Gay Marriage

Thomas Jefferson, from everything I know of him, would be utterly appalled at what has happened to his party as would Abraham Lincoln as is the former Governor of Wisconsin Lee Sherman Dreyfus who I have heard say in disgust "They have hijacked the Republican party"

As we all know, Thomas Jefferson was polyamorous. dubba probably can't even spell the word.

Thomas Jefferson no doubt is rolling in his grave seeing seeing the constitution being raped & abused the way it has been recently.

How about a few more quotes from Thomas Jefferson?

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

"And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations."

If you are going to make wide sweeping comments about our third president, the author of the Declaration of Independence, promoter of religious freedom, who help to establish the country's separation between church and state, as he advocated free public education. You better take a real look at the man you are talking about. The Republican wackos want to privatize public schools. The so inaptly labeled "No child left behind" act is so restrictive that Art Rainwater Superintendent of Madison School board just yesterday said that it is unattainable with it's wording that not even 1 student can fail. It seems to me that the real purpose of this is to turn the teaching of our your people over to corporations & religious institutions. These so called "Marriage Protection Acts" aren't even veiled in their attempts to proscribe religious belief through government intervention.

 

No YOU'RE wrong.







fag.

 

*ROFL*

A little underargumented but well spoken.

I'm going to check if he's got a picture of himself on the site and see if he's hot.

 

This is a valid argument only if you think that the sole method of sex is penile penetration into vaginal orifice. I guess you agree then that Bill Clinton & Monica Lewinski didn't have sex. Or that masturbation isn't a form of sex. Even if you do consider this you fail to prove that there is any normal or abnormal context to it. Maybe that is what you feel is a judge of normality but it just plain doesn't work for me. You also seem to say that a male would be abnormal to have anal sex with a female because they won't procreate from it. It also seems to say that they never should use any form of birth control, even the rhythm method. I pity your Wife if you have or ever do have one. To be constantly pregnant must be pretty draining or I suppose that you just keep your little Mr. iiaajmn in your pants & never let her touch it because that would be abnormal too.

Since you didn't prove the legitimacy of the abnormalcy of same sex love I also reject this statement.

As for forcing anything onto you the only thing I expect of fellow humans is to be treated with respect & keep the heck out of my sex life unless you are interested in having sex with me (I doubt if you would succeed BTW). You have no reason to otherwise even consider it any of your business.

 

I think many people miss the naked truth behind the entire marriage concept.

First of all. Its Socialism.

We live in a Socialist framework.

OK.

Here is what happens - all of us pay a certain amount of our earnings (money representing our time, skills, labour etc)

Basically, we have all agreed to give any man and woman EXTRA money
[If you prefer - we agree they do NOT have to pay as much - same difference]

Why?

Because our finest minds and plannners have all agreed that when a man and woman merge (marry) they are likely to produce children.

Now, just to put that in perspective - you, me, everyone alive today NEEDS there to be children born constantly.
Obviously, it would be the death of our society.

So, its pretty simple - we are basically rewarding people who make children.

Please consider this:

Of course it would be 'Nice' if we could give two gay guys more social benefits and money.
It would be 'Nice' if we gave single people marriage benefits too!

If everyone gets benefits, then ultimately no-one is getting any special benefits and privalages.

So, at this time, we only reward one man - one woman because its our belief they will ultimately produce benefits to us.

 

Why don't we just give tax benefits to those people who have kids? Oh wait... we do! You don't even need to be married to be elligible for many benefits, although you are elligible for different types of benefits if you are.

Married couples receive a whopping load of benefits just for being married, the government doesn't reward people for their potential to have kids... if that were the case then we should give tax breaks to those of us who sleep around the most...

 

But....um...overpopulation? There are already way too many orphans out there. We don't really need procreation. And there are more and more people every day who are deciding to be childfree...yet they still get these benefits? And what about all the kids out there who need to be adopted? That'd be perfect for a same sex couple! No, they can't procreate, but they can provide a healthy, loving home to all those children out there who need one. Right? Yet I know, people are also against homosexuals adopting kids, which is also retarded. Why can't we let them have families?

 

The answer of course is: because they're GAY!! and Jesus doesn't want little johnny growing up in a loving environment created by the rainbow family... geez (sarcasm off)

I'm pretty sure I can predict a probable forthcomign argument against this CoOkiez.... because studies show that gay couples are more often violent and short lived, with those involved having been subjected to abuse that "turned them gay", making the chance that the kid will experience abuse and turn into a homosexual themselves that much greater.

So where do those who argue that side want to draw the line? Only happily married man/woman couples should be allowed to raise kids? Make divorce illegal for those who have kids, for the childs health? If you are a single parent, or: drink, have a history of mental illness, were abused yourself as a child, been convicted of any kind of charge; your kids are taken away from you, because that's what's good for the kid(s), right? Statistics show that any one of those things are detrimental when raising a kid, so we as a society should do something about it?

...sorry for ranting... short-fuse syndrome today...

 

Fulmah.. ahhh yes, its true that many couples do not have children (by nature or choice)
However, that is where the dilema of governing comes in.
Really it just becomes too difficult to interview each couple, have medical tests done and have them indicate whether they intend to have children or not.

Yes, its so valuable to our society that even if couples do NOT register themselves as married - we still find a way to give tax breaks if and when a child is produced.

Thats how badly we want to encourage baby making

So far, we do NOT give special benefits to single people or homosexual couples.
This is does not mean its 'exclusive' though...
Any single person INCL HOMOSEXUALS can marry one person of the opposite sex and get the same benefits of Marriage as anyone.

 

Yes, we should do something about it. Returning to stricter divorce laws would be a good place to start. Diluting the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples would only make things worse, as demonstrated by the experiences in Scandanavia and Holland.

 

You're stating that a homosexual has the right to marry one person of the opposite sex for the sake of federal benefits? That reduces the santity of marriage (what little is left, anyways) to worthlessness.

Single parents do receive a tax benefit in the amount of $500 a year. Married couples get $600.

 

I disagree with the analyses presented by Kurtz and team on their arguments of the decline of marriage in Scandanavia, Holland, and the other 11 European countries that allow gay marriage. Kurtz is adamantly biased. Here's the other side of the argument, negating Kurtz's argument, but equally biased, probably....

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2100884&

 

Here's a side-by-side look at articles drawing conflicting conclusions about the societal impact of legalizing gay "unions" (partnerships) in Holland:

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/Ideas-GayMarriage/dueling.html

Even if we say that the evidence from Europe is inconclusive, the data from within the gay community should give us pause about conducting a potentially disastrous experiment with marriage policy:

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage2.html

http://www.leaderu.com/marco/marriage/gaymarriage4.html

 

we are all equal and we all should be equal in marriage.

 

Funny you should mention divorce rates. You know what state has the lowest divorce rate? Massachussets. You know what state legalized gay marriage? Massachusets.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and its relationship to the break down of straight families is nonexistant.

 

Opinion statements, Value judgements, and assumptions are logic now? I'm not even going to mention your ad hom attack regarding the sexuality of your opponents. The moral assumptions that you're making are what is under debate here.

force upon others?
Force Upon Others??
FORCE UPON OTHERS?!

What the fuck are you smoking with this "force upon others" nonsense. It is YOU people that are forcing your values upon others. A gay marriage, civil union what have you does not require government intervention. It's like a contract, a right that individuals have. Your sanctity of marriage, what ever that means does require the government to enforce however. It is the government that prevents gays from forming unions and it is your people actions that prevent it.

Fuck you. I hope you have a gay son.

 

Yeah you do that. Apparently according this asshole everyone on this website who supports equal protection under the law for everyone only supports it because they're gay and need to feel better about they're own perversion. It was a total ad hom attack and I responded with an argument of equal merit.

 

The first article I can indeed draw no conclusion from, as the anti-gay stance seems to be completely refuted in the following article. The other article I see plenty of statistics on why a homosexual relationship might not work by heterosexual standards, but no evidence of how that's going to be detrimental to how we define marriage today (I haven't had time to read the whole thing, though).

 

Oh yes, any one man can marry any one woman.
Again, it gets to a governing issue - we cant exactly interview each would-be couple and decide who is planning to have sex, how they have sex or if the man intends to 'desire' sex with another man.

So, we pretty much leave it at One Man to One Woman and generalise the whole thing.

I would speak to a Financial Planner about benefits - there are all kinds of 'twists and turns' and ways to organise it all.

I think the privalage gets sweeter if the married couple also has kids?

(At least thats the general rule in UK and Canada IF you play the cards right)

 

Apparently, you are not familiar with the 1440 federal benefits afforded by marriage. There is not just financial benefits, but also legal protections.