For or Against Gay Marriage

But the thing is, you will not be arrested and prosecuted. They'll just tell you no.

Whereas if you produce a marriage certificate and it shows that your sister is your wife, or you have multiple wives, then you will be arrested.
 
Yeah me too!!

But I think we should let V.O.R. go ahead with his plans to marry his sister.. I'm shure it couldn't produce any oRABpring that would be more strange than the original.
 
And all of the above are included in the category "selfish".

Your problemn lies with the term "selfish".


Which one of the reasons that YOU stated above don't fall into the definition of selfish acts? You can't demonize me for stating the facts. My personal opinion wasn't polled; I just cited the FACTS.
You want to argue to the death that having an abortion isn't a selfish act when, by your own worRAB, the reasons given are "selfish" reasons. Just because you have a repulsion to the word doesn't mean that it isn't applicable. There's nothing wrong, IMO, with acting in your own self-interests...at times. If a woman's health is at risk, I would favor her having the choice. If it is just an "inconvenience" for her, I don't.

First and foremost, my family. That's why I'm against others killing members of theirs. How can someone who professes to love life say that it's OK to kill a fetus if: the stars and moon aren't quite aligned right or I only have one more semester of school or I picked a loser for a father or I'll lose my new job, etc., etc., To me, it's hypocritical to say that you care about life but favor ending one for trivial reasons. (yes, TRIVIAL. In the grand scheme of things, most of the reasons cited are trivial)

Ah yes, here comes the personal attacks. I knew it was only a matter of time before the man-hater in you would rear its ugly head once again. How predictable. :rolleyes:
I respect all women. That's why I don't want to see them reduced to semen receptacles. Your world of abortion on demand goes a long ways towarRAB promoting that status, mine doesn't. You asked what I'm doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies, I'll tell you. I taught both of my daughters and my son to understand the risks involved in pre-marrital sex and guess what? They're all legal adults now without any illegitimate kiRAB. Surprising? Not to me. I raised them to be responsible and, lo and behold, they responded accordingly.
I can't save the world by preaching abstinance, but I can save a small chunk of it. You can't save any of it by preaching pro-abortion. :mad:
 
That is true........Its just if your a good Catholic then should live by their precepts and doctrine and 2 of them are that they are against abortion and gay marriage............How as a catholic can you reconcile yourself to that?
 
Well yes, a marriage with the same family member COULD be that, without sex(or with sex). However...



You are arguing for marriages with no sexual or romantic component. That is a different topic, and does not involve someone I would call my boyfriend.
 
Those Blue Laws are not upheld because of their religious origin. They are upheld because of a deference to community standarRAB, which incidentally were based on a particular religion and its variations. I suspect that a strong case could be made to strike those laws down were anyone interested in bringing the matter to the SCOTUS.
You're allowed to believe any religion that you choose, but you can only express that opinion in ways that don't conflict with the rights of other people. You can't, for example, kill people for apostasy.
True, but the minority is also protected against any laws that the majority might enact to deprive them of rights that they would otherwise share with the majority. The enactment of religiously-based laws that make illegal the otherwise legal religious practices of the minority seems to contravene the limited constitutional protection that people in the USA have to practice their religion. In the past such laws 'protected' Catholics from their hostile Protestant neighbors.
I never claimed that there was a monolithic Christian Religion. I did point out that the existence of such an official state religion is immaterial though.
I disagree. Morality is quite easily divorced from religion, as its academic study shows. It requires no theological explanation or basis, and is a cause, rather than an effect, of religion. Moreover different religions subscribe to different moral systems, and basing law on any doctrine particular to a certain religion necessarily infringes on ability of members of other religions to practice their own doctrines.
Such democratic tyranny is specifically restricted by the constitution of the USA as it provides for protection of the minority by the majority by restricting what things the majority can enact laws about. No community, for example, may decide that thinking about God constitutes a breach of acceptable standarRAB of behaviour. By "society as a whole" I think you mean "the majority in society". And that majority, as I have mentioned, may not pass unconstitutional laws about the granting of licenses. Those restrictions on licenses you mention aren't unconstitutional because they instantiate other portions of the constitution and represent a balancing act of one part of the constitution against another by minimally violating both.
 
Are we going back to correcting each other on spelling again? Looking at some of your posts I don't think you want to go there.......... :rolleyes:

You can misspell all you want just try and get your facts right when it comes to who nominated justices........
 
I am sorry but the law of God takes precedence over the law of man when it comes to moral issues and in your heart of hearts you know that.............

I am not calling you anything except to say you have a deep problem with your Catholic beliefs ..........
 
People who prevent others from their " pursuit of happiness " usally do so from their own inability to understand anothers point of view. Or they just fear what they don't understand.
 
The sky didn't fall in Mass. By Deb Price
Tue May 17, 6:27 AM ET



"Equal Marriage: It's the Law."


On May 17, 2004, when Massachusetts began marrying its gay couples, that simple declaration - emblazoned on golden stickers shaped like deputy sheriff's badges and proudly worn by ecstatic gay-rights supporters - celebrated a seismic shift. State-approved gay marriage was no longer a theoretical possibility. It was a reality.


Now, a year and more than 6,100 gay weddings later, the reviews are in. Folks in Massachusetts, the first in the nation to experience this expansion of freedom, have swung 180 degrees to favoring it.


Bay State voters now overwhelmingly support gay marriage, 56% to 37%, according to a Boston Globe poll in March. That's a breathtaking turnabout from February 2004. Back then, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays had to be allowed to marry but before the marriages began, voters opposed the change, 53% to 35%.


"People find out that when Adam and Steve marry next door, it doesn't hurt them, but it does help Adam and Steve," says pollster Bob Meadow of Decision Research, which, like The Globe, found that voters have warmed to the reality of same-sex marriage.


What didn't happen


While the outside world debates how to treat its gay couples, Massachusetts sees that fire-and-brimstone predictions didn't come true.


Religious institutions haven't been forced to bless the civil marriage of any gay couple, though many have done so voluntarily. Nor did supporting the court's order to extend all the state-conferred rights and responsibilities of marriage trigger a ballot-box backlash against gay-friendly lawmakers.


Having lived with gay marriage, Massachusetts seems a bit smitten with it. By 65% to 34%, voters say it hasn't weakened the institution of marriage. Only 13% say gay marriage has had a negative effect on married heterosexuals. And 71% expect the state to "become more and more accepting of same-sex marriage," Decision Research found in surveying 600 registered voters for MassEquality, a pro-gay marriage group.


And what about the married gay couples? They revel in the profound ways that marrying has knitted them legally and socially into the larger community, while nudging them to hold hanRAB in public or begin saying "husband" or "wife" instead of "partner."


Julie and Hillary Goodridge, one of seven couples who sued to marry, are awed by how quickly obstacles can vanish for couples with marriage's protections.


Exhibit A: The night-and-day difference in how they were treated during two medical emergencies. Nine years ago, moments after Julie gave birth to their daughter, Hillary rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit. Once Hillary realized baby Annie was fine, despite having inhaled fluid, she circled back to reassure Julie.


A nurse sternly blocked her way: "Immediate family only." When Hillary, in tears, tried to return to her newborn, she met with the same indignity.


The couple wed last May 17. Soon afterward, Hillary split her lip trying to free Annie's toy parachute from a tree. A hospital nurse asked Hillary whether she lived with anyone. "I said, 'Yes, I live with my spouse and daughter.' He said, 'Is he with you?' And I said, 'She is here, in the waiting room with our daughter.' He was so sweet, and said, 'Of course. Would you like your family with you?' "


Obstacles remain: The legislature is closely divided on whether to have the public vote in 2006 on replacing gay marriage with civil unions. And the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage for any purpose, including income taxes and survivor benefits.


Massachusetts' state and local governments treat all their married workers the same. Private employers offering health plans that are insured also must honor gay marriages because those plans are state-regulated. But businesses with their own private health plans - where no outside insurer assumes risk - fall under federal law, which lets companies shortchange gay workers on spousal benefits. This crazy-quilt set of rules means equal benefits are sometimes available, sometimes not. In Massachusetts, a Wal-Mart clerk can put her wife on the retailer's HMO plan because it is governed by state law, says Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman. But Wal-Mart won't let the clerk put her wife on its self-insured health plan.


Impact across the USA


By and large, Massachusetts' transition has been smooth. Gay and straight couples line up side by side for marriage licenses. But beyond the state's borders, the reaction has been anything but placid.

Fourteen states have joined four earlier ones in amending constitutions to ban gay marriage.

Positive out-of-state responses have gotten less publicity. A California lawmaker, inspired by Massachusetts, has spurred his legislature to consider going next. This year, Connecticut lawmakers and their Republican governor embraced civil unions.

New Boston Globe numbers reveal that gay marriage doesn't yet win a national popularity contest. By 50% to 37%, adults nationwide oppose it. What's heartening is that already 46% want every state to recognize Massachusetts' gay marriages.

But the most interesting impact has been on Massachusetts and its own couples. Michael Horgan and Ed Balmelli fell in love nine years before being wed May 17. Now, a simple piece of paper has enriched their life more than they imagined possible. "We always used to tell people we considered ourselves married," Horgan says. "But you really don't know what marriage is until you're married."

Marriage's transforming magic is so powerful that Massachusetts isn't the same state it was a year ago. Changing the law to expand marriage didn't just make Massachusetts a better place to be gay. It made Massachusetts a better place.

Deb Price writes a nationally syndicated column on gay issues for The Detroit Newsand was among the first gay Americans to marry in Canada in 2003.




Copyright
 
Perversion is a very subjective term. Self-actualized people don't necessarily believe they are above the law. They stand up for their equal human rights, including their right to not be abused.

I could just as easily claim the authoritarianism associated with conservatism, is what leaRAB to abuse. Children do not have the self-esteem to question the authority figure who abuses them. Too much absolute, unquestioned, authority corrupts.
 
What did you refute? I have not glazed over any point. You stated that a marriage is what people believe it is. If I believe what I have is a marriage, then, according to what you said, it is.

The issue here isn't definition. It is recognition. If the state doesn't want to recognize my marriage, then it has to provide a compelling reason not to - particularly since that recognition comes with privileges.



My "comebacks" are hardly elusive. I have addressed every one of your points without insulting you. As a matter of fact it is you who has refused to address the counter-arguments, sine you have yet to detail any of your conclusions.

You talked about definitions of worRAB that would changed. I asked how they would change. I even pointed out how they didn't change. You still haven't addressed that.

You talk about biblical meanings. I pointed out that marriage wasn't even under the domain of christianity until about 900 years ago (I'll have to verify the exact timing from my sources).

You talked about the definition of marriage hasn't changed for countless years. I pointed that they did, since A man was allowed to marry AS MANY WOMEN as he could afford, and that women did not hold equal status as men in marriage. As a matter of fact, a woman wasn't considered more than a object or a farm animal in a marriage initially.

You talk about marriage being with a man and a woman as a universal norm. I pointed to places where that obviously is not the case, even here within the United States.

And, you tell me that if I want to get married so badly I should go find a wife. Since I am a gay man, I told you that I would prefer to find myself a nice HUSBAND to settle down with.

The only time you can say I may have been flippant, is when you went on with your ridiculous rant about liberals, "infesting ALL parties. It's just that some parties are overflowing with them, some have but a few." Actually. looking back at the response:



It wasn't flippant, since that is exactly what you were doing (blaming liberals).

However, I have no problem being patient. I am right after all.
 
Back
Top