^^ In general, governments have always recognized it (there's no getting around it, and given that our country is vastly Christian, I see no problems with honoring this tradition).

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's a big difference between respecting a traditional practice and forcing its core definition to be changed for reasons other than its original religious intent.

4/15/2007 12:03:26 PM

Quote :

"Sure it is. Slavery, legal racism, sexism -- those ring a bell?"

And those are related to marriage how?

4/15/2007 12:05:04 PM

Quote :

"Marriage is a religious institution, end of discussion. Its origins were founded specifically as a convenant between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. How can you deny that?"

I don't see why I'm even bothering arguing with you. But here goes:
* Plenty of nonreligious people get married.
* Marriage is not the same thing to all people.
* It is not the government's place to legislate religion.
* THERE ARE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR MARRIAGE. Anybody who is legally married in the United States has done so under the requirements of the laws of the United States. It is completely unconstitutional for these laws to impose requirements based on certain interpretations of specific religions' requirements.

Quote :

"As for the destructive values of pot vs. alcohol, alcohol is closely regulated with regards to its use and sale. Laws are in place for its overconsumption and misuse."

There are laws for the overconsumption of alcohol? I couldn't go to the ABC store tomorrow and buy two fifths of everclear and absolutely destroy myself once I get home? Please explain to me how the government will prevent me from or punish me for consuming too much alcohol in my own home.

Quote :

"There's a big difference between respecting a traditional practice and forcing its core definition to be changed for reasons other than its original religious intent."

This only changes the definition of marriage for people who already have no use for your own definition. It has no effect on your own marriage. The only way in which it would affect you is if you were to choose to marry a man.

Quote :

"And those are related to marriage how?"

Those are other practices that were entrenched in law and have been justified with and aided by people's religion.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 12:09 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2007 12:06:59 PM

Quote :

"* THERE ARE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS FOR MARRIAGE. Anybody who is legally married in the United States has done so under the requirements of the laws of the United States. It is completely unconstitutional for these laws to impose requirements based on certain interpretations of specific religions' requirements."

And these laws are based on tradition, and this tradition is rooted in religion, specifically Judiasm/Christianity. It's not the government's place to tinker and alter this tradition.

Quote :

"There are laws for the overconsumption of alcohol? I couldn't go to the ABC store tomorrow and buy two fifths of everclear and absolutely destroy myself once I get home? Please explain to me how the government will prevent me from or punish me for consuming too much alcohol in my own home."

Those the key words - in your own home. If you leave your home, you can be cited for public drunkeness, be given a DUI for getting behind the wheel, etc. It's use is highly regulated, it's not like there aren't ramifications for its overuse.

Quote :

"Those are other practices that were entrenched in law and have been justified with and aided by people's religion."

Slavery has been condemned by the Catholic Church for over a thousand years. St. Thomas Aquinas emphatically stated that its practice was sinful, well before America was discovered. The Church baptised slaves even before then, asserting that even slaves had souls. I cannot see how you can blame institutionalized laws of man on religion.

4/15/2007 12:17:15 PM

Quote :

"these laws are based on tradition, and this tradition is rooted in religion, specifically Judiasm/Christianity."

Quote :

"I cannot see how you can blame institutionalized laws of man on religion."

Quote :

"these laws are based on tradition, and this tradition is rooted in religion, specifically Judiasm/Christianity."

Quote :

"I cannot see how you can blame institutionalized laws of man on religion."

Quote :

"these laws are based on tradition, and this tradition is rooted in religion, specifically Judiasm/Christianity."

Quote :

"I cannot see how you can blame institutionalized laws of man on religion."

Quote :

"these laws are based on tradition, and this tradition is rooted in religion, specifically Judiasm/Christianity."

Quote :

"I cannot see how you can blame institutionalized laws of man on religion."

4/15/2007 12:20:27 PM

So the gay cause to force religion to accept its lifestyle is the same as instutionalized racist practices, slavery, and sexism?

Are you saying that religion is inherently racist, bigoted, etc.



[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 12:24 PM. Reason : more]

4/15/2007 12:22:11 PM

Catholocism is inherently sexist.

And, once again, gay marriage isn't forcing any religious person to accept any lifestyle. Allowing gay people to marry does not force homophobic churches to perform these marriages.

Quote :

"Those the key words - in your own home. If you leave your home, you can be cited for public drunkeness, be given a DUI for getting behind the wheel, etc. It's use is highly regulated, it's not like there aren't ramifications for its overuse."

You can be arrested for smoking pot in your own home.

4/15/2007 12:27:08 PM

Quote :

"Catholocism is inherently sexist."

Why? Because they will not allow women to become Priests? This in no way limits the role that women have in the Church. Many of the great Saints have been women, and women have been tremendous in their ability to shape the Church.

They also will not allow married men to become Priests (with very rare exceptions) nor will they allow Deacons to marry after they are ordained. It's the Church's perogative to limit who is eligible to receive holy orders.

Quote :

" The Fathers rejected women's ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. Throughout medieval times and even up until the present day, this teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, "Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching "requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)" (Response of Oct. 25, 1995). "

Quote :

"And, once again, gay marriage isn't forcing any religious person to accept any lifestyle. Allowing gay people to marry does not force homophobic churches to perform these marriages."

LOL homophobic...who really fears teh gheys?!?!?!

That's what you say now. If gay marriage is recognized and a Church refuses to marry a gay couple, why wouldn't a gay couple sue since it would be considered legal in the eyes of the law? That's the logical next step, and it will not simply end with a symbolic recognition.

Quote :

"You can be arrested for smoking pot in your own home."

And?

4/15/2007 12:41:39 PM

marriage in the church and legal marriage are two different things. you dont need to get married in a church to be married, and when you are married in a church you still have to go to the clerk of court to get a marriage certificate to be legally married. you are blending these two things together and then making some ridiculous claim that homosexuals will suddenly have a right to sue the catholic church for not marrying them if are allowed a legal marriage. two people that live together are allowed to go and get a marriage license and be married, but lots of churches will not marry them. theres no lawsuits because churches arent compelled to marry anyone that they dont want to.

4/15/2007 12:47:29 PM

i go to Regent School of Law


i find this all very interesting

4/15/2007 12:47:50 PM

Quote :

"Marriage is a religious institution, end of discussion. Its origins were founded specifically as a convenant between a man and a woman in the eyes of God. How can you deny that? The government should stay out of redefining marriage. It's not the government's place to overturn thousands of years of religious traditions and practices."

What you really mean is 1200 years of religious tradition. Marriage was purely political for thousands and thousands of years. People were getting married and divorce constantly in order to expand their political control. The Catholic Church did not like it and took control of marriage. But what do I know, I learned that from an academic elite.

As for the establishment clause, the marriage laws in this country are in direct opposition to it. I'm being told by the State of North Carolina, that I cannot fully practice my religious rites. As a minister, I should be able to practice my religion as I see fit and that includes performing same sex marriages. I cannot. The same holds true for the Unitarian church which recognizes same-sex marriage.

Quote :

" That's what you say now. If gay marriage is recognized and a Church refuses to marry a gay couple, why wouldn't a gay couple sue since it would be considered legal in the eyes of the law? That's the logical next step, and it will not simply end with a symbolic recognition."

that is very much not true. Has the mormon church been sued because of their stringent marriage requirements? Has the catholic church been sued because they denied heterosexual people to be marraige in their churches? No. So quit playing the snowball effect.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 1:11:16 PM

hahahah


Is this the new anti-gay marriage argument?

4/15/2007 1:12:09 PM

Quote :

"marriage in the church and legal marriage are two different things. you dont need to get married in a church to be married, and when you are married in a church you still have to go to the clerk of court to get a marriage certificate to be legally married. you are blending these two things together and then making some ridiculous claim that homosexuals will suddenly have a right to sue the catholic church for not marrying them if are allowed a legal marriage. two people that live together are allowed to go and get a marriage license and be married, but lots of churches will not marry them. theres no lawsuits because churches arent compelled to marry anyone that they dont want to."

So cheapening the definition of marriage and emptying its meaning in order to satisfy a small group's unsuccessful quest to gain acceptance of their lifestyle is a positive thing? Making homosexual marriage legal will not do a thing to change the destructive nature of the gay lifestyle while it will only hurt the original and central intent of marriage, which is a holy union between a man and woman in the eyes of God.

4/15/2007 1:14:55 PM

Quote :

"So cheapening the definition of marriage and emptying its meaning in order to satisfy a small group's unsuccessful quest to gain acceptance of their lifestyle is a positive thing? Making homosexual marriage legal will not do a thing to change the destructive nature of the gay lifestyle while it will only hurt the original and central intent of marriage, which is a holy union between a man and woman in the eyes of God."

how is the gay lifestyle destructive? If you are going to make that claim, at least back it up. And how is allowing gays to marry any more destructive to marriage than straight people getting divorced and remarried many times over?

Is my brother's marriage any less valid because both he and his wife are atheists? Should only those who pass a religious test be getting married? You keep confusing the church and the state.

4/15/2007 1:20:02 PM

When did this new argument come out? I somehow missed it.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 1:20:38 PM

It came out when I was dumb enough to try to debate a Catholic mouthpiece.

4/15/2007 1:22:49 PM

Too bad Bill Maher doesn't understand the difference between actually being elite because of extremely high quality, as in MIT is an elite engineering school, and having an elitist attitude, as in Erskine Bowles thinks he is better than you because he was born into a rich family. Or when people are elitist in government positions to the exclusion of others for reasons of economic or political reasons.

I don't know what is more tiresome, people who truly believe that a differing political opinion in some way qualifies them as more intelligent or the liberal leaning people whose main argument against Bush and his ilk is their purported lack of intelligence.

I can say with some level of surety that those who are truly intelligent are much better at illustrating their dissatisfaction than pointing their finger at someone and calling them stupid while simultaneously claiming a higher level of intelligence.

I am not claiming to like or dislike Maher, but the Democrats have lost a lot of elections through name calling. I can't see any Republicans that I would like to vote for, but if this is going to be their platform, and Pelosi seems to act like it should be, then the election can be taken by the Republicans if they just sit back and watch the Democrats look like children with no real solutions to the problems that they continually complain about.

As far as his lambasting of Regent's University, well, I can't really defend it at all. What I can say is that if it is a Tier Four Law School, that means that it is ranked in the top 100 in the nation, more than NCSU can say about a lot of its programs. Furthermore, our great governor Easley attended a Tier Four law school.

On top of all that, who do you think gets to attend Harvard Law? Surely there are some of the most intelligent people in the country in that school, but there are just as many people there on the same "nepotist" basis that he so claims to deplore. Should we only allow people who are extremely wealthy and able to attend the Harvards and Dukes of the world to serve in high ranking government positions? It sounds like he is all for economic segregation and I bet if we looked back a couple of decades, he is from the type of background that he is so willing to shit on now.




[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 1:35 PM. Reason : V, Thanks, and I would love it if my school had a bunch of appointees in DC.]

4/15/2007 1:23:06 PM

liberty is jerry falwell

he's talking about regent, which is pat robertson

(i'm currently a first year law student at regent)

but Pat Robertson is basically a figurehead for this place. His involvement in school here comes down to a speech or two a year, and a signature on a diploma. This isn't some sort of nazi re-education propaganda school hell-bent on carrying out some right-wing agenda. It's just a school that's trying to improve itself in any way it can. Despite that, I'm personally sickened that so many graduates here were hooked up with jobs, but honestly, it's the same thing Harvard, Yale, and other law schools have been doing for decades. It's the nature of the legal business, sadly.

The political climate here is definitely conservative, but it's far from overbearing. Most of us just want to study law, get our JD, and get to work... and that's it. With this sort of press though, the whole "get to work" is going to become increasingly more difficult.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 1:33 PM. Reason : d]

4/15/2007 1:32:28 PM

^ Interesting. I see you as a pretty conservative person from your posts on here, but you also seem reasonable, so that's good to know.

Would you prefer Robertson not be associated with your school, even if he is only a figurehead? I mean, to put it lightly, he's batshit insane, a hatemonger, and a liar. I can't see how he could do anything but hurt the perceived value of your eduction.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ]

4/15/2007 1:44:00 PM

i'd classify myself as a right leaning moderate. Hell, i like barack obama.


i gotta say though, here, everything has kinda shifted, so as a right leaning moderate, i'm more of a liberal here, which i'm fine with. i've never been one to put a negative connotation on any point of view, other than populism, which i just can't see the need for.

in response to the question you posed, yes. I think it hurts us more than it helps us.

4/15/2007 1:48:54 PM

Quote :

"So cheapening the definition ..."

pointing out that marriage as a legal institution and marriage as a holy union are two different things is not cheapening anything, its simply pointing out fact

4/15/2007 1:54:29 PM

Facts have no place in this discussion.

4/15/2007 1:55:17 PM

Bill Maher is such a douchebag.

4/15/2007 1:59:13 PM

Quote :

"how is the gay lifestyle destructive? If you are going to make that claim, at least back it up. And how is allowing gays to marry any more destructive to marriage than straight people getting divorced and remarried many times over?"

Quote :

"Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals47 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.48 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.49 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.50 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.51 Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).52 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.53 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.54 Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.55 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.56 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses. Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.57 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.58 The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.59 The more radical homosexual activists flaunt their promiscuity, using it as a weapon against what they call "bourgeois respectability."60 But even more conservative advocates of gay marriage such as New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan admit that for them, "fidelity" does not mean complete monogamy, but just somewhat restrained promiscuity.61 In other words, they admit that exclusiveness will not happen. And without exclusiveness, their "marriages" will have little meaning. Sullivan argues that marriage civilizes men, but anthropology would counter that marriage to women civilizes men. Male humans, homosexual or heterosexual, are more interested in random sex with strangers than women are.62 Men need to be civilized, to be taught the joys of committed sex, and that lesson is taught by marriage to women, not by other men who need to learn it themselves. The apparent instability of lesbian relationships suggests that lesbians understand that lesson less well than heterosexual women do. Exclusivity will not happen, and without exclusivity, marriage does not exist. Without exclusivity, permanent and unconditional relationships will not happen, either. By definition, a relationship that allows for "cruising" will be shallow and mutually exploitative, just as sex with strangers is shallow and mutually exploitative. So far, same-sex marriage is 0 for 3: likely to be neither exclusive nor unconditional nor permanent. 47. C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, "Suicidal Behaviors in Homosexual and Bisexual Males," Crisis 18 (1997): 24-34. 48. R. A. Garofalo et al., "The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902. 49. R. Herrell et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-74; D. M. Fergusson, J. Horwood, A. L. Beautrais, "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80; M. J. Bailey, "Homosexuality and Mental Illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 883-4. 50. P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 757-76. 51. Ibid. 52. Laura Dean et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid. 55. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978). 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid. 58. J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, "Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians," Journal of Women's Health 7 (1998) 379-88. 59. S. Sarantakos, "Same-Sex Couples: Problems and Prospects," Journal of Family Studies 2 (1996): 147-63; P. Tjaden, N. Thoennes, and C. J. Allison, "Comparing Violence Over the Life Span in Samples of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Cohabitants," Violence and Victims 14 (1999): 413-25. 60. Stanley Kurtz, "What Is Wrong with Gay Marriage," Commentary, September 2000, 35-41. 61. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995). 62. D. M. Buss, The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating (New York: Basic Books, 1994); D. Symons, The Evolution of Sexuality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979); M. Ridley, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (New York: Penguin, 1993); S. Goldberg, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance (Chicago: Open Court, 1993). "

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 3:44 PM. Reason : more]

4/15/2007 3:43:29 PM

People who are shunned by society experience problems in percentages disproportionate to the rest of society?!

Quote :

"but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973"

Cop-out; they're still rejected by the majority of society.


And why the hell does it even matter? You act as if this is the only excuse the gov't needs to enter the bedroom.

4/15/2007 4:05:52 PM

Denying teh gheys marriage doesn't open their bedroom door to the government or anybody else.

4/15/2007 4:22:33 PM

It's called an idiom.

It's government regulating morality.

4/15/2007 6:14:01 PM

Regulating morality is changing a sacred religious custom that has been in place for thousands of years in order to appease a segment of our society that is either gay or just using the homosexuals to lash out at religion in general.

4/15/2007 6:52:11 PM

marriage ceased being sacred when the state started to provide advantages and took control of the institution over.

4/15/2007 6:56:11 PM

Stop giving advantages to married couples and let churches have control over it. Have gub'ment not even recognize marriage, and we'll be good to go.

4/15/2007 6:58:38 PM

bill maher is arrogant. most dems aren't.

4/15/2007 6:59:03 PM

" I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered." - Bill Clinton

He also signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which "amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

So currently it's a state issue, and most states have either amended their constitutions or explicitly denied gay marriage. Sucks for the advocates of gay marriage.

4/15/2007 8:08:22 PM

i think the gay marriage fight is so silly. it seems petty that anyone who isn't gay would even give a shit if two people of the same sex get married. i have absolutely no doubt that in the next twenty years gay marriage will be legal in the united states. people against it really are fighting a losing battle.

4/15/2007 8:21:43 PM

People like you support it out of spite.

Like I said, the federal government doesn't recognize same sex unions/marriages at the moment, and most states have made laws/amendments forbidding the practice. Also, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to force a state to enforce the pronouncements of another state with regards to its own public policy, so chances are it would never even be accepted to be heard by the SCOTUS.

So I think your 20 year dream is just that - a dream.

4/15/2007 8:29:15 PM

i support it because i think marriage is a positive force in our society and the more people who legitimately want to be a part of it, the better.

not to mention it seems an unfair discrimination to deny rights of people because they choose to be with someone of the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 8:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 8:33:56 PM

Yes, I support gay marriage purely out of spite.

Certainly not because it's 1) a 1st Amendment issue 2) an issue of simple fairness 3) symbolic of the overall struggle for equality over bigotry




And it's going to happen. Look at the progress so far.

4/15/2007 8:46:02 PM

^ Progress? 1 state recognizes gay marriage, and 5 other liberal states have some sort of civil union. And they aren't even recognized outside of their respective states. Almost every other state has made laws specifically forbidding it. I hope this "progress" continues for many years to come.

A 1st amendment issue? Only if you want to violate the establishment clause, which you obviously do. How does the constitution feel when you wipe it on your ass? How does it violate speech, press, petition or association. I'm genuinely curious.

^^ Marriage was never meant to be inclusive. Why stop at homosexuals? Why can't you marry your pet fido? Or a child?

In general, marriage is good for society because men and women compliment each other and it's the basis of the normal family structure. It is the pillar of a successful society and its structure. The institution of marriage is precious. It enhances the health, longevity, and well-being of married couples. It increases the health, vocational success, and emotional well-being of children. In providing all these benefits, heterosexual marriage contributes to the happiness and prosperity of society. Marriage must, therefore, remain limited to one man and one woman who strive to keep their marriage exclusive, unconditional, permanent, and life-giving. Nothing less will ever meet the needs of the human person, because nothing less satisfies.


[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 8:52 PM. Reason : you people]

4/15/2007 8:46:55 PM

Quote :

"Why stop at homosexuals? Why can't you marry your pet fido? Or a child? "

jesus. you're pulling out that gem?!

let's see. . . oh i don't know. . . hmmmm. . .














. . . .











MAYBE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ADULTS WHO CAN MAKE RATIONAL DECISIONS

4/15/2007 8:48:22 PM

Says you.

4/15/2007 8:48:57 PM

are you arguring now that an adult homosexual is on the same decision-making level as a child or fucking DOG?

are you seriously saying that?

4/15/2007 8:49:44 PM

I'm saying if you want to make it inclusive, then why stop at homosexuals? I can rationalize my love for anything and assert that it loves me back just as much.

4/15/2007 8:53:03 PM

so you are. bravo. i think i am justified in deeming you idiotic now.

4/15/2007 8:53:53 PM

YOU'RE DENYING GOOD PEOPLE THEIR RIGHTS TO BE LOVED YOU BIGOT!!1!!!111!

Being called an idiot by a democratic gay loving shrill like yourself is like Craig Ehlo saying that Michael Jordan ain't got no game.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 8:57 PM. Reason : too funny]

4/15/2007 8:55:24 PM

when your appliance/pet/other ridiculous thing can stand in front of a judge and declare its love for you in clear mind then you should be allowed to marry it

4/15/2007 8:56:36 PM

Quote :

" I can rationalize my love for anything and assert that it loves me back just as much"

this is seriously an argument for pedophilia and bestiality. dogs and children can't competently consent.

4/15/2007 8:56:39 PM

There has been a lot of progress.

Homosexuals are regularly featured in entertainment in non-derogatory roles.

There's a state that allows gay marriage. Up by infinity% from 10 years ago.


And the arguments against gay-marriage are increeeedibly lame. It's only a matter of time before their lameness loses to reason.
-Marriage is for reproduction (yet infertile couples are allowed)
-Gay marriage is against a denomination of Christianity (1st Amendment)
-Marriage between man and woman is sacred/traditional (tradition isn't an argument)
-Marriage is defined as man and woman (again, tradition; not reason)
-Gay marriage hurts marriage overall (no it doesn't, and supposing it did, so?)
-Slippery slop (by definition a fallacy, but still wrong. Dogs, children, refrigerators cannot give consent)



[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 8:58 PM. Reason : forgot the dumbest of all]

4/15/2007 8:57:09 PM

Precedent and common law are routinely cited by the courts. Take a poli sci class sometime, k?

4/15/2007 8:58:04 PM

Quote :

"this is seriously an argument for pedophilia and bestiality. dogs and children can't competently consent. "

I agree, but that's the road you've chosen to take it down.

4/15/2007 8:59:09 PM

I'm talking about societal precedents, not legal.

^Damn. I can only hope you're intentionally stooping to these ridiculously dumb arguments because you think it's for the "greater good" or something.

A) omg slippery slope
B) Dogs and kids cannot give consent

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 8:59:28 PM

well, here's a little update: laws dictating sexual activities between ADULTS have been deemed unconstitutional by ussc. yet pedophilia and bestiality laws are still AOK. apparently the courts see a distinction.

Quote :

"I agree, but that's the road you've chosen to take it down. "

you're the one who brought kids and dogs into this.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 8:59:30 PM