A National Majority Now Disagrees With The Theocons About Gay Marriage

[pump.joe]

i had been abused as a child. i had horrible very physically abusive parents. I have had HORRIBLE abusive relationships... hell, my mother sent me an email 2 weeks ago (after not talking to her for 10yrs) saying she is ashamed she made a faggot and hopes i die of aids.....

Wow Nic, that's heavy, dude. I'm glad you made it through that and are happy now.

I really don't understand who cares if two guys or two girls want to get married. Because it says something in the bible? Check out some of the points made here.

• Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
• I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
• A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
• Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? [Dwarfs and people with bad backs are also forbidden to approach.]
• Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

[Tock]

Mate, a very touching post I thought, I feel sorry your mother is so blinded by ignorance. Your point about two people loving each other is a good point. Not to go off tangent but i watched a documentory on incestual relationships. Basically there was this couple that met, fell in love, etc, THEN they find out they are actually brother and sister. However they carry on their relationship. They even have children, but the children are taken away from them each time and the man gets thrown into prison. Now, is this a bad thing or not?

Children of incestuous relations have physical difficulties, so to spare them needless pain and medical problems, intimate relations between close relatives are discouraged. It's a practical thing, not so much a moral thing. Seems to me that a practical solution would be to spay & neuter anyone inclined to this sort of sex. But, the community may beleive that punishing these people would discourage anyone else thinking about doing the same thing, which it may or may not.

What do you think?

[Act of God]

Children of incestuous relations have a greater chance of manifesting physical difficulties, so to spare them needless pain and medical problems, intimate relations between close relatives are discouraged. It's a practical thing, not so much a moral thing. Seems to me that a practical solution would be to spay & neuter anyone inclined to this sort of sex. But, the community may beleive that punishing these people would discourage anyone else thinking about doing the same thing, which it may or may not.

What do you think?

Fixed it for you. In all fairness, to play the advocate of el Diablo, at least an incestuous relationship is capable of producing life. Can't say the same thing about homosexual relationships. Plus, given the rampant egotism of the human race who wouldn't wanna fvck someone as close to themselves as possible?

[SMCengineer]

Fixed it for you. In all fairness, to play the advocate of el Diablo, at least an incestuous relationship is capable of producing life. Can't say the same thing about homosexual relationships. Plus, given the rampant egotism of the human race who wouldn't wanna fvck someone as close to themselves as possible?

Uhh...me.

[Billy-the-kid]

I disagree with the authors premise or statistic that 6 in 10 Americans believe Government should not regulate who someone can marry (I.E. same sex marriage). We all know we can do a survey (especially in a liberal state) and get the statistics that the "progressives" want.

As of Jan 2006 45 states have banned the marriages of same sex couples and banned the recognition of their "gay marriage" if from another state.

[Tock]

Fixed it for you.

Thanks; details count.

In all fairness, to play the advocate of el Diablo, at least an incestuous relationship is capable of producing life. Can't say the same thing about homosexual relationships.

So?
Does Mr. El Diablo insist that only couples capable of reproduction should have the right to marry? Surely not . . .

Plus, given the rampant egotism of the human race who wouldn't wanna fvck someone as close to themselves as possible?

Anyone with a bunch of dysfunctional family members like mine, for one . . .

[Flagg]

Children of incestuous relations have physical difficulties, so to spare them needless pain and medical problems, intimate relations between close relatives are discouraged. It's a practical thing, not so much a moral thing. Seems to me that a practical solution would be to spay & neuter anyone inclined to this sort of sex. But, the community may beleive that punishing these people would discourage anyone else thinking about doing the same thing, which it may or may not.

What do you think?

I agree, that from the point of view of both parents sharing similiar DNA, the chances of their children being disabled or having mutations is very high. It's unfortunate that they both had to meet under such circumstances and then find out they are related, and THEN have their children taken away from them. I understand the law and I dont know the case 100%, I mean if they find out they are related AFTER they had children, does the law have the right to take their children away then?

[Peducho0113]

[Act of God]

So?
Does Mr. El Diablo insist that only couples capable of reproduction should have the right to marry? Surely not . . .

No, of course not. What I do not like is people who think they can pick and choose which perversions (defined as: a change to what is unnatural or abnormal) are "ok" and which are not. The fact that being gay is now chic` really has no bearing on its legitimacy.

A lot of my gay friends totally dodge the "would you support polygamy?" question, because they still feel like they have the right to say "ohh, that's wrong" while preaching that their way of life is normal and should be accepted.

F that double standard.

[Peducho0113]

you know what....

i had been abused as a child. i had horrible very physically abusive parents. I have had HORRIBLE abusive relationships... hell, my mother sent me an email 2 weeks ago (after not talking to her for 10yrs) saying she is ashamed she made a faggot and hopes i die of aids.....

i'm gay - and i finally found someone i love, who treats me right, who i respect - and who respects me.

with all the shit going on in this world - 9/11, war, crime, hate crimes, murders, all the hate in the middle east....

what the **** is wrong with 2 people who love each other?

i can think of HUNDREDS of things in this world that are worse than 2 people who love each other, and want to show commitment to each other.

oklahoma has a 75% divorce rate. how sacred is that? how sacred is who wants to marry a millionare?

in canada, gay marriage is legal everywhere. and guess what? the family home still exists. the country didnt fall apart. there is no riots in the streets. the mom/dad/kids unit still exists. but at the same time, those who love each other who just happen to be of the same sex - they exist too.

the day MY marriage to my same sex partner affects the LIVES OF OTHERS DIRECTLY, then yes - i would see a problem. untill then, worry about your own lives and work on making your home a happy place for YOUR family.

Wow! Speechless Nicotine, I totally agree with you. I love you man!

[39+1]

Im glad im not gay I have enough problems. This is always a topic on this board. Everyone in america needs to concetrate on their own problems and quite loooking for others.
I dont even think i know what gay is any more. gay to me is a guy that is over thirty lives at home wiht his mom doenst work or own a car is on welfare and has two kids he doesnt support. thats gay!

[Tock]

A lot of my gay friends totally dodge the "would you support polygamy?" question, because they still feel like they have the right to say "ohh, that's wrong" while preaching that their way of life is normal and should be accepted.

F that double standard.

As far as "morality" goes, I don't care if people want a polygamous relationship, as long as everybody is of legal marrying age, and marries voluntarily. I can't imagine that any Fundamentalist Christians would object, since such relationships are approved in the Bible.

One problem, though, would be if businesses formed polygamous marriage relationships to get around limitations inherent in corporations and business partnerships and LLC's. No telling what sort of problems that would generate . . .

[Act of God]

As far as "morality" goes, I don't care if people want a polygamous relationship, as long as everybody is of legal marrying age, and marries voluntarily. I can't imagine that any Fundamentalist Christians would object, since such relationships are approved in the Bible.

One problem, though, would be if businesses formed polygamous marriage relationships to get around limitations inherent in corporations and business partnerships and LLC's. No telling what sort of problems that would generate . . .

Here's the problem, we're talking about LOVE here. If we are going to allow gays these rights based on their right to love and happiness we can't deny anyone else that right, especially based on logistics (like dealing with property rights, inheritance, taxes, etc...). If the argument is "love is what is important" than it has to be of the same importance across the board.

So its time to man up, do we allow ALL consenting adults who proclaim love to be together or do we stay with the traditional man-woman? I'm personally turned off by the thought of two men together, I like the idea of multiple women, and I'm indifferent about siblings (I'm an only child, so I'm sure I don't "get it" like others would). You either have to allow it all, or deny it all. No more of this "well being gay is cool now, so we'll allow THAT" bullshit.

[Tock]

Here's the problem, we're talking about LOVE here.

Not really . . . lots of people get married for reasons other than love.

We're talking about legal recognition of relationships here. The thought occurred to me a while ago that people might substitute a marriage relationship for a partnership to avoid taxes or to prevent a business partner from testifying against him in court. Or something else, who knows . . .
All I'm saying here is that polygamous marriage laws could be used by criminals to avoid legal problems, and I haven't given the issue much thought. I will say, however, that if a way can be found to ensure that marriage laws for polygamists are not abused for criminal or commercial purposes, sure, I'd be in favor of 'em. Why not, as long as eligibility requirements were the same as for monogamous marriages?

If we are going to allow gays these rights based on their right to love and happiness we can't deny anyone else that right

The right to marry is based on Constitutional rights, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "the right to love and happiness."
Then again, the Constitution does not address each and every right we are entitled to; it only addresses the relatively short list of rights that our Federal government guarantees. For instance, US citizens have the right to paint our toilets purple. The US Constitution does not address that issue. the 14th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."




"

If the argument is "love is what is important" than it has to be of the same importance across the board.

Love is important--to people. But, it's irrelevant to the law. Whether or not 2 people love each other makes no legal difference.

[Act of God]

The right to marry is based on Constitutional rights, and has nothing whatsoever to do with "the right to love and happiness."
Then again, the Constitution does not address each and every right we are entitled to; it only addresses the relatively short list of rights that our Federal government guarantees. For instance, US citizens have the right to paint our toilets purple. The US Constitution does not address that issue. the 14th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

First of all, I was referring to people's arguments supporting gay marriage, not the legal basis of it.

Secondly, I think you need to go back to school or at least take a history class. The constitution serves to limit the government. It doesn't grant rights to anyone, nor can it be capable of. A government is incapable of giving what it does not possess. While I understand that you can wrongly assume so, that is not what the document is speaking of. The founding fathers declared that we are all born with certain rights and the constitution prevents a tyrannical government from taking them. They government doesn't allow us to have guns, "god" does. The constitution prevents the government taking them away from us (in theory).

Thirdly, there is no right to marriage (hetero, homo, poly, or otherwise). In fact, it is clearly stated that any power or jurisdiction specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people. As there is no mention of marriage in the constitution the federal government has no standing to make any laws, rules, encumbrances, or contracts regarding the same.

[DSM4Life]

First of all, I was referring to people's arguments supporting gay marriage, not the legal basis of it.

Secondly, I think you need to go back to school or at least take a history class. The constitution serves to limit the government. It doesn't grant rights to anyone, nor can it be capable of. A government is incapable of giving what it does not possess. While I understand that you can wrongly assume so, that is not what the document is speaking of. The founding fathers declared that we are all born with certain rights and the constitution prevents a tyrannical government from taking them. They government doesn't allow us to have guns, "god" does. The constitution prevents the government taking them away from us (in theory).

Thirdly, there is no right to marriage (hetero, homo, poly, or otherwise). In fact, it is clearly stated that any power or jurisdiction specifically given to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people. As there is no mention of marriage in the constitution the federal government has no standing to make any laws, rules, encumbrances, or contracts regarding the same.

Prepare for Tock's wrath !

[Act of God]

Prepare for Tock's wrath !

*Braces Himself*

This is just like the abortion issue. This resides outside the scope of the powers of the federal government and when we let them make rulings like this we are only allowing the power grab to continue. Hell, the whole constitution was based on apprehension of governmental power. These are issues that are meant to be left to the individual states and the residents therein.

That doesn't make me against gay rights or abortion (I support both).