I got a call from these jokes last night and as soon as I got off, I made the comment to my wife what a low-down tatic it is. I then did a some searching on the internet and found that the LGRL had some of the same type of language on their sight so I knew it was a joke.

The other thing that really bothered me was the results that I got from I searched in Google for “texas marriage amendment”. I don’t think I got one positive article on it.

Got one of these stealth calls yesterday. The voice identified himself as Rev. so and so, no mention of church or religious affiliation, and proceeded to give an illogical diatribe on why the good people of Texas should vote against Prop. 2.
My first and subsequent thoughts–red flag, push poll, some folks are desperate. These same folks also seriously underestimate the intelligence of their target audience, but then that’s their problem.

I got the same call as commenter Jacobson above last night. Interestingly, the caller argued that activist judges might abolish ALL marriage in Texas if the amendment passes. Whatever.

If gay marriage is so wonderful, then why are its proponents having to adopt such deceptive language and tactics?

According to that web site “Save Texas Marriage.” I see the loophole in the a nd b point. FI this is the actual language it was poorly written.

Both sides exploit legal loopholes all the time, lets hope that the less politically active can make the right decision.

Truly if this was such a “BIG” deal these people wouldn’t have to resort to their tactics and the slobbering idiots who proposed this proposition in the first place wouldn’t have needed to.

Why can’t texas spend more time doing their part to protect our borders, lower our property taxes, improve the roads and schools then making a big deal who can get married or not. It not like gays married or not have to walk around with pink triangles on there sleeves or heteros with some other labelled symbol. So who really cares if they can get married or not, I mean really.

Married gays are not going to storm your houses and make off with your children.

I am getting tired of hearing that gays have a ‘right’ to marry other gays - no such right exists. I am also quite tired of hearing “they’re not hurting anybody, why not let them marry?” I am sorry, but affirming the gay lifestyle by allowing for gay marriage is not going to help society, it will hurt it. The hurt will be in intangible ways, but it will be there nonetheless.

I also don’t buy the argument that common law marriage (or perhaps even traditional marriage) will go away because of this amendment. Even if it does, the many common law marriages in Texas will not suddenly become invalidated. That is scare politics at its worst.

So how exactly will gay marriage hurt society? Convince me that by gays marrying it will end the world, destroy democracy and send the land into the dark ages of lawlessness, rape, death, fire and flame.

Lay it out Jim tell me exactly how?

Um, no Jeff.

The gays are asking for a fundamental change in our society. They (and apparently you) must make the case.

So how exactly will gay marriage HELP society? Convince me that by gays marrying it will save the world, repair democracy and send the land into the enlightened ages of lawfulness, etc, etc.?

Lay it out Jeff tell me exactly how?

“…calls to ELDERLY voters”??? I resemble that remark!!

And btw, I don’t think jimb or anyone else said that allowing homosexuals to marry “…will end the world, destroy democracy and send the land into the dark ages of lawlessness, rape, death, fire and flame”.

It is true, though, that if I fail to support proposition 2 I am effectively endorsing homosexual marriage and because I am a Christian I cannot do that. I believe what the homosexual community has been seeking for years is for the rest of the world to accept their life style as normal and natural, and to condone what God calls sin. That I will never do.

#7) How an idea “helps” society isn’t what equality is all about. There are examples too numerous to cite that some of the most fundamental, needed changes to our American society caused initial societal upheaval (in the short term), but produced the kind of equality (and peace) that we now all find reasonable and self-evident.

Wille,

Please, please, please don’t try to argue that civil rights equal gay rights. No one has a choice about their race or skin color. You chose who you sleep with and who you marry.

There were many eloquent arguments in favor of civil rights that just do NOT apply to gays.

But please do cite some of these other ‘examples’. It should be easy for you since they are ‘too numerous’.

#9 Willie

This appears to be an extension of a previous thread…

You asked in post #6 “So how exactly will gay marriage hurt society?”

In Edward Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, some basic reasons cited for the fall of Rome include: (1) undermining of the sanctity of the home; (2) the rapid increase in divorce; (3) the development of huge armaments and the neglect of the enemy within; (4) the moral degeneracy of the whole society — sexual perversion and homosexuality; and (5) the declension of religious vitality, with formalism supplanting faith and impotence replacing power.

Other reasons include: (1) political chaos and distrust of political leaders; (2) a breakdown of justice; (3) a failure to maintain law and order; (4) increasing taxes; and (5) a mass movement from the rural areas to the cities.

Looking at the present day United States, we are headed in that same direction…and legitimizing homosexuality by legally and socially recognizing gay marriage, civil unions, etc. is yet another step in that direction.

#10)
1) the extension of the vote to all males, not just propertied ones.
2) slavery
3) the extension of the vote to include males of any race
4) the extension of the vote to women
5) Griswold v. Connecticut (and it’s sister Roe v. Wade)
6) Brown v. Board of Education
7) Miranda v. Arizona
Just to name a few. All were at one time thought to be the harbinger of doom. Most are now seen as self-evident. My point is that time (and our collective experience) changes the way we view our rights.

#11 MMI:
You are correct about Gibbon’s ideas concerning Rome’s downfall, but I would suggest that your emphasis on the homosexuality part of it doesn’t equate to Gibbon’s. The other factors listed (especially nos. 1-5 (the second set)) were the true causes. Nos. 1-5 (the first set) resulted from the second set, not the other way around.

#13

My point is that accepting the homosexual lifestyle is a step towards the decline of a civilization…as was the case concerning Rome.

We can bicker about which cause came first and the reason of each…but one cannot dismiss the fact that accepting the homosexual lifestyle IS TRULY A STEP towards the decline of a civilization.

Re: # 6

I am also looking forward to jeffd responding to the challenged posed in post 7.

But I’ll chime on on the challenge in post 6: Legalization of same sex marriage would follow in the footsteps of no-fault divorce in weaking the family unit in society, as is being seen in some Nordic countries that are further down this path. For more info. see,
http://austinvitw.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-christians-should-support-texas_23.html

Also, legalized SSM, in combination with hate crimes laws could be a threat to religious freedom, as is being seen in Canada. For more info. see,
http://austinvitw.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-christians-should-supp_113010772439391098.html

Willie,

Your #2 is just the precursor of the civil rights argument. And #3, and #6 is just a continuation of the equality of the races argument.

For your #1 and #4, I would argue that without these we would not have a welfare state with generation upon generation expecting handouts from the goverment. Property owners were much less likely to vote for those who spend like drunken sailors, because it’s the property owners (i.e. taxpayers) who are footing the bill. Now we have a situation where those who take money from the government and do not necessarily contribute to society get to vote. Do you honestly think those people will every vote for fiscal responsibility if it means their ‘free money’ might get reduced?

#5 is absolutely horrible law! You are using the ‘emanations and penumbras’ case and the case that has resulted in the murder of 45 million innocents to support your argument? We are still reaping the ‘doom’ from those decisions.

I find your examples far from convincing. Those that do not relate to the equality of the races are arguably detrimental to society. I think you have hurt your case more than you helped it.

My response is…

Comparing Rome to the USA is a weak arguement.

As far as the challange in #7. The issue of how Gay marriage will help society? Well my answer is it won’t hurt society either. My understanding of Prop 2 is it is designed to legally ensure marraige between 1 man and 1 woman, not to ensure gays can marry. It is an exclusion law not a fight for inclusion. To me the Prop 2 is like the Jim Crow laws of the “glorious” south.

One cannot chose one’s skin color???? Look at Michael Jackson. One cannot chose to be gay or not gay. No one wakes up in the mornign and says today I am going to be gay… yeaaayyyyyy.

Gay marriage may not “help” society but it won’t hurt society either. You can marry in Canada and Spain and neither country has ceased to exsist or had fire and brimstone rained upon them. Vermont allows gay marraige and it didn’t fall off the earth like legendary atlantis.

The sun rose the next day and you and I were not affected in the least.

People claim “gay” is against God??? Well so isn’t sex abuse rained from the catholic church and the majority boy scout leaders that molested boys were hetero protestants not “sinner” gays as a working example.

There are plenty of irregualrities in the Holy Scripture and human practice. We are corruptable as Humans and to judge others is a sin. Least that is what I remember from Sunday School.

We can either argue earthly or spiritually reasons against gay marriage and while I am a christian I have yet to see the spiritual damnation upon gays.

Truly what are you afraid about if gays marry, upsettign of the status quo? Your houses will lose their value? Taxes will increase?

I could write a book on both good heterosexual marriages and good gay unions for every horror story about divorce and sin commited by Americans today…

Oh wait I lied 60 % of all hetero marriages end in divorce, so crap the numbers are against me 3:2.

So now tell me your reasons it will hurt society.

#16: David:
you missed the point. The items I listed (we can argue about the merit) were thought to be the end of our civilization by their opponents. Time has since proven that their fears were not justified, in fact they (with the possible exception of Roe) are now viewed by Americans of the 21st century as “good things”. You might be hard pressed to find American HS (or college, sadly) students of today who would believe that only propertied males were allowed to vote after the founding of our country. As you yourself seem to support that position, I would suggest that we are not as far along as I had hoped/believed we (America) are in achieving a society based on equality for all. I would also point out that all people (property owners and non-property owners alike) pay taxes. There is the little matter of the IRS (not to mention local and state sales taxes).
I believe you (sadly) made my argument for me.

#14) MMI:
we seem to always find ourselves at odds, although I do appreciate your injection of such a giant as Gibbon refreshing in a usually less than “intelligent” discussion.

Gay marriage will hurt society in the same way that no-fault divorce, child pornography, greed, lust, the hip-hop objectification of women, child abuse, pedophile Catholic priests (and all other pedophiles, including women who sleep with their middle and high school students) deadbeat dads/moms, abortion, etc. has hurt society. Each of these things (especially the ones we have affirmed via the courts or legislative action) leaves a wound. Gay marriage is just another example. MM&I’s point is valid, why add another wound? Sin is sin is sin (and this is not just a Christian thing, either - homosexuality is a sin against nature). Just because other sins have become accepted, let’s not add another one.

Am I perfect? No. Have I sinned? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean I am not justified in coming out against institutionalizing gay marriage. Sure, the government should stay out of the bedroom, but that is where it should stop. And that does not mean that just because something is not openly illegal that it is not harmful.

Homosexuality is a choice/behavior, whereas you are born with a certain skin color - your example of Jacko being able to change his skin color is ludicrous.

Damn, but that did sound elitist. Sorry about my choice of “intelligent”.

BTW: There’s a difference in calling sin for what it is and judging others.

No, Willie, I did not miss your point, but you may be missing mine.

Other than the examples you pointed out relating to equality of the races, there are arguable down sides to each of the examples you chose.

My initial point was that you cannot compare equal rights for races to equal “rights” for gays. Equal rights for all races has made us a more just society. Equal “rights” for gays would do no such thing.

The whole “equality” argument for “gay rights” is just a non-starter. What about equal rights for polyandrists and polygynists? pedophiles? people who want to marry their dog? a father who wants to marry his adult daughter? What if I wanted to marry myself (think of the tax advantages)? Where do you draw the line? And what gives you the right to draw a line at all? Are you a pedophileophobe?

And I’m not necessarily arguing in favor of going back to only property owners voting. I’m just providing a counterpoint to “How an idea “helps” society isn’t what equality is all about.” You see, Willie, not all ideas are equal. And some ideas have long term unintended consequenses. Honestly, how much thought had you given to the problems caused by women’s suffrage or allowing non-property owners to vote? That may be why so many Americans see some old ideas as “good things”. We just accept them as they are and do not analyze the real consequences of some of these ideas. Yes, the overall impact of those two are likely on the positive side, but that does not mean they don’t have a very real downside.

jeffd,

So, your basic argument in favor of gay marriage is (and you said this twice) that “it won’t hurt society either”.

Comparing Rome to the USA is certainly not a weak argument. There were certain identifiable actions that Rome did over a long period of time that clearly led to its fall. We tread down those same paths at our peril.

I don’t understand why you even bring up the Catholic church’s sex abuse scandal. Is the Catholic church seeking to institutionalize sex abuse? Are they trying to make it the normative behaviour for priests?

I haven’t even argued this from a Christian standpoint, yet. But since you bring it up, would you mind pointing out for me where God APPROVED of homosexuality? As opposed to where he has condemned such behaviour, of course.

And by the way, calling a sin a sin is not the same as judging others. Not by a long shot. The whole “judging” passage is sooo misused by non-Christians, and too often misunderstood by actual Christians. Telling you that your homosexual behavior is sinful is not the same thing as telling you you are bad person. Jesus himself said “Go and sin no more.” He loved the sinner but still expected him to turn from his sinful behavior.

David:

What if I wanted to marry myself?

At the risk of Squawkbox’s wrath, the answer to that question would be anatomically impossible…

Sorry - just a bit of levity to an otherwise contentious subject.

Dude, I hear ya! I thought about that when I was typing it, but I had to anyway!

“The whole “equality” argument for “gay rights” is just a non-starter. What about equal rights for polyandrists and polygynists? pedophiles? people who want to marry their dog? a father who wants to marry his adult daughter? What if I wanted to marry myself (think of the tax advantages)? Where do you draw the line? And what gives you the right to draw a line at all? Are you a pedophileophobe?”

Why is this always the arguement people bring up about gay marriage. This arguements are ludicrious and actaully hurt other people. Allowing gays to marry or not will not stop pedeophilia or abuse/incest. Polygomy while I find it to be morally reprehensible is legal under Utah state law. SO gays marrying or not will not affect this. Vermont has gay marraige and all the citizens of the state have not all become polygimist pedeophilies.

“I haven’t even argued this from a Christian standpoint, yet. But since you bring it up, would you mind pointing out for me where God APPROVED of homosexuality? As opposed to where he has condemned such behaviour, of course.”

This has been the arguement by the christian right and all of you all along. By supporting this is putting religion into the state. Passing this proposition is in effect no different then the laws the imans and mullahs pass in islamic theocracy governments. You are imposing your christian emotion and values upon a law that you are thinking to be just stemming from your values or feelings not by pure logic.

“homosexuality is a sin against nature”

Are a-sexual behavior of plants and evolution sins against nature as well?

“would you mind pointing out for me where God APPROVED of homosexuality?”

God doesn’t approve of adultry either yet around 20% of americans have cheated on their spouses.

If people are responsible for their own thoughts and actions as republicans claim how is this possible to have destroyed society?

“hip-hop objectification of women,”

And “lust” tell me you have never found a woman attractive. Are you a-sexual or into self pleasure?

“greed” in society? take a look at this why should government get involved in the gay rights but not the economy… or should they?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051025-122641-3933r.htm

“Jesus himself said “Go and sin no more.” He loved the sinner but still expected him to turn from his sinful behavior.”

If this is true and we as christians truly believe this… Then what gay people do should be no concern of ours as it is not infringing on our civil rights or our happiness in america. Each person is responsible for their own actions.

jeffd

“Vermont has gay marraige and all the citizens of the state have not all become polygimist pedeophilies.”

It’s only a matter of time befor the first polygamist brings his case to court and wants the same “rights as everyone else”

“You are imposing your christian emotion and values upon a law”

The Judeau-Christian beliefs were the basis of the laws in the United States…you can’t escape that fact. Using your argument, we need to scrap all laws that were based on the Ten Commandments…stealing, murder, etc.

“Are a-sexual behavior of plants…sins against nature as well?”

If the a-sexual plant attempted to mate with another a-sexual plant…YES, that would be…just as it would be for a woman, naturaly created to mate with man, that wanted to mate with another woman.

“God doesn’t approve of adultry either yet around 20% of americans have cheated on their spouses.”

And that doesn’t make it right either! Adultery is also a sin…which God does not like.

“If this is true and we as christians truly believe this… Then what gay people do should be no concern of ours as it is not infringing on our civil rights or our happiness in america. Each person is responsible for their own actions.”

If Jesus had that mindset…He would not have said “Go and sin no more” … it would have just been “Go”

Your arguments don’t work. Sorry…try again.

JeffD, polygamy has been illegal in Utah for at least 127 years. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons) has eschewed polygamy for 115 years.

JeffD says, “Passing this proposition is in effect no different then the laws the imans and mullahs pass in islamic theocracy governments.”

Sure it’s different. Islamic law specifies death for homosexual behavior. Dudes screwing the hell out of each other is legal, and will continue to be. This proposed amendment (here’s the text) will not ban homosexual activity or homosexuality, nor will it create any penalties.

In fact, it will still be legal for two dudes who want to “marry” to avail themselves of the usual benefits of marriage, using existing legal mechanisms:

This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation,
property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Here is my bottom line, I spoke with my wife. I asked her if we allow gay marriage will she feel it a threat to our marriage. No response. She just laughed and walked off shaking her head.

I have no trouble with Judea-Christian law being the basis of law in the USA but Murder, Rape, Pedeophilia these ACTUALLY hurt other people. As well as lying, cheating, stealing, terrorism, war,and all the other nasty things people do with one another. No one would argue this point.

However

Gay marriage HAS NOT made Vermont a worse place to live by any stretch of the imagination. If someone can prove me wrong then please do. Again I reiterate Polygomy and Adultry are wrong. But these things are different then Gay marriage. Most Gays wanting to get married want to be a one on one just like in accepted and moral Hetero marriage. Don’t believe me? Go talk to a few.

“If Jesus had that mindset…He would not have said “Go and sin no more” … it would have just been “Go””

Sure and he also died on the cross for our sins to which I am enternally greatful. But again being gay is no more a choice then you decieding you liked women. Did you make that choice consciously? Or did you one day looked at the fairer sex thought she was cute and that was that. or did you evaluate… hmmmm… girls, boys, girls, boys?

jeffd,

You are being amazingly intellectually dishonest. YOU brought Christianity in, not me. I only argued that perspective AFTER you brought it up.

The argument of polygamy, pedophelia, etc. has nothing to do with gays turning into those. It has to do with the door being opened for those types of people to begin arguing for “rights” for themselves.

This arguements are ludicrious and actaully hurt other people. Really, now? How does a father marrying his adult daughter hurt anyone? Hmmm? How is anyone harmed if I marry myself?

You are imposing your christian emotion and values upon a law that you are thinking to be just stemming from your values or feelings not by pure logic. Um, jeffd, you brought Christianity into this. I’m only arguing from what is logically best for society. I never said I oppose this “because God says it’s wrong”. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am a Christian and I do oppose gay marriage on that basis, but not that basis alone. It is a waste of time to argue against gay rights by bringing God into it, because it will never change the mind of non-Christians. So, I argue only from a secular, societal standpoint. And even from that standpoint alone, gay marriage is not justifiable.)

God doesn’t approve of adultry either yet around 20% of americans have cheated on their spouses. Your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. Did I miss the “equal rights for adultery” movement? Are adulterers suing for the “right” to commit adultery? What are you arguing, exactly?

#31: Since when has that been the default argument? Sounds like a straw man to me.

There are all sorts of things that are illegal (prostitution, cruelty to animals, heroin) despite having little or no immediate, tangible impact on any particular person other than the perpetrators.

We make them illegal because allowing their spread would debase society, watering down the notion of decency for otherwise law-abiding people.

Matt,

Thanks for saying that better than I have been!

Feagan…

I agree that the legal recognition of homosexual unions would not necessarily “threaten” my marriage either, but it WOULD have drastic effects on the society in which my marriage exists.

(See previous posts on this thread as well as the posts on the earlier discussion regarding this topic.)

Are a-sexual behavior of plants and evolution sins against nature as well?

No. They’re natural processes. Homosexuality is deviant behavior (as opposed to the biological norm) and does not lend itself to procreation (the biological use for sex, after all).

#33: JeffD says, “But again being gay is no more a choice then you decieding you liked women.”

JeffD, you’re confusing three seperate issues. Here they are:

1) Homosexuality — The inclination to be attracted to members of one’s own sex. This is legal. Prop 2 has nothing to do with this.

2) Homosexual activity — Having sex with someone of your own sex. This is legal. Prop 2 has nothing to do with this one, either.

3) Homosexual “marriage” — The extension of marriage rights to couples of the same sex. This is what Prop 2 is about.

Preventing homosexuals from seizing the benefits of real marriage is NOT the same thing as punishing homosexuality. In a similar vein, banning drunk driving is NOT the same thing as punishing alcoholism (the inclination to drink too much) or the act of drinking.

#32 jeffd

“Most Gays wanting to get married want to be a one on one just like in accepted and moral Hetero marriage.”

DING, DING, DING…WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

This whole issue is because homosexuals want society to accept their immoral and perverted behavior.

That legitimization of gay relationships by marriage is a prime goal of homosexual activists. Homosexual activists recognize the advantages of such recognition.

One writer in a Denver gay tabloid wrote:

“The most obvious advantage [of same-sex "marriages"] is the hope that society, including but not limited to, our families, schools, and churches, will not only accept our relationships, but our homosexuality as normal…In addition to societal and religious beliefs, we will have all of the tax, insurance, and legal benefits available to “straight” married people.”

-”Gay and Lesbian Marriages: To Be Or Not To Be,” Quest, February 1992, p. 20.

Again…This whole issue is because homosexuals want society to accept their immoral and perverted behavior.

Oh, and don’t forget this:

And “lust” tell me you have never found a woman attractive. Are you a-sexual or into self pleasure?

I said in my post that I am not without sin. Sure, I have looked on a member of the opposite sex with lust. I have also looked on a Ferarri with lust. Doesn’t mean that I acted on it. Nevertheless, lust is certainly the basis for many societal problems, including divorce, adultery, overspending, etc.

#33 - I disagree, at least a bit. Some people undeniably have homosexual tendencies, just as some people undeniably have additive tendencies, or violent tendencies. These tendencies could come about for a number of reasons. I doubt personally that any of those are genetically encoded, but I will let you keep your own counsel on that.

That does not, however mean that is ‘Who They Are’ and that they cannot lead a happy normal life if they don’t act on those tendencies. Just substitute ‘violent’ or ‘alcoholic’ for the word gay in current arguments and see how they look then. People always have a choice, and nature/God/whoever you believe in did not design us to mate with someone of the same sex. That’s why it is deviant behavior.

# 39 MMI

And Again…

“This whole issue is because homosexuals want society to accept their immoral and perverted behavior.”

What is wrong with this and to what end does it “actually” affect you as a individual. Where is the proof gay marriage will lead to all these arguements from post # 34 Matt.

“There are all sorts of things that are illegal (prostitution, cruelty to animals, heroin) despite having little or no immediate, tangible impact on any particular person other than the perpetrators.

We make them illegal because allowing their spread would debase society, watering down the notion of decency for otherwise law-abiding people. ”

We already have all these other ills of society so how did gay marriage led to these, when gay marriage doesn’t exist yet? Where is the proof gays created these ills.

#38 Matt

We already have 1 and 2 I know that. Neither of these have caused the destruction of America so why is #3 then such a big deal. Why don’t we outlaw divorce then? Make it a crime to get divorced?

Oh and DWIs kill more people a year then gays do and Alchohol abuse breaks up more families per year then gays do as well. That is a illogical comparison.

What is “Real” marriage? married.. sex… 3 years and your out?

If gays get married it isn’t going to devaluate my marriage. My wife and I love each other and our kids nothing in law or nature will ever change that. So if gay marriage will devaluate your marriage then perhaps you better decide if your partner is the right one for you and reflect on your vows.

#38 and #42,

I think you guys meant to respond to #32, not #33….or something.

#42

God did not intend for us to kill either but we do and he let eve mislead adam into sin. But I agree if it is genetically encoded it is. I prefer blondes to redheads did I activly decide that…

Certianly not, I think i am just predisposed to blondes. If gay people want the same benefits as heteros then let them. The are still American CItizens, still apy taxes, still help the economy, still fight for freedom in the military, so why should sexual orientation deny them a right that all other peoples get in America.

Heck… even illegal immigrants get more rights then American citizens who happen to be gay.

I’m pleased to introduce a new feature called Guess The Logical Fallacy in JeffD’s Gay Marriage Comment. Ah, but where to start?

Which is?

Matt,

I’m afraid we’ll need a whole new thread for that one.

#45 jeffd,

God did not intend for us to kill either but we do

OK, here’s a good example, jeffd. You keep bringing up other sins man committs, as if that somehow justifies gay marriage. No one is saying that gays cannot perform homosexual acts with one another. They are free to do that all they want.

Murderers and adulterers don’t have lobbying groups.

JeffD - you continue to ignore anything we say and then come back with “it ain’t hurtin’ nobody” and “well, people kill each other and commit adultery and stuff, so why not let gays marry”? Those arguments don’t wash.

You also seem to equate predisposition with lack of choice. Dang, it must be tough being a slave to your every urge and whim like that.

jimb,

Kind of like my predisposition for a nice juicy steak, mashed potatoes and a slice of pecan pie! Followed by my CHOICE to eat a healty salad and some fruit.

I am definitely possessed of carnivorous tendencies. Maybe we should get a ‘carnivores rights’ movement together…

Wow. Poor Jeff. I feel your pain my brother.
Some are fond of citing the Founding Fathers as an example of how to live, which I support wholeheartedly. Here’s a little quote from Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration-for those of you in Rio Lindo):
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.
Word to live by.

Wonder what Tom Jefferson would say about homosexual marriage? We definitely know he doesn’t care who a man worships or not, but again, I doubt very seriously that he would approve…

Besides, it is my (and others here) position that homosexual marriage and all the societal acceptance of the lifestyle would definitely be a contributing factor to the downfall of our society, and thefore is indeed ‘injurious to others’.

#43

“This whole issue is because homosexuals want society to accept their immoral and perverted behavior.”…”What is wrong with this”

Using that mind set…maybe we should normalize adultery! After all, “it doesn’t hurt anyone”…it’s “between two consenting adults”.

Once again, your argument doesn’t work.

“We already have all these other ills of society so how did gay marriage led to these, when gay marriage doesn’t exist yet? Where is the proof gays created these ills.”

As it has been mentioned before, don’t confuse homosexual BEHAVIOR with recognition of a non-marriage as a legal marriage.

I previously stated, societal acceptance of this behavior (along with adultery, divorce, and sexual promiscuity) is a STEP towards the decline of our civilization. Legally redefining “marriage” devalues marriage as we now know it…and, as was stated before, begs the question “at what point to we STOP redefining marriage?”

If we redefine marriage now as accepting same sex “marriage”, what stops us from later redefining it as between one man and two women…or father and daughter…? After all, these are all consenting adults! And it is not “hurting anyone”!

I believe the question here that NOBODY has answered is WHY must ‘marriage’ be redefined? What are the reasons? Let’s separate ‘acceptance’ of this perverted behavior from legally redefining marriage.

WHY must marriage be redefined…and at what point do we STOP redefining marriage?

#54 “societal acceptance of the lifestyle would definitely be a contributing factor to the downfall of our society, and thefore is indeed ‘injurious to others’.”

My point exactly…our society has already accepted forms of behavior that are contributing to the downfall of our civilization. These include: divorce, pre-marital sex, non-marital sex, pornography, sexual perversion.

The result of this acceptance includes: the cheapening of marriage, the breakdown of the family structure and the erosion of moral and ethical values.

The acceptance of all of these behaviors “is indeed ‘injurious to others’.”

jimb:
I think (respectfully) that you missed Mr. Jefferson’s point. I believe his comment concerning “injury” refers to bodily or economic damage (hence “break my leg or pick my pocket”), not some specious moral “injury” which Jefferson believed the government had no business being the arbitrater of. Jefferson left that, rightfully so, to God.

The Government is not preventing homosexuality in any way at this point. The way I look at it is that we’re not taking anything away from anyone with Prop 2, we’re just making sure that marriage remains defined as is. Again, there is no ‘right’ to homosexual marriage.

My argument, which I have let myself get led astray on is this simple premise.

People do not choose to be gay, no more then we choose to like women. Our sexual preference is inherit into our beings. I never made that choice men, women, men, women and I doubt any of you analyzed it either.

To compare it to a Ferrari or a Steak those are choices. If you do not like meat or it makes you don’t like the taste, or your doctor says cut it out as your cholesterol is high, that’s a conscious choice. If you decide to wear blue socks and red pants that is a choice.

However, If you are lactose intolerant and can’t digest milk products so you won’t drink them, assuming without medication, then that is a physical condition, you didn’t chose to be lactose intolorant. We don’t choose to eat dogs or cats, the thought of grinding up Fido sickens us. We didn’t have to make that choice that’s a gag reflex, same as people throwing up when they see others vomit.

Defining marriage as one consenting adult marrying another one consenting adult is what marriage should be. By defining it as 1 man and 1 women is discriminating against people who do not have a choice to who they find attractive. Attraction is not a thought process it is an instinct. It is a leap to consider marriage will then be redefined as 3 people or marrying Fido assuming one doesn’t eat the dog first

We don’t find animals sexual by our genetical nature, it has nothing to do with a choice, it is the way we are. There is no cure for gay it is not a disease or a choice, no more then I chose to be born in NY versus any of you being born where you were.

Again I think it is a huge stretch to lump gay marriage with the decline of our civilization. If there were no gays we would still have these problems. Homosexuals did not drive Clinton to have an affair, did not raise gas prices, has not contributed to the violence on TV, Video Games, Movies, did not cause Watergate, did not cause 9/11, did not bring Hitler to power, or Stalin.

I think our argument lies in what we believe are choices and what are genetical traits. To me homosexuality and heterosexuality is a trait, the same as dark skin, blue eyes, big feet, small hands, short, tall. It is not a choice or learned action.

#58 Jim

Where is it written in law what marriage is defined as? I thought that was the point to Prop 2 to actually define it at the Texas state level?

And there is a “right” to marriage between 1 human being to another human being as long as it is consentual.

#59 Jeffd

1) “Defining marriage as one consenting adult marrying another one consenting adult is what marriage should be.”

Should be?…according to whom? and why do they get to redefine it?

“If you have the legal determination that there cannot be a preferred status for heterosexual marriage, you open yourself up to all sorts of other [legal] attacks… We go all the way to the question of bigamy, we go to the question of marrying between cousins and so forth and so on once you eliminate this preferred status”
-California Attorney General Dan Lundgren

2) “And there is a “right” to marriage between 1 human being to another human being as long as it is consentual.”

Wrong…There is no “right” to marriage. Here, the operative presumption seems to be that every “sexual orientation” is fundamentally like every other, and relationships involving any and all “sexual orientations” should be freely chosen by the individuals in relationships and then recognized without question by the state.

“There’s no civil right to marry whomever you wish. Gay and lesbian couples aren’t the only ones who can’t get marriage licenses. You can’t get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can’t get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can’t get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse.
Every man and woman in Hawaii has the exact same right to get married. It just has to be to an individual of the opposite sex who is of age, is not a close relative and is human.
If men and women are treated the same, there’s no sex discrimination unless you hold that gay men and lesbian women are the third and fourth genders. There’s a lot of legal ground to plow between here and there.”
-David Shapiro, managing editor of The Honolulu Star-Bulletin

To oppose the intentions of affluent homosexual activist special interests may go against their wishes and deprive them of UNEARNED and UNDESERVED status and benefits, including marital.

Mind you, it does not violate their fundamental RIGHTS.

MMI

ok point #1…. it should be the majority popular vote of each state who defines marriage.

#2) Again though you can limit marriage to 1 man 1 women or same sex and still have these stay in effect:

“You can’t get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can’t get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can’t get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse.”

Again, You will get no arguement from me on these guidelines. I think the guidelines can apply to your # 2 and still allow for same sex marriage following no more then one person, not a relative, not a child, not a horse…

However besides the above mentioned when has a person ever been denied a marriage? While marriage may not be a “right” it then falls under privilage where as you need to get a liscense correct. So then I believe that same sex marriage can be legal like hetero marriage while keeping the same current restrictions and application. As of right now there are plenty of sham marraiges amoungst heteros that are not doing society any good. i.e. Help someone get a greencard

How it is decieded should be left up to the states. at one time interracial marriage was once thought to be the pandoras box of the “civil” world and nothing bad happened after those restrictions were lifted.

So again it is a stretch to say gay marraige will as well will open the flood gate and create all these other evils.

You can’t compare being gay to being lactose intolerant. I obviously won’t change your mind, but you take away freedom of choice when you say that a gay person is that way because of genetic variation. Besides, there are a million reasons why someone would tend toward homosexual impulses. Either way, it is deviant behavior (key word: Behavior) and should not be affirmed by society the way activists are asking for it to be affirmed. You say that gay people don’t have a choice, and I say BS - you ALWAYS have a choice. Like I said, substitute the word alcoholic for the word gay in your arguments and then see how much sense they make.

“We don’t choose to eat dogs or cats” - that’s a cultural thing, not a genetic thing.

I am sorry, but MM&I is right - Gay and Lesbian are not the 3rd and 4th genders…

#62 - you are absolutely right - it SHOULD be left to the states. So what is wrong with the idea that the people of the state of Texas may decide to preclude the possibility?

By the way, we’re rehashing arguments here, but gay marriage is not comparable to interracial marriage. Interracial marriage is still between a man and a woman. If they can overcome remaining racial/cultural differences and make a marriage work, then go for it…

#62 jeffd

“While marriage may not be a “right” ”

A BREAKTHROUGH!

Now…if only the homosexual activists would understand that marriage is not a RIGHT as well.

“How it is decieded should be left up to the states.”

The problem with this is that it takes Congress to declare it so (and I don’t see that happening)…

While I would strongly prefer an amendment to the US Constitution clarifying the traditional definition of “marriage”, I would also agree to Congress declaring this issue, along with several other issues, to be determined by each state.

Jim

“Like I said, substitute the word alcoholic for the word gay in your arguments and then see how much sense they make.”

Again I will say alcoholism and/or DWI does hurt people and breaks up families. I have yet to see gay marriage do these things. Invalid arguement

“We don’t choose to eat dogs or cats” - that’s a cultural thing, not a genetic thing.

Sorry I mispoke, I was thinking one idea and writing another… ya got me.

“Gay and Lesbian are not the 3rd and 4th genders…”

Of course not… Biology 101 there is only Male and Female in humans. Again though irrelvant as all gays are either male or female.

“So what is wrong with the idea that the people of the state of Texas may decide to preclude the possibility?”

Well again in my opinion it is discriminatory but that’s why we vote and have a democracy so I support the opportunity to vote on the issue, but not the issue itself or the proposed “need” for it.

“While marriage may not be a “right” ”

A BREAKTHROUGH!

Funny, two things were is it not a right, where do we actually define rights? Our rights are derived from what the majority of humanity think are the basic ways people are to be treated.

Will there ever be a idea or proposal taking all marriage away for everyone? Probably not except for 1 or 2 nutjobs so this is about as close to a “right” as it can get without actaully being one. So I can easily argue both sides of this.

“If they can overcome remaining racial/cultural differences and make a marriage work, then go for it…”

That is my basis of arguement for gay marriage especially the last line “make a marriage work”. Besides if 2 people love each other who really gives a flying whip, what anyone thinks in regards to what we view as acceptable in society. With the exception of said taboos (relatives, age, animal, etc…)

I still say that, in America at least, as long as what you do doesn’t physically hurt someone or doesn’t take what is theirs, what business is it of the government? I still fail to see how allowing two consenting adults to marry one another is any of the government’s business. The argument that such a idea will necessarily result in cousins, animals, or children marrying is irrational. We all agree that there have to be limits, but to use such extreme examples is ludicrous. Why not just limit it to “two consenting human adults who are not related”?
The old Republican chestnut of limiting the scope of government has finally been exposed for the sham that it is. They are all for government if it can be used as a means of promoting their agenda.
God, but I wish we had a vibrant libertarian party to turn to.

#64 Jeffd

“With the exception of said taboos”

One decade’s taboos are the next decade’s norms.

Homosexuality was taboo…until the ’sexual revolution’. Instead of serving moral and social purposes (procreation, promoting spousal unity and society’s obvious interest in the birth of children and the stability of the families that raised them), sex’s overriding purpose was to bring pleasure to those having sex.

It’s these attitudes, and the worldview that produces them, that have fueled the homosexual activist movement…which was previously taboo.

#67 Willie

1) “I still fail to see how allowing two consenting adults to marry one another is any of the government’s business”

The government is the one that regulates it by issuing the license. In turn, this affects the option to:
*file joint tax returns
*inherit automatically in the absence of a will, including jointly owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship
*obtain veterans’ discounts on medical care, education, and home loans
*enter jointly into leases and other contracts, such as apartment and car rental agreements, and maintain renewal rights
*raise children together including: joint adoption, joint foster care, custody, and visitation including non-biological parents
secure wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children
*take bereavement leave when a partner or child dies
*handle post-mortum decisions involving deceased partners, including where to be buried and how
receive crime victims’ recovery benefits
secure domestic violence protection orders in states where this is currently prohibited
*obtain divorce protections such as community property and child support
*establish status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent

2) “Why not just limit it to “two consenting human adults who are not related”?”

Why LIMIT it at at all?

MMI:
With all that you wrote, I still fail to see how you are directly effected? How are “your pockets picked or your legs broken”? Why do you care about two homosexuals (or heterosexuals) marrying?

Forgot this…what business is it of yours?

Back atchya…

What business it of YOURS if a father wants to marry his daughter?

#67 - “Why not just limit it to “two consenting human adults who are not related”?”

Well, actually, why not just limit it to the way it is defined now? See, you and I look at this from 2 different viewpoints. You believe that not giving a group of people what they want (the ability to redefine marriage to fit their own chosen viewpoint) is automatically discriminatory. I believe that not every limit placed on society is discriminatory, and in this case, is not discriminatory at all.

Second, not all harm can be measured so easily - shooting someone produces immediate and obvious harm. Other things contribute slowly but surely do the downfall of entire societies - the harm is just as real, it just takes longer to develop and is not immediately harmful. You gotta draw the line somewhere, and consenting male and female is where the line should be drawn.

This is not a republican thing, either, it is just the right thing to do, in my opinion.

#71 - 2 consenting men or women having sex is none of my business (or that of the government’s) - we have already established that. If some dude wants to get busy with another dude behind closed doors - that is absolutely nobody’s business, and I won’t interfere (even though I still reserve the right to call sin for what it is). What IS my business is when a small minority wants to re-define society (via its institutions) to better suit them. I think then that those who oppose such a re-definition have plenty of business speaking out.

Some here have suggested that maybe government should drop recognition of all forms of marriage and make it completely a religious matter. That is, unfortunately, irrelevant, because gay activists are specifically seeking government sanction of their chosen lifestyle.

MMI:
None. I could care less, although I would forbid my daughter from marrying into such a tainted gene pool!
If I were made “emperor” for a day, I would drop any and all restrictions on marriage. Let nature run it’s course. But that’s just me.

#70 Willie

“With all that you wrote, I still fail to see how you are directly effected?”

Lemme try again…

Quoting Maggie Gallagher:

“By embracing gay marriage the legal establishment will have declared that the public purposes of marriage no longer include anything to do with making babies, or giving children mothers and fathers. Legitimating same-sex marriage amounts to an official declaration that, “What counts is not family structure, but the quality of dedication, commitment, self-sacrifice, and love in the household.” Family structure does not count.”

If family structure does not count, then “when men and women fail to form stable marriages, the first result is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result. There is scarcely a dollar that state and federal government spends on social programs that is not driven in large part by family fragmentation: crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, mental and physical health problems.

The attempt to substitute the state for the family leads not only to gargantuan government, but to miniscule families: If marriage and children are just one of many private lifestyle choices, people stop getting married and they stop having children in numbers large enough to replace the population. The U.N. is now issuing urgent warnings about European depopulation.”

#74 Willie

“tainted gene pool”…lol

“I would drop any and all restrictions on marriage.”

Congratulations! By doing so, you have just eliminated marriage all together.

jimb:
I like your idea of removing marriage from a civil matter and turning it completely over to religious institutes (since most of the opponents to a broadened view of marriage base their opposition on religious grounds anyway). One more level of government done away with and one less thing to fight about.

#75) MMI: read my response to jimb’s suggestion.
That would solve everything.

#77/78 Willie

That would not ’solve everything’…

Re-read jimb’s last sentence:
“That is, unfortunately, irrelevant, because gay activists are specifically seeking government sanction of their chosen lifestyle.”

The homo activists are seeking government sanction, LEGAL recognition and social acceptance of their perverted behavior.

Your arguments are turning out to be like the Astro’s batting performance with a runner in scoring position…a swing and a miss!

MMI: But if government were removed from the equation, then there would be no sanction to seek, right?

#80 Willie

point taken…

so then, we just dissolve anything that is confronted?

#81 The gay activists will seek affirmation from whatever sector of society it can, whether that be the media, the government, hollywood, corporate America, the church, the Boy Scouts, public schools, whatever. If you remove government from the equation, they’ll just go after different sectors. Hell, it’s already happening (and they’re meeting with some success, too).

#82 jimb

Agreed…

# 75

That last paragraph has nothign to do with gay marriage. Europeans are not having children as it is no longer financially feasable to do so, yet they are mostly socialist societies.

As I said before gays marrying will not diminish my marraige to my wife or hers to me. We got married because we chose to marry and we love each other and even fathers marrying daughters while I don’t agree with (incest) it would not change my marriage vows or my love to my wife or my value of our marriage.

What truly is wrong with gays benefiting from those items listed in post # 69 after all gays are Americans, they pay taxes, and the majority contribute to society like we do. How can we say 1 class of human being deserves these benefits while others do not.

What about the heteros who do not chose to marry but live their entire lives together? Should they be denied these benefits as well?

Most of what is mentioned in #69 can be obtained by other means (for both homosexual and unmarried heterosexual couples). It is in the amendment - see Matt’s #30 post.

Nobody is saying that allowing gay (or incestuous, as per your example) marriage will cheapen your marriage, we’re saying that it will cheapen the entire institution of marriage and its value to society.

#84 jeffd

1) “How can we say 1 class of human being deserves these benefits while others do not.”

Ask the IRS…Americans making more money than others are taxed at a higher rate…

2) “What about the heteros who do not chose to marry but live their entire lives together? Should they be denied these benefits as well? ”

That is EXACTLY my point! Once you start reclassifying who is “married” …where does it stop!

3) “That last paragraph has nothign to do with gay marriage.”

WRONG…look at the entire passage again…

S-L-O-W-L-Y

Legitimating same-sex marriage amounts to saying family structure does not count.

If family structure does not count, then we fail to form stable marriages.

When this occurs, there is a vast expansion of government attempts to cope with the terrible social needs that result (e.g. crime, poverty, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, mental and physical health problems.)

The attempt to substitute the state for the family leads not only to gargantuan government, but to miniscule families: If marriage and children are just one of many private lifestyle choices, people stop getting married and they stop having children in numbers large enough to replace the population and fund the growing government.

It’s really very simple…

post 86

So allowing gays to marry will turn every person on the planet gay? They will stop having kids, stop working, burn all their belongings are money in a great fire, kill their neighbors, make off with their children, all turn to drugs, drop out of school, and burn a bigger hole in the ozone????????

That is what that person you are quoting from is saying. I read it several times very s..l..o..w..l..y……
Again I am not saying we should make marriage a mockery by allowing every idiot to marry everything or anything in sight. This person is taking it to the extreme as all of you are… sadly but true.

Marraige can be defined as it is now without incest, beasitality, polygmy…etc… but with 2 people regardless of gender… yes their are only 2 in the human species (human anatomy or preschool)

Gay marriage will not stop my marraige, my friends marraiges, or our desire to have children, work, and contribute to society.

The destruction of American society as it is can be founded in many areas not relating to gays. The Ward and June Cleaver lifestyle was destroyed long before gay marraige ever reared its “ugly” head. As I said my friend grew up with 2 moms and he isn’t any of those things mentioned in that article. Nor do I know anyone who is, now families of alcoholism divorce, and incest… that is a different story indeed, want a list???

Everyone is responsible for their own behavior and I doubt gay marraige will affect the way they turn out or how they conduct themselves.

Again you are taking the issues to extremes and that in itself is very sad, very sad indeed…

#87: Yes, the argument is being extended to extremes, but that’s the point. The very idea of two people of the same sex marrying each other was, and still ought to be, an extreme idea. If we legitimize gay marriage, it’s not unreasonable to expect the next extreme idea to lobby for legitimacy, and likely acheive it.

Future dude: “Bestiality is unnatural and shouldn’t be accepted by society or sanctioned by the government.”

Future beastiality-rights dude: “Oh yeah? That’s what they said about gay marriage!”