2 more states ban gay marriage

[el Chi]

Good work world pissing us of on 9/11! Now, were nationalistic, and have four more years to ponder World Domination!
...this is'int looking too good for you.

Heaven forbid some of the blame might rest with yourselves.
Oh and you're nationalistic now!? That suggests you weren't before which is - our survey says - FALSE!

MAybe world domination is a bit old, but then America is a relatively young and powerful nation and history has shown us that it is in the nature of such young nations to attempt territorial expansion. The US has had to find new ways to achieve this though, so full marks for creativity.

 

[el Chi]

The definition of marriage is 'The legal union of a MAN and WOMAN as husband and wife'.
Do you see anything regarding the legal union of two men or two women? I didn't think so.

The fact is, many people believe same-sex marriages immoral. But God forbid that ever happen!

Yes, hence the definition ought to be changed. And I mean in the legal sense not in the "Webster's dictionary defines a wedding as 'the process of removing weeds from one's garden'" definition.
If people think thatit's immoral then fine that's their bigotted opinion but that doesn't mean homosexuals should be subject to repressive laws.

Sorry about the double post. Could a mod please merge this and myu previous one?

 

[Ghost Freeman]

never thought I'd see the day when they legalize descrimination

I never thought I'd see the day they'de rig an election. But here we are...again.

 

[CptStern]

I never thought I'd see the day they'de rig an election. But here we are...again.

in any other country this would be enough of a justification for regime change

 

[FoB_Ed]

in any other country this would be enough of a justification for regime change

It wasn't rigged. America chose it's president.

Good riddance kerry

 

[Yakuza]

That's rediculous.

Marriage is defined in Genesis, and Muslims accept that as truth.

Marriage is and always has been defined as between a man and a woman. It's just that people are so hopelessly stupid that they have to put it into written law now.

It's obvious from the election, by overwhelming margin's every state that ammended thier definition of marriage, did so by overwhelming amounts.

Actualy there is no "definition" for marriage. Thats the whole point of the constitutional admenment, To define what marriage is.

I agree that only a man and a women should marry, but I cant see justifing forcing any one else ot believe that. Especialy when it doesn't infringe on the basic rights to life, lyberty, and the pursute of happiness.

 

[AudioRage]

Yes, America Has chosen its place in the world.

We think we are better then everyone else, But by Bush winning this election, we have proven the fact that we have no idea about world politics and only think of ourselves whilst voting, therefore, We are not only showing how many people really turn a blind eye to the real issues, but also showing that we are not better then anyone.

The United States Of America gets what it deserves from here on out.

 

[Yakuza]

Yes, hence the definition ought to be changed. And I mean in the legal sense not in the "Webster's dictionary defines a wedding as 'the process of removing weeds from one's garden'" definition.
If people think thatit's immoral then fine that's their bigotted opinion but that doesn't mean homosexuals should be subject to repressive laws.

Sorry about the double post. Could a mod please merge this and myu previous one?

If I dont think that two guys should marry, that makes me a biggot?

I also dont agree that Hetrosexuals should have sex before marriage, does that also make me a biggot against un married couples.

 

[Kangy]

Yes, America Has chosen its place in the world.

We think we are better then everyone else, But by Bush winning this election, we have proven the fact that we have no idea about world politics and only think of ourselves whilst voting, therefore, We are not only showing how many people really turn a blind eye to the real issues, but also showing that we are not better then anyone.

Hell, Bush didn't even have the best policy for the country. He got a lot because people are scared easily, he's got the popular image and
greedy folk really like a tax cut.

 

[AudioRage]

The funny thing is, there's no way we can cut taxes and be able to get out of the deficet we are in right now. It just doesn't make any sense. So if you voted for bush for lower taxes, you're killing our country. Congratulations.

 

[Yakuza]

Yes, America Has chosen its place in the world.

We think we are better then everyone else, But by Bush winning this election, we have proven the fact that we have no idea about world politics and only think of ourselves whilst voting, therefore, We are not only showing how many people really turn a blind eye to the real issues, but also showing that we are not better then anyone.

The United States Of America gets what it deserves from here on out.

When you say America or Unisted states, your including me. I didn't vote for Bush and yet Me and my Children will reap the sour fruits of his labor. And what is it that we deserve, more terrorism, more war?

See the problem is fear....fear that America in general might have to think about others outside their little box of "real life". Most Americans are so consumed with in their own personle agendas that to step out and contemplate the futures of an entire nation would be completly foreign and unfamilar to them. They want some one who will figh so they dont have to. They want some on to take care of the "Problem" so they can continue to marinate in the trench of their own personel ambitions.

 

[Steve]

The funny thing is, there's no way we can cut taxes and be able to get out of the deficet we are in right now. It just doesn't make any sense. So if you voted for bush for lower taxes, you're killing our country. Congratulations.

well put, sir. well put. i quote you for emphasis.

 

[we11er]

Top Tips for toasted sandwiches:

1. Don't bite into your delicious sandwich too soon - the cheese will be very hot and may burn your tongue/mouth.

 

[genocide604]

what a surprise more hick states ban gays, they will all have to hide in the closets now..

Run to canada where you are truly free

 

[Rico]

Azzor hit the issue right in the head... I never said I didn't support gay couples and their right to be united under the law and considered a "married couple". Marriage is a religious institution that has been applied to law, but that does not mean it loses it's religious value. Like it or not your country was founded by puritans, extremely religious people, and the basis for the country's laws were written by descendants of said people.

Why do gay couples have to stirr controversy by trying to take a religious belief and turn it into a mockery of itself?

I doubt many people (myself included) would have a problem if instead of marriage they made their own kind of union with their own name. They'd get the same rights as a straight couple and the same privileges so it stops being a civil right issue, this has never been a civil rights issue as far as I'm concerned, it's an issue between religious folk and non-religious folk.

Oh and why is this thread flamebait? Just take a look at the first post and you'll see why, because it condemns people with an opposing view as inhuman scum, that's why, as do you. You stand so high and mighty on your throne of righteousness you fail to realize you're as wrong as anyone else and you're just doing it all to "look good" on the internet for crying out loud.

Want to change something? VOTE FOR IT. Don't whine about how other people vote because it's their right, and discuss it all you want so long as you don't undermine other's OPINION with your own OPINION. You have no facts, you are no more in the right than the other person and as soon as you realize that you may start to understand that by insulting other's beliefs you are antagonizing them even more. You gain support by rallying people to your cause, not pushing them away.

And you have personally attacked me and don't deny it, it's all over your posts and I wouldn't have replied as such if you hadn't done that. I'm a reasonable person, take a tone with me and I'll use it right back, don't expect me not to notice your underhanded comments because the tone of your posts tells me about your character more than you'd ever care to believe.

Stop avoiding the question and answer it, or are you afraid I'm right and it will shatter your frail beliefs? Why are underage marriages between consenting mature individuals "Wrong" and gay marriage right? That's your whole argument, civil rights? Answer that, everyone should be equal, no matter how small their number correct? Why not them?

I think your argument is pure BS meant to hide your desire to fit in with today's society where being gay isn't normal, "it's cool!".

 

[Absinthe]

Let gay people get married and screw. If you're so convinced that the people that do and support this are going to burn in Hell, then let God sort them out, okay? It doesn't affect you.

Off-Topic: It's good that election discussion has now become a victim of censorship. It's great that people are being told to lighten up even though the results came in only a few hours ago.

 

[hasan]

if we turn this thread to an OMG BUSH WONZZ the mods won't notice it will they?

 

[Neutrino]

Azzor hit the issue right in the head... I never said I didn't support gay couples and their right to be united under the law and considered a "married couple". Marriage is a religious institution that has been applied to law, but that does not mean it loses it's religious value. Like it or not your country was founded by puritans, extremely religious people, and the basis for the country's laws were written by descendants of said people.

What are you against then? No one is trying to step on your idea of religious marriage. All people want is the right of a legal marriage. No church is going to be forced to support it, but those churches who do support it will be allowed to have same-sex ceremonies. So ya, what exactly are you against?

Why do gay couples have to stirr controversy by trying to take a religious belief and turn it into a mockery of itself?

They're not. As I've said time and time again, there is more than one belief in this country. You nor any single religion owns the concept of marriage. They are not mocking your beliefs, they are merely following their own. Since when was following your own beliefs the same as mocking others' beliefs? It's not.

I doubt many people (myself included) would have a problem if instead of marriage they made their own kind of union with their own name. They'd get the same rights as a straight couple and the same privileges so it stops being a civil right issue, this has never been a civil rights issue as far as I'm concerned, it's an issue between religious folk and non-religious folk.

It is a civil rights issue. But I do agree it has been twisted into a religious argument when it shouldn't have been. The thing is that gay marriage does not affect you or anyone else. I fail to see why anyone is bothered by it. It does not affect you.

Oh and why is this thread flamebait? Just take a look at the first post and you'll see why, because it condemns people with an opposing view as inhuman scum, that's why, as do you.

What the heck? Do you even read what I write?

If you'll notice I've said multiple times that I don't condemn anyone for their views. I will of course argue against them, but I certainly respect their right to think that way. I've responded to your arguments in a debate and you've thrown insults back in my face and yet you accuse me of judging other people? Something's not right here.

You stand so high and mighty on your throne of righteousness you fail to realize you're as wrong as anyone else and you're just doing it all to "look good" on the internet for crying out loud.

Oh yes, I'm doing this too look good on the internet. Of course I have no other reasons for debating this. Ya, I don't actually care about the issue or anything. It's all just an ego boost over the internet.

Come on, man. Have you considered the possibility that I actually care about this? Look, I was trying to have a debate and all you can do is make personal attacks. You say I'm as wrong as anyone else? Why don't you show me how? Like I said before I responded to your points. If you think I was wrong explain it. Just saying, "your wrong" doesn't make for a very interesting debate.

Want to change something? VOTE FOR IT. Don't whine about how other people vote because it's their right, and discuss it all you want so long as you don't undermine other's OPINION with your own OPINION.

I would vote for it, but I don't live in a state that had a ban on the ballot. If my state eventually does that, then yes of course I will vote against it.

I'm am discussing it right now. How am I undermining other's opinions? Because I disagree with them? Well, that's what you do in a debate. You argue against the other person's opinion. All I've done is disagree with your opinion and say why I disagreed with it. You respond by calling me racist, stupid, a teenager, and apparently egotistical. Just who's trying to undermine who's argument here? I wanted a debate, you've turned it into something else. I would be more than happy to get back to the issue at hand and actually discuss it in a rational manner if you would care to.

You have no facts, you are no more in the right than the other person and as soon as you realize that you may start to understand that by insulting other's beliefs you are antagonizing them even more. You gain support by rallying people to your cause, not pushing them away.

First, you claim I'm insulting other's beliefs when right below this you call my beliefs "frail". Please do explain how that is not insulting my beliefs?

How have I insulted others' beliefs? Have you really not been reading my posts at all? Where did I insult someone's beliefs? Yes, of course I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean I don't respect that people have different beliefs. Ok, I'll concede I may have insulted Hasan somewhat, which I'll admit was probably wrong to do, but when he compares homosexuality to a disease with no evidence I'll admit it makes me somewhat angry. So sorry about that. But otherwise, I've just been disagreeing with other's beliefs, something that you do in a discussion.

I have no facts? I've quoted 3 different articles talking about the genetic origins of asexuality or homosexuality. I linked you to my other posts on the subject where I bring up the first amendment of the constitution, which upholds the seperation of church and state, something a gay marriage ban violates, I've researched the Bible and explained how I don't think it actually condemns gay marriage. I would bring up more stuff if we could actually have a debate, but it's rather difficult when you turn this into some kind of personal argument.

But if you think all that is wrong then feel free to explain it to me. As I said above just saying, "you have no facts, you are not right" doesn't make for a very interesting debate. Tell me why if you think so. I'll more than likely still argue against it, but that's the whole idea. Even if I disagree I like to here why other people think the way they do.

And you have personally attacked me and don't deny it, it's all over your posts and I wouldn't have replied as such if you hadn't done that. I'm a reasonable person, take a tone with me and I'll use it right back, don't expect me not to notice your underhanded comments because the tone of your posts tells me about your character more than you'd ever care to believe.

Where? Point out where I attacked you personally in the beginning of this. What underhanded comments? If you can I will be more than happy to apologize to you. If you're refering to the thing about supporting slavery and women oppression, that's called inflationary satire. I used it to better make my point. Sorry if you took offense, but it wasn't personal. I realize I do use sarcasm a bit, but that's just the way I tend to argue at times. It's just a style of writing, not personal.

Yes, I'm sure you can read my character over the internet. Please do tell me all about myself.

Stop avoiding the question and answer it, or are you afraid I'm right and it will shatter your frail beliefs? Why are underage marriages between consenting mature individuals "Wrong" and gay marriage right? That's your whole argument, civil rights? Answer that, everyone should be equal, no matter how small their number correct? Why not them?

I did answer it. But to appease you I will try to explain in further detail.

First off, this argument is not an argument against gay marriage. I can easily change your question to this: "Why are underage marriages between consenting mature individuals "Wrong" and straight marriage right? Can you answer that for me? Does that question even make sense to you? See underage marriage has nothing to do with the issue. Would you serioulsy use this as an argument against heterosexual marriage between consenting adults? Because that is essentially what you are doing. But that makes as little sense as trying to use it against homosexual marriages between consenting adults.

Second, I think your argument is that since we legally regulate marriage when it comes to underage children this gives us the right to legally regulate marriage when it comes to gays correct? How do you reach this conclusion? I would like you to explain in detail the logical steps you go through to conclude that regulating underage marriage has something to do with gay marriage more than straight marriage.

But regardless of that, let's look at what you are saying. You basically are saying that if we legalized gay marriage then we should legalize underage marriage. First, the same argument could be used for legalizing straight marriage (which is of course already legal). Next, the reason we regulate underage marriage is because we wish to protect children. To begin, understand that government age laws cannot affect specific individuals differently. While that would be nice, it's not possible in any society. To gurantee freedom and protection to all we must have age laws affect everyone equally. I think you can see why that is true.

So what about a 10 year old girl? I think you'll agree that she is too young to get married. There are valid pyschological reason why this is so. A child of this age is not an adult and does not have the same capacity to make adult decisions. So what about an 11 year old girl? Sure it's still pretty obvious she's too young. A 12 year old? Of course. A 14 year old? Still pretty obvious. The child is still not an adult mentally or physically. They probably haven't even reached puberty yet. A 15 year old? Some children are probably starting to get more mature, but many are not and many still will not have fully reached puberty. A 16 year old? It's getting just starting to get a little iffy and in fact in the past the age of consent has been 16. But there are still many children that have not even completed puberty. How about 17? Ok at this age, many children are probably as mature as many 18 year olds, but there will still be a good number that still maintain characteristics of a child. They've probably gone through puberty but some of it's after affects may still be obviosly with them. 18? Well this is the legal age of consent. No doubt it is not perfect and there are children younger than 18 that are more mature than others that are older than 18. But because an age law must affect everyone equally we had to reach some sort of compromise to protect the greatest number of people. If you made the age of consent 17 you would be putting to many children who have not fully matured at risk. If you made it 19 you might be infringing on too many 18 year olds who are mature. See? It's about protecting children while still granting adults their rights. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best we can do.

Thus regulating underage marriage is about protection. It's about protecting children from abuse and protecting adults from infringement of their rights.The age 18 is something we've all agreed upon as a pretty good compromise to accomplish these aims and it's worked pretty well so far. Yes, some underage children who are as mature as an 18 year old maybe should be allowed to marry. (actually I believe 16 and 17 year olds can still marry with their parents consent in many states). But in order to protect everyone you have to draw a line somewhere.

So what does this have to do with gay marriage? Nothing. Regulating underage marriage is necessary as it is a form of protection. Children who have not completed puberty are obviously not sexually or mentally mature yet. This is a fact. But since not everyone is the same we had to choose a later age such as 18 to make sure everyone was protected.

Regulating gay marriage has nothing in common with this. It is not about protection. Who are you protecting? Gay marriage is just like straight marriage. It would only be allowed between consenting adults. There is no question of protecting people. There is only a question of infringing on peoples rights.

Hope that explains what I was saying better.

I think your argument is pure BS meant to hide your desire to fit in with today's society where being gay isn't normal, "it's cool!".

See this is more of the same. Instead of attacking my arguments you attack the arguer. It doesn't help your position.

You think I talk about gay marriage because I want to be cool? Sorry to tell you but I don't like society all that much, so no, I don't particularly want to "fit in" with it. So you think the fact that two of my family members who I grew up with are gay has nothing to do with it? The fact that I have multiple friends who are gay has nothing to do with it? The fact that I've supported gay marriage ever since I learned that it was an issue more than a decade ago has nothing to do with it? Please, you know nothing about me so don't pretend to psychoanalyize me over the internet.

Feel free to attack my argument, but attacking me does nothing for you. You can guess anything you want about me, but it doesn't really matter as it's not part of the discussion.

 

[qckbeam]

Neutrino, I can only wish I had half your patience and tact. I truly do not know how you can keep an even head in these situations and continue to prove your point in such an articulate and persuasive manner. Seriously, well done.

 

[CptStern]

Neutrino, I can only wish I had half your patience and tact. I truly do not know how you can keep an even head in these situations and continue to prove your point in such an articulate and persuasive manner. Seriously, well done.

I've often thought that myself ...I dont know how you do it ..I've only seen you mad once ...I've lost my temper a million times ...must be my inner chi :thumbs:

 

[Tr0n]

I've often thought that myself ...I dont know how you do it ..I've only seen you mad once ...I've lost my temper a million times ...must be my inner chi :thumbs:

I noticed that most candians seem to have patients.I wonder why...

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I noticed that most candians seem to have patients.I wonder why...

how many of them are MDs?! that must be one rich country..

 

[qckbeam]

I've often thought that myself ...I dont know how you do it ..I've only seen you mad once ...I've lost my temper a million times ...must be my inner chi :thumbs:

My inner chi wants to lash out and strangle people

 

[Lil' Timmy]

My inner chi wants to lash out and strangle people

um that's not your inner chi.. it's your penis qck :|

 

[qckbeam]

um that's not your inner chi.. it's your penis qck :|

My penis is totally non-violent. qckles doesn't want to strangle anyone, do you boy?

 

[Korgoth]

Just so you guys know, I voted against the amendment to place hatred into my constitution... To no avail of course. Americans are stupid, Sweden, here I come .

 

[Neutrino]

Neutrino, I can only wish I had half your patience and tact. I truly do not know how you can keep an even head in these situations and continue to prove your point in such an articulate and persuasive manner. Seriously, well done.

I've often thought that myself ...I dont know how you do it ..I've only seen you mad once ...I've lost my temper a million times ...must be my inner chi :thumbs:

Wow, thank you. That's a very kind thing to say and is especially nice to hear coming from you guys. Kind of lifts my spirits a little bit after the whole debacle yesterday. When people accuse me of insulting their beliefs I'm always kind of afraid I let myself go to far and said something I shouldn't have. I really try hard not to, but I fail sometimes.

I'm sure I lose my temper just as much as the next person. I just bang my head against the wall for a while and throw things until I cool off enough to type.

Just so you guys know, I voted against the amendment to place hatred into my constitution... To no avail of course. Americans are stupid, Sweden, here I come .

People like you are why I still maintain some faith in this country. Don't worry, we'll prevail eventually. But in the meantime, mind if I join you?

 

[qckbeam]

Trust me Neutrino, you are the best debater here; you've never insulted anyone on these forums, and you've never once gone too far. Don't give up

Now let's all go to Sweden!

 

[Korgoth]

You're more than welcome to come along Neut. Stress free life, all the chocolate we can eat, fricken A lets go!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Just so you guys know, I voted against the amendment to place hatred into my constitution... To no avail of course. Americans are stupid, Sweden, here I come .

Sigh. Its the ignorance and unacceptance of others that drove you out, not Americans.

 

[Neutrino]

Sounds like a plan. :E

Hope the skiing is good there. I can't live without skiing.

 

[Korgoth]

Sigh. Its the ignorance and unacceptance of others that drove you out, not Americans.

HAHAHA Ignorance and unacceptance of others, are you refering to the people who voted yes to amend the constition to allow intolerance of gays? Because yeah i'd agree that thats ignorance and unacceptance.

 

[Tr0n]

Oh I didn't vote for anything (to young)...I hope I wasn't one of them to drive you out.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

come on guys, let just compromise:
it was the ignorance and unacceptance of americans that drove him out.

now everybody's happy

 

[Tr0n]

Even tho he is American himself...

 

[Neutrino]

now everybody's happy

In a morbid sort of way.

 

[seinfeldrules]

HAHAHA Ignorance and unacceptance of others, are you refering to the people who voted yes to amend the constition to allow intolerance of gays? Because yeah i'd agree that thats ignorance and unacceptance.

You are nothing more than a sore loser who cannot stand the fact that others hold a different opinion. There is no room in America for that. Have fun in Sweden.

 

[Absinthe]

You are nothing more than a sore loser who cannot stand the fact that others hold a different opinion. There is no room in America for that. Have fun in Sweden.

Thing is, Innervision actually has a point.

 

[Neutrino]

You are nothing more than a sore loser who cannot stand the fact that others hold a different opinion. There is no room in America for that. Have fun in Sweden.

I think we can stand the fact that others have different opinions just fine. I just can't stand the fact that they've used those opinions to force their own moral values onto others when they are not affected by anything those others do. An opinion is one thing. Using that opinion to support legal discrimination is another.

How is he a sore loser? Just because his side lost in the elections doesn't mean he changed his opinions all of a sudden. You expect people just to concede? No, people will continue to fight for what they think is right on both sides. There is indeed room in America for that.

 

[Locust]

If we allow gay marriage, we encourage a practice that has no real point but selfish indulgince. You know those marriages that you hear about that fall apart because they are based on sex alone. This would be the exact case with a gay couple. Homosexual marriages don't work and to encourage them would be a bad move on the part of the governmnet.