws as they stand now.

Health insurance: same sex couples can't put their sig others on their family health plans because they are technically (IE legally) not married.

there are other items, all of which relate directly to the legal status of being "married". I may not have stated all this perfectly either, so please, PLEASE go out and read up on things to make sure you get the right information.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Oh I know, I just wanted to make it clear that I did think you were acknowledging the other sides for the most part. I get grouped in with some others far too often that I may agree with on certain aspects of things, but not all, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't implying anything like that in my earlier post.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RendeR

its not about tax relief, though filing joint returns is something they may choose to do. Some important points are these:

Family visitation rights: If a same sex couple has an adopted chiled and they are sick or in intensive care, most/many of the same sex parents are being denied visitation rights that hetero couples are allowed.

Death benefits: Its very difficult for same sex couples to assign benefits to their partners because of the inheritance laws as they stand now.

Health insurance: same sex couples can't put their sig others on their family health plans because they are technically (IE legally) not married.

there are other items, all of which relate directly to the legal status of being "married". I may not have stated all this perfectly either, so please, PLEASE go out and read up on things to make sure you get the right information.

Thanks alot... I still don't get the entire picture maybe I need to get a plasma t.v. brain....

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

But you won't find one, because you'll claim that any argument against your position must be religion-based, even if there's no mention of religion anywhere in it.

Then you go on to quote arguments from a reverend and a conservative talk show host.

BZZZZZ! Try again!

[wig]

noop?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Then you go on to quote arguments from a reverend and a conservative talk show host.

BZZZZZ! Try again!

I think you just made his point for him. Just because they're a reverend and a conservative talk show host doesn't make their arguments based on religion alone or even religion at all.

[wig]

let's compromise.

Hot lesbians can get married, but gay guys can't.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Noop

Thanks alot... I still don't get the entire picture maybe I need to get a plasma t.v. brain....

http://www.plasmatvbrain.com/products/closeouts.asp

[Noop]

Originally Posted by wig

noop?

I think you like me.... or is that your new thing?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I think you just made his point for him. Just because they're a reverend and a conservative talk show host doesn't make their arguments based on religion alone or even religion at all.

I think the point there was that both of those mentioned were quoting bible verses to support their stance. Which, is based entirely on religion and therefore didn't fit the question at hand.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I think you just made his point for him. Just because they're a reverend and a conservative talk show host doesn't make their arguments based on religion alone or even religion at all.

No, but the things he cited have nothing to do with same-sex marriage being "wrong" or that it should be done away with in any form as I pointed out.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Noop

I think you like me.... or is that your new thing?

Say it out loud. It's fun to say.

noop? noop?

[Noop]

Frtiz nothing came up... are you trying to tell me something:



noop

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Fritz

http://www.plasmatvbrain.com/products/closeouts.asp

I can't believe he suckered me into clicking this link......I'm so ashamed.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by wig

Say it out loud. It's fun to say.

noop? noop?

You know if you say it backwards alot you might actually get it



noop

[Butter]

Originally Posted by wig

Hot lesbians can get married, but gay guys can't.

Done and done.

[wig]

I wonder how many here think they are actually going to change someone's mind.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by wig

I wonder how many here think they are actually going to change someone's mind.

well shit, let us never discuss anything ever again!

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I think the point there was that both of those mentioned were quoting bible verses to support their stance. Which, is based entirely on religion and therefore didn't fit the question at hand.

My point, similar to Maple Leafs', is that it doesn't matter if they had used bible verses or not, some like Butter would immediately reject their argument outright because they are a reverend and a conservative talk show host.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by wig

I wonder how many here think they are actually going to change someone's mind.

My intention with this thread was never to change anyone's mind, but to try and better understand other peoples point of view. This is also why I've kept asking questions and looked for answers beyond the biblical sense. This is an issue that is not going away and the better *I* can understand all sides of the argument the more confidence I'll have when it comes time to vote on something, or choose to protest or whatever else.

its all about ME damnit =)

[wig]

Stop trying to backload the topic, Chubby!