election irony

[lucindrea]

anyone notice that wash. DC voted 90% for Kerry?!

ok think about this , all the elected gov officals are registered in their own state , so a sen. of Ill. is registered in ill. even the presdent is registered in and votes in tx ...  now who is registered in DC ? all the other people , the bartenders , the staff of all the gov buildings , the small buss. owners , the cops , firemen , all the prople that keep the city running , the secret service men and women , even the cleaning staff of the whitehouse , everyone that the gov. depends on who live and work in dc ... and 90% of them voted for kerry!!

kind of makes you wonder how the gov. treats their staff

[DrewKaree]

I'm guessing you feel that since there's so many people crowded in that little District, that they're more enlightened due to the fact that there's "so many more ideas going around with which to base a vote on".

Kinda makes you wonder how that place in the sticks, New York, DIDN'T go 90% for Kerry.

What's that whooshing noise?  Oh, nevermind....that was your inane theory and all the hot air it holds being released.

You may wish to see a plastic surgeon sometime soon, as your nose seems to be out of joint.

[lucindrea]

Kinda makes you wonder how that place in the sticks, New York, DIDN'T go 90% for Kerry.

well acctully ....  ( off cnn.com )


Bronx 100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 260,438 82%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 52,752 17%

Brooklyn 100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 468,403 74%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 156,612 25%

Queens 100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 393,482 71%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 155,363 28%

Manhattan  100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Kerry
 468,841 82%
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 95,362 17%

[Crazy Cooter]

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

D.C. is predominately African American.
Around 20% are below poverty level.

Those figures are a couple years old.

[lucindrea]

because i was looking at the numbers ... i just found this amusing

Dallas  100% of precincts reporting
Updated: 12:41 p.m. ET
   Bush
(Incumbent)
 345,482 50%
   Kerry
 335,871 49%

10k people .. that's the amount of people in 1 football staduim .. not allot in the grand scheme of things.

[Mameotron]

Warning!! About to launch into Dartful Dodger mode!!



Bush Won, Kerry lost.

Your statistics about how Kerry ALMOST won are pointless.

Get over it.

Oh, yeah, I love my Guns.

Edit:  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[DrewKaree]

That's simply AMAZING!  So you mean to tell me that in NY as well, that there are ~500,000 imbeciles that don't even know any better, that they should move out of there and move to "the middle of nowhere"?  That's simply amazing!

Hey, do you realize that without that half a mil you've just shown us - Bush would have only won the popular vote by 3 million?

Try swallowing that with some Brie.  I hear it'll go down better.  

It seems to me that you're working towards an admirable goal - you want to find the rose growing amidst the garbage dump refuse.  Keep it up, as it may be the only thing keeping you from the pretty white jackets that buckle up the back.

Anyone who's a fan of Pete Webber (don't worry, luc, it's a slack-jawed yokel who is at the top of his redneck sport of bowling) will know the motion required at this point.

[lucindrea]

like every election before , i truly dont care who wins , i have yet to see a single canidate who doesnt say whats expected of them , who will acctully do what they said they will do ( allot of that simply isnt up to them anyhow , it's congress and the house mostly ) , who doesnt spend more time "convincing" the senators and the house to vote for somthing if they give em somthing else etc ...

things you need to become presadent

you need $ , basicly you need to be born into it ..
you need to be really good at lieing
you need a good public relations team ( i.e make people think you really do care )

it's been said before , you will not see a decent hard working amercian in the white house , because the things you need to do to get even on the ballot of a primary , no decent hard working amercian would do.

the winner of any election is the guy with the most $ , the better pub. relations team , and the better speach writer.
issues are just what the speach writers base their speaches on , they really dont have much to do with how the guy ends up doing stuff when in office.

us elections have become "the lesser of 2 evils" .. it's been a long long time since we had a real election.

[DrewKaree]

I'm guessing you must live in "the middle of nowhere", as someone as "educated" as you try painting yourself to be surely wouldn't post without doing a little spell-checking and letting us think you were just a tad wacked in the head, posting all those spelling errors.

Normally it's not something I feel needs to be pointed out, but your pointy-headed obtuse nature requires it.

Even us slack-jawed yokels from B.F. Texas can see - ewe aint no goodly spellur.

So you wish to throw stones while not standing for a candidate.  Admirable  Perhaps you'll next tell us you're gonna "maybe" vote in the next election.

Hey, show me again on this here map where all the "exchange of ideas" is going on.  Seems as if even in those havens you view as part of the great idea-changing areas, they may have a different view than you.

[lucindrea]

hehe I never said I didn

[shmokes]

What a ridiculous map.  The majority of the red space on that map is almost completely unpopulated.

[namzep]

Drew, since you asked so nicely here it is.    The size of the dots in the counties indicates the average level of education of the population.  Kind of an interesting correlation going on there.

[mahuti]

Education shouldn't be the arbiter of intelligence. There's an old saying;

"A college degree is what you need if you lack intelligence, intelligence is what you need if you lack a college degree"

I will agree that there are MANY people that have used their college time to actively pursue and gain some knowledge. However, there are just as many that passed through the gates of my university that should have never been given a diploma. Often times people use their diploma as a way to substantiate their ignorance and closed mindedness, especially when they have none of the scruples required to live without the "degree" line on their resumes.

It's been said, "power corrupts." I think a more accurate statement is "power attracts the easily corruptible." I think a similar sentiment can be applied to education... it attracts those already predisposed to liberal thinking... not necessarily those that are naturally more intelligent.

What we saw in this election has been coming for some time. We saw a divide based on cultural attitude, not necessarily religion, education, or money. Many of the educated think that because they are educated, they know better how to guide their fellow man, and are somehow entitled to it. That's a very arrogant stance, and that's why it was repudiated.

Anyway, I'm one of the "educated" but I think I've learned much more about the important things in life from my very uneducated salt-of-the-earth grandparents and the rest of my relatives that live in the sticks. My degree was in design... really, how profound is that? How many other degrees include some sort of badge that proferrs some extra level of entitlement to "correct" thinking. Maybe the "moral philosophy" degree or a legal or medical degree? Even then, those degrees just show that someone is really good at jumping through hoops. It doesn't show that they are better suited to lead, or to choose who leads.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't think it's the degree that matters, rather it's the exposure to other ideas in a climate that promotes critical thinking. That's why a formal education is important. It's not just an "education" but it's "exposure."

If you have a diverse campus, then all the better. Most people will not experience that type of thing otherwise. I think the majority of people coming out of a university experience, with a proper education, are generally going to be more tolerant, more observant, and more apt to gain wisdom from their everyday experiences.

[mahuti]

Like living in a christian conservative community, the main point of exposure provided at a university is one-sided. The opinion of the one-side assumes it is the correct side... if you don't agree with that side you are "closed-minded"  So perhaps by attending a university, you are opened to liberal thinking, but that is not necessarily "critical thinking" it's just a different way of thinking. Realistically, I don't think there are many campuses that really avail people of a diverse political view. There may be people of different political parties, ethnicities, and races, but that in itself does not promote diversity or clarity of thought processes.

People are all different. I think the other side of the university coin you mention is that people that go to a university will be less open to ideas, assuming that they've already experienced everything required to "be knowledgeful" because of their exposure to the well thought-out ideas and maxims of their professors.

I don't think that an education makes people more open to gaining wisdom from life either, per se. That is something you have to do when life forces itself on you, education or no. And as far as tolerance... that is a concept that only applies to people that tolerate the same thing you do. I've often been exposed to open minded & tolerant people that are absolutely vitriolic when confronted with a different point of view, especially if that view happens to be inspired by religion or condems it (depending on which side of the fence they stand.)

Basically, what i'm saying is... an education does not make an enlightened man. An education requires that people follow a process to it's completion. That in itself does not prove enlightement. I think it's a spurious argument to say that someone is automatically better equipped to make decisions because of what they've been exposed to. I've never been exposed to radiation, cocaine addiction, statistics classes, the european driving experience, hot air ballooning, and I don't think that makes me less able to think critically, or decide what is best for me and my family.

Education absolutely does not equal entitlement. Nor does it infer that someone is better than someone else.

[TA Pilot]

Drew, since you asked so nicely here it is.    The size of the dots in the counties indicates the average level of education of the population.  Kind of an interesting correlation going on there.

I thnk this is a population map.

[Crazy Cooter]

If it was a population map, and the vote was split about 50/50, wouldn't the areas of the circles for the blue and the red be about equal?  I'm not about to start counting them, but it's obvious to me that they're not.

Where did that pic originate?

[allroy1975]

amazing that people think how people voted has anything to do with intelligence, unless you think like I think now...That everyone who voted for bush are stupid god fearing people.  Well, at least we've put off the floods for a while....for the love of god I hope the gays can't get married.

This is the 1 issue that really gets me.  I'm not gay.  

Can someone explain to me why gay people have different RIGHTS than straight people do?  Because the bible says homosexuality is an abomination?  hmm...well, I don't beleive in your bible.  I went to a catholic grade school and I seem to remember that people left other countries to come to the "new world" (that's what they referred to it as in grade school) to get away from people who were opressing their religious freedoms.  But I guess the gays should just know that they're horrible beings (people have rights..like marriage...but gays don't...so ....are they still people?) and kill themselvs....but thats a sin too...so I just don't know.

And speaking of religious wackos....let me get this straight....Welfare is bad...right?  because jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"  I may be paraphrasing there...because these losers milking the system need to buck up and take responsibility for themselves.  They need to raise their children the "right" way.  And...we need to ban gay marriage, because then your kids will see it and think it's acceptable.  So we need the government to ban that for us because we can't tell our kids they're abominations ourselves if they end up being gay.

I hate these people.  I haven't been sleeping well since this last election.  I get all riled up like this and I start going off like Bevis jacked up on coffee and sugar.

Stupid or intelligent isn't the issue.  Educated or uneducated isn't the issue.

I think the issue is are these people open minded enough to think about other people, and their lives/lifestyles.  All the Bush people care about is themselves.  Their kids aren't dying.  Their kids aren't being oppressed.  All they know is that god said voting for someone who's pro-abortion (and check the last time a republican did someting to try to outlaw abortion...they're not ANTI abortion....they can just SAY they are and then people go....Okay....duh) is a SIN!  If the church says it, that's god saying it right?  god wrote the bible?  it's the "inspired word of god"?

It's all too wishy washy for me.  Drives me nuts thinking about how straight people are against gay marriage.  I think from now on if there's a "Straight issue" only the gays should be allowed to vote on it.  Or at least 10 gay votes to ever 1 straight vote.  The problem is...the gay people I've known in my life seem a little nicer and more open minded and they'd still probably make the right choice!

Whatever....close minded ......grumble grumble..... <---hehe...I sound like that little guy in Zelda....remember him?  heheh

Anyway..it's late and I just ranted...so I'm too tired to go back and make sure it's not offensive to anyone.....but I can't imagine being offended...so...I'd probably be a bad censor anyway.


I have no idea what I've said so I can't be held responsible (how american!) and I hope it doesn't get me banned from the boards!  

Allroy

[DrewKaree]

I'm not giving you a pass or anything, because you have some strongly held beliefs, and I know once you get started writing, it's hard to stop the "train of thought" once you get it moving.  I'm only gonna point out some things that don't match up - meaning they seem to address the issue, but due to how the law works currently, don't actually address the problems.

Also, I noticed that you don't have a bias or opinion, as you said here:

...unless you think like I think now...That everyone who voted for bush are stupid god fearing people.

I went to a catholic grade school and I seem to remember that people left other countries to come to the "new world" (that's what they referred to it as in grade school) to get away from people who were opressing their religious freedoms.

I don't know which book you are referring to, but the book I read where they were speaking of the "new world"....they were looking for spices or some such thing.  You may have read a different (read: newer) version than I had.  They were sent by people who believed rather remarkably similar ideas as they did.

And speaking of religious wackos....let me get this straight....Welfare is bad...right?  because jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"  I may be paraphrasing there...because these losers milking the system need to buck up and take responsibility for themselves.

I'm thinking these words all belong together, but I'm not positive.  So the "religious wackos" should read Jesus' words to "do unto others", and that should be their logic to accepting welfare?

While living in Jesus' day, those less fortunate in society were taken care of by the church.  Do people abuse the church to get by?  Certainly.  You've missed in your assessment the fact that religious people believe that it is still up to the church, and that the abuse of the system is something that government FOSTERS.  It also is something the government doesn't give anyone the choice on.  It's done.  Period.  The point of disagreement is that it's the government's job to do something about it.  

Your view that "religious wackos" believe welfare is bad seems predicated on the notion that those same "wackos" don't care about their fellow man and are too ignorant to take what Jesus said to mean that welfare is good.  Those "wackos" see the continuing erosion of anything relatied to religion and see the abuse of current systems in place.  They add up what they see, and can easily see looking after your fellow man is increasinly becoming an impersonal non-caring process - Loving your neighbor as Christ commanded has no place in "welfare".  If you have any doubt about this, I implore you to visit your local AFDC office.

What most "wackos" would base their welfare views on are this, which does not refer to those who cannot do for themselves
_{"We hear that some among you are idle.  They are not busy; they are busybodies.  Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."}
Do with that what you may.

So we need the government to ban that for us

They need to work within the legal system.  Would you have them do otherwise?  If the church could do these things themselves, they may have.  There are also churches that most certainly would NOT.  By working within the law, the choice of the people is considered - using government, as you see it.  

I hate these people.

although they don't hate you (although some fringe element DOES), didn't you ask them to follow the "do unto others as they've done to you"?  Intolerance works both ways.

I think the issue is are these people open minded enough to think about other people, and their lives/lifestyles.

By open minded, do you mean to imply that you're open minded enough to think about those "religious wackos" and their lives/lifestyles?  I ask that, because the majority of the vote on the issue went against it.  Are you open minded enough to consider that a majority of the people voting on this might have points you haven't considered, or points you may agree with?  I ask because "open-minded" doesn't seem to be, by your definition.  You have stated that you believe these people haven't opened their mind, but the words "hate", "wackos", and your general attitude belie a definite opposition to doing the same towards their way of thinking.

All the Bush people care about is themselves.  Their kids aren't dying.  Their kids aren't being oppressed.

I'm sure this is the emotion speaking.  To believe Bush voters don't have children dying sounds quite emotional.  They aren't being killed for their sexual orientation, but they give their lives to defend the right of those oriented differently than they to argue about this subject in the first place.  Oppressed?  The last time I checked, gays were allowed the opportunites anyone else was...except the right to marriage.  

All they know is that god said voting for someone who's pro-abortion (and check the last time a republican did someting to try to outlaw abortion...they're not ANTI abortion....they can just SAY they are and then people go....Okay....duh) is a SIN!

again, I believe it's the emotion.  You'd have to find that justification in a book you don't believe in.  That's quite simply not in there, it's an opinion you believe about "those wackos".  To vote for someone isn't a sin.  Honestly, if you believe those "wackos" are so "by the letter", then you'll also believe (and sorry, this comes from a book you don't believe, you'll just have to take my word on it) that they believe that leaders and teachers of the law will be judged more harshly when the time comes to face judement, and that they're just "trying to help bring less judgement down on them".    Sound silly?  It is.

If the church says it, that's god saying it right?  god wrote the bible?  it's the "inspired word of god"?

No, it isn't God saying it if the church says it.  The other two are correct for a lot of religions, but again, you lump every religion into a pile.  Also, please see the "harsher judgement" thing.  I'm not positive, and I'm sorry to use the religion you were raised with, but I don't recall any bible saying that sodomizing little children is a godly act.  I am not well versed in NAMBLA's doctrine, but it seems as if that IS something they believe in.  

I think from now on if there's a "Straight issue" only the gays should be allowed to vote on it.  Or at least 10 gay votes to ever 1 straight vote.

Again, emotion, as I don't believe you'd agree with only "pro-smokestack" people voting on "pro-smokestack" issues.  While you may think these are two different things, your idea to have only those who would predominantly agree on an issue be the final say is the same as my example.  

The reason you would put something up for a vote would be to have it accepted by a majority.  To have the minority be the final voice is to circumvent the "will of the people".  I may not always agree with the vote, but that's why we have a voice, a vote, and the ability to speak our minds to work to sway public opinion the next time it comes up.

...but I can't imagine being offended

While I'm not offended, and you've offered the lateness of the hour as your "out", to think that on such a controversial topic you can't imagine offending someone is to demonstrate that you are NOT, in fact, as "open-minded" as you'd like to think you are.  Please don't take this as a slam, I'm just pointing out something I don't think you considered.

[allroy1975]

The problem with me writing lots of stuff on a rant like that is I say a lot of stuff..then you come back point by point..and then I get lazy and quit reading it.  I think I got through most of it, but I don't feel like responding to anything but the last point.  

Is there something you could say that's so horrible that I would be "offended"?  Simply put:  No.

Everyone has the right to think whatever they want.  If you think I'm a Smelly bag o dookie, that's fine.  It's your right.  I can see it.  I have my bad points and if someone doesn't like me or agree with what I think, that's totally up to them to feel and express.  If someone wants to talk to me about a porno movie or anything else, I will not take offense.  I may be stunned by their doing so, but offended?  to think that I'm so perfect that everyone should think and feel like me, and be able to read my thoughts and blah blah blah...that's just stupid.  People just need to lighten up and consider other people.  

Whatever..I have to go hang shelves or my old lady will kill me.

Allroy

[Grasshopper]

Allroy, I agree that the whole 'gay marriage' issue does expose Bush's hypocrisy. On the one hand he continually bangs on about promoting 'freedom' around the world, but then goes to extraordinary lenghts to deny a minority in his own country a basic right enjoyed by the majority.

I would assume that changing the US constitution requires a lot of time and effort. Bush's attempt to push through a constitutional bar to gay marriage smacks of vindictiveness, and makes me question his priorities.

Democracy is not about 51% of the population having absolute control over the remaining 49%. It's about give and take, and compromise. Granting gay people the right to marry would have no significant effect on the straight majority. So why not give them that right? I just don't get it. What happened to the principle of 'live and let live'? Isn't that what America 'the great melting pot' is all about?

Actually I would go further. I would like to see the right to 'marriage' extended to people in non-sexual but dependant relationships, for example a brother and sister living together. I don't have a strong opinion on whether such relationships should be called 'marriage' but they should definitely be legally equivalent to marriage.

[mahuti]

Playing devil's advocate... Gay people have the same rights as straits. A gay man CAN marry a woman. A gay woman can marry a man. A strait man cannot marry a strait man, a gay man cannot marry a gay man. The issue is "same sex marriage" not sexual orientation. That's probably what it really comes down to... I'm not naive enough to think that the people screaming for same sex marriage are all a bunch of straits that need health care.

Anyway, I do agree that a constitutional ban seems stupid, and a waste of time... this is an issue that should be left up to the states. Unfortunately, since ALL states have to observe marriages given in other states, it must become a national issue.

It's a pretty big issue, regardless of sexuality. It opens the door to a lot of issues, law, money, inheritance, family. I can see why people are so vehement on both sides of the issue.  I think it trivializes the issue putting it down to only a religious & moral one, though... regardless of who's doing it, Bush, or the same-sex camp. Like the other 3rd rail issues, Social Security, medical law & health insurance, and the tax code, the whole marriage thing is something that should really be examined, but is difficult. Arbitrarily changing the structure of a legal system that has been in practice for thousands of years, really should have some thought behind it.

[TA Pilot]

If it was a population map, and the vote was split about 50/50, wouldn't the areas of the circles for the blue and the red be about equal?  I'm not about to start counting them, but it's obvious to me that they're not.

Depends on the scale of the circles.

[TA Pilot]

Can someone explain to me why gay people have different RIGHTS than straight people do?

Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege.  It is defined by the state as the people of the stae would have it.    

Plainly, the people want marriage defined as a union of a man and woman.

[Zakk]

Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege.  

Dang, and I thought it was a union under God.  Sure glad the goverment can straighten that out.  Can they get rid of a few of the commandments too?  It would make things a lot more fun.

[allroy1975]

Marriage isnt a right - its a privilege.  

Dang, and I thought it was a union under God.  Sure glad the goverment can straighten that out.  Can they get rid of a few of the commandments too?  It would make things a lot more fun.

If they could get rid of that whole "not stealing" thing, I'd sleep a lot better at night.  Oh, who am I kidding....every program on my PC is legit.  and those mp3s too!  

Allroy

[mahuti]

Marriage isn't a privelege. It is a right. Priveleges get revoked. Not rights. When's the last time you heard of someone losing the "privelege" of getting married.

As far as the marriage being a union under god, that CAN be true, but that isn't its purpose under the law. (course, I don't really understand why the state should decide what is and isn't a marriage... I guess it makes it easier to sort things out with familiy issues & with death.)

[TA Pilot]

Dang, and I thought it was a union under God.  

Silly you.

Marriage is a creature of the state.  State laws define it.  If there were no state laws to define it, it would not exist as a legal entity.   Oh sure, you could still get 'married' in a church, but it would hold no -legal- weight.  

Since it is a creature of the state, and would not ecist if not for the legal construct that created it, it is a privilige, not a right.   Right, by definition, are not created by the state, they pre-exist it.

The reason no marriage has been revoked is because the current laws do not allow for such a thing.  They very certainly could --  thus again, a privilige. not a right.

[mahuti]

Marriage pre-existed the state.

[TA Pilot]

Marriage pre-existed the state.

Yes - marriage before God.   Anyone can have that anytime they want, with anyone they want, right now.

Marriage as a legal entity is another issue.  Its an entity created by the state, defined in its laws.

[Mameotron]

and at midnight I

[shmokes]

TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever.  Does that mean the right to an attorney came before the state?  How about the right to a speedy jury trial?  There is more than one type of right.  I think you're talking about natural rights.  But the state, obviously, can create rights.  Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment.  I very much doubt that we have a natural right to sit at the front of the bus.  But pass a law saying black people have to stand at the back and you're going to run into some problems with the constitution.

The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.  Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate and its absurdity becomes apparent.  Imagine a law requiring that everyone has to pee standing up.  The law would be enforced and applied the same to everyone.  In effect, of course, the law would discriminate against women (and handicapped).  

It's like passing a law that says everyone has to vote republican and then claiming that the law is fair because republicans are bound by the same new voting restrictions  as democrats.  Misguided at best.  More likely disingenuous and hateful.

[Crazy Cooter]

Whether a right or a priviledge, it's the ramifications of denying it that is in question.  Consider this:

Man1 marries woman1.  They have a kid and get divorced.  Man1 dies, woman1 meets woman2 and they live together 10 years as a couple.  Then woman1 dies.  Who gets the kid?  If woman1 had married man2, chances are good that the court would allow man2 to keep the kid.  Since she did not "marry" anyone, woman2 has zero rights to the kid.  Should she?

Now suppose instead of a kid, it's money, real estate etc.

It makes sense to me to just call it a marriage across the boards.  Done deal.  Avoids all the crap about defining civil unions and all the jazz that would follow.  Marriage isn't some sacred entity.  It's a piece of paper, some metal rings, and a pile of legal mumbo-jumbo.  That's it.  What that stuff "means" is defined by the people it joined.  Some people are monogomous, some people are swingers, some are cheaters, some get divorced.  How is any of this sacred?  I don't think we can tell a couple of chicks they can't get married anymore than we can tell a guy and girl they can't get divorced.

[Mameotron]

Granting gay people the right to marry would have no significant effect on the straight majority.

Only that it devalues what straight people call marriage.


Look, if you work hard for 7 years and finally are awarded your PhD, how would you feel if I ordered my PhD online and got it instantly?  Does it really have no effect on you or the value of your PhD?

[shmokes]

What a spurious comparison.

It doesn't devalue your marriage.  The value of your marriage as far as the state is concerned is $50 for a marriage license and the rights, such as filing taxes jointly, inheritence, decision making, etc. that go along with it.  

If your gay neighbor gets married the "value" of your marriage is unaffected.  Even from a religious context, your ability to get into heaven, if your religion requires that you be married or celebate, is not affected by whether or not gays are granted civil marriages.  And if there were a conflict it would be up to your religion to make sure you got the proper religious marriage to get into heaven, not up to the state to make sure that its civil marriage proceedures covered all your bases.  

[mahuti]

Personally, I don't care who marries who... but I think you have to admit, when you think of the gamut of social, legal, and monetary issues affected by a change in what's allowable as a legal marriage, it should have some thought and discussion behind it.

The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

[TA Pilot]

TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever

And yet, its the theory upon which our govenrment is based.  Inalienable rights, endowed by the creator.



But the state, obviously, can create rights.

No.  The state gets its power from us, where we cede some of our rights to it.  It cannot give to us what we did not already have.



Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps...  but then, no one's privelege is being denied.  Gays still have the ability to marry.  



The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

People have always been limited as to whom they can be married.  These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage.  Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?

Why?



Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate....

Psst....   I dont hate gays.
But then, liberals charatcerize anyone that disagrees with them as a 'hater', so I guess I'l ignore the insinuation - its a genetic trait with you guys, and you can't help it.

[TA Pilot]

Man1 marries woman1.  They have a kid and get divorced.  Man1 dies, woman1 meets woman2 and they live together 10 years as a couple.  Then woman1 dies.  Who gets the kid?

Did W2 adopt the kid?   If not, then not W2.


If woman1 had married man2, chances are good that the court would allow man2 to keep the kid.

Did M2 adopt the kid?  Then probably he wont.



I don't think we can tell a couple of chicks they can't get married anymore than we can tell a guy and girl they can't get divorced.

Why stop there?
Why not 4 guys and 6 girls?

[patrickl]

The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

People have always been limited as to whom they can be married.  These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage.  Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?

Why?

Why? Because people aren't as ignorant as they were a millenium ago. Homosexuality was considered a disease or choice a hunderd years ago. Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

[TA Pilot]

Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.

So, how about 5 men and 4 women?

Any reason why they should not all be allowed to marry one another?

[allroy1975]

I just wanted to point out that I love it when people tell me I'm closed minded because I don't agree with them.  I can see their point of view...I understand that you read this one book that says all this stuff and you eat it up hook, line and sinker.  I'm asking that you look outside that book...other things have happened in the last 2000 years...

I can see that it's one set of ideas that doesn't affect you.  You're not gay (at least your book says you can't be, so you pretend you're not) so what do you care?

Can anyone tell me why same sex marriages should be illegle?

and I swear if you tell me it will demoralise our country...I insist that you quit this stupid crusade and go on one against MTV.

Allroy

[Dexter]

Can anyone tell me why same sex marriages should be illegle?

Allroy

I can tell you they shouldn't be illegal. What we're moving towards in europe more and more is the idea of a civil union between two gays thats legally binding and gives both people the same benefits and protection as a hetrosexual marriage. They're not seen to be married in the eyes of God, but as they're both sinners   anyway (crap of course), I wouldn't imagine this matters enough to put many off the idea.

I can't see anything wrong with this. There are people being left homeless when their partners die because they have no claim by law on their home, which they would have if they had been allowed to marry their partner. It's a disgrace. A civil union would prevent this discrimination from happening.

Dexter

[patrickl]

Nowadays people know better so you would change rules that were based on those outdated beliefs.

So, how about 5 men and 4 women?

Any reason why they should not all be allowed to marry one another?

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

[TA Pilot]

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

You arent answering the question.

if you want to change the (long-accepted) definition of marraige (against the will of the vast majority of the people) to include 2 people of the same gender, what argument is there to exclude a marriage of numerous people of the same and different gender?

You aren't answering the question because you find it annyoying, you arent answering it because you dont like where the answer leads.  

[Grasshopper]

Your "eliza" approach to discussing is getting boring. Of course you can ask random questions to divert from the original question, but it doesn't prove a point. It's only annoying.

You arent answering the question.

if you want to change the (long-accepted) definition of marraige (against the will of the vast majority of the people) to include 2 people of the same gender, what argument is there to exclude a marriage of numerous people of the same and different gender?

You aren't answering the question because you find it annyoying, you arent answering it because you dont like where the answer leads.  

TA, presumably you are aware that Mormon and Muslim men have traditionally been allowed to have more than one wife?

[GGKoul]

TA, the reason groups of people can't marry one person because a person is married to 1 spouse.  Not a group of spouses.

The issue is why a person can't marry a same sex spouse.  


Also, how's your BYOAC project coming along?  Feel free to email me directly should have has any questions.

Be sure to post updates in the Project Announcements section.

[Crazy Cooter]

"Only that it devalues what straight people call marriage.

Look, if you work hard for 7 years and finally are awarded your PhD, how would you feel if I ordered my PhD online and got it instantly?  Does it really have no effect on you or the value of your PhD? "

Has divorce devalued what straight people call marriage?
If the PhD is marriage, what are you comparing the 7 years to?  I'm not seeing the parallelism.

[shmokes]

TA, that's the worst definition of rights ever

And yet, its the theory upon which our govenrment is based.  Inalienable rights, endowed by the creator.



But the state, obviously, can create rights.

No.  The state gets its power from us, where we cede some of our rights to it.  It cannot give to us what we did not already have.



Anyway, labeling something a "privelege" instead of a right doesn't shield it from the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps...  but then, no one's privelege is being denied.  Gays still have the ability to marry.  



The idea that gays and straights have the same rights because both a gay and a straight man can marry a woman and neither can marry a man is retarded.

People have always been limited as to whom they can be married.  These limitations always been an inherent part of marriage.  Suddenly, these limitations are a problem?

Why?



Apply that line of reasoning to a group that you don't hate....

Psst....   I dont hate gays.
But then, liberals charatcerize anyone that disagrees with them as a 'hater', so I guess I'l ignore the insinuation - its a genetic trait with you guys, and you can't help it.

TA, Why don't you try to have an honest debate.  In each of the lines you responded to you completely left out, and did not respond to, the supporting arguments that accompanied those lines in my post.

[GGKoul]

No please no more debate.  I thought the title was Election Irony, not same sex marriage.

[DrewKaree]

No please no more debate.  I thought the title was Election Irony, not same sex marriage.

I thought this was about the state our President hails from and the difference between steers and ....the other one  

Here, just to add to the ignorance - according to MrC's "Purple America", this past election was split right down the middle, even in those states Bush "cleaned Kerry's clock" in.  The states that had the Gay Marriage proposals on the ballot - let me walk you through it now - 51% Bush, 48% Kerry, and the "against Gay Marriage" thing passed by, on average, 70%.  So I guess some of those who were against Bush were also against Gay marriage.

I anxiously await the reply that explains how I'm wrong and that this was all just a Religious Jihad on America by the religious right-wing neocon wackjobs.  Will some Mother Jones subscriber explain it to me - and talk down to me, remember, I'm part of the idiot majority

[TA Pilot]

TA, presumably you are aware that Mormon and Muslim men have traditionally been allowed to have more than one wife?

Not in the United States.

If men can marry men, then why not 5 men and 6 women, all married to one another?

Again, it comes down to the fact that marriage is a creature of the state, and the people of the state have the right to define marriage as they choose.  They choose to define is as man+woman.

You disagree with that choice.  Fine.  
Your only recourse is to change peoples' minds.
Good luck with that.



TA, the reason groups of people can't marry one person because a person is married to 1 spouse.  Not a group of spouses.

Why cant a person have more than one spouse?
If you're going to change one basic definition of marriage -man + woman - then what argument is there agianst changing another basic defintion - men + women ?


"Also, how's your BYOAC project coming along?  Feel free to email me directly should have has any questions."

Clearly, you dont pay attention to the posts here.

[allroy1975]

How many states had same sex marriages on the ballot?

what?  11?  yep.  I see it now.  

So the catholic church didn't send out information on how voting for john kerry is a sin in all areas of the country?  I heard the government is actually considering taking away their "tax free" status because of how they behaved in the last election.  

Do you not beleive that there were a lot of people who are not happy with the current president who voted for him anyway because they're afraid that performing the sin of voting for someone else that they went ahead and voted for him?

BTW, Statements were issued to the news media as well as published in parish bullitins in St. Louis talking about how Kerry was a sin.

stupid majority.....you know...just cuz britney spears has a #1 record doesn't mean it's any good.  It verifies that the majority is stupid.

Allroy

[TA Pilot]

stupid majority.....you know...just cuz britney spears has a #1 record doesn't mean it's any good.  It verifies that the majority is stupid


Yes.
And Josn Kerry woud have won, had you called these people "stupid" about 10 million more times.

You guys really dont get it, do you?   Trying to pass yourself off as someones cultural and intellectual better is NOT going to win you elections.

But hey - keep it up.  It will simply be the doom of your party.

[shmokes]

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.  I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Arguing with you wouldn't be nearly so tedious if you would BOOKMARK THIS PAGE.  It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

[Dartful Dodger]

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.  I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Arguing with you wouldn't be nearly so tedious if you would BOOKMARK THIS PAGE.  It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

It's like arguing with the Bush haters.

That's some election irony.

[shmokes]

It's like arguing

Hardly.  It's more like talking to a wall.

with the Bush haters.

That's not even a complete sentence.  How am I supposed to respond to that.

That's some election iron

An election iron?  Is that supposed to get the wrinkles out of an election?

y

I don't speak spanish.

[TA Pilot]

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.

It is?

ALL of the arguments that apply to a male-male marriage apply to a 5 male+6 female marriage.

Why isnt anyone supporting the idea of making such a thing legal?



I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Indeed.
Do you suppose said slippery slope has something to do with the widespread opposition to gay marraige?  

Marriage has held the same definition for centirues.  The argument now is that it should be changed because consenting adults should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.  This argument applies not just to gay marriages but multiple marriages as well.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  



It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

Given much of the blather within many of those posts, I try to cull the chaff and respond to the wheat.  The full quotes are available on this page for citation, if someone thinks I have taken them out of context.

[shmokes]

Well....maybe they should be able to get married.  Maybe if polygamists didn't have such a nasty habit of forcing girls into marriages or marrying 13 year old girls they wouldn't have such a bad stigma.  Or maybe there are practical reasons to limit it such as the exponential complications of divorce and custody and inheritence, etc. that might be introduced.  Who knows?

Either way, that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about the fact that the state currently has a law that allows two adults to merge into a single legal unit so they can share things like health insurance coverage and child raising and so on, but that the state is drawing restrictions along religious lines to exclude gays.  Maybe people SHOULD be able to marry dogs.  But gays aren't dogs.  They're people.  Maybe I should be able to marry 1000 people at the same time.  But that's not what we're talking about.  It's possible for someone to say, "Yeah....it makes sense to extend (or rather cease withholding if you prefer) that right to gays," without saying, "There should be no limits on how the institution of marriage can be used."

That's what makes a slippery slope so useful TA (as you are clearly aware).  Instead of answering the question at hand you simply avoid it by asking a bunch of other barely related (if at all) questions.  The next time someone asks you why gays should not be allowed to marry, try actually answering the question.  Either you'll change your mind, or you'll develop some valid arguments.  Either would be an improvement over your current position.  Here are some answers that are not valid:

- Because they've never been allowed to get married.

- Because 70% of people say they shouldn't  (Remember...the world isn't flat -- the operative words in the question are "should not")

- Because I don't want to have to see it.

- Because god hates a [gay person] (Damned autocensor).

- Because what's next?  Pedophilia?  Bestiality?  Polygamy?  We've got to draw a line somewhere so why not arbitrarily draw it at gays (rather than at pedophilia, bestiality or polygamy)?

[saint]

I see nothing wrong with multiple adults getting married. It falls under the category of "What consenting adults do that doesn't hurt someone else is none of my business." In no way, shape, or form does it threaten my marriage or well being.

The reason no one is bringing it up is there (apparently) is no statistically significant group of people who wish those rights who are being denied them.

If such an issue did arise there would certainly be questions to answer (such as: do survivor benefits get split equally between all the spouses?) but I can't think of any show stoppers. It is likely that I would vote to approve such a measure.

--- saint

TA, nobody is answering your question because it is so inane.

It is?

ALL of the arguments that apply to a male-male marriage apply to a 5 male+6 female marriage.

Why isnt anyone supporting the idea of making such a thing legal?



I know that you are fully educated enough to know a slippery slope when you see one.

Indeed.
Do you suppose said slippery slope has something to do with the widespread opposition to gay marraige?  

Marriage has held the same definition for centirues.  The argument now is that it should be changed because consenting adults should be able to do what they want, so long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.  This argument applies not just to gay marriages but multiple marriages as well.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  



It would also be nice if you would respond to people's posts holistically instead of pulling out each of the parts so you can beat them down out of context.  

Given much of the blather within many of those posts, I try to cull the chaff and respond to the wheat.  The full quotes are available on this page for citation, if someone thinks I have taken them out of context.

[TA Pilot]

Maybe if polygamists didn't have such a nasty habit of forcing girls into marriages or marrying 13 year old girls they wouldn't have such a bad stigma.  Or maybe there are practical reasons to limit it such as the exponential complications of divorce and custody and inheritence, etc. that might be introduced.  Who knows?

Interesting.
What would you say if I were to use these arguments, or those similar, against gay marriage?


We're talking about the fact that the state currently has a law that allows two adults to merge into a single legal unit so they can share things like health insurance coverage and child raising and so on, but that the state is drawing restrictions along religious lines to exclude gays.

Thats exactly right.

Because the state has determined that in order to receive the benefits of the privilege of marriage, you have to meet certain critera.  One of those criteria is that one of the people be a man and the other a woman.

You can argue all you want that the state --should-- define marriage in some other way, but you have to convince the majority of the people that they want it that way.

Good luck.

Note too that the cruix of the biscuit is the right of a state to define marriage as it sees fit and not have the laws or courts of another state forcing them to accept an alternate definition.  In specific, a state court in MA cannot carry more legal wright in the state of Ohio than the constiitution of the state of Ohio.

This is why states have amended their constitution to this end, and why there is a federal amendment in the works.



It's possible for someone to say, "Yeah....it makes sense to extend (or rather cease withholding if you prefer) that right to gays," without saying, "There should be no limits on how the institution of marriage can be used."

EXCEPT that the basis of the argument - that consenting adults should be allowed to marry, regardless - equally applies to the polygamist as to the gay.  IF the argument is valid for the latter then it is valid for the former; if you accept one argument, there's no way to not accpet the other.

And at that point, marriage as an institution loses all meaning.

One has to wonder if -that- is the ultimate goal of the left.

[patrickl]

Dear lord, are people still reding this thread?

[shmokes]

by the way...i added a bunch of stuff to my last post and you were likely in the process of replying while i was modifying so you wouldn't have seen it.  just an fyi.

[saint]

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.

Marriage is a bond between two people who form a family unit. My relationship with my wife is no more affected by two same sex people forming a bond than it is by the staggering number of heterosexual couple who are getting divorced. My love for my wife is not affected by two other people loving or hating one another. Anyone whose relationship could be altered because of the relationship of two other people should be seriously questioning the strength and validity of their own relationship, not looking askew at someone else's.

To say that a gay marriage cheapens a heterosexual's marriage implies some sort of scarcity of available marriage partners or some kind of strange competition. I don't understand that thinking at all. There's not a limited number of marriages allowed per year. A gay marriage doesn't suddenly make fewer partners available for heterosexual people (they were never available in the first place, married or not).

Does the marriage of two gay people suddenly make my marriage to my wife less valued in the eyes of the church or God? If so, why? My committment and love for my wife hasn't changed, why should its value in the eyes of the church or God? Gay people getting married doesn't make me go to church less, pray less, have less faith. If your belief and faith can be changed by the actions of someone else, it's your faith that has an issue, not the actions of the other person.

Does a marriage of two gay people suddenly change the value of my marriage to the state? Does the amount of taxes I pay suddenly change? Do I, as a heterosexual married man, suddenly become a threat to society because a gay couple gets married? If not, then how exactly does a gay marriage undermine my marriage?

The family unit in America is not being threatened by gay people. It's being threatened by people getting married on a whim, the staggering heterosexual divorce rate, parents who aren't involved in the lives of their children, and other issues that are clearly on the shoulders of heterosexual, often (but not always) church-going people. These people aren't necessarily evil, but when looking for the cause of some of the major ills in this country, hold up a mirror before holding up a pointing finger.

As a side note, gay people getting married are for the most part taking themselves out of the gene pool. (For the record, I believe a faithfully married gay couple should be allowed to adopt children, have children via artificial means, etc.  This last comment was tongue-in-cheek for the anti-gay-marriage crowd).

--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

[shmokes]

I think, TA, that all of this stuff: States rights, the institution of marriage losing it's "meaning" all stems from your seeming inability to separate marriage as an institution of the state from marriage as a religious institution.  

The full faith and credit clause is in the constitution for the express purpose of making a Michigan Supreme Court ruling supercede Ohio's constitution.  If I go to Ohio they are required by federal law to recognize my marriage, in spite of the fact that I got married in Utah so I didn't have to have any blood tests done (for argument let's say that Ohio requires them -- many states do).  

The reason that conservatives need an amendment to the U.S. constitution is that all of these state laws and amendments being passed clearly violate the U.S. Constitution.  As long as you consider marriage an institution of the state you can't get around full faith and credit.  As soon as you consider it an institution of religion it's unconstitutional with or without a ban on gay marriages.

[shmokes]

Y'all are skirting the separation of church and state issue pretty close with your "protect the sanctity" campaign.

Sanctity -

   1.  Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
   2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
   3. Something considered sacred.

Sacred -

   1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
   2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
   3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
   4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
   5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
   6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.


edit: definitions courtesy of www.dictionary.com

[TA Pilot]

To say that a gay marriage cheapens a heterosexual's marriage...

But thats not the argument I'm making.



"I think, TA, that all of this stuff: States rights, the institution of marriage losing it's "meaning" all stems from your seeming inability to separate marriage as an institution of the state from marriage as a religious institution.

Thats a very interesting position, given that I haven't mentioned marriage as a religious institution.

If you want to be married 'before God' thats wonderful - do so.    Man+man, woman+woman, 6 men+4 women+goat - if you thinkl God is OK with that, then gettt married before Him.

But unless that marriage also follows the laws of the state, then its not valid.



"The full faith and credit clause is in the constitution for the express purpose of making a Michigan Supreme Court ruling supercede Ohio's constitution."

Abso-LUTE-ly false.

The FF+CC has everyting to do with states having to recognize contracts, licenses, etc issued by one state.  This stems from a weakness of the Articles of Confederation that had no such provision.  States would refuse to recognize all kinds of things.  This was seen as a problem, and the FF+CC was added.

NOTHING in the FF+CC was EVER intended to let a court in one state to force another state to recognize something illegal in th at state.  There NO way you can do that.

Look at it like this:
The OHSC says its legal to mount a machinegun to my truck and drive around the state.  Your're arguing that CA, where machineguns are illegal, is forced to recognize the OHSC ruling and allow me to do something in CA that the people of CA cannot do.

Doesnt work that way.



" If I go to Ohio they are required by federal law to recognize my marriage"

Actually, they are required by the FF+CC.  Federal law says that if yours is a same-sex marriage, Ohio does NOT have to recognize it.



"The reason that conservatives need an amendment to the U.S. constitution is that all of these state laws and amendments being passed clearly violate the U.S. Constitution"

No.  They dont.  There's nothing in the Constitution that protects marriage, gay or otherwise.  OH can define marriage however it sees fit -- in fact, OH can even dissolve the institution completely, and there's nothing the Fed Gcmnt can do about it.



"As long as you consider marriage an institution of the state you can't get around full faith and credit."

And here, you make my case.  The amendment is to protect the right of the state to define marriage as is chooses, without having to be bound by the laws of another state - especially law created by the bench

[allroy1975]

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.
.......
--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

I didn't want to use all that space just to quote the message....

I just wanted to let you know, Saint, I'm even happier now that I bought your book and hopefully helped support you a little bit.  I wear my BYOAC hat everywhere I go and every time I tell someone about my mame cabs, I tell them to visit your site.  

It makes me happy to see that the leader of the board is open minded.  Makes me feel like I have less chance of getting banned.   hehehe....

I'm just glad to see someone else who doesn't feel the need to control others just ...well, i don't know why but...That post made me happy.

Allroy

[shmokes]

" If I go to Ohio they are required by federal law to recognize my marriage"

Actually, they are required by the FF+CC.  

Well...yeah.  I thought I made it clear that I was talking about the FF+CC

And you misunderstand me.  I'm not saying that the FF+CC gives the Michigan Supreme Court carte blanche to dictate whatever it wants in another state.  I'm saying that marriage contracts fall under FF+CC.  So, if someone gets married legally in one state, other states (short of a U.S. Constitutional amendment) have to recognize the marriage.  That's why I gave the example about blood tests.  

It's why businesses incorporate in Delaware.  It's why people cross the border to  elope if they live in a state (like Ohio) that requires a waiting period.  It's why my marriage is recognized by states that require blood testing even though it would be illegal had I got married in the same way in that state.  

So, no, FF+CC does not allow you to drive around with a mounted machine gun.  It does, however, apply to contract recognition, including marriage.  Including gay marriage.  Short of a constitutional amendment.

[DrewKaree]

It's like arguing

Hardly.  It's more like talking to a wall.

with the Bush haters.

That's not even a complete sentence.  How am I supposed to respond to that.

That's some election iron

An election iron?  Is that supposed to get the wrinkles out of an election?

y

I don't speak spanish.

THAT is all kinds of funny!    

[saint]

To say that a gay marriage cheapens a heterosexual's marriage...
But thats not the argument I'm making.

Fair enough. I've revised my post below:

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.

Marriage is a bond between two people who form a family unit. My relationship with my wife is no more affected by two same sex people forming a bond than it is by the staggering number of heterosexual couple who are getting divorced. My love for my wife is not affected by two other people loving or hating one another. Anyone whose relationship could be altered because of the relationship of two other people should be seriously questioning the strength and validity of their own relationship, not looking askew at someone else's.

To say that a gay marriage undermines the long-held sanctity of marriage implies some alteration of conventional marriages -- some sort of scarcity of available marriage partners or some kind of strange competition. I don't understand that thinking at all. There's not a limited number of marriages allowed per year. A gay marriage doesn't suddenly make fewer partners available for heterosexual people (they were never available in the first place, married or not).

Does the marriage of two gay people suddenly make my marriage to my wife less valued in the eyes of the church or God? If so, why? My committment and love for my wife hasn't changed, why should its value in the eyes of the church or God? Gay people getting married doesn't make me go to church less, pray less, have less faith. If your belief and faith can be changed by the actions of someone else, it's your faith that has an issue, not the actions of the other person.

Does a marriage of two gay people suddenly change the value of my marriage to the state? Does the amount of taxes I pay suddenly change? Do I, as a heterosexual married man, suddenly become a threat to society because a gay couple gets married? If not, then how exactly does a gay marriage undermine my marriage?

The family unit in America is not being threatened by gay people. It's being threatened by people getting married on a whim, the staggering heterosexual divorce rate, parents who aren't involved in the lives of their children, and other issues that are clearly on the shoulders of heterosexual, often (but not always) church-going people. These people aren't necessarily evil, but when looking for the cause of some of the major ills in this country, hold up a mirror before holding up a pointing finger.

As a side note, gay people getting married are for the most part taking themselves out of the gene pool. (For the record, I believe a faithfully married gay couple should be allowed to adopt children, have children via artificial means, etc.  This last comment was tongue-in-cheek for the anti-gay-marriage crowd).

--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

[saint]

Thanks

With all due respect, that is the silliest argument against gay marriage I've ever heard, and it seems to be the biggest one.
.......
--- saint - married, happy, unaffected by any choices you make that don't directly involve me.

Once you allow gay/multiple marriages, you completely undermine the long-held sanctity of same.  

I didn't want to use all that space just to quote the message....

I just wanted to let you know, Saint, I'm even happier now that I bought your book and hopefully helped support you a little bit.  I wear my BYOAC hat everywhere I go and every time I tell someone about my mame cabs, I tell them to visit your site.  

It makes me happy to see that the leader of the board is open minded.  Makes me feel like I have less chance of getting banned.   hehehe....

I'm just glad to see someone else who doesn't feel the need to control others just ...well, i don't know why but...That post made me happy.

Allroy

[GGKoul]

In Canada, where Gay Marriages are allowed.  There was a major resistance to allowing Gay Marriages by the Insurance companies.  As they will now be on the line to pay out more spousal benefits.  

But since the Lobbiest have little pull with the Canadian Government, there was little they could do too stop the bill allowing same sex marriages.

[Crazy Cooter]

So... other than the "gay marriage vs religious beliefs" arguement, has there been an actual reason to not allow it?

I think there would be some issues about allowing multiple partners that would have to be ironed out (splitting benefits etc.), but that wouldn't be present allowing two chicks/dudes to be married.  Besides peoples prejudice, IS there an issue?

I think laws should only be made when there is a reason.  They should serve a purpose.  What reason and/or purpose is there to not allow them to be married?

[GGKoul]

So... other than the "gay marriage vs religious beliefs" arguement, has there been an actual reason to not allow it?

Insurance companies not wanting to pay more for spousal benefits.

[Dexter]

In Canada, where Gay Marriages are allowed.  There was a major resistance to allowing Gay Marriages by the Insurance companies.  As they will now be on the line to pay out more spousal benefits.

Check this out.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1109/gay.html
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1284154&issue_id=11665

Two lesbians who got married legally in Canada are sueing the Irish government to have their marriage recognised here in Ireland. Irish and EU law does not allow for discrimination by sex or sexual orientation. Although Irish law doesn't allow for gay marriage it will be illegal not to have their Canadian marriage recognised because they are not a hetrosexual couple. Interesting times ahead.

Dexter

[TA Pilot]

Two lesbians who got married legally in Canada are sueing the Irish government to have their marriage recognised here in Ireland. Irish and EU law does not allow for discrimination by sex or sexual orientation. Although Irish law doesn't allow for gay marriage it will be illegal not to have their Canadian marriage recognised because they are not a hetrosexual couple. Interesting times ahead.

And this is why there is an amendment under consideration - because the exact same thing will happen here.

Because its legal in MA, it must be legal in OH, even though OH law - the OH Constitution -forbids it.  The states will not stand for this, and will certainly pass the amendment.

[Dexter]

Because its legal in MA, it must be legal in OH, even though OH law - the OH Constitution -forbids it.  The states will not stand for this, and will certainly pass the amendment.

Hmm, I'm always cautious of people amending any part of a constitution, especially when it serves to reinforce discrimination and intolerance. Simply because something does not suit your moral viewpoint does not give you the right to opress another persons rights.

Reminds me of the part in Animal Farm (not the prono guys) when the pigs change the most fundamental law 'all animals are equal' to 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others'.

Dexter

[locash]

I have very little fear that such an amendment would be ratified.  I believe that those in the legislature will remember that the purpose of the Constitution is not to restrict the rights of the people, but rather to restrict the power of the government.

[shmokes]

I believe that there is enough support in Congress to pass an amendment.  If not in Congress it likely would be ratified by enough state legislatures to push it through.  It's sad.  I hope I'm wrong.

[locash]

An amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass and then requires a 3/4 majority of the states to be ratified.  Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I don't think this has much more than simple majority support in Congress.   It has been a long time since they tried to amend the constitution to restrict rights (1919 if I remember correctly) and I think the lesson may have been learned.

Without the 2/3 house majority, a Constitutional Convention would be required for an amendment.  This has never been done and there would be a lot of procedural questions that would need to be addressed before it could even be attempted.

[RacerX]

I have very little fear that such an amendment would be ratified.  I believe that those in the legislature will remember that the purpose of the Constitution is not to restrict the rights of the people, but rather to restrict the power of the government.

That is my thought exactly.  I just made this point to a friend of mine last week.  I would be against such an amendment for this reason.  The Constitution should not be used to restrict the rights of the people.

[TA Pilot]

An amendment to the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority in both houses to pass and then requires a 3/4 majority of the states to be ratified.

The states can create and ratify and amendment w/o going through congress.

[locash]

The states can create and ratify and amendment w/o going through congress.

As noted in my post, thanks for playing.

[Dartful Dodger]

In Canada, where Gay Marriages are allowed.  There was a major resistance to allowing Gay Marriages by the Insurance companies.  As they will now be on the line to pay out more spousal benefits.  

But since the Lobbiest have little pull with the Canadian Government, there was little they could do too stop the bill allowing same sex marriages.

I believe this gay marriage thing was on many ballots and the majority of people voted against it.

We don't consider the majority of people as lobbyist, but in America we're crazy like that.