Homosexual marriage

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

A Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage?

No, it's not an amendment saying "gay marriage is hereby banned!" It's a Constitutional amendment declaring that in the US, a marriage is between one man and one woman.

I thought the states were responsible for marriage laws? Would this amendment not impinge upon state rights, and aren't those protected in the Constitution?

This leaves some of the definitions, as far as age, relatedness, etc. to the states.

And, obviously, what about gay rights?

What about polygamist's rights? Why stop at gay rights?

There are no "gay rights" called out in our Constitution. There are no "polygamist's rights" called out in our Constitution. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman here, and ANYONE that wants to change the definition has the perfect right and freedom to attempt to do so.

In every state that it has come to a vote, the people have passed some sort of legal form saying that they want marriage to be between one man and one woman.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

But sexuality isn't destiny. I mean, it's not the be-all-end-all defining point of life. It's part of life, and part of who you are, but there is more to life than propogating your genes.

Exactly! Some of the "gay rights" people talk like not having marriage ruins their entire life. Well, there's other people who can't marry people they love, too - the definition of marriage should be decided by the people in society.

I think what people are saying in this thread (ie. relevant to the discussion in this thread) is that us liberal types don't want one religion (be it Zoroastrianism or Confucianism or any religion at all) to determine the laws of society. In other words, we don't want gay marriage to be illegal because quite a large number of Christians believe it to be wrong.

One religion does NOT determine the laws of society PEOPLE determine the laws of society.

Do you want Christians to not vote or something?

Saying murder is wrong is Christian; do you want to trash murder laws?

In a Muslim society, do you propose that any law that conforms with Muslim ideas be thrown out?

There's just a ton of problems with your statement, IMO.

The point here, for us liberal types, is that the laws of a country are determined by the people of that country, not by any one religion or any other kind of interest group.

That's what happens here.


Count - thanks for the info I disagree with some points but won't take it up right now.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, it's not an amendment saying "gay marriage is hereby banned!" It's a Constitutional amendment declaring that in the US, a marriage is between one man and one woman.

Which is of course the same thing... It thereby BANS same sex couples from marrying.

This leaves some of the definitions, as far as age, relatedness, etc. to the states.

Which is a joke of course because its basically saying we are more worried about discriminating against gays then we are with 4th graders marrying or with marriages where the likelihood of a mutant offspring is increased 10,000%. We'll just leave those minor things up to the states. But this gay marriage thing we need to ban right away!! Cant risk leaving it up to the states what with those wacky liberal judges in Mass and California!

What a pathetic disgusting cold hearted display of political opportunism... Reminds me of politicians in the south in the past who would take a stance supporting segregation because they knew it was the favored point of view among the vast majority of people. It didn’t matter it was bold faced discrimination and unequal treatment. It got them re-elected! And if the country believes racism is right then that makes it right! Right?

What about polygamist's rights? Why stop at gay rights?

The question is what about EQUAL rights? Just because polygamists exist doesnt mean you need to ban gays from marrying. But that logic youll need to ban heterosexuals too.

There are no "gay rights" called out in our Constitution.

And there are no "black rights" either but there ARE EQUAL rights called for. And freedom from being discriminated against by a majority just because the majority thinks you are gross or bad or you need to be saved from yourself.

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman here

What about the states where thats not spelled out as such?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

One religion does NOT determine the laws of society PEOPLE determine the laws of society.

Do you want Christians to not vote or something?

Saying murder is wrong is Christian; do you want to trash murder laws?

In a Muslim society, do you propose that any law that conforms with Muslim ideas be thrown out?

There's just a ton of problems with your statement, IMO.

Did you read the rest of my post?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which is of course the same thing... It thereby BANS same sex couples from marrying.

OK, then it BANS polygamists from marrying, and it BANS sincere animal lovers from marrying their pets, and it BANS adults from marrying kids, and it BANS (etc. etc. etc.)

Which is a joke of course because its basically saying we are more worried about discriminating against gays then we are with 4th graders marrying or with marriages where the likelihood of a mutant offspring is increased 10,000%. We'll just leave those minor things up to the states. But this gay marriage thing we need to ban right away!! Cant risk leaving it up to the states what with those wacky liberal judges in Mass and California!

It's not "discriminating against gays" any more than it's "discriminating" against polygamists, animal lovers, adult/child marriages, etc. It's saying that people believe that a marriage should be between one man and one woman.

And if the country believes racism is right then that makes it right! Right?

Does it make it wrong? If the country believes murder is right, does that make it right? There's no logic here. I'm not claiming majority makes it right. But I am saying that democratic vote is the lesser of evils.

The question is what about EQUAL rights? Just because polygamists exist doesnt mean you need to ban gays from marrying. But that logic youll need to ban heterosexuals too.

Everyone has equal rights to vote for what they think is right and to try to change it if they don't think it's right.

And there are no "black rights" either but there ARE EQUAL rights called for.

I agree that discrimination based on race is wrong, and I"m glad our country outlawed it.

And freedom from being discriminated against by a majority just because the majority thinks you are gross or bad or you need to be saved from yourself.

You can't speak for the majority's reasoning. Those certainly aren't my reasons.

What about the states where thats not spelled out as such?

It didn't need to be spelled out as such until recently, when gay activists started trying to change things. That's their right in this country.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Did you read the rest of my post?

Yes, I did. I was commenting on one of your comments.

[Nurvingiel]

I probably should have explained my comment a bit more.

People determining the laws of society was the point of my post. Gay marriage is legal in this country, and remains legal, because that's what people want.

I don't see this as a case of liberal types wanting to have it both ways.

[Rían]

Ok

(it gets confusing to have this discussion when we're in different countries!)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OK, then it BANS polygamists from marrying, and it BANS sincere animal lovers from marrying their pets, and it BANS adults from marrying kids, and it BANS (etc. etc. etc.)

Weve been through that laundry list… Theres good reason to BAN adults from marrying 3 year olds and to BAN people from having sex with their Chihuahua or to BAN people from killing people in cold blood. There ISNT any good reason to BAN two adults of right mind from joining in marriage when they love each other. You keep comparing apples with oranges.

It's not "discriminating against gays"

It most certainly is. By definition it doesn’t allow gays to do what heterosexuals can do by law. That’s discriminating against them.

I'm not claiming majority makes it right. But I am saying that democratic vote is the lesser of evils.

Keep in mind that in our past a democratic vote has endorsed slavery and jim crow among other clear abominations. So a proper republic does NOT simply rely on “democratic votes� to decide everything. That’s why we have other means by which to effect change in this country. Courts are there to keep the majority from arbitrarily and unfairly lording over the minority.

You can't speak for the majority's reasoning. Those certainly aren't my reasons.

Id say yours pretty much falls within that third one from what you’ve said about “harm�. Unless you have changed your reasoning on the issue.

It didn't need to be spelled out as such until recently, when gay activists started trying to change things. That's their right in this country.

Trying to change things? They went and got married in a few places where they were told they could. And then people who didn’t want them marrying rose up and attempted to BAN them from marrying. Who was doing the changing there? Many states ADDED the man-woman distinction to the books AFTER all this started.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Weve been through that laundry list… Theres good reason to BAN adults from marrying 3 year olds and to BAN people from having sex with their Chihuahua or to BAN people from killing people in cold blood. There ISNT any good reason to BAN two adults of right mind from joining in marriage when they love each other. You keep comparing apples with oranges.

That's YHO (or perhaps just YO ) that it's apples and oranges. IMO is that it is a perfectly apt comparision.

You and I both think there's good reason to BAN adults from marrying 3 year olds.

I don't think I'd vote for any law to BAN a person from having sex with their Chihuahua, although you might. Wait - seriously, I guess that would fall under existing laws for cruelty to animals, although with a larger dog it wouldn't be so.

You and I both think that there's good reason to BAN people from killing people in cold, warm, or any other type of blood.

I think there is a good reason to BAN two males or two females or multiple people from marrying each other. You don't.

I've listened to your arguments and they haven't changed my opinion that there is good reason to ban this. You've listened to my arguments and haven't changed your opinion that there's not a good reason to ban this. Fine - we have different opinions on what is harmful and what isn't. I also think promiscuity is harmful, and I imagine you don't. Fine - different opinions on what is harmful, although I wouldn't vote for a law outlawing promiscuity - I don't think it's enforceable enough.

It most certainly is. By definition it doesn’t allow gays to do what heterosexuals can do by law. That’s discriminating against them.

Fine, then you're discriminating against polygamists and mother/son combos that want to get married. Do you admit that?

Keep in mind that in our past a democratic vote has endorsed slavery and jim crow among other clear abominations. So a proper republic does NOT simply rely on “democratic votes� to decide everything. That’s why we have other means by which to effect change in this country. Courts are there to keep the majority from arbitrarily and unfairly lording over the minority.

And courts are not always right, either. No one branch is infallible.

Id say yours pretty much falls within that third one from what you’ve said about “harm�. Unless you have changed your reasoning on the issue.

I don't think homosexuals need to be "saved from [themselves]" any more than heterosexuals do, so I don't fall in any of your stereotypical categories.

Trying to change things? They went and got married in a few places where they were told they could. And then people who didn’t want them marrying rose up and attempted to BAN them from marrying. Who was doing the changing there? Many states ADDED the man-woman distinction to the books AFTER all this started.

They had to bring it to court and have judges CHANGE interpretation of the law before they got married. Are you saying that the US has a long history of man/man and woman/woman marriages? Of course not! They had to CHANGE things. And that's their right, btw, IMO - to try to make things the way they think is right. And I have the same right.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And there are no "black rights" either but there ARE EQUAL rights called for. And freedom from being discriminated against by a majority just because the majority thinks you are gross or bad or you need to be saved from yourself.

Where exactly does your second sentence appear in the Constitution?

[inked]

http://jesusinlove.org/

Possibly offensive site with some sort of handbook on this subject: homosexual marriage (GLBT, actually)

and, from New Zealand, the opposing view:
http://www.reformation21.com/Reforma...114&vobId=3177

and, a minority view
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...22/198242.html

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You and I both think there's good reason to BAN adults from
marrying 3 year olds.

Its not a matter of “you and I�. Its about quantifiable data on the subject of how completely incapable a 3 year old is to make decisions regarding their health and well being (this is why, again, we don’t let them drive cars either). We know for a fact just how much damage can come from adult-child sexual interaction (child rape by definition). We see NO such data when we look at two responsible competent adults of the same sex wishing to enter into a monogamous legal relationship based on love. Its not about our OPINIONS its about FACTS.

You and I both think that there's good reason to BAN people from
killing people in cold, warm, or any other type of blood.

Well cold blood. Specifically murder (as opposed to self defense). And the reason being NOT that its immoral but that it unjustly and criminally takes away the dead person’s right to freedom to pursue life and liberty among a dozen other constitutional points. In essence murder takes away someone elses right to do what the murderer can do: live and flourish in our society. Gays marrying has no such parallel. It does not stomp on anyone elses rights. It has NO ramifications on marriages or lives of non-homosexuals.

I think there is a good reason to BAN two males or two females
or multiple people from marrying each other.

And your reasoning is according to god it is harmful. Yet you have NO basis by which to prove this using real data. You just take gods word for it since he would know his “design� best. And you simply shrug off the enormous inconsistency this stance poses of simply picking on gays and ignoring thousands of other “harmful� (and currently legal) things.

I also think promiscuity is harmful, and I imagine you don't.

I think promiscuity is potentially more harmful then celibacy. But I think safe sexual practices can minimize the risks involved with being sexually active and therefore the state does not need to play any role in restricting ‘promiscuous’ practices among consenting adults. And by the way, I certainly don’t equate homosexuality with ‘promiscuity’ in any way. In fact I think keeping gays from marrying only promotes promiscuity among homosexuals which is yet another ironic ramification of your ‘moral’ stand against gay marriage. In effect, you undermine gays from having a stable healthy life situation.

although I wouldn't vote for a law outlawing promiscuity - I don't think it's enforceable enough.

Then you are being inconsistent and essentially bullying homosexuals because you feel outlawing them from marrying is “enforceable enough�. If you ask me damage from promiscuous sex causes greater damage in our society then damage from two people who are in love marrying…

Fine, then you're discriminating against polygamists and
mother/son combos that want to get married. Do you admit that?

I have no problem with group marriages where all parties are ok with the situation and understand the ramifications. As for mothers marrying their sons currently the data tells us that it leads to a much higher likelihood of birth defects which would mean an innocent child could be harmed (born horrifically deformed) by such a union. Now if we get further data that shows that the likelihood actually isn’t that high (like with more distant cousins etc) then we can certainly look at this limitation because if it doesn’t lead to the high likelihood of harm then why shouldn’t we allow it? Can you think of a good reason not to?

I don’t have a problem admitting when Im discriminating by the way but unlike you I can give solid reasoning and data behind WHY discrimination would be a good idea in the case of child sex or mother/son marriage or murder, etc.

And courts are not always right, either. No one branch is
infallible.

Sure but better to have ALL branches in play then tout direct democracy (mob rule) as the ONLY way things need to get decided. Its called checks and balances.

I don't think homosexuals need to be "saved from [themselves]"

Yet you think when they marry it causes them great harm so you want to ban them from marrying so they wont harm themselves? How is that any different exactly?

They had to bring it to court and have judges CHANGE
interpretation of the law before they got married.

But in the states where it didn’t specifically spell out marriage = man + woman they simply got married. And that’s when the anti gay marriage folk actively engaged in putting in place bans against gays marrying directly into the language of the law.

[inked]

politics and...

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/5-2...ws/matters.cfm

and commentary,

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblog...3/2006#1398430

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But in the states where it didn’t specifically spell out marriage = man + woman they simply got married. And that’s when the anti gay marriage folk actively engaged in putting in place bans against gays marrying directly into the language of the law.

They "simply got married"? Rexy, I'm (almost) speechless ... this implies, among other things, that homosexuals are incredibly stupid (which I certainly don't believe!!) They've been wanting to get married for YEARS, and they just recently figured out that in some states they could, under the existing conditions?! I just can't believe this. No, it was NOT "simply" getting married - it was bringing a lawsuit to accomplish it (i.e., CHANGING things). Here's one discussion (from a non-Christian source, btw, because it matters to you)

from Wikipedia, bolding mine
Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts became legal on May 17, 2004. It is the first and only state to make same-sex marriages legal.

The first applications for marriage licenses for same-sex couples were issued at City Hall in Cambridge. Gay couples formed long lines in anticipation, with some waiting outside the City Hall all evening May 16. Beginning at 12:01 a.m. on the May 17, they were permitted to fill out their Notices of Intent to Marry. The first to file were Marcia Hams and Susan Shepherd. Other cities and towns in Massachusetts began issuing applications later in the morning, during business hours.

Massachusetts normally has a three-day waiting period before issuing marriage licenses, but many couples obtained waivers of the waiting period in order to be wed on May 17. Among these were the seven couples who were party to the lawsuit that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage, including Julie Goodridge and Hillary Goodridge, who were the first to apply for a license in Boston and whose eight-year old daughter Annie was their ringbearer and flower girl at their wedding at the Unitarian Universalist Association of Boston.

The parties to Goodridge v. Department of Public Health were Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade; Hillary Goodridge and Julie Goodridge; Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell; Heidi Norton and Gina Smith; Michael Horgan and David Balmelli; and David Wilson and Robert Compton. ....

Do you disagree with any of this? Maybe you're just confusing a state NOT having a law on the books that says "marriage = one man & one woman" with gay marriage being legal, but that's just not the case. For example, the gay marriages that briefly took place in California were ILLEGAL because they had to ALTER the current forms that specifically mentioned a male and a female applicant, and altering forms is ILLEGAL.

Can you provide support for your statement, or are you willing to recant? We all make mistakes, no biggie!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well cold blood. Specifically murder (as opposed to self defense).

I was being dramatic/poetic

First, re my supposed inconsistency - I'm not inconsistent. The problem is that you assumed you knew what my stance was and you were WRONG about it.

So here it is again - I'll vote for a law that restricts something if: I think the behavior is harmful AND if I think it's reasonably enforceable. There might be a few more considerations (because I haven't really quantified them before) but those are the main two. Perhaps I would have to refine it to "significantly harmful", too.

So let's look at your two "inconsistency" claims in your post.

First:

And your reasoning is according to god it is harmful. Yet you have NO basis by which to prove this using real data. You just take gods word for it since he would know his “design� best. And you simply shrug off the enormous inconsistency this stance poses of simply picking on gays and ignoring thousands of other “harmful� (and currently legal) things.

I think gay marriage would be significantly harmful to society, AND you know what? It is 100 percent enforceable. Two men can't just declare themselves married and have the state and country say "OK, you are." So no inconsistency there. I guess you'll have to give some examples of other harmful things you're thinking of if you really want to compare them.

Then you are being inconsistent and essentially bullying homosexuals because you feel outlawing them from marrying is “enforceable enough�. If you ask me damage from promiscuous sex causes greater damage in our society then damage from two people who are in love marrying…

Ya wanna tell me how you can enforce a ban against promiscuous sex? It's just not enforceable enough. But a law that says marriage is between one man and one woman is 100% enforceable. So how is that inconsistent with my stated method of how I vote for laws? It's not.

I'll have to get to the rest of your post (and IMO the most important part) later - out of time!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Can you provide support for your statement, or are you willing to recant? We all make mistakes, no biggie!

Honestly dont make me laugh... I know you enjoy your petty little gotcha games but youre going to have to try harder I guess (as usual). Gays have been TRYING to get married for many many years. This isn’t recent stuff at all. But when they try they have then been told NO you cant but not seeing ANYTHING on the books saying specifically gays cant marry or in the case of many states (STILL 7 states TODAY) nothing in the books defining marriage to be between a man and woman only, their only alternative is to turn to the court system. Its like saying you were trying to change something if you were denied getting a drivers license simply based on the fact that its always been men who got drivers licenses. Youd sue and rightfully so. Then the intolerant men would enact language defining driving as an act ONLY done by a man and tack on amendments banning all women from getting licenses. And that’s where we stand now with the gay marriage issue.


Have a look:

I even pulled from the same source you did…

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Two men from Phoenix, Arizona are granted a marriage license by a county clerk on January 7, 1975. The Arizona Supreme Court, citing the Bible, voided and revoked the marriage license. The state legislature passed a bill specifically defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Clela Rorex, county clerk of Boulder County, Colorado, allowed six same-sex couples to wed, after receiving an advisory opinion from the district attorney's office indicating that the state's laws did not explicitly prohibit it. A law was quickely pushed through to prohibit gay marriages.

1993: The Hawaii State Supreme Court rules that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying may violate Hawaii's constitutional equal protection clause and can only be upheld if prohibition is justified by a compelling reason. (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341)
1998: Hawaii's voters amend their Constitution to allow state legislature to restrict marriage to men and women only, rendering the equal protection clause moot.

February 20, 2004: Victoria Dunlap, county clerk of Sandoval County, New Mexico, announces that she would begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses because New Mexico marriage law does not mention gender. The first same-sex marriages in Sandoval County are performed later the same day. By the end of the day, however, New Mexico state attorney general Patricia Madrid issued an opinion stating that the licenses were "invalid under state law," and the Sandoval County clerk's office stops issuing them. In the interim, 26 such licenses had been issued.

Gosh so who took the legal route in THAT one Rian?

May 13, 2004: A lesbian couple from Tulsa obtained a marriage application in the Cherokee tribal headquarters in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. The Cherokee Nation issues marriage applications, rather than licenses. Couples obtaining a license have it signed by the individual performing the ceremony before returning to tribal court to have the application certified. Cherokee Principal Chief Chad 'Corntassel' Smith stated that he believes that same-sex marriages are not allowed under Cherokee law, and the Cherokee Nation Tribal Council unanimously approved language that defined a union as between one man and one woman.
July, 2005: The tribe's Judicial Appeals Tribunal upheld the couple's right to marry, confirming that if they should refile for certification, it would be granted. Although Oklahoma does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, Oklahoma does recognize all Cherokee marriages.

Oh and this is interesting since all we ever hear is that this isnt a constitutional issue…:

May 12, 2005: A federal judge in Omaha struck down Nebraska's sweeping ban on same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other same-sex relationships. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the ban, Section 29 of the state constitution, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This is the first state constitutional provision banning same-sex marriage to be overturned.

So stop trying to deny the reality of the situation. Gays are NOT suing for special privileges. Gays have been wanting and trying to get married for decades. Just the anti gay marriage folk have been actively getting in their way to STOP them.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Honestly dont make me laugh... I know you enjoy your petty little gotcha games but youre going to have to try harder I guess (as usual).

Wrong again I don't like "petty little gotcha games", and I don't use them. My post was sincere. I guess you just don't understand me. Honestly, I don't know why I even answer you sometimes; you give me the weirdest motives that I've never even dreamed of having

Gays have been TRYING to get married for many many years. This isn’t recent stuff at all. But when they try they have then been told NO you cant but not seeing ANYTHING on the books saying specifically gays cant marry or in the case of many states (STILL 7 states TODAY) nothing in the books defining marriage to be between a man and woman only, their only alternative is to turn to the court system.

Of course they can turn to the court system. That's what it's there for. And it's not only a matter of laws "on the books"; sometimes, like in California, it's official documents where it shows that marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman. Or it's in other legal codes/documents for the state.

Summary remark to your quoted examples - If there has never been a gay marriage in the US, then gays trying to get married are trying to CHANGE things, and the attempts to put laws "on the books" are a reaction to the attempt to CHANGE things.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I was being dramatic/poetic

Stick to the harp.

So here it is again - I'll vote for a law that restricts something if: I think the behavior is harmful AND if I think it's reasonably enforceable.

But that absolutely DOES make you inconsistent. If you were consistent your only concern would be ‘harm’. Why would enforceability enter into it? Are you saying enforceability is more important then morality? Promiscuous sex is immoral right? Sex out of wedlock is immoral right? So why wouldn’t you vote for a ban on sex between non married people? Whats the difference between that and a ban on sex because of age? They are both just as hard to enforce. But we DO have age of consent laws in place. Yet you choose to pick on gays who want to get married and not on non married people who want to have sex? Why the inconsistency there? If there were referendums to change all the age of consent laws in the country to 12 would you not vote against it because its hard to enforce? Be consistent… Where would we be today if leaders like Martin Luther King and Susan B. Anthony had only pressed for things because they were popular and easy to do? Its not a very Christian way of thinking frankly…

First: I think gay marriage would be significantly harmful to society

How? Explain how promoting monogamy and rewarding love between consenting adults will be more “significantly harmful to society� then NOT doing it. Explain how encouraging people to have sex out of wedlock when they want to marry is better for society then encouraging people to do it in a marriage setting?

I guess you'll have to give some examples of other harmful things you're thinking of if you really want to compare them.

Hmm well lets look at some and directly compare them shall we:

Theres marrying and then theres smoking… One promotes family ties and one kills upwards of 5 million people every year… And you are in favor of the one that kills at a colossal rate but are against the one that promotes family ties because you have decided that its ‘harmful’. Gosh how consistent of you…

Theres driving… Car accidents kill about 1.2 million people per year and cripple and deform countless others. Not to mention the emission ramification of billions of cars being operated around the world. Driving indirectly leads to hostilities and wars because cars have made oil such an important commodity. But you are all for driving, risks and all Im assuming. But that gay marriage thing? Nah too risky…

Alcohol… its almost as bad as tobacco. Its addictive as any drug and destroys families and minds not to mention internal organs. And you think gay marriage is “significantly harmful to society�? Look at what alcohol does. Why aren’t you promoting prohibition? It would only be consistent… Moderate consumption of alcohol is ok you say? Well then by that logic why not let the ‘decent, responsible, less flaming’ gays marry so that society DOESN’T come crumbling down as you predict? Its all or nothing…

And how about motorcycles, land minds, owning pit bulls, deep sea diving, running with the bulls, cliff diving, handling poisonous animals, juggling flaming objects, swallowing swords, walking on hot coals, watching reality TV, etc., etc., etc… Are you looking to ban any of these dangerous activities?

Basically your argument comes down to because its easy to pick on gays then I will (in regards to marriage). But that is a HUGE double standard in my opinion. You should stand for something simply because you believe it’s the right thing to do. Not because you think its an easy group to bully around compared to say the tobacco lobby or the automotive lobby.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Wrong again I don't like "petty little gotcha games", and I don't use them. My post was sincere. I guess you just don't understand me. Honestly, I don't know why I even answer you sometimes; you give me the weirdest motives that I've never even dreamed of having

Oh come on Rian. you make statements like "Do you recant???" like you are some inquisitioner and you expect me to believe you arent trying to make me look foolish? You aren’t trying to grab hold of something where you think you can score a point?

Of course they can turn to the court system. That's what it's there for. And it's not only a matter of laws "on the books"; sometimes, like in California, it's official documents where it shows that marriage is considered to be between a man and a woman. Or it's in other legal codes/documents for the state.

Yeah but I wasnt talking about California. I was talking about those states where nothing was or is on the books denoting anything about the sexes that can or cant marry. I said all along that what happened in San Francisco was technically illegal. Thought it was great anyway though. Peaceful civil disobedience is often a decent way (and perhaps the only way) to effect change. See Selma, Alabama lunch counters...

Summary remark to your quoted examples - If there has never been a gay marriage in the US, then gays trying to get married are trying to CHANGE things, and the attempts to put laws "on the books" are a reaction to the attempt to CHANGE things.

But if there was nothing on the books in their particular state saying they CANT marry why couldnt they? And why did anti gay marriage folk then take THEM to court to restrict them from marrying? And then when that happens what other choice do you have but to fight back in court?