[BigMike]

So here is the deal, there is a proposal to amend the Virginia Bill of Rights, and its purpose is to prevent Gay Marriage. That is its own can of worms that I would prefer not to open, but no matter how you feel on Gay Marriage, don't let that affect the way you vote. The proposal is written very poorly, and could open the gates to MANY problems for a lot of people here in our state. This amendment could destroy all rights for ANY unmarried couple in Virginia, and even have an effect on domestic violence charges. The first question on the ballot will read

Question: Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state:

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."?

If you care about the rights of ANY unmarried person you know, vote no to this question

More Information

 

[SK6]

Just as a note, some people, have an opposing point of view.

 

[Dartman]

I don't. I think gays should have the benefit of paying increased taxes just like us hetero married folks.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I fully intend to vote "No" on this proposal. There's no legitimate reason for the state to limit marriage to one man and one woman, and the clunky language in the bill will only serve to act as a cudgel against all non-"married" couples. Commonlaw marriage is certainly on the blocks by the language used as is any contract drawn up between 2 non-married people in a relationship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/01/AR2006100101058.html

 

[$tinkle]

if what's quoted is the entire relevant part of the legislation, it seems to be incomplete. for this reason alone, i'd vote against it if i were still a resident of the commonwealth.

hard cases make poor laws, but so do hasty decisions.

 

[Tattooo]

SK, just out of professional responsibility you should oppose this. Poorly written legislation should not be allowed to exist just due to your personal view point.

If/when it is written properly, then its time for a debate on merit and issue. However, you wouldn't find yourself defending or debating the merit of Bizmarkee's lyrics, so why would you spend the same effort on something that my dog could have written better high on mescaline.

 

[SK6]

SK, just out of professional responsibility you should oppose this. Poorly written legislation should not be allowed to exist just due to your personal view point.

If/when it is written properly, then its time for a debate on merit and issue. However, you wouldn't find yourself defending or debating the merit of Bizmarkee's lyrics, so why would you spend the same effort on something that my dog could have written better high on mescaline.

I agree, however, you need to read the what I wrote:

Just as a note, some people, have an opposing point of view.

Any implication made thereof is strictly made by the reader. I prefer not to make commentary for a couple of reasons, and one is certainly the wording of the legislation. One must note, however, wrong or right, Virginia is THE oldest legislature in the country, therefore, one can certainly expect the wording to be in kind.

Therefore I personally remain impartial to the situation. per se. Again however, I concur with the wording of the legislation, it certainly could be better.

 

[BigMike]

One must note, however, wrong or right, Virginia is THE oldest legislature in the country, therefore, one can certainly expect the wording to be in kind.

Speaking of poor wording, what exactly do you mean by that?



The way I see it, if this passes, if Jen and I got into it one night, and I beat the living snot out of her (which you and I know would NEVER happen, but this is hypothetical) It wouldn't be considered domestic violence. Battery, yeah, but do you get what i'm getting at?

 

[blue]

Speaking of poor wording, what exactly do you mean by that?



The way I see it, if this passes, if Jen and I got into it one night, and I beat the living snot out of her (which you and I know would NEVER happen, but this is hypothetical) It wouldn't be considered domestic violence. Battery, yeah, but do you get what i'm getting at?

What's a little battery between friends?

 

[MikeD]

What's a little battery between friends?

AAA, perhaps?

 

[Westy]

What's a little battery between friends?

Not much as long as it prevents homos from visiting each other on their death beds.

 

[kidwoo]

Not much as long as it prevents homos from visiting each other on their death beds.

I shudder to think what those people do.

 

[Tattooo]

I shudder to think what those people do.

I have a flip book of same sex erotic stick figure animations that can help you shudder before bed...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

One must note, however, wrong or right, Virginia is THE oldest legislature in the country, therefore, one can certainly expect the wording to be in kind.

That doesn't matter. New legislation has to be written to accord with current judicial rulings.

I know that you said you don't want to discuss your reasons, but let me toss this at you and you don't need to respond. From what I know about you, you probably aren't totally against this amendment because you are against gay marriage. I also believe that this stance is due to religious reasons. Do you think that you have the right to impose your religious reasons on the government which in turn forces the government to impose them on the other citizens of the Commonwealth? If this is a country/state that is supposed to separate church/state, doesn't the state need secular reasons in order to ban people's freedoms? Like I said, no need to answer, just think about it before you vote.

 

[MudGrrl]

The way I see it, if this passes, if Jen and I got into it one night, and I beat the living snot out of her (which you and I know would NEVER happen, but this is hypothetical) It wouldn't be considered domestic violence. Battery, yeah, but do you get what i'm getting at?

good example.

I wonder how many other Virginians grasp this, or whether they'll just vote to keep the homos from having any rights.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

good example.

I wonder how many other Virginians grasp this, or whether they'll just vote to keep the homos from having any rights.

Hey, maybe some of the backwoods guys are hoping it does pass so they can teach their gfs a lesson every once in a while.

 

[SK6]

That doesn't matter. New legislation has to be written to accord with current judicial rulings.

I know that you said you don't want to discuss your reasons, but let me toss this at you and you don't need to respond. From what I know about you, you probably aren't totally against this amendment because you are against gay marriage. I also believe that this stance is due to religious reasons. Do you think that you have the right to impose your religious reasons on the government which in turn forces the government to impose them on the other citizens of the Commonwealth? If this is a country/state that is supposed to separate church/state, doesn't the state need secular reasons in order to ban people's freedoms? Like I said, no need to answer, just think about it before you vote.

Since everyone is making assumptions of my stance on this, I shall state my position. This position usually pisses everyone off, but is biblically beyond contestation. That statement in and of itself is enough to stir some sh!t. Christians, more especially the over the top zealous left wing religious types are forever condemning, judging and criticizing the gay movement. If we have learned anything from the teachings of Jesus, or better yet, Jesus’ actions, we can see that He accepted EVERYBODY, regardless of sex, status and health. For the liberal crowed, this should be the most appealing of Christianity, enough to possibly study, or at a minimum investigate Jesus’ teachings; therefore, concluding that point, Jesus said to accept EVERYONE.

Wow, imagine the over zealous Christians doing that! Accepting people for who they are! Attempting to minister to them is ok, but it is best done through actions and prayer. Conversely, I say I am a Christian, perfect I’m NOT, but I do what I can the best I can. The fact I say the word Christian immediately invokes an adversarial stance dripping with disdain and criticism, cynicism and judgment.

My own personal opinion is as it states, my own. I do not believe in gay marriage; a gay legal union, as in legal recognition thereof. One huge issue I have with the whole gay marriage thing is the militancy behind the movement. Everyone is quick to criticize Christians over their opinion, but this “do as I say not as I do” militant attitude of the gay movement is what’s really bothersome. So while Christians seem to be recruiting, the gay marriage movement recruitment efforts are just as, if not more, aggressive.

So, I do not like it, personally; however, I accept people as they are, and do the best I can not to judge. I know, and have gay friends, and while I do not believe personally in it, they remain very close friends.

I believe the wording of the legislation is not really at issue here, as the wording is rather straight forward in its design; however the issue in and of itself is the true issue. I will vote no, however, if it is not voted in, then the majority have spoken. Imagine that, a majority vote, wow, what a great new concept! LOL

The issue of separation of church and state is truly a great concept, however, again, the issue allowing the union, and the wording of the proposed statute does not have anything to with religious views. What we DO have, is an issue of the institution of marriage, which is often confused with the religious ceremonies of many different religions to recognize the legal union. One cannot say that banning gay marriages is strictly a religious stance, since MANY people do not have a religious ceremony, or are not religious, and use a justice of the peace. So from the legal point of view, the issue is the union of a couple, not the religious connotations and ceremony thereof.

According to Blacks Law, Marriage is, “A legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187, 1193. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of legal duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”

Black, H.C.. (Ed.). (1990). Blacks Law Dictionary (6th ed)., St. Paul: West Publishing.

Bottom line, we need to be respectful of each other opinions, whether or not we may agree, we need to respect others views.

 

[SK6]

a quick note, I do however realize the religious groups lobbying for the banning of a gay union.

That's why I thing everyone believes it is a religious issue and a separation of church and state issue.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Since everyone is making assumptions of my stance on this, I shall state my position.

Hey, I was asking.

Christians, more especially the over the top zealous left wing religious types are forever condemning, judging and criticizing the gay movement.

Left wing?

The issue of separation of church and state is truly a great concept, however, again, the issue allowing the union, and the wording of the proposed statute does not have anything to with religious views.

What? I'm sorry, but I flatly disagree. What non-religious reason is there?

What we DO have, is an issue of the institution of marriage, which is often confused with the religious ceremonies of many different religions to recognize the legal union. One cannot say that banning gay marriages is strictly a religious stance, since MANY people do not have a religious ceremony, or are not religious, and use a justice of the peace. So from the legal point of view, the issue is the union of a couple, not the religious connotations and ceremony thereof.

This is not logical. Simply because not everyone goes through a religious ceremony doesn't mean that the ban on gay marriage is non-religious in nature. The reason we have the ban is because of religious sensibilities. From the state's standpoint, marriage is a contract between two individuals. It is the religious component that causes those 2 individuals to be male and female. There is no compelling argument that is non-religious.

Granting gay marriage does not hinder the rights of anyone.

Bottom line, we need to be respectful of each other opinions, whether or not we may agree, we need to respect others views.

I'm not going to dispute this and I hope you don't feel I'm disrespecting you. You said you will vote "No" and I'm glad for that.

 

[SK6]

No dude, a respectful debate for sure, no animosity or any anger or anything like that at all here. Like I said, respect of ones views is what I firmly believe in.

I hope one day we can

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No dude, a respectful debate for sure, no animosity or any anger or anything like that at all here. Like I said, respect of ones views is what I firmly believe in.

I hope one day we can

Like I said, I'm glad you are voting, "No." I just don't see any reason for the state to ban gay marriage that is not religiously motivated, especially not with the wording that is being presented as it would affect all non-marital relationships.

But, there's no animosity/anger here. I'm certainly passionate about protecting the rights of minorities and I'm sorry if you perceived that as anger.

 

[Westy]

Like I said, I'm glad you are voting, "No." I just don't see any reason for the state to ban gay marriage that is not religiously motivated, especially not with the wording that is being presented as it would affect all non-marital relationships.

But, there's no animosity/anger here. I'm certainly passionate about protecting the rights of minorities and I'm sorry if you perceived that as anger.

Is the state really banning gay marriage? I didn't think it was currently legal anyway. Isn't it a constitutional amendment that prevents legalization and further limits rights of non married hetero couples?

 

[SK6]

Like I said, I'm glad you are voting, "No." I just don't see any reason for the state to ban gay marriage that is not religiously motivated, especially not with the wording that is being presented as it would affect all non-marital relationships.

But, there's no animosity/anger here. I'm certainly passionate about protecting the rights of minorities and I'm sorry if you perceived that as anger.

No dude, not at ALL!

ok, rebuttal:

Now, in response, yes, I’m sorry, right wing Christians (D’oh!)

As far as the religious connotations, here is the concept that many people sometimes have a tough time with. The LEGAL issue is in the legislation, and the union of a man and woman, period.

Now, religious groups may be the driving force behind the proposed legislation, but is certainly not just Christian. Religious groups are fighting against, and homosexuals are fighting for, and the latter group has religious individuals as well.

The man and woman exclusivity is, as it stands now, the LEGAL definition of such a union. Refer to the Blacks Law definition. Again, the driving force has religious conations. I will concede that position, if you can show me where there is a legal authority that states otherwise.

It is hard to separate the two, but again, one is a legal issue, albeit driven by religious and atheistic factions. The religious ceremonies are as the statement implies, ceremonies, however, those ceremonies does not a marriage make, because, an application must be made and a license issued for the legal recognition.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Is the state really banning gay marriage? I didn't think it was currently legal anyway. Isn't it a constitutional amendment that prevents legalization and further limits rights of non married hetero couples?

No, the state does not currently allow it. This is a measure that will actually write it into the State Constitution, however, which means that it will be much more difficult to overturn down the road. The idea is to make the current law above legal challenge, thus making the ban more permanent.

The side effect is that it will further limit rights of non married couples.

My point is that the original ban shouldn't be there in the first place. The state is supposed to recognize contracts between individuals irrespective of religion, yet the only reason that the contracts are limited to one man and one woman are religious reasons.

 

[SK6]

From Wikipedia; (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment)

“The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex couples or other unmarried persons. The most recent vote on the proposed amendment took place in the Senate on June 7, 2006. The amendment failed to pass; of the 60 votes required to invoke the cloture motion, 49 senators voted for putting the amendment to vote and 48 voted against.”

Current law

The role of states
In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, "[T]he State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved," Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). Traditionally, a marriage was considered valid if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the marriage took place were complied with. (First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. States historically exercised this "public policy exception" by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages (such as marriages in states with low ages of consent), incestuous marriages (such as uncle-niece marriages, which were legal in some states but not others), and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws against same-sex marriage can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legal where performed.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in one state. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the Massachusetts constitution requires the state to permit same-sex marriage. The decision could be reversed by an amendment to the state constitution, but so far no amendment barring same-sex marriage has passed in Massachusetts. Several other states including Vermont, California, and Connecticut allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide some or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law, but forbid same-sex marriages. More than 20 states have passed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and in some cases, civil unions."

 

[Old Man G Funk]

ok, rebuttal:
...
As far as the religious connotations, here is the concept that many people sometimes have a tough time with. The LEGAL issue is in the legislation, and the union of a man and woman, period.

Now, religious groups may be the driving force behind the proposed legislation, but is certainly not just Christian. Religious groups are fighting against, and homosexuals are fighting for, and the latter group has religious individuals as well.

The man and woman exclusivity is, as it stands now, the LEGAL definition of such a union. Refer to the Blacks Law definition. Again, the driving force has religious conations. I will concede that position, if you can show me where there is a legal authority that states otherwise.

It is hard to separate the two, but again, one is a legal issue, albeit driven by religious and atheistic factions. The religious ceremonies are as the statement implies, ceremonies, however, those ceremonies does not a marriage make, because, an application must be made and a license issued for the legal recognition.

Right, the current condition is that marriage is only between one man and one woman, but the reason for that condition is religious in nature. If the reasoning behind the law is religious, then the law is violating the church/state separation. If there is no secular reason for the law, then it is in violation.

Yes, marriage according to the state is a contractual agreement between two parties. The state, as of now, says that the two parties must be of opposite sex. What is the compelling secular or legal reason for that distinction?

 

[SK6]

No, the state does not currently allow it. This is a measure that will actually write it into the State Constitution, however, which means that it will be much more difficult to overturn down the road. The idea is to make the current law above legal challenge, thus making the ban more permanent.

The side effect is that it will further limit rights of non married couples.

My point is that the original ban shouldn't be there in the first place. The state is supposed to recognize contracts between individuals irrespective of religion, yet the only reason that the contracts are limited to one man and one woman are religious reasons.

While the reasons MAY be religiously motivated, it is a separate LEGAL issue. The matter before the courts right now is strictly LEGAL recognition, not religious recognition.


(As a side note, we get into debates like this in class and there a BLAST. I always learn something from them, whether I agree or not. Debates done respectfully are fun!)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

From Wikipedia; (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment)

“The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex couples or other unmarried persons. The most recent vote on the proposed amendment took place in the Senate on June 7, 2006. The amendment failed to pass; of the 60 votes required to invoke the cloture motion, 49 senators voted for putting the amendment to vote and 48 voted against.”

Current law

The role of states
In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state's own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, "[T]he State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved," Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). Traditionally, a marriage was considered valid if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the marriage took place were complied with. (First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. States historically exercised this "public policy exception" by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages (such as marriages in states with low ages of consent), incestuous marriages (such as uncle-niece marriages, which were legal in some states but not others), and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws against same-sex marriage can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legal where performed.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in one state. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the Massachusetts constitution requires the state to permit same-sex marriage. The decision could be reversed by an amendment to the state constitution, but so far no amendment barring same-sex marriage has passed in Massachusetts. Several other states including Vermont, California, and Connecticut allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide some or most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law, but forbid same-sex marriages. More than 20 states have passed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and in some cases, civil unions."

We are talking past each other.

I see what you are saying, that the current law is what it is and we have to legally decide whether to make the amendment or not.

What I'm saying is that the current law is religiously based and therefore violates the separation of church and state, and that not only should we not be making constitutional amendments (state or federal) but we should be revoking those laws that have their basis in a particular religion (or plural religions).

 

[Old Man G Funk]

While the reasons MAY be religiously motivated, it is a separate LEGAL issue. The matter before the courts right now is strictly LEGAL recognition, not religious recognition.

Like I said, I see your point.

My point is that there is no compelling argument for the state to not legally recognize same-sex unions.

 

[SK6]

OK, After some research, prompted by your question of the secular reasoning for a marriage defined to be a union of one man and one woman, here is some of the things I have found.

In Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187, 119


n1 Appellants also list as an "assignment of error " the assertion that the
trial court's order "was based on the erroneous and fallacious conclusion
that same-sex marriages are destructive to society. " In support of this
assertion, appellants devote nearly 40 pages of their brief to what they
characterize as a discussion of "the concept of homosexuality and same-sex
marriages through the eyes of other important disciplines -- that of the
sociologists, theologians, scientists, and doctors. " Appellants state that
"a basic understanding of homosexuals and society is a precondition to an
enlightened discussion of the legal grounds raised . . . " Although we do
not quarrel with that proposition, we deem it appropriate to observe that
appellants' discussion in that regard does not present a legal argument, nor
is there any evidence in the record to suggest that the trial court in fact
based its order on the "erroneous and fallacious conclusion " to which
appellants take exception. Therefore, while we recognize that appellants
have presented a valuable context for the discussion of their legal points,
we have endeavored to confine this opinion to discussion of the legal issues
presented without attempting to present our views on matters of sociology,
theology, science and medicine.

Thought the ruling was interesting, however, I'm going to dig a bit more.

 

[N8 v2.0]

so is that a yes or a no..???

 

[SK6]

I am guessing that this is an opening of Pandora's Box. It is not simply allowing a same sex union, as this creates a slippery slope. Sodomy laws are affected, and to what degree? In that vein, marriage between a 10 year old girl and a 50 year old man could be argued. So, while the opinion may have religious connotations, the slippery slope effect has larger implications that fall far beyond same sex unions.

Merriam Webster defines sodomy as:

sodomy
One entry found for sodomy.
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Genesis 19:1-11

: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal
- sod•om•it•ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod•om•it•i•cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective

So to carry it further, since all laws are all social in derivation, creation, enforcement and change, the definition of law would be good to define as well.

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law.

Law is essentially a social contract we all subscribe to for protection of our society as a whole. In this agreement to follow laws, we as a people inherently give up certain rights to maintain the better will of our society; therefore we can conclude that law is a social contract between individuals and society.

The United States Code, TITLE 1; CHAPTER 1; § 7. Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

So, it is not simply saying, “Sure go ahead, and be recognized as a union between the same sexes.”

The social aspect of laws, more especially in the United States, since its founding, was all religiously driven, henceforth the formation of our country. To research through out history, most all societies have laws derived from basic religious beliefs, from Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Muslimism and Taoism to name a few of the biggies. So while our particular matter may be driven by Christianity and Judaism, many other societies have similar laws based on different theoretical religious beliefs and deities.

This of course is a huge discussion and debate, but a fascinating one as well.

Ok, I need a beer!

 

[$tinkle]

on this topic, i always have 2 standing questions for the proponents of same-sex marriage:

1: if a law being put to vote (by either the state congress or voters) is flawed due to its roots in religion, shall we then abolish (or at least re-write) all such laws?

2: inter-familial marriage has a richer history throughout civilization; this is a precedent still alive today. shall we reinstate this first by incrementally repealing various lineal consanguinity laws before we consider setting a u.s. legal precedent?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

on this topic, i always have 2 standing questions for the proponents of same-sex marriage:

1: if a law being put to vote (by either the state congress or voters) is flawed due to its roots in religion, shall we then abolish (or at least re-write) all such laws?

2: inter-familial marriage has a richer history throughout civilization; this is a precedent still alive today. shall we reinstate this first by incrementally repealing various lineal consanguinity laws before we consider setting a u.s. legal precedent?

1: I don't care.

2: As long as whoever's three eyed, five nippled, sloth toed second cousin can be a contributing member of society, I couldn't care less if you were able to do the horizontal polka with a wallaby.


Catering to the lowest common denominator is dumb. Mmmm-kay....

 

[$tinkle]

1: I don't care.

so you're ok with poo-pooing one law due to its roots in religion, but not another?

2: As long as whoever's three eyed, five nippled, sloth toed second cousin can be a contributing member of society, I couldn't care less if you were able to do the horizontal polka with a wallaby.

by this, i take it your position is that if someone cannot be a contributor to society, they may not marry?

Catering to the lowest common denominator is dumb. Mmmm-kay....

it's about unintended consequences, not lcd

btw, "basic human rights" does indeed cater to the lcd.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

so you're ok with poo-pooing one law due to its roots in religion, but not another?

I didn't say that. I just don't care what laws are based in what. The topic at hand *should* be a non-issue in my eyes. So we'll just take the "rights" and leave "equal....sounds peachy to me.

by this, i take it your position is that if someone cannot be a contributor to society, they may not marry?

Didn't say that either. I don't care if you marry your sister. I don't care if you sister is a lesbian and she has whacky relations with the family dog. This is another non-issue. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, by contributing member, I meant not Hitler.

it's about unintended consequences, not lcd

Unintended consequences?? I must be missing what this has to do with same-sex anything.....

btw, "basic human rights" does indeed cater to the lcd.

Of course they do, however, that's not in the context that I was using LCD. People get so offended at every little thing. People feel the need to be so damn self-important that it sickens me from time to time. This is one of those times.

***The topic dealie of this thread is poorly written and needs to go away. That is the basis of what I'm going on, just so it's clear.***

 

[Silver]

This position usually pisses everyone off, but is biblically beyond contestation. That statement in and of itself is enough to stir some sh!t.

Why would it do that? I just quit reading. Your imaginary friend doesn't like gays. That's not a good reason for legislation, sorry. He doesn't like shellfish or heterosexual adulterers, and until you're out there pounding the pavement for the death penalty for adultery, you're either ignorant of the details of your own religion or you're using it to attempt to hide the fact that you're a bigot.

It should be pointed out that I don't necessarily think you're a bigot. Most Christians know very little about the bible...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Why would it do that? I just quit reading. Your imaginary friend doesn't like gays. That's not a good reason for legislation, sorry. He doesn't like shellfish or heterosexual adulterers, and until you're out there pounding the pavement for the death penalty for adultery, you're either ignorant of the details of your own religion or you're using it to attempt to hide the fact that you're a bigot.

It should be pointed out that I don't necessarily think you're a bigot. Most Christians know very little about the bible...

"And in the 1st round, Silver comes out swingin'!!!!"

 

[$tinkle]

I didn't say that. I just don't care what laws are based in what.

if laws aren't based in some ethic or code, then legislation would be rather arbitrary, or at least passed according only to who's in congress

The topic at hand *should* be a non-issue in my eyes. So we'll just take the "rights" and leave "equal....sounds peachy to me.

i agree, but there's a group (2 opposing more likely) that couldn't figure it out tween the 2....so here we are

Didn't say that either. I don't care if you marry your sister. I don't care if you sister is a lesbian and she has whacky relations with the family dog. This is another non-issue. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, by contributing member, I meant not Hitler.

i guess it comes down to this: who should care? is this an issue that is only personal? certainly not, we celebrate our close personal (& hopefully permanent) relationships. i can appreciate the pro-gay point of view that to suppress their desire for a publicly acknowledged & legal relationship is another form of closeting them, and further relegating them to second-class citizenship.

People get so offended at every little thing. People feel the need to be so damn self-important that it sickens me from time to time. This is one of those times.

except for in here, where you'll only find level-headed, thick skinned, deep-thinking, selfless wanna-be diplomats.

it's a frikkin campfire i tell ya

 

[$tinkle]

Your imaginary friend doesn't like gays.

correct. he loves them

That's not a good reason for legislation, sorry.

as christians, we are taught to live within the law of our land. for just one notable example back in the day, God put the slaves under the authority of the egyptians. recall our "law" has been given to us already, and has been fullfilled by Christ. i know you don't give a rip about this, but thought my position should be a matter of record.

Most Christians know very little about the bible...

as much as i'd really like this to be easily refuted, sadly it is not.