Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Slapjak · Feb 24, 2004, 06:27 pm

Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment
After reading this article I was caught questioning where I stand on this issue...and I came up with this:
I'm a fairly conservative minded individual, but like most people there are certain issues that dont follow with my political ideology...and i think this is one of them. Quite frankly, if homosexuals want to get married...let them get married. I fail to see the drain it would be on society and dont see why it is such a hot topic. I have read that gay marriage is something both potential presidential candidates and president bush oppose, but the democrats wouldnt support a constitutional amendment.

- Which brings me to a question...what is it that makes this such a controversial topic? In what ways could it help society and what ways could it hurt?

**Pooeypants** · Feb 24, 2004, 08:37 pm

Well the election is coming (duh) and does this proposal get the support of the majority of Americans? :rolleyes:

Mathieu · Feb 24, 2004, 08:44 pm

While democrats and Republican are talking about gay marriage, they are not talking about the war, the economy, Bin Laden, the homeland security, the environement etc...

It makes everyone happy to dodge those issue IMHO, especially the Reps...

thrillofitall · Feb 24, 2004, 08:46 pm

thought this was a good speech on the topic .. by Bill Maher

"You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this Valentine's day, let's stop and ask ourselves, "What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?"

And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, social security -- hey, how about we privatize privacy! Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

You know, the Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's $1.5 billion in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the sanctity of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator could be considered sacred.

Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing, kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis.

But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But I have to tell you that the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination, and, therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible; it's ripped right from the latest poll which says that most Americans are against gay marriage. Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong, and where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half-measures of civil union and hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner and say loud and clear, "There is no sin. It's not an abomination and no one can control how cupid aims his arrows, and the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks."

The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born one-hundred-percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire-Island gay. And they do not need re-programming -- they need a man with a slow hand."

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 24, 2004, 11:18 pm

Marriage is a state driven sham.

If you really want to get an official union it should be left to whatever church or company you want to unionize you.

But to be perfectly honest...no gold band is going to make or break a relationship, it's simply up to the people and if they love each other.

Mathieu · Feb 24, 2004, 11:22 pm

But there are the fiscal advantages ...

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 24, 2004, 11:28 pm

Tax advantages...

Leopard · Feb 25, 2004, 02:08 am

...and if those advantages are state sponsored - they are pure social manipulation. I find it very interesting that people (both from the right and left) have this deep-seated desire to dictate their world view/morals/beliefs to other people as if 'other' people are stupid for not agreeing with them. Take just about any libertarian stance, since we are talking about Gay Marriage, then lets look at that:

Libertarian stance: Whatever two or more consenting adults wish do to with each other (have sex, be boyfriend/girlfriend/ marriage/live together/etc) does not infringe on the rights of other people to do as they (the other people) wish so it is simply not an issue for the state to reflect upon. The implications of this seem to escape most people: although the 'state' is legally obligated to treat everyone equally (in the eyes of the law or in regard to 'rights') people are free to define things for themselves: Churches are free to endorse homosexuality or be outright vocal against it, business owners are free to give special treatment to whatever type of people they desire (if they want to try to promote 'traditional marriage' over some 'homosexual marraige', they are free to give benefits to only Man/Woman unions, and businesses would also be free to act exactly opposite: promote 'gay' unions with regard to benefits and not give those benefits to heterosexual unions. It is in this way that society is allowed to truly reflect its beliefs and ideals. Its the same for bigotry or racism or some belief that blonde people are stupid: let people do as they wish with their own property and keep the state out of it. The businesses that refuse to hire gays will be at an economical disadvantage compared to businesses which have no such restriction. By stepping out of the picture, the state also stops encouraging an 'us vs them' mentality. Let people figure out for themselves what is in their best interests.

How wouldeveryone feel if it was federal law that you had to marry someone who you were not attracted to? If you were attracted to very skinny short blondes, but since that is 'discrimination' against fat, tall, brunettes - they state forces you (by passing laws) to marry someone who is repulsive to you. This is the EXACT same thing as the state forcing you to make hiring decisions based on things the state considers important, trying to force what constitutes alegal marriage, forcing you to provide group healthcare for employees...

people see this hypocracy in government, yet they still subscribe to the notion that it has to be this way....

michael

Mathieu · Feb 25, 2004, 02:14 am

Yeah ,but in the real world , it is not like that it works Michael. Libertarian have a problem with that ... The real world...

koi · Feb 25, 2004, 02:57 am

How is it my place, let alone the government's place to judge homosexuals?
How is it that this body of people think that they have the power to decide who is allowed to love who, and how they are allowed to express it?
People claim it is against god, a sin, immoral, disgusting.
To them I ask, and what exactly is so much more pure about a straight relationship? So gay people cannot reproduce through their chosen form of intercourse. There are lots of children who have been conceived, born and offered up for adoption.
For your every excuse to propogate hatred and intollerance I will stand in defiance and question your faith in the pathetic jargon you spew. see with your hearts and minds as people! these "horrible homosexuals" who "threaten" your way of life are nothing more than people. human beings. individuals with rights and freedoms that must be respected and maintained.

Mia · Feb 25, 2004, 05:13 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,)
thought this was a good speech on the topic .. by Bill Maher

"You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this Valentine's day, let's stop and ask ourselves, "What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?"

And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, social security -- hey, how about we privatize privacy! Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli.

You know, the Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's $1.5 billion in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the sanctity of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator could be considered sacred.

Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing, kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis.

But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that worked out so well with the Catholic priests.

But I have to tell you that the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination, and, therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible; it's ripped right from the latest poll which says that most Americans are against gay marriage. Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong, and where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half-measures of civil union and hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner and say loud and clear, "There is no sin. It's not an abomination and no one can control how cupid aims his arrows, and the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks."

The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born one-hundred-percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire-Island gay. And they do not need re-programming -- they need a man with a slow hand."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I agree with the majority of what you said. But the sin part...it IS a sin. Bus so is pre-marital sex. So is adultary. And we don't legislate that anymore. 1) Separation of church and state - it doesn't matter if it's a sin. 2) this is supposed to be the land of freedom. Where we do do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else or impinge on their freedom.

Gays don't hurt us. Hating gays hurts us. They can't help it. Most would give their arms not to be gay. They represent 10% at least of society and who do they hurt if they want to make their unions legal and give each other the benifits and commitment of marriage? It hurts no one! It does nothing to the "institution of marriage."

Gays getting married don't do anything to my marriage. Someone tell me how this hurt us? And don't give me the moral crap - there is immorality all around us. Two gays making a private, legal commitment affects the morality of a nation a lot less (actually not at all) than the smut we see every day and the disgusting number of partners heterosexuals have before and after marriage.

gem · Feb 25, 2004, 09:56 am

It is difficult to think of an issue, the discussion of which provides a more comprehensive view of those "moral absolutes" in conflict with one another.

My respect and understanding of others has increased during the twenty-seven years of life shared with another whose sex I also share. Last year he asked would I marry him? Although I, like so many others, am not comfortable with the word "marriage" preferring "civil union", he asked for marriage and that is what I agree to. (The use of the word suggests imitation, as if one of us is "the man" and the other is "the woman".)

The discomfort with the word for us would be easy to bear considering the benefits, but I can see where a heterosexual man might have difficulty appreciating this. If people of the same sex can marry, a man who answers in the affirmative when asked if he is married, may then suffer the embarrassment of being asked the next question: "To a man or a woman?" Such embarrassment could cause the sufferer great resentment toward those of us who seem to be imitating real marriage.

The love is real. The marriages now taking place in San Francisco may, amid all the fuss, put that fact in focus.

Mathieu · Feb 25, 2004, 10:06 am

I wish only the best for you and your hub, gem !

Leopard · Feb 25, 2004, 11:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Yeah ,but in the real world , it is not like that it works Michael. Libertarian have a problem with that ... The real world...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

care to elaborate? What is it about 'the real world' that prevents the idea that 'it is wrong to initiate force against another' from being the basis of social interaction? I would say that a super-majority of folks in the world agree with that statement. So what then prevents it from being used as a test for rights abuses, for governmental powers?

Just because the current state of affairs is different as far as laws and governmental powers, does NOT mean that it cannot change if a 'better' way is discovered... these things/attitudes change daily... to stick one's head in the sand and just proclaim, "Thats not the way it is now so it will never be" is pure ignorancy. There is nothing wrong with trying to change the system towards one that YOU believe would work better... if your imagination needs some stimulation or more 'real world' examples, then keep an eye on both New Hampshire and Costa Rica...

michael

Leopard · Feb 25, 2004, 11:38 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,)
How is it my place, let alone the government's place to judge homosexuals?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You don't believe that you have the right to decide how to live your life, is that what you are saying? You judge whether or not you desire to take drugs into your body, the person you want to do business with, to judge the quality/price of one orange over another... you most certainly have the right to decide for yourself if you want to 'hate' or 'dislike' or just 'disagree' with other types of lifestyles or actions... BUT you do not have the right to use the government in an attempt to 'make it the law' that everyone else should agree with you or at least act like they do.

michael

Mathieu · Feb 25, 2004, 11:49 am

My point is more than it will be impossible to reach the consensus needed to have such society. What will prevent one to take the power by force on others ? In french , we say, La ou il ya l'homme ,il y a de l'hommerie.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 25, 2004, 12:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,)
Yeah ,but in the real world , it is not like that it works Michael. Libertarian have a problem with that ... The real world...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The "real" world is what we make of it... :rolleyes:

Mathieu · Feb 25, 2004, 12:55 pm

And who is we ...?

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 25, 2004, 04:38 pm

Anyone who lives.

Sodfather · Feb 25, 2004, 05:17 pm

All I have to say is, what the [expletive] is democracy coming to when people can't even choose who they wanna, uh...Stick...Theirselves...Into. I mean, I believe homosexuality is immoral, but this is America! Remember freedom? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, all that bullshit? Where has it gone now?

They're gonna be gay with each other anyway; why not let the poor bastards (with all the shit they have to take) combine their assets and make a life for themselves?

Feb 24, 2004, 06:27 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Slapjak FARMHOUSE Location: Florida State University Posts: 33	Bush to Back Gay Marriage Ban Amendment After reading this article I was caught questioning where I stand on this issue...and I came up with this: I'm a fairly conservative minded individual, but like most people there are certain issues that dont follow with my political ideology...and i think this is one of them. Quite frankly, if homosexuals want to get married...let them get married. I fail to see the drain it would be on society and dont see why it is such a hot topic. I have read that gay marriage is something both potential presidential candidates and president bush oppose, but the democrats wouldnt support a constitutional amendment. - Which brings me to a question...what is it that makes this such a controversial topic? In what ways could it help society and what ways could it hurt? Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret. -Robert E. Lee

Feb 24, 2004, 08:37 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,471	Well the election is coming (duh) and does this proposal get the support of the majority of Americans? :rolleyes: War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 25, 2004, 02:08 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	...and if those advantages are state sponsored - they are pure social manipulation. I find it very interesting that people (both from the right and left) have this deep-seated desire to dictate their world view/morals/beliefs to other people as if 'other' people are stupid for not agreeing with them. Take just about any libertarian stance, since we are talking about Gay Marriage, then lets look at that: Libertarian stance: Whatever two or more consenting adults wish do to with each other (have sex, be boyfriend/girlfriend/ marriage/live together/etc) does not infringe on the rights of other people to do as they (the other people) wish so it is simply not an issue for the state to reflect upon. The implications of this seem to escape most people: although the 'state' is legally obligated to treat everyone equally (in the eyes of the law or in regard to 'rights') people are free to define things for themselves: Churches are free to endorse homosexuality or be outright vocal against it, business owners are free to give special treatment to whatever type of people they desire (if they want to try to promote 'traditional marriage' over some 'homosexual marraige', they are free to give benefits to only Man/Woman unions, and businesses would also be free to act exactly opposite: promote 'gay' unions with regard to benefits and not give those benefits to heterosexual unions. It is in this way that society is allowed to truly reflect its beliefs and ideals. Its the same for bigotry or racism or some belief that blonde people are stupid: let people do as they wish with their own property and keep the state out of it. The businesses that refuse to hire gays will be at an economical disadvantage compared to businesses which have no such restriction. By stepping out of the picture, the state also stops encouraging an 'us vs them' mentality. Let people figure out for themselves what is in their best interests. How wouldeveryone feel if it was federal law that you had to marry someone who you were not attracted to? If you were attracted to very skinny short blondes, but since that is 'discrimination' against fat, tall, brunettes - they state forces you (by passing laws) to marry someone who is repulsive to you. This is the EXACT same thing as the state forcing you to make hiring decisions based on things the state considers important, trying to force what constitutes alegal marriage, forcing you to provide group healthcare for employees... people see this hypocracy in government, yet they still subscribe to the notion that it has to be this way.... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 25, 2004, 02:57 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
koi Molten Ash Location: Edmonton Alberta Posts: 63	How is it my place, let alone the government's place to judge homosexuals? How is it that this body of people think that they have the power to decide who is allowed to love who, and how they are allowed to express it? People claim it is against god, a sin, immoral, disgusting. To them I ask, and what exactly is so much more pure about a straight relationship? So gay people cannot reproduce through their chosen form of intercourse. There are lots of children who have been conceived, born and offered up for adoption. For your every excuse to propogate hatred and intollerance I will stand in defiance and question your faith in the pathetic jargon you spew. see with your hearts and minds as people! these "horrible homosexuals" who "threaten" your way of life are nothing more than people. human beings. individuals with rights and freedoms that must be respected and maintained. "Optimisim is the madness of insisting that all is well when we are miserable" Voltaire "The point of sacrifice is giving up something you didn't want in the first place"

Feb 25, 2004, 05:13 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (thrillofitall,) thought this was a good speech on the topic .. by Bill Maher "You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this Valentine's day, let's stop and ask ourselves, "What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?" And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, social security -- hey, how about we privatize privacy! Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli. You know, the Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's $1.5 billion in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the sanctity of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator could be considered sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing, kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis. But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that worked out so well with the Catholic priests. But I have to tell you that the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination, and, therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible; it's ripped right from the latest poll which says that most Americans are against gay marriage. Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong, and where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half-measures of civil union and hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner and say loud and clear, "There is no sin. It's not an abomination and no one can control how cupid aims his arrows, and the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks." The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born one-hundred-percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire-Island gay. And they do not need re-programming -- they need a man with a slow hand."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I agree with the majority of what you said. But the sin part...it IS a sin. Bus so is pre-marital sex. So is adultary. And we don't legislate that anymore. 1) Separation of church and state - it doesn't matter if it's a sin. 2) this is supposed to be the land of freedom. Where we do do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else or impinge on their freedom. Gays don't hurt us. Hating gays hurts us. They can't help it. Most would give their arms not to be gay. They represent 10% at least of society and who do they hurt if they want to make their unions legal and give each other the benifits and commitment of marriage? It hurts no one! It does nothing to the "institution of marriage." Gays getting married don't do anything to my marriage. Someone tell me how this hurt us? And don't give me the moral crap - there is immorality all around us. Two gays making a private, legal commitment affects the morality of a nation a lot less (actually not at all) than the smut we see every day and the disgusting number of partners heterosexuals have before and after marriage. "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feb 24, 2004, 08:44 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	While democrats and Republican are talking about gay marriage, they are not talking about the war, the economy, Bin Laden, the homeland security, the environement etc... It makes everyone happy to dodge those issue IMHO, especially the Reps...

Feb 24, 2004, 08:46 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
thrillofitall Sedimentary Rock Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 20	thought this was a good speech on the topic .. by Bill Maher "You can't claim you're the party of smaller government and then make laws about love. On this Valentine's day, let's stop and ask ourselves, "What business is it of the state how consenting adults choose to pair off, share expenses, and eventually stop having sex with each other?" And why does the Bush administration want a constitutional amendment about weddings? Hey, why stop at weddings? Birthdays are important; let's put them in the great document. Let's make a law that gay people can have birthdays, but straight people get more cake. You know, to send the right message to kids.Republicans are always saying we should privatize things like schools, prisons, social security -- hey, how about we privatize privacy! Because if the government forbids gay men from tying the knot, what is their alternative? They can't all marry Liza Minnelli. You know, the Republicans used to be the party that opposed social engineering, but now they push programs to outlaw marriage for some people and encourage it for others. If you're straight, there's $1.5 billion in the budget to promote marriage, but gay marriage is opposed because it threatens or mocks or does something to the sanctity of marriage, as if anything you can do in Vegas drunk off your ass in front of an Elvis impersonator could be considered sacred. Half the people who pledge eternal love are doing it because one of them is either knocked up, rich or desperate. But in George Bush's mind, marriage is only a beautiful lifetime bond of love and sharing, kind of like what his dad has with the Saudis. But at least the right wing aren't hypocrites on this issue. They really believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a dysfunction that's curable. They believe that if a gay man just devotes his life to Jesus, he'll stop being gay, because that worked out so well with the Catholic priests. But I have to tell you that the greater shame in this story goes to the Democrats because they don't believe homosexuality is an abomination, and, therefore, their refusal to endorse gay marriage is hypocrisy. Their position doesn't come from the Bible; it's ripped right from the latest poll which says that most Americans are against gay marriage. Well, you know what? Sometimes most Americans are just wrong, and where is the Democrat who will stand up and go beyond the half-measures of civil union and hate-the-sin-love-the-sinner and say loud and clear, "There is no sin. It's not an abomination and no one can control how cupid aims his arrows, and the ones who pretend they can usually turn out to be the biggest freaks." The law in this country should reflect that some people are just born one-hundred-percent outrageously, fabulously, undeniably Fire-Island gay. And they do not need re-programming -- they need a man with a slow hand."

Feb 24, 2004, 11:18 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Marriage is a state driven sham. If you really want to get an official union it should be left to whatever church or company you want to unionize you. But to be perfectly honest...no gold band is going to make or break a relationship, it's simply up to the people and if they love each other.

Feb 24, 2004, 11:22 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	But there are the fiscal advantages ...

Feb 24, 2004, 11:28 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Tax advantages...

Feb 25, 2004, 02:14 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Yeah ,but in the real world , it is not like that it works Michael. Libertarian have a problem with that ... The real world...

Feb 25, 2004, 09:56 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
gem dual citizen Location: Seattle Posts: 53	It is difficult to think of an issue, the discussion of which provides a more comprehensive view of those "moral absolutes" in conflict with one another. My respect and understanding of others has increased during the twenty-seven years of life shared with another whose sex I also share. Last year he asked would I marry him? Although I, like so many others, am not comfortable with the word "marriage" preferring "civil union", he asked for marriage and that is what I agree to. (The use of the word suggests imitation, as if one of us is "the man" and the other is "the woman".) The discomfort with the word for us would be easy to bear considering the benefits, but I can see where a heterosexual man might have difficulty appreciating this. If people of the same sex can marry, a man who answers in the affirmative when asked if he is married, may then suffer the embarrassment of being asked the next question: "To a man or a woman?" Such embarrassment could cause the sufferer great resentment toward those of us who seem to be imitating real marriage. The love is real. The marriages now taking place in San Francisco may, amid all the fuss, put that fact in focus.

Feb 25, 2004, 10:06 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	I wish only the best for you and your hub, gem !

Feb 25, 2004, 11:33 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Yeah ,but in the real world , it is not like that it works Michael. Libertarian have a problem with that ... The real world...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> care to elaborate? What is it about 'the real world' that prevents the idea that 'it is wrong to initiate force against another' from being the basis of social interaction? I would say that a super-majority of folks in the world agree with that statement. So what then prevents it from being used as a test for rights abuses, for governmental powers? Just because the current state of affairs is different as far as laws and governmental powers, does NOT mean that it cannot change if a 'better' way is discovered... these things/attitudes change daily... to stick one's head in the sand and just proclaim, "Thats not the way it is now so it will never be" is pure ignorancy. There is nothing wrong with trying to change the system towards one that YOU believe would work better... if your imagination needs some stimulation or more 'real world' examples, then keep an eye on both New Hampshire and Costa Rica... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 25, 2004, 11:38 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (koi,) How is it my place, let alone the government's* place to judge homosexuals?* <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You don't believe that you have the right to decide how to live your life, is that what you are saying? You judge whether or not you desire to take drugs into your body, the person you want to do business with, to judge the quality/price of one orange over another... you most certainly have the right to decide for yourself if you want to 'hate' or 'dislike' or just 'disagree' with other types of lifestyles or actions... BUT you do not have the right to use the government in an attempt to 'make it the law' that everyone else should agree with you or at least act like they do. michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 25, 2004, 11:49 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	My point is more than it will be impossible to reach the consensus needed to have such society. What will prevent one to take the power by force on others ? In french , we say, La ou il ya l'homme ,il y a de l'hommerie.

Feb 25, 2004, 12:48 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Mathieu,) Yeah ,but in the real world , it is not like that it works Michael. Libertarian have a problem with that ... The real world...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The "real" world is what we make of it... :rolleyes:

Feb 25, 2004, 12:55 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	And who is we ...?

Feb 25, 2004, 04:38 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Anyone who lives.

Feb 25, 2004, 05:17 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	All I have to say is, what the [expletive] is democracy coming to when people can't even choose who they wanna, uh...Stick...Theirselves...Into. I mean, I believe homosexuality is immoral, but this is America! Remember freedom? Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, all that bullshit? Where has it gone now? They're gonna be gay with each other anyway; why not let the poor bastards (with all the shit they have to take) combine their assets and make a life for themselves?