Welcome to Missouri!

[Gato_Solo]

My god. The same old tired used up arguments over and over again. When will the anti-homosexual crowd just say you cant get married because 1. god says so! or 2. its disgusting! Or both. Then wed have an honest point of view finally. Stop squirming and trying to thread a needle with your wording. Face the fact that you are endorsing discrimination and embrace it. After all the majority of americans agree with this same bigotry dont they?



Lets step back to 1950 shall we:

Blacks are not, repeat ARE NOT prohibited from marrying. They have exactly the same rights to this rite as you or I. What then is the problem? Their choice of partner. Society, community standards, has rules & regulartions. I can't marry a cat & Blacks can't marry whites.

Isnt it cool how you can so easily substitute mid 20th century racism directly into 21st century anti-homosexual logic? I love that.

Define Marriage, and use any dictionary you like. Make sure you post the whole definition, though, and post a link.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

My god. The same old tired used up method of tangential and disassociative thought over and over again. When the liberal’s will quit 1.mincing, 2.distorting and devaluating the beliefs of others or both, maybe then they can honestly address an issue. There is no discrimination as a gay person has the exact same rights as I do. Why don’t liberals stop trying to drive a nail thru the needle with their agenda of “you must validate and accept our behaviors?”. Most Americans accept the lifestyle but disagree that it is normal, healthy or a path should be tread.

Gay people are not discriminated against; it is not a civil rights issue, it’s a behavioral issue and most Americans agree that it doesn’t reach the ever lowering bar of marriage. (but if they keep hacking away at the foundation of it they will eventually lower it enough)

Homosexuality is a behavior not a pedispostioned genetic factor. Is alcoholism a civil rights issue or a behavioral issue? Are we wrong for saying your behavior is not acceptable?

You label us as “anti-homosexual” (homophobes); you’re trying to make us feel uncomfortable in our beliefs, ourselves. Is that best Foo you have, trying to make us feel bad about ourselves? What do you have to offer to the subject?


(BTW, I noticed you began your statement with phrase "My god" -I am wondering what you mean by that, are you one of those root-of-all-evil christians?)

 

[PT]

Define Marriage, and use any dictionary you like. Make sure you post the whole definition, though, and post a link.

mar·riage ([font=verdana,sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (m

r

j)
n.

1. 1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
   2. The state of being married; wedlock.
   3. A common-law marriage.
   4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage

Marriage, socially recognized and approved union between individuals, who commit to one another with the expectation of a stable and lasting intimate relationship. It begins with a ceremony known as a wedding, which formally unites the marriage partners. A marital relationship usually involves some kind of contract, either written or specified by tradition, which defines the partners’ rights and obligations to each other, to any children they may have, and to their relatives. In most contemporary industrialized societies, marriage is certified by the government.

In addition to being a personal relationship between two people, marriage is one of society’s most important and basic institutions. Marriage and family serve as tools for ensuring social reproduction. Social reproduction includes providing food, clothing, and shelter for family members; raising and socializing children; and caring for the sick and elderly. In families and societies in which wealth, property, or a hereditary title is to be passed on from one generation to the next, inheritance and the production of legitimate heirs are a prime concern in marriage. However, in contemporary industrialized societies, marriage functions less as a social institution and more as a source of intimacy for the individuals involved.

Marriage is commonly defined as a partnership between two members of opposite sex known as husband and wife. However, scholars who study human culture and society disagree on whether marriage can be universally defined. The usual roles and responsibilities of the husband and wife include living together, having sexual relations only with one another, sharing economic resources, and being recognized as the parents of their children. However, unconventional forms of marriage that do not include these elements do exist. For example, scholars have studied several cultural groups in Africa and India in which husbands and wives do not live together. Instead, each spouse remains in his or her original home, and the husband is a “visitor” with sexual rights. Committed relationships between homosexuals (individuals with a sexual orientation toward people of the same sex) also challenge conventional definitions of marriage.

Debates over the definition of marriage illustrate its dual nature as both a public institution and a private, personal relationship. On the one hand, marriage involves an emotional and sexual relationship between particular human beings. At the same time, marriage is an institution that transcends the particular individuals involved in it and unites two families. In some cultures, marriage connects two families in a complicated set of property exchanges involving land, labor, and other resources. The extended family and society also share an interest in any children the couple may have. Furthermore, the legal and religious definitions of marriage and the laws that surround it usually represent the symbolic expression of core cultural norms (informal behavioral guidelines) and values.


http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574825/Marriage.html

There are two of them. Both specifically allow for same-sex marriage to be called marriage.

But at one point, your wife could produce offspring, could she not? And please tell me that two different people of the same sex have the proper biological plumbing neccesary to produce offspring. Even a sterile woman has the proper plumbing to carr a child. A man does not...and as far as I know no woman can produce sperm. Please produce an argument that doesn't induce an emotional response...

At one point Before we got married she could, yes. However, the argument was that marriage is for the producing of offspring. We as a couple can not produce offspring, so your definition of marriage does not allow us to be married.

 

[Gato_Solo]

There are two of them. Both specifically allow for same-sex marriage to be called marriage.

As for your reference for the term marriage, you need to remember one thing...definitions go by order of preference. Your definition is which number?

Marriage is commonly defined as a partnership between two members of opposite sex known as husband and wife. However, scholars who study human culture and society disagree on whether marriage can be universally defined. The usual roles and responsibilities of the husband and wife include living together, having sexual relations only with one another, sharing economic resources, and being recognized as the parents of their children. However, unconventional forms of marriage that do not include these elements do exist. For example, scholars have studied several cultural groups in Africa and India in which husbands and wives do not live together. Instead, each spouse remains in his or her original home, and the husband is a “visitor” with sexual rights. Committed relationships between homosexuals (individuals with a sexual orientation toward people of the same sex) also challenge conventional definitions of marriage.

At one point Before we got married she could, yes. However, the argument was that marriage is for the producing of offspring. We as a couple can not produce offspring, so your definition of marriage does not allow us to be married.

That wasn't the argument at all. Part of it, but not all of it. I'll stick to my guns on this, as you'll stick to yours, but I'd like to know one thing...If homosexuals were offered 'civil unions', with the exact same rights, benefits, and responsibilities[/B] as marriage, then why did they turn it down? What statement are they trying to make?

 

[PT]

That wasn't the argument at all. Part of it, but not all of it. I'll stick to my guns on this, as you'll stick to yours, but I'd like to know one thing...

Agreed.

If homosexuals were offered 'civil unions', with the exact same rights, benefits, and responsibilities[/B] as marriage, then why did they turn it down? What statement are they trying to make?

I think the statement they are trying to make is that they are not second class citizens. I can't say if I was gay that I wouldn't have accepted a Civil Union. Hell, I'd accept it now.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Committed relationships between homosexuals (individuals with a sexual orientation toward people of the same sex) also challenge conventional definitions of marriage.

May I make note of this: Committed relationships between homosexuals also challenge conventional definitions of marriage.

So they are challenging the conventioanl definintion, as in wanting to re-define or change the conventional definition

Main Entry: con·ven·tion·al javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?conven11.wav=conventional')
Pronunciation: k&n-'vench-n&l, -'ven(t)-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
1 : formed by agreement or compact
2 a : according with, sanctioned by, or based on convention b : lacking originality or individuality : TRITE c (1) : ORDINARY, COMMONPLACE (2) : NONNUCLEAR 1 <conventional warfare>
3 a : according with a mode of artistic representation that simplifies or provides symbols or substitutes for natural forms b : of traditional design
4 : of, resembling, or relating to a convention , assembly, or public meeting
synonym see CEREMONIAL

So they are forcefully trying to rewite the the long withstanding meaning of marriage, formed by agreement over the span of century's.

Selfish disreguard of others feelings in an attempt to gain validation for their lifestyle.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Agreed.

I think the statement they are trying to make is that they are not second class citizens. I can't say if I was gay that I wouldn't have accepted a Civil Union. Hell, I'd accept it now.

They did, PT, and that's my whole point. They had it in their hands, and threw it away. At this point, they're not trying to build themselves up...they're trying to tear others down.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

deleted*

 

[Thulsa Doom]

When the liberal’s will quit 1.mincing, 2.distorting and devaluating the beliefs of others or both, maybe then they can honestly address an issue.

Well isn’t that a farce. Lets turn the tables on the discrimination game and try to put those, defending individuals who are being discriminated AGAINST, on the defensive by having the audacity to call attacking blatant religious based discrimination and promotion of inequality “devaluating the beliefs of others.” Nice one. Well heres the deal. The minute your “beliefs” start directly and arbitrarily impinging on the freedoms of others you’ve gone over the line. Have all the beliefs you want but enforce them on yourself and yourself alone. Once you start telling others you must follow MY belief system you become Ayatollah of America. And people have every right to call you on this intolerance and blatant support of discrimination.

There is no discrimination as a gay person has the exact same rights as I do.

There is discrimination when you say to another person you may not do what I do because of my religious beliefs about the way you are or because of my disgust with you as a person or both. And spare me the oh I cant marry a man either crap. You married a willing legal adult who you were in love with (Im assuming). You are denying this to a homosexual who has about as much desire to marry a person of the opposite sex as you do of marrying a person of the same sex. And this monster technicality is irrelevant to you? Is your response to this too bad for you that you were born as you were? You still cant do what I do?

And by the way, where does a chest beating conservative get off telling two people who are in love and want to commit to each other and live the right way in society that they CANT do that because its gross and wrong AND THEN you turn around and shout in 100 other threads that these welfare scum bags and alternative life style cream puffs need to start towing the line and live like the majority does or else our society will go to hell in a hand basket. So which are you promoting exactly? The conversion of heathens into society’s conformist fold so they can live the Leave it to Beaver dream along with the rest of us suburban robots or are you encouraging homosexuals to rush out and be promiscuous and carnal and turn their backs on the very idea of commitment? Yer gonna have to pick one Im afraid. And “don’t be gay” isn’t an option. Sorry.

Homosexuality is a behavior not a pedispostioned genetic factor.

ah. The great scientist speaks. Yes gays only choose to be gay because they are rebels looking to thumb their nose at society. Not because they feel it as intrinsically as you or I feel the desire for women. And if you say so then that’s good enough for the government right?

Are we wrong for saying your behavior is not acceptable?

when talking to a homosexual? Yes you are wrong. You can say In my opinion your behavior is unacceptable. So therefore I CHOOSE not to engage in homosexual sex MYSELF. But the minute you decree something is wrong simply because you decide it is yourself, you become, once again, an arbitrary dictator. No better then if I was to say heterosexual behavior is disgusting and wrong in my eyes therefore Im going to attempt to discriminate against you because of it.

you’re trying to make us feel uncomfortable in our beliefs

All Im doing is holding a mirror up. Anybody who openly discriminates based on their beliefs should be made to feel uncomfortable for their beliefs. Belief stops at the surface of the skin. The moment you try to extend it beyond that you have over stepped your bounds and into the realm of imposition of thinking.

(BTW, I noticed you began your statement with phrase "My god" -I am wondering what you mean by that, are you one of those root-of-all-evil christians?)

no its simply a phrase of speech I use much like “god damn” or “holy crap”. Part of the lexicon. Guess its good I didn’t put “OMFG”.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Define Marriage, and use any dictionary you like. Make sure you post the whole definition, though, and post a link.

*PuterTutor knocks question out of ball park*

As for your reference for the term marriage, you need to remember one thing...definitions go by order of preference. Your definition is which number?

so…. Because the dictionary includes gay marriage as marriage but DOESN’T list it as the FIRST definition… then its ok to make a constitutional amendment discriminating against homosexuals? You’ve lost me…

Yer quick! EDIT: By the way, how many court cases are decided on the basis of how the dictionary defines a word? How man constitutional amendments are decided on the basis of how the dictionary defines a word? Perhaps our next assignment should be to define the word "irrelevent".

 

[Gato_Solo]

*PuterTutor knocks question out of ball park*



so…. Because the dictionary includes gay marriage as marriage but DOESN’T list it as the FIRST definition… then its ok to make a constitutional amendment discriminating against homosexuals? You’ve lost me…

Because id didn't say marriage...it said, not the legal force of. Are we on the same page now?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Speaking of threading a needle with wording...

 

[Gonz]

By the way, how many court cases are decided on the basis of how the dictionary defines a word?

Dictionary definition? I don't know.

A predetermined definition is usually included within the text of the law or in a common area of similar laws and is used damn near every single time.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yer quick! EDIT: By the way, how many court cases are decided on the basis of how the dictionary defines a word? How man constitutional amendments are decided on the basis of how the dictionary defines a word? Perhaps our next assignment should be to define the word "irrelevent".

I've gotta be quick when you're on-line.

Most, if not all, court cases are decided on the basis of how the dictionary defines a word. Homicide...burglary...grand theft...all were defined long ago, and are still used to define a crime. Can you hear me now? Good...

 

[rrfield]

So Websters is now the leading legal authoirty in the USandA?

 

[Gato_Solo]

So Websters is now the leading legal authoirty in the USandA?

Now, now...follow the context of the thread...the court system of the US is the legal authority, but they get their definitions from Webster's. Try not to fall behind again.

 

[Gato_Solo]

rite -

• The prescribed or customary form for conducting a religious or other solemn ceremony:
  the rite of baptism.
  A ceremonial act or series of acts: fertility rites.
  Rite The liturgy or practice of a branch of the Christian church

Now...since everyone is on the same page as to what a rite is...

1. Any marriage performed outside of a religious background is not a marriage. It is a civil union.

2. Any church which allows a couple to wed according to their bylaws gives that couple a marriage...be they heterosexual, or homosexual. Any such joining outside the bounds of a religion is just a civil union.

Taking that into consideration, which is one of the items I have stated in the past, and the fact that a marriage is a rite, not a right, how do you formulate your argument?

 

[rrfield]

Again...

The government has no business marrying anyone, gay or straight. Civil Unions for all, gay and straight. Churches marry people. Catholics and baptists (woah, catholics and baptists may finally agree on something!) won't marry homosexuals. Anglicans and Unitarians will.

 

[Gonz]

Catholics and baptists won't marry homosexuals.

Until some do-gooder judge decides that they are creating a victim. Won't happen that way? 30 years ago they only wanterd to be recognized as individuals. The agenda has time to sway the opinion of those without a strict moral compass.

 

[chcr]

Until some do-gooder judge decides that they are creating a victim. Won't happen that way? 30 years ago they only wanterd to be recognized as individuals. The agenda has time to sway the opinion of those without a strict moral compass.

Society, like everything else, evolves. Your (or my) not liking the direction of that evolution will in no way stop it.