You havent brought so many facts yourself... alot of propaganda about your beliefs and about situations, but I have to admit I havent seen so many documented cases of what you are saying. You say there are.. but then you dont use the facts.
ie...
Facts are generally verifiable examples, not arguments based on fluid philosophical beliefs. One reason you haven't seen any documented cases of what you are saying is that you don't look for them and don't want to see them. Another reason is that many of those stories, especially as recently as a few years ago, would never be presented in the media for the same reason - "the public doesn't want to see them." You can go to your local newspaper's archives and pull copies of obituaries from 15 years ago to start getting some idea. . .then look at some from ten years ago. You can also pull up examples of challenges in probate court where judges have ruled life partners have no legal standing. Then you could locate the more recent cases in which the "gay panic" defense is being used. That would be a nice start instead of accusing someone of propaganda simply because it's easier to live in denial.
On the other hand, you've shown no factual examples that indicate any practical harm in allowing access to benefits. And then "conservatives" wonder why the courts have little basis for ruling in favor of their arguments.
I highly doubt this... and if anything the only reason for it is that only a very small percentage of homosexuals are married. The ones that are have had to go to extrordinary lengths, and probably havent been married as long as the average heterosexual couple. Hence, any statistics at this point would be rubbish.
We don't know how many couples are in common-law or domestic situations. One of the tactics of promoting invisibility is to also refuse to conduct a census. If they don't really exist, there's nothing to count, right? In divorce cases, I think the highest number of heterosexual marriages generally are terminated during the first ten years of the relationship - and it may not be that uncommon for marriages to end within hours - just ask Britney Spears. My own younger sister ended her marriage after one year. While we can expect same-sex couples to encounter the same divorce situations as heterosexuals, it is hopefully more likely that, at least initially, marriage between couples who have already cohabitated for 20 or 30 years should have a high success rate. Marriage has been in existence in The Netherlands for several years now - and so far, with a much lower divorce rate. Perhaps gay couples appreciate an institution long denied them much more than people who treat it as a given privilege.
Actually, I got that out of the dictionary for you. If you have a dictionary that the majority doesnt use thats fine, no wonder we dont agree
You must be rather insecure if you need to believe that the "majority" has declared a specific dictionary as the absolute source of defining language. Definitions are both fluid and varied in a living language. But it is nice to know that you can look for some kind of supporting information for at least a minor contention.
Yeah, pretty much... I believe that a people in a democracy should be able to vote as they see fit. Even if at times that means being able to make the wrong decision. It doesnt mean they have to revisit everything, just what they want to revisit.
That's a nice simplistic approach to exonerating people from responsibility for their actions. No wonder Alan Keyes wandered just enough from the right wing fold to advocate reparations for descendants of African-American slaves.
While it is a nice, democratically-sounding contention that people should be able to vote as they see fit, conservatives only apply this philosophy when it involves support for their own positions. In Cleveland Heights, for example, voters by a wide margin approved a simple domestic registry. The registry was designed to be a means for the city to let same-sex couples record their relationships on a public roll as proof for companies who offered domestic partnership benefits. One "conservative" member of the city council approved the idea of putting it to a public vote. The public voted for it. Then the "conservative christian" legal group Alliance Defense Fund decided the registry must be challenged because they didn't like the voting outcome, even though none of their members could show any practical damage.
This is the same organization that runs around the country screaming that the public has to vote on something as sanctimonious as marriage. But their activities are certainly aren't limited to that arena. They are in a rather interesting lawsuit against a local school district in California, which they contend has removed the Declaration of Independence from classrooms. They touted this abomination on every media outlet they could find as the latest example of the moral depravation of the culture. The case involves a history teacher who apparently regularly passes out "conservative" religious material in his classroom. Parents protested the activity. The school intervened and halted that activity. Even though the teacher himself admitted the school has not removed the Declaration of Independence from any material, the ADF launched a campaign that sent thousands of emails to the school, some threatening and spewing forth profanities and hatred as only members of a good "christian" organization can. (one does wonder how such morally superior people can so easily type profanities in their messages). The school had to seek the protection of sheriff's deputies in order to securely continue to hold classes.
Conservatives also have no problem blocking votes by the people when public opinion polls show support for protection for gay Americans in employment, housing and public accommodations. The latest polls indicate that some 80% of Americans support these measures, a steady climb in support for years. Conservatives regularly block the legislation, claiming that the religious minorities need to be protected in their privately owned businesses.
Marriage is supported by law... wouldnt it rather be that because ambiguous laws were made homosexuality in some ways fits? However, I dont think the laws were made when they were to allow homosexual unions... if that occurs then its a thing thats happening right now.
Ambiguous laws may have been passed because the existence of homosexuality was denied for years and could be punishable by imprisonment or death, at least for men. Sodomy was a criminal offense, but usually limited to only certain sexual activities, not the practices of an entire sexual orientation. Gays never had to practice sodomy in order to have sex, but heterosexuals still have difficulty understanding that. Moreover, most of those same laws applied to heterosexual couples, including those who were married. In fact, sodomy was considered a violation of marriage law until late in the 19th century, when one judge in Ohio ruled that a wife could not sue her husband for performing a sexual act if she could be perceived as "enjoying it." Throughout the 19th century, there was no belief that lesbians existed at all, and no law prohibited their relationships. Women who petted each other in public were considered "cute" since the widespread belief was that a woman could not be sexually satisfied until she was with a man. As far as men are concerned, sodomy laws were usually enforced against the man who discharged his "babies", not the recepient. The crime was that a man killed his "babies" by committing that act. Hence the tradition of the "crimes against nature" rationale.
Marriage statutes exist because of the state's interest in maintaining order in affairs of health, property, families (including protecting children), and disposal of bodies. Most statutes were written when marriage was nearly a requirement for any social status - women couldn't vote or own property without the protection of those inheritance statutes. The state has an interest in making sure that people don't bury their partners in the backyard. The state has an interest in knowing the count of births and deaths and the number of children in the jurisdiction. That state's own interest in divorce is based on the contractual arrangement made between the married parties and the government involving personal property and disposal of assets, orderly decisionmaking processes and automatic inheritance. If all of these things could be secured so easily through private arrangements as single people, there would be no need for 1100 federal and state statutes recognizing "special" needs of committed relationships and families.
Sure, and there are instances when a mayor smokes crack, and when a dictator tortures his people... etc. Saying that because a corrupt official allows something to happen doesnt mean that he made a good choice or one that is representative of his people.
You're right.. hardly anything is the same in our lives at it used to be. Technology and modernization is grand. Regardless, before you were changing small aspects of marriage. You can try as you might, but changing the sex one is married to is hardly a small step, its a whole new thing.
I doubt that women believe that obtaining property rights or equal partnership status in marriage was a "small" change. The establishment of divorce laws was no small change. The elimination of adultery laws or the decision to curtail enforcement of them was no small change.
Okay, found your post earlier:
Sure we can, but it still has to be rational. You can pick and choose all you want, but if it ends up being irrational then its hardly a valid worldview. The difference between covenant marriage and natural is hardly a difference in worldview... just a difference in preferance.
Nonsense. We've been picking and choosing throughout our entire history. That's why our worldview isn't still reflecting the year 1790. The differences in covenant marriage and "natural" is nothing more than a variation of the endorsement of the idea that marriage vows for a lifetime should always include "out" contracts. Making those arrangements at the same time you are preparing to state your vows should certainly call into question the sanctity of those vows. ". . .in sickness and in health, for better or for worse. . .to death do we part" isn't supposed to be accompanied with "and here's our contract of exceptional amendments to our vows before God and the public."
I dont see how it would be population control, if it was there would be a huge gay revolt in India and China. Seriously though, its highly doubtable that nature would make a control switch like that, being that nature generally has a way of controling its own population. Humans can throw that off... but even humans has a way of controling population. Generally war and disease. So if you're saying that homosexuality is a control element for populations, should homosexuals be allowed to have kids? (adopt, or convince somebody to have their baby). You'd say yes, but how is that going with the population control theory?
The evidence appears to be that nature creates its own control switch without regard to the variable wishes about proper behavior of the animal world from human beings.
Adoption isn't "having" kids - it's raising them. And since it has recently been reported that one christian agency apparently streamlines adoption of American babies for foreign families (at the rate of 500 per year), we apparently aren't capable of providing good homes for our own nation's children. Apparently the conservative philosophy is that since babies of color are difficult to find good homes for in the United States (except for, curiously, gay couples who often take children that heterosexual adoptive parents consider unacceptable), it's much more patriotic to ship them off to families in Peru, Italy, or Canada. In fact, I think that same "christian" adoption agency is located in Florida, the only state which completely bans any adoptions by gays. Gay couples who choose to have their own children exercise population control on their own. They don't have babies that they can't support and don't contribute to the numbers of children being supported by the state.
and like I said before, some people are born with 6 fingers, or mental retardation... that doesnt meant it was meant to be. Just a biological mistake occuring during the formation of life. Are you saying you believe in God here? Almost sounds like the Christian God with all that rebeling and stuff... if you are going to use God in your examples then you have to admit morality based on more than just human desires for equality.
A perfect God doesn't make biological "mistakes." Man does. And man also creates that imperfection in his own imperfect interpretations of what a biological "mistake" means. There's no evidence that six fingers make a human being unable to function in a civilized society. The revulsion of other humans to that reality is what makes it a "mistake."
I just dont see an evolutionary or religious purpose for homosexuality or homosexual marriages. I've already stated why I dont think that either supports it. If its allowed, then thats nice of everyone... and it is the right thing to do when viewed from the perspective of human rights. Human rights are only mildly supported by evolution though, and thats pushing it. Of course evolution is becoming less a physical process and more of a social process, so the only way you can justify homosexuality IMO is by saying it will better society. And if thats the case, it had damn well have a huge impact on society as you are sacrificing for it that one should believe and that one should act on those beliefs. At least as things stand at present. The United States is founded on belief and action, and while it has had its negatives without a doubt, it has also managed to evolve into society as it is today. Social progress does occur here... but it occurs over time and as beliefs change. The homosexuals in the US are going to have to do a much better job of trying to create support, the kind of change that gay pride parades and calling someone a right wing nut case dont in any way foster. I think that the gay community actually does more to turn others away from it than it does to try to get them to understand their point of view.
Of course not - you are a "sinner" just like every other human being, according to "christian" teaching. You just advocate that some sins, i.e. homosexuality as opposed to, say, eating shellfish, are more worthy of earthly persecution because you don't like the existence. Again, "allowance" is an assumption of some kind of innate natural social superiority that "grants" the existence of others. As much as macho heterosexual men love to tout their personal sexual prowess, I don't believe every woman embraces it. However, the concept that "all men are created equal. . ." doesn't exclude those men who you feel need your approval before being treated equally, just as citizenship is automatic to gays who are born in this country.
The protection of individual rights in this nation is not about each person proving his "worth" to society - it's about the society proving that each man is "unworthy" of participation. In order to do that, society has to show practical and real harms to the community, not simple disapproval, particularly in matters that are considered highly individual choices. A bodybuilder cannot be prohibited from lifting weights simply because the community may decide the results are "unattractive" to them unless they are able to show some practical harm to the rest of the community. That would mean (and curiously rather informally occurs in some settings where bodybuilders were historically ridiculed) that other men would feel sexually threatened by a perceived superior reproductive prowess, making their own sexual desireability be diminished in the eyes of women. By your philosophy, that alone should be the basis for the "majority" to remove that choice from any individual.
and I'd chalk you up to a memgership in the cock sucking generation, but only a few of you picked up the habit
Be careful of your assumptions. I've never self-identified any such sexual orientation in this forum or on these boards. Of course, a conservative must assume that someone has to be gay in order to conduct research into their treatment in the media.
Actually not.. if one looks to the root of marriage I'm sure you will find lots of sex before and after, and in some time periods it was quite acceptable to have several wives, girlfriends, or concubines to go along with it. I'm equal opportunity, everybody should be able to have some good sex before they get married (and even more after
). Traditional morals is a fluid perspective... as we constantly have more past in our trip into the future. In the US, traditional conservatives have of course considered what you said as the traditional moral perspective (disregarding anything near Salt Lake City of course
).
And they are not above attempting to impose those morals again on you, either.
Speaking of which... so tell me Kbm, should people be allowed to have multiple spouses if they so desire? If they desire such of course. Of course stipulating that they are of age and consent.
I would say that with the number of heterosexuals who cheat on their legally designated spouses, they technically already have been doing that. And conservatives so far have been very careful not to demand any change to the lax nature of what laws exist concerning adultery. However, the state has done an excellent job of arguing practical reasons for not providing these relationships with legal status, and it has much more to do with complications in providing a natural order to personal property and designation of benefits to family members than vague perceptions of morality that large numbers of straight people ignore. Actually, the passage of the constitutional amendment in Utah has raised the issue that it may provide a window for polygamy challenges - the definition of one man and one woman forgot include the words "at a time."
Okay, you got me... if gays are allowed to marry I'll still pay my taxes
And they'll face the same "marriage penalties," as long as any exist.
Nope, I get it... I've said since the beginning that I could care less if homosexuals have civil unions. Its the same thing as marriage, but I think the church should be allowed to cater to that as it wishes as according to their beliefs. I'm simply taking fault with your constantly attacking the "right" and "christians" because you dont subscribe to their beliefs. I think we should all have a right to believe, and to act on those beliefs.
No one has ever suggested churches be forced to officiate at a same-sex wedding. They've never been forced to bless a heterosexual wedding, either, and regularly take issue with those unions for any number of religious reasons. And the state ignores those reasons just as regularly in issuing the licenses.
Lets just set this straight, I could care less if you sucked every willing dick between Maine and California... I'm not arguing on whether I'm against that or not. My argument stems in your trying to convince everybody that your beliefs matter more than other people and that the "right" is full of a bunch of ass holes that for some reason wish fire and brimstone upon unsuspecting homosexuals. I know lots of good people that believe homosexuality is wrong because they find it morally objectionable due to their believe system. You can call them names or piss on them as much as you want, but I dont think you can address a persons deepest beliefs like that and make a solid point. I mean, do you really think that these people want anybody to be hurt or have their name removed from an obituary, or whatever else there is? No, I really dont think so. They believe in something strongly though and morally cannot accept homosexuality.
[
I]The proper response to those personal beliefs would be to not engage in a gay relationship.
By the way, I've never indicated any inclination to suck anyone's dick - but I appreciate the assumption. I also appreciate the declaration of non-interest. . .that would meet moral standards expected of someone who expects to engage in the sanctity of marriage, a place where the ideal is that parties confine thoughts of sexual activity to their own relationships rather than fantasize about the perceived interests of others. I can certainly address anyone's "deepest beliefs" about their fantasies concerning the imagined sexual practices of another, particularly if they base those beliefs on that same perceived moral right to claim sanctity for their own behaviors while violating that sanctity by projecting imagined activities onto others.[/I]
Like the death penalty, do you think that most people that watch somebody be put to death jump up and down in glee because we as a society have for the most part condoned capital punishment? I doubt it. You might hear someone say "well they got what they deserved", but that is their morals speaking their sense of justice. Its not a joyful situation, its something that occurs because people believe that is what is right.
There have been parties and picnics outside correctional institutions on days of execution. And, in our history, regular celebrations were held on lynching days. We just had one of our own military officers slip up in an interview and declare that he enjoys killing.
Well, I'm a white heterosexual male, so society has in many ways stated that I'm less of a citizen than others who are not those things. If I get fired, I dont have the protections that somebody might have if they were of a different race or were female. When I sign up for a job or apply to a college I dont get extra points for being a white male. Perhaps one day society will declare me an immoral creature or say that I'm of little use because I am a white heterosexual male... and I'll have to deal with those days as they come. If that day comes I have no doubt I will pursue what I think is right just as you do now.
