Senate voting on Amendment to ban Gay Marriage

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:17 pm

Pinky wrote: fair enough, if that is your experience. But did you hear this from the people themselves, or hearsay which is often the case.

I didn't present the facts to you K, as I wanted you to think about your own attitudes for yourself...after all the facts are readily out there, anyone can find them.

Well im sure aids being affiliated with homosexuality isnt exactly my own assumption, and quit frankly I believe if you were to ask a question such as this, you may find an overwhelming majority does so, as I did.

I suppose the next question is, why I assumed that aids is more extravagant in the gay community. I dont know why. I just did, and thats all I can say.

So, if gay marriage doesnt effect anyone directly, Adam and Steve can kiss face all they want.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:21 pm

AIDS/HIV is most associated with homosexuals because the first epidemic outbreak of it occurred in the gay community, in a developed nation (the US). it had been ongoing in undeveloped areas of africa for a long time, but because of a lack of medical research facilities or funding for same, or quite possibly for a lack of caring that poor africans were dying of an unknown disease, it went unrecognized.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 4:41 pm

hopki605 wrote: we have it here too in england its called a civil marriage.

its all to do with political correctness and and bowing to the loonie left liberals.

heh. in a lot of ways i'm a conservative, right-wingish hawk type. i'm strongly in favor of gay marriage. and i wasn't joking when in another topic, i said that supporting gay marriage is the christian thing to do. Jesus preached Love. i'm not a christian, but jesus said some 'right-on' stuff. unless you're free of sin, then you're not in a position to interfere with another person's quest for love and happiness - so long as they aren't harming you, or any other innocent person.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:02 am

I'm for freedom, warts and all.

I don't see how allowing homosexual couple the same rights and responsibilities we grant to heterosexual couples is a bad thing. I just don't get it.

Likewise with polygamy, but that's a different thread.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:37 am

Obviously I'm on the pro side of gay marriage.

I have tried to 'convince' people on the other side to see the logic in my point of view.

Here is what I've found: those who are against gay marriage are against it because of what they feel, not what they think.

Therefore, applying logic to this discussion has often proved fruitless for me. It's hard to approach the subject from an intellectual standpoint when those against gay marriage just feel it is wrong.

And that's why I've found it's almost impossible to bring people together on this one.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 8:54 am

cherandbuster wrote: And that's why I've found it's almost impossible to bring people together on this one.

Unfortunatly, you are right on the money there. I had a rainbow "Support Marriage Equality" bumper sticker on my Caravan..got more than a few dirty looks from passersby over it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:57 am

cherandbuster wrote: Obviously I'm on the pro side of gay marriage.

I have tried to 'convince' people on the other side to see the logic in my point of view.

Here is what I've found: those who are against gay marriage are against it because of what they feel, not what they think.

Therefore, applying logic to this discussion has often proved fruitless for me. It's hard to approach the subject from an intellectual standpoint when those against gay marriage just feel it is wrong.

And that's why I've found it's almost impossible to bring people together on this one.

Try asking them why they feel it is wrong and then why do they feel they have the right to impose what they believe on others who don't feel the same way as they do.

I think there are certain things that most would agree are wrong-pedophilia being the most obvious on. But as for activities between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes then what concern is it of anybody else. Is it not a perversion in itself to want to tell people how to carry on their sex lives. Note tell, rather than persuade.

If people want to get married in the sight of god because of their religious belief and a church is willing to let them then I can't understand the objection

If you claim a right to religious freedom for yourself and to live as you choose then you have to allow others the same choice. I always think the least talked about sin is hypocrisy

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:29 am

My point of view is this:

This is not something they decide to be, it's usually something they're born as. People don't wake up one morning & say, "Hey, I think I'm gonna be gay now!"

As far as gay marriage... I see nothing wrong with it! It's in no way affecting me, my family, or my life. I have a cousin who's gay & married to his partner. More power to him & them, as a couple! He's still my cousin & I still love him.

If they're going to tell us who we can marry, they'll probably soon start to ban black/white marriages. Or maybe blondes won't be able to marry red-heads, because, hey, everybody knows blondes aren't as intelligent!! You may laugh now, but I shudder to think how many more freedoms we're going to lose.

As far as 'religious people' goes... I've seen more liberals with whom I'd choose to practice my religion, than conservatives. I'm not really up on the bible, but isn't there a verse that says something like 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'??? Conservative religious people are the first to ban, prohibit, & judge people based on their own expectations, than liberals. And if I hear one more conservative say liberal like it's a swear-word, I'm gonna scream!

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:37 am

gmc wrote:

If people want to get married in the sight of god because of their religious belief and a church is willing to let them then I can't understand the objection

And if they can't find one, they can found one. This is exactly the sort of divisive, schism-producing issue that inspires the creation of new denominations. It's a long-established, time-honored tradition to go make yourself another church if you don't like the choices already out there.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:46 am

observer1 wrote:

As far as 'religious people' goes... I've seen more liberals with whom I'd choose to practice my religion, than conservatives. I'm not really up on the bible, but isn't there a verse that says something like 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'??? Conservative religious people are the first to ban, prohibit, & judge people based on their own expectations, than liberals. And if I hear one more conservative say liberal like it's a swear-word, I'm gonna scream!

while "religious liberals" may be less likely to judge, i find that a-religious liberals are the first to want to ban, prohibit, and judge any expression of faith.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:59 am

anastrophe wrote: while "religious liberals" may be less likely to judge, i find that a-religious liberals are the first to want to ban, prohibit, and judge any expression of faith.

But I'm not speaking of the likes of Madeline O'Hare (sp?). You do know how she met her maker.

OOPS! Wrong wording!! She didn't have a maker!! :wah:

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:02 am

observer1 wrote: But I'm not speaking of the likes of Madeline O'Hare (sp?). You do know how she met her maker.

i said nothing about atheists. though they're some of the worst at wanting to supress expressions of faith. i said 'a-religious liberals'. 'religious' is a loaded word, as one can be plenty religious and be a colossal, hateful ass at the same time. faith is what matters, and those who have placed their faith in science, the media, celebrities, diet, whatever, tend to look down on those who follow a faith based on god.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:24 am

anastrophe wrote: i said nothing about atheists. though they're some of the worst at wanting to supress expressions of faith. i said 'a-religious liberals'. 'religious' is a loaded word, as one can be plenty religious and be a colossal, hateful ass at the same time. faith is what matters, and those who have placed their faith in science, the media, celebrities, diet, whatever, tend to look down on those who follow a faith based on god.

Wait a minute... there are people who CLAIM to practice conservative religion, but in my opinion, could be classified as a-religious. You can't say that they're only liberals. That's very one-sided. JMHO.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:33 am

observer1 wrote: Wait a minute... there are people who CLAIM to practice conservative religion, but in my opinion, could be classified as a-religious. You can't say that they're only liberals. That's very one-sided. JMHO.

i didn't claim that they're only liberals.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:34 am

anastrophe wrote: i didn't claim that they're only liberals.

No offense, but how would you take what you stated?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:50 am

observer1 wrote: No offense, but how would you take what you stated?

please reread all of my responses to your comments. you said "You can't say that they're only liberals." since i never said that they're only liberals, i'm baffled as to what the issue is.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:02 pm

anastrophe wrote: please reread all of my responses to your comments. you said "You can't say that they're only liberals." since i never said that they're only liberals, i'm baffled as to what the issue is.

You said "a-religious liberals".

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:06 pm

observer1 wrote: You said "a-religious liberals".

yes i did. point me to where i said "only".

ultimately however, i made it clear that this is my opinion. i have a right to my own opinion, do i not, just as you have? i find (<--two words that indicate this is my opinion) more ("more" - not "all" or "only") a-religious liberals are intolerant of religion than a-religious conservatives.

maybe i'm wrong. maybe i'm right. either way, it's my opinion.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:19 pm

anastrophe wrote: yes i did. point me to where i said "only".

ultimately however, i made it clear that this is my opinion. i have a right to my own opinion, do i not, just as you have? i find (

Anastrophe, I'm not trying to start anything. My point was that since this country is so conservative-run, restrictions have gotten out of hand.

And I'd prefer to just stick to the subject.

Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:31 pm

observer1 wrote: Anastrophe, I'm not trying to start anything. My point was that since this country is so conservative-run, restrictions have gotten out of hand.

And I'd prefer to just stick to the subject.

Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

my only point was that you said, in the emphatic, "Conservative religious people are the first to ban, prohibit, & judge people based on their own expectations, than liberals."

i on the other hand didn't state my opinion as an absolute, i wrote "while "religious liberals" may be less likely to judge, i find that a-religious liberals are the first to want to ban, prohibit, and judge any expression of faith."

yet you took me to task, saying "You can't say that they're only liberals. That's very one-sided." and your statement wasn't one sided?

that bugs me. can you understand why?

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:38 pm

anastrophe wrote: my only point was that you said, in the emphatic, "Conservative religious people are the first to ban, prohibit, & judge people based on their own expectations, than liberals."

i on the other hand didn't state my opinion as an absolute, i wrote "while "religious liberals" may be less likely to judge, i find that a-religious liberals are the first to want to ban, prohibit, and judge any expression of faith."

yet you took me to task, saying "You can't say that they're only liberals. That's very one-sided." and your statement wasn't one sided?

that bugs me. can you understand why?

Then I guess we're even. Now, can we just drop it & get back to the subject at hand?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:40 pm

observer1 wrote: Then I guess we're even. Now, can we just drop it & get back to the subject at hand?

i see. great! the liberal mentality in action, then. 'it's okay for me to slander an entire group and state it as an absolute, but not okay for anybody else to suggest they have a different opinion!'.

thanks for the apology. sheesh.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:45 pm

anastrophe wrote: i see. great! the liberal mentality in action, then. 'it's okay for me to slander an entire group and state it as an absolute, but not okay for anybody else to suggest they have a different opinion!'.

thanks for the apology. sheesh.

No, I guess I bunched conservatives together as you did liberals. Anastrophe, I'm not trying to start an argument. I now understand what you mean about a-religious liberals & tend to agree with you.

BTW, what am I apologizing for? Is my opinion not permitted?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:23 pm

anastrophe wrote: [...]

maybe i'm wrong. maybe i'm right. [...]
Boy, I'll say!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:25 pm

observer1 wrote: Anastrophe, I'm not trying to start anything. My point was that since this country is so conservative-run, restrictions have gotten out of hand.

And I'd prefer to just stick to the subject.

Sorry, didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.
Do you see the gay marriage issue as a new restriction? I mean, it's never been allowed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:29 pm

If Far were still here, he'd be saying that society in general is harmed by allowing homosexual marriage.

Isn't there anyone still around the Garden that believes that?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 6:46 pm

Accountable wrote: If Far were still here, he'd be saying that society in general is harmed by allowing homosexual marriage.

Isn't there anyone still around the Garden that believes that?

for a claim of "harm to society" to obtain, one must be able to demonstrate that individual harm to innocent persons can occur from the same thing. for example, to claim that violent video games are "harmful to society" one must be able to show that the use of violent video games specifically harms individuals, or causes harm to come to individuals. since tens - possibly hundreds - of millions of people have played video games without deciding that they are warriors from another planet and thus maiming their neighbors with laser-tipped maces, the argument is specious.

likewise, one must be able to demonstrate that a given 'new' harm to society is significantly greater than existing sanctioned harms. drunk drivers kill tens of thousands of innocent people each year, using a legal and easily available mind alterant. plenty of people, going back to the Carrie Nations, have wanted to eliminate the scourge of alcohol from society. The problem is that most people can use that mind alterant without significantly harming themselves or others. the bad actions of a few are not cause to rid society of something that *may* cause harm - doing so is in fact more harmful to society than that which they attempt to rid it of (see "Prohibition").

nobody has yet to demostrate what specific harm comes to any innocent person from two consenting adults of the same gender entering into marriage.

and one more time, with feeling, i will remind of the example i consider canonical:

the first couple married in san francisco last valentine's day (2004) were a lesbian couple who have been together *50* years, now aged 83 and 79. give me a break! that's a threat to whom?

we'd be lucky if even a quarter of all heterosexual unions remained so committed.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:01 pm

Accountable wrote: If Far were still here, he'd be saying that society in general is harmed by allowing homosexual marriage.

Isn't there anyone still around the Garden that believes that?
Oh yes, there are people who still believe that, Acc. You guys all know that I am against homosexuality. Yes, I am the biggest homophobe here. I admit it, and that's my right not to like or agree with them. Nothing anyone says can sway me that homosexuality is "normal" or "ok" or "acceptable."

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:20 pm

BabyRider wrote: Oh yes, there are people who still believe that, Acc. You guys all know that I am against homosexuality. Yes, I am the biggest homophobe here. I admit it, and that's my right not to like or agree with them. Nothing anyone says can sway me that homosexuality is "normal" or "ok" or "acceptable."

it is indeed your right not to like or agree with them. it is not your right, or anyone else's right, to tell consenting adults who are not harming you or other innocent persons, how they should live their lives - unless you're prepared to have others do the same to you.

motorcycles are incredibly dangerous. they're not called donor-cycles by accident. innocent people get hurt all the time in motorcycle accidents. we'd better ban them.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:29 pm

BabyRider wrote: Nothing anyone says can sway me that homosexuality is "normal" or "ok" or "acceptable."But you'll know, BR, that there have been great civilizations in the past where homosexuality has been openly practiced by some, admired by many and approved of by most. There have been military commanders whose crack troops have been his male homosexual fighter squadrons.

Don't you think that your antipathy owes more to the society you grew up in than the reality of their innocence or guilt, or their good and bad behavior?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:10 am

spot wrote: There have been military commanders whose crack troops have been his male homosexual fighter squadrons.

:yh_rotfl

I see your "Crack Troops", and raise you a Navy Seal.

:yh_rotfl

Post by **spot** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:29 am

K.Snyder wrote: I see your "Crack Troops", and raise you a Navy Seal.That was no amphibian, that was my "wife".

or... "What do you mean, overweight? That's her breathing equipment!"

I have a terrible suspicion that people don't believe me on this one.

Marie5656 · Post by **Marie5656** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:59 am

BR, you have every right to your feelings and opinions.

But, there is still the issue of wondering who exactly is being hurt by allowing two people who are in love with each other to marry, legally.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:00 am

anastrophe wrote: it is indeed your right not to like or agree with them. it is not your right, or anyone else's right, to tell consenting adults who are not harming you or other innocent persons, how they should live their lives - unless you're prepared to have others do the same to you.

motorcycles are incredibly dangerous. they're not called donor-cycles by accident. innocent people get hurt all the time in motorcycle accidents. we'd better ban them.

Perfectly stated, Paul.

BR, how would you respond to the above?

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:24 am

Pinks, I don't think Paul was picking on bikers.

He was just saying that everyone is entitle to have an opinion about something, but that doesn't give anyone the right to force that opinion on others.

Right?

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:00 am

anastrophe wrote: it is indeed your right not to like or agree with them. it is not your right, or anyone else's right, to tell consenting adults who are not harming you or other innocent persons, how they should live their lives - unless you're prepared to have others do the same to you.

motorcycles are incredibly dangerous. they're not called donor-cycles by accident. innocent people get hurt all the time in motorcycle accidents. we'd better ban them.

Bravo anastrophe!! I couldn't have stated it better, myself. :-6

What's going to be banned next? The color pink on men, because it's a feminine color? This is just an example, of course.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 11:59 am

Pinky wrote: Lots of people also get hurt through thougtless people trapping off about things which they don't have a clue about.

Do we all get gobstoppers?

Did I say something that offended you? I'll apologize now if I did. But I'm not exactly sure what.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:57 pm

Pinky wrote: A bike is only as safe as who it's being ridden by - if you know how your bike handles and you stick to speed limits in built-up areas, coming up to junctions, etc, then they're perfectly safe.

demonstrably false. motorcycles are inherently more dangerous than cars. what would be a minor fender bender in a car is likely a fatality or permanent paralysis or what-have-you on a motorcycle. as well, motorcyclists doing the safe speed, maintaining their distance, signaling properly, etc, are routinely trashed by drivers who don't see them.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:15 pm

But there's the point of bunching a few into the whole & penalizing them, don't you think?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:17 pm

Pinky wrote: Yes, but that'd be the driver at fault though, wouldn't it?

yes, but irrelevant to the issue of legislating what people can and can't due based upon their risk of harming themselves.

Besides, if you're aware of what is around you on the road and don't just presume that the other traffic has seen you, such things are easily avoided.

Most accidents happen through people not paying attention.

some accidents are due to inattention. again, the motorcycle itself as a mode of travel is inherently more dangerous, if only because there is no cage of steel around the driver. a couple of years ago, a young man riding his motorcycle on the freeway - helmet, proper attire, keeping a safe distance, etc - hit a large, difficult to see "pothole" in the freeway surface, was thrown from his bike, and died. the "pothole" was long and in the direction of travel, which masked its appearance. the pothole itself had been created by the cars - none of which bucked and threw their driver upon hitting it, obviously.

the point is that even though motorcycles are dangerous, rational people don't believe they should be banned, because the rider takes on the responsibility that comes with that risk in choosing to engage in a risky activity. under proper circumstances as detailed, a motorcycle can be riden and you won't die. the risk is greater, but it's not an absolute. there are many people who have been motorcyclists their entire lives, and go to their grave never having been in so much as a scrape. nobody else was harmed by them engaging in their activity of choice. they accepted their own risks, as adults.

to make the world perfectly safe would require strapping everyone to the ground, since one can trip and fall anywhere, any time. we all take risks, every day. so long as we're cognizant of the risks, and we aren't putting others in harms way, then it's really nobody else's business what we do.

but i ramble.